Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jorgelito
Hmmm...good point will; that's tricky. But, yeah, in short, I can see that. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. This would go right in line with what roach is saying as these examples and lines of reasoning support the whole terrorism exists as political action theorem.
|
Maybe I should put it this way:
Guerrilla Warfare = tactic
Terrorism = intent
...just like:
Tripping pregnant women = tactic
To Be a Dick = intent
There are other reasons to use guerrilla tactics besides inciting fear in order to control or bring about change, but that is one reason.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jorgelito
Even with your great example will, I feel we can deconstruct it further: how can we separate terrorism and guerrilla warfare? I believe this distinction to be important because the implications are so drastic. When the lines become blurred, then we lose any semblance of restraint or moral imperative (I do realize how deeply subjective this becomes).
(ok, I really have to go, be back Sunday)
|
Again, you're talking about two different concepts: tactics and intent. They are not mutually exclusive. Not all terrorism is carried out via guerrilla tactics (Shock and Awe) and not all guerrilla tactics are based in the intent of terrorizing (drug lords defending themselves from their governments). BUT, they can often go together. When you see a suicide bomber, you're seeing both guerrilla tactics and terrorism.When you see a little boat full of explosives sail into a battle cruiser, you're seeing both guerrilla tactics and terrorism. When you see a hick park a truck full of shit out in front of a government building and blow it up, you're seeing both guerrilla tactics and terrorism.