Why when the West attacks terrorists...

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Kucinich
Uh, yeah it was - at least the rest of us found it so.

Yeah, jokes based on Godwin are funny?

[Kuciwalker]

@ C0ckney

[Whaleboy]

The fact that states are involved is fundamentally irrelevant to EiF's point that the whiners hold the west to a hypocritically different standard. If we wanted to operate on the level of terrorists, but with state resources and power, we could remove entire cities from the map. Instead of ****ing around with tribes who protect terrorists, we could exterminate them to the last man, woman and child, and give their former territory to those who play ball with us.

But you can't do that. A state can only act at least when the people aren't beying for governmental blood. If the nukes start flying (or carpet bombs, either way to have a repeat performance of Hiroshima or Dresden) public support would fall away at home. A government acting upon patriotism is bound by the limitations therein. If such an atrocity were to occur, the candy flag would no longer taste so sweet, so to speak.

Instead, our counter-terror and anti-terror responses are highly moderated and focused, but this still isn't good enough for the whiners.

I'm not disagreeing about Afghanistan. The way I see it there, the civil war had been raging since 1996, the allies only stepped in to help the NA. Furthermore I doubt there were a huge number of civilian casualties. Iraq is a different kettle of fish. The invasion of an entire nation (which seems to have had little or nothing to do with AQ) does not seem to me like an anti-terror response. I'm sure it was designed to reinforce political support for the Bush admin etc (we all need our enemies after all) (but a fat lot of good that did) so perhaps a political anti-terror response, but in reality I think it has only stirred up more ****. Let's face it, the "stick" doesn't work with these people so the sensible thing to do is do what nations with decades more terrorism experience than the US have been doing. Use force for point defense and intelligence to deal with the situation generally. If I am counted as a "whiner", then I would counter you by saying that I believe force is not the solution to the terrorist problem. Like any kind of crime, the solution is to tackle the root social cause behind it. In the case of the fundies, that's going to be no summer camp either.

Hatanaka (and others) were not concerned with the a-bomb's creation of "martyrs." They were concerned with fundamental notions of honor, as interpreted in Hagakure and nearly a millenium of traditional preference of death to capture.

No they weren't concerned with martyrs, there were concerned with keeping the war going for the reasons you describe. The bombs only served to intensify their resolve. And it wasn't nearly a millenium. A 13th/14th century warrior wrote of a recent battle that they essentially buggered off (Monty Python style almost). What we think of the Samurai spirit was a conconction, iirc created by a 16th century Japanese writer. That,my dear, is not a millenium .

The Americans weren't about to nuke Tokyo (if we had wanted to, it would have been done from the outset) as we had no more bombs after Nagasaki and wouldn't have a fourth one for quite a while.

I'll have to check my notes but I'm sure the Americans had more than two nukes available.

Note of course that from the beginning of 1945, the incendiary bombings were having a similar effect to the nukes... on some occasions the dead would hit 6 figures.

Also correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Truman threaten to drop a bomb on Japan every three days following Hiroshima? That implies he had more. The fact that Japan didn't surrender immediately after Nagasaki seems to imply that either they were deep in consideration or they did not intend to surrender. Indeed, the fact that such terrible losses had been sustained on Japanese cities throughout 1945 showed that they were capable of accepting such casualty figures, so presumably one B29 leveling a city is similar to a fleet of B29's doing the same.

Unless the Russkies could swim, I doubt the Japanese were two worried. The Soviets had no significant amphibious experience, totally inadequate amphibious capability, and would have been extremely hard pressed to make successful landings with adequate air and naval support on the Japanese mainland before 1947.

But did the Japanese know that? IIRC they did have the capability to bring troops to Japan, though yes air cover was a problem. Fundamentally, their supplies from Manchuria were now cut off (remember the reason they invaded in the first place?), Okinawa had been taken, they were surrounded. It's fairly easy to understand how the prospect of facing Russia and the USA is enough to make them want to surrender, even considering their past behaviour!

The US had the capability in place, and we had demonstrated it again and again from Guadalcanal to Iwo Jima. We owned the sea, we owned the air, and had the Japanese not surrendered, millions would have starved over the winter of 1945-6, hundreds of thousands if not millions more would have been killed during conventional bombing raids, and we would have been ready to move in massive force in the spring of 46. The Japanese knew this.

Supplies from Manchuria while still getting through in a limited capacity were completely cut off when the Russians liberated Manchuria.

The only effect the Soviets had was on those few souls who were deluded enough to consider the possibility of a Japanese homeland victory over the American invader, but who would consider surrender instead of suicide if the odds were hopeless. Awfully hard to find any of those around.

I dispute that. The latter American invasions had become very bloody affairs and the last three were viewed by both sides as a dress rehearsal for the invasion of the home islands. The Japanese might have been able to inflict unsustainable losses on an American invasion, sufficient to throw them into the sea, perhaps. No way would that happen with an additional 500'000 - 1'500'000 red army soldiers.

You must also understand the different fighting styles of the time. American troops attacked in smaller groups than the Russians, using a more tactical approach. Best countered by fanatical suicidal soldiers. The same would not work against the Russians, as shown in some of the more bloody moments of Stalingrad, the men (and blood) would just keep flowing, so psychologically, the effect would have been completely different on prospective kamakazis.

for example the IRA wanted us out of northern ireland, but never sought to destroy britain, whereas one of hamas' stated aims is the destruction of the state of israel. the ira had (and has) a political wing, sinn fein, who speaks for hamas in israeli/palestinian political circles? just how would you even start to negociate with them.

If it helps there, an acceptable analogy would be a British refusal to pull out of NI, which is reasonable. Stopping the IRA is more difficult because it is based in both ROI and NI, and its conflict is more deep rooted. The analogy between IRA and Islamic fundy terrorism is flawwed, because the latter is somewhat more superficial, its demands rendered whimsical by their unworkability, its men motivated by the very conditions that give us a great opportunity for countering them (improve conditions, integrate, oil yadda yadda) and it's demographic easier to make more distinct from that of the West, and thus easier to directly address it. What I'm getting at is tough love .

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


The fact that states are involved is fundamentally irrelevant to EiF's point that the whiners hold the west to a hypocritically different standard. If we wanted to operate on the level of terrorists, but with state resources and power, we could remove entire cities from the map. Instead of ****ing around with tribes who protect terrorists, we could exterminate them to the last man, woman and child, and give their former territory to those who play ball with us. Instead, our counter-terror and anti-terror responses are highly moderated and focused, but this still isn't good enough for the whiners.

I MtG.

[Sandman]

I think comparisons between the Israel-Palestine conflict and the Second World War are repugnant. The difference in scale is a thousand-fold.

[Kuciwalker]

'm not disagreeing about Afghanistan. The way I see it there, the civil war had been raging since 1996, the allies only stepped in to help the NA. Furthermore I doubt there were a huge number of civilian casualties. Iraq is a different kettle of fish. The invasion of an entire nation (which seems to have had little or nothing to do with AQ) does not seem to me like an anti-terror response. I'm sure it was designed to reinforce political support for the Bush admin etc (we all need our enemies after all) (but a fat lot of good that did) so perhaps a political anti-terror response, but in reality I think it has only stirred up more ****. Let's face it, the "stick" doesn't work with these people so the sensible thing to do is do what nations with decades more terrorism experience than the US have been doing. Use force for point defense and intelligence to deal with the situation generally. If I am counted as a "whiner", then I would counter you by saying that I believe force is not the solution to the terrorist problem. Like any kind of crime, the solution is to tackle the root social cause behind it. In the case of the fundies, that's going to be no summer camp either.

Of course force is ultimately the answer. A rule not backed by force is merely a suggestions.

[C0ckney]

elijah, sorry you've totally lost me

[Kuciwalker]

I'll have to check my notes but I'm sure the Americans had more than two nukes available.
Note of course that from the beginning of 1945, the incendiary bombings were having a similar effect to the nukes... on some occasions the dead would hit 6 figures.
Also correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Truman threaten to drop a bomb on Japan every three days following Hiroshima? That implies he had more. The fact that Japan didn't surrender immediately after Nagasaki seems to imply that either they were deep in consideration or they did not intend to surrender. Indeed, the fact that such terrible losses had been sustained on Japanese cities throughout 1945 showed that they were capable of accepting such casualty figures, so presumably one B29 leveling a city is similar to a fleet of B29's doing the same.

1. There are these things called "bluffs".

2. One bomb annihilating a city in a single, huge fireball has a far greater psychological effect than a fleet of bombers levelling a city

But did the Japanese know that?

Probably yes.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Don't worry, guys, I can understand humor... but isn't satire supposed to be funny and/or original? His post obviously wasn't.

But it was .

He's from the 20/30s, and was the British attempt at a Mussolini, Hitler, Franco etc.

Before becoming a Fascist he was an MP for the Tories, and then again as an independent and then joined the Labour party.

Ah... we don't hear about him much across the pond (neither him nor Barres, the French fascist). Funny that he went to both major parties .

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
But it was .

Hey, do you know who Fez reminds me of? Franco!!


HA HA HA HA HA HA that was so funny and witty.

[C0ckney]

almost genius you might say...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hey, do you know who Fez reminds me of? Franco!!

But that wasn't funny .

[Caligastia]

Interesting thread.

[molly bloom]

Re: i hardly even noticed the words you put in my mouth...

Originally posted by C0ckney


i think you missed the point (by about a mile). maybe i should have elaborated a bit, but essentially what i was trying to say was this.

the IRA and hamas are very different for many reasons, not just their method of murder, but in their structure, and their aims and goals.

that's why you can't really compare them.

Gosh, I thought we were comparing organisations which use terror to achieve political ends- and here I am confusing the I.R.A. , the I.N.L.A. and Continuity I.R.A. with organisations that place bombs in public places and detonate them, regardless of who they kill.

I should have realized that you meant by I.R.A. , a group similar to the Greens, or the Liberals, who don't attempt to cirumvent the political process or ballot box with 5 lbs of semtex in a car, or launch mortar bombs at no.10 Downing Street.

On July 21 1972 in Belfast, 22 explosions killed eleven people. Presumably in a way completely incomparable with the way Hamas kills people with bombs.

How about the twelve civilians incinerated in an attack on a restaurant on February 17, 1978, and the ten year old girl blown apart by a booby trapped car? Were the ways they were killed significantly different from Hamas
restaurant bombings, or booby trap devices?

I'm having difficulty seeing the difference in the 'method'- please enlighten me.

The Provisional I.R.A. by its opposition to the elected government of Eire showed that it considered itself the 'legitimate' Republican movement, and the government of Eire and certainly British government in the Six Counties, illegitimate governments.

You can quibble and say, 'well, the Provisionals have mouthpieces, who are prepared to be the nice guys abroad when drumming up funds from gullible Irish Americans' but I prefer to think of them as the people responsible for over 2 000 deaths (Catholic and Protestant) between, for instance, 1970-1980, and over 200 million pounds having to be paid out in compensation for property damage, which translated into American terms for instance, would mean in proportion, 276 000 dead with another 1 and 1 half million injured.

[Ted Striker]

Re: Why when the West attacks terrorists...

Originally posted by Park Avenue
When did we start caring what terrorists want?

One of the best ideas I've ever heard Player. So simple and puts everything back in the CORRECT perspective.