Terrorism is a legitimate form of warfare

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by paiktis22
That's what made them terrorists then.

Yes, but it is the logical consequence when so many people seem to believe that terrorism is legitimate.....

I absolutely agree with Strangelove here, when people say something like that (or even better "no rules in war") then everything is justified, and for all sides, so why complain about it? Then we could all agree that there are no limits in warfare, that all sides have the right to do everything to win.

Sure, the entire concept of humanity would go downhill, but....

[Dr Strangelove]

If there are NO rules to warfare, then perhaps even genocide becomes a legitimate policy of state.

[Master Zen]

Terrorism is a form of warfare, period. It is legit since these people for the most part don't have the resources to fight against a standing army. Why should they? No intelligent person goes into a fight they know they will lose, if anything you try and dictate the conditions of that battle which is what terrorists do.

The main argument is that terrorist target civilians. True. But warfare targets industry does it not? F-15 bombs a factory or an electrical station and kills workers, is that any different? If the intent is to disable the capacity of the enemy to fight, terrorism strikes at the will. Will and capacity are what make nations fight.

Not so far ago, the enlightened democratic west used terror bombing of urban centers in Germany and Japan for the same reasons. The British in fact did it under the objective to reduce the will of the German people to fight and directly targeted civilians. In what way is this different from terrorism?

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Master Zen
Terrorism is a form of warfare, period.

I think noone has said it isn´t.

It is legit since these people for the most part don't have the resources to fight against a standing army.

Not my fault. How does that legitimate something? Germany has no oil, so we can do everything to get it? Our experience with desert warfare is a bit outdated, but I´m sure we would quickly make progress....

The main argument is that terrorist target civilians. True. But warfare targets industry does it not? F-15 bombs a factory or an electrical station and kills workers, is that any different? If the intent is to disable the capacity of the enemy to fight, terrorism strikes at the will.

So everything would be ok to reach military victory? And any limitations (geneva conventions for example) are useless? Why then doesn´t every war end in genocide - it would be an effective way to victory, wouldn´t it? Maybe those who don´t use every possible method are just wimps?

Not so far ago, the enlightened democratic west used terror bombing of urban centers in Germany and Japan for the same reasons. The British in fact did it under the objective to reduce the will of the German people to fight and directly targeted civilians. In what way is this different from terrorism?

It would make more sense IMO to label eg. Guernica, Warsaw, Rotterdam, Conventry or Dresden as warcrimes, because done by regular forces, but even that is debatable.

[Dis]

I don't think genocide is effective for victory. depending on what your objectives are of course. Genocide may be the most effective means of ending terrorism if you kill every muslim in the world.

But for conquering a nation and then using its resources to rebuild itself, you have to spare the civilian population. They have to keep the hosipitals, schools, and esp. the oil well operations going. Importing americans to do that job isn't practical, and would take a long time to get going.

[Master Zen]

Do you need genocide to win wars? Nope. Look at the holocaust. It was a terrible waste of industry and manpower. It served no military purpose whatsoever to devote such resources to the systematic destruction of an ethnic group.

Winning wars is not necessarily defeating the enemy, but making the enemy feel defeated. As I said, this is by destroying its will to fight or its capacity to do so. Terrorism strikes at the will.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Dissident
I don't think genocide is effective for victory. depending on what your objectives are of course. Genocide may be the most effective means of ending terrorism if you kill every muslim in the world.

Exactly. And since it seems legitimate in a war, because terrorism is a legitimate form of warfare, and doesn´t seem to have any rules or limitations, so genocide would be fine too I wonder why the US wasn´t more consequent in Iraq. The post-war situation would be much easier without all those Iraqis, eh?

Edit:

Do you need genocide to win wars? Nope. Look at the holocaust. It was a terrible waste of industry and manpower. It served no military purpose whatsoever to devote such resources to the systematic destruction of an ethnic group.

Yes, but Germany wouldn´t have lost if we succeed in killing all our enemies....And if it is about success, then terror doesn´t seem to be successful either.

[Dis]

BeBro you have to look at the other part of my post. We need the Iraqis to run the oil wells. As we all know the war was about oil

[BeBMan]

Ok, you could keep some of them as slaves, but wouldn´t it be legitimate to kill the vast majority? There is already high unemployment in Iraq......

[Spiffor]

I'm sure Shrub would have explained how good genocide was for the Iraqis.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Master Zen
The British in fact did it under the objective to reduce the will of the German people to fight and directly targeted civilians

Dresden and the like point to the flaw in your idea because they weren't responsible for breaking the back of the German army. In fact serious bombing campaigns of the Axis Powers didn't begin until well after it was clear that each was going down in defeat.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Dresden and the like point to the flaw in your idea because they weren't responsible for breaking the back of the German army. In fact serious bombing campaigns of the Axis Powers didn't begin until well after it was clear that each was going down in defeat.

The idea was to avoid defeating the Army and simply causing the Germans to lose the will to fight after suffering huge urban and civilzan damage. Read some WW2 and that was Bomber Harris' intent all along. Whether it succeeded or not is moot, no one is ever 100% sure if their plan is going to work. The Brits apparently thought it would.

The strategic bombing campaign began early in 1943. Victory, though obvious in retrospect, was not assured at the time, if it was then why the need for the bombings at all? In fact the first massive raid made by the RAF, the 1,000 bomber raid was in 1942, when it was still uncertain if Germany was to be defeated.

[EdwardTKing]

There are to my mind several
separate comparative topics:


Conscripts v Professionals

Regulars v Irregulars

Conventional Warfare v Guerrilla Warfare

Guerrilla Warfare v Terrorism

Terrorism v Covert Warfare

Im very surprised that Guerrilla warfare
hasn't been mentioned; it is a Civ Unit.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Master Zen
Whether it succeeded or not is moot, no one is ever 100% sure if their plan is going to work.

The fact is that these campaigns were only feasible late in the war and headed for defeat. Otherwise they wouldn't have been vulnerable to sustained bombing campaigns. The US, for example, was only able to conduct a serious bombing campaign after it had destroyed most of Japan's navy & air force and fought its way close to thier home islands.

[Master Zen]

Yet the US still bombed Germany since 42, in strength after 43 when its bombers were extremely vulnerable and suffered horrendous casaulties. Some RAF raids as far as 1944 suferred tremendous losses too.

Btw, what are you getting at? I gave the example as proof that destroying the will of nations to fight is military policy and so is terrorism.