UN troops unable to return fire

[RedRalph]

I don't know if I agree with this. The cohort that most populates terrorist or militant ranks are people who're liking to be 'willing to die for a cause'. The young male, given propaganda and an enemy, is a pretty self-destructive being. I've seen this in the gang lifestyle, and I only imagine that it's massively escalated in an actual conflict.

I think a lot of it depends on the ideology and situation. IRA and UVF men certaintly weren't planning on dying when they carried out ops.

 

[El_Machinae]

No, but they're willing to risk it. And they're willing to engage in very great relative risk while minimizing their own perception of that risk.

 

[RedRalph]

No, but they're willing to risk it. And they're willing to engage in very great relative risk while minimizing their own perception of that risk.

I know, I'm just pointing out that perceptions of martyrdom vary from group to group. For some, it's an honour, an objective even, for others it's a very very undesirable possible hazard of the job.

 

[Patroklos]

I don't know if I agree with this. The cohort that most populates terrorist or militant ranks are people who're liking to be 'willing to die for a cause'. The young male, given propaganda and an enemy, is a pretty self-destructive being. I've seen this in the gang lifestyle, and I only imagine that it's massively escalated in an actual conflict.

This is why I had that second paragraph. We have validated the tactic, and on top of that we have very much partially through our own actions created an unrealistic expectation on the part of civilians as to what war is, for both those directly involved and those not (chezzy is a perfect example). The terrorists figured this out, and now they have multiple reasons to purposely endanger civilians: 1.) to afford them safety and 2.) to use the disallusionment of expectations of civilains there and abroad.

Jesus H. Christ... you can disagree with him all you want, but there is nothing selfish about his position whatsoever. He takes a different moral view of the situation than you do, its not to indemnify himself against responsibility. You calling him selfish makes about as much sense as him calling you pacifist

Please summarize his position in your own words then, because it seems to me that I captured it just right.

The terrorist do not rely on the bleeding hearts on the opposing side, they rely on the moderates on their side to be outraged over collateral damage.

You can not seriously be oblivious to the overt appeals to homefront outrage. What do you think the video taped beheading of hostages is for. They are even directly addressed to those at home.

If the death of civilians reported through the news media was not a tool used agains the homefront, why do they deliberately mutilate and pose bodies for international news organizations?

No, but they're willing to risk it. And they're willing to engage in very great relative risk while minimizing their own perception of that risk.

All soldiers are willing to take such risks, the degrees mater. Even within the groups that are literally suicidal, they are not suicidal as a whole. The people straping bombs to their chest are the saps that can be convinced to do so, the important movers and shakers go to great lenghts to keep themselves alive a mitigate risk.

 

[capslock]

Cheezy, not killing insurgents projects weakness and breeds more, bolder, insurgents. This is a well known lesson learned from our current conflicts. Hearts and minds =/= hugs and kisses, you still gotta kill people.

 

[MobBoss]

Typical attitude: blame someone else for your crimes. If you kill an innocent person, it doesn't matter why you did it, its still murder.

I am now convinced, despite your education, that you have no idea what murder actually is.

 

[RedRalph]

Please summarize his position in your own words then, because it seems to me that I captured it just right.

I won't assume to speak for him, but it seems to me he is disagreeing about the morality of certain, tactics rather than trying to assure he faces no blame for any civilian deaths.

 

[amadeus]

Our government has attacked and bombed people in Iraq,

Invaded Kuwait.

Serbia,

Done supposedly to protect Kosovars. In retrospect, an unnecessary act by the U.S. to prop up a terrorist organization (you know, that one...)

Panama,

Touchy subject, depending on whether or not the Panamanian congress actually explicitly stated there existed a state of war between the U.S. and Panama. We do know that Noriega threatened the treaty-protected neutrality of the canal and endangered the lives of U.S. citizens in armed clashes.

Haiti, Somalia,

Well, both of these were "humanitarian" or "peacekeeping" operations I don't think the U.S. should've been involved in in the first place; military + altruism = ???

Today, we have embargoes against Cuba and Iraq, which are creating misery and death for innocent children.

This is where I must protest the strongest; the governments of Cuba and Iraq are/were creating misery and death, not the U.S.

All this without any declarations of war, as required by the Constitution.

Agreed; the Congress should issue a treaty explicitly declaring war on any parties involved.

Why are these actions considered legitimate "acts of war" while retaliatory counterattacks are considered illegitimate "acts of terrorism"?

In this day and age, deliberately attacking civilians is different than collateral damage, even if the results are effectively the same.

The other problem is that with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the U.S. government affirmed the principle that it is okay to target civilians in retaliation for the warlike actions of their government.

That was the least bad of all available options.

Besides, and this is entirely my own opinion, unless you're willing to criticize FDR for goading us into war with the axis powers, then you should probably shut yer yaps about it; calling FDR this great, heroic leader and at the same time decrying the decisions that were effectively made under his reign do not add up.

 

[MobBoss]

This is just wrong and a transparent way to make those who disagree with you into the bad guys who make the terrorist win.

No, its not wrong.

It's the Fox News of reasoning. The terrorist do not rely on the bleeding hearts on the opposing side, they rely on the moderates on their side to be outraged over collateral damage.

Of course the tactics have more than one audience, but that doesnt invalidate the truth of my statement.

I mean come on....how do you think the Vietnam war turned out? Because of the moderate mindset over there in Vietnam or the war weariness at home? The terrorists know how to manipulate the media so certain people will of course get 'outraged' at the perception that we bomb things willy nilly with no descrimination in our targeting - which is false. Its why there was so much fake/staged media by hezbollah during the last Lebanon/Israel fiasco - its all part of the plan.

 

[Patroklos]

I won't assume to speak for him, but it seems to me he is disagreeing about the morality of certain, tactics rather than trying to assure he faces no blame for any civilian deaths.

The problems with this is...

1.) He knows this way makes it impossible to pursue and stop terrorists.
2.) He knows this validation means more civilians used as shields.
3.) He knows this means they get to opperate with impunity.
4.) He knows this deliberate bluring of noncombatant and combatant leades to civilian deaths.
5.) He knows this leads it invulnerable operating bases that allow them to attack more effectively (usually targeting civilians).
6.) He knows (or should after participating in this forum), that the military option of sending in super special forces soldiers who never die themselves and always hit the head shot over the sholder of the hostage taker EVERY TIME is not reality.

Positions do not exist in a vacuum, when the obvious such as the above are know by the person in question, his postion must be evaluated in light of that knowledge

 

[El_Machinae]

Cheezy, not killing insurgents projects weakness and breeds more, bolder, insurgents. This is a well known lesson learned from our current conflicts. Hearts and minds =/= hugs and kisses, you still gotta kill people.

I think the solution is to kill the insurgents, but to risk your own soldiers more than the civilian hostages. If they're in a hospital, storm the hospital with boots and small arms. That's heroic. That's the way to handle a situation where evil people are doing evil things: it's to risk oneself to save others.

We're rich. We can afford it.

 

[Patroklos]

If they are going to add "suicide" to my job title, I want a raise

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

No, its not wrong.

Yes it is!

Ping ...

Of course the tactics have more than one audience, but that doesnt invalidate the truth of my statement.

It is if you label targeting a specific audience the important strategy instead of side effects.

These terrorists aren't the evil masterminds you make them out to be.

I mean come on....how do you think the Vietnam war turned out? Because of the moderate mindset over there in Vietnam or the war weariness at home?

Vietnam? Dude!

Ok. Vietnam didn't quite work out because of the underestimation of NV forces. Because of the political restrictions on the military for fear of not bringing China full scale into the war. Vietnam did not fail because of the war weariness at home. It failed because of the duration of the war that caused the war weariness. And it failed because the goals set could not be achieved without a full scale assault on North Vietnam, in effect risking an all out war against China. You guys could have kicked NV arse all the way to Hanoi and back if it wasn't for those restrictions.

And just because war weariness was important in one conflict, that doesn't prove that terrorist make it an important part of their strategy now. Just like they're not blitzkrieging anywhere.

The terrorists know how to manipulate the media so certain people will of course get 'outraged' at the perception that we bomb things willy nilly with no descrimination in our targeting - which is false. Its why there was so much fake/staged media by hezbollah during the last Lebanon/Israel fiasco - its all part of the plan.

The plan! I'm sorry, but I have to giggle at a perception of: The Plan. Do you mean the Great Terrorist Masterplan?

Anyway, was that staged media targeted at the Bleeding Heart Israelis you think? Or better yet, the infidel Americans who are out to destroy Islam. You know, those demons without soul who eat babies according to Hezbollah. Or rather aimed at the international community to put pressure on Israel? I suspect we agree it's the latter.

How does that translate to Al Quaida and Afghanistan for instance? Which is a whole different kettle of terrorists. It's not limited to one kind of conflict, you cannot fight terrorists as an homogeneous group.

 

[RedRalph]

The problems with this is...

1.) He knows this way makes it impossible to pursue and stop terrorists.
2.) He knows this validation means more civilians used as shields.
3.) He knows this means they get to opperate with impunity.
4.) He knows this deliberate bluring of noncombatant and combatant leades to civilian deaths.
5.) He knows this leads it invulnerable operating bases that allow them to attack more effectively (usually targeting civilians).
6.) He knows (or should after participating in this forum), that the military option of sending in super special forces soldiers who never die themselves and always hit the head shot over the sholder of the hostage taker EVERY TIME is not reality.

Positions do not exist in a vacuum, when the obvious such as the above are know by the person in question, his postion must be evaluated in light of that knowledge

Are you seriously telling me that at this present time it is absolutely impossible to achieve objectives using differing tactics? Have you considered he might be advocating using politics as a means of avoiding some of these situations in the first place?

In any case, how the hell you think he is afraid of being blamed for civilian casualties is beyond me. you think he's worried on behalf of the US govt? I doubt it. So who is he being selfish on bahalf of, if not him personally?

Like I said, I'm not saying his stated positions are uncriticizable, I dont even agree with all of them, but where you got the idea that he's being 'selfish' is just beyond me.

 

[Patroklos]

Are you seriously telling me that at this present time it is absolutely impossible to achieve objectives using differing tactics? Have you considered he might be advocating using politics as a means of avoiding some of these situations in the first place?

RRW, we are specifically talking about when military action is required. Oh wow, "NEW TACTICS!," did we just pick that up from our research tree? Its all well and good to say that, but you have to develope new tactics, you have to validate new tactics, and many times the conclusion is that there simply isn't a better way at the current time.

Do you honestly think that we are not looking into new tactics all the time? Why do you think warfare has gone from destroying cities to get one factory to putting a TV giuded missile through a bedroom window with everyone else in the building walking away? Regardless, that boot on the ground about to kick in a door has nothing but the current tactics to make his decisions from.

The magic "NEW TACTICS!" is not an answer to the here and now.

In any case, how the hell you think he is afraid of being blamed for civilian casualties is beyond me. you think he's worried on behalf of the US govt? I doubt it. So who is he being selfish on bahalf of, if not him personally?

He very clearly said HE doesn't want innocents to die, and his solution for that is to not attack anyone using them as shields. He wants this even with the knowledge that validating the tactic of human shields will unquestionably kill more innocents in the long run. That is a selfish choice. His warm fuzzy is more importnat than actuall minimizing the numbers of innocents killed.

He could simply say that and be intellectually honest, but instead he makes a false choice between killing innocents and not killing innocents. That choice doesn't exist in the real world unfortunetly.

Like I said, I'm not saying his stated positions are uncriticizable, I dont even agree with all of them, but where you got the idea that he's being 'selfish' is just beyond me.

I have explained it quite clearly, and once you get through his manufactured cover of false choices it is actually obvious.

 

[MobBoss]

The problems with this is...

1.) He knows this way makes it impossible to pursue and stop terrorists.
2.) He knows this validation means more civilians used as shields.
3.) He knows this means they get to opperate with impunity.
4.) He knows this deliberate bluring of noncombatant and combatant leades to civilian deaths.
5.) He knows this leads it invulnerable operating bases that allow them to attack more effectively (usually targeting civilians).
6.) He knows (or should after participating in this forum), that the military option of sending in super special forces soldiers who never die themselves and always hit the head shot over the sholder of the hostage taker EVERY TIME is not reality.

Positions do not exist in a vacuum, when the obvious such as the above are know by the person in question, his postion must be evaluated in light of that knowledge

All very valid and very true facts of the situation. Pat is right on the money here.

I think the solution is to kill the insurgents, but to risk your own soldiers more than the civilian hostages.

While I agree soldiers are indeed paid to take those risks I dont think your 'solutionl is anything but. And when that happens, guess what? People will start complaining about soldiers lives being lost in a meaningless war.

Plus, 'sending the troops in' is simply no gurantee whatsoever that fewer civilian casulaties will occur. In fact, it often makes the killing of them that much more problematic when a squad clears a house with a single terrorist and ends up tossing a grenade into a room with a family inside as well...

If they're in a hospital, storm the hospital with boots and small arms. That's heroic.

Uhm. No, its not. It may be in Hollywood, but in real life its not. Why? Because storming a hospital with 'boots and small arms' could very well end up with just as many civilian casualties. Do you really think a bunch of amped up soldiers on a hair trigger because their lives are on the line as well are going to be able to take the time to see whos a friend or foe in that situation? If so, you have been watching too much tv.

That's the way to handle a situation where evil people are doing evil things: it's to risk oneself to save others.

I have no problem with that. However, the risk has to equal the potential reward. We also have to have knowledge of the potential reward. That is, in your hospital scenario, if our initial intel is that the hospital is empty except for insurgents its simply not worth the lives of the soldiers to 'storm it with boots and small arms' just to verify that.

We're rich. We can afford it.

Then you go first. I got your back.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

He wants this even with the knowledge that validating the tactic of human shields will unquestionably kill more innocents in the long run.

This is the core of the disagreement. I think a lot of people believe that not bombing human shields will not result in the killing of more innocents in the long run.

Cleo

 

[MobBoss]

This is the core of the disagreement. I think a lot of people believe that not bombing human shields will not result in the killing of more innocents in the long run.

Cleo

So...if you send the message to the terrorists that their tactic of using civilians as shields is a valid tactic and works.....they will stop doing it?

 

[Patroklos]

This is the core of the disagreement. I think a lot of people believe that not bombing human shields will not result in the killing of more innocents in the long run.

How somone could possibly believe this boggles the mind.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Reverse Psychology. They won't trust anything you guys tell them. So if you tell them using human shields works, they will stop using them.