How should one go about creating an insurgency/resistance force? When I actually thought about it, the task seems much harder than one would think. Obviously you're not going to make a newspaper ad, tv commercials, or the like, but what is there that allows a large, yet filtered audience to be contacted? When I look at other works, they're either going against this impromptu establishment or it's already formed.
Unless you want the CIA barring down on your arse, you shouldn't create a terrorist organization. Al jizira (or however the hell you spell it) it quit literally Terrorist TV. So, if you want something modern like that, then use that in your story. Watch a few of the Battlestar episodes when the cast is under Cylon control on New Caprica, that is to say, they find a military officer, he sets himself up as in charge, and they start to meet in secret, people bringing friends they trust 'n stuff.
The film "The Battle of Algiers" ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Battle_of_Algiers ) is considered a "how to" on both creating and destroying an insurgency (and is also a drop-dead, kick-ass excellent film). Rent it, buy it, borrow it, steal it, whatever it takes. - Evelyn PS. If you come complaining to me about it being Italian so that you have to read subtitles, I will slap you
A helpful site regarding the structure of terrorist organization. Though I don't believe it's what I wanted. Perhaps it can aid someone else?
I stand corrected: it's an Italian-made movie, and the languages spoken are French and Arabic (and some English). It's still subtitled, about which am I still not accepting complaints - Evelyn
Why not? Adamant: the Cylon occupation of New Caprica episodes of Battlestar are perfect, methinks. Half-Life 2 is another great piece of resistance. Maybe Nineteen Eighty-Four. Pretty much one group takes over, or becomes corrupt, and a smaller group starts secretly plotting to overthrow the government. More people form around the small group, and it slowly gets more members dedicated to it's cause. They'll usually be poorly equipped, incredibly paranoid, secretive, and dedicated. The leader or figurehead usually becomes something of a legend (Osama; Chief Tyrol, Colonel Tigh, and Sam Anders; Gordon Freeman, Isaac, Alyx, Barney, oldblackguy; Goldstein; Admiral Ackbar)
If you've got the time, try and find a copy of Deus Ex. It's an ancient PC game, for sure, but it's got some great resistance-group themes running through it, as well as being just a great game in general. One well-established way of making a terrorist/resistance group is having it be established as a 'regular' group, then shift- a la Fight Club (one of the great films of our age; the fight club slowly becomes an anti-consumerist terror group)- or fall down, a la Star Wars (the Jedi/Republic were the galaxy's way of being before the Empire got its stuff together). Hope that helps.
Two things: Someone will go reinstall Deus Ex at this moment And: A former group that becomes terrorist is good: The people who were previously the lawmakers and soldiers in the colonies became the rebels in the Revolutionary War. Or even a group that wasn't of any importance before the turn to Freedomrist (like Sam Ander's Pyramid team on Battlestar Galactica)
Some of you are talking about gurrilla groups. Basicly, there are several types of forces that use uncoventinal tatics. One such group that we are all familiar with are special forces, such as the U.S. SEALs, British SAS, Isreali Massahd, etc. They come in, do something quick, then withdraw out. Another group are guerilla fighters. These fighters are innitially poorly trained, poorly equiped and underfunded. They attack only government and military targets, such as troop convoys, supply dumps, etc. These fall into the catagory of "freedom fighters", such as the French resistance or the various communist groups during the mid to late 20th century. (Truth be told, some of the so called "freedom fighters" end up being worst then the dictors.) The final one that I will broch on are the out and out terrorists. Examples include the IRA, Al Quida and various factions fighting in Iraq right now. They use tactics such as sucide bombings, mail bombings and assisinations to attack political, rather then military, targets. While guerilla fighters may at most attack convoys and shipments, terrorists will attack civilians. Terrorists use fear to bring about political change, while guerillas use mostly propoganda and military engagements to do the same thing.
Well, the thing is, one man's Terrorist is another man's Freedom Fighter, even the "good guys" use dirty tricks. Which brings me to a question I've been meaning to ask Adamant: Are these the good guys or the bad guys in the story?
Generally, I try not to let "good guys" and "bad guys" exist in my story, as the the term is highly relative to the character's viewpoint. Having pure evil characters is lazy writing to me. As you just said, a terrorist to one is a freedom fighter to another; no one is perfect, and not many are above using dirty tricks to get their message across. I just try to understand the motives on all sides, present them, and let the reader choose what's right for them. However, their choice is bound to be affected by the main characters and the pervading theme - assuming all goes to plan. In short: It doesn't really matter if they are bad or good, does it?
Well, I only ask because there are some things that are more likely to be the "good" kind and more likely to be the "bad" kind. The good kind might be downtrodden, motley, a ragged band of adventurers. The bad kind are likely to be faceless, nameless, and uniform. The good kind would be fighting a tyrannical government The bad kind might be trying to create a tyrannical government (Though, they may not think they are. The example I'm thinking of is the Russian Revolution, they set up Communism, they didn't see it as tyrannical, but in short time it became as such)
I'd just like to put in this fact- the first attack in the Iraq War was called "Shock and Awe". That's the exact result that Terrorism is meant to give. Fear is a combination of shock and awe.
Well, perhaps so. However, to me the primary diffrence is how shock & awe is achieved. If they attack a purely military target, civilian casualties may result although that may not be the intention. I will exend this to some infastructure, such as power plants. However, the intention is not to purely kill people. Example: First attack in the Iraq war was called 'Shock and Awe'. This was mostly the result of the media looking for a headline and American propoganda. The purpose was a quick string of American stratigic bombings of various military and government targets, in an effort to confuse the Iraqi Army and distroy the Iraqi government. 9-11 was target twoards the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, as well as arguably the White House. While the Pentagon had military and the White House the American executive branch, the WTC was pretty much nothing but civilians. The purpose from the begining was to instill terror into the Western world. Civilian casualties can be expected in any conflict. That, unfortunatly, is the nature of war. However, when the sole purpose of the attack is to kill civilians, such as exploding a carbomb next to a soccerfield where kids are playing when there are no enemy combatants or support personel around is were I draw the line between freedom fighter/gurilla and terrorist. A rouge soldier could be used to add intrigue to your plot when you write. Although the group may not want to do things like that, it could be used as propoganda for the other side and affect their war effort. (Note: Being a cadet, I am one of those guys in uniform. Does that really make me scary?)
