The Brutality Arms Race- I.S.I.S., Taliban, al-Shadaab, and Others

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.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Grey Templar wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Who said anything about becoming like them?

We're not going to be deliberately targeting civilians like they do. We'll simply stop letting them hide behind civilians. And you know what that will do? They'll stop hiding behind them, because they'll either be dead OR they'll smarten up and go and actually hide somewhere. End result is they'll stop doing that.

When something stops working, they'll stop doing it. They hide behind civilians because it works, because we lack the stomach to do the right thing and kill the bad guy.

You'd rather let someone get away with killing, raping, and generally making life hell for hundreds or even thousands of people than kill a couple innocent people because the terrorist is standing behind them. Thats really the choice here.

So you are going to stop the terrorist from hiding behind the civillian by blowing the civillians up? And somehow you still think that is not deliberately targetting them?
Maybe you should ask the civillians first whether they prefer being killed by the West over being killed by ISIS?
The thing is that you can't stop this with just killing a couple of innocent people. Depending on the weapons used, a military campaign against ISIS would lead to hundreds of thousands if not millions of civillian casualties. And how are you going to tell terrorists and civillians apart in the first place? Is the person who joins ISIS to fight the West after the West bombed his kids really evil? Is he a terrorist? Things are never black and white, and the West loses any claim to the moral high ground if it deliberately targets civillians (which is what you are doing when you kill them along with the terrorist that hides behind). And if the West is just as bad as ISIS, than what is the justification for the bombings in the first place?

There is nothing to discuss with you if you can't tell the difference between targeting a terrorist and happening to catch some civilians in the crossfire and deliberately targeting those civilians in the first place.

Maybe you'd care to explain yourself for once rather than making statements without arguments.

You couldn't tell the difference between deliberately targeting civilians, which is what terrorists do, and targeting terrorists and happening to cause some collateral damage.

Basically, we need to be less sensitive to collateral damage.

If we make the previously safe areas terrorists like to hide in suddenly unsafe, they'll stop hiding there. If they can no longer sit next to schools, hospitals, and houses and be safe, they'll instead go and hide where they're not in plain sight. Our restrictive ROE basically allows them to get away with doing what they do, which is hurt innocent people.

See the difference now? Its all about intent. We're shouldn't to go out of our way to cause harm to civilians, but neither should we allow terrorists to escape.

And how much more sympathy do the terrorists get when we start blowing innocent families to bits? How many more become radicalized?

**Jihadin**

We started straight out targeting innocent families now?

**Experiment 626**

Jihadin wrote:
We started straight out targeting innocent families now?

Apparently it's only the big bad West who ever commit genocidal war crimes...

Good to know that using civvies as human shields is perfectly within reason however, and means that if they die, it's entirely our fault because... "Reasons."
Alongside all the other mass murders, racial/faith cleansing & intolerance, burning captured enemy soldier alive, beheadings as entertainment, burying children alive for giggles, rapping girls as young as 8 or 9 half to death, etc, etc...

**Iron_Captain**

Experiment 626 wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
We started straight out targeting innocent families now?

Apparently it's only the big bad West who ever commit genocidal war crimes...

Good to know that using civvies as human shields is perfectly within reason however, and means that if they die, it's entirely our fault because... "Reasons."
Alongside all the other mass murders, racial/faith cleansing & intolerance, burning captured enemy soldier alive, beheadings as entertainment, burying children alive for giggles, rapping girls as young as 8 or 9 half to death, etc, etc...

Maybe you should read. Nobody in this thread actually said anything like that.
No one said that that any of those things were ok. They are not. But using it as an excuse to target civillians along with the terrorists is also not ok.

**NuggzTheNinja**

The only way to fight terrorism is to have an overwhelming presence on the ground in the area. When Shabak (elite Israeli intelligence unit) was operating in Gaza, most incidents of terrorism were confined to the area, and it was MUCH better behaved than it is today. As soon as Israel withdrew, after building the Arabs greenhouses and other infrastructure, the Arabs destroyed everything they were given and went right back to being death cultists.

Long story short, if you want to stop terrorism, it takes an overwhelming presence of force on the ground, and very strong intelligence networks. Israel didn't (and doesn't, IMO) have a choice but to put boots on the ground in Gaza if they want to stop terrorist attacks on their own soil. But is that really what we're going for with ISIS? Do we have the capability or will to do so?

**Easy E**

No, if you want to stop terrorism you need to battle it politically and ideologically. Military force is only one tool in the tool box, and plays a role; but to think you can solve these issues ONLY with military force is delusional.

**Experiment 626**

Easy E wrote:
No, if you want to stop terrorism you need to battle it politically and ideologically. Military force is only one tool in the tool box, and plays a role; but to think you can solve these issues ONLY with military force is delusional.

Most of the time yes. Against the likes of radical Islamist filth like IS who are pretty much nothing more than a giant death cult, the only option is to wipe them from the face of the earth before they can do it to us.

There is no negotiation or political process here. These are not groups fighting to establish an independent nation like the Palestinian conflict. IS, Boko-haram, al-Shadaab... these groups have only a single ideology and a single goal; the establishment of a world-wide Islamic Caliphate built across the ashes of human civilisation.
These guys literally are an even more extreme and savage group than what Nazi Germany was. The only reason IS hasn't grown into a true worldwide threat yet, is simply logistics and geographical isolation.

The only ideological battle to be fought here is to try and stop the radicalisation of western youth in order to help cut down the flow of foreign fighters.

**Jihadin**

ISIS/ISIL is far from being a Death Cult

**Easy E**

Yet, the Islamic Caliphate( and Nazi GermanY) were both political and ideological constructs. Did our defeat of Germany in WWII end Fascism or Nazi ideology?

**Grey Templar**

Easy E wrote:
Yet, the Islamic Caliphate( and Nazi GermanY) were both political and ideological constructs. Did our defeat of Germany in WWII end Fascism or Nazi ideology?

As a threat on the world stage, yes.

**Asherian Command**

Those who use fear to conquer are no different than the beasts we have slayed.

**NuggzTheNinja**

Easy E wrote:
No, if you want to stop terrorism you need to battle it politically and ideologically. Military force is only one tool in the tool box, and plays a role; but to think you can solve these issues ONLY with military force is delusional.

Sounds a lot like "hearts and minds." How well is that working for 'Merica?

**Aszubaruzah Surn**

Tannhauser42 wrote:
It's things like this that make me think we might all be better off if we just busted out the nukes and glassed that entire region.

Killing all people there would prevent them from being murdered by ISIS and other groups. Very logical. There may be a tiny problem with your plan, though...

**Iron_Captain**

Aszubaruzah Surn wrote:
Tannhauser42 wrote:
It's things like this that make me think we might all be better off if we just busted out the nukes and glassed that entire region.

Killing all people there would prevent them from being murdered by ISIS and other groups. Very logical. There may be a tiny problem with your plan, though...

No, no problem at all. Nuking the entire region would make the US even more despicable than ISIS. That means they should also be nuked, but the US can't be trusted to kill themselves, now can they? Besides, they just have used all their nukes on the Middle East. Seems like problem, yes?
Well, do not fear, Russia is here. We will gladly assist them in nuking the evil empire of the US into oblivion before its evil can spread and kill more people.
Now we just need to find someone willing to nuke Russia after we nuke the US after they nuke ISIS thus becoming even more evil than that which we sought to destroy. How many nukes does Britain have?

**NuggzTheNinja**

Iron_Captain wrote:

Well, do not fear, Russia is here.

Usually that's a pretty damn good reason to fear, especially if you're a hostage!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermobaric_weapon#Military_use

It is theorized that a multitude of hand-held thermobaric weapons were used by the Russian Armed Forces in their efforts to retake the school during the 2004 Beslan school hostage crisis. The RPO-A and either the TGB-7V thermobaric rocket from the RPG-7 or rockets from either the RShG-1 or the RShG-2 is claimed to have been used by the Spetsnaz during the initial storming of the school.[50][51][52] At least 3 and as many as 9 RPO-A casings were later found at the positions of the Spetsnaz.[53][54] The Russian Government later admitted to the use of the RPO-A during the crisis.[55]

**Jihadin**

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote:

Well, do not fear, Russia is here.

Usually that's a pretty damn good reason to fear, especially if you're a hostage!

School rescue attempt?

**NuggzTheNinja**

Jihadin wrote:
NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote:

Well, do not fear, Russia is here.

Usually that's a pretty damn good reason to fear, especially if you're a hostage!

Spoiler:

**Easy E**

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Easy E wrote:
No, if you want to stop terrorism you need to battle it politically and ideologically. Military force is only one tool in the tool box, and plays a role; but to think you can solve these issues ONLY with military force is delusional.

Sounds a lot like "hearts and minds." How well is that working for 'Merica?

Not hearts and minds. I don't we need to be building them much of anything, but just challenging their assumptions by showing them laternatives.

@Grey Templar- As for Nazism/Fascism not being a threat on the world stage, I think Europe (France, Germany) and even some groups of people in America might feel a bit differently. It is still an ideology that many, many people adhere too despite its complete military defeat in WWII. Some would argue it is even on the rise.

**NuggzTheNinja**

Easy E wrote:

Not hearts and minds. I don't we need to be building them much of anything, but just challenging their assumptions by showing them laternatives.

This is essentially the George Bush Jr. approach to conducting business: Introduce them to McDonalds and Freedom (tm) and they will see the light.

The problem is that, while they may be getting some infrastructure improvements from the US, we can't guarantee their safety. The Taliban only have to maintain a transient presence in each area in order to reduce the extent to which the civilian population is willing to cooperate.

Can you provide examples of where this approach has ever worked?

I submit that Israel's current control over the West Bank is evidence of my approach working. In addition, Gaza was comparatively very well behaved before Israel withdrew ground forces. Now it's completely infested with terrorists and a constant source of problems. The IDF and Shabak should have maintained a strong presence in Gaza despite the complaints of the international community.

**Elemental**

Experiment 626 wrote:
Most of the time yes. Against the likes of radical Islamist filth like IS who are pretty much nothing more than a giant death cult, the only option is to wipe them from the face of the earth before they can do it to us.

He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you.

**Frazzled**

Elemental wrote:
Experiment 626 wrote:
Most of the time yes. Against the likes of radical Islamist filth like IS who are pretty much nothing more than a giant death cult, the only option is to wipe them from the face of the earth before they can do it to us.

He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you.

Pfft.

"Anything comes through those trees, you

ing waste 'em."
-Sergeant Elias

"Blastermen! To your stations!"
-Forbidden Planet

**Spetulhu**

Nukes are a bit too big for showing people they can't hide, and besides the drone program is already doing pretty much that. Al-quaeda "second-in-command" number 315 is hiding in a house? Wiping out the dozen other people in it to get him (be they his family or just someone else who can't say no) doesn't seem to be a problem.

**AlmightyWalrus**

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Easy E wrote:

Not hearts and minds. I don't we need to be building them much of anything, but just challenging their assumptions by showing them laternatives.

This is essentially the George Bush Jr. approach to conducting business: Introduce them to McDonalds and Freedom (tm) and they will see the light.

The problem is that, while they may be getting some infrastructure improvements from the US, we can't guarantee their safety. The Taliban only have to maintain a transient presence in each area in order to reduce the extent to which the civilian population is willing to cooperate.

Can you provide examples of where this approach has ever worked?

Japan. Germany. South Korea.

**djones520**

All states that had a national identity prior to our coming. Afghanistan is only a nation because some dudes in the west says it was. The people are not really united. They still largely hold to their tribal roots, not their national roots.

Now, that sense is growing over here, but thousands of years of not having a national identity isn't going to change in a matter of years. It may take decades before the people fully embrace it.