1
   

Bush misuses the terms "Guerilla & Terrorist" for politics

 
 
Reply Mon 28 Aug, 2006 09:53 am
I think it would help to clarify some importance differences in the choice of descriptive words. Today, the term Terrorist is applied too widely and inappropriately for political purposes. It used to be the practice to call resistance fighters Guerillas. One example is the Greek and French Resistance after Hitler invaded their countries. George Bush has successfully changed the meaning of the word by calling them terrorists instead of what they really are for political purposes.

The difference between Guerillas and Terrorists. First, Guerillas:

Guerrilla (also called a partisan) is a term borrowed from the Spanish guerrilla meaning small war, and used to describe small combat groups and the individual members of such groups. Guerrilla warfare operates with small, mobile and flexible combat groups called cells, without a front line. Guerrilla warfare is one of the oldest forms of asymmetric warfare. Primary contributors to modern theories of guerilla war include Mao Zedong, Abd el-Krim, T.E. Lawrence, Wendell Fertig, Regis Debray, Vo Nguyen Giap, Josip Broz Tito, Michael Collins, and Che Guevara. Later students of guerrilla warfare included Swiss Major Hans von Dach who wrote the now widely available Swiss Army field manual "Total Resistance".

Guerrilla, from the Spanish term guerra, or War, with the -illa ending diminutive, could be translated as small war. The term was invented in Spain to describe the tactics used to resist the French regime instituted by Napoleon Bonaparte. The -illa term accepts the unequal fight between civilians against an organized State Army. Its meaning was soon broadened to refer to any similar resistance of any time or place. The Spanish word for guerrilla fighter is guerrillero. The change of usage of guerrilla from the tactics employed to the person implementing them is a late 19th century mistake: in most languages the word still denotes the specific style of warfare. However, this is changing under the influence of broad English usage.

Guerrilla tactics are based on intelligence, ambush, deception, sabotage, and espionage, undermining an authority through long, low-intensity confrontation. It can be quite successful against an unpopular foreign regime: a guerrilla army may increase the cost of maintaining an occupation or a colonial presence above what the foreign power may wish to bear.

Commando operations are not guerrilla warfare (Richard Taber, "The War of the Flea : Guerrilla Warfare, Theory and Practice". Paladin, London, 1977) while they lack the political goal. Commando troops, as the British commando, were a branch of the armed forces. Guerrilla warfare is the expression of Sun Tzu's Art of War, in contrast to Clausewitz's unlimited use of brute force.

However, guerrilla warfare has generally been unsuccessful against native regimes, which have nowhere to retreat to and are highly knowledgeable about their own people, society, and culture. The rare examples of successful guerrilla warfare against a native regime include the Cuban Revolution and the Chinese Civil War, as well as the Sandinista overthrow of a military dictatorship in Nicaragua. More common are the unsuccessful examples of guerrilla warfare, which include Malaysia (then Malaya) during the Malayan Emergency, Bolivia, Argentina, and the Philippines. The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), fighting for an independent homeland in the north and east of Sri Lanka, achieved significant military successes against the Sri Lankan military and the government itself for twenty years. It was even able to use these tactics effectively against the IPKF forces sent by India in the mid-1980s, which were later withdrawn for varied reasons, primarily political. The mutual attrition on both sides in the island led to a ceasefire following the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Guerrillas in wars against foreign powers do not principally direct their attacks at civilians, as they desire to obtain as much support as possible from the population as part of their tactics. Civilians are primarily attacked or assassinated as punishment for collaboration. Often such an attack will be officially sanctioned by guerrilla command or tribunal. An exception is in civil wars, where both guerrilla groups and organized armies have been known to commit atrocities against the civilian population.

Mao Zedong, during the Chinese civil war, summarized the Red Army's principles of warfare in the following points for his troops: The enemy advances, we retreat. The enemy camps, we harass. The enemy tires, we attack. The enemy retreats, we pursue. Mao made a distinction between Mobile Warfare (yundong zhan) and Guerrilla Warfare (youji zhan).

Michael Collins of the Irish Republican Army, who orchestrated the Anglo-Irish war of 1919-1921, had a more succinct principle behind his campaign of intelligence, assassination, and propaganda: create "bloody mayhem".

Guerrillas are in danger of not being recognized as lawful combatants because they may not wear a uniform, (to mingle with the local population), or their uniform and distinctive emblems may not be recognised as such by their opponents. Article 44, sections 3 and 4 of the 1977 First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions, "relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts", does recognise combatants who, due to the nature of the conflict, do not wear uniforms as long as they carry their weapons openly during military operations. This gives non-uniformed guerrillas lawful combatant status against countries that have ratified this convention. However the same protocol states in Article 37.1.c that "the feigning of civilian, non-combatant status" shall constitute perfidy and is prohibited by the Geneva Conventions. Guerrilla warfare can constitute psychological terror and submission upon their captors as well. This act of submission is a way of relieving information from an opponent is used by outnumbering the individual.

Guerrilla warfare is classified into two main categories: urban guerrilla warfare and rural guerrilla warfare. In both cases, guerrillas rely on a friendly population to provide supplies and intelligence. Rural guerrillas prefer to operate in regions providing plenty of cover and concealment, especially heavily forested and mountainous areas. Urban guerrillas, rather than melting into the mountains and jungles, blend into the population and are also dependent on a support base among the people.

Foreign support in the form of soldiers, weapons, sanctuary, or, at the very least, statements of sympathy for the guerrillas can greatly increase the chances of victory for an insurgency. However, it is not always necessary.

Maoist theory of people's war divides warfare into three phases. In the first phase, the guerrillas gain the support of the population through attacks on the machinery of government and the distribution of propaganda. In the second phase, escalating attacks are made on the government's military and vital institutions. In the third phase, conventional fighting is used to seize cities, overthrow the government, and take control of the country.

Guerrilla Tactics were summarized into the ' Minimanual of the Urban Guerrilla[1] in 1969 by Carlos Marighella. This text was banned in several countries including the United States. This is probably the most comprehensive and informative book on guerrilla strategy ever published, and is available free online. Texts by Che Guevara and Mao Zedong on guerrilla warfare are also available.

John Keats wrote about an American guerrilla leader in World War 2: Colonel Wendell Fertig, who in 1942 organized a large force of guerrillas who harassed the Japanese occupation forces on the Philippine Island of Mindanao all the way up to the liberation of the Philippines in 1945. His abilities were later utilized by the United States Army, when Fertig helped found the United States Army Special Warfare School at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Others included Col. Aaron Bank and Col. Russell Volckmann. Volckmann, in particular, commanded a guerrilla force which operated out of the Cordillera of Northern Luzon, in the Philippines from the beginning of World War II to its conclusion. He remained in radio contact with US Forces, prior to the invasion of Lingayen Gulf.

Guerrilla warfare sometimes involves surrounding nations, which are affected by a popular uprising against the neighbouring government. A case in point was the Mukti Bahini guerrillas who fought alongside the Indian Army in the 14-day Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971 against Pakistan that resulted in the creation of the state of Bangladesh.

T.E.Lawrence, best known as "Lawrence of Arabia," introduced a theory of guerrilla warfare tactics in an article he wrote for the Encyclopedia Britannica published in 1938. In that article, he compared guerrilla fighters to a gas. The fighters disperse in the area of operations more or less randomly. They or their cells occupy a very small intrinsic space in that area, just as gas molecules occupy a very small intrinsic space in a container. The fighters may coalesce into groups for tactical purposes, but their general state is dispersed. Such fighters cannot be "rounded up." They cannot be contained. They are extremely difficult to "defeat" because they cannot be brought to battle in significant numbers. The cost in soldiers and material to destroy a significant number of them becomes prohibitive, in all senses, that is physically, economically, morally, etc. It should be noted that Lawrence describes a non-native occupying force as the enemy (e.g. the Turks).

See below for Terrorists.

BBB
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,368 • Replies: 11
No top replies

 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Aug, 2006 09:58 am
Examples of Guerrilla campaigns
Examples of countries and wars where guerrilla campaigns were successful:

Algeria
Angola
Afghanistan
portions of the American Revolution
East Timor
Cuba
Haitian Revolution [1]
PIRA
Indonesia
Mozambique
Lebanon
portions of the Wars of Scottish Independence; notably, actions led by Robert the Bruce
Irish War of Independence 1919-1921
National Liberation Front forces throughout the Vietnam War in the early 1960s.
Nepali Conflict
The Partisans of Yugoslavia
Iraq In Operation Vigilant Resolve and Operation Matador. [2] [3]
Vietnam

In many cases, guerrilla tactics allow a small force to hold off a much larger and better equipped enemy for a long time, as in Russia's Second Chechen War and the Second Seminole War fought in the swamps of Florida (United States of America).

Examples of unsuccessful guerrilla campaigns:

Irish Civil War 1922-23
Border Campaign (IRA) 1956-62
Spanish republican guerrillas after the Spanish Civil War
South African Wars
Greek Civil War

Examples of ongoing guerilla warfare:

Sri Lanka
Arab-Israeli Conflict
Lord's Resistance Army
Zapatista
Chechen War
Afghanistan
Iraq
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Aug, 2006 10:01 am
Guerrilla war in today's headlines
Wars in today's headlines:

Guerrillas in Israel and the Palestinian Territories

European Jews fleeing from anti-Semitic violence (especially Russian pogroms) immigrated in increasing numbers to Palestine. When the British restricted Jewish immigration to the region (see White Paper of 1939), Jewish Palestinians began to use a type of guerrilla warfare for two purposes: to bring in more Jewish refugees, and to turn the tide of British sentiment at home. Jewish groups such as the Lehi and the Irgun - many of whom had experience in the Warsaw Ghetto battles against the Nazis, fought British soldiers whenever they could, including the bombing of the King David Hotel.

The creation of the state of Israel might be considered one of the greatest achievements of guerrilla warfare. The Jewish forces were a spontaneous group of civilians working without formal military structure, fighting the British Empire that had just emerged victorious from World War II.

(Read about the amalgamation of these guerrilla groups into the Israel Defence Force and subsequent victory over its Arab neighbors in the 1948 War of Independence.)

Palestinians initiated their own guerrilla warfare against the new Jewish state, including Yasser Arafat, whose PLO called for the destruction of Israel in 1964, 3 years before the Six-Day War.

Guerrilla warfare in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Kurdish Northern Iraq
Guerrilla warfare formed an integral part of the US/NATO military campaigns in Kosovo in the late 1990s and Afghanistan in 2001, which created a unique style of warfare combining low-technology guerrilla warfare with high-technology air power. In these campaigns, guerrilla fighters with coordination from special forces would engage the enemy, forcing them to move out into the open where they could be destroyed using air power supplied by the United States. In both cases, the guerrillas were able to take advantage of their local knowledge and willingness to take casualties to great effect when supplemented by outside air power. In Kosovo the Kosovo Liberation Army, a separatist paramilitary force, was aided by the NATO air forces. In Afghanistan numerous anti-Taliban militias (consisting of regular soldiers and guerrillas), including the Afghan Northern Alliance, were aided by US air power. This formula was used again, in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, against the Iraqi Army by Kurdish Peshmerga guerrillas with the aid of U.S. special forces and the U.S. Air Force.

Guerrillas in Iraq (since 2003)

Many guerrilla tactics are used by the Iraqi insurgency against the US-led coalition. Such tactics include exploding vehicles, people and other forms of suicide bombing, ambushes, and hit and run raids. Although it is unclear how many US casualties can be attributed to insurgent guerrilla action, due to high numbers of non-combat related injuries and deaths being included in all available statistics of total coalition casualties, it is estimated that they have injured more than 18,000 coalition troops and killed over 2,700, Coalition troops including over 2,500 US soldiers, and have established control dominance over the Al Anbar Governorate.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Aug, 2006 10:07 am
Terrorism
The Oxford English Dictionary defines terrorism as "a policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted; the employment of methods of intimidation; the fact of terrorising or condition of being terrorised."

Webster's New International Dictionary defines terrorism as the "act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; specif.: a The system of the Reign of Terror. b A mode of governing, or of opposing government, by intimidation. c Any policy of intimidation.

The definition of the term in the Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics (2nd edition) begins: Term with no agreement amongst government or academic analysts, but almost invariably used in a pejorative sense, most frequently to describe life-threatening actions perpetrated by politically motivated self-appointed sub-state groups.
Look up terrorism in

Wiktionary, the free dictionary.The American Heritage Dictionary defines terrorism as "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

Few words are as politically or emotionally charged as terrorism. One 1988 study by the US Army (PDF) found that over 100 definitions of the word "terrorism" have been used. For this reason, many news sources avoid using this term, opting instead for less accusatory words like "bombers", "militants", etc.

Terrorism is a crime in many countries and is defined by statute (see below for particular definitions). Common principles amongst legal definitions of terrorism provide an emerging consensus as to meaning and also foster cooperation between law enforcement personnel in different countries.

Among these definitions, several do not recognize the possibility of the legitimate use of violence by civilians against an invader in an occupied country, and would thus label all resistance movements as terrorist groups. Others make a distinction between lawful and unlawful use of violence. Ultimately, the distinction is a political judgment.See

It has also been argued that the political use of violent force and weapons that deliberately target or involve civilians, and do not focus mainly on military or government targets, is a common militant, terrorist, or guerilla tactic, and a main defining feature of these kinds of criminals. Most governments and "legitimate" military leaders do not openly attempt to use civilians as shields or aim at them during times of political conflict. Whereas the definition of a terrorist can specify that a militant or a militant group has the criminal intent, planning, and actions to violently use civilian targets and civilian shields for political and economic ends.

The definition of terrorism is inherently controversial. The use of violence for the achievement of political ends is common to state and non-state groups. The difficulty is in agreeing on a basis for determining when the use of violence (directed at whom, by whom, for what ends) is legitimate. The majority of definitions in use have been written by agencies directly associated to a government, and are systematically biased to exclude governments from the definition. Some such definitions are so broad, like the Terrorism Act 2000, as to include disruption of a computer system where no violence is intended or results.

The contemporary label of "terrorist" is highly pejorative; it is a badge which denotes a lack of legitimacy and morality. For terrorist groups and its government sponsored supporters, it is crucial that they not be labeled a terrorist group; so as not to be labeled "terrorists" and by association as "terrorist nations". Groups that have described themselves as terrorists are therefore unknown. It is equally important for a group's opponents that the label "terrorist" be applied. The appellation "terrorist" is therefore always deliberately disputed. Attempts at defining the concept invariably arouse debate because rival definitions may be employed with a view to including the actions of certain parties, and excluding others. Thus, each party might still subjectively claim a legitimate basis for employing violence in pursuit of their own political cause or aim.

In addition, there is an increase in the common opinion that most terrorists (a common label today) are somehow connected to Muslims in general, or of some specific sect of Islam, or of some specific interpretation of the Koran. This common opinion is logically unfounded because most labelled "terrorists" often have more to do with political groups, or even gang activity, than any specific sect of a major religion. There may be fewer terrorists connected in some way to the other major religions, such as Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism, and so on, but terrorists from any group, or even as an individual, are no less dangerous.

The legitimate governments of nations, and their police and military forces, need to investigate any potential planning of major criminal activity. This is true no matter the religion, creed, belief, background, self-label or political connection of the criminals. Terrorism might be best defined as the greatest possible degrees of criminal actions, other than war between internationally recognized nations, where the largest amounts of population are affected, and the greatest degree of economic activity is disrupted. A clear and distinct definition does continue to be a logical problem that requires debate without fear mongering, racial profiling, or unjust law enforcement procedures. Legitimate policing organizations do need the powers and procedures to investigate certain groups based on reasonable suspicions and evidence. Large degrees of criminal acts do need to be prevented by some reasonable means within any national boundary. This does require some notion of "terrorist" organizations and activities. Lawyers, judges, police, politicians, law makers, NGO's, and the general public all need some basic definition of "terrorism" to proceed with fair prosecutions and court trials under the rule of law.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Aug, 2006 10:09 am
If you ask me, it's all in the targetted attacks. Guerillas attack military targets, Terrorists attack civilian targets.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Aug, 2006 10:14 am
Terrorism as defined around the world
Terrorism as defined around the world:

United NationsEuropean Union

The European Union employs a definition of terrorism for legal/official purposes which is set out in Art. 1 of the Framework Decision on Combating Terrorism (2002) [5]. This provides that terrorist offences are certain criminal offences set out in a list comprised largely of serious offences against persons and property which, "given their nature or context, may seriously damage a country or an international organisation where committed with the aim of: seriously intimidating a population; or unduly compelling a Government or international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act; or seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation."

United States

The United States has defined terrorism under the Federal Criminal Code. Chapter 113B of Part I of Title 18 of the United States Code defines terrorism and lists the crimes associated with terrorism[6]. In Section 2331 of Chapter 113b, terrorism is defined as:

"..activities that involve violent... <or life-threatening acts>... that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and... appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and ...<if domestic>...(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States...<if international>...(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States..."

Edward Peck. Former U.S. Chief of Mission in Iraq and ambassador to Mauritania expressed the following opnion, "In 1985, when I was the Deputy Director of the Reagan White House Task Force on Terrorism, they asked us -- this is a Cabinet Task Force on Terrorism; I was the Deputy Director of the working group -- they asked us to come up with a definition of terrorism that could be used throughout the government. We produced about six, and each and every case, they were rejected, because careful reading would indicate that our own country had been involved in some of those activities. [. . .] After the task force concluded its work, Congress got into it, and you can google into U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2331, and read the U.S. definition of terrorism. And one of them in here says -- one of the terms, "international terrorism," means "activities that," I quote, "appear to be intended to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping." [. . .] Yes, well, certainly, you can think of a number of countries that have been involved in such activities. Ours is one of them. Israel is another. And so, the terrorist, of course, is in the eye of the beholder."

Laws and government agencies

U.S. Code of Federal Regulations: "...the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).
Current U.S. national security strategy: "premeditated, politically motivated violence against innocents."

United States Department of Defense: the "calculated use of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies in pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."

USA PATRIOT Act: "activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state, that (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S."

The U.S. National Counter Terrorism Center (NCTC) described a terrorist act as one which was: "premeditated; perpetrated by a subnational or clandestine agent; politically motivated, potentially including religious, philosophical, or culturally symbolic motivations; violent; and perpetrated against a noncombatant target."

The British Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism so as to include not only violent offences against persons and physical damage to property, but also acts "designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system". This latter consideration would include shutting down a website whose views one dislikes. However this, and any of the other acts covered by the definition would also need to be (a) designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, AND (b)be done for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.[the latter three terms are not defined in the Act].

IndividualsOther

League of Nations Convention (1937): all criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Aug, 2006 10:17 am
Criticisms of the term Terrorist
Criticisms of the term Terrorist
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Aug, 2006 10:20 am
Re: Bush misuses the terms "Guerilla & Terrorist&qu
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
Guerrilla warfare is the expression of Sun Tzu's Art of War, in contrast to Clausewitz's unlimited use of brute force.

It's hard to think of a sentence that could contain two stupider things to say about Sun Tzu and Clausewitz than what is said here.

As a general matter, however, I wouldn't describe members of the Iraqi resistance to the American occupation as "guerrillas" or as "terrorists," but rather as "patriots."
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Aug, 2006 10:23 am
BBB
Patriot sounds OK to me, too.

I just noticed my misspelling of Guerrilla.

Oops.
BBB Embarrassed
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Aug, 2006 10:25 am
Quote:
If you ask me, it's all in the targetted attacks. Guerillas attack military targets, Terrorists attack civilian targets.


I consider that point of view nonsensical. Regularly established military forces practice terrorism by that criterion, and it has happened again and again in history. After defeating Manfred and the Protestants at the end of the initial, Danish phase of the Thirty Years War, the Imperialist commander Wallenstein marched across northern Germany leaving a swathe of dustruction more than thirty miles wide. During the earlier rebellion in the Spanish Netherlands (now Belgium and Holland), the Duke of Alva stood passively by while the Spanish tercios looted, raped and murdered in Antwerp for a week, an event known as the Rape of Antwerp. It saved Alva the necessity of finding pay for the troops, and it was considered a salutary measure against a population considered to be iconoclasts and Protestants (although in fact, the majority of the people of Antwerp were practicing Catholics).

In the American South in our Revolution, both Rebels and Tories regularly plundered one another, and hanged their opponents out of hand. In the American Civil War, Sherman marched to the Atlantic coast, and the up through South Carolina, taking revenge on those considered at the North to have started the war. Leaving Atlanta (and abandoning his duty to confront John Bell Hood's Army of the Tennessee), he headed for the coast, vowing to "make Georgia howl." Both the Germans and the English intentionally targeted civilian residential neighborhoods in their bombing campaigns in the Second World War.

I consider that the distinction to be made between a guerilla and a terrorist is whether or not the individual in question forms a part of a group with a clearly and clearly-stated and realizable political goal. Therefore, i would consider members of al Qaeda to be terrorists, as they have no clear and realizable political goal. On that same criterion, i would not consider Chechen separatists to be terrorists, becasuse they have a clear and realizable political goal, which is the establishment of a Chechen state free of Russian control.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Aug, 2006 10:31 am
Setanta
Setanta, thanks for the additional information.

I remember the so-called leftist terrorists during the 1960s and 70s. Blowing up power lines, bombing buildings, etc. How would you define Germany's Baader-Meinhof Gang?

BBB

Andreas Bernd Baader (May 6, 1943 - October 18, 1977) was the first leader of the German revolutionary organization Red Army Faction, commonly known as the Baader-Meinhof gang.

Born in Munich, Baader was a high school dropout and petty criminal before his RAF involvement, and was one of the few members of the terrorist movement who did not attend a university.

In 1968, Baader and his girlfriend Gudrun Ensslin were convicted of the arson bombing of a department store in Frankfurt am Main. Two years later he escaped from custody, aided by journalist Ulrike Meinhof, giving rise to the term Baader-Meinhof Group.

Baader, Meinhof and other gang members were expelled from a Fedayeen training camp in Jordan in 1970.

From 1970 to 1972, Baader robbed banks and bombed buildings.

On June 1, 1972, he and fellow RAF members Jan-Carl Raspe and Holger Meins were apprehended in a lengthy shootout in Frankfurt.

Baader was then convicted in what was the longest and most expensive trial in German history.

To pressure German authorities into releasing Baader and other imprisoned members, on September 5, 1977, the RAF abducted then German employers' association president and former SS officer Hanns Martin Schleyer. When the authorities refused to comply with their demands, the RAF tried to exert additional pressure by hijacking the Lufthansa plane Landshut. On October 18 1977, the day after the GSG 9 raided Landshut in Mogadishu, Somalia, and ended the hijacking, Andreas Baader died in his prison cell from a gunshot wound. The same day, Gudrun Ensslin and Jan-Carl Raspe were also found dead in their prison cells at Stammheim. RAF member Irmgard Möller was found wounded in her cell after supposedly stabbing herself in the chest, but survived. Though all official inquiries on the matter concluded that Baader and his two accomplices committed suicide, sympathizers and Irmgard Möller persist that the deaths had been extrajudicial executions.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Aug, 2006 10:36 am
In the 1970s, i was what most rightwingnuts would have considered a hippie (after i got out of the army, that is). I was opposed to American policies and their results, with regard to almost all of our overseas plotting and interferring from the end of the Second World War. I was vocally opposed to the Nixon administration.

Despite what rightwingnust would consider "commie" credentials, i would in retrospect call groups such as B-M and the Italian and Japanese Red Brigades terrorist. I only say in retrospect because the terms terrorist and terrorism were not in currency then. I definitely condemned them. I considered then that they were anarchistic and had no reasonable political goals.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Bush misuses the terms "Guerilla & Terrorist" for politics
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/28/2024 at 10:57:50