Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Exit Mundi Forums. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Things not looking too good for Iranian president
Topic Started: Jan 18 2007, 05:31 AM (3,709 Views)
Mister Sinister
Member Avatar
Delusional Granduerist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Killer Bee
Jan 23 2007, 09:38 AM
piercehawkeye45
Jan 23 2007, 02:35 PM
How can you say that terrorism is not a legitimite war tatic? It is bascially equivilant to a shot in the balls but it is still a tatic, however dirty it is.

It's slaughtering civilians, nothing less. If this is the case, then all of the war criminals from WWII should be freed and not brought up on charges.

I'm sorry Killer, but in your criteria, Roosevelt and Truman, as well as Churchill, Kennedy, LBJ, and William Jefferson Clinton would be up on War crimes charges. Just because you use a military to attack civilians does not make it any less disgusting. Look at the Dresden bombing in 194(4)? This was the slaughtering of civilians and nothing less. There was no real way to target a building, military or otherwise, from 20,000 feet in 1944, we dropped the bombs and hoped they didn't kill too many babies. Those left alive were too scared to ever consider fighting the US...terrorism. The use of a military actually only makes it that much more disgusting. Roosevelt willingly and delightfully firebombed the Japanese civilians back to the stone age. The justification, civilians join the army and become soldiers, civilians make the bombs, food, clothing, equipment that reach the front line. Someone can always pick up the rifle and start firing it again, but keep the rifle from being made and you won't have to worry about who is there to fire it. It certainly is not pretty or moral or even justified. The ends never justify the means in War. War is barely controlled insanity, there is absolutely no War to conduct a moral War, those two words or polar opposites....Moral....War.

The fact that a few civilians got together to kill a few thousand civilians is no more amoral than the killing of civilians (at the US hand) in Iraq, regardless of the reason.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Killer Bee
Member Avatar

Admin
Mister Sinister
Jan 23 2007, 10:20 PM
Killer Bee
Jan 23 2007, 09:38 AM
piercehawkeye45
Jan 23 2007, 02:35 PM
How can you say that terrorism is not a legitimite war tatic? It is bascially equivilant to a shot in the balls but it is still a tatic, however dirty it is.

It's slaughtering civilians, nothing less. If this is the case, then all of the war criminals from WWII should be freed and not brought up on charges.

I'm sorry Killer, but in your criteria, Roosevelt and Truman, as well as Churchill, Kennedy, LBJ, and William Jefferson Clinton would be up on War crimes charges. Just because you use a military to attack civilians does not make it any less disgusting. Look at the Dresden bombing in 194(4)? This was the slaughtering of civilians and nothing less. There was no real way to target a building, military or otherwise, from 20,000 feet in 1944, we dropped the bombs and hoped they didn't kill too many babies. Those left alive were too scared to ever consider fighting the US...terrorism. The use of a military actually only makes it that much more disgusting. Roosevelt willingly and delightfully firebombed the Japanese civilians back to the stone age. The justification, civilians join the army and become soldiers, civilians make the bombs, food, clothing, equipment that reach the front line.

The fact that a few civilians got together to kill a few thousand civilians is no more amoral than the killing of civilians (at the US hand) in Iraq, regardless of the reason.

I agree with you Sinister they all have committed war crimes. But, terrorism and a coordinated bombing run are two different scenarios. Granted, both are horrific and morally and ethically unjustified, but my question is how is committing acts of terrorism going to ultimatley defeat a nation? Guerilla warfare is a more legit tactic than terrorism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mister Sinister
Member Avatar
Delusional Granduerist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Killer Bee
Jan 23 2007, 05:28 PM
I agree with you Sinister they all have committed war crimes. But, terrorism and a coordinated bombing run are two different scenarios. Granted, both are horrific and morally and ethically unjustified, but my question is how is committing acts of terrorism going to ultimatley defeat a nation? Guerilla warfare is a more legit tactic than terrorism.

When you say legitimate, then, you mean "something that actually works".

Then no, Terrorism is not a legit tactic. The only things that keep it from working though are frequency, and size. A terrorist organization could never do enough to bring down the US. Their most elaborate and expensive plot only took out 3 city blocks of this great nation, child's play militarily. So, is the only thing that seperates military and terrorist tactics, budget? If Bin Laden could afford to drop incindieries on us mericlessly, as we did to Japan, backed by a 7 million man army, would it be justified?

I guess I just don't see ANY distinction between a group of civilians, labeled as terrorists, killing civilians, and a group of civilian conscripts, known as soldiers, killing civilians. To me it's the same thing. Both accomplishes nothing that is worth slaughtering people of any background or ideal.


The real question is, Is Bin Laden trying to destroy the US outright? Or does he have a larger goal in mind? I think people like Bin Laden understand how little effect 9/11 had on our military, but the effect it had on our minds is what he was after, much like the effect FDR was looking for while dropping enough napalm on Nippon to heat hell. The phsycological effect of watching family, freinds, even just fellow tax-payers, burn alive in their place of business IS enough to stop any country in it's tracks. It certainly stopped us for a few days, then when we decided it was okay to get this train moving again, we were on a totally different track. This could be exactly what "The base" was looking to do, for now at least.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
piercehawkeye45
Member Avatar
Franklin Pierce
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I've always wondered what Bin Ladin tried to get out of 9/11. I don't buy that it was out of pure hatred.
Dropped the atomic bomb let them know that it's real
Speak soft with a big stick do what I say or be killed
I'm America!

I have found the enemy and he is us.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Falcon
Member Avatar
Apocalyptic Usher
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Quote:
 
Military actions are political agendas, just by force instead of reason.  In WWII we went in to accomplish a goal; we could probably have accomplished that goal purely by targeting military targets only, but instead we realized that we could win faster and with fewer losses by targeting civilians.  Of course, sometimes you would lose a war by targeting only military forces, but yet might prevail were you to target civilians.  That is the state the terrorists are in now.  If they only attacked military targets they wouldn't have any hope of winning.


The way to disable and conquer a nation is to disable it's military. How is only targeting civilians going to accomplish this. Reason gives way to logic at some point in time and eventually have to either strike or go home.


It makes it a lot easier to disable a nation's military to disable the civilians that the military draws its war material from. Modern armies of any size consume hundreds of tons of war material on a daily basis just to maintain fundamental operation. I'm not arguing that all wars should be fought exclusively as terrorist operations against civilians, or even that terrorism is an effective tactic all the time, just that terrorism is a legitimate tactic. Also, who says that the aim of every act of violence is to conquer a nation? If you want to change a nation's foreign policy its much easier (and less deadly, incidently) to target some civilians than to demolish the entire nation's military. If you start out to overthrow the nation entirely then it will probably resist all it can, but if you just make the civilians suffer a little they might change their minds about whether their foreign policy is worth seeing busses exploding on TV. Spain sure tucked tail and ran after a train bombing. Seems like the terrorists accomplished their aims a lot easier than defeating all the Spanish soldiers in the field.

Quote:
 

Quote:
 
The guy fixing lunch in the barracks for the guy with the M-16 is an innocent civilian?  The guy assembling the M-16 in a factory or bullets for the M-16 is an innocent civilian?  The guy who voted to send the guy with the M-16 to your nation to kill you is an innocent civilian?  The guy who payed the sum of money needed to send the guy with the M-16 to kill you is an innocent civilian?  Without all those people the guy with the M-16 wouldn't be there.  In fact, the guy with the M-16 might be a draftee who doesn't even want to be there, much less kill you.  The guy who wants you dead just coerced him into doing his dirty work for him.  By striking at the guy with the M-16 only you've not done anything against the person who has the real intent to kill you, but in fact killed someone with an innocent mind that was merely following orders.


It doesn't matter who is fixing lunch or paying taxes for who. What would matter is you have a person holding an automatic assult rifle shooting at you. Now, with that scenario who is it more wise to take out, the person who built the gun or the person hunting you down with it?


The person who built it, or the guy who feeds the soldier who uses it, or the people who suppliy ammunition for it, etc... I'd much rather go fight those people, who are as vital or more vital to the war effort as the soldier, but easier targets than the guy who has a gun and is trained to use it.

Quote:
 

Quote:
 
Why would saying that terrorism is a valid tactic therefor imply some kind of blanket right for one person to kill another?  Whether an act of violence is "right" depends on everything except the type of violence used.  It is of no consolation to me if I'm killed in a terrorist attack or a missle strike by a world power; dead is dead.  What matters to me is the aims of the terrorists.  The terrorists of today are wrong because of their goals, not because they use terrorism to achieve their goals.


I'm not saying anything of the sort. I'm implying that these extremist are killing Christians because they have to use questionable tactics to win a war.


How would they not need to kill Christians if they had F-16s instead of vest bombs?

Quote:
 

Quote:
 
You're confusing justification for an attack from an moral or legal standpoint with the validity of a particular war tactic.


No, no confusion here. Legality or morality doesn't come into play here. If terrorism is a legit and fair war tactic, then suicide bombings of Israel should be expected. Still, bombing busses or nightclubs isn't getting these terrorist any closer to their ultimate goal. If not, then how is what they're doing "legit"?


Their tactics are legitimate, but their reason for wanting to use those tactics are illegitimate.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Killer Bee
Member Avatar

Admin
Quote:
 
Spain sure tucked tail and ran after a train bombing.  Seems like the terrorists accomplished their aims a lot easier than defeating all the Spanish soldiers in the field.


It depends on what your agenda is. You're right about Spain, the terrorists accomplished their goal. But, in the aftermath of 9/11 Bin Laden has made his life much more complicated than it was before. He did proceed in bringing America to it's knees, but in the same breath he also pissed the wrong administration off. Now, if he wanted to make America out to be bloodthirsty, then he succeeded. I don't feel, how ever, that the "America is just a bully" routine is going to get much support outside of the anti-America propeganda machine. So I guess whether terrorism accomplishes major political goals is dependant upon perspective.

Quote:
 
The person who built it, or the guy who feeds the soldier who uses it, or the people who suppliy ammunition for it, etc...  I'd much rather go fight those people, who are as vital or more vital to the war effort as the soldier, but easier targets than the guy who has a gun and is trained to use it.


But it still boils down to who is trained to hunt you down or to stop what ever plot you're trying to pull off. Looking at it that way, who is more important?

Quote:
 
Their tactics are legitimate, but their reason for wanting to use those tactics are illegitimate.


Maybe in swaying the civilian population into panic or to disrupt lives, but as far as a wartime tactic ,it leaves a lot to be desired.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Falcon
Member Avatar
Apocalyptic Usher
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Quote:
 
Spain sure tucked tail and ran after a train bombing.  Seems like the terrorists accomplished their aims a lot easier than defeating all the Spanish soldiers in the field.


It depends on what your agenda is. You're right about Spain, the terrorists accomplished their goal. But, in the aftermath of 9/11 Bin Laden has made his life much more complicated than it was before. He did proceed in bringing America to it's knees, but in the same breath he also pissed the wrong administration off. Now, if he wanted to make America out to be bloodthirsty, then he succeeded. I don't feel, how ever, that the "America is just a bully" routine is going to get much support outside of the anti-America propeganda machine. So I guess whether terrorism accomplishes major political goals is dependant upon perspective.


I didn't say it was 100% successful all the time. Just that its a legitimate tactic that has real application.

Quote:
 

Quote:
 
The person who built it, or the guy who feeds the soldier who uses it, or the people who suppliy ammunition for it, etc...  I'd much rather go fight those people, who are as vital or more vital to the war effort as the soldier, but easier targets than the guy who has a gun and is trained to use it.


But it still boils down to who is trained to hunt you down or to stop what ever plot you're trying to pull off. Looking at it that way, who is more important?


Are you seriously suggesting that its better to hit hard targets than soft targets? Look at WWII, we attacked the military of our enemy, sure, but we also made sure to wreck havoc on the supply lines of those armies every chance we got. It really helps you fight if your enemy can't build replacements for the equipment you blow up or get supplies out to the army. Remember Stalingrad? Those Germans ran out of ammunition, fuel, etc, because they couldn't get any resupply (though it was a logistical problem rather than a manufacturing problem, but a manufacturing problem is much better than a logistical problem since logistics are more easily fixed).

Quote:
 

Quote:
 
Their tactics are legitimate, but their reason for wanting to use those tactics are illegitimate.


Maybe in swaying the civilian population into panic or to disrupt lives, but as far as a wartime tactic ,it leaves a lot to be desired.


It doens't leave much of anything to be desired. By punishing the civilians you make them tire of the war and lose confidence in their government. By destroying vital infrustructure you deplete the ability of the enemy to build war material and ship it to their army. By killing or better yet injuring citizens you suck up medical supplies or remove personnel that could otherwise help the war effort. Attacking civilians isn't just a good method to help win a war, its preferred.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Killer Bee
Member Avatar

Admin
Quote:
 
Are you seriously suggesting that its better to hit hard targets than soft targets?  Look at WWII, we attacked the military of our enemy, sure, but we also made sure to wreck havoc on the supply lines of those armies every chance we got.  It really helps you fight if your enemy can't build replacements for the equipment you blow up or get supplies out to the army.  Remember Stalingrad?  Those Germans ran out of ammunition, fuel, etc, because they couldn't get any resupply (though it was a logistical problem rather than a manufacturing problem, but a manufacturing problem is much better than a logistical problem since logistics are more easily fixed).


It depends on what you want to do. If you want to keep hitting soft targets and draw the war out taking heavy casulties of your own then no it isn't. If you want to take a chance and possibly defeat an enemy or end a war then yes it is.

Quote:
 
It doens't leave much of anything to be desired.  By punishing the civilians you make them tire of the war and lose confidence in their government.  By destroying vital infrustructure you deplete the ability of the enemy to build war material and ship it to their army.  By killing or better yet injuring citizens you suck up medical supplies or remove personnel that could otherwise help the war effort.  Attacking civilians isn't just a good method to help win a war, its preferred.


It's preferred? Along with your plans to beat the civilian population down, you're still fighting an enemy military. So, waste your supplies on killing common folk or do you utilize your resources on an enemy military who is capable of inflicting losses to you?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Falcon
Member Avatar
Apocalyptic Usher
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Quote:
 
Are you seriously suggesting that its better to hit hard targets than soft targets?  Look at WWII, we attacked the military of our enemy, sure, but we also made sure to wreck havoc on the supply lines of those armies every chance we got.  It really helps you fight if your enemy can't build replacements for the equipment you blow up or get supplies out to the army.  Remember Stalingrad?  Those Germans ran out of ammunition, fuel, etc, because they couldn't get any resupply (though it was a logistical problem rather than a manufacturing problem, but a manufacturing problem is much better than a logistical problem since logistics are more easily fixed).


It depends on what you want to do. If you want to keep hitting soft targets and draw the war out taking heavy casulties of your own then no it isn't. If you want to take a chance and possibly defeat an enemy or end a war then yes it is.


We simply disagree and I contend that history is on my side. Hitting soft targets too ends the war more quickly and with fewer casualties than only hitting hard targets. You could defeat an enemy without even fighting if you wiped out their civilians all at once, such as with a nuclear strike. If every major US city were nuked right now our military would collapse with a whimper (other than a nuclear strike in retaliation since those assests are already in place and can be used before lack of maintenance depletes them).

Quote:
 

Quote:
 
It doens't leave much of anything to be desired.  By punishing the civilians you make them tire of the war and lose confidence in their government.  By destroying vital infrustructure you deplete the ability of the enemy to build war material and ship it to their army.  By killing or better yet injuring citizens you suck up medical supplies or remove personnel that could otherwise help the war effort.  Attacking civilians isn't just a good method to help win a war, its preferred.


It's preferred? Along with your plans to beat the civilian population down, you're still fighting an enemy military. So, waste your supplies on killing common folk or do you utilize your resources on an enemy military who is capable of inflicting losses to you?


It isn't an 'either or' proposition. WWII defeats every argument against hitting civilian targets. We were hitting German military forces continually and destroying their cities, factories, etc...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Killer Bee
Member Avatar

Admin
Quote:
 
We simply disagree and I contend that history is on my side.  Hitting soft targets too ends the war more quickly and with fewer casualties than only hitting hard targets.  You could defeat an enemy without even fighting if you wiped out their civilians all at once, such as with a nuclear strike.  If every major US city were nuked right now our military would collapse with a whimper (other than a nuclear strike in retaliation since those assests are already in place and can be used before lack of maintenance depletes them).


That's fine, we disagree. And you've said nothing to sway my opinion.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Katastrof
Member Avatar
One Of The Four Horseman
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Falcon
 
We simply disagree and I contend that history is on my side. Hitting soft targets too ends the war more quickly and with fewer casualties than only hitting hard targets. You could defeat an enemy without even fighting if you wiped out their civilians all at once, such as with a nuclear strike. If every major US city were nuked right now our military would collapse with a whimper (other than a nuclear strike in retaliation since those assests are already in place and can be used before lack of maintenance depletes them).


I wouldn't say wimper. The reason the Japs surrendered was because they couldn't promote an offencive attack anymore. We bombed them so they would surrender without going through a guirilla war.
If someone bombed U.S the military wouldn't go out with a wimper but instead fight stronger because of the tragedy.

If you hit a stronger oppennet with a dirty move, they'll just get more pissed off...
Posted Image

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero"(Seize the day put no trust in tomorrow)
~ Horace
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mister Sinister
Member Avatar
Delusional Granduerist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Katastrof
Jan 25 2007, 10:44 AM
Falcon
 
We simply disagree and I contend that history is on my side. Hitting soft targets too ends the war more quickly and with fewer casualties than only hitting hard targets. You could defeat an enemy without even fighting if you wiped out their civilians all at once, such as with a nuclear strike. If every major US city were nuked right now our military would collapse with a whimper (other than a nuclear strike in retaliation since those assests are already in place and can be used before lack of maintenance depletes them).


I wouldn't say wimper. The reason the Japs surrendered was because they couldn't promote an offencive attack anymore. We bombed them so they would surrender without going through a guirilla war.
If someone bombed U.S the military wouldn't go out with a wimper but instead fight stronger because of the tragedy.

If you hit a stronger oppennet with a dirty move, they'll just get more pissed off...

You know what Sun Tzu says about anger?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Falcon
Member Avatar
Apocalyptic Usher
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
It doesn't matter how mad you are, if you lose the physical ability to fight then its over. The US military would literally cease to have the resources and personnel needed to function as an offensive power if all our major cities were nuked.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Killer Bee
Member Avatar

Admin
Falcon
Jan 25 2007, 08:24 PM
It doesn't matter how mad you are, if you lose the physical ability to fight then its over. The US military would literally cease to have the resources and personnel needed to function as an offensive power if all our major cities were nuked.

If all of our major cities were nuked, then it would be pointless for the military to even pick up a stick. What would be left to defend? Honor, valour, pride...maybe that steaming charred pile of rubble that used to resemble Washington D.C. So again, if all major U.S. cities were nuked, we've lost anyways.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Falcon
Member Avatar
Apocalyptic Usher
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Killer Bee
Jan 25 2007, 08:33 PM
Falcon
Jan 25 2007, 08:24 PM
It doesn't matter how mad you are, if you lose the physical ability to fight then its over.  The US military would literally cease to have the resources and personnel needed to function as an offensive power if all our major cities were nuked.

If all of our major cities were nuked, then it would be pointless for the military to even pick up a stick. What would be left to defend? Honor, valour, pride...maybe that steaming charred pile of rubble that used to resemble Washington D.C. So again, if all major U.S. cities were nuked, we've lost anyways.

BINGO, if your civilians and infrastructure get destroyed its over for your military no matter how strong it is. Oh, and for the record, there would still be millions of Americans. Even cities taking direct hits from bombs larger than the nukes used in WWII would have survivors as I recall from "The Effects of Nuclear Weapons" 1977 report.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and Religion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Theme Made by Sionthede of the IFSZ.