a question about terrorism

[mburbank]

Okay, I want to be clear here that I do not advocate killing civillians. I don't advocate killing at all.

But here's my question.

Suppose you feel so opressed by a system that you feel you have no option but armed rebellion.

But whoever this enemy is, they are way way way way more technologically advanced than you are. And way, way, richer.

If you confronted their army, you would be wiped out to the last man without the other side loosing anything.

If you gathered together, you would be wiped out to the last man from the air.

In any sort of traditional warfare, you had no statistical chance to even make an impact.


I hope that if I were in this situation, I would continue to strike only at military targets, even though I knew full well that it would greatly increase my groups risks. Because I can't ever see targetting non combatants.

So, suppose I took on a military target, and the far more powerful enemy began to destroy the infrastructure and anyone unlucky enough to be near it.


Here's what my question boils down to, and keep in mind, I am against all solutions that involve killing other people.

How does a weaker power fight a much stronger power? What options are open to them? I think one of the things that makes terrorism acceptable to so many people is this optionlessness. You are presented with a choice of die or submit.

What do you do if you don't use human shields? Move away from innocent civilians and you invite annilation.

For me, I would say, accept submission, and if you cannot, accept anihilation. Because killing other people is unaceptable. To me. But a lot of people would not say that submission or death are preferable to violence.

Since most people find some form of violence an acceptable method of problem solving, how does the weaker opponent fight?