The female of the species is more deadly than the male

D

Deleted member 45466

They still 'use violence to achieve political objectives'. The main difference between the two is that non state actors and groups do not have the press power that nations do - so they tend to be called terrorists and when nations undertake terrorist actions they call it war or 'operations' or some other term. The term itself is loaded.

Rather than terrorist being a designation (which is what warmongering nations want to do) it should refer to a kind of behaviour - eg blowing up a bus full of civilians, bombing a school or hospital or bridge. A siege against a civilian population. Detention without trial used against a civilian population to quell political dissent. A coup. Anything where people's legitimate aspirations are curtailed through violence or fear of it.

I am not happy with mercenaries or foreign fighters either, neither have any legitimacy - there is no justification for foreign fighters in Syria for example. A special designation of evil (not currently invented) needs to be produced for people who fight in other people's wars - prolonging them.
I did cite the state apparatus's use of terrorist organisations (by proxy) to achieve political objectives.

My point earlier was a clarification viz. Terrorists may use irregular methods to fight for a cause, but that doesn't make them irregular troops, as stated by Ratio. So referring to Mairead Farrell as an irregular soldier is incorrect IMO, since she was fighting against the state with no regard for the rules of war.

I do think the definition has become somewhat blurred as conventional battlefields have been superseded by asymmetric warfare (a result of the evolution and increased sophistication of arms perhaps?). The state increasingly has come to rely on dirty warfare to eliminate terrorists, and has occasionally transformed into one (e.g 70s Argentina).

I think the distinction between state terror and terrorist is related to citizen support. Was it Larry of Arabia who stated that he could only win a Guerrilla conflict if 98% of the population sympathised with the cause?
 


Karloff

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2015
Messages
6,952
My point earlier was a clarification viz. Terrorists may use irregular methods to fight for a cause, but that doesn't make them irregular troops, as stated by Ratio. So referring to Mairead Farrell as an irregular soldier is incorrect IMO, since she was fighting against the state with no regard for the rules of war.
The provos styled themselves as an army, they had no majority mandate to do so (though a sizeable minority mandate they had) there is no authority in the world who passes out the designation army to petitioners - who is to say such and such is an army or a guerilla movement. The provos had the structure of an army and a wide variety of weapons types - they also had an ethos that predominately for them identified military, police and paramilitary forces as their opponents rather than civilians. While i do sympathise with your point it is not cut and dry, Mairead Farrell could have been a soldier.

Plenty of military forces around the globe universally considered 'army' also have no regard for the laws of war. The US army is an army that has a fluid attitude to the laws of war. Plenty of military forces around the globe have no mandate and are hated.

A foreign power invading a country is almost always without a mandate from the country being invaded.
 
D

Deleted member 45466

As you say the IRA, unlike the BA, didn't have a majority mandate.

So the distinction ultimately rests with an electoral mandate?

I agree with you on many of your points, and the question you posed when we first exchanged opinions gives food for thought.
 

Cahal

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2014
Messages
880
D

Deleted member 45466

So basicly all the armed forces in the world.
No.

For example, Irish Political parties achieve their objectives through electoral mandate, as do most other political parties in the EU.
 

madmullah

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 3, 2016
Messages
612
Can anyone tell me as to why there appears to be over representation of women in all of the various DF PR articles. Women may only make up 5-7% ? of the Df but they appear in almost every article.
 

silverharp

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
18,376
:lol:

 

Dedogs

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 17, 2012
Messages
6,278
Can anyone tell me as to why there appears to be over representation of women in all of the various DF PR articles. Women may only make up 5-7% ? of the Df but they appear in almost every article.
whats df mate????
 


Top Bottom