Big Guy Posted July 15, 2016 Report Share Posted July 15, 2016 (edited) Many years ago, when the ruler of one kingdom had a problem with the ruler of another kingdom, they would agree to meet in battle at a certain place and at a certain time. They fought and decided on a winner. Later, nations put uniforms on their soldiers and sent them out to annihilate the enemy or at least force them into surrender. They tried to keep some semblance of civility by creating a code of conduct (Geneva Conventions) which some nations followed but most did not. To-day, we see a completely different war. We see organizations and/or movements being labelled “terrorists” because they are not playing by the “rules”. It seems quite acceptable for one nation or coalition do use far superior power to bomb a group killing terrorists and thousands of innocent civilians but when that group retaliates, using the only weapons available to them (suicide bombers) then there appears outrage of the carnage. Regarding the last outrage, the attack on civilians in Nice, I assume that it is someone supporting ISIS who was the suicide bomber. Is anyone surprised? France has been one of the enthusiastic members of the coalition bombing ISIS held lands in Syria and Iraq. In Nov 2015 there was an attack by ISIS in Paris. In retaliation for the November 2015 Paris attacks, the French Air Force significantly intensified airstrikes against ISIL targets in Syria, hitting among other the Syrian city of Ar-Raqqah, the de facto capital of ISIL. This was followed by this latest Nice attack. http://abcnews.go.com/International/french-president-links-nice-attack-iraq-syria-conflict/story?id=40597252 This targeting of “soft civilian targets” by ISIS is an outrageous abomination and waste of human life. The bombings of thousands of innocents in ISIS occupied territory in Syria and Iraq is an outrageous abomination and waste of human life – although we are asked to excuse that carnage because it is “acceptable collateral damage” - acceptable to whom? I believe it is time to accept the reality of this new war. When one country bombs people in another county (like fish in barrel) then there will be consequences. In a war the combatants use whatever means are available to them in an attempt to win the war or at least a stalemate or negotiated peace. Canada has been very fortunate over the years. We did not suffer any real consequences on our soil for our involvement in the recent world wars. To-day, with globalization, the oceans protecting us are no longer protective. We have chosen to join a fight where our enemy is prepared to die and give up their lives for their cause. The single enemy, not-very-bright soldier of the past, who is given a gun and thrown into the battle hoping that he will take out somebody, has been replaced. He has been replaced by a not-very-bright infiltrator armed with deadly weapons sent to take out hundreds of his enemies, on their soil, while committing suicide. That is not supposition – that is fact. We have to be very, very careful into which conflicts we want to participate – and be prepared to accept the consequences of that decision. You must understand your enemy if you hope to defeat him. http://www.newsweek.com/how-air-war-against-isis-going-462555 Edited July 15, 2016 by Big Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-TSS- Posted July 15, 2016 Report Share Posted July 15, 2016 A coup-attempt underway in Turkey! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 16, 2016 Report Share Posted July 16, 2016 (edited) To-day, we see a completely different war. We see organizations and/or movements being labelled “terrorists” because they are not playing by the “rules”. It seems quite acceptable for one nation or coalition do use far superior power to bomb a group killing terrorists and thousands of innocent civilians but when that group retaliates, using the only weapons available to them (suicide bombers) then there appears outrage of the carnage. Regarding the last outrage, the attack on civilians in Nice, I assume that it is someone supporting ISIS who was the suicide bomber. Is anyone surprised? France has been one of the enthusiastic members of the coalition bombing ISIS held lands in Syria and Iraq. In Nov 2015 there was an attack by ISIS in Paris. In retaliation for the November 2015 Paris attacks, the French Air Force significantly intensified airstrikes against ISIL targets in Syria, hitting among other the Syrian city of Ar-Raqqah, the de facto capital of ISIL. This was followed by this latest Nice attack. If it was someone supporting ISIS, then I would assume there wasn't much outrage at the killing of innocent civilians involved. ISIS probably appreciate the help. Still, that said, I agree the realities of war change as time goes by and circumstances develop. I agree we should change with them. It's unfortunate that more innocents will suffer, but that seems to be the only way. Edited July 16, 2016 by bcsapper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-TSS- Posted July 16, 2016 Report Share Posted July 16, 2016 I can't blame Arabs for calling us Europeans as spineless wussies because that is what we are or have become over the years more likely. We in Europe have only ourselves to blame for becoming incredible sheeple and electing incredible pansies as our leaders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted July 17, 2016 Report Share Posted July 17, 2016 (edited) I can't blame Arabs for calling us Europeans as spineless wussies because that is what we are or have become over the years more likely. We in Europe have only ourselves to blame for becoming incredible sheeple and electing incredible pansies as our leaders. Looks like we're not far behind. Canadian PM: We won't bomb ISIS even if attackedIn an interview with Global News, Trudeau said that he sees no reason to change this new policy towards ISIS and the threat of Islamic terror, even if a terror attack similar to the one in Paris were carried out on Canadian soil. Trudeau, who as Prime Minister receives daily briefings on matters of national security, said that “it is no surprise that there are angry extremists and terrorists out there who wish Canadians and Canada harm and countries like it around the world. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/205975 Edited July 17, 2016 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted July 18, 2016 Report Share Posted July 18, 2016 To-day, we see a completely different war. We see organizations and/or movements being labelled “terrorists” because they are not playing by the “rules”. It seems quite acceptable for one nation or coalition do use far superior power to bomb a group killing terrorists and thousands of innocent civilians but when that group retaliates, using the only weapons available to them (suicide bombers) then there appears outrage of the carnage. Your problem is your understanding of war it self....Even your favorite Gen Powel understood that, where he has been quoted as saying Nothing in war is fair, we concentrate our forces to maximize our fire power to it's fullest, we will use every weapon and tactic available to us, to bring about the end of this violence and the Sadam's regime. Who seem to be shedding a tear for those poor terrorist because they are not being fought on a level playing field....for a group who uses terror not again'st those that are doing the bombing, but to thousands of innocent civilians.....why because they are cowards, nothing more....they are not will to take on military forces when it is to their advantage, they want to cause terror amongst the soft under belly of their own nation.....their own people..... This is what your condoning....a Muslim boys club that want to play soldier, and kill as much as they want, they want to feel the power of controlling others, perverting an entire religion , forcing their will upon millions....I wonder if they show the same compassion when they kill unarmed civilians.....and then have the balls to say we are being hunted down and killed like animals with planes, tanks, drones etc....They are animals....they follow ideals that need to be wiped out completely..... No your silent on what these scumbags did to deserve all this special treatment from the west....which could mean you approve some how....and if it is all right for them to use such tactics of ethic cleansing, mass murder, the targeted killing of women and children.....why does your balls get twisted when NATO accidentally kills civilians....seems there is a double standard.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted July 18, 2016 Author Report Share Posted July 18, 2016 Your problem is your understanding of war it self... No your silent on what these scumbags did to deserve all this special treatment from the west....which could mean you approve some how....and if it is all right for them to use such tactics of ethic cleansing, mass murder, the targeted killing of women and children.....why does your balls get twisted when NATO accidentally kills civilians....seems there is a double standard.... Thank you for an impartial analysis of what my problem is. I, on the other hand, am not arrogant to the point of trying analyse your views. I read them, think about them and consider them. They are nothing new but expected from those who have invested much of their lives in the military. It also explains why we are in such a mess. You perpetuate propaganda myths and indoctrination which created ISIS and torn the Middle East apart. In case you have forgotten how diabolical the Germans (Those brutal Huns!!) were when they were our enemies and now the good guys who control the EU. I wonder how they were able to change their DNA? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-German_sentiment How about the Yellow Peril!! Those blood thirsty "Japs" who were killing our women and children. These are the same people with whom we are trying to increase trade agreements: http://j387mediahistory.weebly.com/anti-japanese-propaganda-in-wwii.html And remember the "Domino Theory" - the excuse for Vietnam - if Vietnam feel to the communists then it would lead to communism explosion? Guess what, Vietnam fell and Canada and USA are now negotiating new trade contracts with them. And these "scumbags" to whom you are referring, are they similar to the scumbags and murderers as identified by Hillier? The same ones who are now negotiating to form the next Afghanistan government? Or are these new scumbags. Of course they are "animals" - as were the Germans, Japanese, North Vietnamese and probably the Russians. We had to convince young Canadians that they were animals so they would not hesitate to kill. Oh, BTW, those Palestinians in Hamas are also "animals" - just ask any Zionists. And NATO does not "accidentally" kill civilians - they know that civilian casualties will take place but write them off as "acceptable collateral damage" - acceptable perhaps for you, but not for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 19, 2016 Report Share Posted July 19, 2016 (edited) As long as they keep on killing those who need killing, and try their hardest not to kill those who don't, then that's all we can ask for. Edited July 19, 2016 by bcsapper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted July 19, 2016 Report Share Posted July 19, 2016 War is the continuation of politics by other means. --- Von Clausewitz Still the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted July 19, 2016 Report Share Posted July 19, 2016 As long as they keep on killing those who need killing, and try their hardest not to kill those who don't, then that's all we can ask for.It would be nice to see that work both ways wouldn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 19, 2016 Report Share Posted July 19, 2016 It would be nice to see that work both ways wouldn't it? It sure would. Imagine a world where no innocents were targeted at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted July 19, 2016 Report Share Posted July 19, 2016 This: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WEd34oW9BI Dead loved ones are dead loved one. I don't think the families of the victims give a shit if it's "collateral damage" or not. Are there many "innocents" in a democracy? Maybe terrorists are targeting those who vote for the policies they're fighting against? Sure if you kill a big group of civilians you'll also kill children and people who didn't vote for those policies, but maybe that's "collateral damage" to some terrorists? In a bomb strike you'll kill children and "innocents" too. In their minds, terrorists aren't evil, they're fighting for good. Same with us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted July 19, 2016 Report Share Posted July 19, 2016 Western warfare is a cultural construct as John Keegan pointed out. Other societies have had different conventions for resolving conflicts, less acutely dangerous but usually more bloody over the long term than the pitched battle. The whole idea of terrorism is arbitrary. In general, the other side are terrorists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted July 19, 2016 Report Share Posted July 19, 2016 Are you suggesting other non-Western cultures don't or did not engage in pitched battle? I hope not...lol. I'm a fan of Keegan, as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted July 19, 2016 Report Share Posted July 19, 2016 This: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WEd34oW9BI Dead loved ones are dead loved one. I don't think the families of the victims give a shit if it's "collateral damage" or not. Are there many "innocents" in a democracy? Maybe terrorists are targeting those who vote for the policies they're fighting against? Sure if you kill a big group of civilians you'll also kill children and people who didn't vote for those policies, but maybe that's "collateral damage" to some terrorists? In a bomb strike you'll kill children and "innocents" too. In their minds, terrorists aren't evil, they're fighting for good. Same with us. The media has changed the meaning of Collateral damage to something entirely different. It is now assumed that NATO is deliberately targeting civilians women and children and using these attacks as terrorists do, to make a political statement. Not true, NATO uses all of it's resources to eliminate it's enemies, those are the targets...Great lengths go into each mission to reduce Collateral damage, even canceled if the value of the target does not warrant the damage to incents.... And on the rare occasion the value of the target does out weigh any collateral damage, such as a high ranking enemy combatant or several in one location, where many more lives could be saved by taking them out.... Terrorist on the other hand deliberately attack women and children as it has the highest media value....to allow them to gain more coverage for they're struggle....in their minds killing soldiers does not bring about the same result as killing civilians.... NATO can easily increase the collateral damage by bombing them back into the stone age, wiping out everyone and everything much like mid evil times or in a total war such as WWII, Hence why we have as a civilized world agreed to the genva convention, which limits these activities....And labels those that do practice them as terrorist....or criminals I get the fact that to the families dead is dead it does not bring relief to the pain they are suffering....But then again nothing that happens in war will bring joy and happiness....only death and destruction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted July 19, 2016 Report Share Posted July 19, 2016 (edited) Are you suggesting other non-Western cultures don't or did not engage in pitched battle? I hope not...lol. I'm a fan of Keegan, as well. I'm suggesting that the Romans and Greeks increased the mortality rate of battles. Discrete pitched battles surrounded by long peaceful interludes are not so much a Western construct as one of advanced civilizations. Going back to the basic human group, you might have only 30 or 40 men who could fight. Skirmishing has been the standard interaction for millennia. Edited July 19, 2016 by SpankyMcFarland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted July 19, 2016 Report Share Posted July 19, 2016 It was the rise of the use of the horse...mounted in particular...that allowed any culture to take the next big leap in military tactics...combined arms. This was not unique to the Greeks and Romans...though they were certainly masters of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted July 19, 2016 Report Share Posted July 19, 2016 The media has changed the meaning of Collateral damage to something entirely different. It is now assumed that NATO is deliberately targeting civilians women and children and using these attacks as terrorists do, to make a political statement. Not true, NATO uses all of it's resources to eliminate it's enemies, those are the targets...Great lengths go into each mission to reduce Collateral damage, even canceled if the value of the target does not warrant the damage to incents.... https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147 A new analysis of the data available to the public about drone strikes, conducted by the human-rights group Reprieve, indicates that even when operators target specific individuals – the most focused effort of what Barack Obama calls “targeted killing” – they kill vastly more people than their targets, often needing to strike multiple times. Attempts to kill 41 men resulted in the deaths of an estimated 1,147 people, as of 24 November. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted July 19, 2016 Report Share Posted July 19, 2016 As long as they keep on killing those who need killing, and try their hardest not to kill those who don't, then that's all we can ask for. That's kind of a naive statement, bcsapper. NATO kills people to terrorize the population, subjugate them to western corporations ... that want their natural resources. That's how, and why, Islamic extremists were created. NATO is an imperialist force for western corporate expansionism. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 20, 2016 Report Share Posted July 20, 2016 That's kind of a naive statement, bcsapper. NATO kills people to terrorize the population, subjugate them to western corporations ... that want their natural resources. That's how, and why, Islamic extremists were created. NATO is an imperialist force for western corporate expansionism. . What's that got to do with my post? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted July 20, 2016 Report Share Posted July 20, 2016 More to the point what did your post have to do with the terrorism we inflict on our victims? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted July 20, 2016 Report Share Posted July 20, 2016 What's that got to do with my post? "killing those who need killing" ... ? Who 'needs killing' ... and why? Who benefits? . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 20, 2016 Report Share Posted July 20, 2016 (edited) "killing those who need killing" ... ? Who 'needs killing' ... and why? Who benefits? . People who would kill us need killing. As for who benefits, we do. Well, I don't know for sure if you do. I guess you could figure you don't. I sure do. Edited July 20, 2016 by bcsapper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted July 20, 2016 Report Share Posted July 20, 2016 People who would kill us need killing. As for who benefits, we do. Well, I don't know for sure if you do. I guess you could figure you don't. I sure do. There are many amongst us who need killing too. Whatever else the changing face of war is it's still a pretty fundamentally awful thing no wage against people. I have to say using dictators against our victims should be on par with germ or nuclear warfare. Nobody benefits from it at all and given the lasting inter-generational harm it can do it should be included amongst the crimes against humanity that can be committed. Terrorism is downright benign compared to malevolent regime change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 20, 2016 Report Share Posted July 20, 2016 There are many amongst us who need killing too. Well, sure. Now we're back to my last reply to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.