# Counter-terrorism // asymetrical Warfare



## Orph3o (May 20, 2011)

Hi,

I have a couple questions for you today, I'll have separate thread just to maintain focus.

The first one is a question I have regarding the crossing point between asymetrical warfare and counter terrorism.

Counter terrorism was dealt by elite group for a while (French GIGN, Seals, SAS, Mossad etc...)and their learnings and trainings were fit for those kind of events (Stable environment, isolated event etcc.).
Then came international terrrorism, and basically counter terrorism became a warfare "technic". Spec Ops were now exporting their learnings and craft of counter terrorism became proxy war and asymetrical warfare.

Is there a "Crossing" point in time that could be seen as the real shift between the two? My guess would be post 9/11 war on terror, but I may be missing some other elements... (ie. Iranian Embassy events etc...).

What would be the main differences between asymetrical warfare and counter terrorism in our days?

Thanks!


----------



## dknob (May 20, 2011)

To me - CT and Asymmetrical warfare do not really correlate.

CT is a specific technique and training doctrine that has been created, reworked, and perfected in order to combat the growing threat of international terrorism. Alot of units in Iraq and Afghanistan are out there hunting both terrorists and insurgents. My unit was tasked with raids targeting Al-Qaeda in Iraq - does that make us a CT unit? Absolutely NOT.

CT to me is a proactive and reactive strategy. Whether it be a hostage rescue mission AFTER the terrorist event, or a site-security mission assessing the vulnarability of lets say an embassy BEFORE a terrorist event - both fall under counter terrorism. A military action raid against a terrorist is not counter terrorism.

The fact that you specifically are asking about when the shift happened after 9/11 is really because the terrorists entered the open battlefield (Iraq, Afghanistan, HOA, Philippines, etc) and not the shadowlands (hiding out in a Muslim neighborhood in London planning some market bomb).

---
As for Asymmetrical warfare, it is simply warfare in which the military strength of both combatants differ significantly in terms of capabilities and strength. Although technically you could consider the fight between terrorists and the US military as an asymmetrical war. It really isn't. Asymmetrical warfare in recent times includes us against the Taliban, us against the Iraqi insurgency. Conventional forces against guerilla forces.

Here is a point to think about - Imagine if the only troops on the ground in Iraq were some specific SOF forces. And all they did was wear hajj garb and sneak around in the dark watching and attacking the same Iraqi insurgents we have been used to all these years. What kind of war would this be?


----------



## AWP (May 20, 2011)

Orpheo, you do understand that "Asymmetric warefare" has been around since the dawn of time, we only put a name to it just recently....kind of like we did for "serial killers?"

I think dknob's first sentnce hit it on the head: CT and asymmetric warfare aren't the same. A midfielder or goalie aren't a soccer team, you know?


----------



## Orph3o (May 20, 2011)

thanks dknob,
Very informative.
This leads me to "another" question though... CT is Proactive/reactive. Maybe that's a stretch, (especially as, like you say, strategies are different) but getting to international terro leaders, especially in warfare zone, could still be considered a proactive strategy in order to prevent terrorist acts.
Apart from the "technical" part, do you think that hunting down internationsl terro group leaders, be it in warfare situation (afghanistan/Irak) or country at peace (joint op) could be considered as Counter Terrorism?

Sorry for the candid questions, I am trying to understand a little better the intricacy of international terrorism and act upon it vs. strict specop is a war situation.

and a great final question... I'll take some time to think about this as this can lead to ethical ridden conclusion, something I wouldn't consider lightly.


----------



## Marauder06 (May 20, 2011)

There's probably an FM or JP out there that explains the differences in excruciating detail.


----------



## Orph3o (May 20, 2011)

Freefalling,
I think I understand, it is just that this shift to non-conventional warfare has been stronger than ever in the recent times, or considered more effective in most engagement.
I am coming from Saint Nazaire (France) and have been raised with a strong understanding of this difference between conventional and specop activities. Conventional warfare has destroyed 95% of my city during WW2 (and we still have this huge Uboat bunker to remind us of those times). while the sacrifice of the SAS (Chariot) has been a lot more effective (even though so terrible in terms of human loss).

I am just trying to "get up to speed" with the new reality of war, Specop has always been to me "isolated and specific action" in a warfare situation. As warfare as evolved to terrorism, just trying to understand what this implies.

Thanks for your patience ;)


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 20, 2011)

Counter-Terrorism: Simply put is actionable intelligence and the targeting of terrorist and terrorism networks, disrupting and or destroying their capabilities. This can be accomplished through many formats (cyber, financial, economic, physical ect ect)

Anti-Terrorism: Security measures used to reduce the vulnerability to terrorism attacks on personnel, structures or organizations (i.e. TSA screeners are an Anti-Terrorism effort).

Asymmetrical warfare: A broad doctrine that covers many aspects and tactics and the countering of tactic used in guerrilla/unconventional style warfare.

As for how they relate? Terrorism tactics and or the countering of terrorism are a form of Asymmetrical warfare. However, asymmetrical warfare also includes much more than just terrorism tactics or the countering of such. So they do relate in some regards, but the sole focus of asymmetrical warfare is not terrorism, nor is the sole focus of a counter terrorism unit asymmetrical warfare.


----------



## Nasty (May 20, 2011)

Marauder06 said:


> There's probably an FM or JP out there that explains the differences in excruciating detail.



If there is, Mara, I'd bet that you wrote it.


----------



## AWP (May 20, 2011)

Orph3o said:


> Freefalling,
> I think I understand, it is just that this shift to non-conventional warfare has been stronger than ever in the recent times, or considered more effective in most engagement.



Has it? Or have we just paid more attention to it? And what do you define as "recent times?" The end of WWII? The Cold War? The last century?

Asymmetric warfare is, as JAB stated, a "pretty" name for guerilla warfare. Now, you could argue that asymmetric warfare is the modern tool of choice for a group, but event hat would require one to split some hairs.

Off the top of my head going back to the 1700's:
- French and Indian war
- American Revolution (this involved both guerilla warfare and conventional battles)
- The American campaign against our indigenous natives. (this went on against numerous tribes for about 100 years)
- Anglo-Afghan Wars 1, 2, and 3 (a mix of warfare types)
- Sepoy Rebellion in India (you could lump in continued anti-British/ Raj actions over time)
- WWII (Asymmetric warfare played a huge if unsung role)
- Vietnam x 2 (France and America)
- Laos in the 60's
- Algeria in the 50's
- Philippines around the turn of the 20th centry (the Moros)
- Bolshevik Revolution in Russia
- Numerous revolts in Central and South America for several hundred years
- Pancho Villa

And I'm woefully ignorant of Asian and African history, but I'll bet a dollar they have lengthy Asymm. wars or wars wehre asymm. warefare played a significant role. I think all we've done is apply a "buzz phrase" or update something that has ALWAYS been around.


----------



## pardus (May 20, 2011)

Freefalling said:


> And I'm woefully ignorant of  African history, but I'll bet a dollar they have lengthy Asymm. wars or wars wehre asymm. warefare played a significant role.



Oh yes...


----------



## Orph3o (May 24, 2011)

thanks for all the references and overall approach.
I am readjusting my perception of this (Counter terro vs. Specops)...

Marauder06 references to a possible FM or JP regarding this.
I have seen a couple FM available here and there... If they can be made public, where should I look into to find such a reference?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## x SF med (May 25, 2011)

Hey Orph3o-
follow this link and read a little, please...  it's a quick google search for "asymetric warfare defined"  and it returns about 380,000 results....  it's a good start.

http://www.google.com/search?q=asym...ox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7SUNA


----------



## Orph3o (May 25, 2011)

Thanks x SF med.
I read quite a quantity of those, but realize my question was misleading. Sorry about that.

What is "bugging" me and compelled me to ask the question is that in its essence, asymetrical warfare is "localized", in a state or defined geographical area. Terrorism in its definition, is however international.
Sometimes, fighting terrorism is asymetrical warfare (Pakistan, Afgh., Irak war zones), but the fight can also be brought into non specificaly "at war" areas, hence falling into the definition of proactive counter-terrorism.

To quote the wikipedia introduction:
_Discussion since 2004 has been complicated by the tendency of academic and military communities to use the term in different ways, and by its close association with guerrilla warfare, insurgency, terrorism, counterinsurgency, and counterterrorism._

I am in the midst of this "complication" and was simply trying to get some help to de-complexify the issue. Some entry in this thread have helped me starting it.

I'll do some more readings and try to come up with more specific questions.
I am just a starting learner, a newcomer on this forum, and realize I should keep ShadowSpear members time for very specific questions.

Have a good day.

Tom.


----------



## Manolito (May 25, 2011)

Could it be that after WWII compromise endings to wars became the norm? Before Korea winning meant complete surrender in defeat for the loser. Now in recent times it appears we are not in war for a win but a better position at the negotiating table.
Asymmetrical warfare can now succeed in getting a place at the Big Table at Christmas instead of the card table for children.
The above is a question not a statement.
Bill


----------



## x SF med (May 25, 2011)

I think the 'name tags' are causing more distractions than needed.  Asym. War includes terrorism - the key point to remember is that there are unequal forces/tech/resources thus the Asym.  ....  A small well armed and fed opponent can defeat a larger force handily eg - Israel versus Egypt in the 6 day war - an asym war IMHO...   it could also just be a cetralized versus a decentralized force  eg a terrorist threat to a large well equipped nation that has a preponderance of sheeple.  All asym really means is lopsided, the best example would be to understand the movie "the Mouse that Roared"

CT is asym but all asym is not CT...   in order to understand the rules you have to play the game - but in this case the rules change constantly and the best players are the survivors...

Academics will try to parse the differences without explaining the similarities or Venn overlaps in the terms and conditions of Asym/CT/insurgency/counter insurgency/GW/UW.   FID/UW is a reverse asym concept that uses force multiplication to create a winnable Asym environment for the trained force against the government in power....   I've given the clues, but I am not going to give away the TTPs and doctrines and secrets of this....   I will stop now although I'm sure this post is clear as mud to most readers.


----------



## Marauder06 (May 25, 2011)

Orph3o said:


> thanks for all the references and overall approach.
> I am readjusting my perception of this (Counter terro vs. Specops)...
> 
> Marauder06 references to a possible FM or JP regarding this.
> ...



Just Google it, amazing what is out there.


----------



## SpitfireV (May 25, 2011)

On the subject of definitions: It's telling that even within the same government there is often a bunch of different definitions for terrorism. This is reflected by the different missions and viewpoints of the various departments. If the government can't agree on a definition, beyond the basics of course...


----------



## Etype (May 29, 2011)

Speaking of terrorism, we seem to see 'terrorists' as the international types. We need to clean up our own backyard if we're going to yell at the neighbors. Lets label gangs as terrorists and hunt them down like animals.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 29, 2011)

Etype said:


> Speaking of terrorism, we seem to see 'terrorists' as the international types. We need to clean up our own backyard if we're going to yell at the neighbors. Lets label gangs as terrorists and hunt them down like animals.


 
I agree and for the most part most street gangs fall into the Narco-Terror group IMO, and as such with the current ongoing War on Drugs we (US Military) should be able to target them IMO.


----------



## Etype (May 29, 2011)

I'm picturing internal breaches and bangers going off in low income apartments with tight hallways.


----------



## alibi (May 29, 2011)

Etype said:


> I'm picturing internal breaches and bangers going off in low income apartments with tight hallways.



Sweet, that might mean we get another season of 24.


----------



## x SF med (May 29, 2011)

from dictionary.com:



> *ter·ror·ism*
> 
> [*ter*-_uh_-riz-_uh
> 
> ...


Gang violence does not generally fall into the political realm of the definition.


----------



## alibi (May 29, 2011)

x SF med said:


> from dictionary.com:
> 
> Gang violence does not generally fall into the political realm of the definition.



If we take a broad definition of politics:


_*a*_ *:* the art​​ or science of government_*b*_ *:* the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy_*c*_ *:* the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government

*2​**:* political actions, practices, or policies

*3​*_*a*_ *:* *political affairs or business​​; especially : competition between competing interest groups or individuals for power and leadership (as in a government)*_*b*_ *:* political life especially as a principal activity or profession_*c*_ *:* political activities characterized by artful and often dishonest practices

*4​**:* the political opinions or sympathies of a person

*5​*_*a*_ *:* *the total complex of relations between people living in society**b : relations or conduct in a particular area of experience especially as seen or dealt with from a political point of view<office​​ politics> <ethnic politics>*
(From Merriam Webster's, emphasis mine)
It can meet the criteria of terrorism by the above bolded definitions.


----------



## Marauder06 (May 29, 2011)

The main difference between criminal organizations like street gangs and terrorist organizations is that terrorist seek to *overthrow* the current government, most criminal organizations seek to *profit from* the current government.


----------



## x SF med (May 29, 2011)

alibi said:


> If we take a broad definition of politics:
> 
> _*a*_ *:* the http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/politics#
> art​
> ...


 
alibi-
Fail, go to SS jail, go directly to SS jail, do not Pass GO, do not collect $200...

using a portion of the tertiary definition, refuted by the implications of the primary definition of terrorism (government) and the cinquicential definition of politics to disprove a statement made using the primary definition of terrorism is poor form and would fail in any debate...  also - gangs do not actively participate in government - which is the major implied political entity used in the definition of terrorism.  Sharpshooting is fine , if you have a true dog in the fight and back it up with at least one primary definition backing your thesis.  Care to try again with a better researched and formulated response?


----------



## SpitfireV (May 29, 2011)

Marauder06 said:


> The main difference between criminal organizations like street gangs and terrorist organizations is that terrorist seek to *overthrow* the current government, most criminal organizations seek to *profit from* the current government.



I don't quite follow your last line of thinking. How do gangs profit from the government?


----------



## AWP (May 29, 2011)

SpitfireV said:


> I don't quite follow your last line of thinking. How do gangs profit from the government?


 
By exploiting the system/ status quo. Chicago gangsters during Prohibition commited "terrorist" acts like car bombings and drive by shootings, but they never sought to change the government. They did exploit weaknesses in the legal system and bribed government officials and LEOs, but they never sought to take power themselves.


----------



## SpitfireV (May 29, 2011)

Freefalling said:


> By exploiting the system/ status quo. Chicago gangsters during Prohibition commited "terrorist" acts like car bombings and drive by shootings, but they never sought to change the government. They did exploit weaknesses in the legal system and bribed government officials and LEOs, but they never sought to take power themselves.



That's not exactly profiting from the government, per sey. It's profiting from the social environment and bribery is taking advantage of individuals within the government but not the government itself.

For the most part, the only interaction gangs- these days, and I do stress the for the most part bit- have with the government is when they're either investigated for arrested. This is taking advantage and profiting from the social environment since their profit comes from the citizenry, not from the government.


----------



## alibi (May 29, 2011)

x SF med said:


> alibi-
> Fail, go to SS jail, go directly to SS jail, do not Pass GO, do not collect $200...
> 
> using a portion of the tertiary definition, refuted by the implications of the primary definition of terrorism (government) and the cinquicential definition of politics to disprove a statement made using the primary definition of terrorism is poor form and would fail in any debate... also -* gangs do not actively participate in government - which is the major implied political entity used in the definition of terrorism*. Sharpshooting is fine , if you have a true dog in the fight and back it up with at least one primary definition backing your thesis. Care to try again with a better researched and formulated response?



So a terrorist group must actively participate in government?

Terrorism cannot exist without a government?

I'm sorry, I find myself confused by your reply; I utilized two of the definitions given of politics, definition, which, if applied, would support my thesis.  If I want to get bigger than that, politics can be simply stated as power relations among groups.  Politics does not need a government to exist.  If politics is primarily about power (Going back to the broad definition used by say, Foucault, or Aristotle's view of politics) then my thesis still stands.  This is an argument over definitions; we don't have to share them.

I'm also still waiting for that reply to my Heinlein PM ;)


----------



## AWP (May 29, 2011)

x SF med said:


> from dictionary.com:
> 
> Gang violence does not generally fall into the political realm of the definition.


 
You could even go two steps further:

_U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38, Para. 2656f(d)_
_http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/422/usc_sec_22_00002656---f000-.html_



> (d)*Definitions *
> As used in this section—
> (1)the term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than 1 country;
> (2)the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;
> ...



OR

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/dod_dictionary/data/t/7591.html



> (DOD) The unlawful use of violence or threat of violence to instill fear and coerce governments or societies. Terrorism is often motivated by religious, political, or other ideological beliefs and committed in the pursuit of goals that are usually political. See also antiterrorism; combating terrorism; counterterrorism; force protection condition.
> Source: JP 3-07.2


----------



## Servimus (May 29, 2011)

SpitfireV said:


> That's not exactly profiting from the government, per sey. It's profiting from the social environment and bribery is taking advantage of individuals within the government but not the government itself.
> 
> For the most part, the only interaction gangs- these days, and I do stress the for the most part bit- have with the government is when they're either investigated for arrested. This is taking advantage and profiting from the social environment since their profit comes from the citizenry, not from the government.


Would that social environment exists as it does without the government?

I think that's the crux of the issue. Most gangs don't seek regime change, but rather have a vested interest in things staying the way they are- so business is open.


----------



## SpitfireV (May 29, 2011)

Servimus said:


> Would that social environment exists as it does without the government?
> 
> I think that's the crux of the issue. Most gangs don't seek regime change, but rather have a vested interest in things staying the way they are- so business is open.



But as far as laws go, they're supposed to reflect the morals and feelings of the people, not the government.


----------



## alibi (May 29, 2011)

Servimus said:


> Would that social environment exists as it does without the government?
> 
> I think that's the crux of the issue. Most gangs don't seek regime change, but rather have a vested interest in things staying the way they are- so business is open.



That particular social environment? No.  But a social environment without a government would still be preyed upon by gangs/terrorists.

This broaches a question:  Could terrorism be used to maintain the status quo?  A tenuous example would be during the Spanish Civil War, with loyalist death squads killing priests and nuns in support of the anti-clericalism of the Republican Government.


----------



## Servimus (May 29, 2011)

SpitfireV said:


> But as far as laws go, they're supposed to reflect the morals and feelings of the people, not the government.


Well yes, but those laws are generally upheld via government- whether it be Federal or local.

I see what you're saying though. Hope I'm not outside my [ ] here, but I'm pretty sure that there is debate as to whether or not certain domestic gangs qualify as terrorist organizations. Not a clean cut subject matter.

Alibi- Gangs and terrorism could exist without a government. I'd say that many times government is absent, gangs fill the vacuum. My point was though that gangs experience profit under this status quo. There is no need to change that from their POV.


----------



## SpitfireV (May 29, 2011)

Servimus said:


> Well yes, but those laws are generally upheld via government- whether it be Federal or local.
> 
> I see what you're saying though. Hope I'm not outside my [ ] here, but I'm pretty sure that there is debate as to whether or not certain domestic gangs qualify as terrorist organizations. Not a clean cut subject matter.
> 
> Alibi- Gangs and terrorism could exist without a government. I'd say that many times government is absent, gangs fill the vacuum. My point was though that gangs experience profit under this status quo. There is no need to change that from their POV.



You're not out of your box (Beevis/Butthead laugh goes here. Box! What a word!) IMO mate. So don't worry about that.

Re your second sentence. Domestic gangs should never be considered to be terrorist because then you're using the term in a solely pejorative sense, rather than in the cold and dispassionate word of law that it should be. It also lessens the impact of charging legitimate terrorists as terrorists because it becomes an everyday occurrence.


----------



## Servimus (May 29, 2011)

SpitfireV said:


> You're not out of your box (Beevis/Butthead laugh goes here. Box! What a word!) IMO mate. So don't worry about that.
> 
> Re your second sentence. Domestic gangs should never be considered to be terrorist because then you're using the term in a solely pejorative sense, rather than in the cold and dispassionate word of law that it should be. It also lessens the impact of charging legitimate terrorists as terrorists because it becomes an everyday occurrence.


Roger. But on the note of narco-terrorism, where do we draw the line? Especially when they work in conjunction with domestic gangs.


----------



## SpitfireV (May 29, 2011)

Narco terrorism doesn't exist, as such. It's two separate terms that have been combined for whatever reason. They're either terrorists who use drugs to finance their operations and objectives or they're drug runners who use violence to achieve their objectives. If that becomes a political objective then they become terrorists who use drugs to finance their operations. See the cycle? I'm not sure I'm being clear with this last bit lol.


----------



## AWP (May 29, 2011)

Servimus said:


> Roger. But on the note of narco-terrorism, where do we draw the line? Especially when they work in conjunction with domestic gangs.


 
Ah, but then you still have two different organizations/ entities with two different goals who are working together for some benefit towards those goals. They are still distinct organizations with distinct goals. Now, that doesn't mean a domestic gang couldn't alter it's goal(s) and become a terrorist organization...a butterfly starts from a larvae, but just working with an international terrorist group doesn't  make them terrorists. The whole "enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing.


----------



## x SF med (May 30, 2011)

alibi said:


> So a terrorist group must actively participate in government?
> 
> Terrorism cannot exist without a government?
> 
> ...


 
I will debate in the open and not take your wanna be everything (wannabe military, wannabe professor, wannabe sharpshooting everybody) behind the scenes....  if you want a debate, line it up in a good format.

To refute your debate - terrorism requires a government/political structure and a group trying to overthrow/disrupt that government - and yes, a resistance can be a terrorist group, and a government can be a terrorist group.  You forget that I was involved in counter-terror, and FID before you were born...   and yes, a political system, or group of poloitcal systems shared by a cabal of governments can be the target of terrorism - a gang, although using terrorist methodology does not fit the accepted definitions of terrorism - untl it reaches the level of the Chinese Tongs or the South/Central American Cartels - which do state they want political and economic control of whole countries/regions and the overthrow of those countries that care to stand in their way.  One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist, ome man's advisor is another man's agent provocateur...

read up on the Baader-Meinhof Group and Brigante Rosa...

I know you have been asked to quit posting so much to stir the shit and sit back and read...  it's not that you are not intelligent - you are naive and do not have the experience to back up the talk.


----------



## Servimus (May 30, 2011)

SpitfireV said:


> Narco terrorism doesn't exist, as such. It's two separate terms that have been combined for whatever reason. They're either terrorists who use drugs to finance their operations and objectives or they're drug runners who use violence to achieve their objectives. If that becomes a political objective then they become terrorists who use drugs to finance their operations. See the cycle? I'm not sure I'm being clear with this last bit lol.


I see what you're saying, but the term Narcoterrorism distinguishes itself from drug runners who use violence due to the intent to alter the status quo or government policy on the part of the narcoterrorists. Drug runners can use violence against competitors, but when they level violence at society or the government- they cross the threshold and are labeled as narcoterrorists. Aren't narcoterrorists simply terrorists organizations that finance their operation via drug trade? They all seek change on some level- political, economic, societal. These guys just finance themselves via drugs.



Freefalling said:


> Ah, but then you still have two different organizations/ entities with two different goals who are working together for some benefit towards those goals. They are still distinct organizations with distinct goals. Now, that doesn't mean a domestic gang couldn't alter it's goal(s) and become a terrorist organization...a butterfly starts from a larvae, but just working with an international terrorist group doesn't make them terrorists. The whole "enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing.


Yeah, I had a "Doh!" moment right after I posted that.


----------



## alibi (May 30, 2011)

x SF med said:


> I will debate in the open and not take your wanna be everything (wannabe military, wannabe professor, wannabe sharpshooting everybody) behind the scenes.... if you want a debate, line it up in a good format.
> 
> To refute your debate - terrorism requires a government/political structure and a group trying to overthrow/disrupt that government - and yes, a resistance can be a terrorist group, and a government can be a terrorist group. You forget that I was involved in counter-terror, and FID before you were born... and yes, a political system, or group of poloitcal systems shared by a cabal of governments can be the target of terrorism - *a gang, although using terrorist methodology does not fit the accepted definitions of terrorism - untl it reaches the level of the Chinese Tongs or the South/Central American Cartels - which do state they want political and economic control of whole countries/regions and the overthrow of those countries that care to stand in their way. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist, ome man's advisor is another man's agent provocateur...*
> 
> ...



That was pretty much my point (Probably inarticulate as it was).  Definitions will vary from person to person.

The only person who has told me to quit posting was you, on my second post, when I basically repeated Headshots comments on a necrothread.  But that's neither here nor there.

The Heinlein PM was about not derailing the thread we had the discussion in.  Something you said yourself you didn't want to happen in your post.

But look, I'm not interested in an internet e-fight.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 30, 2011)

Holy fuck! I will respond to this thread gone wrong tomorrow,  when I can see straight!:confused:


----------



## Marauder06 (May 30, 2011)

SpitfireV said:


> I don't quite follow your last line of thinking. How do gangs profit from the government?



Organized gangs operate in the margins of the current government; they know the system and how to exploit it.  A new government would mean a new system they'd have to learn, more trouble = less profit generally.


----------



## JustAnotherJ (May 30, 2011)

Alibi - You're an intelligent kid, but you should chose your battles a little better and know your audience.


----------



## amlove21 (May 30, 2011)

JustAnotherJ said:


> Alibi - You're an intelligent kid, but you should chose your battles a little better and know your audience.


YUP.


----------



## alibi (May 30, 2011)

Roger that.


----------



## Marauder06 (May 30, 2011)

JustAnotherJ said:


> ... you should chose your battles a little better and know your audience.



Always good advice.  Wish I would have known that back when I was a lieutenant.


----------



## alibi (May 30, 2011)

All right guys, thanks for the advice, I'll take it and quiet down.


----------



## SpitfireV (May 30, 2011)

Marauder06 said:


> Organized gangs operate in the margins of the current government; they know the system and how to exploit it. A new government would mean a new system they'd have to learn, more trouble = less profit generally.



No, they operate in the margins of the legal systems. Governments come and go, gang still stay, until legislation changes.


----------



## Marauder06 (May 30, 2011)

SpitfireV said:


> No, they operate in the margins of the legal systems. Governments come and go, gang still stay, until legislation changes.



I don't quite follow your logic on that one.


----------



## Manolito (May 30, 2011)

I have a question? If we take the current Government and we take the Arian Brotherhood I think I could make the case that they (the gang) wants to overthrow the current government and I think this for a lot of different reasons. The weathermen are also a group I think a solid connection could be made to call them terrorists. Inside the borders of the US would you call the Muslim Brotherhood a gang or a terrorist organization?
When you advocate returning to a conservative constitution government are you a fundamentalist or a terrorist?
Bill


----------



## Marauder06 (May 30, 2011)

Manolito said:


> I have a question? If we take the current Government and we take the Arian Brotherhood I think I could make the case that they (the gang) wants to overthrow the current government and I think this for a lot of different reasons. The weathermen are also a group I think a solid connection could be made to call them terrorists. Inside the borders of the US would you call the Muslim Brotherhood a gang or a terrorist organization?
> When you advocate returning to a conservative constitution government are you a fundamentalist or a terrorist?
> Bill



first part- terrorist.

second part- depends on your methods.


----------



## Servimus (May 30, 2011)

Manolito said:


> I have a question? If we take the current Government and we take the Arian Brotherhood I think I could make the case that they (the gang) wants to overthrow the current government and I think this for a lot of different reasons. The weathermen are also a group I think a solid connection could be made to call them terrorists.


I'd definitely call the Weathermen domestic terrorists. They wanted a change in governmental policy and their methods were violent and used intimidation.

As for returning to a conservative gov- If you're not engaging in violence at all I don't see how you could be a terrorist.


----------



## AWP (May 30, 2011)

Manolito said:


> I have a question? If we take the current Government and we take the Arian Brotherhood I think I could make the case that they (the gang) wants to overthrow the current government and I think this for a lot of different reasons. The weathermen are also a group I think a solid connection could be made to call them terrorists. Inside the borders of the US would you call the Muslim Brotherhood a gang or a terrorist organization?
> When you advocate returning to a conservative constitution government are you a fundamentalist or a terrorist?
> Bill


 
1. Terrorist
2. Fundamentalist

Terrorism isn't defined by just an end state, it is also defined by the method to arrive there.


----------



## SpitfireV (May 30, 2011)

Marauder06 said:


> I don't quite follow your logic on that one.



What I mean is they operate/profit by exploitation of the legalities of certain commodities/actions rather than by the presence of the government itself. These laws are in place regardless of which government is sitting at the time.


----------



## x SF med (May 30, 2011)

SpitfireV said:


> What I mean is they operate/profit by exploitation of the legalities of certain commodities/actions rather than by the presence of the government itself. These laws are in place regardless of which government is sitting at the time.


 
If they chose to change the government to a differnt state (democracy to socialist dictatorship or fascist state where they wwere involved in the policies of governing and social controls... they'd be terrorists - as they are, they are criminals who use some terrorist strategies to force their own economic growth.


----------



## SpitfireV (May 31, 2011)

x SF med said:


> If they chose to change the government to a differnt state (democracy to socialist dictatorship or fascist state where they wwere involved in the policies of governing and social controls... they'd be terrorists - as they are, they are criminals who use some terrorist strategies to force their own economic growth.



Yes this is true but my point was, that gangs don't profit from the government as such, they profit from the legal system.


----------



## Marauder06 (May 31, 2011)

SpitfireV said:


> Yes this is true but my point was, that gangs don't profit from the government as such, they profit from the legal system.



The profit from the loopholes that the government allows to exist.  With a change in government, all of the relationships they have built and TTPs they developed could be out the window.  A more fundamentalist or conservative government could mean a crackdown on crime or could impact the the laws that they are already exploiting.  The "what's in it for me" factor generally declines for criminal gangs when it comes to replacing the government, whereas for terrorists, overthrowing the government is often the goal.


----------



## SpitfireV (May 31, 2011)

I don't think we're going to agree or come to a neutral space on this so I might just leave it there :)


----------



## Marauder06 (May 31, 2011)

SpitfireV said:


> I don't think we're going to agree or come to a neutral space on this so I might just leave it there :)



:) fair enough, what I posted was pretty much the extent of my knowledge on the topic anyway.


----------



## x SF med (May 31, 2011)

SpitfireV said:


> I don't think we're going to agree or come to a neutral space on this so I might just leave it there :)


 
Terrorists and Gang members all deserve to be waterboarded and then thrown to the lions...  the first to train people the second for entertainment.


----------

