The "war on terror" is a "mistake",
Eh guys, you remember the "innocent until proven guilty"?
I think that it's an important principle to respect.
It's because of such behaviors that there is people who hating Muslims in Western countries. If they are seen as "enemy non-combatant"... They will start to see themselves as "enemy non-combatant"...
I dont care if it's ROE or not... It's twisted and stupid.
That's the problem with the military, they just see the military standpoint and dont care about the political one. And in a war of image, you cant win like that.
And Sherman, If these terrorists could attack our communication network or our factories... What are they waiting for? what? they are mercy? they dont want to hurt us?
Of course they can do some damage. But security is tight in these key targets. They just cant win a war.
maybe It's just your military training that is messing with your view. You see the Muslim minorities in western countries as "enemy non-combatants"... And you think that they can pull guns out of their turbans in 2.5second...
Come on guys.
I think that it's an important principle to respect.
It's because of such behaviors that there is people who hating Muslims in Western countries. If they are seen as "enemy non-combatant"... They will start to see themselves as "enemy non-combatant"...
I dont care if it's ROE or not... It's twisted and stupid.
That's the problem with the military, they just see the military standpoint and dont care about the political one. And in a war of image, you cant win like that.
And Sherman, If these terrorists could attack our communication network or our factories... What are they waiting for? what? they are mercy? they dont want to hurt us?
Of course they can do some damage. But security is tight in these key targets. They just cant win a war.
maybe It's just your military training that is messing with your view. You see the Muslim minorities in western countries as "enemy non-combatants"... And you think that they can pull guns out of their turbans in 2.5second...
Come on guys.
It dosent matter what you think, that is their definition in any military.
See? "War of Image". You think war is fought over who gets better covrage from the media. This is the main problem. You need to actually win the watr, on the ground, bykilling the enemy. Not get an "Image of victory" on CNN.
I never said that about muslims in western countries. I did say that there are(this is fact not opinion) large noumbers of radical muslims living in EU and USA. I never said each and every muslim in the world is my enemy. Thats your twisted thinking, not mine.
As far as my military training messing up my views, I would say your lack of military training is messsing up your views. You think a combat zone is a surgical table, that there are only good guys and bad guys, no grey, just white and black. Unfortunatly combat is a bit more complicated.
But Sherman, we tried to have a military victory against terrorism for years now. And we dont see the end of the tunnel.
And these military terms you use are old-fashionned. We are in a different era. There is no room for nationalist, ethnical, religious instinct...
We are trying to get past that. I'm personaly shocked by the term "enemy non-combatant". And I hope that it doesnt mean "enemy not fighting yet"...
And I know that some try to disguise everything as a victory in the media. Works pretty well unfortunately. But it's not what I meant. What I mean, is that against terrorism, we are in a war of image. As long as we are seen as the bad guys... There will be people to fight us. And if we have better weapons, they will try to get better weapons or better tactics... And terrorism is a tactic to win a war against an enemy with better weapons.
And about the fanatic muslim in Europe and the US... They are a minority inside a minority. They are well known by the secret services. And they are maybe dangerous, but they arent capable of winning a battle...
And these military terms you use are old-fashionned. We are in a different era. There is no room for nationalist, ethnical, religious instinct...
We are trying to get past that. I'm personaly shocked by the term "enemy non-combatant". And I hope that it doesnt mean "enemy not fighting yet"...
And I know that some try to disguise everything as a victory in the media. Works pretty well unfortunately. But it's not what I meant. What I mean, is that against terrorism, we are in a war of image. As long as we are seen as the bad guys... There will be people to fight us. And if we have better weapons, they will try to get better weapons or better tactics... And terrorism is a tactic to win a war against an enemy with better weapons.
And about the fanatic muslim in Europe and the US... They are a minority inside a minority. They are well known by the secret services. And they are maybe dangerous, but they arent capable of winning a battle...
This is the imaptience and moral weakness of a common western civilian mind. This is the thinking that encourages terrorists to think westerners are immature, weak and incapable of fighting for their own goals. This is why we are having such a hard time fighting against terrorists.
What terms are old fashioned? Offensive, Defensive, Attrition, Counter-Offensive, Fire, Manouver, Mission, Operative Plan...THESE ARE THE TERMS OF WAR. "Image", "Positive Media", "Political Correctnes" are all foreighn and irrelevent to war making. These are terms made up by people to whom war is as unknown as space flight is to me. And yet all military thought is being taken in this stupid direction where the image is more imortant than the actual situation.
Clausewitz wrote:
"Kind-hearted people might of course think there was some ingenious way to disarm or defeat the enemy without too much bloodshed, and might imagine this is the true goal of the art of war. Pleasant as it sounds, it is a fallacy that must be exposed: war is such a dangerous business that the mistakes which come from kindness are the very worst"
It means groups or forces that are not armed or are not intending to fight you. An unarmed civilian of the enemy nationality can easily turn to a very much armed one with in minutes. It means you take precautions with these people. You make sure they are indeed what tehy seem.
You have no understanding of the radical islamic mind. You are not the bad guy for any other reason but that you live difrently, think diffrently and so on.
They dont need to take over a country. All they need is to terrorize the west to the point we all think like you and than slowly but surely take us over from inside and outside.
I think that there is a huge misunderstanding here.
I think that you are unfair with me, because I'm the first one to say that war is difficult and that "nice guys" dont survive long time in the battlefield. I spend a lot of time talking against pacifist who say that we have give the other cheek...
I'm surrounded with people like that. I dont condemn violence as a whole. But I condemn arrogance and the abuse of force.
And I say that our military forces are arrogant. When I look at the result of the invasion or Iraq, I say that our leaders are total morons...
We allowed the military to go to war with their high tech toys... They promised success... And All I see is death, destruction, abuse of human rights...
It's going nowhere... It's NOT the civilian who is weak. It's the military leadership and the political system that is corrupt.
I dont know how war works... I'm ready to hear anything from you in war time. But when the battle is over. I think that my opinion on the results is as good as yours.
I dont question the skills of the military. But their objectives. Who are assigned by the political groups leading their countries.
Look at the US, their soldiers have the skills to exterminate any threat in the world. But they were asked to secure Iraq, without harming the Saudis interests, and without letting Iran take control of the country... And without harming the interests of Turkey in the north...
So? what are the results? A big mess. Lot of casulties, and billions of dollars wasted...
So I think that I have the right to doubt military force as a solution against terrorism.
I think that you are unfair with me, because I'm the first one to say that war is difficult and that "nice guys" dont survive long time in the battlefield. I spend a lot of time talking against pacifist who say that we have give the other cheek...
I'm surrounded with people like that. I dont condemn violence as a whole. But I condemn arrogance and the abuse of force.
And I say that our military forces are arrogant. When I look at the result of the invasion or Iraq, I say that our leaders are total morons...
We allowed the military to go to war with their high tech toys... They promised success... And All I see is death, destruction, abuse of human rights...
It's going nowhere... It's NOT the civilian who is weak. It's the military leadership and the political system that is corrupt.
I dont know how war works... I'm ready to hear anything from you in war time. But when the battle is over. I think that my opinion on the results is as good as yours.
I dont question the skills of the military. But their objectives. Who are assigned by the political groups leading their countries.
Look at the US, their soldiers have the skills to exterminate any threat in the world. But they were asked to secure Iraq, without harming the Saudis interests, and without letting Iran take control of the country... And without harming the interests of Turkey in the north...
So? what are the results? A big mess. Lot of casulties, and billions of dollars wasted...
So I think that I have the right to doubt military force as a solution against terrorism.
On the contrary, I agree with you. The goal of making Iraqa democracy is not achieveable by military force. Military force is capable of death and destruction. Economic and educational chocies by the Iraqi people them selves are the only means that can make that a reality. The problem is that we try to use our armies to solve other peoples problems.
TruthDutyValour!
New Member
This is my openion on the global war on terrorism.
If someone is going to threaten the lives of millions of people, they should be hunted down and brought to justice. Although the out-going president, George Bush, wasn't the greatest preseident, he promissed that he would not sleep untill those who caused the 9/11 attacks were found and brought to justice. These groups, Al-Qaeda, Taliban and the other terrorism militant groups commited laws that are frowned upon by the Western World. I have personally been to Afghanistan, infact, I was one of the first boots on the ground in 2003. When I arrived, Afghanistan wasn't like it is now. The people of Afghanistan now have HOPE. Something they didn't have before the ISAF took action. So, I think that, even thought 108 of my brothern have fallen and over 3000 of the US Military men and women have fallen since 2003, but, would they want the pullout of the forces in the middle east? No. Atleast not my brothers. They would want the fight to continue untill the job was done, no matter how long it takes.
That's why two cents worth.
If someone is going to threaten the lives of millions of people, they should be hunted down and brought to justice. Although the out-going president, George Bush, wasn't the greatest preseident, he promissed that he would not sleep untill those who caused the 9/11 attacks were found and brought to justice. These groups, Al-Qaeda, Taliban and the other terrorism militant groups commited laws that are frowned upon by the Western World. I have personally been to Afghanistan, infact, I was one of the first boots on the ground in 2003. When I arrived, Afghanistan wasn't like it is now. The people of Afghanistan now have HOPE. Something they didn't have before the ISAF took action. So, I think that, even thought 108 of my brothern have fallen and over 3000 of the US Military men and women have fallen since 2003, but, would they want the pullout of the forces in the middle east? No. Atleast not my brothers. They would want the fight to continue untill the job was done, no matter how long it takes.
That's why two cents worth.
Partisan
Active member
I personally think that the "global War on Terror" is a huge mistake, because it is a catchphrase, which has been used by governments of all stripes to hide their politcal and diplomatic failings. Remeber the military can set the conditions for victory, but it cannot negotiate it, that is the job of their political (and our) masters.
You cannot say that you will eradicate all terrorists by military means - you need a political and diplomatic phase to the operation. Otherwise all that happens, as has been shown in Chechnya, Iraq, Israel and so on, is that the terrorists will move underground and strike when its right for them.
There needs to be a deeper understanding of what the terrorist wants and who is supporting them, then you can really engage in a full scale attack using all the assets at your disposal, political, diplomatic, military, rebuilding, finance etc.
Unfortunately we tend to accept the view that all terrorists are lunatics without acknowledging that they may have a legitimate gripe against their own or other governments. Before I get loads of flak, I regard the 11 Sept attacks as criminal acts, which caused terror and as such the perpetrators should be prosecuted to the letter of the law, not show the rest of the world that America is prepared to tear up the rulebook, which it and other countries have espoused for the last 200 odd years. This is where the terrorist wins, because he makes us forget our values and beliefs and forces us to act like them.
To my mind the airstrikes in Pakistan are terrorist acts, trying to scare the **** out of the local population, without regard to the cost in life and respect, especially as the US has not declared war on Pakistan. I'm sure that there are better ways to achieve the objective of killing these individuals, but none as eye catching for the headlines, which brings us back to politicians - the true root of all evil.
You cannot say that you will eradicate all terrorists by military means - you need a political and diplomatic phase to the operation. Otherwise all that happens, as has been shown in Chechnya, Iraq, Israel and so on, is that the terrorists will move underground and strike when its right for them.
There needs to be a deeper understanding of what the terrorist wants and who is supporting them, then you can really engage in a full scale attack using all the assets at your disposal, political, diplomatic, military, rebuilding, finance etc.
Unfortunately we tend to accept the view that all terrorists are lunatics without acknowledging that they may have a legitimate gripe against their own or other governments. Before I get loads of flak, I regard the 11 Sept attacks as criminal acts, which caused terror and as such the perpetrators should be prosecuted to the letter of the law, not show the rest of the world that America is prepared to tear up the rulebook, which it and other countries have espoused for the last 200 odd years. This is where the terrorist wins, because he makes us forget our values and beliefs and forces us to act like them.
To my mind the airstrikes in Pakistan are terrorist acts, trying to scare the **** out of the local population, without regard to the cost in life and respect, especially as the US has not declared war on Pakistan. I'm sure that there are better ways to achieve the objective of killing these individuals, but none as eye catching for the headlines, which brings us back to politicians - the true root of all evil.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
You know for once I am going to agree with something 101% and while there are bits I don't entirely agree with I will give double marks for this comment:
Sadly due to misuse there is no way of giving out positive marks for posts but if there was this post would surely get some.
Sadly due to misuse there is no way of giving out positive marks for posts but if there was this post would surely get some.
senojekips
Active member
For what it's worth,... You've got my vote.
the fact that the lives of civilians from other countries outweigh those of your own countries military personnel is very funny indeed. The basic fact is that some terror groups are more than willing to sacrifice 1000 civilinas to kill one enemy combatent, yet when this happens all of the bleeding hearts scream bloody murder.
Well, I dont see the problem.
Terrorists are terrorists. We oppose them because they dont respect moral values like to not harm the civilians.
Now, help me to remember why we support the military if they do the same?
Terrorists are ready to do anything for their cause. It doesnt mean that their cause is bad... It just means that their means are bad.
If the military start to behave just like them... Then, I will have no problem in calling the military terrorists too. Like I care.
Even with a lawyer to get him out of prison, a criminal is still a criminal.
Terrorists are terrorists. We oppose them because they dont respect moral values like to not harm the civilians.
Now, help me to remember why we support the military if they do the same?
Terrorists are ready to do anything for their cause. It doesnt mean that their cause is bad... It just means that their means are bad.
If the military start to behave just like them... Then, I will have no problem in calling the military terrorists too. Like I care.
Even with a lawyer to get him out of prison, a criminal is still a criminal.
Well, I dont believe that.
I think that you can still fight... It's just a much harder fight. You cant ask for a firemission in a crowded area without harming civilians.
But you can always fire back. Taking the time to aim and to check your target.
I think that it's very possible. But it's just much easier to throw 500kg bombs every time you think that someone is pointing a rifle at you.
I think that you can still fight... It's just a much harder fight. You cant ask for a firemission in a crowded area without harming civilians.
But you can always fire back. Taking the time to aim and to check your target.
I think that it's very possible. But it's just much easier to throw 500kg bombs every time you think that someone is pointing a rifle at you.
I dont know Sherman... If it was your family who was in the line of fire? would you still say the same?
We dont ask the victims to do justice because they are "too close" to the action. Their feelings corrupt their judgement.
I never said it was easy. But maybe that the day battle will be dangerous. All people will think twice before thinking about war.
We dont ask the victims to do justice because they are "too close" to the action. Their feelings corrupt their judgement.
I never said it was easy. But maybe that the day battle will be dangerous. All people will think twice before thinking about war.
Its the terrorists that make the rest of the worlds military use those tactics, in the 70's and 80's we called it guerrilla warfare, nobody was used to a few people popping out of nowhere firing at a mass force then vanishing back into the woodwork.
You want to know how to beat a terrorist? heres how, treat it two rival gangs at war, lets see how they respond to a few driveby's at any hour of the night in any neighborhood.
You want to know how to beat a terrorist? heres how, treat it two rival gangs at war, lets see how they respond to a few driveby's at any hour of the night in any neighborhood.