Why terrorists will ultimately fail...

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Wednesday, August 26, 2026 00:13
VIEWED: 9344
PAGE 12 of 14

PREV PAGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT PAGE

CITIZEN

Friday, April 28, 2006 4:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
OK. Just to move things along, I apologize for any unintentional slight or insult you may have preceived in anything I have ever said.

Golly gosh, that's awfully big of you old man. Annoying when people decide you've insulted them for no reason and won't let it drop, ain't it

.

But sorry if anything I said came across as a personal attack, it was never my intent.

Quote:
I'll also skip over the you said/I said aout who is butting into who's post.

I'm afraid this sounds just like blah blah blah, so read into whatever, whatever you will. Whatever

.

Quote:
Because the Israeli government has that massive military force which you say disqualifies them as terrorists.

Now now, I never said it disqualifies them from being terrorists, I said they don't need to be terrorists in order to further their goals. Come-on if the Palestinians had as many tanks planes helicopters and guns as the Israeli’s, do you really think they’d be walking into cafes with C4 strapped to their chests?

Bush doesn't need to resort to those tactics to further his goals, so he doesn't, and given the international scrutiny he can't.

Quote:
This is not to say that I consider the Israeli government's actions aganst the Palestinians acceptable by any means.

So what do you consider the actions of the Israeli government to be?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

GEEZER

Friday, April 28, 2006 4:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I'm not sure I'd agree with the "primarily" part of the definition. Civilians don't generally expect to be targeted- they're not psychologically conditioned or trained- so taking out 3000 civilians may have a much more profound effect on mass psychology than taking out 10,000 soldiers.

But that's where the "Primarily" part comes in. Terrorism is much more effective if applied primarily to civilians. Or do you mean you'd prefer something like "...almost exclusively targets civilians"?

Quote:
As far as the March to the Sea
Quote:
Sherman's March to the Sea followed his successful Atlanta Campaign of May to September 1864. He and U.S. Army commander Ulysses S. Grant believed that the Civil War would end only if the Confederacy's strategic, economic, and psychological capacity for warfare were decisively broken. Sherman therefore applied the principles of scorched earth, ordering his troops to burn crops, kill livestock, consume supplies, and destroy civilian infrastructure along their path. This policy is often also referred to as total war.
Isn't this where "war is hell" came from? I suppose this could be compared to the Gulf War bombing, which targeted infrastructure like water treatment plants, power generating stations, bridges etc. Is that terrorism? I don't know. It's borderline. Civilian (humans lives) aren't being taken, but civilian assets are being targeted.

Large numbers of civilians died as a result of disease, starvation, and indisciriminate shelling during the sieges of Vicksburg, Atlanta, Richmond, and other Southern cities.

Sherman's orders for the "March to the Sea" commanded the destruction of all homes, buildings, livestock, and food in a 40 mile swath from Atlanta to Savannah, say 10,000 square miles. Many civilians in this area later died from hunger and exposure.

Sherman was considered a hero for this, as it also hastened the end of the war. So, is the greater good justification for this destruction? Perhaps that's our next stop in defining a terrorist.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Friday, April 28, 2006 5:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
So what do you consider the actions of the Israeli government to be?

Towards the Palestinians? Let's say just currently and in the recent past, to keep it simple, and since I'm not up on every nuance back to 1948. Heavy-handed. Oppressive. Clumsy. Stupid. Excessively and often indiscriminately violent.

This is not to say the Palestinians haven't been just as clumsy, stupid, and violent.

I am sure there are good people who want a peaceful solution on both sides, but they can't seem to get the traction to reach a solution. The haters win again.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

FLETCH2

Friday, April 28, 2006 5:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Hey Fletch- I gotta get to work. But your scenarios are pretty limited. I brought up several more that you didn't discuss that I think would have a good chance of working, altho it would take a few more years than invasion.

I'm sorry, I didn't think they were real suggestions, I just thought you were being snarky to Finn.

Okie Dokie.....

Quote:

What if we imposed tarrifs that would be lifted for "good behavior"?

Well we had sanctions that would be lifted in the case of good behavior. Since they are more extreme and complete than a tariff and they were shown to be failing how exactly would a tariff system be any better?

I'm serious. The point about sanctions was that trade was supposedly limited and so we knew what went in and out, kinda like prisons searching incoming parcels for weapons. Your idea is equivalent to letting the prisoners go shopping but putting sales tax on what they buy. You might find a knife in a cake from home, but a guy coming back with several shopping bags full of goods is harder to search. As trade increases the chances of smuggling in militarily usefull supplies increase. Right now the US cant even search 5% of the cargo coming into it's own country where it has a home field advantage. What chance do you have thousands of miles away. The idea of sanctions wasn't to starve Iraqi's it was to try and control what Saddam could get hold of. Your scheme is equivalent to no sanctions, which is what he would have gotten anyway if he starved the Iraqi people long enough and made sure CNN screened the corpses.

Quote:

What if we retained the "no-fly" zones?

If you lift sanctions and kept the no fly zones you would lose pilots. The planes patrolling the no fly zone were shot at every few days the only reason none of them came down was because the Iraqis had too few missiles to do more than sabre rattle. With sanctions lifted it's only a matter of time before they gained enough missiles to fire in earnest.

Quote:

What if we expanded inspections? What if we placed area nations in charge of inspections in various regions?

Saddam has to agree to inspections. Remember he turned away the UN, folks that didn't mean him any harm. Do you really imagine he would let Iran and Syria inspect his weapons fascilities. I cant imagine the Kuwaitis or the Saudi's being neutral either. You can't come up with ideas he wouldn't agree too or you may as well add "ask him very very nicely to resign" to your list.

Quote:

What if we used increased trade and the attendant increased presence of foreigners to infiltrate Iraq?

How? Iraq was still a soverign nation, it still controlled it's own borders and still decided who came in or went out, hell they could throw out the UN. So how will they infiltrate without Iraq's help and what will they do when they get there?

I'm sorry that makes little or no sense. For 50 years the Soviet union remained isolated and repressive, it only openned up to the west when it needed to. This is not sending a gunboat to Japan and demanding they trade with you......

CHRISISALL

Friday, April 28, 2006 5:53 PM

Quote:
Originally actually posted by Geezer:

Terrorist - A person who uses, or provides support for the use of, violence, terror, and intimidation, primarily against non-combatants, to achieve an end.

I think you've gotten as close there to a workable and brief definition as possible. Props.

Quote:

Is one man's terrorist really another man's freedom fighter?

I would say no; targeting innocents means you're part of the Dark Side, and once you start down that path...well, only George Lucas can bring you back

.

You don't know the POWER... Chrisisall

FLETCH2

Friday, April 28, 2006 6:03 PM

Except the French Resistance --- surely the most recognisable "Freedom Fighters" punished and killed collaborators even after hostilities were ended. The number of people they executed runs into 1000's and they all represent a civillian population.

CITIZEN

Friday, April 28, 2006 6:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Except the French Resistance --- surely the most recognisable "Freedom Fighters" punished and killed collaborators even after hostilities were ended. The number of people they executed runs into 1000's and they all represent a civillian population.

I thought of bringing them up myself.

Not sure I know why I didn't off hand...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

GEEZER

Friday, April 28, 2006 6:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Except the French Resistance --- surely the most recognisable "Freedom Fighters" punished and killed collaborators even after hostilities were ended. The number of people they executed runs into 1000's and they all represent a civillian population.

Collaborators may have been civilians, but hardly innocent bystanders. They provided aid, comfort, and information to the enemy, which is usually considered treason. Not that I sanction illegal punishment or executions, but they certainly had crimes to pay for, though it should have been before a court.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

KHYRON

Friday, April 28, 2006 7:00 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4955418.stm

Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

SIGNYM

Friday, April 28, 2006 7:41 PM

Quote:
What if we imposed tarrifs that would be lifted for "good behavior"?- signy
Well we had sanctions that would be lifted in the case of good behavior. Since they are more extreme and complete than a tariff and they were shown to be failing how exactly would a tariff system be any better? -Fletch

What do you mean "they were shown to be failing"? Sanctions worked. Saddam was so desperate to have sanctions lifted that he destroyed remaining WMD and dismantled WMD programs. Lesser goals (UN oversight of food distribution, for example) might be accomplished with lesser means.

But since my concept was an integrated program of inspections, military restraint, economic incentives etc. I'm not trying to argue point by point but lay out a potential alternative.

There are several things we wanted Saddam to refrain from doing (such as not making WMD) and several things we might want him to do (such as holding free elections). Some of these things would be out of Saddam's control. For example, continued arms and weapons technology embargo based on inspections done outside of Iraq. Continued enforcement of no-fly zones would be outside of Saddam's control. Some things- like internal inspections- would depend on Saddam's cooperation and would have significant "negative incentives" attached if not complied with.

Oops, time's up. Later.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

PREV PAGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT PAGE