NationStates Jolt Archive

But when you are supposedly fighting a "war against terror" doesnt it make sense to try and live up to the ideals you wish your enemies to live by

See, I see the war against terror as stopping terrorism against innocents as much as possible by any means necessary. Fight fire with fire, if you will. I may be suggesting the use of terror as a means of success, but I'm not saying to use it against civilians. I'm saying to use it against enemy soldiers as a way to protect and save the lives of ally soldiers.

Maybe the first couple of times, yes. Then let the rumors spread. Show the other prisoners that the person who told the truth got away with nothing worse than some bright lights and loud yelling, and the ones who lied got much, much worse. Pretty soon the fear will drive them towards the truth.



A reasonable point, and if you're talking about the average Joe in the street it's true, but the enemy themselves hardly deserve that consideration. If they want our rights and our protections, they're quite welcome to enter the legal methods for changing a country, building their own nations up, and basically doing it without the indiscriminate slaughter.

I suppose it all depends on how badly you want to beat them and what you're willing to give up to do so.

Beslan school slaughter after seeing some of the images the have come out of this horrific incident, I can't help thinking that the world media has contributed to this type of terrorist action. I believe that the terrorists perform these acts knowing that the shocking images will be plastered all over the net, television broadcasts and newspapers of the world. This gives impact to the actions. It was the same with the Nicholas Berg murder. They seem to see it as an "advertisment" for their cause, and how ruthless they can be. If the media organisations all refused to publish these images, it would reduce the impact of the acts, and possibly discourage the terrorists from picking on school kids (a decision I'm sure that was made to increase shock levels).
Think before you write. Why are we so revulsed by the terrorists? It's because of acts like Beslan and beheadings. If the media stopped showing that large numbers of people would quickly become apathetic towards terrorism.

I can't believe some of the stuff I'm reading in this thread... advocates of torture, mass murder, indiscriminate bombing, media censorship. It's fascism.

one prisoner's pain is not worth the lives of ten of our boys, or however many might be saved if they were equipped with better intelligence on the area when going into battle.
I agree. I just don't think that torture is an effective way to get information.

People that kill children are by definition inhuman they commit inhuman acts which makes the inhuman.
Why is killing an inhuman act? It's natural for humans to do. It's wrong, of course, but let's not forget that it is natural.

Sorry, there are still no solid arguments as to why criminals (terrorists) are not human.

He's saying that we must sink low because this isn't a conventional war. It's the old 'drastic times call for drastic measures' concept.
The times are not that drastic. We were much worse off in WWII.

First of all, these people don't have the balls to lie in the face of torture
That's not really backed up by evidence. It's just an assumption that I am not willing to put faith in.

Very easily. Interrogative tactics. You scare the piss out of them. You tell them to tell you what they know, they do. You act like you know they lied, start yelling at them, and start torturing them.
You are talking as if these Islamo-nuts are reasonable people. They want pain and death because they think that allah will reward them for it.

It's terrorism if its sole external result is the spreading of fear throughout the masses.
Do you mean something along the following lines:

What Powell and everyone in the Bush administration sees now is Ullman’s vision for high-tech war. He calls it “rapid dominance,” or “shock and awe.” The idea is to scare the enemy to death. To win, you don’t need to inflict physical pain and destruction. Just the fear of pain, and the massive confusion it creates, is enough.

Ullman wants the U.S. to (in his words) “deter and overpower an adversary through the adversary’s perception and fear of his vulnerability and our own invincibility.” “This ability to impose massive shock and awe, in essence to be able to 'turn the lights on and off' of an adversary as we choose, will so overload the perception, knowledge and understanding of that adversary that there will be no choice except to cease and desist or risk complete and total destruction."

Ullman is ready to use every kind of weapon to create shock and awe. He once said it might be a good idea to use electromagnetic waves that attack peoples’ neurological systems, “to control the will and perception of adversaries, by applying a regime of shock and awe. It is about effecting behavior."

When it comes to Iraq, Ullman likes the idea of cruise missiles -- lots of them, right away. CBS News reports that Ullman’s ideas are the basis for the Pentagon’s war plan. The U.S. will smash Baghdad with up to 800 cruise missiles in the first two days of the war. That’s about one every four minutes, day and night, for 48 hours.

The missiles will hit far more than just military targets. They will destroy everything that makes life in Baghdad livable. "We want them to quit. We want them not to fight," Ullman told CBS reporter David Martin. So “you take the city down. You get rid of their power, water. In 2,3,4,5 days they are physically, emotionally and psychologically exhausted."

Yeah, I think that ought to qualify?

Think before you write. Why are we so revulsed by the terrorists? It's because of acts like Beslan and beheadings. If the media stopped showing that large numbers of people would quickly become apathetic towards terrorism.

Bad news sells. Besides, are you saying that apathy towards death and destruction would be a good thing?

I agree. I just don't think that torture is an effective way to get information.

How can you disagree with torture being an effective way to gather intel? I explained earlier how easy it is to get accurate, helpful information via minimally painful torture and intimidation, what is untrue about what I said? Of course torture is effective.

Why is killing an inhuman act? It's natural for humans to do. It's wrong, of course, but let's not forget that it is natural.

Killing innocents is an inhuman act, not killing in general. You're confusing the two.

Sorry, there are still no solid arguments as to why criminals (terrorists) are not human.

According to you. I think the arguments made here are very solid, so that's a matter of pure opinion.

The times are not that drastic. We were much worse off in WWII.

Yeah, times were drastic in WWII (as they are now), and what did we do? We took drastic measures: Dresden, D-day, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, etc. You are hurting your arguments the more you speak.

That's not really backed up by evidence. It's just an assumption that I am not willing to put faith in.

Fair enough.

Do you mean something along the following lines:

What Powell and everyone in the Bush administration sees now is Ullman’s vision for high-tech war. He calls it “rapid dominance,” or “shock and awe.” The idea is to scare the enemy to death. To win, you don’t need to inflict physical pain and destruction. Just the fear of pain, and the massive confusion it creates, is enough.

Ullman wants the U.S. to (in his words) “deter and overpower an adversary through the adversary’s perception and fear of his vulnerability and our own invincibility.” “This ability to impose massive shock and awe, in essence to be able to 'turn the lights on and off' of an adversary as we choose, will so overload the perception, knowledge and understanding of that adversary that there will be no choice except to cease and desist or risk complete and total destruction."

Ullman is ready to use every kind of weapon to create shock and awe. He once said it might be a good idea to use electromagnetic waves that attack peoples’ neurological systems, “to control the will and perception of adversaries, by applying a regime of shock and awe. It is about effecting behavior."

When it comes to Iraq, Ullman likes the idea of cruise missiles -- lots of them, right away. CBS News reports that Ullman’s ideas are the basis for the Pentagon’s war plan. The U.S. will smash Baghdad with up to 800 cruise missiles in the first two days of the war. That’s about one every four minutes, day and night, for 48 hours.

The missiles will hit far more than just military targets. They will destroy everything that makes life in Baghdad livable. "We want them to quit. We want them not to fight," Ullman told CBS reporter David Martin. So “you take the city down. You get rid of their power, water. In 2,3,4,5 days they are physically, emotionally and psychologically exhausted."

Yeah, I think that ought to qualify?

If the terrorists set out to conquer us, with enough resources to make it possible, then it'd be a perfectly valid tactic to try and scare us into submission. An ugly one, but a valid one. Because the only thing in war which ascertains validity is whether or not you benefit from it.

Besides, you seem to be advocating conventional kill-'em-all warfare CH. It's either scare them into submission or kill anyone who looks threatening.

Do you mean something along the following lines:

...

Yeah, I think that ought to qualify?

Key word in what I said being "sole." Quit twisting my words. While fear of pain is one result of many things the U.S. has done, it is not the only result, thus it oughtn't qualify.

You are talking as if these Islamo-nuts are reasonable people. They want pain and death because they think that allah will reward them for it.

Ummm, wrong. They want to die in specific ways, such as fighting the infidel. Being shot like a dog and not fighting back is not honorable enough to qualify as a type of death they might seek.

er...they kill innocent women and children for no reason except their own selfish motives and you honestly think they deserve to have rights?

With rights come responsibility, they have disregarded their responsibility as an adult not to harm other people and therefore have forfeited their rights. Simple as that, they are barbarians.

If the terrorists set out to conquer us, with enough resources to make it possible, then it'd be a perfectly valid tactic to try and scare us into submission. An ugly one, but a valid one. Because the only thing in war which ascertains validity is whether or not you benefit from it.

Besides, you seem to be advocating conventional kill-'em-all warfare CH. It's either scare them into submission or kill anyone who looks threatening.
Well if you really knew me, you would know that I really don't support any type of warfare. The people of earth have had enough time to figure out that all this death and destruction is not getting us any closer to the ultimate goal of peaceful co-existence.

I did initially support the war against Afghanistan, but after seeing the net results, I think it was a waste of time, especially since the US withdrew forces to fight an ill conceived war in Iraq.

Now don't take me the wrong way, I don't blame the soldiers that have to follow orders, but I think the war against Iraq is just as bad, if not worse, then the terrorist attacks on 9/11.

Iraq is a mess and will be for a long time to come. Iraq has been terrorized and continues to be on a daily basis. There is no justification that could rationalize all that has transpired. The sad part is that there are probably many more people in the world that will someday seek revenge for these actions, and there is more hatred and bitterness being cultivated in the US. It is truly a viscious cycle and I for one would like to see it come to a grinding halt.

There are terrorists on both sides of the equation that have been turned into killing machines by the ideologies of the day, but underneath that tough exterior is a human being and as such, all have human rights.

Key word in what I said being "sole." Quit twisting my words. While fear of pain is one result of many things the U.S. has done, it is not the only result, thus it oughtn't qualify.
Then you have an extremely narrow definition of "terrorism"?

Encarta's definition is more to the norm, and as such, "shock and awe" would qualify.

political violence: violence or the threat of violence, especially bombing, kidnapping, and assassination, carried out for political purposes

Terrorism exists on both sides, and if you can't see that, then you need to open your eyes. The war on terrorism will never end, as long as it continues to be fought with the current set of parameters.

Well if you really knew me, you would know that I really don't support any type of warfare. The people of earth have had enough time to figure out that all this death and destruction is not getting us any closer to the ultimate goal of peaceful co-existence.

How will you feel if there is an attack on a city in Canada by radical Muslim fundamentalist terrorists?

...stuff you said about torture...
Apart from that I don't think torture can yield reliable information (a prisoner can still lie under torture - and you're underestimating the power of strong religious beliefs), the ban on torture is something bourne out of necessity rather than some sort of moral considerations.
One might not like torture (I certainly don't), but the reason it is banned is simply because you don't want it to happen to your own guys. So you make an agreement (like the Geneva convention) and that is meant to protect your people. Unilaterally declaring that invalid (whether you call them unlawful combattants or anything else) only calls for the other side to do the same to you. And X-Ray and Rendition existed long before anyone got their head cut off - so one could even legitimatelly argue that you started it.

I can't believe some of the stuff I'm reading in this thread... advocates of torture, mass murder, indiscriminate bombing, media censorship. It's fascism.
Isn't it interesting? People advocate barbarism with the justification that the other side is barbaric.
But civilisation is still only a thin layer over people's real tendencies...

I find it surpirising that no one referred to my "CV of a typical terrorist" post at the beginning of this thread (#40 on page 3). At which point does the student/political activist turn into a subhuman animal?
And how does his achieving a political goal with collateral damage differ from ours?

How will you feel if there is an attack on a city in Canada by radical Muslim fundamentalist terrorists?
Right off the bat, there is a problem with your rationale. Why would it have to be by "radical Muslim fundamentalists"?

How would I feel about an attack on a Canadian city would largely depend on the how, why, and where? I really don't think about it and I certainly don't worry about it. If it happens, then I would have to evaluate my feelings afterwards.

The war on Iraq certainly has made things in the world a lot less safe. I am glad that our country opted out of the Iraq invasion, and I think we should only maintain peacekeeping forces in Afghanistan.

I clearly remember Aussie bomber pilots refusing allied orders cos they were sure to have civilian collateral casualties...

I don't have a source...But I remember clearly...

This happens often...
when its foot soldiers who refuses it...they change him to a more dangerous job...or they send him to an office job.

A pilot is only subject to an «office Job.

Its not the first time pilots go public about refusing not-military bombings.


either way he is not likely to go public while his life is still in the Army's hands.
If you remember it so clearly and it has happened often, surly you can find a source.
maybe you did not understad my post...let me try different words:

.....YES it happens often (soldiers refusing to follow orders that risk killing innocent civilians)...
but NO its almost never made public.

but YES I can find you a source on the example I used.(the Aussie pilots)

and NO I wont try to proove myself again...

and YES you should try to do some Google searching on your own.


______________________________________
Australian pilots refused to bomb 40 times
March 14, 2004

Australia's F/A-18 pilots defied the orders of American commanders and refused to drop their bombs on up to 40 missions during the invasion of Iraq, it can now be revealed.
...
Squadron Leader Daryl Pudney last week described how he and other Australian F/A-18 pilots were forced to weigh up the risk of civilian casualties in a split second before dropping their bombs.

He said pilots broke off many missions after they saw the target and decided there was not a valid military reason to drop their bombs.

..it appears there were fundamental differences between the US dominated headquarters and Australian pilots over what constituted a valid military target.
...
"Each guy would have made that decision once to half a dozen times in the conflict. It was presented as being just one pilot in one incident, but it was all of us several times," he said.
...
Squadron Leader Pudney said he could not comment on the reasons they aborted specific missions. But it seems that it was often to avoid the unnecessary killing of civilians.

© 2004. The Sydney Morning Herald.
www.smh.com.au

maybe you did not understad my post...let me try different words:

.....YES it happens often (soldiers refusing to follow orders that risk killing innocent civilians)...
but NO its almost never made public.

but YES I can find you a source on the example I used.(the Aussie pilots)

and NO I wont try to proove myself again...

and YES you should try to do some Google searching on your own.


______________________________________
Australian pilots refused to bomb 40 times
March 14, 2004

Australia's F/A-18 pilots defied the orders of American commanders and refused to drop their bombs on up to 40 missions during the invasion of Iraq, it can now be revealed.
...
Squadron Leader Daryl Pudney last week described how he and other Australian F/A-18 pilots were forced to weigh up the risk of civilian casualties in a split second before dropping their bombs.

He said pilots broke off many missions after they saw the target and decided there was not a valid military reason to drop their bombs.

..it appears there were fundamental differences between the US dominated headquarters and Australian pilots over what constituted a valid military target.
...
"Each guy would have made that decision once to half a dozen times in the conflict. It was presented as being just one pilot in one incident, but it was all of us several times," he said.
...
Squadron Leader Pudney said he could not comment on the reasons they aborted specific missions. But it seems that it was often to avoid the unnecessary killing of civilians.

© 2004. The Sydney Morning Herald.
www.smh.com.au

Respectfully, I think the article is making too much of a story out of something that has a normal explanation.

Just because intelligence id's a target does not mean it's valid, intel is an imperfect business - many, many times a visual check will show there's a reason not to destroy the target. The pilot is supposed to check. All forces do that, it's not disobeying to refuse the target.

Same goes for assessing collateral damage - the pilot is the final check, has the final say, always has final responsibility. It's not disobeying the Americans as this article suggests. American pilots do the same.

"Squadron Leader Pudney said he did not believe the US Air Force was more trigger happy, but they operated under different laws of engagement."

Different training and rules of engagement will cause conflict, but usually joint training gets everyone working together. Perhaps there were some differences here. But I am highly skeptical of this article which has turned some generally misunderstood facts into a story of Aussies 'disobeying' their American bosses. It's a load of crap.