Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   War and Morality. Al Qaeda v USA
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 36 of 175 (621579)
06-27-2011 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by crashfrog
06-27-2011 1:19 AM


How do you commit an act of "terrorism" against a uniformed soldier during a state of declared hostility?
If Al-Qaeda in Iraq had killed my middle school best friend (Staff Sgt. David Day) with a bomb dropped from an airplane instead of a bomb buried by a road, would anyone call that "terrorism"? Why does it matter where the bomb was?
I see your point and partially agree with you.
The Bush admin relied extremely heavily on the word terrorist to paint anyone they didn't like.
It's being over used. We are engaged in asymetric warfare. We're the big ones, they are the little ones. The little ones rarely engage in open battle. That's been true for THOUSANDS of years.
So, some of the people we're fighting against are guerillas.
However, some of them aren't targeting soldiers, or supply depots, or engaging in delaying or distruption of infrastructure. Some of them are blowing up Red Cross buildings. Some of them are attacking people waiting in line to vote.
Civilians die in war. It happens. But, when one side targets the civilian population with the express intent of making them feel unsafe for the purposes of effecting their political opinion, that is terrorism. They are instilling terror.
The problem is, it's virtually impossible to tell which is which, and obviously there is probably a great deal of bleed over between the two camps.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by crashfrog, posted 06-27-2011 1:19 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by DBlevins, posted 06-27-2011 1:53 AM Nuggin has replied
 Message 54 by crashfrog, posted 06-27-2011 11:17 AM Nuggin has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 38 of 175 (621582)
06-27-2011 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by DBlevins
06-27-2011 1:53 AM


Soft Targets vs Terrorism
There is a distinction between a soft military target and civilians though, and that's important.
A fighter who blows up fuel truck at an army depot may kill some civilians in the process, but isn't necessarily a terrorist. He's taking out a supply chain.
A fighter that blows up a fuel truck that's unloading heating oil in a civilian neighborhood is clearly a terrorist.
The problem is they could easily be the same guy on two different days.
To the best of my knowledge, none of the groups we are currently dealing with has given any sort of a statement of what is or is not fair game.
I'd have a lot more respect for a group that said:
"Yes, we will use suicide bombers at check points, but no will not use a suicide bomber in a pizzeria."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by DBlevins, posted 06-27-2011 1:53 AM DBlevins has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by DBlevins, posted 06-27-2011 2:50 AM Nuggin has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 40 of 175 (621584)
06-27-2011 2:58 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by DBlevins
06-27-2011 2:50 AM


Re: Soft Targets vs Terrorism
I think it's easy enough to make a distinction.
Blowing up a restaurant, even one which serves soldiers, is still taking out a civilian target.
I mean, by the standards of "is there a soldier there", you can literally bomb anything as at some point some soldier is bound to walk into any given store which sells any given thing.
If the motive is to hurt the civilians so as to change their political outlook, that's terrorism.
If the motive is to hurt the occupying force so that they suffer losses, that's guerilla warfare.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by DBlevins, posted 06-27-2011 2:50 AM DBlevins has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by jar, posted 06-27-2011 9:05 AM Nuggin has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 47 of 175 (621601)
06-27-2011 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by jar
06-27-2011 9:05 AM


Re: Soft Targets vs Terrorism
"Civilian targets" like a factory, sure.
"Civilian targets" like a restaurant, however, is not part of our rules of engagement.
Now, there's what's supposed to happen and what actually happens. I'm not really talking about fog of war or bad intel or mistakes or even a psycho in uniform.
I'm talking about an organization that's willing to state: "Here's our goal and here's what we will or will not attack in principle."
IF they are willing to do that and stick to it, then we should be willing to better apply the label of terrorist to those to whom is actually fits

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by jar, posted 06-27-2011 9:05 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by hooah212002, posted 06-27-2011 9:44 AM Nuggin has replied
 Message 50 by jar, posted 06-27-2011 9:48 AM Nuggin has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 48 of 175 (621602)
06-27-2011 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Dogmafood
06-27-2011 9:20 AM


Re: Open your eyes
Just for a little context, these are the people you guys are defending.
Actually, we're not. I'm talking in general, and I'm really thinking more about Iraq than Afghanistan.
I don't know that the Taliban is doing a lot of targeting of civilians and IEDs. Maybe they are, I just don't know. I do know this is going on in Iraq.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Dogmafood, posted 06-27-2011 9:20 AM Dogmafood has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 53 of 175 (621609)
06-27-2011 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by hooah212002
06-27-2011 9:44 AM


Re: Soft Targets vs Terrorism
For my answer, go back and read the sentence before the one you quoted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by hooah212002, posted 06-27-2011 9:44 AM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by hooah212002, posted 06-27-2011 7:11 PM Nuggin has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 65 of 175 (621658)
06-27-2011 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by hooah212002
06-27-2011 7:11 PM


Re: Soft Targets vs Terrorism
I guess you don't hear about the drones killing civilians, eh? There is at least a 10-1 civilian/"terrorist" kill ratio for every drone attack.
Sourcing on civilian deaths is weak and the numbers are often exaggerated
When YOUR source says that your sourcing is weak and exaggerated, it's time to stop using that source.
The fact that we try to target specific groups or places AT ALL is a HUGE advancement in warfare. The fact that we have rules of engagement that tell our troops not to fire unless fired upon is a HUGE change.
In WWII, we'd carpet bomb a city to try and destroy a factory. Or nuke a whole city to send a message.
Now we spend billions developing bombs specifically so that we don't have to carpet bomb and people still bitch.
Fuck it. If people are going to complain either way, I say go back to the old way. Pave Afghanistan and move in some Indians and Chinese. They need the space.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by hooah212002, posted 06-27-2011 7:11 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by hooah212002, posted 06-27-2011 7:59 PM Nuggin has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 67 of 175 (621663)
06-27-2011 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by hooah212002
06-27-2011 7:59 PM


Re: Soft Targets vs Terrorism
A LOT of civilians are dying due to (drone attacks).
Qualify that.
As compared to what?
On per armament or per engagement basis, how do drones rank up against bombers or artillery or foot soldiers?
If drones are twice as likely to kill civilians as a foot soldier, I'm okay with that. I'm okay with it if they are 10x more likely.
That's because they are 100% less likely to result in the death of a US soldier.
I don't think we should be there at all. I don't think we should have gone in. I don't think we should stay. I don't care if the country dissolves after we leave. If people can't rule themselves, that's their problem.
But, if we're going to be stuck there, I want one thing - Less dead troops. Period.
I honestly don't care if that puts thousands of "innocents" in danger. At this point, the people of Iraq and Afghanistan have had 10 years to get their shit together.
France didn't set up shop here for a decade while we got our shit together.
If the people in these countries want to ethnic cleanse each other over some bullshit disagreement about the religion they are all sharing, then let them.
These are countries only because EXTERNAL forces declared them countries. Before that they were tribes with no higher aspiration than killing the tribe on the next hill over.
The Kurds don't want to be Iraqi. The middle Iraqis don't want to be in the same country as the southern Iraqis. Why should we force them.
Indiana Jones once said "These Arabs don't mind if we kill each other, they aren't going to interfere in our business."
I say we flip the script and get the F out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by hooah212002, posted 06-27-2011 7:59 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by hooah212002, posted 06-27-2011 8:59 PM Nuggin has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 72 of 175 (621669)
06-27-2011 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by hooah212002
06-27-2011 8:59 PM


Re: Soft Targets vs Terrorism
More civilians die as a result of the drone attacks than do militants.
But that statement is worthless.
I'm making up these numbers to demonstrate:
Let's say that the kill ratio of drones is 10:1 innocents/militants.
That sounds bad.
But if the kill ratio of bombers is 25:1
And soldiers is 15:1
And artillery is 30:1
Then the drones are the only moral choice.
Simply saying "they kill innocents" is insufficient to judge them unless you put it in the context of the methods it's replacing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by hooah212002, posted 06-27-2011 8:59 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by hooah212002, posted 06-27-2011 10:08 PM Nuggin has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 88 of 175 (621781)
06-28-2011 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by crashfrog
06-28-2011 6:41 PM


Re: Soft Targets vs Terrorism
Not a single one of the 9/11 hijackers was from Afghanistan. To my knowledge, hardly any of them had ever even been there.
Phat, what should the average Afghani family be doing to "pick their side" and thus avoid being bombed by drones?
We are in Afghanistan because Al Quida was being hosted there by the Taliban.
The people allegedly didn't like the Taliban.
They should have done something about them.
Now, as we are trying to leave, the people are saying "If you leave the Taliban will come back".
It's RIDICULOUS.
When the French left, we didn't revert to back to the British Monarchy.
If the Afghanistanis don't want the Taliban, then they should do something about it. If they don't care about the Taliban, then we shouldn't be there at all.
We got Bin Laden. Time to go home.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by crashfrog, posted 06-28-2011 6:41 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by crashfrog, posted 06-28-2011 11:59 PM Nuggin has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 89 of 175 (621782)
06-28-2011 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by onifre
06-28-2011 11:53 AM


Re: Soft Targets vs Terrorism
And lets not forget our history! Hiroshima? Nagasaki?
What's that yummy number of human civilian casualty?
Not nearly the number of casualties that would have had to have happened if we had to go door to door killing every man woman and child in Japan.
Remember, they were swearing total war.
Those two bombs put an end to a war that could have dragged on almost as long as it has taken us to effect no real change in Iraq

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by onifre, posted 06-28-2011 11:53 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by onifre, posted 06-29-2011 1:00 AM Nuggin has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 91 of 175 (621786)
06-29-2011 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by crashfrog
06-28-2011 11:59 PM


Re: Soft Targets vs Terrorism
The 9/11 hijackers lived in Florida longer than they ever lived in Afghanistan.
Oranges are a chief export of Florida. It is also home to Disney World.
It's fun saying things about Florida which aren't actually part of the discussion at hand.
I don't care where the hijackers were from, I care about who sent them.
When we bagged bin Laden he had been living in Pakistan for almost a decade.
Okay, but I don't give a crap about where Bin Laden was last year. I gave a crap about where Bin Laden was in 2001.
The fact that Bush took a phone call from Bin Laden's brother and decided to not hunt him down occurred after the invasion started.
Could Bush have been a man about it and told the American people "Look, I can't go after this guy or I have to give back a lot of money"? Yes. But, the fact is he didn't.
So, the war dragged on, until we could get a Democrat in office who would actually do something about Bin Laden. Now he's dead, it's time to bring home the troops.
And, if the Afghanistanis want to go back to murdering one another in tribal wars, LIKE THEY HAVE BEEN DOING FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS, more power to them.
It certainly drives home the importance of not fucking starting wars. Hello, Libya!
Sigh. You are kidding right? You are actually telling the Libyan people NOT to overthrow their dictator because they won't be able to leave Libya is they start a war in Libya? Hello, they LIVE there already.
We are assisting NATO in Libya because it's our duty to do so.
If you want to call "flying remote control airplanes" a "war", then what ISN'T a war?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by crashfrog, posted 06-28-2011 11:59 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2011 12:54 AM Nuggin has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 96 of 175 (621798)
06-29-2011 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by onifre
06-29-2011 1:00 AM


Re: Soft Targets vs Terrorism
The Japanese civilians made no such threat.
The Japanese civilians were worshiping at the feet of a God-king.
Japan started a war with us. We ended the war with Japan.
We could have ended that war by killing every man woman and child one at a time going across mainland Japan. It would have taken years and been bloody as hell.
Instead, we ended the war the quickest way possible.
Japan was CLEARLY beaten before we dropped the bombs, yet they were unwilling (mentally unable) to discuss peace.
if abort every black and hispanic child in the US you would greatly reduce crime
Doubt it, but if that's what you want to believe, go for it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by onifre, posted 06-29-2011 1:00 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by onifre, posted 06-29-2011 1:59 AM Nuggin has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 98 of 175 (621812)
06-29-2011 3:35 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by onifre
06-29-2011 1:59 AM


Re: Soft Targets vs Terrorism
And in neither case would it, or could it, be said that the US holds high regards for human rights and civilian casualties.
There are no civilian casualties if an enemy claims they will fight to the last. At that point, they are all soldiers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by onifre, posted 06-29-2011 1:59 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Straggler, posted 06-29-2011 6:24 AM Nuggin has replied
 Message 100 by frako, posted 06-29-2011 6:58 AM Nuggin has replied
 Message 107 by onifre, posted 06-29-2011 12:29 PM Nuggin has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 101 of 175 (621854)
06-29-2011 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Straggler
06-29-2011 6:24 AM


Re: Soft Targets vs Terrorism
I am sure that those dangerous pre-lingual toddlers were literally seething with anti-American thoughts.
And there are no babies in the American Northwest?
Don't pretend the Japanese were innocent in this encounter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Straggler, posted 06-29-2011 6:24 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Straggler, posted 06-29-2011 4:19 PM Nuggin has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024