I follow the Syrian revolution pretty closely, through
the news, videos, activist websites, etc. The Syrian rebels have used a wide
variety of guerrilla attacks on government forces, (and to surprising
effectiveness, I might add. Since March of 2011, the government has lost over
7,200 troops while the rebels have only lost around 1,100, according to the
Syrian Observatory for Human Rights: http://www.syriahr.com/.
But again, I digress). These guerilla attacks range from ambushing convoys, to
IED attacks, to hit and run attacks on checkpoints and bases. Another tactic
they use fairly often is car bombs and suicide bombings.
I separated those two
out because those two are going to be the focus of this post. Just one example
is the most recent high-profile attack as of the time I am writing this:
What
I have a problem with is some of the comments on this article, and on other
similar articles as well, that describe Syrian rebel attacks. Here are some of
the insults I read often, that go generally along the lines of:
1.
Just like a Muslim, blowing each other up cowardly with car bombs. What dogs.
2.
Those FSA, (Free Syrian Army), terrorists cannot even fight decently, fucking low-lives.
3.
At least our American boys fight better than this.
Blah
blah blah, etc, you get my point. All of the people who write ignorant comments
like this are fucking idiots. There, that’s the summary of my post. But let’s
dive deeper as to why they’re so blatantly bigoted.
People,
specifically Americans, are once again confusing terrorism and terrorist
attacks with guerrilla warfare and guerrilla attacks. Here are the distinctions I
would like to make:
1.
A group or organization can be a guerrilla group but not be a terrorist
group. For example, the Filipino rebels, who fought against U.S. occupation
from 1899-1902, overwhelmingly attacked U.S. soldiers and military buildings.
By definition, they were not a terrorist group, because a terrorist group
overwhelmingly attacks civilian targets. Guerrilla attacks on military targets
are legal as per international law and conventions.
2.
A group or organization can be a guerrilla group as well as a terrorist
group, but not necessarily. For example, Hamas, a Palestinian resistance
group, launched attacks against Israeli civilian and military targets
during the Second Intifada.
3.
A group, organization, or state can be a terrorist group but not a guerrilla group. For example, the U.S. military launched numerous attacks on
civilian targets during their invasion and occupation of Iraq, on purpose,
knowing that they were going to kill lots of civilians. The overwhelmingly
majority of their causalities were civilians, so by definition, the U.S.
military is a terrorist organization. Same thing with the Israeli military.
During their 2008-2009 Cast Lead operation, the overwhelmingly majority of
Palestinians that they killed were civilians. Israel repeatedly, literally
thousands of times, has targeted Palestinian civilians on purpose throughout
the many wars. So by definition, the IDF is a terrorist organization.
Some
thugs and gangs operating under the banner of the Free Syrian Army have killed
civilians on purpose. This I freely admit because it is sad but true. But this is
not coming from the FSA leadership; they are not out to kill Syrian civilians.
The vast majority of the FSA’s targets have been military and government
targets. This is their goal: to topple the Assad dictatorship. They have the
right to attack the government under international law and laws of war, (as
well as in all major religions such as Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism,
etc, and also in American law). This is a legitimate goal; these are legitimate
targets. Therefore, the FSA is a guerilla group, not a terrorist group.
Now
that we’ve got that established, let’s move onto the fact that many Americans,
Assad supporters, and other 1st world people look down and criticize
the way that guerilla groups, specifically the FSA in this case, fight an
insurgency against a conventional state military. It is sickening that these
pompous, arrogant, and often racist people insult the Syrian rebels, who are
fighting against overwhelming odds. They have limited foreign support, and
fight with mostly Kalashnikovs, RPG-s, and IED’s. And they’re up against: A
conventional military with tanks, helicopters, and jet fighters. Not only that,
but Iran and Hezbollah have freely admitted that they have sent troops to
reinforce the Assad military. So that’s 2 countries and one guerrilla group that
they’re up against.
Against
all that, and people have the nerve to slur the FSA, thumbing their nose at a
people who are fighting the only way that they can. They don’t have foreign
countries giving them billions of dollars in military aid, like Israel does.
They don’t have the money or technology to have Predator drones or armored
APC’s, like the U.S. They are fighting with what they can capture, smuggle or
make.
These
insults are part of a broader scheme to delegitimize the people’s right to
fight against their government. They want to make it out to look like fighting
with car bombs and IED’s is somehow less legitimate, less honorable, and more
barbaric than fighting with a tank or an airstrike. This is absolutely
ridiculous. An attack on an army base is no more or less legitimate when it is
attacked by a Predator drone or a suicide bombing. On the flip side, a terrorist
attack on unarmed men and women in a marketplace is no more or less a terrorist
attack when they are attacked by a Predator drone or a suicide bombing. The
target is what makes an attack legitimate or not, not the manner of the attack.
By
making types of guerrilla attack seem illegitimate to people, these 1st
world bigots and dictator supporters want it to seem like that only their
conventional, government military has the right to use deadly force. Therefore,
the people, who cannot afford that, they can only afford cheap, simply guerrilla
attacks, don’t have the right to use deadly force to protect their rights or
protect themselves and their families. If people view violence as being always
illegitimate, then they will not use it to defend their rights and families.
Which is exactly what they want!!
These guerrilla attacks work because they are cheap and simple, so it is completely
rational and logical for people to use them against conventional militaries.
It’s not because they’re bloodthirsty Muslims, no, they’re in a civil war,
fighting for their lives, you ignorant fuckers. Yes, I know it’s an epiphany
for some bigoted people, but Muslims are humans who have rights too you know,
and that includes the right to life! It shows how pathetic we humans are if we
actually have to have a human right dedicated just so people are allowed to
live and not be slaughtered because of their race or religion.
Okay,
gotta stay on topic. Back to why using car bombs and suicide bombings makes
logical and rational sense for the FSA to use against the Assad government. A
car bomb is very simply to make, it’s small, it’s cheap, and can be produced
rather quickly. And, when used correctly, it can produce devastating results,
killing dozens of soldiers and wounding several dozen others. Why wouldn’t you
use that??
Suicide
attacks have been used throughout human history, even before we invented
explosives. In medieval battles, a lone warrior or two could stay behind and
hold off dozens of soldiers, dying in the process, but allowing their comrades
to regroup, get away, set up an ambush, etc. In cavalry charges, the first row
of cavalry suffered the most causalities, sometimes serving only to slam into a
wall of spears so that possibly the 2nd or 3rd guy behind
them might have a chance of getting through the enemies’ defenses. In World War
2, the Japanese used to slam their planes into American aircraft carriers. Etc
etc, these are just 3 examples I thought of, but you get my point.
Suicide
bombings are logical to use for two primary reasons: 1. Guerrilla groups, on the
whole, lack sophisticated training for their fighters. It is very hard to get
in a situation where they can train 1 of their members well enough, give him
enough weaponry, etc, etc, to be able to kill 15 or 20 enemy soldiers by
himself in a firefight. That’s hard for any soldier to do, from any country.
But, it is very easy to give an untrained man a suicide vest, and tell him to
walk up to an enemy patrol, disguised as a civilian, and blow himself up,
killing 15 or 20 enemy soldiers.
2.
It’s a simple numbers game. The guerrilla group’s losses versus the government’s
losses makes suicide bombings a great tactic. You lose 1 guy, but you kill 15,
20, maybe even 50 or 100 if you’re really lucky. Why wouldn’t you do that?
In
conclusion, just because car bombings and suicide bombings are sometimes used
by terrorist groups, does not mean that every time they are used, it is
automatically and without question terrorism. It is no more or less a potential
terrorist act than a helicopter airstrike or a battleship firing. We should not
look down on people for fighting tyranny the only way they possibly can.
Believe me, if the FSA had tanks and jet fighters, they’d use them. It’s a lot
fucking easier to kill soldiers in a tank than with small arms. But they don’t
have them. So they do ambushes, assassinations, etc. The British did the same
thing to us during the Revolutionary War. Documents reveal how the British
officers viewed us as savages, uncivilized, wild brutes for ambushing them
and not fighting face to face in an open field, as was the custom in Europe. They
scorned our guerrilla tactics while they walked towards us all in nice, little
neat rows. Do we want to act towards other countries the way how the British acted
towards us? Uh, fuck no. The British were imperial pricks back then. I for one,
do not want to be an imperial prick to anyone.
Useful
links:
Syrian
American Council: http://www.sacouncil.com/
Their
FB page: http://www.facebook.com/sacouncil
Syrian
Observatory for Human Rights: http://www.syriahr.com/
Useful
books:
Guerilla
Warfare by Che Guevara
War
in the Shadows: The Guerilla in History by Robert Asprey
Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide
Terrorism by Robert Pape(photo is from usatoday.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment