SOCNET

Go Back   SOCNET: The Special Operations Community Network > General Topics > Terrorism and Asymmetric Warfare

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #161  
Old 2 January 2009, 16:43
okami1 okami1 is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: roadmarching in a bathrobe
Posts: 1,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by P.S.U-07 View Post
The goal of those bomobing raids was to bring the government to its knees. Not extermination of a people. That would be genocide. There are still German and Japenese folks living in thoses cities...
What is it that you think Israel is trying to do with Hamas?

Whether genocide is your motivation or not is irrelevant. For the people living under those raids, I doubt it mattered. Regardless, no one here is claiming that Israel is attempting genocide in Gaza.

It is worth noting that those raids did not have the effect on the morale of those nations that the Allies thought it would. Something to consider.
__________________
Less talking
More PT
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 2 January 2009, 17:02
SOTB's Avatar
SOTB SOTB is offline
Minus one, but more symmetrical....
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Clorox'ing the gene pool....
Posts: 32,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitebean54
What you said is the same as all Christians are dangerous and are willing to blow up abortion clinics because a few Christians had before and thats just not the case....
Two comments.

First, I agree with the quote above. While I do consider Christianity a threat, it cannot be ignored that the religion's followers have dramatically changed their behaviors in the past thousand years. Simply, Christians have decided that they don't wish to forcibly impress their ideas upon others -- and openly (and aggressively) punish those who are so fanatical as to utilize violence in the name of their religion. This is where we should want Islam to arrive. And it CAN.

Secondly, the commentary bordering on genocide is the danger we face when we refuse to properly address the Islamic threat. People's emotions are easily riled -- we as a species are not near as advanced as we like to brag we are, and there are numerous examples within the last 30 years (well after WWII) that show how easily and quickly our emotions can result in nothing less than atrocious behavior.

The idea that we are in a Global War on Terrorism is simply stupid. We are in a Global War on Islam -- whether we want to admit it or not. Certainly Muslims don't doubt this. Whether they will tell you that they are suspicious of the West's dealings with Islam in regards to recent wars, the support of Israel, issues surrounding oil, religious equality (including even when we capitulate and allow for the masking of windows at private swimming hours at public pools), whatever -- Muslims look at the West through jaundiced eyes at a minimum, many look at the West as an enemy (in advance, there are many examples of enemies conducting trade and other relations).

We should openly acknowledge that we are in a war against Islam, and wage it as such. Or surrender the war. Whichever route selected, we need to accept the reality and choose a course. Personally, I would rather we didn't surrender. If we decided to fight it seriously, then we should target Muslim nations throughout the world and clearly state that violent acts (or the tolerance of their citizenry conducting violent acts) will result in their destruction -- and then carry that out. I believe the violence would initially be intense, and scores of Muslims would die. I also believe they would lose the war -- the more aggressive that we fought, the quicker they would surrender. We should not forget that "surrender" means there are conditions that are to be met by the losers -- and we should demand certain changes in the Islamic religion as part of our acceptance of their surrender. Conditions, BTW, which are put forth and championed by Muslims -- not by Christians. We cannot MAKE them change their religion to one that is peaceful, not directly. No, our job should be to make it so painful to continue to practice assclownery behavior that they themselves seek to change their beliefs.

I really don't care whatever happens. Because I have no illusions that we will surrender. No, we'll eventually stomp that ass -- but if we don't do it sooner than later, sadly lots of Muslims will die that really didn't have to. Even to the extent that it could appear genocidal -- which will be another blight on our history of so-called "progress"....
__________________
Losing faith in humanity, one assclown at a time....
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 2 January 2009, 17:14
P.S.U-07 P.S.U-07 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: PA
Posts: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by okami1 View Post
What is it that you think Israel is trying to do with Hamas?
Whether genocide is your motivation or not is irrelevant. For the people living under those raids, I doubt it mattered. Regardless, no one here is claiming that Israel is attempting genocide in Gaza.
It is worth noting that those raids did not have the effect on the morale of those nations that the Allies thought it would. Something to consider.
My posts were a response to the gentleman who mentioned killing ALL Muslims. There's a big difference between what Israel is trying to do and what said gentleman is proposing.

And where did I say Israel is committing genocide in Gaza?
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 2 January 2009, 17:36
SOTB's Avatar
SOTB SOTB is offline
Minus one, but more symmetrical....
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Clorox'ing the gene pool....
Posts: 32,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by okami1
Yet this is exactly what the strategic bombing campaign of Japan and Germany tried to do in order to make them submit. The folks living in Dresden, Hamburg, and Tokyo might disagree with your assessment.
What utter and not-so-subtle apologetic nonsense.

Our WWII campaigns were designed to place pressure upon all sides of the Axis govts -- not only military, but also economic and political AND the morale of the people. To state that bombing campaigns didn't motivate the enemy to consider and eventually discuss surrender is not only wrong, it is suspicious in it's leanings towards remorse of the bombings.

The so-called "intellectuals" openly drool at the opportunities to mention the horrors of Dresden when they whine about bombing civilian targets. Whether or not Dresden was necessary at that point in the war, to deny that the overall bombing campaign of the allies against Germany was successful is ludicrous. It served to cause Germany to redeploy assets to defending the Homeland, it served to generate fear and doubt amongst the German population -- to the extent that military leaders considered assassinating Hitler simply to allow them some sort of avenue to cease the war without the total destruction of Germany, and it drove home the idea that the allies would not tolerate the type of behavior the Nazis had shown. Also, what fantastic silly thinking to deny the effect of the allied bombing campaign of Japan. Why-the-fuck did Japan surrender? Any guesses?

Oh well. I guess I won't be the guest-of-honor at any "we're sorry" conventions this year....
__________________
Losing faith in humanity, one assclown at a time....
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 2 January 2009, 17:38
okami1 okami1 is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: roadmarching in a bathrobe
Posts: 1,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by P.S.U-07 View Post
My posts were a response to the gentleman who mentioned killing ALL Muslims. There's a big difference between what Israel is trying to do and what said gentleman is proposing.
Israel is attempting to bring the government of Gaza, namely HAMAS, to its knees. Strategic bombing campaign?

Quote:
Originally Posted by P.S.U-07 View Post
And where did I say Israel is committing genocide in Gaza?
I said no one is attemting to claim that. You're included in that group.
__________________
Less talking
More PT
Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 2 January 2009, 17:48
okami1 okami1 is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: roadmarching in a bathrobe
Posts: 1,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOTB View Post
What utter and not-so-subtle apologetic nonsense.

Our WWII campaigns were designed to place pressure upon all sides of the Axis govts -- not only military, but also economic and political AND the morale of the people. To state that bombing campaigns didn't motivate the enemy to consider and eventually discuss surrender is not only wrong, it is suspicious in it's leanings towards remorse of the bombings.

The so-called "intellectuals" openly drool at the opportunities to mention the horrors of Dresden when they whine about bombing civilian targets. Whether or not Dresden was necessary at that point in the war, to deny that the overall bombing campaign of the allies against Germany was successful is ludicrous. It served to cause Germany to redeploy assets to defending the Homeland, it served to generate fear and doubt amongst the German population -- to the extent that military leaders considered assassinating Hitler simply to allow them some sort of avenue to cease the war without the total destruction of Germany, and it drove home the idea that the allies would not tolerate the type of behavior the Nazis had shown. Also, what fantastic silly thinking to deny the effect of the allied bombing campaign of Japan. Why-the-fuck did Japan surrender? Any guesses?

Oh well. I guess I won't be the guest-of-honor at any "we're sorry" conventions this year....
I am most definitely not apologizing for, nor denying the efficacy of the bombing campaign of WWII. I was pointing out (in response to the original post I responded to) that Israel IS in fact attempting to kill Gazans until HAMAS surrenders, and until we adopted the no-holds barred strategy of bombing civilian populations during WWII, the war was being prosecuted in a more piecemeal way. Sorry if my comments came across as anything else.
__________________
Less talking
More PT
Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 2 January 2009, 17:52
okami1 okami1 is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: roadmarching in a bathrobe
Posts: 1,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOTB View Post
The idea that we are in a Global War on Terrorism is simply stupid. We are in a Global War on Islam -- whether we want to admit it or not. Certainly Muslims don't doubt this. Whether they will tell you that they are suspicious of the West's dealings with Islam in regards to recent wars, the support of Israel, issues surrounding oil, religious equality (including even when we capitulate and allow for the masking of windows at private swimming hours at public pools), whatever -- Muslims look at the West through jaundiced eyes at a minimum, many look at the West as an enemy (in advance, there are many examples of enemies conducting trade and other relations).

We should openly acknowledge that we are in a war against Islam, and wage it as such. Or surrender the war. Whichever route selected, we need to accept the reality and choose a course. Personally, I would rather we didn't surrender. If we decided to fight it seriously, then we should target Muslim nations throughout the world and clearly state that violent acts (or the tolerance of their citizenry conducting violent acts) will result in their destruction -- and then carry that out. I believe the violence would initially be intense, and scores of Muslims would die. I also believe they would lose the war -- the more aggressive that we fought, the quicker they would surrender. We should not forget that "surrender" means there are conditions that are to be met by the losers -- and we should demand certain changes in the Islamic religion as part of our acceptance of their surrender. Conditions, BTW, which are put forth and championed by Muslims -- not by Christians. We cannot MAKE them change their religion to one that is peaceful, not directly. No, our job should be to make it so painful to continue to practice assclownery behavior that they themselves seek to change their beliefs.
I like the idea of calling a spade a spade too. Would certainly make our position clear and prevent so much of the international waffling and appeasement that is the status quo today.
__________________
Less talking
More PT
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 2 January 2009, 18:09
Sharky's Avatar
Sharky Sharky is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: SOCNET
Posts: 20,695
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitebean54 View Post
What you said is the same as all Christians are dangerous and are willing to blow up abortion clinics because a few Christians had before and thats just not the case.


I agree with what you said but that's really not a very good comparison.
__________________
I was born my papa's son
When I hit the ground I was on the run
I had one glad hand and the other behind
You can have yours, just give me mine
When the hound dog barkin' in the black of the night
Stick my hand in my pocket, everything's all right

-ZZ Top
Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 2 January 2009, 19:04
okami1 okami1 is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: roadmarching in a bathrobe
Posts: 1,181
Successfully fighting terrorists, but not their ideology

To add to the discussion about effectively fighting and destroying an ideology vice paying that goal lip service even as you kill its adherents, which in the long run, may only serve to make the ideology more resistant to destruction...
__________________
Less talking
More PT
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 2 January 2009, 19:16
Whitebean54's Avatar
Whitebean54 Whitebean54 is offline
Road Scum
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Road
Posts: 3,454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharky View Post
I agree with what you said but that's really not a very good comparison.

Sharky, what would you use as a comparison? Crusades? I am not trying to be a smart ass, just want to know how you would skin this cat.
__________________
"Somewhere, theres a skeleton, a book sack and a log with a fat girls signature " Jumpcut

" a world class ass-clown who is running this jack-assery version of laser tag" USMC_ANGLICO
Reply With Quote
  #171  
Old 2 January 2009, 19:29
Rangemaster61 Rangemaster61 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 7
Hamas rally in Ft Lauderdale too

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickyRecon View Post
Houston. Had a major "rally" in the Galleria area earlier. The one I rode up on was on Weslayen just north of 59.
This was in the good ole USA main street in Ft Lauderdale FL. Think how many of these are walking among us. Target rich environment.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=j3Xl68kP4wo
Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old 2 January 2009, 21:54
pittsburghgrl
Visitor
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitebean54 View Post
Sharky, what would you use as a comparison? Crusades? I am not trying to be a smart ass, just want to know how you would skin this cat.
Dont mean to hijack but let's NOT get Sharky started on how to skin cats please....
Reply With Quote
  #173  
Old 2 January 2009, 21:57
Greenhat
Visitor
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by okami1 View Post
Yet this is exactly what the strategic bombing campaign of Japan and Germany tried to do in order to make them submit.
Uh...NO, it didn't. Even Bomber Harris never suggested that was what the goal was.
Reply With Quote
  #174  
Old 2 January 2009, 22:26
T-Rock T-Rock is offline
Banned User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Foothills
Posts: 517
Quote:
This was in the good ole USA main street in Ft Lauderdale FL. Think how many of these are walking among us. Target rich environment.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=j3Xl68kP4wo
Looks like the dude shouting through the megaphone, declaring “Takfir” (5:20) on the surrounding “Infidels” must have been Irish (5:52)

He must have a 55 gallon drum of Henna on his back porch
http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/takfiri.aspx

Quote:
Sharky, what would you use as a comparison? Crusades? I am not trying to be a smart ass, just want to know how you would skin this cat.
What touched off the 1st Crusade, and what caused Pope Urban II to preach it in 1095?

Last edited by T-Rock; 2 January 2009 at 22:40. Reason: question.
Reply With Quote
  #175  
Old 2 January 2009, 22:46
Greenhat
Visitor
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOTB View Post
Our WWII campaigns were designed to place pressure upon all sides of the Axis govts -- not only military, but also economic and political AND the morale of the people.
Agree.

Quote:
To state that bombing campaigns didn't motivate the enemy to consider and eventually discuss surrender is not only wrong, it is suspicious in it's leanings towards remorse of the bombings.
Disagree. At least in regards to the campaign in Europe.

Strategic bombing had some effect on the morale of both Germany and Japan... but it is only in Japan that it can realistically be said that it brought the consideration of surrender to the table (and this is true even without the atomic bombs - and has more to do with the success of bombing, submarines, etc. at strangling the Japanese Islands than with the bombing of Tokyo and other cities).

General James Doolittle himself, in the Strategic Bombing Survey, noted that although the results of strategic bombing were decisive, it was not effective at reducing German morale or creating an environment in which surrender was considered.

An example quote: "The Germans were far more concerned over attacks on one or more of their basic industries and services -- their oil, chemical, or steel industries or their power or transportation networks -- than they were over attacks on their armament industry or the city areas."

Yes, strategic bombing forced the Germans to relocate assets, to provide defensive measures, etc... but it was not successful from the perspective of Bomber Harris's goals. Strategic Bombing did not ever come close to bringing Germany to its knees.

The 20 July plan was not launched because of Allied bombing, but because of advancing Allied Armies in 1944 (in particular, the Soviet Army) and even more so because of the Gestapo (who, because they were closing in on the conspirators, forced their hand into a desperate attempt). Nor did the plotters come together because of the bombings... there had been groups trying to overthrow Hitler since at least as early as 1938 - and the group that executed the 20 July plot was formed in 1941 - well before strategic bombing was making any serious impact on Germany.

Against Japan, the most effective use of airpower was not the strategic bombing of Tokyo and other cities, but the stranglehold on shipping to the Japanese islands. That is what had them on the brink of surrender on August 5th, 1945.
Reply With Quote
  #176  
Old 2 January 2009, 23:54
SOTB's Avatar
SOTB SOTB is offline
Minus one, but more symmetrical....
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Clorox'ing the gene pool....
Posts: 32,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greenhat
Strategic bombing had some effect on the morale of both Germany and Japan....
I'm under no illusions that strategic bombing campaigns alone bring an enemy to a desire to surrender. Unknown and faceless enemies raining havoc upon a people might serve only to strengthen their impression that their enemy is evil, remorseless, and without compassion (therefore quite possibly even removing from the table the thought of surrender -- since why surrender if you will be dealt with harshly). But it is also completely ridiculous to take the other extreme POV that strategic bombing had no effect upon either the military/govt or civilian populations of the Axis. It did. It does. And it will.

In the case of the Germans, the constant bombardment of German territories (cities) was an ever-increasing reminder of not only the war not going the direction they had all bought into initially, but that the end was coming -- an end which would be brought and driven home by ground forces. While the eventual focusing of allied air power upon oil and transportation assets resulted in much greater impact upon the German govt/military, to dismiss the demoralization of not being able to protect one's cities and knowing that continued resistance would only mean more of the same destruction, is incorrect. The very 20 July example you mention received motivation and renewed resolve by those who now had the ability to show those they were trying to recruit that removing Hitler may save Germany from destruction from a war fought on the Homeland.

And in the case of Japan, the same concept applies -- with the difference that the Japanese peoples may have been willing to stand up to an allied invasion, but the wholesale destruction of their cities -- with their being able to do NOTHING to stop it -- was enough to cause them to take an action which they had previously been unwilling to do.

A more recent example can be NATO's bombing of the Serbs -- while the Serbs certainly had no intentions of giving up solely due to NATO bombing, they did understand that NATO's intention to invade was serious and they were not going to have a big brother Russia to prevent that invasion. To avoid that invasion, and possibly an even greater loss of Serb power, the decision was made to capitulate. Even then, it is lunacy to think that NATO's bombing had no positive effect upon causing that decision.

None of my statements should be taken as my depicting bombing campaigns as the best or only way to conduct a war. I simply don't agree with the stupidity that war should not involve civilians or that civilians in fear or danger does not dramatically impact the motivations of both the aggressor and defender. And I certainly don't think we should limit our options when responding to enemy aggression -- or a population's tolerance of it's citizenry committing aggression.

In the end, and in returning to the original intent of this thread, Israel SHOULD bomb Gaza -- including straight-up civvie targets, or at least dual-purpose targets (such as the mosque that was targeted). AND they should shell Gaza. AND they should use ground forces to overrun and kill any and all resistance. But in this campaign the last thing they should do is endanger the lives of their forces by restricting the ability of those forces to kill the enemy. If the Palestinians don't want their houses shelled, their families killed in the cross-fire, then they should take up the Israeli's offer of pointing out Hamas firing positions and forces. Or they should move to capture/kill the Hamas fighters themselves. Or they can sit back either in fear or support and allow themselves to be slaughtered. If I were the Israeli HMFIC, I would tell my military leadership that there is no excuse for any trooper to be killed because of entering a known hostile structure -- they should destroy all such locations and simply drive over the remains.

Once Gaza was captured, I would spend whatever money it cost to drive the remaining Palestinian population to the ocean, board them on ships, and send them to Iran. Then put the Iranians in the uncomfortable position of having to publicly show they could give a rat's ass about the Palestinians....
__________________
Losing faith in humanity, one assclown at a time....
Reply With Quote
  #177  
Old 3 January 2009, 00:12
Greenhat
Visitor
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOTB View Post
In the end, and in returning to the original intent of this thread, Israel SHOULD bomb Gaza -- including straight-up civvie targets, or at least dual-purpose targets (such as the mosque that was targeted). AND they should shell Gaza. AND they should use ground forces to overrun and kill any and all resistance. But in this campaign the last thing they should do is endanger the lives of their forces by restricting the ability of those forces to kill the enemy. If the Palestinians don't want their houses shelled, their families killed in the cross-fire, then they should take up the Israeli's offer of pointing out Hamas firing positions and forces. Or they should move to capture/kill the Hamas fighters themselves. Or they can sit back either in fear or support and allow themselves to be slaughtered. If I were the Israeli HMFIC, I would tell my military leadership that there is no excuse for any trooper to be killed because of entering a known hostile structure -- they should destroy all such locations and simply drive over the remains.

Once Gaza was captured, I would spend whatever money it cost to drive the remaining Palestinian population to the ocean, board them on ships, and send them to Iran. Then put the Iranians in the uncomfortable position of having to publicly show they could give a rat's ass about the Palestinians....
I agree.
Reply With Quote
  #178  
Old 3 January 2009, 00:15
tnkspe119 tnkspe119 is offline
Dream Liver
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: overseas
Posts: 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOTB View Post
In the end, and in returning to the original intent of this thread, Israel SHOULD bomb Gaza -- including straight-up civvie targets, or at least dual-purpose targets (such as the mosque that was targeted). AND they should shell Gaza. AND they should use ground forces to overrun and kill any and all resistance. But in this campaign the last thing they should do is endanger the lives of their forces by restricting the ability of those forces to kill the enemy. If the Palestinians don't want their houses shelled, their families killed in the cross-fire, then they should take up the Israeli's offer of pointing out Hamas firing positions and forces. Or they should move to capture/kill the Hamas fighters themselves. Or they can sit back either in fear or support and allow themselves to be slaughtered. If I were the Israeli HMFIC, I would tell my military leadership that there is no excuse for any trooper to be killed because of entering a known hostile structure -- they should destroy all such locations and simply drive over the remains.

Once Gaza was captured, I would spend whatever money it cost to drive the remaining Palestinian population to the ocean, board them on ships, and send them to Iran. Then put the Iranians in the uncomfortable position of having to publicly show they could give a rat's ass about the Palestinians....
+1...do you have time to come over here to Israel and smack some sense into people here that continue to stall this thing out while the international community (and apparently places in the US) garner support for Hamas? I feel the longer they wait, the less likely of a ground invasion, and if they dont do that, it is going to go back to the same old shit again...http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull
__________________
"What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

Last edited by tnkspe119; 3 January 2009 at 00:18. Reason: added article from Jpost
Reply With Quote
  #179  
Old 3 January 2009, 10:35
Looon Looon is offline
****
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ............
Posts: 3,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOTB View Post
Then put the Iranians in the uncomfortable position of having to publicly show they could give a rat's ass about the Palestinians....
The Palestinians are just a means to an end.
__________________
Airlando commando
Reply With Quote
  #180  
Old 3 January 2009, 11:09
iraqgunz's Avatar
iraqgunz iraqgunz is offline
Rest In Peace
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Warm and sunny Arizona
Posts: 6,018
That was classic! Haha.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tracy View Post
Maybe we can get Roland Haas out of retirement to 'delete' the HAMAS leadership for us. I have a CRKT M16-14ZSF knife he can borrow...

Judges? What's the cross-thread point value?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Our new posting rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:31.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Socnet.com All Rights Reserved
SOCNET 1996-2020