I’ve have been contemplating that point. My idea that military forces commit war crimes, not terrorism isn’t always true. The VC during the Vietnam conflict used bombs in civilian buildings as part of their campaign. So, yes guerrilla war can turn to terrorism.
But I still don’t believe that was the school’s intent. If it had been the school’s intent, it would have taught things like assassination and how to wire a car bomb.
During the cold war, conflicts were often fought by proxy. The idea of Soviet and US troops opposing each other directly was too dangerous when escalation could lead to a nuclear confrontation. If the US was going to fight by proxy, it had to train those proxies (sp? The Proxies, is that a band?) and whenever you teach someone the art of violence there is always the risk of them using that against unintended targets. Too risky? Not compared to the risk of direct confrontation. Unethical? And was it even necessary? That’s a whole 'nother debate. And I think John Colorado could argue it better than I.
I think you missed what I was trying to convey. But please help me understand your point a little further.
Have you ever been involved in guerilla warfare?
Have you had any direct contact with others who may have had exposure to guerilla warfare? In particular, citizenry of a village that may had exposure?
If not, I don’t think you can say for sure what does and does not occur in times of war. It’s not as surgical as you may think. And again, comparing body count (guerilla versus terrorist) does not have any bearing whatsoever on the OP. My point was that with the continuation of SOA training, we may be hurting ourselves in the long run. A guerilla warrior of today can potentially be the terrorist of tomorrow (and being more effective at it due to training we’ve supplied).
For the purposes of this discussion as I saw it, I’m afraid it is indeed semantics.
I can take some chemsitry courses and become a terrorist. Give me a break.
I do have a GD thread started, though, asking people to help me seek a more solid definition of terrorism. You’re welcome to bring your semantics there.
The SOA was a phenomenon of the Cold War mentality, an “elite” training school in support of the democratic, freedom loving regimes of such paragons of civic virtue as Samoza, Trujill0, and other reptilian life forms. There was a time that any tin-pot thug with a set of aviator sunglasses would send his hot young officers to America for training. There was damn little we could teach those creeps about torture. The best direct comparison would have been Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow.
The list of right-wing death squads led by SOA graduates is as long as your arm. It is irrelevent whether they learned “torture” or “terrorism” at SOA. They learned to oppress, murder, and “disappear” thier own people on behalf of thier ruling juntas, which, by an astounding coincidence, were in close political alignment with the wealthy.
But they didn’t learn it from us. They didn’t have to. What they did learn was how to use the equipment we lavished on these champions of plutocracy.
“I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just”
Here we go again with the “I can take such and such a class and become a terrorist.” Yes, you probably can. You can be a liberal arts graduate and become a terrorist.
But the chemistry class you’re refering to will not make you half as dangerous as the training from SOA could make you.
The SOA can potentially lead us to face a Taliban type of government in South America. Something the likes of another Noriega or the other less than democratic people who have been mentioned. That can be a lot more dangerous to the US and an entire nation in South American than you can with a few chemistry courses, or kick boxing courses, or driving lessons.
I’m just not getting that point across to you, am I?
I appreciate the invitation. However since I’m new to this board, I think I’ll refrain from joining any GD threads just yet.
In some ways it does. What doesn’t come across to me immediately is that "guerilla tactics"and “terrorist tactics” are just a matter of semantics, by which I expect you mean “a slight difference in interpretation but no difference in their ends and effects.”
Well, what you have here is pretty much GD. IMHO anyway
Yes, that’s a lot closer to what I mean.
As someone pointed out in the GD thread you mentioned, the Chechens went from “freedom fighters” to “terrorists” overnight. Same thing with Manuel Noriega. We never know when one of our own will turn on us or when our goals and strategic interests may change.
That’s the point when a guerilla warrior can become a terrorist and that’s the point where our SOA training can go from helping us to hurting us. So if we’re going to eliminate terrorism, one thing I think we need to address is military training of any sort for foreign officials.
lol Well, maybe a little further “slut training” is needed here before I dip into the “elite slut zone.”
