I too had some thoughts generated by the recent events.
Such things as:
- What is the government of the IF like?
- Does it support/employ terrorism? The destruction
of Israel was 16 years before the IF was founded.
- What IS the fine line between liberation/guerilla
fighters and terrorists?
However, I think that it may still be too close to the events to bring up such
discussions.
-----
Brian Bell
-----
[quoted original message omitted]
From: Bell, Brian K (Contractor) <Brian.Bell@dscc.dla.mil>
> I too had some thoughts generated by the recent events.
[Canon] In the mid 2160's (IIRC) the House of Sa'ud was overthrown by
radical Islamists.
[Just Me] After the revolution there was a period of chaos as a
council of clergy attempted to govern, Sa'ud loyalists led counterrevolutions,
opportunistic governors attempted to secede, and banditry broke out all over.
Eventually an admiral gathered together a couple of marine battalions and
managed to pacify the area around New Riyadh. The admiral offered his services
to the religious leader,
offering protection in exchange for status. The imam--who was a well
respected theologian and an excellent rabble rouser, but not a very
good leader or administrator--quickly accepted, and the admiral became
the first Sultan. Through a combination of diplomacy, concessions, bribery,
threats, and some very convenient heart attacks and vehicle accidents among
his opposition, the sultan managed to bring most of the IF's territory back
under the new government. The Sultanate acts as the central government, while
the amirs are the local governors and in theory carry out the policies of the
Sultanate. In fact, though, most of the amirs are as independent,
uncooperative and contrary as they feel they can get away with, and it's
nothing unusual for an amirate to be engaged in its own little war against an
infidel power, another
amirate, or even the Sultanate. One reason why the Sultanate keeps
very strict controls on IF use of jump drive technology is to curtail the
possibility of revolts.
> - Does it support/employ terrorism? The destruction
The Ismaili sect, which produced the Hashishiyun a.k.a. Assassins, was in
business over 1000 years ago. If you want canonical info, IF
agents assassinated a group of diplomats--NAC and ESU as I recall--as
the diplomats were trying to patch up the 2nd Solar War, and
On Wed, 26 Sep 2001 11:44:40 -0400 "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)"
> <Brian.Bell@dscc.dla.mil> writes:
Hmm, anybody written up a history off the IF beyond the books? Who plays them
as 'personal choice' on the list (at least one IIRC)? Have you written up any
'developmental' history?
And why just the IF, how about the PAU (historical precedence there) or
Eastern Europe? Or SE Asia? Or China's ethnic minorities? Or anyone else for
that matter? Special Forces fighting an extended war might begin acting that
way in a unconventional war setting...
> - Does it support/employ terrorism? The destruction
Depends on how effective their 'opposition' is. Most nations prefer
'honorable warrior culture values' over striking at non-combat targets
from a position of relative inferiority. I believe that Terrorism is a choice
of groups feeling that more 'traditional values' approaches are doomed from
the start. A form of Asymmetrical warfare.
> - What IS the fine line between liberation/guerilla
Ideally the former fights primarily military targets, has support from outside
that prevents the temptation to use crime to raise funds, targets civilians
where deemed necessary that are clearly involved in the enemy political,
military or religious infrastructure.
The latter prefers striking non-combat elements of society, is
frequently corrupted by the need to raise funds for supplies (rob banks,
supply drugs, etc.), and is more broad in their scope for targets. Frequently
this is more a matter of interpretation then conscious volition in most
people's eyes.
But I still do not agree that "One man's Freedom Fighter is another man's
terrorist." The line is somewhat blurred where the cross over occurs but it
*is* there. Humans being what they are, the longer you try to be a former the
easier it is to practice the latter (Viet Cong for example.) Do the former
long enough and I think you turn into some form of the latter.
> However, I think that it may still be too close to the
Well, we'll see if it is. I find it painful to have written even the lines
above.
> -----
So much for my stoicism. Never was any good at that 'stoic Indian face'
thing. Brian, not sure if I will/can continue this thread... Will let
you know.
Gracias,