The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
If on the other hand the attacker has mostly infantry, local population on the attackers side is an asset as they know terrain, hide-outs etc. And in an ethnic conflict where both parties speak the same language and look the same, local knowledge is essential in determining who is in the desired cathegory and who is not. Of course, you can argue that anyone who does not to as they are told are the enemy in one way or the other.
I have not enough data to form a real opinion on the case here myself, so I'll let you argue which case this is. Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
Tough it is geared towards large-scale violence - bombing, artillery, WMDs, starvation - where you have problem discriminating the violence.
Similarly, in the days preceding Operation Storm in 1995, the authorities of the RSK initiated a mandatory evacuation of the civilian population, resulting in a wave of refugees into Bosnia.
Now, in both cases a large part of the flow of refugees/internally displaced is an "evacuation towards the rearguard" rather than being driven out at gunpoint, but the distinction is not very useful. The flow of refugees is the same and the cause of the flow is the general condition of fighting. Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by gmoke - Nov 28
by gmoke - Nov 12 7 comments
by Oui - Nov 2829 comments
by Oui - Nov 278 comments
by Oui - Nov 2511 comments
by Oui - Nov 24
by Oui - Nov 22
by Oui - Nov 2119 comments
by Oui - Nov 1615 comments
by Oui - Nov 154 comments
by Oui - Nov 1319 comments
by Oui - Nov 1224 comments
by gmoke - Nov 127 comments
by Oui - Nov 1114 comments
by Oui - Nov 10
by Oui - Nov 928 comments
by Oui - Nov 8
by Oui - Nov 73 comments
by Oui - Nov 633 comments
by Oui - Nov 522 comments