Something that has been bothering me lately. It's about resistance movements in the past and present. When I was younger I thought of resistance movements like the French Resistance, who were depicted as brave heroes fighting the Nazis. In the aftermath of the Iraq war, I got a different impression. Sure the Iraqi insurgents would attack US soldiers (typically ineffectively), but they seemed to do the most damage murdering and terrorizing the civilian population. Civilians who had no choice in what they were doing, who were simply stuck between the US forces and the insurgents. It occurred to me that these attacks had the purpose of enforcing political loyalty in the populace through terror. Ignoring the issue of occupation and whether it was just or not, that sort of behavior seems difficult to defend (though I'm certain there are plenty of people who do defend it).
What I wondered, were other "resistance heroes", like those in Europe fighting the Nazis engaging in similar activities. Are these tactics an integral competent of asymmetrical warfare?
Almost certainly true, especially in the East. Civilians marked as collaborators are almost always marked for death, no matter where. That said, I doubt that partisans need to attack civilians in areas where there is already a powerful sentiment against the occupiers.
Quote from: DGuller on July 31, 2012, 09:37:06 AM
Almost certainly true, especially in the East. Civilians marked as collaborators are almost always marked for death, no matter where. That said, I doubt that partisans need to attack civilians in areas where there is already a powerful sentiment against the occupiers.
It would seem that civilians have no choice in the matter. After all, they have to work. Mail men must delivery their packages, grocers sell their food, etc.
In Iraq the thing wasn't so much "Occupiers out, old regime back" as with most resistance movements but instead "Occupiers are obviously leaving sometime but hopefully ASAP, we should be the new government, not those other guys!".
A bit of a different situation to resistance movements in an ongoing war ala France in WW2.
There wasn't too much in the way of civilian attacks in western WW2 resistance. Not compared to Iraq anyway. They did mostly stick to quite solidly German targets, not much in the way of bombing random markets and the like.
But then yeah, that really sucks for those civilians who happen to work in industries that help the war effort and so find themselves around valid military targets- dockers, railway men and the like.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 31, 2012, 09:41:40 AM
Quote from: DGuller on July 31, 2012, 09:37:06 AM
Almost certainly true, especially in the East. Civilians marked as collaborators are almost always marked for death, no matter where. That said, I doubt that partisans need to attack civilians in areas where there is already a powerful sentiment against the occupiers.
It would seem that civilians have no choice in the matter. After all, they have to work. Mail men must delivery their packages, grocers sell their food, etc.
Soldiers who are drafted and sent to the front don't have an embarrassment of riches either when it comes to choices.
Most European WWII resistance groups didn't have any access to enemy civilian populations. Post war ideological combattants in contrast did. North Koreans and Viet Cong happily killed the hell out of class enemies and running dog lackeys.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 31, 2012, 04:12:18 PM
Most European WWII resistance groups didn't have any access to enemy civilian populations. Post war ideological combattants in contrast did. North Koreans and Viet Cong happily killed the hell out of class enemies and running dog lackeys.
I think Raz was talking about own population under occupation. It's not like Iraqi suicide bombers have bombed American civilians, with some minor exceptions.
As for the enemy civilians during WWII, you don't have to even look at partisans. Allies readily and deliberately bombed entire cities. Likewise, there are stories out there about Germans targeting unarmed civilian population as well.
The issue Raz is missing here is that the main difference is that in on case the French Resistance cared more for french civilian lives than the germans; but meanwhile both sides agreed to a certain code of war. In the case of Iraq US occupation forces were more concerned with loss of human life than the insurgents and the insurgents operated with a code of ethics far outside any comprehend-able view of legitimate means of fighting.
Most "resistence movements" in Western Europe during WW2 were quite marginal. They could be complete 'good guys' because they didn't really do all that much - most of their activities were either to serve the Allies with espionage and the like or to sustain civilian morale through primarlily symbolic activities.
The reason is pretty simple: Western Europe generally lacks the sort of landscape in which large-scale guerilla movements can survive. The few times actual uprisings were attempted the Nazis had little difficulty in crushing them.
In contrast, in places where active guerilla movements were established, like Yugoslavia, they tended to be thoroughly unpleasant.
Hence, in Western Europe an exaggerated respect for the humanity of resistance movements has lingered - because by and large they *were* humane. What they were not, was very significant or active outside of espionage and morale. It is very difficult if not impossible to run an active guerilla movement humanely. I can't think of any examples off the top.
Quote from: Viking on July 31, 2012, 04:45:59 PM
The issue Raz is missing here is that the main difference is that in on case the French Resistance cared more for french civilian lives than the germans; but meanwhile both sides agreed to a certain code of war. In the case of Iraq US occupation forces were more concerned with loss of human life than the insurgents and the insurgents operated with a code of ethics far outside any comprehend-able view of legitimate means of fighting.
The French Resistance is an example of a resistance movement that wasn't so indiscriminate, sure (but then again the size of the French Resistance is likely vastly over-stated).
But the east is what gets trickier.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 31, 2012, 09:30:35 AMWhat I wondered, were other "resistance heroes", like those in Europe fighting the Nazis engaging in similar activities. Are these tactics an integral competent of asymmetrical warfare?
Yup, absolutely.
A big concern of the various resistance movements during world war II was liquidating collaborators. However, I think in many cases the resistance myth, even at the time, had it that most of the local population was opposed to the occupiers even if they were fairly passive, so the temptation to go for average civillians was relatively low I believe. But I don't think there were any compunctions about terrorizing civillians who were seen as collaborators.
Quote from: Malthus on July 31, 2012, 04:46:36 PM
Most "resistence movements" in Western Europe during WW2 were quite marginal. They could be complete 'good guys' because they didn't really do all that much - most of their activities were either to serve the Allies with espionage and the like or to sustain civilian morale through primarlily symbolic activities.
The reason is pretty simple: Western Europe generally lacks the sort of landscape in which large-scale guerilla movements can survive. The few times actual uprisings were attempted the Nazis had little difficulty in crushing them.
In contrast, in places where active guerilla movements were established, like Yugoslavia, they tended to be thoroughly unpleasant.
Hence, in Western Europe an exaggerated respect for the humanity of resistance movements has lingered - because by and large they *were* humane. What they were not, was very significant or active outside of espionage and morale. It is very difficult if not impossible to run an active guerilla movement humanely. I can't think of any examples off the top.
The French resistance didn't have to launch attacks designed to show the incompetence of the Vichy government, either. The areas of France where the resistance was most active was in German-administered France, and the Resistance didn't have to convince Frenchmen to hate Germans.
The Maquis did try to attack "collaborators" in a terrorist fashion in early 1941, but that campaign ended pretty quickly as the German reprisals were swift and vicious. Plus, by June 1941, the Communists had joined the resistance, and they had a policy of suborning/blackmailing collaborators, rather than assassinating them.
The savage guerrilla/death squad movements tended to operate where the question of legitimacy was up in the air. Terrorism under those circumstances was often justified by the argument that it showed that the other side couldn't protect its own people.
Quote from: Barrister on July 31, 2012, 04:48:16 PM
Quote from: Viking on July 31, 2012, 04:45:59 PM
The issue Raz is missing here is that the main difference is that in on case the French Resistance cared more for french civilian lives than the germans; but meanwhile both sides agreed to a certain code of war. In the case of Iraq US occupation forces were more concerned with loss of human life than the insurgents and the insurgents operated with a code of ethics far outside any comprehend-able view of legitimate means of fighting.
The French Resistance is an example of a resistance movement that wasn't so indiscriminate, sure (but then again the size of the French Resistance is likely vastly over-stated).
But the east is what gets trickier.
I didn't say the Maquis were not indiscriminate, I'm saying they operated under a code of conduct accepted by both the occupiers and the occupied. Killing and threatening collaborators was acceptable to the society as a whole. The murderer knows that murder is wrong and in a sense accepts the risk, getting caught and punished is not unfair or unjust, it is merely very unfortunate.
I know the norwegian resistance best of all. Outside of the communists (evil murdering stalin loving traitors imho) the four great events of resistance
- murder of a collaborator who was about to "out" resistance members to their death
- bombing of a Todt-Org registration center getting ready for work conscription resulting in half a dozen deaths
- sinking of a ship transporting jews to Auschwitz (Max Manus (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1029235/))(before the jews were put on board btw)
- sinking of the ferry transporting heavy water to the nazi bomb project killing a good deal of people
Some of these fall within my definition of terrorism (the exploitation of the protection afforded to civilians to conduct acts of war and war crimes) but they fall within the idea of fair play in war as seen by both sides (though the todt-org bit certainly is in a grey area).
In iraq the resistance doesn't play by any form of rules and expediency is the only rule. Thats what happens when you get your morality from a book.
Quote from: Viking on July 31, 2012, 05:46:13 PM
Some of these fall within my definition of terrorism (the exploitation of the protection afforded to civilians to conduct acts of war and war crimes)
So long as you understand that that definition doesn't match with any of the generally accepted definitions of terrorism, you can use that as your personal definition, I suppose. Just be careful not to use the word terrorism in conversations/posts without noting that you have this personal definition.
Quote from: grumbler on July 31, 2012, 06:00:29 PM
Quote from: Viking on July 31, 2012, 05:46:13 PM
Some of these fall within my definition of terrorism (the exploitation of the protection afforded to civilians to conduct acts of war and war crimes)
So long as you understand that that definition doesn't match with any of the generally accepted definitions of terrorism, you can use that as your personal definition, I suppose. Just be careful not to use the word terrorism in conversations/posts without noting that you have this personal definition.
1 - that is why I point out that it is my own definition of terrorism and I define it
2 - almost every definition of terrorism is either completely inconsistent with who the definer calls a terrorist or the definition is "somebody who I don't like who uses violence against civilians" (with the highly variable definitions of violence and civilians that only amoral expedience can muster).
3 - I take the crux of your point is that I should do as I did and not do something I didn't do.
Actually Masjid Nahwaz's definition of Terrorism (takes one to know one) is almost identical to mine. He defines it as a war crime carried out by a non-soldier. It's just that when people who share objectives or sympathize with the objective of terrorists (there is almost certainly a terrorist group with the same objectives you) decide that abandon expediency as a justification for violence then this is the definition they end up with. The rest of the definitions of terrorist usually include some nasty circumlocution or obfuscation so that it includes your enemies but excludes your friends.
Quote from: Viking on July 31, 2012, 06:15:02 PM
Actually Masjid Nahwaz's definition of Terrorism (takes one to know one) is almost identical to mine. He defines it as a war crime carried out by a non-soldier.
Interesting.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 31, 2012, 06:27:09 PM
Quote from: Viking on July 31, 2012, 06:15:02 PM
Actually Masjid Nahwaz's definition of Terrorism (takes one to know one) is almost identical to mine. He defines it as a war crime carried out by a non-soldier.
Interesting.
Note my definition includes both war crimes and acts of war carried out by non-soldiers.
While in general I really don't like the guy and disgree with him on too many things what he did do is as an islamist realize that the means taint the ends in addition to amnesty fighting for his rights realized that his ends weren't that hot either.
Theologically he is in the same place a Tariq Ramadan in basically agreeing that the koran says to kill the infidels but asserting that it is just stupid to actually do it.
Quote from: Viking on July 31, 2012, 06:15:02 PM
3 - I take the crux of your point is that I should do as I did and not do something I didn't do.
Exactly. You could work on conciseness, too, but that's optional.
QuoteActually Masjid Nahwaz's definition of Terrorism (takes one to know one) is almost identical to mine. He defines it as a war crime carried out by a non-soldier.
That's fine if you want to restrict terrorism to wars, but I don't think that that is a very useful restriction (nor do i think it is very useful to consider all war crimes committed by civilians to be terrorism, since terrorism is all about motives).
According to you and Nahwaz, if a Japanese fisherman out in Tokyo Bay in 1945 clubs a surrendering downed American airman in a raft with the fisherman's oar, because that fisherman just had his family killed by the raid the American was in, that is an act of terrorism. It is a war crime (failure to accept surrender) and committed by a civilian (a fisherman). You'll find that a hard sell, I think.
But, so long as you make clear you are using terrorism in a unique fashion, you can make that argument, however unconvincing it is.
Quote from: grumbler on July 31, 2012, 06:49:59 PM
Quote from: Viking on July 31, 2012, 06:15:02 PM
3 - I take the crux of your point is that I should do as I did and not do something I didn't do.
Exactly. You could work on conciseness, too, but that's optional.
How about you work on your spelling and I'll work on my con
sciousness.
Quote from: grumbler on July 31, 2012, 06:49:59 PM
QuoteActually Masjid Nahwaz's definition of Terrorism (takes one to know one) is almost identical to mine. He defines it as a war crime carried out by a non-soldier.
That's fine if you want to restrict terrorism to wars, but I don't think that that is a very useful restriction (nor do i think it is very useful to consider all war crimes committed by civilians to be terrorism, since terrorism is all about motives).
According to you and Nahwaz, if a Japanese fisherman out in Tokyo Bay in 1945 clubs a surrendering downed American airman in a raft with the fisherman's oar, because that fisherman just had his family killed by the raid the American was in, that is an act of terrorism. It is a war crime (failure to accept surrender) and committed by a civilian (a fisherman). You'll find that a hard sell, I think.
But, so long as you make clear you are using terrorism in a unique fashion, you can make that argument, however unconvincing it is.
It's just plain murder in the fisherman's case. Random civilians are not empowered to accept surrenders. You need to surrender to somebody in the chain of command or a belligerent.
Any rationalist type definition of anything from first principles will have exceptions. In the case of my definition almost every act considered to be a terrorist by the vast majority of relevant commentators not affiliated with one of the sides affected.
Quote from: Viking on July 31, 2012, 05:46:13 PM
I know the norwegian resistance best of all. Outside of the communists (evil murdering stalin loving traitors imho) the four great events of resistance
<snip>
- sinking of the ferry transporting heavy water to the nazi bomb project killing a good deal of people
That's one of the most famous partisan/guerilla operations ever.
QuoteIn iraq the resistance doesn't play by any form of rules and expediency is the only rule. Thats what happens when you get your morality from a book.
Just out of curiosity, form where exactly do you think WWII-era Norwegians got their morality?
Quote from: dps on July 31, 2012, 07:43:04 PM
Just out of curiosity, form where exactly do you think WWII-era Norwegians got their morality?
mitt først bok av moraler
Quote from: dps on July 31, 2012, 07:43:04 PM
Quote from: Viking on July 31, 2012, 05:46:13 PM
I know the norwegian resistance best of all. Outside of the communists (evil murdering stalin loving traitors imho) the four great events of resistance
<snip>
- sinking of the ferry transporting heavy water to the nazi bomb project killing a good deal of people
That's one of the most famous partisan/guerilla operations ever.
QuoteIn iraq the resistance doesn't play by any form of rules and expediency is the only rule. Thats what happens when you get your morality from a book.
Just out of curiosity, form where exactly do you think WWII-era Norwegians got their morality?
To avoid a Dawkins Hi-Jack, I'll just answer that question and if you want more details you can start an "Where do atheists get their morals from?" thread to deal with that.
On second thought I'll start one myself....
Quote from: Viking on July 31, 2012, 07:05:41 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 31, 2012, 06:49:59 PM
Exactly. You could work on conciseness, too, but that's optional.
How about you work on your spelling and I'll work on my consciousness.
:lmfao: How about you just read what is written, and not assume that words you don't know are just mis-spelled?
QuoteIt's just plain murder in the fisherman's case. Random civilians are not empowered to accept surrenders. You need to surrender to somebody in the chain of command or a belligerent.
It's terrorism, by your definition. Of course, your definition is flawed, so that doesn't much matter, but there you are.
QuoteAny rationalist type definition of anything from first principles will have exceptions. In the case of my definition almost every act considered to be a terrorist by the vast majority of relevant commentators not affiliated with one of the sides affected.
A definition that doesn't clearly distinguish between elements that are part of the class being defined and elements that are not is pretty useless. And your definition is certainly not from "first principals."
According to your definition, Timothy McVeigh was not a terrorist.
Quote from: Barrister on July 31, 2012, 04:48:16 PM
The French Resistance is an example of a resistance movement that wasn't so indiscriminate, sure (but then again the size of the French Resistance is likely vastly over-stated).
Really? People act like it was a pretty minor thing. Who is over-stating it? Charles de Gaulle?
Quote from: grumbler on July 31, 2012, 06:49:59 PM
Quote from: Viking on July 31, 2012, 06:15:02 PM
3 - I take the crux of your point is that I should do as I did and not do something I didn't do.
Exactly. You could work on conciseness, too, but that's optional.
QuoteActually Masjid Nahwaz's definition of Terrorism (takes one to know one) is almost identical to mine. He defines it as a war crime carried out by a non-soldier.
That's fine if you want to restrict terrorism to wars, but I don't think that that is a very useful restriction (nor do i think it is very useful to consider all war crimes committed by civilians to be terrorism, since terrorism is all about motives).
According to you and Nahwaz, if a Japanese fisherman out in Tokyo Bay in 1945 clubs a surrendering downed American airman in a raft with the fisherman's oar, because that fisherman just had his family killed by the raid the American was in, that is an act of terrorism. It is a war crime (failure to accept surrender) and committed by a civilian (a fisherman). You'll find that a hard sell, I think.
But, so long as you make clear you are using terrorism in a unique fashion, you can make that argument, however unconvincing it is.
Is it actually a war crime if Japan was not signatory to the Geneva Convention?
Quote from: Razgovory on July 31, 2012, 09:30:35 AMIn the aftermath of the Iraq war, I got a different impression. Sure the Iraqi insurgents would attack US soldiers (typically ineffectively), but they seemed to do the most damage murdering and terrorizing the civilian population. Civilians who had no choice in what they were doing, who were simply stuck between the US forces and the insurgents.
Iraq was a civil war. The US just happened to be there, presiding over it and an occasional target. The civilians were the targets being cleansed from their neighbourhoods or propaganda of the deed style attacks - such as the bombing of al-Askari Mosque.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on August 01, 2012, 09:54:52 AM
Is it actually a war crime if Japan was not signatory to the Geneva Convention?
Yes.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 01, 2012, 09:59:23 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 31, 2012, 09:30:35 AMIn the aftermath of the Iraq war, I got a different impression. Sure the Iraqi insurgents would attack US soldiers (typically ineffectively), but they seemed to do the most damage murdering and terrorizing the civilian population. Civilians who had no choice in what they were doing, who were simply stuck between the US forces and the insurgents.
Iraq was a civil war. The US just happened to be there, presiding over it and an occasional target. The civilians were the targets being cleansed from their neighbourhoods or propaganda of the deed style attacks - such as the bombing of al-Askari Mosque.
This doesn't preculde that that there was also a resistance movement. Take Yugoslavia for example in WWII.
Or Greece. You're right, I just mean it's wrong I'm this case to view civilians as inadvertent victims of a resistance movement. They were often the target in a civil war in a collapsing state.
I'm not seeing them as inadvertent casualties, but a primary objective.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on August 01, 2012, 09:54:52 AM
Is it actually a war crime if Japan was not signatory to the Geneva Convention?
Was that intended purely hypothetically? Because the Japanese were signatories.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 31, 2012, 09:30:35 AM
Something that has been bothering me lately. It's about resistance movements in the past and present. When I was younger I thought of resistance movements like the French Resistance, who were depicted as brave heroes fighting the Nazis. In the aftermath of the Iraq war, I got a different impression. Sure the Iraqi insurgents would attack US soldiers (typically ineffectively), but they seemed to do the most damage murdering and terrorizing the civilian population. Civilians who had no choice in what they were doing, who were simply stuck between the US forces and the insurgents. It occurred to me that these attacks had the purpose of enforcing political loyalty in the populace through terror. Ignoring the issue of occupation and whether it was just or not, that sort of behavior seems difficult to defend (though I'm certain there are plenty of people who do defend it).
What I wondered, were other "resistance heroes", like those in Europe fighting the Nazis engaging in similar activities. Are these tactics an integral competent of asymmetrical warfare?
One word: Muslims.
Diferent culture, diferent value of life, diferent view of what's right and wrong.
WW2 was an ideological war, but had it been a religious war, for at least one side of the war, things would have been exponentially worst.
The main reason the long war have not produced cassualties in the range of the wold wars, is precisely the asymetrical diferences between the combatants. The one with the ability to mass kill does not want to, and the one with the desire to mass kill does not have the capability. Even so, they do manage to do quite the damage on their local enemies that don't have the ability to resist, like civilians.
QuoteWW2 was an ideological war,
Eradicating entire ethnic groups-maybe most of the population of the planet-was a core tenant of National Socialism. This is in no way unambiguous.
Quote from: Queequeg on August 01, 2012, 08:12:59 PM
QuoteWW2 was an ideological war,
Eradicating entire ethnic groups-maybe most of the population of the planet-was a core tenant of National Socialism. This is in no way unambiguous.
Good point.
It is still an ideological war, and it is easier to compromise with a secular ideology than with a religious ideology.
Ottoman Dar el-'Ahd was invented. Things change. Ideology has the benefit of being younger.