The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Investing/Strategies / Bonds & Fixed Income Investments
|Subject: Re: The Net Worth of American Households||Date: 1/8/2007 1:35 PM|
|Author: spiritof78||Number: 19351 of 35932|
Im glad you asked the question as its a point of huge point of difference that I dont think gets pointed out enough. Being a guerilla fighter does not make you a terrorist as the word is used today. First off a terrorist intentionally targets civillians with the intent of causing fear in the general population. A guerilla fighter on the other hand may well target infastructure of a military value, enemy troops, supply depots a number of items but his intent is to sabotage, disrupt, or destroy the enemies ability to wage war.
This is not a new conveniant theory I've come up with either it has a long historical and of course a contemporary distinction.
Looking all the way back to Roman Occupation of Britiannia (modern day Great Britian). The Britons were guerilla fighters unable to do battle on the field with Romans they engaged in guerilla war fare designed to force a withdrawal. The hit supply lines, burned crop fields, and did battle with any tribes that supported Rome. Not so far from that area the IRA a definate terrorist organization attempted to drive out the British with terrorist tactics. The left package bombs in market centers, hit shops, attempted assisinations of British politicians (not heads of state).
The french resistence during WWII had access to modern day explosives but also were not terrorists, they targeted communications networks and ran spying operations feeding information to allied forces. The did such a good job Hitler didnt even know about D-day till the next day because the Paris Telegraph had been sabotaged. The french resistence fighters didnt infiltrate Berlin and take school children hostage like you saw in Chechniya in an attempt to create mass fear. The french resistence targeted the German war capabilities not attempting to cause fear by targetting school children.
I wasnt calling Baathists terrorists. If an Iraqi views the US as a hostile occupying force and targets US military assets (me) he's merely an irregular fighter not a terrorist. A foreign fighter or an indegenous fighter who comes in with foreign money and has an agenda merely to cause chaos and fear in Iraq, but doesnt care about Iraqi's is a terrorist. The bombing of the mosque in Samarra by Al Qeada is a prime example. They've been writing papers for years on the need to sow ethnic cleansing in Iraq as a method of defeating the US. They dont care about the Iraqi's there hostile to US interests AND are willing to target innocent civillians to get what they want. They spread fear, kill innocent people intentionally and have no vested interest in one form of government here or another. It makes them terrorists.
You can respect a guerilla, if you look at the story behind "We were Soldiers" which is about 1-7 Cav's battle in the I Drang valley in Vietnam , then LTC Moore's unit engages in fierce fighting with a VC unit. 30 Years later Gen Moore sits down with the commander of the VC that day they had respect for one another if not friendship. You can respect a guerilla even if you dispise everything he stands for, you cannot respect a terrorsit who simply despises everything.
|Copyright 1996-2016 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|