Terrorism

[Brinn]

So how is it bad that a religion can act in the name of their god or moral right? Hasn't that been the justification used for most wars? Did no the Holy Crusades use that same excuse - the same wars that led to the massacre of innocents?

I know of many Christians who intepret the Bible so as to justify violence - witness the terrorist acts of anti-abortionists. In the light of my points, how does your argument stand?

Once again I can fall back on several of my previous posts in otherthreads !

I paraphrase several other posts of mine…

The Catholic Church has acknowledged that the Crusades were a dark time in their history and has apologized for them. Along similar lines the old testament contains many controversial verses that appear to condone practices such as genocide and other violent acts that are no longer part of church canon. Christianity has undergone a reformation and now, save for Christian Reconstructionists and other fringe hate groups, modern christian scholars and theologians go out of their way to reinterpret these verses so as to invalidate the notions that violence is to be condoned under any circumstances.

Islam has not undergone any reformation. Most Islamic states don't have separation of church and state, most efforts at reformation are not moving islam towards liberalization but rather towards stricter interpretation (e.g. wahabiism), and most importantly, in islamic society, sharia law amongst other things (Haddiths etc...) form the basis for law, government and society and cannot be seperated from the religion. Until islam secularizes education and closes the madrases, allows for scholarly criticism of the Koran instead of crying "infidel" at every occasion, accepts religious tolerance instead of forcing compliance through fear and persecution, and encourages democracy over theocracy and/or tyranny you will not see reformation.


To address your issue Avatar I ask if you have ever heard Jihad referred to as the sixth pillar? As I mention above I contend that Islam is moving towards stricter more fundamental (radical?) interpretations and most of them hold the concept of Jihad and armed struggle as central. I ask you to read the following transcript of Larry Elder's interview with Robert Spencer, Islamic scholar and author of "Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West". In this interview Elder addresses the question of violence as a core concept of Islamic religion.

Larry Elder: Is Islam a religion of peace that's been hijacked by Islamic extremists, as George W. Bush says?

Robert Spencer: There are millions of peaceful Muslims . . . but the fact is that radical Muslims are using core texts of Islam that are deeply rooted in Islamic theology, tradition, history and law to justify their actions, and those radical Muslims are able to recruit and motivate terrorists around the world by appealing to these core Islamic texts. . . . As far as the radical, violent elements of the religion go, they are very deeply rooted, and we are naive in the extreme if we don't recognize that and try to get moderate Muslims to acknowledge it so that real reform can take place.

Elder: Have some translations of the Koran taken out the more extreme statements?

Spencer: The only Koran that really matters is what's in Arabic, because as far as traditional Islamic theology goes, Allah . . . was speaking to Muhammad through the angel Gabriel, and the language is intrinsic, can't be separated from the message. The fact is that what's in Arabic is very clear . . . but in two opposite directions. What you have are very many verses of peace and tolerance, and also very many verses sanctioning and mandating violence against non-believers. . . . You find many moderate Muslim spokesmen and American-Muslim advocates in this country, who quote you the peaceful and tolerant verses, and no reference to the violent verses. . . . When you read Islamic theologians themselves . . . you find they actually confront this problem directly. . . . Some of the most respected thinkers in Islamic history say that when you come upon these kinds of disagreements -- where you see peace in one place and violence in the other -- you have to go with what was revealed last, that cancels out what was revealed before. Unfortunately, for the moderates, the violent verses were revealed later and they cancel out the peaceful ones -- but you won't hear this from the American Muslim advocacy groups. . . . What we need to see is a forthright acknowledgement of it and reform from moderate Muslims themselves, the same way that the Pope has apologized for the Crusades and Christianity at large . . . has repudiated the theology that gave rise to them. So we need to see . . . moderates on a large scale repudiating the theology that has led to violent jihad, which the radicals are using to justify their actions.

Elder: You write, "Muslims must present non-Muslims with the three choices of Sura 9:29 of the (Koran): conversion, submission with second-class status under Islamic rule, or death."

Spencer: Correct. This is a deeply rooted tradition in Islam. Islam is unique among religions in having a developed doctrine theology in law that mandates violence against non-believers. Not all Muslims take it seriously, but the radicals do, and they are working to recruit and motivate terrorists. So . . . whenever anybody says we want to institute Sharia Islamic law in a country, they mean these laws. They do not provide for the equality of rights and dignity of non-Muslims in a Muslim society . . . (but) mandate just the opposite -- that non-Muslims are not to be given equality of rights, but denied various jobs because they're not allowed to hold authority over Muslims. They must pay a special tax called the jizya, which is referred to in the verse you mentioned. . . . Their humiliation and inferior status is enforced with numerous other regulations, still part of Islamic law, and liable to be enforced by radical Muslims and who want to gain power and institute Islamic law. . . .

Like the Bible there can be many interpretations of the Koran however in Islam there is no synod nor figurehead like the Pope to provide ecclesiastical rulings or guidance thus factions can interpret the text as they see fit and there is nothing and no one to gainsay them.

[Loredoctor]

Thanks for the interesting read, Brinn! I see what you mean.

[Avatar]

Very interesting indeed. I have never heard of Jihad as the sixth pillar, but then, I have never had the opportunity to debate with an Islamic radical.

I suppose it comes down to the age old dichotomoy of all religion. People will extract what they feel is the most relevant parts of their religious teachings for themselves, act on those parts, and ignore the rest. Even should such reform and moderation occur in the perception of Islam by its adherents in general, there will still be elements who disregard it, even as in Christianity.

I notice that you didn't comment on my final paragraph though.
Could I ask you to consider my concern and let me know what you think?

Be Safe
--Avatar

[Brinn]

Well, since you asked so nicely!

Don't you think that this is then both unfair and misleading? After all, your interpretation suggests that the terrorism springing from radical militant Islam is the only terrorism worth fighting, and that suggests to me that the fight arises only from the perception of personal (American?) threat. If we're going to fight terrorism, surely all terrorists deserve to be fought, not just radical Islamic militants who threaten a particular power?

As you and others have noted, terrorism is not an enemy but rather a method for forwarding a cause. At its most basic level, true war is made on an identified and identifiable enemy. The war on terrorism (WOT) is simply a politically sensitive term (I would not object to calling it misleading) for what is fundamentally a war against militant Islam. IMHO, calling this war by its more accurate name sounds very judgmental and insensitive and we are uncomfortable with this because our western society and ideals place significant value on tolerance and inclusion and we are hesitant to pass judgment on a religious group. Having said that, at the UNITY 2004 conference in washington earlier this month, President Bush stated "We actually misnamed the war on terror. It ought to be [called] the struggle against ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies and who happen to use terror as a weapon to try to shake the conscience of the free world."

As for the term being unfair, I agree. I see it as unfair to both the west and to moderate Muslims worldwide as this PC sensitivity has precluded us from engaging in a frank discussion on the nature of Islam in the 21st century. Will it become a religion of violence and intolerance or will moderate voices within the Muslim community prevail and usher in an era of enlightened, tolerant and liberalized Islam. By avoiding this crucial dialogue we are merely avoiding the problem and through our silence allowing the outspoken radicals and militants to be recognized as the voice of Islam while moderates fail to speak out for fear of repudiation and threat from the militant.

I don’t suggest that Islamic terrorism is the only terrorism worth fighting but rather that it currently presents the most immediate danger to both the US and western civilization as a whole. Any critical analysis of modern terrorism must conclude that the vast majority of terrorist acts committed are being committed by militant Islam. This is not to say that other types of terrorism do not exist (e.g. The ETA (Spain), Aum Shinrikyo (Japan), Kahane Chai (Israel), Real IRA (Ireland), Shining Path (Peru), etc…) but rather that Islamic terrorism presents a more global and pervasive threat. For every non-Islamic terrorist organization there are five Islamic groups: The Abu Nidal Organization, Abu Sayyaf Group, Ansar Al-Islam, Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Armed Islamic Group, Asbat al-Ansar, Abu Nidal Organization, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, HAMAS, Islamic Resistance Movement , Harakat ul-Mujahidin, Hezbollah, The Islamic Group, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Al-Jihad, Jemaah Islamiya, The Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization, the Palestinian Liberation Front, The Palestinian Liberation Organization, AL Qaeda, the Salafist Group for Call and Combat. This is by no means an exhaustive list but I'm sure you get my point. Additionally the vast majority of these Islamic groups are related through the common cause of establishing a strict Islamic state in their region of operation. Countries such as Algeria, Egypt, the Phillipines, Saudia Arabia, Israel, Yemen, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Kashmir, India, Iran, Thailand, The US, Spain, Turkey, Iraq, Sudan, Somalia, and Nigeria among others have all been targets or have populations that have been targeted by Islamic terrorism. IMHO, I think there is abundant evidence to suggest that the misnamed WOT is not being fought solely because of the perception of threat to the US but rather as the vanguard for fundamental change in the Islamic world and the Middle east in particular.

Even should such reform and moderation occur in the perception of Islam by its adherents in general, there will still be elements who disregard it, even as in Christianity.

That is a true statement but it disregards the immense benefits of such a reformation on the premise that extremism will never be completely eradicated. I disagree with this. How often do we here of Christian terrorism in comparison to islamic terrorism? If the majority of muslims worldwide embraced reformation to the degree that Christianity has, I believe that terrorism, violent oppresion and subjugation of individuals rights would be greatly curtailed in the muslim world.

[CovenantJr]

"...ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies and who happen to use terror as a weapon to try to shake the conscience of the free world."

Sounds like a description of Mr Bush to me.

On that note, I'm going to scarper before Brinn comes back and kicks my ass

[Brinn]

Ahhhh Cov, you know I wouldn't be able to resist!

One liners are easy but add nothing of substance to the dialogue. If you truly believe what you say, explain and support your statement. I'll be more than pleased to debate you my friend.

[Avatar]

Brinn--A well reasoned, persuasive and honest post.

Put in those terms, I am hard-pressed to find something to argue with.

Give me a chance though
As soon as I can think of something, I'll be back

Also, I am pleased/ashamed to say that for once, Mr Bush's revised explanation makes better sense to me.

However, I must also say that I see what Cj is saying, in that his (Bush's) concept of a free society seems to be one which follows the Western ideal, i.e. representative democracy, regardless of whether this must be forced on a country, or whether they choose it for themselves.

Do we have the right to impose a governmental/societal model on anyone?
(and i'll give you the proviso that the existing model doesn't threaten or harm anyone)

Take it easy
--Avatar

[Brinn]

My short answer is that we don't have the right to impose a government or society on another sovereign nation. I have posted on this subject fairly extensively (It seems that when you discuss these matters the same issues always arise) and will post some snippets of that thread here as soon as I can locate them.

Your proviso forms the crux of the issue. Western society views individual freedom as the highest ideal (rightly so IMHO) and as long as an individual is free to choose his beliefs, religion, lifestyle etc...than I am all for live and let live. This works as long as the individuals beliefs do not cause harm to others or infringe on anothers rights to hold their own personal and distinct beliefs.

I think it would diificult to make the argument that Islam or Iraq have not threatened nor harmed anyone. No?

[Avatar]

Western society views individual freedom as the highest ideal (rightly so IMHO) and as long as an individual is free to choose his beliefs, religion, lifestyle etc...than I am all for live and let live. This works as long as the individuals beliefs do not cause harm to others or infringe on anothers rights to hold their own personal and distinct beliefs.

I certainly agree with you on this score, and it is also most definitely my opinion that individual freedom should be the highest concern of all people.

I think it would diificult to make the argument that Islam or Iraq have not threatened nor harmed anyone. No?

In a sense, yes. But I think we should qualify this statement, in that it is not Islam per se that has harmed people in the context you're talking about, but, as was agreed in a previous post, certain radical adherents of it.

As you say, the proviso is the crux of it. "And harm it none, do what ye will".

Peace
--Avatar

[Brinn]

Here we are Avatar! Found ‘em!

The following clips are part of previous discussions in the “Do you expect a terrorist attack of some kind in the future?” thread. I have paraphrased in places for clarity:

Modern western dialogue shies away from absolutes and avoids value judgments at all costs. I don't subscribe to this belief. I hold that tolerance, the right to self-determination, and freedom of belief (both personal and religious) are the highest good and I am willing to fight for my beliefs.

Certainly both sides (i.e. radical Islam and the modern West) will always think that they are correct but I believe that a secular democratic society is functionally and fundamentally superior as it allows for the co-existence of Islam whereas radical Islam does not allow for the existence of anything outside of itself. In my world evil is defined as the suppression of individual rights of self-expression, via forced conformity, to a maxim that one did not choose but has been forced to live under.

It is true that if we existed as a part of the greater Caliphate than we would present no problem but since we (the modern west) choose religious freedom, our existence does present a threat. Western ideals are considered subversive and cannot coexist within the theistic society of Islam. From the radical perspective, the values of the west and Islam are mutually exclusive. The west separates religion from society and that is unacceptable to fundamental Islam. In the west, religion does not have direct control over government, law or science whereas in Islam, it does. Islam is a way of life based upon divine governance of the universe and provides the entire framework for Muslim life. In fundamental Islam, religious, political and economic decisions are based upon the Koran and Sharia law alone. In contrast, Western society is based upon freedom and separation of church and state whereas Islam is founded upon virtue and religious authority. Democracy derives political authority from the people whereas Islam divines political authority from god. To the fundamentalist, these radically opposed ideals are antithetical and cannot be compromised thus there is no room for compromise. Either one or the other must succumb.

The whole thread was very lively and interesting. If you want to see it in context and in it’s entirety click here.

[Avatar]

tolerance, the right to self-determination, and freedom of belief (both personal and religious) are the highest good...

Thanks Brinn.

You make excellent points, and ones which I must agree with, particularly the extract above. In the context of this, the rest of your statements are almost self-evident. Your problem seems not to be with Islam in itself, but with the "control" aspect of any fundamentalist approach to any religion, it's insistence that it alone knows what is best for everybody and how to run things. (I woder if you apply this same reasoning to political groups? I think it is equally relevant to some of them.)

I agree completely that this is intolerable. No authority is in the position to tell people what to believe or how to conduct their everyday lives.

At the moment, a fundamentalist Islam is the most obvious incarnation of this "threat". Once it was communism, and perhaps one day it will be capitalist democracy.

Take it easy
--Avatar

[sindatur]

At the moment, a fundamentalist Islam is the most obvious incarnation of this "threat". Once it was communism, and perhaps one day it will be capitalist democracy.

Take it easy
--Avatar

Depending on who writes the history books or news stories, it already is Capitalist Democracy. Does anyone actually believe the "Arab on the street" isn't being told by their news sources, and religious leaders that the West's war on Terrorism isn't itself terrorism aimed at their Muslim Brethren?

Terrorism will never be removed as long as there are different ideologies. In the United States we have non-violent terrorism going on in the Political world. Bush is trying to scare the country into believing that we haven't got a prayer of surviving if he is replaced, likewise Kerry's team is trying to scare the country into believing we haven't got a prayer of surviving if Bush isn't replaced.

The Drug Lords in South America are Terrorists.

The Genetic cleansing in Sudan is Terrorism, and that's Muslim vs Muslim. It's just that the Arab Muslims are terrorizing and killing the Black Muslims.

It's all down to perspective.

If your Country was over-run by a more powerful country, wouldn't you be tempted to use what we refer to as Terrorist actions, if you had no other course of resistance, and were told not to accept the invasion?

Pro-Lifers bombing Abortion Clinics is Terrorism.

Rape or kidnapping is Terrorism.

The extremely religious personalities who want to scare Gay people into being straight are Terrorists (although the personalities themselves are non-violent, I can easily believe a great many Gay teen suicides are a direct result of these personalities convincing them they are an abomination, several Gay people have recently admitted on another board that they attempted suicide directly due to this when they younger)

[Avatar]

Another excellent post. I agree completely, especially about it being a matter of perspective. Everything is, I think.

Later
--Avatar

[Skyweir]

In the United States we have non-violent terrorism going on in the Political world. Bush is trying to scare the country into believing that we haven't got a prayer of surviving if he is replaced, likewise Kerry's team is trying to scare the country into believing we haven't got a prayer of surviving if Bush isn't replaced.

yup its all fear mongering! ..

tactics of fear!

Bush used these tactics to instigate the Iraq war ..

[onewyteduck]

Taking a moment to stop and reflect on the crazy downward spiral this world has taken over the past 3 years. Sometimes all you can do is shake your head and wonder what the hell is going on.

To those of you out there who are Police, Fire personnel or EMT's, WHEREVER you may live, a big thank you.

And, perhaps a glimmer of hope:
worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_12.html

Duck

[Brinn]

The following is excerpted from a column written by Jeff Jacoby and bears on the issue of internal voices of dissent within the Muslim world:

...Ali Abdullah, an Islamic scholar in Bahrain, announced that the bloodshed in Beslan "is the work of the Israelis who want to tarnish the image of Muslims." In London, Islamist cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed said he would support hostage-taking at British schools if it were done for a good reason. "If an Iraqi Muslim carried out an attack like that in Britain," he told the Daily Telegraph, "it would be justified because Britain has carried out acts of terrorism in Iraq."

Fortunately, a few Muslim commentators have denounced the evil being done in the name of Islam, and have done so courageously and unambiguously. (The Middle East Media Research Institute has compiled their reactions at www.memri.org.) One in particular stands out: an extraordinary column in the pan-Arabic daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat by Abdel Rahman al-Rashed, the general manager of the Al-Arabiya news channel. (An English translation was published in the Telegraph.)

"It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists," he begins, "but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims.

"The hostage-takers of the children in Beslan were Muslims. The hostage-takers and murderers of the Nepalese chefs and workers in Iraq were also Muslims. . . . The majority of those who manned the suicide bombings against buses, vehicles, schools, houses, and buildings all over the world were Muslim. . . . "What a pathetic record. What an abominable `achievement.' Does all this tell us anything about ourselves, our societies, and our culture?. . .

"We cannot tolerate in our midst those who abduct journalists, murder civilians, explode buses; we cannot accept them as related to us. . . . They are the people who have smeared Islam and stained its image. We cannot clear our names unless we own up to the shameful fact that terrorism has become an Islamic enterprise; an almost exclusive monopoly implemented by Muslim men and women.

"We cannot redeem our extremist youths, who commit all these heinous crimes, without confronting the sheiks who thought it ennobling to re-invent themselves as revolutionary ideologues, sending other people's sons and daughters to certain death, while sending their own children to European and American schools and colleges."

When it is no longer astonishing to encounter such sentiments in the Muslim world, we will we know that the corner has been turned in the war against Islamist terror.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[dlbpharmd]

Cal Thomas wrote a similar article:

Moderate, peaceful muslims — where is the evidence?

Following the massacre by mostly Muslim terrorists in Beslan, Russia, that killed, at last count, 338 people, including at least 156 children, and wounded hundreds of others, a rare voice of reason was heard from an unlikely place.

Abdulrahman al-Rashed, general manager of Al-Arabiya television in Dubai, wrote in a London Arabic newspaper, Asharq Al-Awsat, "Our terrorist sons are an end-product of our corrupted culture."

Under the headline "The Painful Truth: All the World Terrorists Are Muslims!," he wrote, "Most perpetrators of suicide operations in buses, schools and residential buildings around the world for the past 10 years have been Muslims." He also wrote that if Muslims want to change their image, they must "admit the scandalous facts," rather than disparage critics or justify terrorists' behavior.

As a good Baptist would say, "Amen!" It's about time somebody spoke the truth. From Russia to Iraq, from the Sudan to the Philippines, and from Madrid, Bali and Kenya to the World Trade Center in New York, a field in Pennsylvania and the Pentagon in Washington, one characteristic describes all of the killers: They are Muslims.

In the Russian killings, the news agency Itar-Tass reports that at least 10 of the 32 hostage terrorists were linked to al-Qaida or had ties to Arab nations. Despite these facts, major American media are going out of their way to cover up the obvious, preferring words such as "militants" and "extremists," and refusing in many cases to identify the religious motivation behind the killings.

The U.S. government is promoting "tolerance" and "diversity" sessions led by Muslim organizations, some of which have questionable ties to groups that have either supported or condemned with disingenuous statements killings by Muslim extremists, or sought to justify them because of policies promoted by Israel or the United States.

Repeatedly, these mandatory sessions tell government employees that Islam is a peaceful religion from which they have nothing to fear. If that is so, why aren't the "moderates" leading an army of their own and crushing the "infidels" who have supposedly "hijacked" this "peaceful religion"?

"Moderate" Islamic clerics should defrock and denounce other clerics who preach hate and the destruction of Christians, Jews and all things Western. These diversity and sensitivity sessions should be held in countries that harbor and train terrorists and export terrorism as a religious mandate and a national policy.

Instead, we hear from Ali Abdullah, an Islamic scholar in Bahrain, who said of the massacre in Russia: "I have no doubt that this is the work of the Israelis who want to tarnish the image of Muslims and are working alongside Russians who have their own agenda against the Muslims in Chechnya." Omar Bakri Mohammed, the leader of the extremist sect al-Muhajiroun, told London's Sunday Telegraph (Sept 5), "If an Iraqi Muslim carried out an attack like (the Russian massacre) in Britain, it would be justified because Britain has carried out acts of terrorism in Iraq."

It gives a whole new meaning to "women and children first." Mohammed's interview was in conjunction with a "celebratory" conference in London this weekend to commemorate the third anniversary of the September 11 attacks on the United States.

It's long past time to ditch political correctness and identify the enemy, which is not disembodied "terrorism" but radical Islamists who commit terror in the perverted name of their god.

A report from The Institute of World Politics in Washington claims that Saudi Arabia has spent tens of millions of dollars on indoctrinating American soldiers and prison inmates in radical Islamic ideology and that its goal is to create insurgency cells in the United States devoted to the Wahhabi agenda.

The Muslim vote may go to John Kerry this time (it mostly went for President Bush in 2000) because Kerry is perceived by some Muslim leaders as potentially more sympathetic to their objective of ending support for Israel and eliminating the Patriot Act, which has kept an eye on people and places known for Islamic extremist behavior and potential jihadists who want to kill us.

We should be listening to the likes of Abdulrahman al-Rashed or, for a reality check, former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, whom last October called on the world's 1.3 billion Muslims to unite against "a few million Jews," whom he said rule the world and get others to fight and die for them.

Moderate? Peaceful? Where is the evidence?

[[Syl]]

Siege Prompts Self-Criticism in Arab Media
MAGGIE MICHAEL
Associated Press
CAIRO, Egypt - Muslims worldwide are the main perpetrators of terrorism, a humiliating and painful truth that must be acknowledged, a prominent Arab writer and television executive wrote Saturday, as Middle East media and officials expressed horror at the bloody rebel siege of a Russian school.

www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/worl ... tstory.jsp

[ZefaLefeLaH]

This is how you deal with terrorism.

September 9, 2001. An investigation is immediately launched.



October 9, 2001. The following cities in Afghanistan are hit with nuclear bombs: Kyerabad, Mazar-e, Shir Khan, Konduz, Bagram, Kabul, Ghazni, Kandahar, Zaranj, Shindand, Heart, & Towraghondi. Every single one of these major cities are leveled. 4 million people die instantly. 10 million more die over the next few weeks.


The next time someone gets a wise idea to attack the USA they'll have to think about the fact that the last assholes that did that lost every city in their nation & all their relatives & now there's nothing to fight for in Afghanistan and all of the cities will be inhabitable for the next 10,000 years.

No one would attack the USA again. Ever.

[Avatar]

No one would attack the USA again. Ever.

I pretty much disagree. You don't seem to take into account that the majority of people considered "terrorists" are the poor and dispossesed. Do you think that the majority of those people head merrily off home, and sit and wait for retaliation?

Terror doesn't have a country, a city, or an address. It exists only in the hearts and minds of those who carry it out. A solution such as the one you propose may "get" some of them, and it would certainly get some of their families, but all it would effectivley accomplish would be to convince the terrorists that there cause was even more righteous, and to encourage more and worse attacks.

Don't foget, it's not countries per se that are responsible, it's people who don't have great armies or the resources to conduct conventional war who are terrorists. It's the weapon of the poor, of the "friendless", those who can see no other viable means of combating world power.

And lets be honest here, it is perhaps the only way that an insignificant faction can have any hope of attacking a super-power. Individually, they can do more damage than if they all banded together and actually launched a conventional assault. Much more.

If we leave aside all matters of morality, and approach it as a war-game, strategically/militarily speaking, it's an effective tactic. As I said, perhaps the only tactic that could be used with any hope, however small, of success.

Ask any military commander of conventional forces in history, from Wellington and Napoleon to Hitler: Geurilla Wars are the worst kind to fight. Hell, ask the British commanders in the American war of independance, or the Boer wars...(500 000 British soldiers against 28 000 Boers, it was Britains bloodiest and hardest fought struggle until WWI...interestingly, and tellingly I think, the Boers themselves called them the Freedom Wars).

And what about the deaths of the innocent ten million? Are those acceptable losses? Especially if the effectiveness of such a strategy is so questionable?

--Avatar