Is it ok to train kids to terrorise?

[Sean]

I'm not disputing the fact that they are terrorists... far from it. I just didn't like the way you seemed to belittle the effect they had.

Lower body count? Lower than whose may I ask?
Actually don't tell me... I bet you're comparing it to 9/11 aren't you?

How you can describe a terror campaign which lasted nearly 30 years and produced a body count of almost 2,000 people 'small scale' is beyond me.

Unless of course you were unaware of those particular figures...

[loCAtek]

The individual terrorist acts which were on the same scale as some Mexican gang battles that I also consider terrorism.

[Scooter]

Operative word being 'before', glad I could point out the distinction.

And I was glad to point out that this:

Attacking an opponent's innocent civilians is a very modern tactic to the twentieth century, meant to demoralize AKA 'terrorize' before any real fighting takes place.

was incorrect.

[Sean]

The individual terrorist acts which were on the same scale as some Mexican gang battles that I also consider terrorism.

Sorry Loca, you didn't say "on the same scale" you mentioned a lower body count.

A question if I may:

Do you not think that it may be insulting to those affected to describe 28 years of terrorism causing 1,800 deaths "small scale"?

[loCAtek]

Per incident, I beg your pardon if that's insulting in some way. The way it was conducted, from a military tactical outlook, is small scale. This is one way it is different from warfare; the strikes are less effective in gaining any advantage over the adversary.

[Scooter]

Give it up, you're only digging yourself deeper. Either you're too young to remember what it was like to live in the U.K. during the Troubles, or you never opened a newspaper. Their entire way of life was adapted over and over again in attempts to minimize the risks of terrorism.

[loCAtek]

You got it, that was while I lived in the barrio.

What I was taught was their tactics were similar to current insurgencies and drug cartels.

[Sean]

Per incident, I beg your pardon if that's insulting in some way. The way it was conducted, from a military tactical outlook, is small scale. This is one way it is different from warfare; the strikes are less effective in gaining any advantage over the adversary.

Per incident my arse! That's pretty feeble Loca...

You insist on calling it small scale? Well Loca, I'm happy for you that it never affected you and yours. If it had you might rein in that high horse a bit and see it for what it was.

I'll stop typing now as I'm getting angry and prone to type something I might not regret...

[loCAtek]

I understand using the term 'small scale'* may sound like I'm using diminutive, but it is a military term for a strategic principle; E.G. Large scale would be a full open battle between armies, under the context of war. Terrorists engage in;

guerrilla warfare,
also spelled guerilla warfare, type of warfare fought by irregulars in fast-moving, small-scale actions against orthodox military and police forces and, on occasion, against rival insurgent forces, either independently or in conjunction with a larger political-military strategy.

Encyclopædia Britannica

Which brings us back to the OP, in discussing the tactics some (rightly) feel the focus shouldn't be on the methods but on the politics, the civic interaction as to why and how some feel so desperate as to resort to violence, so as to prevent it. As was my point, the teaching of politics is more important education than study consisting of;

''Your goal is to kill the MOST innocent civilians in order to get your message across,'' the assignment said.

*Such small scale actions have killed two and injured many of my Battalion in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[rubato]

"...

He congratulated Year 10 student Sarah Gilbert, who brought the matter to the deputy principal's attention.

Sarah said she was horrified with the assignment and asked the teacher for an alternative but was told she had to complete it.

".... "

.

Hi, I'm a dumfuck narc, my name is Sarah. I'm more stupid than a dirtclod, please run me for office as a conservative.

yrs,
rubato

[Sean]

So to review:

No, I don't think war and terrorism are the same thing. The IRA and abortion clinic bombers are terrorists on a small scale.

So warfare and terroris are very different things and the IRA and abortion clinic bombers (not terrorists in general but those two groups specifically... this becomes important later...) are terrorists (that's terrorists) on a small scale...

This is one way it is different from warfare; the strikes are less effective in gaining any advantage over the adversary.

That's it then, definitely different. Never could anybody confuse terrorism with any type of warfare... or could they?

Terrorists engage in;

guerrilla warfare,
also spelled guerilla warfare, type of warfare fought by irregulars in fast-moving, small-scale actions against orthodox military and police forces and, on occasion, against rival insurgent forces, either independently or in conjunction with a larger political-military strategy.

Encyclopædia Britannica

What the fuck? So it is warfare after all. Quick, rewrite the history books!

Hang on though...
So Al-Quaeda and Timothy McVeigh also indulged in a spot of guerilla warfare did they? The cheeky little tykes...


Loca, if you expect anyone to believe you mean what you say then it's probably best to keep track of what you post. You are now saying that terrorism is 'small scale' but you originally said that (and I quote) "The IRA and abortion clinic bombers are terrorists on a small scale".

So what it seems you are saying now is that the IRA are small scale even by the small scale of terrorism. Have I got it now?

[loCAtek]

Yes, warfare includes large and small scale tactics, terrorists having no nations nor standing armies; engage in small scale aggression (it's all they're capable of) to further their agendas.

Al Qaeda pulled off a high-profile(high body count) attack but technically it was not large scale; they did not achieve much strategic advantage over their adversary(the US) via military means of greater numbers nor greater ordinance.
They did terrorize the populous, but also galvanized them to resist such intimidation.

Battle won: jihad(war) lost.

As I understand it, the IRA has not achieved its goals by terrorist tactics but by its 'peace process' IOW Non-violent protest.


Meaning politics has more impact than terrorism.

[Sean]

You've really lost the plot now haven't you chuck...

[loCAtek]

Explain pls

[Sean]

And so Loca becomes the first poster on Plan B to edit her post beyond all recognition before asking me to explain my answer to the unedited post.

Hopefully the last too...

Tell you what Loca, you've just lost all credibility in my eyes as far as this thread goes so let's just forget about it.

[loCAtek]

Very well, if you don't want to explain/debate, granted.

[Sean]

What's to explain? My last post said it all. Why would I wish to debate with a poster who would do that to me?

[Gob]

Lo, could you re-post your original reply to Sean?

It's not good practice, some/most would say it's cheating, to change the meaning of your reply, and then expect others to be able to follow with logic.

[Lord Jim]

Lo, could you re-post your original reply to Sean?

I haven't been participating in or following this discussion very closely, but if indeed you have removed substantive relevant points from the debate you're engaged in here and rewritten earlier posts, I too call on you to repost your original reply.

[loCAtek]

Chingo, no se'

I usually edit my posts withing the first hour of my posting to 'clean up' and audit my publication. You can check the time tags to confirm that.

Intentional deception is not a part of that. I was not aware net debate was a speed event.