attacking military is not terroism...right?

Page 2 of 3 [ 33 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Ectryon
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Jun 2014
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,241
Location: Hundred Acre Wood

25 Aug 2014, 11:45 am

ZenDen wrote:

Ectryon wrote:

Quote:

Those who study military strategy understand this. It is why civilian oversight of the military is a double-edged sword. It holds military leaders accountable, but if the civilian oversight is too weak, it can compromise military effectiveness.

Some enemies require that you kill everyone, burn everything they've built to the ground and then salt the earth so that nothing will ever grow there again.

Military leaders understand this reality. Civilians often do not, or do not have the stomach to commit to that tactic.

There hasn't been a single western war where this approach was necessary. Indeed since the second world war all western wars have been poorly executed public relations campaigns and have been about maintaining western hegemony.

"There hasn't been a single western war where this approach was necessary."

U.S. command thought it was necessary to destroy entire villages in order to prevent their take over and usage by the Viet fighters. You disagree with their decision and it's effectiveness? Although not instituted 100% in the overall battle campaign, it's a tactic that will always be used.

Or perhaps I missed your intent and you were only commenting on wars "on battlefields in the West?" In this case I agree the capitalists and corporations driving the wars are VERY concerned about damaging infrastructure and will avoid this in hopes they can soon take over the enemies lands.

I read your post as suggesting that there are enemies in the past or present who warranted that approach.

_________________
IMPORTANT PLEASE READ ! !
My history on this forum preserves my old and unregenerate self. In the years since I posted here I have undergone many changes. I accept responsibility for my posts but I no longer stand behind them.
__________________
And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high Hebrews 1:3

ZenDen
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Jul 2013
Age: 81
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,730
Location: On top of the world

25 Aug 2014, 12:54 pm

Ectryon wrote:

ZenDen wrote:

Ectryon wrote:

Quote:

I read your post as suggesting that there are enemies in the past or present who warranted that approach.

I thank you for pointing that out.

Would you happen to remember which of my words made you think that? Or are you just putting a spin on something, perhaps suggesting I didn't more fully support your contention? Or sometimes people are just looking for a vigorous debate.

As far as my suggesting anything war-like (aside from personal self defense) I'd say it's one of the most ridiculous things I've heard recently. But I might have said something to put you (and others no doubt) off enough to comment.

My comments concerned the history and present inevitabilities (and sarcastic comments concerning corporations), after all, I'm not blind to what happens around me.. Your recollections may differ.

You say: "Indeed since the second world war all western wars have been poorly executed public relations campaigns and have been about maintaining western hegemony."

And I say: Call them what you will.......a man dying on the ground and the family waiting in vain know no distinctions.

In the case of your statement: "There hasn't been a single western war where this approach was necessary." I challenge you to show ANY war this was necessary and prove your statement by showing permanent gains made using this method and the present situation of any peoples who used them.

Ectryon
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Jun 2014
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,241
Location: Hundred Acre Wood

25 Aug 2014, 1:05 pm

I meant zer0netgain's post :oops: I get the impression that were fundamentally misunderstanding each other.

ZNG sounded as if he was advocating total carnage and the targeting of civilians. Its a classic argument used to justify collateral damage. The idea is that in the face of changing battlefield tactics the geneva convention needs to be altered.

My stance is that its impossib;e to fight terrorism with total warfare because its an ideology which knows no territorial boundaries. Indeed total warfare actually serves to make the ideology all the more virulent

zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,613

26 Aug 2014, 4:20 am

Ectryon wrote:

Quote:

I would contend that there has never been an enemy in MODERN warfare that rises to the barbarism and fundamental intolerance of radical Islam.

Even WWII Japan, with it's cruelty towards POWs, followed a moral code. Islam teaches to kill or enslave all unbelievers, and if the radicals had their way, they would gleefully slaughter everyone on the planet to the fulfillment of that goal. Such extremism can not be tolerated in a free society.

Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

26 Aug 2014, 5:41 am

Ectryon wrote:

Indeed since the second world war all western wars have been poorly executed public relations campaigns and have been about maintaining western hegemony.

Falklands War? You don't just abandon your people.

zer0netgain wrote:

I would contend that there has never been an enemy in MODERN warfare that rises to the barbarism and fundamental intolerance of radical Islam.

Nothing is as fundamentally savage and evil as Islamism.

Stannis
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jan 2014
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,631

26 Aug 2014, 6:10 am

Tequila wrote:

Nothing is as fundamentally savage and evil as Islamism.

Wow, really? I'm guessing you haven't met any muslims. Am I wrong?

Ectryon
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Jun 2014
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,241
Location: Hundred Acre Wood

26 Aug 2014, 6:59 am

Tequila wrote:

Nothing is as fundamentally savage and evil as Islamism.

Have you seen a parliamentary debate lately.

Quote:

Wow, really? I'm guessing you haven't met any muslims. Am I wrong?

Muslims cross the street when they see him

Last edited by Ectryon on 26 Aug 2014, 7:13 am, edited 2 times in total.

Ectryon
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Jun 2014
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,241
Location: Hundred Acre Wood

26 Aug 2014, 7:05 am

zer0netgain wrote:

Ectryon wrote:

Quote:

And you understand that the US created Al Qaeda and has cultivated and nurtured it with its tactics for the last few decades? You also understand that you cannot wipe out an ideology which has been disseminated globally? We could sacrifice all our freedoms for the next decade: compulsory strip searches at designated checkpoints perhaps?

The way to deal with Islam extremists is to pull out of the East and leave Israel to its own devices. Until we do those two things we are basically the lifeblood of every terrorist in the East.

Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

26 Aug 2014, 8:09 am

Stannis wrote:

Tequila wrote:

Nothing is as fundamentally savage and evil as Islamism.

Wow, really? I'm guessing you haven't met any muslims. Am I wrong?

I am not saying Muslims in general are evil. I am referring to the Islamist (i.e. the various extremist, integrist and fundamentalist currents within Islam). It's quite mainstream in Europe unfortunately. Just the other day, a journalist was falsely imprisoned in perhaps the most famous mosque in Britain for asking about that mosque's links to the Muslim Brotherhood.

I said Islamism, which I believe is savage and evil.

I didn't say Muslims. I didn't say Islam as a whole. I said Islamism.

Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

26 Aug 2014, 8:10 am

Ectryon wrote:

Tequila wrote:

Nothing is as fundamentally savage and evil as Islamism.

Have you seen a parliamentary debate lately.

They all sound like they're in a porn when Prime Minister's Questions is on with all their cheering and groaning.

ZenDen
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Jul 2013
Age: 81
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,730
Location: On top of the world

26 Aug 2014, 11:34 am

Ectryon wrote:

zer0netgain wrote:

Ectryon wrote:

Quote:

You say: "... leave Israel to its own devices"

You can't really mean this right? It would mean you're also saying: "Leave Hamas (etc.) to it's own devices", and do you know what would happen?? The entire destruction of all of Israel's enemies.

If we were to abandon Israel they would have to make a power move while they still had financial power and aid. The alternative would be more Hamas (etc.) antics except this time they'll be putting Sarin gas back in the rockets, as before. The Israelis will never allow it.

Besides, hiding our head in the sand never works for long and soon we'd be embroiled. Best bet is to let a ceasefire grow into peace....and that means NO rockets and NO mortars, and without suicide bombers.

azaam
Sea Gull

Joined: 12 May 2013
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 222
Location: Edmonton, Alberta

28 Aug 2014, 7:56 am

The rulers use the term terrorism on any resistance movements against them, even if the group has a good cause. Basically, any type of revolution against a ruler can be considered terrorism.

_________________
If nobody will give a s**t about me, then I will give a s**t about me.

azaam
Sea Gull

Joined: 12 May 2013
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 222
Location: Edmonton, Alberta

28 Aug 2014, 7:59 am

Tequila wrote:

Stannis wrote:

Tequila wrote:

Nothing is as fundamentally savage and evil as Islamism.

Wow, really? I'm guessing you haven't met any muslims. Am I wrong?

You don't understand "Islamists" in the first place. Are Islamists who are trying to overthrow a violent ruler evil? Are Islamists who are defending their country against foreign occupation evil? You know nothing about their objectives and struggles.

What is wrong with you on how you judge?

_________________
If nobody will give a s**t about me, then I will give a s**t about me.

TallyMan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,061

28 Aug 2014, 9:46 am

azaam wrote:

The rulers use the term terrorism on any resistance movements against them, even if the group has a good cause. Basically, any type of revolution against a ruler can be considered terrorism.

There is some truth in what you say. There is a saying "One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist". The word tends to get bandied about to mean anyone who is trying to resist or overthrow another regime. It could be that the "terrorists" have a good cause or an evil cause or the regime they are trying to overthrow is benevolent or malevolent. It is often a question of perspective. I'm sure that during the American war of independence, the fighters for independence there were regarded as terrorists by their British rulers.

Having said the above; I'm strongly of the opinion that Hamas, ISIS and Al Queda are all fighting an evil cause; it is merely that they believe their cause is just.

_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.

Humanaut
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,390
Location: Norway

28 Aug 2014, 1:16 pm

azaam wrote:

Are Islamists who are trying to overthrow a violent ruler evil? Are Islamists who are defending their country against foreign occupation evil?

If they are more/less good/evil depends on the ruler and/or occupier. The general question is: Are Islamists evil?

ZenDen
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Jul 2013
Age: 81
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,730
Location: On top of the world

28 Aug 2014, 9:48 pm

Or is anyone who believes it's OK to kill someone, as long as someone else said it was ok, evil?

Page 2 of 3 [ 33 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Jump to:

attacking military is not terroism...right? Post Reply New Topic

attacking military is not terroism...right?