Two Important but Different Questions about Leaders and Guerillas?

[Dari]

1.
I know that Bush has made some gaffes that expose his inner thoughts, but to me they seem to be random. Has anyone been able to congregate these outbursts and analyse what they truly mean? I'm asking this because, as a leader, how do these men sleep at night? How do they justify their policies to themselves? How can they convince themselves of obvious lies when they have the best intelligence around, more so than the average joe-citizen? Do they have nightmares? Do the dead come back and haunt them? Are they told the news? Are they told what to say and do? Are they affected by the destructions they bring unto others? Do they ever get that exile opportunity, not unlike Jesus in the desert or the Prophet Muhammed in Ethiopia, where they can think things through thoroughly before venturing out again?
The question really doesn't pertain to Bush but anyone in a leadership position.

2. Why do people consider militants cowards? If you've ever seen a militant, they are anything but cowards. They may be part of the civilian population but it doesn't mean they use them as a shield. The countless suicide bombers in Israel were university students, engineers, psychologists. Some were even non-religious individuals who did it for political reasons. The 9/11 bombers came from wealthy families and even went to a stripclub and drank heavily on September 10. The guerillas fighting in southern Lebanon right now don't have bullet-proof vests or heavy equipment to deter a highspeed projectile. All these men and women believe in dying for something. That isn't cowardice. It takes a lot to want to die for a cause especially if you have so much to live for. I doubt that they're brainwashed either. So, why are they considered cowards when their enemies have so much advanced weaponery and protection (the standing armies) or are oblivious as to why they're being attacked (the civilians that are being protected by the standing armies)?

 

[lozina]

As for #2, it's just a matter of one side trying to demonize the other side. I'm sure the British thought the American revolutionary militias were cowards for not wearing brightly colored uniforms and marching out in an open field and wait to get mowed down by British artillery. But as we can surely agree these Americans were not cowards...

 

[Jaskalas]

1: People sleep just fine at night when their mind creates a comfortable truth for them.

2: The civilian population as a whole is dragged into the war zone because those who wage war do not distinguish themselves apart from civilians. This is fairly unconventional, and they are called cowards for not raising a conventional army and having the governments who create them be held responsible for their actions.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Sometimes the civilian population IS the guerilla movement.
The civilian underground doesn't operate that diferently than an occupying Army,
they just happen to live there and this is how they have chosen to fight.

It's the only way that they CAN fight when they are not allow to arm themselvs
in any way that makes them the perceived target with value targets to strike.

Local people trust them, not because they are being an agressor in a midle grade war,
but because they are perceived to be acting in the collective good of their friends and neighbors.
They all live together in a much more tightly knit social ecosystem than we can even imagine.
For the most part we don't known their Culture, History, or even speak their Language,
but insist on them stop doing it like they always have and only do it like we tell them to.
That is no different to them than it was to the cultures in SAE, Vietnam and the French Indo-China Empire.

Sometimes 'book-learning' don't do it justice.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Sometimes the civilian population IS the guerilla movement.
The civilian underground doesn't operate that diferently than an occupying Army,
they just happen to live there and this is how they have chosen to fight.

It's the only way that they CAN fight when they are not allow to arm themselvs
in any way that makes them the perceived target with value targets to strike.

Local people trust them, not because they are being an agressor in a midle grade war,
but because they are perceived to be acting in the collective good of their friends and neighbors.
They all live together in a much more tightly knit social ecosystem than we can even imagine.
For the most part we don't known their Culture, History, or even speak their Language,
but insist on them stop doing it like they always have and only do it like we tell them to.
That is no different to them than it was to the cultures in SAE, Vietnam and the French Indo-China Empire.

Sometimes 'book-learning' don't do it justice.

:thumbsup:

 

[wnied]

I fail to see how you can perceive someone who blatantly kills civilians to create chaos, as a warrior or soldier.

Suicide bombers are cowards. Instead of blowing up innocent civilians, try targeting military targets to make your point.

~wnied~

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: wnied
I fail to see how you can perceive someone who blatantly kills civilians to create chaos, as a warrior or soldier.


~wnied~

You mean the entire Iraeli army should be labelled as "fighters" or "militants" or "crimals" ?

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: wnied


Suicide bombers are cowards. Instead of blowing up innocent civilians, try targeting military targets to make your point.

~wnied~

The IDF is a bigger coward for killing civilians indiscrimatly after threatening them to leave from the air which poses zero threat to the pilots.