Why when the West attacks terrorists...

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Kucinich
Uh, yeah it was - at least the rest of us found it so.

Yeah, jokes based on Godwin are funny?

[Kuciwalker]

@ C0ckney

[Whaleboy]

The fact that states are involved is fundamentally irrelevant to EiF's point that the whiners hold the west to a hypocritically different standard. If we wanted to operate on the level of terrorists, but with state resources and power, we could remove entire cities from the map. Instead of ****ing around with tribes who protect terrorists, we could exterminate them to the last man, woman and child, and give their former territory to those who play ball with us.

But you can't do that. A state can only act at least when the people aren't beying for governmental blood. If the nukes start flying (or carpet bombs, either way to have a repeat performance of Hiroshima or Dresden) public support would fall away at home. A government acting upon patriotism is bound by the limitations therein. If such an atrocity were to occur, the candy flag would no longer taste so sweet, so to speak.

Instead, our counter-terror and anti-terror responses are highly moderated and focused, but this still isn't good enough for the whiners.

I'm not disagreeing about Afghanistan. The way I see it there, the civil war had been raging since 1996, the allies only stepped in to help the NA. Furthermore I doubt there were a huge number of civilian casualties. Iraq is a different kettle of fish. The invasion of an entire nation (which seems to have had little or nothing to do with AQ) does not seem to me like an anti-terror response. I'm sure it was designed to reinforce political support for the Bush admin etc (we all need our enemies after all) (but a fat lot of good that did) so perhaps a political anti-terror response, but in reality I think it has only stirred up more ****. Let's face it, the "stick" doesn't work with these people so the sensible thing to do is do what nations with decades more terrorism experience than the US have been doing. Use force for point defense and intelligence to deal with the situation generally. If I am counted as a "whiner", then I would counter you by saying that I believe force is not the solution to the terrorist problem. Like any kind of crime, the solution is to tackle the root social cause behind it. In the case of the fundies, that's going to be no summer camp either.

Hatanaka (and others) were not concerned with the a-bomb's creation of "martyrs." They were concerned with fundamental notions of honor, as interpreted in Hagakure and nearly a millenium of traditional preference of death to capture.

No they weren't concerned with martyrs, there were concerned with keeping the war going for the reasons you describe. The bombs only served to intensify their resolve. And it wasn't nearly a millenium. A 13th/14th century warrior wrote of a recent battle that they essentially buggered off (Monty Python style almost). What we think of the Samurai spirit was a conconction, iirc created by a 16th century Japanese writer. That,my dear, is not a millenium .

The Americans weren't about to nuke Tokyo (if we had wanted to, it would have been done from the outset) as we had no more bombs after Nagasaki and wouldn't have a fourth one for quite a while.

I'll have to check my notes but I'm sure the Americans had more than two nukes available.

Note of course that from the beginning of 1945, the incendiary bombings were having a similar effect to the nukes... on some occasions the dead would hit 6 figures.

Also correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Truman threaten to drop a bomb on Japan every three days following Hiroshima? That implies he had more. The fact that Japan didn't surrender immediately after Nagasaki seems to imply that either they were deep in consideration or they did not intend to surrender. Indeed, the fact that such terrible losses had been sustained on Japanese cities throughout 1945 showed that they were capable of accepting such casualty figures, so presumably one B29 leveling a city is similar to a fleet of B29's doing the same.

Unless the Russkies could swim, I doubt the Japanese were two worried. The Soviets had no significant amphibious experience, totally inadequate amphibious capability, and would have been extremely hard pressed to make successful landings with adequate air and naval support on the Japanese mainland before 1947.

But did the Japanese know that? IIRC they did have the capability to bring troops to Japan, though yes air cover was a problem. Fundamentally, their supplies from Manchuria were now cut off (remember the reason they invaded in the first place?), Okinawa had been taken, they were surrounded. It's fairly easy to understand how the prospect of facing Russia and the USA is enough to make them want to surrender, even considering their past behaviour!

The US had the capability in place, and we had demonstrated it again and again from Guadalcanal to Iwo Jima. We owned the sea, we owned the air, and had the Japanese not surrendered, millions would have starved over the winter of 1945-6, hundreds of thousands if not millions more would have been killed during conventional bombing raids, and we would have been ready to move in massive force in the spring of 46. The Japanese knew this.

Supplies from Manchuria while still getting through in a limited capacity were completely cut off when the Russians liberated Manchuria.

The only effect the Soviets had was on those few souls who were deluded enough to consider the possibility of a Japanese homeland victory over the American invader, but who would consider surrender instead of suicide if the odds were hopeless. Awfully hard to find any of those around.

I dispute that. The latter American invasions had become very bloody affairs and the last three were viewed by both sides as a dress rehearsal for the invasion of the home islands. The Japanese might have been able to inflict unsustainable losses on an American invasion, sufficient to throw them into the sea, perhaps. No way would that happen with an additional 500'000 - 1'500'000 red army soldiers.

You must also understand the different fighting styles of the time. American troops attacked in smaller groups than the Russians, using a more tactical approach. Best countered by fanatical suicidal soldiers. The same would not work against the Russians, as shown in some of the more bloody moments of Stalingrad, the men (and blood) would just keep flowing, so psychologically, the effect would have been completely different on prospective kamakazis.

for example the IRA wanted us out of northern ireland, but never sought to destroy britain, whereas one of hamas' stated aims is the destruction of the state of israel. the ira had (and has) a political wing, sinn fein, who speaks for hamas in israeli/palestinian political circles? just how would you even start to negociate with them.

If it helps there, an acceptable analogy would be a British refusal to pull out of NI, which is reasonable. Stopping the IRA is more difficult because it is based in both ROI and NI, and its conflict is more deep rooted. The analogy between IRA and Islamic fundy terrorism is flawwed, because the latter is somewhat more superficial, its demands rendered whimsical by their unworkability, its men motivated by the very conditions that give us a great opportunity for countering them (improve conditions, integrate, oil yadda yadda) and it's demographic easier to make more distinct from that of the West, and thus easier to directly address it. What I'm getting at is tough love .

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


The fact that states are involved is fundamentally irrelevant to EiF's point that the whiners hold the west to a hypocritically different standard. If we wanted to operate on the level of terrorists, but with state resources and power, we could remove entire cities from the map. Instead of ****ing around with tribes who protect terrorists, we could exterminate them to the last man, woman and child, and give their former territory to those who play ball with us. Instead, our counter-terror and anti-terror responses are highly moderated and focused, but this still isn't good enough for the whiners.

I MtG.

[Sandman]

I think comparisons between the Israel-Palestine conflict and the Second World War are repugnant. The difference in scale is a thousand-fold.

[Kuciwalker]

'm not disagreeing about Afghanistan. The way I see it there, the civil war had been raging since 1996, the allies only stepped in to help the NA. Furthermore I doubt there were a huge number of civilian casualties. Iraq is a different kettle of fish. The invasion of an entire nation (which seems to have had little or nothing to do with AQ) does not seem to me like an anti-terror response. I'm sure it was designed to reinforce political support for the Bush admin etc (we all need our enemies after all) (but a fat lot of good that did) so perhaps a political anti-terror response, but in reality I think it has only stirred up more ****. Let's face it, the "stick" doesn't work with these people so the sensible thing to do is do what nations with decades more terrorism experience than the US have been doing. Use force for point defense and intelligence to deal with the situation generally. If I am counted as a "whiner", then I would counter you by saying that I believe force is not the solution to the terrorist problem. Like any kind of crime, the solution is to tackle the root social cause behind it. In the case of the fundies, that's going to be no summer camp either.

Of course force is ultimately the answer. A rule not backed by force is merely a suggestions.

[C0ckney]

elijah, sorry you've totally lost me

[Kuciwalker]

I'll have to check my notes but I'm sure the Americans had more than two nukes available.
Note of course that from the beginning of 1945, the incendiary bombings were having a similar effect to the nukes... on some occasions the dead would hit 6 figures.
Also correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Truman threaten to drop a bomb on Japan every three days following Hiroshima? That implies he had more. The fact that Japan didn't surrender immediately after Nagasaki seems to imply that either they were deep in consideration or they did not intend to surrender. Indeed, the fact that such terrible losses had been sustained on Japanese cities throughout 1945 showed that they were capable of accepting such casualty figures, so presumably one B29 leveling a city is similar to a fleet of B29's doing the same.

1. There are these things called "bluffs".

2. One bomb annihilating a city in a single, huge fireball has a far greater psychological effect than a fleet of bombers levelling a city

But did the Japanese know that?

Probably yes.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Don't worry, guys, I can understand humor... but isn't satire supposed to be funny and/or original? His post obviously wasn't.

But it was .

He's from the 20/30s, and was the British attempt at a Mussolini, Hitler, Franco etc.

Before becoming a Fascist he was an MP for the Tories, and then again as an independent and then joined the Labour party.

Ah... we don't hear about him much across the pond (neither him nor Barres, the French fascist). Funny that he went to both major parties .

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
But it was .

Hey, do you know who Fez reminds me of? Franco!!


HA HA HA HA HA HA that was so funny and witty.

[C0ckney]

almost genius you might say...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hey, do you know who Fez reminds me of? Franco!!

But that wasn't funny .

[Caligastia]

Interesting thread.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by C0ckney


i think you missed the point (by about a mile). maybe i should have elaborated a bit, but essentially what i was trying to say was this.

the IRA and hamas are very different for many reasons, not just their method of murder, but in their structure, and their aims and goals.

that's why you can't really compare them.

Gosh, I thought we were comparing organisations which use terror to achieve political ends- and here I am confusing the I.R.A. , the I.N.L.A. and Continuity I.R.A. with organisations that place bombs in public places and detonate them, regardless of who they kill.

I should have realized that you meant by I.R.A. , a group similar to the Greens, or the Liberals, who don't attempt to cirumvent the political process or ballot box with 5 lbs of semtex in a car, or launch mortar bombs at no.10 Downing Street.

On July 21 1972 in Belfast, 22 explosions killed eleven people. Presumably in a way completely incomparable with the way Hamas kills people with bombs.

How about the twelve civilians incinerated in an attack on a restaurant on February 17, 1978, and the ten year old girl blown apart by a booby trapped car? Were the ways they were killed significantly different from Hamas
restaurant bombings, or booby trap devices?

I'm having difficulty seeing the difference in the 'method'- please enlighten me.

The Provisional I.R.A. by its opposition to the elected government of Eire showed that it considered itself the 'legitimate' Republican movement, and the government of Eire and certainly British government in the Six Counties, illegitimate governments.

You can quibble and say, 'well, the Provisionals have mouthpieces, who are prepared to be the nice guys abroad when drumming up funds from gullible Irish Americans' but I prefer to think of them as the people responsible for over 2 000 deaths (Catholic and Protestant) between, for instance, 1970-1980, and over 200 million pounds having to be paid out in compensation for property damage, which translated into American terms for instance, would mean in proportion, 276 000 dead with another 1 and 1 half million injured.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
When did we start caring what terrorists want?

One of the best ideas I've ever heard Player. So simple and puts everything back in the CORRECT perspective.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


The fact that states are involved is fundamentally irrelevant to EiF's point that the whiners hold the west to a hypocritically different standard. If we wanted to operate on the level of terrorists, but with state resources and power, we could remove entire cities from the map. Instead of ****ing around with tribes who protect terrorists, we could exterminate them to the last man, woman and child, and give their former territory to those who play ball with us. Instead, our counter-terror and anti-terror responses are highly moderated and focused, but this still isn't good enough for the whiners.

WORD

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by GePap
Interestingly, I found EiF post to be a long vitrolic troll

Yes, Godwin's law in the 7th post. They lost pretty quickly.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The fact that states are involved is fundamentally irrelevant to EiF's point that the whiners hold the west to a hypocritically different standard. If we wanted to operate on the level of terrorists, but with state resources and power, we could remove entire cities from the map.

There's no material difference. Terrorism is terorism, it doesn't matter if you kill one person or level an entire city.

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Instead of ****ing around with tribes who protect terrorists, we could exterminate them to the last man, woman and child, and give their former territory to those who play ball with us.

Are you advocating genocide, MtG? That's way way lower than terorism.

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Instead, our counter-terror and anti-terror responses are highly moderated and focused, but this still isn't good enough for the whiners.

Yet these "counter-terror responses" are exactly the same as terrorism, which is the use of violence to change the political position of a group of people.

What you are saying is, since the West (actually pretty much the US, unless BCN weapons are involved) can do massive damage but chooses not to, that they should not be criticised for these attacks?

That's pretty weak for an ethical argument.

[MRT144]

Heres my idea. send people like PA and Fez to shoot Osama during "negotiations". no, theyre too busy telling other people what to do and blame the left for everything to do that.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by C0ckney
it was comic genius from EiF

It doesn't matter. Godwin's Law is Godwin's Law.

[Solly]

Striker

[Kropotkin]

Yeah, extermination of entire villages sounds like the perfect solution to end terror-acts against western civilians forever. You might as well help radical groups out by funding recruitment offices for their missplaced Jihad in Bradford.

[Whaleboy]

elijah, sorry you've totally lost me

What I'm basically saying is that force is not necessarily the answer to terrorism, and that those who oppose the use of force are not advocating we do nothing about terrorism, nor concede to their demands. Furthermore, the political motivations of those who support the use of force are, shall we say questionable in an Orwellian/Goering-esque sense.

Furthermore, analogies with World War II are woefully flawed, about the only similarity there is that you have an empassioned enemy in Japan, the similarity of the strawman attacks upon the pacifists and the increased determination/morale of those who were under (sometimes devastating) attack. A more self-evident example than Japan post-Nagasaki would be British cities during the Blitz! Good way to increase determination on that front.

Nonetheless, the levelling of cities is not a good analogy to the murder (since he was not convicted of any crime, nor declared a combatant) of a high-profile Hamas leader, except that such assaults would cause the population (Palestinians in this case) to become more angry and united against Israel, and the pacifists of their own. Note that "revenge" politics has a similar effect in the aggressor nation, Israel in this case.

Fortunately, there is a growing feeling among liberal Judaism of separation of religion and state. Increasingly, Jews are being embarrassed by the actions of Israel, myself included and that seems to be mirrored by the number of people in Israel who do want peace and not mere revenge.

I MtG.

Everyone loves MtG (I'd hit it...)

One of the best ideas I've ever heard Player. So simple and puts everything back in the CORRECT perspective.

Your perspective is correct? How is that necessarily the case? How is an opposing view necessarily inferior to yours? And what exactly does "WORD" mean?

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Gosh, I thought we were comparing organisations which use terror to achieve political ends- and here I am confusing the I.R.A. , the I.N.L.A. and Continuity I.R.A. with organisations that place bombs in public places and detonate them, regardless of who they kill.

I should have realized that you meant by I.R.A. , a group similar to the Greens, or the Liberals, who don't attempt to cirumvent the political process or ballot box with 5 lbs of semtex in a car, or launch mortar bombs at no.10 Downing Street.

On July 21 1972 in Belfast, 22 explosions killed eleven people. Presumably in a way completely incomparable with the way Hamas kills people with bombs.

How about the twelve civilians incinerated in an attack on a restaurant on February 17, 1978, and the ten year old girl blown apart by a booby trapped car? Were the ways they were killed significantly different from Hamas
restaurant bombings, or booby trap devices?

I'm having difficulty seeing the difference in the 'method'- please enlighten me.

The Provisional I.R.A. by its opposition to the elected government of Eire showed that it considered itself the 'legitimate' Republican movement, and the government of Eire and certainly British government in the Six Counties, illegitimate governments.

You can quibble and say, 'well, the Provisionals have mouthpieces, who are prepared to be the nice guys abroad when drumming up funds from gullible Irish Americans' but I prefer to think of them as the people responsible for over 2 000 deaths (Catholic and Protestant) between, for instance, 1970-1980, and over 200 million pounds having to be paid out in compensation for property damage, which translated into American terms for instance, would mean in proportion, 276 000 dead with another 1 and 1 half million injured.

hmmm well there seem to be two options here, either a) you're deliberatly misunderstanding what i am saying or b) you're unbleievably dense. :/

i read my post again and i fail to see where i defend or excuse the actions of the IRA, or the IRA themselves. saying that two terror organisations are different does not mean i am defending one of them (why i should have to explain this is quite beyond me).

all i am saying is that they are very different organisations and that they cannot be dealt with in the same way.

elijah, i never mentioned ww2, but thanks for explaning

[Whaleboy]

C0ckney: That ok, I mostly concur with your point. I think in a vague, but useful sense they can be dealt with the same way but broadly speaking we should deal with each situation on a case-by-case basis, where imo force is never the solution save point-defense.

[East Street Trader]

I have an admiration for the way in which successive UK governments, of all persuasions, have sought to handle the troubles in Northern Ireland. They have consistently made it clear that they will not negotiate with a gun to their heads and they have sought to catch and to prosecute in the courts individuals who break the law. But they have also talked to those who are aggrieved via whatever channels have been available.

Time after weary time this has led nowhere. But after each of the inumerable setbacks the talking has started again.

They have sought to understand the difficult position of the Eire government and have gradually forged a trust between the two governments that nothing now can shift.

Along the way they have addressed the many genuine grievances that one side or the other in the dispute have refered to so that the political, and to some extent, the social arrangements in Northern Ireland are sounder based to-day than they were when I was young.

Now you can call all this appeasement if you will. But I don't.

I suspect the present, rather more hopeful, position in N. Ireland may owe more to increased properity and the benefits which membership of the EU has brought to all of Ireland than to the negotiation. Perhaps also to the sense that if everyone, catholic and protestant, UK citizen and Eire citizen alike, is happily a part of the greater EU community it does not matter so very much that within it there are different histories and a patchwork quilt of loyalties (a diminishing of the domination of the nation state).

But I am clear that, at the least, the willingness to talk, and to talk, and to talk and to try to understand the grievances rather than just endlessly to confront created a situation in which if and when circumstances came along where the steam might go out of the dispute peace was given a chance to break out.

Had successive governments instead made a song and dance about responding to violence with violence, declared "war" on the terrorists, played on patriotism, dismissed any appeasement, and generally catered to the fears and frustrations of the governed rather than seeking to lead them wisely then I suspect we would still have bombs going off on a regular basis.

The actions of successive Israeli governments make quite a contrast.

It was unwise to order this man murdered.

It is unwise to be dismissive of "appeasement".

[Whaleboy]

EST:

Wins the best post in thread competition!

[Caligastia]

Good post EST, but I have my doubts that the same policy would work with Islamic terrorists.

[*End Is Forever*]

When considering Israel's actions, remember one thing.

If Hamas and Islamic Jihad gave up their arms tomorrow, there would be peace.

If Israel gave up their arms tomorrow, there would be genocide.

[Whaleboy]

I don't think he's advocating that, I think he's saying how the forceful "eye for eye" approach that we see with the US, UK and Israel now (for political capital) is going to fail on the ground.