On Mon, 17 Sep 2001, you wrote: > The difference is subtle but important: to a terrorist, acts of terror are > expressive, while to a guerrilla, if they are used, acts of terror are > instrumental. I'm guessing the actors behind the WTC bombings had no > thought that they would thereby change US policy in the Mideast or > elsewhere. As Osama bin Laden has said in another context, his goal is to > kill Americans and other unbelievers and Satanic representatives. You should not assume that sombody who is demonised by the media has no rational goals. He has a perfectly rational goal - the withdrawal of US forces from the middle east. The use of massive force against military and economic targets in the USA was a perfectly rational military strategy, in no way different except in scale, audacity and skill from the actions of the IRA in targeting similar targets in England. In both cases the aim is classical Clauswitz, politics by other means. Over a period of years it can be anticipated that US public opinion will come to favour withdrawal from the middle east. The IRA have had at least partial sucess by such a strategy. > > >Dear All, > > > >Could anybody distinguish between the terrorist and the guerrilla? > >I am purplexed. > > > >Chai-on > > -- Paul Cockshott paul@cockshott.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Oct 02 2001 - 00:00:06 EDT