You are a guerrilla...

[First Crusader]

Low Intensity conflicts dot the globe, whether we like it or not. We are just going to have to accept them as the normal, sensible way to fight. No law or UN Human Rights committee is going to stop it. Thanks to modern technology and weaponry, guerrillas now have the means to wage war without the money and resources of a nation.

Now the ethical question that this poll is all about. If you were the leader of a guerrilla organization like the right-wing paramilitary teams of Columbia, the Marxists of Africa, or the GIA (Wacko Islamic terrorist group), what methods of warfare would you think are ethical enough to use against your enemies?

[chaco taco]

I think torture and everything above it. Torture just because what nation dosn't? when you need information, theres no other way to interrogate them, showing mercy would just show weakness, and your enemies will thrive on it.

Kidnap ransom and prisoner exchange seems a bit innefective to me if per say i lead a guerilla force, It would show yourself to often as a terroists then a freedom fighter(freedom fighter, which is what you mostly want the world community to see you as)

Assasination can be useful, but can be very risky as if you kill a the enemy naition's leader, then you might either have negative or positive outcomes, for instance either it would distabilize somewhat the countries morale or increase it as you might have killed a beloved leader or their people. I think Assasination is best used against lesser known but still important players within a war, like maybe supporters within your own country of the army invading you.

And Ambush of military forces pretty much defines what a guriella fighters style of warfare does it not?

[1{H][NA]

i would only launch be willing full scale attacks against civilians if there was a forced colonization by foreign civilians in my homeland. but i would not launch attacks against civilians on their own soil(ie 9/11).

i wouldnt use torture because it has been shown that torture is a very ineffective way of extracting information or converting ideas.

other than that, if i did not care about public opinion, than i would be willing to implement all the other tactics. but in today's world, public opinion can be as important as any weapon.

[First Crusader]

I agree with Chaco. Everybody uses torture. Torture is just beating someone in the face until he tells you what you want to know. Very effective.

[MadBurgerMaker]

I agree with Chaco. Everybody uses torture. Torture is just beating someone in the face until he tells you what you want to know. Very effective.

Well...you dont want to hurt them so badly that they tell you whatever you want to hear just to make you stop.

[1{H][NA]

I agree with Chaco. Everybody uses torture. Torture is just beating someone in the face until he tells you what you want to know. Very effective.

According to the CIA, the best way to extract inforamtion is to try to come to terms with the person and treat them in a respectable manner. in turn, they will begin to respect you. so you basically have to try and be friends with the person, and thats when you get the best intel. people who get beat will say tell you the sky is green just to get you to stop.

i think the thread is more about what are ethical tactics more than what are effective tactics.

[Tigran of Sasoun]

America is good at torture these days, i whatched a good documentry from FRONTLINE, made me sick!

But for guerrilla tactics i think only attacking military targets, and if you catch a few of the enemy u interegate them for info or torture to get info. Guerrilla warfare is a very hard fought battle, especially when there are 2 armies using the same tactics and it is hard to avoid civilian causualties.

[First Crusader]

According to the CIA, the best way to extract inforamtion is to try to come to terms with the person and treat them in a respectable manner. in turn, they will begin to respect you. so you basically have to try and be friends with the person, and thats when you get the best intel. people who get beat will say tell you the sky is green just to get you to stop.

i think the thread is more about what are ethical tactics more than what are effective tactics.

The "secret" to the Russians' success in interigation is just kicking and punching the guy in the face and groin until he talks. It doesn't take very long...

Despite what you see in movies - NOBODY can stand up to torture. The human mind and body is just too weak, even in the most determined person.

Anyway, what is the point of getting a prisoner to "respect" you? He still won't tell you anything until you force him to.

[Bwaho]

Torture is just beating someone in the face until he tells you what you want to know. Very effective.

I wondered about this. How do you know if he's telling the truth? If you ask him where his friends are he can just make something up because it's not like hes got anything to lose. If he tells the truth they might kill him after and if he lies they might kill him.

[bigfootedfred]

I wondered about this. How do you know if he's telling the truth? If you ask him where his friends are he can just make something up because it's not like hes got anything to lose. If he tells the truth they might kill him after and if he lies they might kill him.

and often, theyd just say anyhting to make the pain stop (tortue is alot more than hitting someone in the face)
Tortue is internationaly known, as a very unrealiable source of information.

[First Crusader]

I wondered about this. How do you know if he's telling the truth? If you ask him where his friends are he can just make something up because it's not like hes got anything to lose. If he tells the truth they might kill him after and if he lies they might kill him.

It is very difficult to think that logically while under extreme pain. You just hope it will stop if you tell the truth.

If the prisoner tells you something, just keep hitting him so he thinks you know he is lying.

"1984", by George Orwell, describes a proper interrigation in apalling detail.

[Farnan]

Only ambushing enemy military forces is ethical and effective. The rest ruin your cause as it hurts your standing with foreign nations and have you labeled as terroists. If you isolate your rebellion from the rest of the world, you ruin your cause.

[random hero]

Only ambushing enemy military forces is ethical and effective. The rest ruin your cause as it hurts your standing with foreign nations and have you labeled as terroists. If you isolate your rebellion from the rest of the world, you ruin your cause.

I chose the same but don't agree with the reason. But really, I'm thinking here as if my country was invaded (by a neutral nation, in that they are simply conquerers) and I rose up to fight them, where I would not kill their civilians or torture them. It would depend for me, say if we were talking World War II here, and the Nazis invaded my land, I would use just about any means neccessary to destroy them. Overall I'd have to say simply ambush.

[Tiwaz]

I chose the same but don't agree with the reason. But really, I'm thinking here as if my country was invaded (by a neutral nation, in that they are simply conquerers) and I rose up to fight them, where I would not kill their civilians or torture them. It would depend for me, say if we were talking World War II here, and the Nazis invaded my land, I would use just about any means neccessary to destroy them. Overall I'd have to say simply ambush.

You know, invader is invader. There is never a difference.

That said...

In case of invasion I would go for overall unlimited war when it comes to invaders and collaborators (those of my countrymen who support and aid the invaders by joining their organisations voluntarily) as well as trying to cause destruction in the homeland of the invader.

Though everything has to be done in suitable way. Simple terror against civilias would be ineffective but attacks which cause them extreme worry would be more efficient. For example if I managed to contaminate water supply of a city I would at first do it with nonlethal but very uncomfortable viruses/bacteria. Nothing like good diarrhea for civvies and suitably worded political message to go with it. They are not hurt enough to make them angry but they feel their own vulnerability.

[random hero]

You know, invader is invader. There is never a difference.

So there is no difference between an invader who siezes your land and an invader who siezes your land and exterminates your people? I do not agree at all.

[Jesus The Inane]

I voted for all of them. Its call moral terror. Since your cause is moral, your terror is moral.

For those who said that kidnapping wasn't ethical or a good strategy I say this; where are you gonna get money to buy guns? To pay your men? To get the food?

And as for the civilians... you gotta give them terror so that they will fear you and do as you say. Like in Vietnam; how the Vietcong would come to the villages that were helping the USA, or just being friendly to them, and killling them. This really helps you bring the enemies morale down. The more bloody you fight the war, the less willing will the government be of prolonging the war.

And as for "a final glorious charge" I say yeah, in a sense. Some acts of suicide will inspired your men, bring some support from some civilians as you become a martyr, and will make thine enemy fear you more. Now ofcourse, not send your entire regiment into a suicide mission, but individual soldiers performing such altruistic deeds, yes.

EDIT: Torture might not give one truthful information, but it adds to the terror. And this terror is good for your cause since enemy soldiers might lose morale and fear you, will make civilians obey you, and heck, maybe, and depending on the individual being torture, give you the information you need.

[Tiwaz]

So there is no difference between an invader who siezes your land and an invader who siezes your land and exterminates your people? I do not agree at all.

No actual difference. Both come and impose their will on you. You spoke of "neutral" invader. There is nothing "neutral" in invasion. Every invader is hostile.


For Farnan...

You forget something about Iraq... It does not have unified resistance. Iraq resistance is made of huge amount of various groups with different agendas which can even conflict with one another. From marginal groups of foreign fighters to patriots fighting invaders, old Saddamists, Shias fighting war with Sunnis, Sunnis fighting war with Shias...

As for goverment becoming more shia... Big surprise. It would have taken place, perhaps even faster, without terrorism. It is foolish to assume old grudges would be buried and there would be HONEST cooperation between the three ethnicities.

[Erik]

I voted all except torture and unlimmited terrorism.
But I would only take the enemy hostage, not random civilians (so it's not terrorism).

Torture and terrorism I wouldn't do out of moral objections but also because I want the people on my side.

[Farnan]

Well, even with an invading nation, trying to get the foreign nations to support you is important. No matter how many terror attacks you launch, or leaders you assassinate its not going to win the war, your goal should be two-fold instead:
1) Disrupt enemy supply lines to prevent them from supplying troops in the front fighting your regular army.
2) Weaken enemy morale enabling your main army to defeat the army, this will done by ambushing troops and killing sentries in the night, and sometimes attacking camps.

In the case of a conquest or fighting a domestic enemy your goals are to become a bleeding ulcer against the enemy and gain foreign support against the dictator.

In either case the first thing you want to do is smuggle your family into a neutral nation or somewhere outside of enemy control.

[Marshal Qin]

take it to their home soil as well, don't just fight them on your own land. Let their people know at home that they are not immune from the effects of what their country is doing in another people's land. Having said that, the tactics you use on your own soil would be such that you retain the support of the local population, while on the enemy's soil you want them to be hurt enough to rethink their occupation but not enough to make them more determined to stay.
Night is day on the modern battlefield, i.e. attacking military targets is not an easy ask if they are well equipped. Better to avoid the military altogether unless absolutely necessary.