SOCNET

Go Back   SOCNET: The Special Operations Community Network > General Topics > Terrorism and Asymmetric Warfare

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 13 October 2003, 13:38
Jimbo's Avatar
Jimbo Jimbo is offline
Scoundrel
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: inside your OODA loop
Posts: 6,386
Quote:
Originally posted by Gulf Yankee
Yes, I thought about this however the rest of the AQ upper echelon do not necessarily hold this as a primary objective. The single unifying belief among them seems to be the desire to incite a global religious war, culminating with an islamic victory.
You've got it backwards, my man. AQ leadership wants an Islamic state, so they start a global religious war and sees what shakes loose. The grab the territory they can and use that for further agitation. The war is a means to an end, not the end itself.
__________________

“It's not a good idea to allow an unknown enemy force to attack your compound. Ever, really.” -MixedLoad

"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." -HST

Secrets don't sleep til they're took to the grave. -BMTH
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 13 October 2003, 13:43
Sneaky SF Dude Sneaky SF Dude is offline
NEW TO SOCNET
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Blocking Jimbo's Access To MY
Posts: 3,126
So are they an insurgency?
__________________
Go away. Give yourself some peace. - Cass 12/03

The US Constitution is not a suicide pact.

If you miss your ex frequently, consider better optics for your rifle.

"The baby will be slippery, if you drop it don't stare, PICK IT UP !!!" - OB/GYN Wisdom
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 13 October 2003, 13:55
Jimbo's Avatar
Jimbo Jimbo is offline
Scoundrel
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: inside your OODA loop
Posts: 6,386
Quote:
Originally posted by Sneaky SF Dude
So are they an insurgency?
Yes.
__________________

“It's not a good idea to allow an unknown enemy force to attack your compound. Ever, really.” -MixedLoad

"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." -HST

Secrets don't sleep til they're took to the grave. -BMTH
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 13 October 2003, 13:57
Sneaky SF Dude Sneaky SF Dude is offline
NEW TO SOCNET
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Blocking Jimbo's Access To MY
Posts: 3,126
Then why are they called terrorists and not insurgents by everybody? Tactics?
__________________
Go away. Give yourself some peace. - Cass 12/03

The US Constitution is not a suicide pact.

If you miss your ex frequently, consider better optics for your rifle.

"The baby will be slippery, if you drop it don't stare, PICK IT UP !!!" - OB/GYN Wisdom
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 13 October 2003, 14:02
Jimbo's Avatar
Jimbo Jimbo is offline
Scoundrel
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: inside your OODA loop
Posts: 6,386
Quote:
Originally posted by Sneaky SF Dude
Then why are they called terrorists and not insurgents by everybody? Tactics?
Yup. And people are idiots. Why think hard about something? Fighting the wrong war is WAY easier than thinking hard.
__________________

“It's not a good idea to allow an unknown enemy force to attack your compound. Ever, really.” -MixedLoad

"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." -HST

Secrets don't sleep til they're took to the grave. -BMTH
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 13 October 2003, 14:10
Doogie320 Doogie320 is offline
Going back
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Afghanistan
Posts: 3,503
Quote:
Originally posted by Sneaky SF Dude
Then why are they called terrorists and not insurgents by everybody? Tactics?
Because John and Jane Doe "relate" to the definition of "terrorist" better than they do that of "insurgent." "Insurgent" sounds noble to them while "terrorist" has its own connotations.

My 2 whatevers today....
__________________
- I personally have never killed anyone, but I have read some obituaries with pleasure.

- Blue Skies Big Windy 25

- Are you suffering from brain damage? I seriously want to know. If so, I will quit making fun of you. - Joe
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 13 October 2003, 14:12
Jimbo's Avatar
Jimbo Jimbo is offline
Scoundrel
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: inside your OODA loop
Posts: 6,386
Quote:
Originally posted by Doogie320
Because John and Jane Doe "relate" to the definition of "terrorist" better than they do that of "insurgent." "Insurgent" sounds noble to them while "terrorist" has its own connotations.

My 2 whatevers today....
Not to be a dick, but they REACT to terrorist, not relate. If they related to these ass pirates we'd be in a heap of trouble.
__________________

“It's not a good idea to allow an unknown enemy force to attack your compound. Ever, really.” -MixedLoad

"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." -HST

Secrets don't sleep til they're took to the grave. -BMTH
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 13 October 2003, 14:22
Sneaky SF Dude Sneaky SF Dude is offline
NEW TO SOCNET
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Blocking Jimbo's Access To MY
Posts: 3,126
LOL - I agree with both of you. Look at the definitions above - is there really any difference between the two? I disagree with the US Code definition of terrorism because it specifies non-combatant targets. I would argue that the attack on the Pentagon was a terrorist act and most that died were "combatants", and the building is considered a military target. The barracks bombing in Beruit was a terrorist act to me as well. I think you can have terrorist attacks on military targets and personnel.

That's why I call them terrorist insurgents - terrorist because of their tactics and insurgents because their goals, etc.
__________________
Go away. Give yourself some peace. - Cass 12/03

The US Constitution is not a suicide pact.

If you miss your ex frequently, consider better optics for your rifle.

"The baby will be slippery, if you drop it don't stare, PICK IT UP !!!" - OB/GYN Wisdom
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 13 October 2003, 14:25
Sneaky SF Dude Sneaky SF Dude is offline
NEW TO SOCNET
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Blocking Jimbo's Access To MY
Posts: 3,126
The other thing is that to me, terrorism and insurgencies are both directed at the political factors I outlined above. Even territorial concerns as expressed by GY are political, as borders are political concerns, not geographic (even though they rarely change).
__________________
Go away. Give yourself some peace. - Cass 12/03

The US Constitution is not a suicide pact.

If you miss your ex frequently, consider better optics for your rifle.

"The baby will be slippery, if you drop it don't stare, PICK IT UP !!!" - OB/GYN Wisdom
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 13 October 2003, 14:29
Sneaky SF Dude Sneaky SF Dude is offline
NEW TO SOCNET
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Blocking Jimbo's Access To MY
Posts: 3,126
I wish Teutates, The Reaper, et al would get involved in these discussions. Not many people know more about insurgencies than old time SF guys.
__________________
Go away. Give yourself some peace. - Cass 12/03

The US Constitution is not a suicide pact.

If you miss your ex frequently, consider better optics for your rifle.

"The baby will be slippery, if you drop it don't stare, PICK IT UP !!!" - OB/GYN Wisdom
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 13 October 2003, 14:37
RipperTOW RipperTOW is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 613
Isn't one of those "Preservationist?" A preservationist-insurgency is sort of a non-starter, isn't it? Kind of like calling yourself the leader of the anarchist group .

Seriously, I don't think those 7 classifications are useful. It seems like a very disintegrated way to look at the question of insurgencies. The relevant things about insurgencies is identifying the question, "what are they trying to accomplish?" and limiting it to those seven is neither exhaustive or useful. It might be, if there were actually only 7 categories and we could say that each one has a distinct moral character. For instance, if reasons 2-4 were good but 1 and 5-7 were evil. But this list isn't helpful in that regard. Take secessionist. Is that good or bad? Well, it depends on what you're trying to secede from and what you want to create in its place. Secede from Iran to create a free, rights oriented Republic -- Good. Secede from America to create an Islamic theocracy -- Bad. Secede from Iran to create another Islamic theocracy -- no difference.

Unless the purpose of those 7 is purely tactical, then I don't see the point. In other words, if it says: "to counter type 3 insurgency then you should do...." then I can see the benefit from a tactical point of view. But as a guide to any kind of moral evaluation of the situation I don't think it has much to offer. Just 2¢ from the coffee house...
__________________
"Sir, what are we doing?"
"I'm not sure, but it's very important."
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 13 October 2003, 14:48
Sneaky SF Dude Sneaky SF Dude is offline
NEW TO SOCNET
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Blocking Jimbo's Access To MY
Posts: 3,126
I would consider the non-drug AUC to be preservationist, to give you an example.

I never said you can't be in two groups or see changing goals. FARC, IMO, went from egalitarian to secessionist in the last few years and there are probably still true believers in there.

I am also not making judgements about "good or bad".

What difference does morality make? It is an analytical evaluation of the insurgency - in an attempt to understand them. I'll leave morality to the church.

If you can't classify them, IMO, you can't understand them, how to deal with them, or even the danger they pose. After what has happened to communism, does the egalitarian insurgency really pose a threat or do we just let it die on the vine?

The point is, you deal with "Left-wing Marxist-Leninist Rebels" differently that you do a group that wants to set up a rogue autonomous state. Whether you agree with communism or not. The difference is in who will be supporting them both internally and externally, how you attack (if there's a need to), etc. It changes the way you deal with the neighboring countries. If the FARC sets up a state, you can bet it will include parts of Ven, Ecu, Peru, etc. They need the coca production. If they are simply attempting to turn Colombia into a communist state, you don't need to worry about the neighbors so much. Right?
__________________
Go away. Give yourself some peace. - Cass 12/03

The US Constitution is not a suicide pact.

If you miss your ex frequently, consider better optics for your rifle.

"The baby will be slippery, if you drop it don't stare, PICK IT UP !!!" - OB/GYN Wisdom
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 13 October 2003, 14:53
Jimbo's Avatar
Jimbo Jimbo is offline
Scoundrel
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: inside your OODA loop
Posts: 6,386
Quote:
Originally posted by Sneaky SF Dude
What difference does morality make? It is an analytical evaluation of the insurgency - in an attempt to understand them. I'll leave morality to the church.

If you can't classify them, IMO, you can't understand them, how to deal with them, or even the danger they pose. After what has happened to communism, does the egalitarian insurgency really pose a threat or do we just let it die on the vine?

The point is, you deal with "Left-wing Marxist-Leninist Rebels" differently that you do a group that wants to set up a rogue autonomous state. Whether you agree with communism or not. The difference is in who will be supporting them both internally and externally, how you attack (if there's a need to), etc. It changes the way you deal with the neighboring countries. If the FARC sets up a state, you can bet it will include parts of Ven, Ecu, Peru, etc. They need the coca production. If they are simply attempting to turn Colombia into a communist state, you don't need to worry about the neighbors so much. Right?
Good points. Classification for analytical purposes is merely a tool to hewlp frame the argument, not an end unto itself.
__________________

“It's not a good idea to allow an unknown enemy force to attack your compound. Ever, really.” -MixedLoad

"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." -HST

Secrets don't sleep til they're took to the grave. -BMTH
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 13 October 2003, 14:54
Sneaky SF Dude Sneaky SF Dude is offline
NEW TO SOCNET
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Blocking Jimbo's Access To MY
Posts: 3,126
Four problems associated with identfying insurgent types:
1) Goal transformation
2) Goal conflicts
3) Misleading rhetoric
4) Goal ambiguity

You jumped the gun on me, I was trying to wait and do it a little at a time.
__________________
Go away. Give yourself some peace. - Cass 12/03

The US Constitution is not a suicide pact.

If you miss your ex frequently, consider better optics for your rifle.

"The baby will be slippery, if you drop it don't stare, PICK IT UP !!!" - OB/GYN Wisdom
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 13 October 2003, 14:58
Doogie320 Doogie320 is offline
Going back
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Afghanistan
Posts: 3,503
Quote:
Originally posted by Jimbo
Not to be a dick, but they REACT to terrorist, not relate. If they related to these ass pirates we'd be in a heap of trouble.
Good point. Some ass clowns will undoubtably relate to those organizations but the majority of American society will not. If we branded FARC for example as insurgents that is more.... "acceptable" to some people than to call them "terrorists." I'm not saying I think FARC are insurgents, but if you called them that then they don't appear to be the same threat as a bunch of "terrorists" are.

My personal views? FARC are terrorists and should be treated as such.
__________________
- I personally have never killed anyone, but I have read some obituaries with pleasure.

- Blue Skies Big Windy 25

- Are you suffering from brain damage? I seriously want to know. If so, I will quit making fun of you. - Joe
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 13 October 2003, 14:59
Sneaky SF Dude Sneaky SF Dude is offline
NEW TO SOCNET
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Blocking Jimbo's Access To MY
Posts: 3,126
Quote:
Originally posted by Jimbo
Good points. Classification for analytical purposes is merely a tool to hewlp frame the argument, not an end unto itself.
That's exactly it. The whole thing is a framework. For analysts. Who should not decide policy.

I think often policy decisions are made without all the information or in the heat of the moment or based on morality or whatever. That's why nobody looks any deeper. My support for a stronger US policy regarding the FARC is based on my analysis of FARC intentions and what that would do to US national security. Everything else tells me its a bad idea. It would rip Colombia apart, something the FARC have been unable to do, it would have a huge impact on LATAM and the perception of the US abroad, it would not stop the flow of drugs, it would probably put me out of business, etc.

But if the objective analysis says its the right thing to do...it has to been right.
__________________
Go away. Give yourself some peace. - Cass 12/03

The US Constitution is not a suicide pact.

If you miss your ex frequently, consider better optics for your rifle.

"The baby will be slippery, if you drop it don't stare, PICK IT UP !!!" - OB/GYN Wisdom
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 13 October 2003, 15:01
Sneaky SF Dude Sneaky SF Dude is offline
NEW TO SOCNET
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Blocking Jimbo's Access To MY
Posts: 3,126
Quote:
Originally posted by Doogie320
Good point. Some ass clowns will undoubtably relate to those organizations but the majority of American society will not. If we branded FARC for example as insurgents that is more.... "acceptable" to some people than to call them "terrorists." I'm not saying I think FARC are insurgents, but if you called them that then they don't appear to be the same threat as a bunch of "terrorists" are.

My personal views? FARC are terrorists and should be treated as such.
The terms are perceived that way because that's the way we've used them. The original Russian terrorists called themselves terrorists - proudly.

Your personal views based on what?
__________________
Go away. Give yourself some peace. - Cass 12/03

The US Constitution is not a suicide pact.

If you miss your ex frequently, consider better optics for your rifle.

"The baby will be slippery, if you drop it don't stare, PICK IT UP !!!" - OB/GYN Wisdom
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 13 October 2003, 15:04
Polar Bear Polar Bear is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 1,509
Quote:
Originally posted by Sneaky SF Dude
That's exactly it. The whole thing is a framework. For analysts. Who should not decide policy.
Then who should decide?
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 13 October 2003, 15:07
Sneaky SF Dude Sneaky SF Dude is offline
NEW TO SOCNET
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Blocking Jimbo's Access To MY
Posts: 3,126
Quote:
Originally posted by Lance Serge
Then who should decide?
Policy? Politicians. Duely elected politicians, but based on complete and objective information not tainted by political agendas before it gets to them.
__________________
Go away. Give yourself some peace. - Cass 12/03

The US Constitution is not a suicide pact.

If you miss your ex frequently, consider better optics for your rifle.

"The baby will be slippery, if you drop it don't stare, PICK IT UP !!!" - OB/GYN Wisdom
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 13 October 2003, 15:09
Sneaky SF Dude Sneaky SF Dude is offline
NEW TO SOCNET
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Blocking Jimbo's Access To MY
Posts: 3,126
Or the King.
__________________
Go away. Give yourself some peace. - Cass 12/03

The US Constitution is not a suicide pact.

If you miss your ex frequently, consider better optics for your rifle.

"The baby will be slippery, if you drop it don't stare, PICK IT UP !!!" - OB/GYN Wisdom
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Our new posting rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:55.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Socnet.com All Rights Reserved
© SOCNET 1996-2020