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.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
For the same reason I smell my socks before I put them on. Why do you look up before getting in the shower every morning?

I don't do either of those things, and I'm getting a little concerned.

I know there's a distinction. I've said as such multiple times in this discussion, in fact. That distinction is meaningless within the context of this discussion, however. Again, that the US military goes through great lengths to pick enemy soldiers as its preferred target over civilians does not change or excuse the fact that the US military has no compulsion with unleashing hell on civilian locations if it deems doing so as necessary, as history has shown. So holding some kind of special hatred for one group of people for targeting blowing up civilians is dumb. I'm glad you've fallen back from the hardline stance of "the US doesn't deliberately target civilians" to "the US doesn't deliberately target civilians often", though.

No. The distinction is, "The US doesn't deliberately target civilians." Find me one example from the GWOT where it's been our policy to go, "Well, due to the lack of viable enemy targets, we're just going to hit some civilians." Or anything even approaching that. That civilians are sometimes killed in attacks on legitimate targets is unfortunate, but is a reality of war. The number of times we've opted not to "unleash hell" because civilian casualties would be too high in spite of having a valid target is large enough for us to have video of it on YouTube.

Here's what you need to understand: you're arguing that guys who deliberately target civilians are the same as guys who do not, and who not only do not, but who go out of their way to minimize civilian casualties. You're doing so from a standpoint of, apparently, a complete lack of knowledge about anything remotely relevant. Keep it up, though. LordofHats and I don't often end up on the same side of an argument. It's refreshing.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
For the same reason I smell my socks before I put them on.

This went to kind of a weird place.

 Seaward wrote:

I don't do either of those things

You don't? Jesus. I used to look up to you, man.

Here's what you need to understand: you're arguing that guys who deliberately target civilians are the same as guys who do not, and who not only do not, but who go out of their way to minimize civilian casualties.

No, what I'm arguing is that if you're of the belief that the people who walk into a school and detonate a bomb attached to their nuts are going to special hell, then the people who decide that a school next to a gun-factory getting blown up is acceptable collateral damage are also going to special hell. What you need to understand is that you're arguing that Bob always shooting a hostage held at gunpoint so that his bullet hits the hostage-taker is morally reprehensible compared to John who also shoots a hostage held at gunpoint so that his bullet hits the hostage-taker, but only on Fridays, and only because he wants to get home in time for the game and doesn't have time to dick around with talking the hostage taker down.

There is a difference between Bob and John, but it's an arbitrary distinction. Within the context of discussing "which one is a dirtbag", the answer is that they're both dirtbags.

 Seaward wrote:
LordofHats and I don't often end up on the same side of an argument. It's refreshing.

I live to bring people together.

Soldiers (or more specifically the military) targeting civilians to create terror or fear is a legitimate strategy that we have used in the past though. Isn't that the basic idea behind "total war"?

I don't think we have done it on that scale since WW2 though.

 d-usa wrote:
Soldiers (or more specifically the military) targeting civilians to create terror or fear is a legitimate strategy that we have used in the past though. Isn't that the basic idea behind "total war"?

I don't think we have done it on that scale since WW2 though.

Nah, hasn't really been a thing since precision bombing became a reality.

Regardless on your position on Guantanamo Bay, or the treatment of the people being held there, the main issue here is the destruction of information.

Isn't that the basic idea behind "total war"?

No. Terror inevitably becomes part of total war, but the terror isn't the point of total war. Total War is a state in which two sides aren't just engaged in a conflict between their armed forces but their entire nations, something that has historically only happened when participants in a war start bracing themselves for a war economy (note, this does not exclude nations that are engaged in a sort of quasi-war economy, like Nazi Germany early in WWII).

In such a state, the entire resources of a state are being brought to bare. The entire nation is the enemy because everyone in it is facilitating the fighting. In this sense, civilians can become a justifiable war target as they're labor and ability has become integral to the war effort. In this manner, the deaths of civilians become an acceptable damage, though generally the deliberate targeting of civilian populations just for the hell of it are still viewed as war crimes (The Dresden Fire Bombing, which served no real military purpose what so ever*, or the German Sondercommando massacres in the Ukraine). Winners tend to get to pick who gets punished for what of course.

LordofHats and I don't often end up on the same side of an argument. It's refreshing.

I like to mix it up every now and then.

I live to bring people together.

So, like Dakka's own John Kerry

*To expand on this. Yes. There were good reasons to target Dresden, one of Germany's few intact communication and transportation hubs by that stage of the war. However the allied bombing campaign went beyond the legitimacy of targeting Dresden's military value, and bombed the entire city indiscriminately, an act that served little military purpose. Even in a state of total war, it tends to be viewed as unjustifiable to just go after civilians. The atomic bombings for example can be justified as a war act, as the purpose of the bombings was to force Japan's surrender via a show of overwhelming power. Civilians were targeted for the purpose, but their deaths were not the ultimate point of what the bombing was meant to achieve, and both Hiroshima and Nagasaki did present viable military targets in their own right.

Okay. I was thinking "terror" because I was under the impression that part of Total War was the inclusion of civilian targets to destroy the morale of the civilian population and their support of the war.

 d-usa wrote:
Okay. I was thinking "terror" because I was under the impression that part of Total War was the inclusion of civilian targets to destroy the morale of the civilian population and their support of the war.

In WWII this would have been the accepted justification for something like the Dresden Bombings. In hindsight though, war theory has kind of circled this issue, deciding that in general, terror is inevitable in total war, but expressly sowing terror is not something that comes from legitimate war acts. One can intimidate, frighten, and demoralize an opposing population without resorting to terror tactics. It's a messy field of course, with mountains of gray. You'll never meet two theorists in complete agreement on every war act (Dresden again being an excellent example of a war act that no one can completely agree on).

This will varied slightly depending on what side of the 'morality of war' line you fall on (whether war can be moral or is always immoral).

Hmm, Grey Templar hasn't posted in a while... perhaps he's being held without trial as a terrorist in Guantanamo Bay.



One thing I'll agree with is that's a terrible idea for the government to have the authority to arrest and detain indefinitely anyone, anywhere, anytime just because they feel like it. Justifications are just words, this is the action I'm referring to.

 Ouze wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
For the same reason I smell my socks before I put them on.

This went to kind of a weird place.

This is the OT... it happens quite often.

As far as destroying the tapes... I find this really odd. Seems to me that this is laying the foundation to shutter Gitmo quietly.

O.o

 whembly wrote:

As far as destroying the tapes... I find this really odd. Seems to me that this is laying the foundation to shutter Gitmo quietly.

O.o

I doubt it. It just smells like the usual beauracratic CYA that happens down there.

 whembly wrote:
As far as destroying the tapes... I find this really odd. Seems to me that this is laying the foundation to shutter Gitmo quietly.

O.o

Not sure I see the relation

I'm still waiting for examples of US Military Operations destroying the general population in GWOT. Unless we're now discussing conflicts that are beyond our times.

 Jihadin wrote:
I'm still waiting for examples of US Military Operations destroying the general population in GWOT. Unless we're now discussing conflicts that are beyond our times.

Does killing more civilians than enemies count?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wech_Baghtu_wedding_party_airstrike

On November 7, 2008, Afghan officials said a joint investigation found that 37 civilians and 26 insurgents were killed in Wech Baghtu.[1] Wedding parties in Afghanistan are segregated by gender; of the civilians, 23 were children, 10 were women, and 4 were men. Another 27 persons were injured, including the bride.[7][8][9][6][10][11] The bombing destroyed the housing complex where women and children had gathered to celebrate.

What amuses me in these discussions is the implication that "terrorists" (that word is almost meaningless these days) are somehow not fighting fair by not lining up and fighting the US armed forces.

If you're on the wrong end of a power dynamic to the extent that they are, but you still believe your cause is just, you'll probably end up using whatever tactics will work. They will never win in a "fair fight", because this is not a "fair fight"- it's the world's uncontested military hyperpower vs. some guys with a shoestring budget.

I don't support their politics, I don't support their killing (or yours) but I do understand WHY they fight the way they do. It's that, do nothing, or oblivion.

The destruction of tapes is wrong.

Oh and FWIW: My country is full of mealy mouthed scumbags who preach neutrality when it suits them to do so, and allow american military planes to transport prisoners through their airports as well as refuel there. Their entire military strategy is hoping that Britain/the rest of the EU won't let them be taken by a hostile force, or that no one would ever bother their arse with us. So in reality, I respect either side in the conflict more than I respect my own country, but I feel like the argument is so slanted I have to point out what I did above.

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 whembly wrote:
As far as destroying the tapes... I find this really odd. Seems to me that this is laying the foundation to shutter Gitmo quietly.

O.o

Not sure I see the relation

Obama has a stated goal to somehow shutdown Gitmo, at any cost (apparently). So, in order to do that, they may want to mitigate any reasons that would prevent shutting it down. Having something controversial on those tapes may force Gitmo to stay open until it's get resolved.

 whembly wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 whembly wrote:
As far as destroying the tapes... I find this really odd. Seems to me that this is laying the foundation to shutter Gitmo quietly.

O.o

Not sure I see the relation

Obama has a stated goal to somehow shutdown Gitmo, at any cost (apparently). So, in order to do that, they may want to mitigate any reasons that would prevent shutting it down. Having something controversial on those tapes may force Gitmo to stay open until it's get resolved.

How honorable of him

The Afghan government accused the Taliban of seeking shelter near the wedding party

Forgot the first sentence?

Mind you wedding that happens in Afghanistan and Iraq, because we did one in Iraq when the men shot their AK's in the air near a Apache, are unannounce. You cannot tell if there is a wedding in progress. Wedding are not like the ones you are fimiliar with that when you go by one you know its a wedding.

I'm fimiliar with the one you posted though. What's left out was that some of the Taliban members were family members.

Though this does not make a US Military Operation targeting civilians. Cordon and Search is a US Military Operation targeting a civilian area. Figure I help clarify

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 dæl wrote:
Which is exactly what I was trying to point out when someone claims that those who support terrorists deserve no legal rights, whilst being a US taxpayer meaning they support terrorists financially.

Also, I make no claims of living in a glass house, my nation's foreign policy is just as deplorable and were it up to me the International Criminal Court would have a lot more cases to hear from both sides of the pond.

That's very even handed of you. Your initial "Yeah, I mean its not like you'd ever see the US using state sponsored terrorism to further its own interests. Oh, they do, and actually rather often." seemed to conceal your actual feelings on the topic (i.e. that a lot of countries use less than palatable methods to further their own interests)

A lot of countries do, though not one is on par with the US when it comes to state sponsored terrorism, or with US client states carrying out state terrorism themselves.

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
I'm still waiting for examples of US Military Operations destroying the general population in GWOT. Unless we're now discussing conflicts that are beyond our times.

Does killing more civilians than enemies count?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wech_Baghtu_wedding_party_airstrike

On November 7, 2008, Afghan officials said a joint investigation found that 37 civilians and 26 insurgents were killed in Wech Baghtu.[1] Wedding parties in Afghanistan are segregated by gender; of the civilians, 23 were children, 10 were women, and 4 were men. Another 27 persons were injured, including the bride.[7][8][9][6][10][11] The bombing destroyed the housing complex where women and children had gathered to celebrate.

You said "women" and "children", but I wonder what percentage of the crowd heard "terrorist factories" and "pre-terrorists".

 dæl wrote:
A lot of countries do, though not one is on par with the US when it comes to state sponsored terrorism, or with US client states carrying out state terrorism themselves.

I'd say that the Russians could keep the pace

 Jihadin wrote:

The Afghan government accused the Taliban of seeking shelter near the wedding party

Forgot the first sentence?

I'm glad you'd be okay with bombing an apartment complex as long as they got a couple baddies inside.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 dæl wrote:
A lot of countries do, though not one is on par with the US when it comes to state sponsored terrorism, or with US client states carrying out state terrorism themselves.

I'd say that the Russians could keep the pace

You may say that, although others would beg to differ. For example, specifically on that point, Daniel Goldhagen is quoted as saying...

"During the 1970s and 1980s, the number of American client states practicing mass-murderous politics exceeded those of the Soviets."

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

The Afghan government accused the Taliban of seeking shelter near the wedding party

Forgot the first sentence?

I'm glad you'd be okay with bombing an apartment complex as long as they got a couple baddies inside.

Wut... That isn't what he's saying...

Did we know there was a weding in progress? From what I remember from the share drive it was a bunch of men around building with some armed with weapons. Your not Arm Chairing Combat Knowledge are you eh?

I asked for a US Military Operation. I even gave you a clue. Though the weding air strike the same situation as to what happen to the Canadians at Bagram at East River Range.

 dæl wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 dæl wrote:
A lot of countries do, though not one is on par with the US when it comes to state sponsored terrorism, or with US client states carrying out state terrorism themselves.

I'd say that the Russians could keep the pace

You may say that, although others would beg to differ. For example, specifically on that point, Daniel Goldhagen is quoted as saying...

"During the 1970s and 1980s, the number of American client states practicing mass-murderous politics exceeded those of the Soviets."

Wow, Chomsky not happy with the US. There's a surprise

 Jihadin wrote:
Did we know there was a weding in progress? From what I remember from the share drive it was a bunch of men around building with some armed with weapons. Your not Arm Chairing Combat Knowledge are you eh?

I asked for a US Military Operation. I even gave you a clue. Though the weding air strike the same situation as to what happen to the Canadians at Bagram at East River Range.

If it's the wedding party I read about, they were were mistaken as hostiles.


http://elitedaily.com/news/world/us-drone-accidentally-targeted-wedding-yemen-killing-injuring-guests/

The other was in Iraq when the groom buddies and male family members fired AK's into the air near a Apache. Think someone mention one of the AK's had tracer rounds

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 dæl wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 dæl wrote:
A lot of countries do, though not one is on par with the US when it comes to state sponsored terrorism, or with US client states carrying out state terrorism themselves.

I'd say that the Russians could keep the pace

You may say that, although others would beg to differ. For example, specifically on that point, Daniel Goldhagen is quoted as saying...

"During the 1970s and 1980s, the number of American client states practicing mass-murderous politics exceeded those of the Soviets."

Wow, Chomsky not happy with the US. There's a surprise

Fancy trying that again? And this time playing the ball rather than the man? Or is your actual argument that because Chomsky said something it can't be true, regardless of the fact he generally provides sources for his claims?