Are Insurgency/Guerilla/terrorist tactics cowardly/unfair?

Manic Moran

When a pilot in an F-16 Strike Eagle drops his bomb from 35,000 feet on to a wedding party in Iraq or Afghanistan, is he not a coward? German Stuka pilots would swoop down to within 150-200 feet of a target and virtual place their bomb on the roof of a tank etc.

The German pilot would have to go that low in order to assure a hit (Though I think you're overstating a bit, the blast radius of the bomb from 200 feet would bring down the airplane dropping it). The F-16 driver (Strike Eagles are F-15Es, by the way) does not need to go any lower than 35,000 feet to hit the wedding party.

It's just a matter of necessity.

NTM

citizen_p

yes if they lose and no if they win.
history is written by the victor

Son Of A Vidic

Manic Moran wrote: »

The German pilot would have to go that low in order to assure a hit (Though I think you're overstating a bit, the blast radius of the bomb from 200 feet would bring down the airplane dropping it). The F-16 driver (Strike Eagles are F-15Es, by the way) does not need to go any lower than 35,000 feet to hit the wedding party.

It's just a matter of necessity.

Yes that was a Typo I meant F -15, the F-16 is the Fighting Falcon of course. In the course of my career in London I met a former Luftwaffe pilot who operated on the Eastern front mainly as a tank killer. He didn't strike me as a man prone to embellishment, he did hold a general lack of respect for modern pilots. But he did have great regard for rival Soviet and RAF pilots during the war years. They certainly seemed to have a code of honor back then which doesn't exist today. The 'Top Guns' fighting the War on Terror do really face a serious threat from the ground. I think the A-10 Thunderbolt pilots are probably the nearest thing we have to the WW2 boys. Those A-10 guys certainly like the low strike with their fierce nose mounted cannon. A bit more 'balls' required for that approach I think.

Riddle101

By calling Guerillas and Insurgents cowards. Your basically calling the people who fought for the freedom or Ireland cowards. People like Micheal Collins, Liam Lynch and the 1916 Risers. Not just them, but what about the French Resistence in World War 2, are they terrorists? or the Partisan? or the Vietcong? I don't think Guerillas and Insurgents are cowards because they're only fighting the best way they can against a superior opponent. It would be very idiotic for an Insurgency to try to fight a powerful army by conventional means. It would just be suicide.

Manic Moran

By calling Guerillas and Insurgents cowards. Your basically calling the people who fought for the freedom or Ireland terrorists

Please do not confuse terrorism with insurgency or guerilla warfare. Just because some of the American mass media does not make the distinction does not mean that they they are correct or that they are analogous. It is quite possible to be a guerilla fighter and not a terrorist, at least in the normal sense of the word.

NTM

Riddle101

Manic Moran wrote: »

Please do not confuse terrorism with insurgency or guerilla warfare. Just because some of the American mass media does not make the distinction does not mean that they they are correct or that they are analogous. It is quite possible to be a guerilla fighter and not a terrorist, at least in the normal sense of the word.

NTM

My bad, I actually meant to say cowards instead of terrorists. By calling Insurgents or Guerrilla's cowards, would be an insult to the same people who fought for our Independance. Still though my point being is that Insurgents or Guerillas are not cowards, but fight by the best means they can.

Glenshane Pass

Unfortunate and unintellegent that the thread title makes absolutely no distinction between terrorist/insurgent/guerrilla, given that the word terrorist has become a mere buzz word thanks to George Bush and the like. Its a very broad question regardless, and again plays into the hands of certain governments and individuals whose modus operandi is to tar all groups with the same brush regardless of the morality of their actions and manifestos.

private2bcadet

cowardly? hmm... well. to kill someone in the 1st place takes some balls, but i can see where people would think its cowardly. technically it is.. but usually the other side is quite cowardly in the eyes of the users,.. guerilla tactics used by the irish agaisnt the british, people could argue they were being cowardly, but they were just being realistic. they couldnt face the british army, it was too big and occupied everywhere, and of course comes arguments (which are pretty much logical) that their enemies were cowards.. you know, british army officers saying "the more irish you shoot, the more ill like you", british military just generaly behaving like the gestapo. in these cases, when your entire nation is occupied and run by the enemy your trying to fight, its actually extremely honorable to even have the balls to try guerilla tactics never mind any others. also the cuban revolution, ernesto guevara studied the irish tactics used against the brits and put them into play. because him and his revolutionary front were in a similar situation to the irish in the tan war.

its really hard to say, technically yes but yet so definitely no!

its also worth mentioning that the same people that used guerilla tactics against the brits actually tried fighting them head on in the 1st place, so guerilla was pretty much their second resort!

jurgenscarl

If you are fighting a war by whatever means you are not a coward.

There are no cowards in a war.

What is the real issue is the justice of the cause.

It takes tremendous courage to go against your moral scruples and kill another human being in the cause of what you percieve is the greater good - excluding deliberate massacres of civilians which of course can never be justified.

The most decorated US soldier of World War 2, the future movie star Audie Murphy who once climbed onto a knocked out tank destroyer and used its mounted .50 cal machine gun to cut down hundreds of charging German soldiers was incredibly heroic. He won the Congression Medal Of Honor for his feat.

The German Waffen SS Tiger tank commander Michael Wittman and his crew once ambushed a column of British tanks and armoured vehicles and infantry in the village of Villiers-Bocage and wrecked havoc knocking out scores of vehicles and forcing the much larger British force to withdraw.
He won the Iron Cross for his feat.

Both men were equally heroic.

However the US Army was fighting to liberate Europe from tyranny while Waffen SS was fighting to impose Nazi tyranny on Europe.

In the 1920's the IRA used assassination, bombings, ambushes, arson, kidnap and terror to defeat the RIC and force the unionist minority in the 26 counties to give into the creation of an independent Ireland because the democratic will of the nationalist majority was denied by the British.

However the Provisional IRA used precisely the same tactics from the 1960's to the 1990's to force a democratic majority in the 6 counties to accept a United Ireland against their will.

It took the same courage for the IRA to ambush the Tans at Kilmichael as it took for the eight IRA to attack Loughall RUC station before they were wiped out by the SAS.

The difference is the cause they were actually fighting for.

The French Resistance used guerilla tactics against their German occupiers and reprisals against collaborators just as the Iraqi insurgents attack American forces and kill Iraqi collaborators.
Nobody can doubt the bravery of a jihadist who is prepared to blow himself to pieces.

However the French resistance were fighting to overthrow Nazi rule.

The Americans arrived in Iraq to overthrow Saddams brutal regime and replace his evil tyranny with a democratic system which today has the overwhelming support of millions of Iraqi voters.

The jihadists want an undemocratic 7th century style Islamic Caliphate.

Therefore the issue is not the 'cowardice' of the means used but the justice of the cause the combatants are fighting for.

private2bcadet

jurgenscarl wrote: »

If you are fighting a war by whatever means you are not a coward.

There are no cowards in a war.

What is the real issue is the justice of the cause.

It takes tremendous courage to go against your moral scruples and kill another human being in the cause of what you percieve is the greater good - excluding deliberate massacres of civilians which of course can never be justified.

The most decorated US soldier of World War 2, the future movie star Audie Murphy who once climbed onto a knocked out tank destroyer and used its mounted .50 cal machine gun to cut down hundreds of charging German soldiers was incredibly heroic. He won the Congression Medal Of Honor for his feat.

The German Waffen SS Tiger tank commander Michael Wittman and his crew once ambushed a column of British tanks and armoured vehicles and infantry in the village of Villiers-Bocage and wrecked havoc knocking out scores of vehicles and forcing the much larger British force to withdraw.
He won the Iron Cross for his feat.

Both men were equally heroic.

However the US Army was fighting to liberate Europe from tyranny while Waffen SS was fighting to impose Nazi tyranny on Europe.

In the 1920's the IRA used assassination, bombings, ambushes, arson, kidnap and terror to defeat the RIC and force the unionist minority in the 26 counties to give into the creation of an independent Ireland because the democratic will of the nationalist majority was denied by the British.

However the Provisional IRA used precisely the same tactics from the 1960's to the 1990's to force a democratic majority in the 6 counties to accept a United Ireland against their will.

It took the same courage for the IRA to ambush the Tans at Kilmichael as it took for the eight IRA to attack Loughall RUC station before they were wiped out by the SAS.

The difference is the cause they were actually fighting for.

The French Resistance used guerilla tactics against their German occupiers and reprisals against collaborators just as the Iraqi insurgents attack American forces and kill Iraqi collaborators.
Nobody can doubt the bravery of a jihadist who is prepared to blow himself to pieces.

However the French resistance were fighting to overthrow Nazi rule.

The Americans arrived in Iraq to overthrow Saddams brutal regime and replace his evil tyranny with a democratic system which today has the overwhelming support of millions of Iraqi voters.

The jihadists want an democratic 7th century style Islamic Caliphate.

Therefore the issue is not the 'cowardice' of the means used but the justice of the cause the combatants are fighting for.

yea i agree, good reply

fenris

The decision on whether to use label of cowardice tends to be dependent on the eventual winner.

The tactics in any given situation are supposed to be grossly unfair, as MM has pointed out, if you are giving the enemy a fair chance then you have squandered your own advantage and may not get a chance to learn from your mistake. For an example of a so called fair fight try the Somme.

The ultimate purpose of any military / guerilla operation is to support and progress a political position, the eventual outcome of the war just decides who is at the table and how much leverage they have.

So if you view the insurgency/guerilla/terrorist operation in this light then it becomes obvious that the main product in the greater context is political capital and propaganda potential, with both sides spinning for all they are worth.

It is also worth looking at the impact of technology on modern warfare, weapons have gotten better, recon and comms allow for a much clearer vision of that situation and modern logistics allow for a superior force projection. So compared to the good old days when you could spend three months rounding up farmers then march them for another month to a battle where you would mill about for a while before giving it a lash then wander off home in time for the harvest, now you have a professional military that will swat you from over the horizon as soon as you look like you are concentrating a force sufficient to justify the cost of the munition, so that leaves small units.
If you are caught in the open then you will be milled, so you now have to fight from cover where the ROE restrict the enemy response.
Getting hold of weapons is made difficult so you have to take them from the enemy if you can by overwhelming small units. You cannot take on a tank or a jet head on, but you can limit the fuel available by attacking soft supply line targets etc.
The main point as I see it is that modern technology has taken away the option of the "stand up" traditional war from any but a national military, which is grand and has worked to keep things relatively peaceful in the west for a long time, so that leaves those that cannot get the political change that they want with very limited options if they feel that conventional means have failed them, guerilla tactics are the only sustainable option if they want to go the physical route.

Sod'o swords

delta-boy wrote: »

As they say, one mans terrorist, is another freedom fighter. Let me ask a question, and I am hereby not being biaist to any side. Let us put it like this, its at the height of the Cold War, lets say nuclear weapons wherent used, America/Soviet Union was invaded, the occupiers won, and the defeated side raised an insurgent force.

Would history look back on it as 'freedom fighters', or would the occupiers write and say they where 'terrorists dismantling the new found peace'. They say history is written by the victors. I am not so sure...

Well isn't "history written by the victor"?.

Frankly i think this thread was ended a long time ago but there's a few Anti Brit/US posters keeping it alive.

Manic Morgan has in my eyes answered the thread question a few times. Most other people have merely debated if certain examples of Guerilla tactics were justified.

Chuck Stone

jurgenscarl wrote: »

However the US Army was fighting to liberate Europe from tyranny while Waffen SS was fighting to impose Nazi tyranny on Europe.

Nazism was only a dirty word after WW2 - Nazism was idealism to Nazis and their supporters (and notions of race purity and the threat of the feeble minded masses were just as vibrant in western countries before WW2)

In the 1920's the IRA used assassination, bombings, ambushes, arson, kidnap and terror to defeat the RIC and force the unionist minority in the 26 counties to give into the creation of an independent Ireland because the democratic will of the nationalist majority was denied by the British.

A little simplistic but fair enough.

However the Provisional IRA used precisely the same tactics from the 1960's to the 1990's to force a democratic majority in the 6 counties to accept a United Ireland against their will.

The 'democratic' artificially created majority behind a line drawn by the enemies of Ireland (as the IRA would've seen it) - this too is simplistic but I'm using the general standard ITT.

It took the same courage for the IRA to ambush the Tans at Kilmichael as it took for the eight IRA to attack Loughall RUC station before they were wiped out by the SAS.

The difference is the cause they were actually fighting for.

Not for the IRA and the wide support they had garnered on both sides of the border; a border which they essentially deemed the problem.

The French Resistance used guerilla tactics against their German occupiers and reprisals against collaborators just as the Iraqi insurgents attack American forces and kill Iraqi collaborators.
Nobody can doubt the bravery of a jihadist who is prepared to blow himself to pieces.

I personally don't consider suicide bombing in expectation of wonderful terms and conditions on the other side as being brave.

The Americans arrived in Iraq to overthrow Saddams brutal regime and replace his evil tyranny with a democratic system which today has the overwhelming support of millions of Iraqi voters.

Oh dear Jebus do you honestly believe that?

Therefore the issue is not the 'cowardice' of the means used but the justice of the cause the combatants are fighting for.

How do you decide what is a just cause?