US warships frightened by Iranian boats; War of Terror; US foreign policy, etc...

[G. F. Schleebenhorst]

More cracks.

"US doubts over Iran boat 'threat'"
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7182337.stm)

Your link is wrong.

 

[G. F. Schleebenhorst]

(except in cases of world war)

What about My Lai?

 

[Buffalo Roam]

What about the A-Bombings?

Both cities were centers of Military Command and Control, manufacturing, and shipping, and Naval Forces, and Command, and repair facilities, much of Japan manufacturing was in small firms located in and among the population.

And with the implementation of Ketsu Go, the population became a active military force, under control of the Military.

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/arens/chap4.htm

These civilians, led by regular forces, were to make extensive use of night infiltration patrols armed with light weapons and demolitions

The defensive plan called for the use of the Civilian Volunteer Corps, a mobilization not of volunteers but of all boys and men 15 to 60 and all girls and women 17 to 40, except for those exempted as unfit. They were trained with hand grenades, swords, sickles, knives, fire hooks, and bamboo spears. These civilians, led by regular forces, were to make extensive use of night infiltration patrols armed with light weapons and demolitions.(43) Also, the Japanese had not prepared, and did not intend to prepare, any plan for the evacuation of civilians or for the declaration of open cities.(44) The southern third of Kyushu had a population of 2,400,000 within the 3,500 square miles included in the Prefectures of Kagoshima and Miyazaki.(45) The defensive plan was to actively defend the few selected beach areas at the beach, and then to mass reserves for an all-out counterattack if the invasion forces succeeded in winning a beachhead

 

[spidergoat]

What about My Lai?

That was more of a freelance massacre.

 

[countezero]

What about the A-Bombings?

World War II is a different matter, because it is a conflict in a different era.

The bombing of population centers, a practice initiated by the Nazis and copied by the Allies, was an accepted form of warfare, largely because everyone was doing it and the capability to bomb effectively and accurately did not exist at that time period. Even so, respect for civilians, on the Allied side (sans the Soviets), was still a consideration.

That was more of a freelance massacre.

As Spider correctly notes, My Lai was not the result of an intention policy or strategy in the US military. Rather it was the deranged action of a group of individuals. And the fact they were charged and convicted proves this.

 

[G. F. Schleebenhorst]

Both cities were centers of Military Command and Control, manufacturing, and shipping, and Naval Forces, and Command, and repair facilities, much of Japan manufacturing was in small firms located in and among the population.

And with the implementation of Ketsu Go, the population became a active military force, under control of the Military.

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/arens/chap4.htm

Go post your bullshit in the other thread.

I wasn't asking you.

 

[G. F. Schleebenhorst]

World War II is a different matter, because it is a conflict in a different era.

The bombing of population centers, a practice initiated by the Nazis and copied by the Allies, was an accepted form of warfare, largely because everyone was doing it and the capability to bomb effectively and accurately did not exist at that time period. Even so, respect for civilians, on the Allied side (sans the Soviets), was still a consideration.



As Spider correctly notes, My Lai was not the result of an intention policy or strategy in the US military. Rather it was the deranged action of a group of individuals. And the fact they were charged and convicted proves this.

Sandy said that the US doesn't intentionally target civilians, so should she now change it to "except when we feel like it"? That was my point.

 

[sandy]

I'm not talking about history, I'm talking about now. You don't see Americans or Christians sawing off people's heads. You don't see us purposely attacking innocent civilians.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Go post your bullshit in the other thread.

I wasn't asking you.

What about the A-Bombings?

Then don't bring it into the thread.

Tires of getting your ass beat with facts?

Go post your bullshit in the other thread.

Originally Posted by Buffalo Roam
Both cities were centers of Military Command and Control, manufacturing, and shipping, and Naval Forces, and Command, and repair facilities, much of Japan manufacturing was in small firms located in and among the population.

And with the implementation of Ketsu Go, the population became a active military force, under control of the Military.

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/arens/chap4.htm

These civilians, led by regular forces, were to make extensive use of night infiltration patrols armed with light weapons and demolitions

The defensive plan called for the use of the Civilian Volunteer Corps, a mobilization not of volunteers but of all boys and men 15 to 60 and all girls and women 17 to 40, except for those exempted as unfit. They were trained with hand grenades, swords, sickles, knives, fire hooks, and bamboo spears. These civilians, led by regular forces, were to make extensive use of night infiltration patrols armed with light weapons and demolitions.(43) Also, the Japanese had not prepared, and did not intend to prepare, any plan for the evacuation of civilians or for the declaration of open cities.(44) The southern third of Kyushu had a population of 2,400,000 within the 3,500 square miles included in the Prefectures of Kagoshima and Miyazaki.(45) The defensive plan was to actively defend the few selected beach areas at the beach, and then to mass reserves for an all-out counterattack if the invasion forces succeeded in winning a beachhead

 

[spidergoat]

That's mostly true. Attacking civilians is also unpopular among jihadists, if you look into the subject. Al Quida is the exception. Jihadists are all about changing governments into an Islamic model, but they are not comfortable with killing unconnected civilians. The invasion of Iraq changed the dynamic, and Al Quida rose in popularity. Why? Because innocent people were dying, so; eye for an eye.

 

[iceaura]

As Spider correctly notes, My Lai was not the result of an intention policy or strategy in the US military. Rather it was the deranged action of a group of individuals.

Those are not mutually exclusive possibilities.

Not Spider, nor anyone to my knowledge, has shown that the derangements of My Lai were not a "result" of US policies and strategies in Viet Nam. The subject is ignored, mostly - or dismissed with BS about what the US "intended".

And the fact they were charged and convicted proves this.

"They" were not. A couple of scapegoats were wrist slapped, and the matter buried. Colin Powell got a career boost from his role in that burial.

Deranged actions by groups of individuals from the US were fairly common in and around Vietnam. There's no reason to think My Lai was even the worst one by foot soldiers that year - without going into the bombings, etc.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

That's mostly true. Attacking civilians is also unpopular among jihadists, if you look into the subject. Al Quida is the exception. Jihadists are all about changing governments into an Islamic model, but they are not comfortable with killing unconnected civilians. The invasion of Iraq changed the dynamic, and Al Quida rose in popularity. Why? Because innocent people were dying, so; eye for an eye.

I think you have it backwards, yes in the initial period after the invasion the Jihad was attacking America, and al Queda became involved, and with their steady targeting of civilian Iraqis, the Iraqi Jihads realized that al Queda wasn't fighting for them, and that it wasn't Americans that were murdering them, but al Queda, and that when Iraqis civilians did die by American hands, they weren't the, target, but caught in the cross fire of al Queda, and that al Queda didn't give a shit if they were.

al Queda didn't pay the blood price for their actions, the American did, above the Law of the Quran, and Sharia.

 

[sandy]

....The invasion of Iraq changed the dynamic, and Al Quida rose in popularity. Why? Because innocent people were dying, so; eye for an eye.

But it is radical Islamic terrorists who are killing innocent people in Iraq. American troops are not. They are targeting the terrorists.

 

[countezero]

Sandy said that the US doesn't intentionally target civilians, so should she now change it to "except when we feel like it"? That was my point.

Sandy is right. The US doesn't intentionally target civilians. Now, I know this is difficult, put pay attention to tense in that statement. The US is not targeting civilians, the sentence tells you. That does mean that the US has not target civilians in the past. It has, most notably in World War Two. However, you're attempting to compare apples and oranges, one presumes to foster your dubious criticisms of the US.

That's mostly true. Attacking civilians is also unpopular among jihadists, if you look into the subject. Al Quida is the exception. Jihadists are all about changing governments into an Islamic model, but they are not comfortable with killing unconnected civilians. The invasion of Iraq changed the dynamic, and Al Quida rose in popularity. Why? Because innocent people were dying, so; eye for an eye.

This is bullshit, unless one believes the passangers of airlines or Olympic athletes are "connected" to their governments, and therefore somehow not worthy of the civilian designation. To get even more specific, the Muslim Brotherhood and various other Egyptian radicals have been attacking and killing civilians for decades. The tourist-killings in 2005 at the temple along the Nile (I forget its name) is one of the more recent examples. And then, of course, there are all the civilians killed in the infitada against Israel.

 

[spidergoat]

You guys are conflating many different organizations and periods of history. The Palestinians that killed Israeli athletes in the Olympics were not "Jihadists". They hated Israel. They were not the Mujahadeed or Al Quida. Even the Muslim Brotherhood, in spite of some attacks, were never that popular.

And although Al Quida is now in Iraq, the attacks against Americans are waged by many diverse groups with no particular loyalties to each other.

Iraqi Jihads realized that al Queda wasn't fighting for them...

Exactly. Al Quida isn't a popular movement. Fighting against an American occupation IS. I think we need to be smarter about the nature of our enemy if we are going to win. Treating every terrorist attack and group as the same entity (even back to the 70's) is a sign we don't understand a damn thing.

 

[countezero]

You guys are conflating many different organizations and periods of history. The Palestinians that killed Israeli athletes in the Olympics were not "Jihadists". They hated Israel. They were not the Mujahadeed or Al Quida. Even the Muslim Brotherhood, in spite of some attacks, were never that popular.

I'm well aware that Black Sunday is not Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda is not the Mujahadeen, but all were jihadists. Your previous passage implied that Al Qaeda is unique, in that its terrorism targets civilians. You're right and wrong about this. The scope of Al Qaeda's attacks is certainly unique, and it is true that amassive civilian attacks have recently become more acceptable for jihadists, but your linkage to Iraq and your tacit claim that civilians were not previously targeted are dubious. Terrorism, as method of warfare, requires terrorizing civilians. It's difficult to imagine how does this without actually involving them...

 

[S.A.M.]

Terrorism, as method of warfare, requires terrorizing civilians. It's difficult to imagine how does this without actually involving them...

Sorta like bombing heavily populated cities for suspected terrorist havens?

What is the likelihood this will be carried out in New York or Washington?

 

[spidergoat]

tacit claim that civilians were not previously targeted are dubious..

Yes, they attacked civilians, but mostly people with political or symbolic significance, not wholesale slaughter of the populous.

 

[S.A.M.]

Yes, they attacked civilians, but mostly people with political or symbolic significance, not wholesale slaughter of the populous.

Oh come on. Are you telling me that if the government suspected terrorist hideouts in Seattle Washington, they would bomb them?

 

[countezero]

Yes, they attacked civilians, but mostly people with political or symbolic significance, not wholesale slaughter of the populous.

Tourists? Airline passengers? People eating at pizza parlors? I'll do my best to remeber such people are political targets, laden with symbolism in the future...

And where is this "wholesale slaughter of the populous" that you speak about occurying?