Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Fateweaver wrote:I'm sorry if I need to spell out the fact I meant terrorists. Acts of terrorism are referred to as crimes against the country. I have NEVER heard a DNR official use the phrase "you committed a crime against the country" when arresting someone for poaching.

Who is to say what terrorism is?

Is this kid a terrorist?

I know what I was talking about, I just didn't think someone with an IQ above 20 would need it spelled out and drawn in crayon.

Do you actually mean, "convicted of terrorist acts"? Crayons wouldn't be crisp enough, I recommend pastels; that way you can get all of the subtle blending into your drawing.

You KNOW what I meant with my post. You are just attacking it to get a rise out of me.

I didn't know what you were saying, because I am not psychic, and frankly, I pay little attention to the history of your personal narrative.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Stormrider wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:Not really. civilians are everywhere, something the military can't really do.

Heck, look at 9/11. It wasn't the armed forces that heroically gave their lives to stop the terrorists on flight 93. It was everyday people.

The first line of defense of any nation is it's people.

True that, I always refer to combat situations in the context of a conventional war. Which we might never see again.

BTW, you are dead on about insurgency, the only way to beat them is to utterly annhinlate them and everything around them. Cruel it may be, but it is damn effective.

Not really. It's far too easy to strike at the armed forces of an occupying nation for that to work any more. Back when the best they could hope for is to stab someone it worked just great, people were easily quelled by their own inability to act. Roadside bombs and suicide tactics changed the nature of the war. There are no front lines, and to be brutal against the millions in the nation in which you're fighting a terrorist insurgency of thousands that draws it's recruitment from disenfranchised and oppressed people only strengthens that insurgency. Through massive might of arms you can quell a population, but not defeat an insurgency. At your best you can force them into hiding until you run out of money, then the moment you leave they come back stronger than ever, with their support reinforced by your own measures.

I am a fan of kill them till they stop coming.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wrexasaur wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:I'm sorry if I need to spell out the fact I meant terrorists. Acts of terrorism are referred to as crimes against the country. I have NEVER heard a DNR official use the phrase "you committed a crime against the country" when arresting someone for poaching.

Who is to say what terrorism is?

Is this kid a terrorist?

Unfortunately that is the extent of PC bullcrap.

I'm sorry if I need to spell out the fact I meant terrorists. Acts of terrorism are referred to as crimes against the country.

Is it so hard to actually say what you are intending to say? You wouldn't have to spell it out for people if you coherently stated it the first time. A crime against the u.s. is any violation of federal law, that is how it's been for a very long time. It's part of the legal system. It's part of the language used in the legal system. Drop the lip, it's not helping anything and it's not my fault you used a common phrase to mean something totally different than what it actually means.

I am a fan of kill them till they stop coming.

You shouldn't be. It's how you end up losing. America can't fight six billion seven hundred million people, and thats exactly what that sort of policy would end up causing. Even then, if all you're going to do is just kill everyone why would you even want to go to their country in the first place? It's not like it accomplishes anything when you're just going to put a bullet into everything that moves.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Not really. It's far too easy to strike at the armed forces of an occupying nation for that to work any more. Back when the best they could hope for is to stab someone it worked just great, people were easily quelled by their own inability to act. Roadside bombs and suicide tactics changed the nature of the war. There are no front lines, and to be brutal against the millions in the nation in which you're fighting a terrorist insurgency of thousands that draws it's recruitment from disenfranchised and oppressed people only strengthens that insurgency. Through massive might of arms you can quell a population, but not defeat an insurgency. At your best you can force them into hiding until you run out of money, then the moment you leave they come back stronger than ever, with their support reinforced by your own measures.

What, Shuma, you think that this is NEW? They had the same thing all over the Pacific. Tell me the difference between a kamikazi and a suicide bomber? (other then one drives a truck and one flies a plane.)

Hell, welcome to Củ Chi!

Stormrider wrote:I am a fan of kill them till they stop coming.

"Kill them all", actually makes some amount of sense... not exactly genius, but it is better than "Blow up a few more of them, that'll show em'."

There is no reason why they would ever stop coming, especially since conditions will worsen, and Jihad rhetoric will gain a stronger foothold because of it. If I saw my family blown up, I would be hard pressed not to have a deep-seeded hatred of whoever did it. The more families that are blown up, the more angry kids are left out in the cold, with nowhere to turn but violence.

BaronIveagh wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Not really. It's far too easy to strike at the armed forces of an occupying nation for that to work any more. Back when the best they could hope for is to stab someone it worked just great, people were easily quelled by their own inability to act. Roadside bombs and suicide tactics changed the nature of the war. There are no front lines, and to be brutal against the millions in the nation in which you're fighting a terrorist insurgency of thousands that draws it's recruitment from disenfranchised and oppressed people only strengthens that insurgency. Through massive might of arms you can quell a population, but not defeat an insurgency. At your best you can force them into hiding until you run out of money, then the moment you leave they come back stronger than ever, with their support reinforced by your own measures.

What, Shuma, you think that this is NEW? They had the same thing all over the Pacific. Tell me the difference between a kamikazi and a suicide bomber? (other then one drives a truck and one flies a plane.)

You can't hide a Zero in your jacket while you smile and walk into a storefront. As soon as you manage to minaturize aircraft to the point where an insurgency can hide them on their person, blend in with civilians, and then HIT YOU WITH THEIR PLANE you come and tell me. Until then they have absolutely the feth nothing to do with eachother.

I'm not going to edit my post. Crimes against the US generally mean acts of terrorism. Shuma knew what I intended and I assumed everyone else did to. He attacked my post (as per usual) and blatantly told me I didn't know what I meant with my own post.

Hijacking planes and blowing up subways or schools or churches is a terrorist act; a crime against the country. Hunting illegally is not a crime against the country (actually it's a crime against the state as hunting laws are not Federally regulated so actually Shuma you are wrong that poaching is a crime against the US). The Federal government did not create nor does it regulate hunting laws.

With any luck he'll be gone for a while. I know what my post intended and I apologize I didn't spell it out but I know for a fact the way Shuma attacked it that he knew what I was talking about. Again, I'm not taking the bait.

Shuma, enjoy your vacation. You earned it.

ShumaGorath wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Not really. It's far too easy to strike at the armed forces of an occupying nation for that to work any more. Back when the best they could hope for is to stab someone it worked just great, people were easily quelled by their own inability to act. Roadside bombs and suicide tactics changed the nature of the war. There are no front lines, and to be brutal against the millions in the nation in which you're fighting a terrorist insurgency of thousands that draws it's recruitment from disenfranchised and oppressed people only strengthens that insurgency. Through massive might of arms you can quell a population, but not defeat an insurgency. At your best you can force them into hiding until you run out of money, then the moment you leave they come back stronger than ever, with their support reinforced by your own measures.

What, Shuma, you think that this is NEW? They had the same thing all over the Pacific. Tell me the difference between a kamikazi and a suicide bomber? (other then one drives a truck and one flies a plane.)

You can't hide a Zero in your jacket while you smile and walk into a storefront. As soon as you manage to minaturize aircraft to the point where an insurgency can hide them on their person, blend in with civilians, and then HIT YOU WITH THEIR PLANE you come and tell me. Until then they have absolutely the feth nothing to do with eachother.

I don't notice them hiding trucks full of explosives or 747's under their coats, either. While the view of the dynamite vest wearing suicide bomber is popular, and occasionally there are those, most effective attacks are done with truckloads of explosives. (And drop a zero out of the sun, it's just as surprising.)

I'm not going to edit my post. Crimes against the US generally mean acts of terrorism.

Thats incorrect. It's not going to become true just because you keep saying it.

huma knew what I intended and I assumed everyone else did to. He attacked my post (as per usual) and blatantly told me I didn't know what I meant with my own post.

I read your post. Your post said people committing crimes against the u.s. In standard parlance that means anyone committing a crime against u.s. law while within the u.s. I read what you posted. I didn't read what you meant to post because apparently you decided not to post that but instead posted what you did. Which is totally different.

Hijacking planes and blowing up subways or schools or churches is a terrorist act; a crime against the country. Hunting illegally is not a crime against the country (actually it's a crime against the state as hunting laws are not Federally regulated so actually Shuma you are wrong that poaching is a crime against the US). The Federal government did not create nor does it regulate hunting laws.

It does in national wildlife preserves! Though you're quite right. I should have listed shoplifting as my minor crime instead.

With any luck he'll be gone for a while. I know what my post intended and I apologize I didn't spell it out but I know for a fact the way Shuma attacked it that he knew what I was talking about. Again, I'm not taking the bait.

You posted three times and I didn't even put any bait out.

Shuma, enjoy your vacation. You earned it.

I replied to your post as you wrote it. I didn't bait you and I didn't flame you. Your issues are your own, and four other posters took issue with what you posted as well.

I will add that remember that terrorist is a relative term, too.

Many people consider the IRA a terrorist organization, but it is heavily supported by people here in the US.

I am a fan of kill them till they stop coming.

You shouldn't be. It's how you end up losing. America can't fight six billion seven hundred million people, and thats exactly what that sort of policy would end up causing. Even then, if all you're going to do is just kill everyone why would you even want to go to their country in the first place? It's not like it accomplishes anything when you're just going to put a bullet into everything that moves.

4 others might have not understood but you attacked me as per the norm for you.

I'm done arguing with you on the matter. I don't want to join you on vacation status so I bid you adieu.

BaronIveagh wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Not really. It's far too easy to strike at the armed forces of an occupying nation for that to work any more. Back when the best they could hope for is to stab someone it worked just great, people were easily quelled by their own inability to act. Roadside bombs and suicide tactics changed the nature of the war. There are no front lines, and to be brutal against the millions in the nation in which you're fighting a terrorist insurgency of thousands that draws it's recruitment from disenfranchised and oppressed people only strengthens that insurgency. Through massive might of arms you can quell a population, but not defeat an insurgency. At your best you can force them into hiding until you run out of money, then the moment you leave they come back stronger than ever, with their support reinforced by your own measures.

What, Shuma, you think that this is NEW? They had the same thing all over the Pacific. Tell me the difference between a kamikazi and a suicide bomber? (other then one drives a truck and one flies a plane.)

You can't hide a Zero in your jacket while you smile and walk into a storefront. As soon as you manage to minaturize aircraft to the point where an insurgency can hide them on their person, blend in with civilians, and then HIT YOU WITH THEIR PLANE you come and tell me. Until then they have absolutely the feth nothing to do with eachother.

I don't notice them hiding trucks full of explosives under their coats, either. While the view of the dynamite vest wearing suicide bomber is popular, and occasionally there are those, most effective attacks are done with truckloads of explosives. (And drop a zero out of the sun, it's just as surprising.)

Are you really trying to go here? Are you seriously comparing military planes to civilian vehicles? A plane can be heard, seen, shot down, and would be detected the moment it hit the radar net of one of the most heavily monitored skies on the planet. A truck just needs to be on the road to look like it belongs. They are not the same. They are nothing alike. What the Americans faced in the pacific was totally different. The japanese didn't park their zeroes on the american ships then set off the explosives inside. The americans probably would have noticed the attempt. They had to survive quite a bit of flak fire to even try to strike a sizeable and well armored military target. A bomber parks his car outside of a building totally undetected and sets off the explosives hidden inside. You know this, why am I telling you this?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stormrider wrote:

I am a fan of kill them till they stop coming.

You shouldn't be. It's how you end up losing. America can't fight six billion seven hundred million people, and thats exactly what that sort of policy would end up causing. Even then, if all you're going to do is just kill everyone why would you even want to go to their country in the first place? It's not like it accomplishes anything when you're just going to put a bullet into everything that moves.

I can be a fan of whatever I want, and we aren't fighting every human being in the world. My definition of "them" could be anyone.

But if you kill all the orks we will lose the orkmoticons .

ShumaGorath wrote:

Are you really trying to go here? Are you seriously comparing military planes to civilian vehicles? A plane can be heard, seen, shot down, and would be detected the moment it hit the radar net of one of the most heavily monitored skies on the planet.

I didn't notice us shooting down any of those 747s...

ShumaGorath wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Not really. It's far too easy to strike at the armed forces of an occupying nation for that to work any more. Back when the best they could hope for is to stab someone it worked just great, people were easily quelled by their own inability to act. Roadside bombs and suicide tactics changed the nature of the war. There are no front lines, and to be brutal against the millions in the nation in which you're fighting a terrorist insurgency of thousands that draws it's recruitment from disenfranchised and oppressed people only strengthens that insurgency. Through massive might of arms you can quell a population, but not defeat an insurgency. At your best you can force them into hiding until you run out of money, then the moment you leave they come back stronger than ever, with their support reinforced by your own measures.

What, Shuma, you think that this is NEW? They had the same thing all over the Pacific. Tell me the difference between a kamikazi and a suicide bomber? (other then one drives a truck and one flies a plane.)

You can't hide a Zero in your jacket while you smile and walk into a storefront. As soon as you manage to minaturize aircraft to the point where an insurgency can hide them on their person, blend in with civilians, and then HIT YOU WITH THEIR PLANE you come and tell me. Until then they have absolutely the feth nothing to do with eachother.

I don't notice them hiding trucks full of explosives under their coats, either. While the view of the dynamite vest wearing suicide bomber is popular, and occasionally there are those, most effective attacks are done with truckloads of explosives. (And drop a zero out of the sun, it's just as surprising.)

Are you really trying to go here? Are you seriously comparing military planes to civilian vehicles? A plane can be heard, seen, shot down, and would be detected the moment it hit the radar net of one of the most heavily monitored skies on the planet. A truck just needs to be on the road to look like it belongs. They are not the same. They are nothing alike. What the Americans faced in the pacific was totally different. The japanese didn't park their zeroes on the american ships then set off the explosives inside. The americans probably would have noticed the attempt. They had to survive quite a bit of flak fire to even try to strike a sizeable and well armored military target. A bomber parks his car outside of a building totally undetected and sets off the explosives hidden inside. You know this, why am I telling you this?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stormrider wrote:

I am a fan of kill them till they stop coming.

You shouldn't be. It's how you end up losing. America can't fight six billion seven hundred million people, and thats exactly what that sort of policy would end up causing. Even then, if all you're going to do is just kill everyone why would you even want to go to their country in the first place? It's not like it accomplishes anything when you're just going to put a bullet into everything that moves.

I can be a fan of whatever I want, and we aren't fighting every human being in the world. My definition of "them" could be anyone.

But if you kill all the orks we will lose the orkmoticons .

Okay, that would be sad :(

BaronIveagh wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Are you really trying to go here? Are you seriously comparing military planes to civilian vehicles? A plane can be heard, seen, shot down, and would be detected the moment it hit the radar net of one of the most heavily monitored skies on the planet.

I didn't notice us shooting down any of those 747s...

Those had hundreds of people on board and the event was disconnected from any insurgency or military operation. Also there is no parallel here to events in the pacific (you could cite pearl harbor, but those are only similar in that they both used things with wings).

Shuma wrote:Those had hundreds of people on board and the event was disconnected from any insurgency or military operation. Also there is no parallel here to events in the pacific (you could cite pearl harbor, but those are only similar in that they both used things with wings).

I remember the talk about shooting down planes, very clearly. If I heard about it in that day, I can rest assured that the option was there, unless I want to string together a random 9/11 Anti-government documentary.

Shuma appears to be right, BTW. I really don't follow what Baron is on about.

ShumaGorath wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Are you really trying to go here? Are you seriously comparing military planes to civilian vehicles? A plane can be heard, seen, shot down, and would be detected the moment it hit the radar net of one of the most heavily monitored skies on the planet.

I didn't notice us shooting down any of those 747s...

Those had hundreds of people on board and the event was disconnected from any insurgency or military operation. Also there is no parallel here to events in the pacific (you could cite pearl harbor, but those are only similar in that they both used things with wings).

I think their trying to compare kamikaze attacks to 9/11 not conventional air war.

Stormrider wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Are you really trying to go here? Are you seriously comparing military planes to civilian vehicles? A plane can be heard, seen, shot down, and would be detected the moment it hit the radar net of one of the most heavily monitored skies on the planet.

I didn't notice us shooting down any of those 747s...

Those had hundreds of people on board and the event was disconnected from any insurgency or military operation. Also there is no parallel here to events in the pacific (you could cite pearl harbor, but those are only similar in that they both used things with wings).

I think their trying to compare kamikaze attacks to 9/11 not conventional air war.

But the kamikaze attacks were a form of conventional air war. They were made possible by the japanese militaries air branch, and they were used against military targets. It's tangentially related, but not meaningfully so, and it doesn't do much to support his point about civilian bombing tactics in insurgency warfare not being a new thing.

Actually, the kamikazi's were not conventional warfare at the time, and were quite shocking to American servicemen.

However, Shuma, if you insist that it cannot be done by regular military forces, let's really go back in time:

1920: the Wall Street Bombing. A group calling itself the American Anarchist Fighters detonated a 100 pound improvised explosive device with another 500 pounds of sash weights for anti-personnel effect, outside the headquarters of JP Morgan at 23 Wall Street. 38 people were killed.



If you want a more famous group, the IRA has been hitting targets since the 1930's with things like bicycle bombs.

BaronIveagh wrote:Um, actually, brutality worked all through the middle ages, and the twentieth century throughout most of the world where it was used. I might point out that separating them has failed miserably every time we've done it, I draw your attention to the Villes.

You’ll need to explain the continued effectiveness of partisan groups on the Eastern Front throughout WWII. These were groups that weren’t even particularly attached to their own governments at the start of occupation (in Russia many were actively hostile) yet the Nazis, who didn’t lack for brutality, failed to limit partisan activities in any measurable way.

After that you’ll need to explain the failure of every single strategic bombing campaign to quell the civilian population into surrender. The London bombing only increased resolve of its citizens, the bombing of Berlin reduced the city to rubble and despite being led by a complete loon the German people didn’t change sides, the bombing of Hanoi didn’t stop North Vietnam.

One thing people don't get: you don't kill one person. You kill five hundred. You make them far more afraid of you then they ever could be of the other side. We came into the villages and vaccinated people. They came in after we left and chopped the arms off all the children that had needle marks. Who won again?

Dude, you guys were strategically bombing Hanoi, the problem wasn’t with being too nice. The problem was with conditions of engagement that made it impossible to inflict a complete conventional defeat of the NVA, the actual Viet Cong was all but destroyed by the end of the war.

All wars are won or lost in the will of the people fighting them. If you can break them, they will fall.

Yes, they are. The point is to realise the killing 500 civilians hurts the resolve of your side more than it hurts there’s. What violent act have you ever seen that made you think ‘right they’re pretty strong I better change sides’? After 9/11 were you more keen to fight AQ, or more keen to open negotiations and see what they
wanted?

Fateweaver wrote:I'm not going to edit my post. Crimes against the US generally mean acts of terrorism.

Generally it means treason and the like, attacks against national security, not against the civilian population. It’s what I originally assumed you meant.

Given that you mean terrorists, there are a lot of problems with how loosely terrorism is defined. A lot of reports stating hundreds of instances of terrorism on US airlines were stopped have, on closer inspection, been shown to be mostly instances of people refusing to wear seatbelts, or being abusive to waitstaff. Not really incidents that someone should lose their citizenship over.

I mean seriously dude, Glenn Beck argues that prosecution of terrorists should follow the constitution.

sebster wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:Um, actually, brutality worked all through the middle ages, and the twentieth century throughout most of the world where it was used. I might point out that separating them has failed miserably every time we've done it, I draw your attention to the Villes.

You’ll need to explain the continued effectiveness of partisan groups on the Eastern Front throughout WWII. These were groups that weren’t even particularly attached to their own governments at the start of occupation (in Russia many were actively hostile) yet the Nazis, who didn’t lack for brutality, failed to limit partisan activities in any measurable way.

I'm going to point out that all of them were rapidly going down the toilet by the end of 1944. Tito has lost over 300,000 men, and was almost as hated by his own people as the Nazis were. Estonia's partisans had been largly turned in by thier own people (who had formed their own SS division), and were replaced by Soviet paratroopers in an attempt to restart them. Bulgaria's resistance was down to 9k men. Albania's had nearly collapsed entirely, having been driven into the hills. Fortunately for them, the onrushing tide of Soviet armies caused the governments oppressing them to flee for their lives.

For an example of what happened to the resistance movements not friendly to the Soviets, see what happened to Lithuania's partisans.

sebster wrote:
After that you’ll need to explain the failure of every single strategic bombing campaign to quell the civilian population into surrender. The London bombing only increased resolve of its citizens, the bombing of Berlin reduced the city to rubble and despite being led by a complete loon the German people didn’t change sides, the bombing of Hanoi didn’t stop North Vietnam.

Conversely, I might point out that it did quell Japan, Hitler was almost assassinated by his own people, with Admiral Canaris trying to secretly negotiate a possible surrender, and people overlook that bombing London was not (originally) to force a surrender, but to gain strategic air control for a cross channel invasion. As fr as Hanoi goes: Operation Linebacker I-II were not directed against civilian targets: we bombed the airfields and SAM sites. Only about 1,600 people died.

If we had bombed Hanoi to quell the population, it would have looked like this:




This is Tokyo. This is how you bomb a city to quell the population. 1.700 tones of jelled fuel and magnesium. 100,000 dead. 1 million homeless. 16 square miles of devastation.

sebster wrote:

One thing people don't get: you don't kill one person. You kill five hundred. You make them far more afraid of you then they ever could be of the other side. We came into the villages and vaccinated people. They came in after we left and chopped the arms off all the children that had needle marks. Who won again?

Dude, you guys were strategically bombing Hanoi, the problem wasn’t with being too nice. The problem was with conditions of engagement that made it impossible to inflict a complete conventional defeat of the NVA, the actual Viet Cong was all but destroyed by the end of the war.

That was entirely the problem. See above. The objective was not to kill the civilian populace but to disable the North's airbases.

sebster wrote:

All wars are won or lost in the will of the people fighting them. If you can break them, they will fall.

Yes, they are. The point is to realise the killing 500 civilians hurts the resolve of your side more than it hurts there’s. What violent act have you ever seen that made you think ‘right they’re pretty strong I better change sides’? After 9/11 were you more keen to fight AQ, or more keen to open negotiations and see what they wanted?

I'll point out that 9/11 was inefficient at it's aims, and it's target selection was poorly chosen. And, if we followed my above 1 for 500 model, that would be 1.5m. I doubt there would be any AQ left at that point.

Fateweaver wrote:I'm not going to edit my post. Crimes against the US generally mean acts of terrorism. Shuma knew what I intended and I assumed everyone else did to. He attacked my post (as per usual) and blatantly told me I didn't know what I meant with my own post.

Hmm, no, your post whilst obviously being clear to you in refering only to terrorists and not any criminal did not have any such stipulations listed with it, it's not unreasonable for other posters to read what you have actually typed and then attack your thoughts and arguments as actually presented. If you wish to stop this from happening then pease take a little more care and time when expressing yourself to fully convey exactly what you mean.

Shuma, enjoy your vacation. You earned it.

You really want to stop this.

Well, it's been another fun thread on the OT board, that astonishingly enough has moved away from a brief clip or two from comedy shows to WW II, 9/11 and children proclaiming we should just, I dunno, kill'em all and let god sort them out.Bless.