UN troops unable to return fire

[Flying Pig]

Look, guys (dons blue beret) caese fire. This is getting nobody nowhere.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

You have also forgotten the other part of asymmetrical warfare - the bleeding heart who complains about war being so harsh since poor innocents get killed in the process. Without that person, asymmetrical warfare fails. You, yourself are playing an important part in the terrorists plan. Without you whining and crying about collateral damage, they lose, and lose badly.

That implies that the only way to defeat an enemy engaged in "asymmetrical warfare" is to attack targets indiscriminately, and that indiscriminate attacks on terrorist targets leads to them "losing, and losing badly."

We bleeding hearts also oppose terrorism; we just don't think that indiscriminate attacks on highly populated areas is the best way to stop it.

Cleo

 

[Flying Pig]

To get rid of armies, shoot them. To get rid of terrorists, shoot them. Shooting at a terrorist is not much harder than shooting at soldier, especially since the soldiers tend to be wearing protection. In Ireland my lads had streets of terrorists, and never once shot a civillian.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

To get rid of armies, shoot them. To get rid of terrorists, shoot them. Shooting at a terrorist is not much harder than shooting at soldier, especially since the soldiers tend to be wearing protection. In Ireland my lads had streets of terrorists, and never once shot a civillian.

And the Irish terrorists lost -- some might say they "lost badly." What military actions on the part of the U.K. taken without regard to "collateral damage" brought that about?

Cleo

 

[MobBoss]

That implies that the only way to defeat an enemy engaged in "asymmetrical warfare" is to attack targets indiscriminately, and that indiscriminate attacks on terrorist targets leads to them "losing, and losing badly."

No, Cleo. That leads to even more resentment from civilian populace, and, as you pointed out earlier, possibly a violation of the law of war.

The law of war allows for civilians casualties - as long as processess exist (ie. ROE) to minimize and mitigate those casualties. The law of war itself does not allow terrorists to use civilian populace as a protection from conflict and even law of warfare 'protected' sites/landmarks can become legitimate targets if used by enemy forces to that extent.

We bleeding hearts also oppose terrorism; we just don't think that indiscriminate attacks on highly populated areas is the best way to stop it.

Again, you need to realize that such attacks are simply not indiscriminate. Thats the hole in your understanding of the process.

 

[Flying Pig]

And the Irish terrorists lost -- some might say they "lost badly." What military actions on the part of the U.K. taken without regard to "collateral damage" brought that about?

Cleo

I don't believe in shooting civillians when you can avoid it, as Ireland showed you can often do without, but I do think that there are situations in which it is the best call. The whole point of the dit was to show Mobby that you can fight terrorists 'properly' and still win

 

[I'm Cleo!]

No, Cleo. That leads to even more resentment from civilian populace, and, as you pointed out earlier, possibly a violation of the law of war.

The law of war allows for civilians casualties - as long as processess exist (ie. ROE) to minimize and mitigate those casualties. The law of war itself does not allow terrorists to use civilian populace as a protection from conflict and even law of warfare 'protected' sites/landmarks can become legitimate targets if used by enemy forces to that extent.



Again, you need to realize that such attacks are simply not indiscriminate. Thats the hole in your understanding of the process.

Alas, there seems to be a hole in your understanding of my post. I was responding to your grotesque "you-liberals-are-why-terrorism-works" paragraph, not the overall thread discussion, which you might note I summarized several posts ago.



Cleo

 

[MobBoss]

Alas, there seems to be a hole in your understanding of my post. I was responding to your grotesque "you-liberals-are-why-terrorism-works" paragraph, not the overall thread discussion, which you might note I summarized several posts ago.



Cleo

Funny, I dont remember using the word liberal.....

And you may want to consider my comments a bit more than just dismissing them outright. Without that component, terorism does indeed fail in accomplishing its overall goal...

 

[I'm Cleo!]

And you may want to consider my comments a bit more than just dismissing them outright. Without that component, terorism does indeed fail in accomplishing its overall goal...

I did consider your comments, and I responded to them without dismissing them outright. In a post you quoted, in fact. Of course, your comments under those quotes weren't responsive to what I had written, so I responded to that. Then you wrote that I should consider your comments, without ever addressing the fact that I did.

Your "debating" style is so bizarre.

Cleo

 

[innonimatu]

If by blowing up one innocent civillian I can remove a bomber with his eyes on a crowd of them, then regardless of its effects on my immortal soul I will take him out. I know I can stand before God (if he exists) and say 'look, boss, I did what was best.' He's throwing me to the pits anyway

So, keeping the Lebannon example on mind, you're ok with bombing the other side's civilians, for the sake of protecting your side's civilians from being bombed? It doesn't take a genius to see where that leads!

Total war is not out of fashion, it seems, even if the leaders of the defeated side get convicted...

 

[GinandTonic]

So, keeping the Lebannon example on mind, you're ok with bombing the other side's civilians, for the sake of protecting your side's civilians from being bombed? It doesn't take a genius to see where that leads!

Total war is not out of fashion, it seems, even if the leaders of the defeated side get convicted...

I dont think he was drawing any distinction between civilians. Just that if a bomber is going to kill a score of civilians and to kill the bomber you have to kill one civilian that nineteen more who made it.

 

[innonimatu]

I dont think he was drawing any distinction between civilians. Just that if a bomber is going to kill a score of civilians and to kill the bomber you have to kill one civilian that nineteen more who made it.

In that case he could have resumed that arguments in five words:

The ends justify the means.

 

[Bill3000]

In that case he could have resumed that arguments in five words:

The ends justify the means.

No, because it's not just any particular means, it's a matter of proportionality.

 

[innonimatu]

No, because it's not just any particular means, it's a matter of proportionality.

Very well. But do keep in mind that this conversation was about an example, that of Lebanon. It was disproportionate, all right, but I got the impression that Flying Pig was arguing in an attempt to justify the side which disproportionately killed the most civilians!

 

[MobBoss]

Your "debating" style is so bizarre.

Cleo

Still looking for when I said 'liberal'....

 

[Bill3000]

Still looking for when I said 'liberal'....

You said "bleeding heart", which last time I checked, is often simply a pejorative synonym for "liberal" in political discourse. You should stop with the red herring.

 

[MobBoss]

You said "bleeding heart", which last time I checked, is often simply a pejorative synonym for "liberal" in political discourse. You should stop with the red herring.

If I had meant liberal I would have written it. Its not a red herring to object to being taken out of context.

 

[Archbob]

They should completely change the tone for once and tell them they are allowed to fire upon any that looks at them funny or just "whenever they feel like it".Teach those militants a lesson.

 

[Gogf]

Wow. Talk about disregard for human life. I guess you take that "guilt by association" thing to the extreme, huh?



I think they should find a new way to fight them rather than killing innocent people. Two wrongs don't make a right. Its a crappy thing for them to hide amongst civilians, but crappier still to target them anyway, knowing there are innocent people around.

That goes for civilians as well as people like UN peacekeepers, i.e. people who should not be attacked.

How can you say things like "two wrongs don't make a right" about situations like this? That makes no sense. It actually leads me to wonder whether you really understand the argument that I'm putting forward. The point isn't to kill civilians because they are letting terrorists hide between them, the point is that if the terrorists are always in civilian areas, the only way to stop them from killing your people is to shoot at them while civilians are around.

My morals are sound. Change names as you wish.

 

[Formaldehyde]

The point isn't to kill civilians because they are letting terrorists hide between them, the point is that if the terrorists are always in civilian areas, the only way to stop them from killing your people is to shoot at them while civilians are around.

First, the Hezbollah aren't terrorists according to every government on the planet but six. And with any luck that will soon become 5 or even less if the US drops the designation, which is quite possible now that we don't have a madman in the White House.

Second, according to the Israelis, they are all terrorists or they are protecting the terorists with their bodies. Hence, they can all be killed with impunity even if they happen to be UN observers.