Generally: Terrorism is a criminal act and guerrilla warfare is a tactic used in war.
Mental illness can be caused from a variety of things. Spiritual warfare is definitely one that could be a possibility, but it's not extremely likely. It could also be something like depression.
It's also known as piccolo
He was also known as the "king of pop"
The treble clef is also known as the 'g' clef. The bass clef is also known as the 'f' clef.
The Maroon Wars in Jamaica were characterized by guerrilla warfare tactics employed by the Maroons, who were escaped enslaved Africans. They utilized their knowledge of the local terrain to execute ambushes, surprise attacks, and hit-and-run strategies against British forces. Additionally, they often employed a combination of stealth and deception, using their mobility to evade capture while disrupting supply lines. The Maroons also formed alliances with other Indigenous groups, enhancing their combat capabilities against colonial forces.
Guerrilla warfare is basically hit and run under cover, so the Vietcong during the Vietnam war used guerrilla warfare to combat American soldiers. During the US Civil War, the Rebels also used guerrilla warfare.
Guerrilla warfare causes LESS casualties because it is SMALL unit operations. It's also less expensive (cheaper); it can also "border" on "terrorism"...as the targets are often non-combatants (read women and children, churches, schools, and shopping malls). Amongst one of the first "exposures" to the word "terrorist" was when the VC blew up a restaurant in Saigon. Naturally that made the front pages in the US, and the word "terrorist" was used. If the "Rebs" had stuck to guerrilla warfare; and not lost all their men (arms/ammunition) in those conventional battles...YEARS could've been added to the war.
There is no justification for terrorism. There may be justification for terror... as in torture to get information that saves hundreds of lives. It is not black and white. There are, at least, hypothetical situations where terrorism can be morally justified. My question is if there are any real life situations that are arguably morally justifiable. On the other hand, terrorism employed in conjunction with guerrilla warfare in a protracted war of liberation may well prove useful and therefore also justified, as it did in Algeria and South Vietnam. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy .
Henri Jomini wrote that guerrilla warfare is an effective strategy when the defending nation is aided by the terrain. Jomini cites mountainous regions and a landscape deep with forests as ideal positions from which a defending people are most familiar. The invading army is at a disadvantage because of the lack of knowledge of the terrain. Jomini also points out that guerrilla warfare prospers when the invaded nation has a reliable regular army that the invaders must also contend with.
'Traditional' warfare is also known as 'fighting the "last" war'. In spite of all notions of progress, most well-funded 'defence' departments are most likely to prepare for what they think they 'know', that is, the 'last' war.
Guerrilla warfare is and was a hit-and-run technique used in fighting a war; fighting of small bands using tactics such as sudden ambushes. It also usually involves fighting men who are not identified by uniform or any insignia. This makes it difficult to know who is an enemy and leads to killing of innocent people.
yes it was also known as the jungle war
A people without a standing army and/or navy (later also an air force) have no choice but to fight a guerrilla war.
Unlike traditional warfare in which two armies are engaging, mostly in plain-sight or with trench warfare, guerrilla teams normally engage with their opponents in short bursts & then retreat - normally concealling themselves in surrounding areas like forests and also among civilians (uniforms wouldn't be worn as with traditional warfare.).It works, as it allows a small number of soldiers to take on a larger army. It gives them the benefit of surprise and camoflauge which makes them a harder target.
Frustration. Which is what happens when a government deploys "conventional troops" to combat "guerrillas." They're supposed to fight fire with fire (guerrilla to kill guerrilla/also known as "bushwacking") not use artillery and tanks! Guerrilla (bushwacking) warfare induces low morale on conventional forces...part of its usefulness in war. If an army is going to deploy conventional forces to deal with guerrillas (bushwackers)...then they're just simply falling into the guerrillas plans.
That refers to warfare that includes nuclear weapons, also known as atom bombs.
Terrorism is a tactic. Terrorists can be countered by war in those cases where the terrorists are supported by a state or control a state. However, in many cases terrorists are not associated with a state or even a particular territory. Then, at best, you can conduct anti-guerrilla warfare, but often even that will not fully counter a terrorist group. You can oppose them with military and police action and perhaps grind them down over time, but you also need to take actions that are not warfare, actions that reduce or eliminate the terrorists' ability to obtain new recruits and supplies. That may require development and other non-warlike actions.