ManOfTrueTruth
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 186
- Reaction score
- 0
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
ManOfTrueTruth said:Terrorism is not a weapon that is used by the weak, but also by strong nation states. However, the way that terrorism is used by stateless organizations is as a weapon of strategic unconvetional warfare. It is a strategic guerrilla warfare when you think about it, except that guerrilla warfare is unconventional tatical warfare used against superior, organized military force. Terrorism is unconventional strategic warfare used against a strong or stronger nation. A book about Bin Laden which some CIA members who were part of the Bin Laden unit commented on, said that Bin Laden's unconventional strategy against the US was to bankrupt the US economy by attacking high value targets that if destroyed, would do great damage to the US economy and to demoralize the US by striking and destroying powerful symbols of the US.
cherokee said:Sorry buddy but their IS A BIG A$$ difference...
How about the targeting on non combatant civilians?
THAT equals Terrorism.........
ManOfTrueTruth said:Bin Laden isn't just about targetting civilians. His main aim, in my view is to bleed the US economy. I was reading an interesting book on Bin Laden where some CIA personal who worked in the Bin Laden Unit wrote some comments on.
cherokee said:whatever...:roll:
ManOfTrueTruth said:I mean, wouldn't you agree that civilians being killed is just part of war? I don't know of any military minded person schooled in the art of conventional or unconventional warfare who would argue different, do you?
cherokee said:Yes civilians do get killed in warfare.
What you don’t see is the difference.
If you target a bar full of civilians how is that conventional or unconventional warfare as as opposed to targeting a plant that produces military equipment.
By your thinking it would be ok to bomb a school.
Wiping out a countries military machine is not the same as wiping out the countries population.
During all wars leading up to the recent past, forms of terrorism were met with indiscriminate retaliation...If there were terrorists SOMEWHERE on the block, guess what?...The whole block gets it...target destroyed...collateral damage be damned...ManOfTrueTruth said:Terrorism is not a weapon that is used by the weak, but also by strong nation states. However, the way that terrorism is used by stateless organizations is as a weapon of strategic unconvetional warfare. It is a strategic guerrilla warfare when you think about it, except that guerrilla warfare is unconventional tatical warfare used against superior, organized military force. Terrorism is unconventional strategic warfare used against a strong or stronger nation. A book about Bin Laden which some CIA members who were part of the Bin Laden unit commented on, said that Bin Laden's unconventional strategy against the US was to bankrupt the US economy by attacking high value targets that if destroyed, would do great damage to the US economy and to demoralize the US by striking and destroying powerful symbols of the US.
What is this gobbledeegook?Terrorism is not a weapon that is used by the weak, but also by strong nation states. However, the way that terrorism is used by stateless organizations is as a weapon of strategic unconvetional warfare. It is a strategic guerrilla warfare when you think about it, except that guerrilla warfare is unconventional tatical warfare used against superior, organized military force. Terrorism is unconventional strategic warfare used against a strong or stronger nation.
In order to defeat Al-queda, strategically, we must understand it as warfare and not just simply and only a crime.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?