Ideological Debate: Rules of War
 

I tend to be finding the same 4 or 5 news stories repeating all over this section so I wanted to get a broader debate going about something not specifically current.

In what cases are guerilla tactics acceptable? What distinguishes guerilla tactics from terrorism? Is it ever acceptable to target civilians? Civilian structures?

Most reasonable people think that there ought to be humanitarian limits on what methods and targets are acceptable in warfare. For example, assassination, weapons of mass destruction, civilian targeting, terrorism, etc are mostly considered unacceptable. They bring about a harsh reaction from people around the world and will often times bring outside parties into conflicts. On the other hand, war is hell. If your fighting for something worth more to you then life is it acceptable to break some of these "rules" if it can bring you total victory and leave you only with your conscious to deal with? The United States, as well as almost every other country on the planet, have at times broken certain rules. Back in the days of organized battle the United States ravaged rules of engagement in sake of its revolution. Allied forces targetted civilian outposts in its battle against the Axis nations when things looked most grim. We nuked mainland Japan killing civilians and military personnel alike in the name of saving our boys lives. The list goes on and on. Both "good guys" and "bad guys" alike do it when it suites their needs. So what do you guys think. Are their rules of war? Should they be followed, and in what circumstances? Or is it just a clever posturing to mask the real grotesqueness of warfare and make it seem more humane? If so, should we abandon these archiac precepts in the name of victory, truth, and/or progress towards less conflict?

War is brutal and uncivil, its kinda odd that we would try and make it civil, no?

Terrorism vs. Guerilla tactics
Terrorism is cheap and dirty. It targets civilians or "non-combantants". It often violates the rules of war when you have non-distingushed combantants attacking the military. Guerillism (hey it might be a word) distorts all of the rules because they often use terrorist tactics albeit against defined military targets.

I get pissed when people try and equate how our forefathers fought the British with terrorism, its complete bullshit and has no basis. They got smart and realized they couldn't beat the British at their own game of fucking retarded volleying shots. They were illequipped and not trained as regulars in a alot of cases, so they adapted and found a way to beat them.

Collateral is always unfortunate but it is a part of the nature of the beast. It should be avoided at all costs, but in these days of WMD's and even souped up non-WMD's shit happens, weapons and bullets are blind.

What all of this comes down to is desperate tactics from desperate people. If you are feeling threatened you will throw chivalry to the wind, thats just our nature.

You haven't differentiated between terrorism and our nation's rebels' actions. Please define each according to your understanding and explain how they differ. As your paragraph stands I can't see any reasoning offered to substantiate your claim that assertions to the contrary are "complete bullshit and [have] no basis."

We attacked British regulars who were defined combatants. Our militia's and the continental army were defined in combat because they were both armed and in the realm of battle, as well as in the case of our Army defined by uniform.

Terrorists are undefined and attack civilians.

Guerilla's use terrorist tactics on military... there's a difference.

"Each state raised and administered its own force and appointed a commander for it. Discipline was lax and there was no single chain of command[...]The men were dressed for the most part in homespun clothes and armed with muskets of varied types; powder and ball were short and only the barest few had bayonets."

--http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/amh/amh-03.htm

That is a decentralized (stateless) fighting force with no uniform--the definition of a terrorist.

Terrorists don't merely attack civilian targets and they are "both armed and in the realm of battle."

While I would like to agree with you it does seem like terrorists follow the same logic. I mean, there is no way that a band of terrorist or even the entirity of the nations that spawn them could beat us in our style of combat. It would seem by your logic that for the same reason it is acceptable for us to use guerilla tactics to get what we wanted it would be the same for other nations to use terror tactics and WMDs against us seeing as they can't beat us man for man. Maybe this is an issue of rather or not we should obey unenforcable rules that hinder us in our goals.

--http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/amh/amh-03.htm

Quote:

That is a decentralized (stateless) fighting force with no uniform--the definition of a terrorist.

Not true if you are armed you are considered a distingushed combatant, especially if you are in the realm of combat. Furthermore I don't know if you could consider them decentralized they were members of a sovereign state albeit fighting for its Independence (by definition "Sovereign state, a state which administers its own government, and is not dependent upon, or subject to, another power.")

Quote:

Terrorists don't merely attack civilian targets and they are "both armed and in the realm of battle."

Donnie we're not going to split hairs are we?

It all depends on which side of the fence you sit on, If you are the ruling power and have people who are less equiped and using hit and run tatics you will class them as terrorists.
If you are on the weaker side and fighting by *whatever* means you can to survive you will class yourself as guerilla

"I get pissed when people try and equate how our forefathers fought the British with terrorism, its complete bullshit and has no basis. They got smart and realized they couldn't beat the British at their own game of fucking retarded volleying shots. They were illequipped and not trained as regulars in a alot of cases, so they adapted and found a way to beat them."
Mojo can you honestly say that if a people fought against a ruling power in todays society, that the ruling power would not regard them as terrorists? they sure as hell would not class them as freedom fighters .

Referring to ourselves as freedom fighters in the Revolutionary War is indeed a bit of history being written by the victors.
Being a Quaker, I'm appalled by the concept of war. Being a thinking, living human being, I recognize it as a possible situation. But when an elder Quaker who I looked up to (he was a teacher of mine in college, which only compounded the situation) argued that war had become "more civilized" I experienced a feeling of nausea. It's like saying capital punishment has become more humane. Yeah, it has. But we're still killing people at the heart of it.

The idea of rules in War is flawed. You form alliances with your allies and say "we'll never do A, B, or C." The fact of the matter is that we're never going to fight our allies. Kind of a mute point.

Do what it takes to win. If killing a bunch of civilians is the way to go then do it. (Japan WWII)

LSD

In that case, 123dsa, are terrorist acts against the United States justified?

yes. But the US can win easily. No worries.

LSD

First of all we have to define the term Terrorists and Guerillas. Following is my own definition.

<u><b>Terrorists</u></b> An unrecognizable person, or group of persons, not recognized as a sovereign entity, that primarily targets civilians and other "non-combatants", in an effort to force rule, policy or opinion.

<u><b>Guerillas</u></b> A recognizable combatant, or group of combatants, that target military targets in such a fashion as to attack suddenly, and then flee, thus minimizing losses to themselves, and thier group.

As far as "acceptable" rules of war go...I guess you would only have to ask a Georgian, or a South Carolinian, after Sherman's Army went through, during the Civil War. Primary targets were civilians, violating every known precept of "modern" warfare. We tend to ignore this, however, as Sherman's March contributed quite heavily to the end of the war.

Your right that it depends which side of the fence you are sitting on. But by definition and action Terrorism is meant to strike at non-combatants, doesn't mean that guerilla's can't employ "terrorist" tactics. It also doesn't mean that Terrorism can't target defined combatants, but terrorism attempts to disrupt social life throw fear.

That is where your line of thinking goes awry.

" terrorism attempts to disrupt social life throw fear".

The best weapon you can have is fear. If your enemies fear you they will not have the heart to stay fighting.Look at Japan after the bombs were droped (on large civilian populated areas), the fear of the same thing happening wasnt long about them giving up.

Agreed, thats why both terrorists and guerill'as alike employ such tactics.

Ok , now we are getting somewhere. So in theory if you are a gurilla force and have the capability to spreas fear among your enemies by whatever means you have, would you use it?

So the main differeance between Guerillas and Terrorists is wearing a uniform?
As people have said before me, its about perspective. Freedom Fighters/ Terrorists, its just where your standing.
Rules to war? geez. I think back to the old honour code that the British military used to try and uphold. As the Spitfire crashes down through the night sky, the burned bleeding pilot crackles over the reciever "Cracking good shot Jerry. Tally Ho!". But war isnt really like that. Anyone who listens to someone who has fought, or seen or lived through it will tell you its blood, shit and tears. Its apes killing apes. Nothing less, nothing more.

Terrorists target non-combatants, further more guerilla's aren't necessarily defined by uniform, infact they almost never are it goes against the whole point of guerilla tactics. Kudos on your thoughts of war, I couldn't have said it better myself.

So if war is war and it is all about perspective, I think an important question needs to be raised. When is war justified?

It would appear to me that, at most, the difference between a freedom fighter, rebel, terrorist, soldier, murderer, mercenary, or anyother individual who professionally takes lives for a cause is intent, cause, and method. All of which are subjective and personal experiences.

At that point, we are still claiming that is it justified to take a fellow humans life under certain circumstances. It would appear we all agree that when another person is positioned in clear opposition to your life (soldier vs soldier on the battlefield) we all agree it is okay. However, when it is less clear (economic devastation caused by globalism vs arab way of life) it is questionable. Now those are the extremes, when is an issue of something like state taxation (revolutionary war) compared to terrorism (globalism, WTC, etc) the line is blurred. So where do decent human beings draw the line between threat and implied threat that justifies attacking those perceived to be at ends with us? Or, in another manner of speaking, where does defensive action end and pre-emption begin?

The line between guerilla and terrorist is always blurred.

They are NOT defined by a damn uniform. But in that case, one cannot use the same argument against those the country labels as a terrorist these days.

it IS a matter of perspective.

For instance, we hardly consider our forefathers 'terrorists.'

To the ruling class, the British, they sure as hell were.

And don't say bullshit they only targetted combatants - that is NOT true. They would target anyone - say a Loyalist family - to get their end of the deal if needed. Thats not necessarily their prime target but its ludicrious to say they only target combatants - its not true at all.

Like they say, one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

Not to mention that the victors write the history books.

Just a little digression...during WWI Germany tried to get the shotgun outlawed because they said it was inhumane...I guess they didn't like the fact that American soldiers were using them as the perfect trench-clearing weapon.

As far as I know, it wasn't so much the fact that it was a shotgun, but the fact that it was pretty much an automatic shotgun that was so annoying. The so-called "trench gun" had a simple shoot-load-shoot-load (-etc) mechanism that allowed it's user to keep firing on the move. There are reports of soldiers being executed if they were found with such weapons on them.

Then again, some German troops captured with a knife/saw combo were subjected to rather harsh treatment by their allied captors, because there was a rumor that such tools were designed to inflict the nastiest wounds possible, instead of being designed as simple multi-purpose tools...

carry on...