Define a terrorist.

SHERMAN:
My intention was to exclude attacks on power stations, bridges, government facilities etc. These are civilian targets but hitting them is a fair move in my eyes.
Click to expand...
I dont know. I understand the strategic values of these targets.

But the civilians will suffer much more than the military would.

I have a Lebanese friend and he told me some stories about the war... I remember the fragmentation bombs hanging at the trees Etc...

I just dont like the idea of civilians suffering from the war.
You know about the cost of a dam or a basic thermo power plant? Costs a LOT. Dams in particular are very expensive buildings, they take years to build and it's a source of clean energy + drinkable water + irrigation.

And I have doubts about the effect on military targets. I cant imagine an enemy soldier crying because he cant sleep without the lights on...

But I can imagine the chaos in a city who lost electric power and the social infrastructures...

What do you mean by government building? The police? Parlement? The house of the president?

Call me an idealist, but the civilians are innocents. They shouldnt suffer from the war. I think that the collateral damage (fire accident) and the loos of their youth is enough of a punishment.
 
Let me try and explain diffrent effect of hitting such targets:
Bridges- If you are trying to cut off the retreat for an enemy and make him leave his heavy equipment, the best way is to take down bridges.
Dams- Again, If you can flood an area and make it unpassable for tank and othe heavy weapons, it is well worth the trouble.
Power stations- If you destroy the power stations military facilities operate on diesel generators. This means less fuel for military vehicles. It also shuts down alot of the line-communications and forces the enemy to use radio. It can be used to black out cities and help you take advantage of fighting at night(bright city lights really **** up star light scopes). And much much more.
Gov buildings- In this I mean communications centers, civilian airports, docks, train stations, Defence department/office buildings. All are completely legitemit targets. You can try to hit them at night to save as many civilian lives as possible, but you still need to tear them down.
 
Nato bombing Belgrade? Hum, now that's a bit old... I dont know the area that much.
I did some research, and it looks like it was a targeting error.

But I honestly dont have many informations to give you an informed opinion.

I just think that we shouldnt punish the civilians for the actions of their governments. And in particular in non-democratic countries where the people oppose the government/ didnt choose the government.

And I strongly believe that if we had the choice between risking military losses and civilian losses. It's up to the military to put their lives on the line. Because they are trained and equiped to face danger. While civilians arent trained and fit for such things.

And I did a little search and I found a very basic thing about human rights.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Click to expand...

The second thing is the right for food/work/freedom Etc...

I think that we have to pay more attention to these laws...
 
Idealism. You want to know why most wars seem completely unwinnable these days? Rules made by people who think like you.
 
Actually, I understand your position.
It's easier to say that than to actually do it. I'm not a soldier, I've never been under fire.

But it doesnt mean that the choices I would make are wrong.

I put moral above everything else... And it means that sometimes you have to make sacrifices to reach higher goals.

And if you dont understand that, try another interpretation. Think of it as reaching a political objective.
If you can make a war without hurting innocents. You will have a good image.

Maybe that in such scenario, you will be able to expect a crowd of civilians welcoming you as a liberator when you invade a country.

It's always better than a crowd of civilians who hate you and want to cut into pieces because you killed their people.

Do you really think that wars are impossible to win without hurting civilians?
 
Comrade, take a chill pill I only mentioned Dresden because it is well known. Deliberatly killing civilians is wrong no matter who does it, bombing of any type was not going to destabilize Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan any more that it was England. Before you enter into "well the atom bomb made Japan surrender" well it was a good excuse but what mad them surrender was Zukov and his RED ARMY about to invade!

Strategic Bombing of military targets is fine but targeting non-military targets should not be done. London was a strategic Target the same as Berlin it was the enemy capital there for a military target.

I know your not saying that I am defending Nazi German Government or their policies are you?
;-0
Del Boy said:
TopMaul

Every time - the fire bombing of Dresden. It has become a cliche. London was firebombed every night for long periods; a deliberate strategy to weaken our resolve. In those days in London we shook our fists at the sky. We lived with the black clouds of Lutwaffe. Retrospect is a fine advantage to hold ; war is war, and never was there was there a war more worth fighting with the last ounce of strength. Dresden - put it where it belongs - down to Hitler. He tried to bomb us to Kingdom -come. He gave instructions that Warsaw should be razed to the ground, so much that it should never rise again. He asked 'Is Paris burning?'.

He measured little kids to decide whether to gas or shoot them.

We rid the world of that scum, and I am fed up with our efforts to stop them being carped about, even more than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Click to expand...

I think we are getting a bit off topic I'm sure there is a place to discuss strategic bombing and the morality associated with it.

What is missing in this conversation is the economic warfare demesion to terrorism. Too often the military mind is so closed. I once had a smuggler that we had caught, he was a killer, I was guarding him. After a while he started to talk about things in general an I got a bit of an insite to the criminal mind. The criminal or terrorsit is unpredictable, but military people are almost 100 percent predictable because of our mind set.

He said this to me "if you take 100 military people from different countries and services and put them in a situation you will have about 8 courses of action" on the other hand "if you take 100 smugglers (terrorists or other criminals I'm adding this) you will have at least 80 courses of action" It is our predictability that is our strengh and our weakness. Unpredictable people are very difficult for predictable people to deal with but unpredictable people are able to deal with the predictable. Does that make any sense
 
Last edited:
Del Boy:
LeMask - Please answer the above question if you would. The last post has a different direction from mine.
Click to expand...
How do you feel about my new shirt? ... It's hard to make an opinion when you dont know what we are talking about.

I dont know what happened in Belgrade. Honestly.

I'm not an expert... I learned a lot just by reading the answer of SHERMAN about how a dam can be destroyed to flood areas Etc...

I still think that it's not worth it. Dams cost billions and can cause billions of damage.

My position is very simple. If you hurt an innocent person, you have to go to jail. Nobody can give you a permit to kill. Accidents are not an excuse.

People are responsible of their actions. They have to repair the mistakes they have made, and if it's impossible to repair these mistakes (death) they have to be punished. To make an exemple, to show society that they have to be careful.

I stick with my definition of terrorism as an illegitimate use of force.

If you use your force and hurt an innocent person, it means that your action was illegitimate.

And Del Boy, tell me what happened in Belgrade if you want an answer. Give me a link, anything to make an informed opinion.
 
I'm not an expert... I learned a lot just by reading the answer of SHERMAN about how a dam can be destroyed to flood areas Etc...

I still think that it's not worth it. Dams cost billions and can cause billions of damage.
Click to expand...

1) As to the financial damage to dams, power stations etc: The price of rebuilding these things is the same as the price of bombs, weapons, etc. If a country is at war it will cost the public money. If the country was smart and built itself properly for conflict, it will only have to rebuild its military. If not, it will have alot of inferstructure to rebuild. It is not an attack on the private citizen, it is an attack on the countries abilty to fight

My position is very simple. If you hurt an innocent person, you have to go to jail. Nobody can give you a permit to kill. Accidents are not an excuse.

People are responsible of their actions. They have to repair the mistakes they have made, and if it's impossible to repair these mistakes (death) they have to be punished. To make an exemple, to show society that they have to be careful.
Click to expand...

2)Accidents do happen. It is impossible to fight a war and tell your soldiers that any civilian killed will cause heads to roll. It is possible to esteblish ROE(Rules Of Engagement) that mimize civilian kills. After civilians are killed, you investigate, and if the ROEs were broken, you punish according to the military law.

I stick with my definition of terrorism as an illegitimate use of force.

If you use your force and hurt an innocent person, it means that your action was illegitimate.
Click to expand...

3) Ok. Now lets look at this like criminal law. If I kill someone in a car accident, I am not the same as someone who kills his wife with a knife. Soldiers fight in close quarters with civilians all around them. sometimes the few seconds it takes to make decisions can kill you. No one can seriously expect soldiers to put enemy civilians before their own lives(on a tactical level). The line between civilian, protestor, militant and soldier is somtimes thin as a hair. There has to be a way to say- You ****ed up, but it was not out of intent or bad will-slap on the wrist. Otherwise you will have soldier who never press the trigger.
 
Here is an example of economic warfare/terrorism the TSA and Department of Homeland Security both direct results of 9/11 attacks. We have spent billions of dollars on airport security to prevent such an attack from happening again.

Say they would attack a school similar to the Beslon operation. We would have to spend billions protecting every school in the United States.

Say a series of attacks on shopping malls, we would react with armed security and new security procedures retrofit all malls with security in mind.

Forceing use to spend billions to feel safe.

I think Sherman is refering to military operations between waring nations I am discussing smaller terrorist groups who want to make a name for themselves and force the government to be reactive instead of proactive.
 
I think Sherman is refering to military operations between waring nations I am discussing smaller terrorist groups who want to make a name for themselves and force the government to be reactive instead of proactive
Click to expand...

I would have no moral problem with an attack on the pentagon if it wasent done using a civilian jet. This is not colleteral damage it is using civilians as weapons. If 100 muslim militants stormed the place its an act of war against a military target.
 
Then what about he Hezbula snatch job in northern Israel which kicked off the Labanon situation in 2006? Was that terrorism or a military operation?

We warriors should not delve too deep into these issues it makes our lives a bit complicated.
 
Last edited:
Then what about he Hezbula snatch job in northern Israel which kicked off the Labanon situation in 2006? Was that terrorism or a military operation?
Click to expand...

There is no question that it was a military operation. They attacked a military unit, they were wearing uniform, and they declared their intentions to do it. The fact that it was uncalled for is somthing else.

We warriors should not delve too deep into these issues it makes our lives a bit complicated.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, the first people who should discuss how to use force in an honorable way are soldiers. Civilians can chat all day long and not understand a thing about military operations in civilian areas.
 
First things first, SHERMAN is an Israeli soldier, he lost some brothers (countrymen-brothers in arm) in the situations we speak about here so lightly.
Thanks SHERMAN for being so patient with us.

I just sometimes forget that there is a huge distance between these situations and my life situation. While others have been part of such situations...

I think that inside the terrorist world, there is many "layers"... or "levels" of "terrorists"...

There is a huge difference between... I dont know, a Palestinian terrorist who is looking to blow himself in a restaurant trying to kill as many Israelis as possible...

And a Hezbollah terrorist who is hiding somewhere with a rocket launcher waiting for an order to fire on Israel...

I think that you would agree with me. There is a huge difference between these two guys.

If tomorrow Israel attacks Lebanon and destroys the whole Hezbollah infrastructure... They will just create another bunch of Palestinian terrorists who are carrying a bomb vest to blow themselves in a restaurant.

While right now, they have a political party who have other objectives than reaching heaven or winning an impossible war.

My vision is that the more you attack them, the more terrorists they become. The more miserable they are, the more they turn into dirty tricks to win a battle...

The more worthless their lives are, the more ready to die they become. It's how they work.
 
Lemask...

Hezballah is not a Palestinian group. They are not even Suni muslims, they are Shia.

And I have to disagree with you about leaving them alone. When Israel left Hezballah alone for 6 years, they used the time to rearm and prepare for major conflict. I believe that it was a grave mistake to cease fire in 2006. Israel should have fought on untill Hezballah used more of its weapons, lost more of itws people, and could not claim victory with out sounding redicules. I believe that it is a atter of time beofre Israel will have to go into battle with Hezballah again. I can only hope it wil fght with more resolution the next time.

There are some groups that you can talk to. Some you just have to kill and kill and kill. There will be no peace for Israel or Lebanon untill Hezballah is disarmed.
 
Topmaul, this ain't a question of chill-pills. Also , it is not clever to try to make incorrect guesses at what I am thinking. I am always quite happy to put into words what I am suggesting.

I understand why you put up Dresden, and I said as much, didn't I?

However, not having lived through many years as the victim of devestating bombing you are missing so much of the equation; London was not the only target of the Lutwaffe; so many parts of our country were hit unmercifully. Have you never heard of our cathedral city Coventry - when people say Dresden, we say Coventry.


LeMask

- I asked for your view-point on the bombing of Belgrade. If you are unaware of the Balkan situation of the late 20th century, then ignore the question.

For your info., my question was based not upon what happened in the bombing of Belgrade, but that the bombing of Belgrade happened ; that was what I was looking for from you.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top