The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: JdePietro on December 29, 2009, 04:04:05 PM
-
Ladies and Gentlemen,
2009 has been one heck of a rollercoaster ride, part of me is glad to see it go and the other part of me sighs for the unknown horrors that are yet to come. For the last 5 years or so I have made it a practice of taking a pop-culture word or phrase and removing it from my vocabulary. Words that serve no purpose but to cause anger when used in a conversation or they just don't make sense and further rape what is left of an already forgotten language.
This year I am strongly considering the word "Terrorist."
For starters, if you look this word up on the Merriam Webster site it will not come up. Narco-Terrorist is as close to the word as you can get. Secondly using two other websites for reference has given me two different definitions.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=82105&dict=CALD&topic=taking-action-against-people-in-power
Terrorist:
someone who uses violent action, or threats of violent action, for political purposes.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Terrorist
–noun 1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
3. (formerly) a member of a political group in Russia aiming at the demoralization of the government by terror.
4. an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France.
–adjective 5. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of terrorism or terrorists: terrorist tactics.
Now it may sound like I’m splitting wood here but this is not my main reasoning behind this, but rather something to ponder perhaps with the tinfoil strapped soundly in place, why is the word so hard to define?
The crux of my issue is Having grown up in the 90’s I have never learned to trust the news. I was never exposed to a non biased media element and so I disregard most everything they say. This word however is thrown around in the media more than any other word I can think of. They most often apply it to any organization from the middle east.
Our current pop-culture definition of the word is anyone of middle eastern decent. I object at this on many levels of my being, but ask any “Red blooded American” what a terrorist is and I can almost guarantee that is the answer you will get.
Just for arguments sake lets use one of the definitions provided above.
“Someone who uses violent action, or threats of violent action, for political purposes.”
Well now hold on a second, isn’t that exactly what our founding fathers did? Didn’t France have a revolution shortly after our own using those same actions for those same reasons? I guess to further contemplate this you need to define “violent action”.
Violent:
1 : marked by extreme force or sudden intense activity <a violent attack>
2 a : notably furious or vehement <a violent denunciation> b : extreme, intense <violent pain> <violent colors>
3 : caused by force : not natural <a violent death>
4 a : emotionally agitated to the point of loss of self-control <became violent after an insult> b : prone to commit acts of violence <violent prison inmates>
— vi·o·lent·ly adverb
Action:
the accomplishment of a thing usually over a period of time, in stages, or with the possibility of repetition.
I found it easier to find the definition of words separately, but there you have it.
None of these two specifically mean physical force. Force can be defined however you wish and violent is defined by the viewer.
Now you can argue that our founding fathers fought for their rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, land also comes to mind, but what does a terrorist fight for? Historically man only fights for resources, land, or freedom. If you buy the media assumption that “Islam extremist” hate us for our freedom, well then I got a bridge I can sell you also. Having never been to the middle east and not knowing anything but what I am told leaves me with nothing to know. I refuse to believe in something so intangible as media knowledge. I draw my own conclusions for the reasons we are in a conflict with the middle east but that is an argument for another thread.
I go back to my statement about not trusting the media because as I have now explained the media is in control of the definition of the word. My thoughts concerning next year is how exactly will the word be used. Is it that much of a step to think that soon gun right groups won’t be targeted by the word or for that matter any group that holds opposing opinions from the current administration. One thing I am sure of is the government is really good at making up laws to protect itself and if it can garner support for suppressing its people by using a word that the media is allowed to define I think it will be easier for the masses to swallow.
In short I don’t like the word, it describes to much, its meaning is too loose and I don’t like that we are becoming numb to it via constant exposure. I feel that it would be far to easy to twist and garner support for action against opposing views to the current administration. I do not know if this word will ever be applied to me but I don’t think it is that far out to think that some of the definitions apply to me. Examine the word in your own thoughts and tell me what you think.
-
In 1963 there was a "summit" meeting in Havana of current radical groups, where one of the speakers (his name was Carlos Marghsomething, he wrote a manual on terrorism ) said "The purpose of terror is to terrorize". In other words, the objective of an act of terrorism is to influence the thinking of the target government through fear of potential consequences, as Stalin said, "If you kill one man, you can terrify a thousand".
One mans "Terrorist" is another mans "Freedom fighter". Between the rise of the Palestinians in the 50's and 60's and the fall of the Soviet Union in the 90's "terrorist" groups sprang up all over the world, The IRA, and UVF in Ireland, Action Direct in France, ETA in the Basque region of Spain, Baader Mienhoff in Germany, Red Army Faction in Italy, Sendoro Luminoso in Peru, Japanese Red Army, SWAPO and the ANC in South Africa, and of course the various Palestinian factions, and our own Weather underground and SDS.
I guarantee that I have missed some in this list but I covered enough of the bigger groups to make my point that terrorists groups spring up any where around the world, in fact, the Iconic "Star" of the 70's and early 80's was "Carlo's" (AKA the Jackal ) currently serving a life sentence in a French prison he was a Venezuelan name Ilyich Ramariz Sanchez .
The things that ALL these seeming disconnected groups had in common were :
1) Marxist ideology
2) use of violence against NON military targets to achieve political goals
3) Support of one type or another from the Soviet Union
4) All shared the objective of destabilizing the existing social order through the use of Violence to lay the ground work for a Socialist Utopian state
The use of violence is also a propaganda weapon in these cases, with each attack the Government takes stricter security measures, these tend to pi$$ off the Innocent population, the more strict or violent the repression the more PO'd the population becomes and the more sympathetic to the revolutionaries, and of course as the authorities lose popularity they become more repressive and are more likely to commit acts that will further out rage the neutral population and generate even more support. This was the objective of the terrorist acts carried out by the Founding Fathers such as the Boston Tea Party.
The reason I pointed out Carlos earlier was because he was special, starting as a spear carrier for the Palestinians in France he came to a leadership position because Mossad killed the people above him in his organization as part of their retaliation for the Munich Olympics atrocity of 72, after making a name for himself with high profile operations such as the kidnapping of the OPEC oil ministers in Vienna, he began a fundamental change in the way Marxist terrorists operated, that shows in actions like the Lod air port attack,and The Entebbe Highjacking, He "internationalized terror. The grenade attack at Lod air port in Israel was not carried out by Palestinians, but by members of the Japanese Red Army, the Entebbe hi Jacking team was composed of a mix of Palestinians and Germans of the Baader Mienhof gang. Additionally he did not stick with one sponsoring state but contracted his services to the PLO, Syria and Libya among others, and while he claimed to have converted to Islam, he was a lousy Moslem since it's a known fact that during his last days in Sudan he went out clubbing and drinking every night.
The next big name in international terror was another free lancer, Abu Nidal, operated through out the middle East during the years of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, and was probably known to the then young Usama Bin Laden, who took the next logical step and created the multi national terror mega corporation. The only Major change other than organizational ability and size was that Bin Laden's terror was not aimed at achieving a "Political" goal, so much as a "Spiritual" one.
He also arranged his organization so that it was no longer dependent of a national government to pay the bills or supply the training, these things were done "in House" as in any well run business, Training camps in Somalia, Sudan and Afghanistan operated by his Afghan veterans were funded by Afghan opium, African gem stones (Tanzanite is a gem found only in one tiny area of Tanzania, in 1998 Al Queda controlled about 90% of production, which lead to a moratorium on sales that lasted a couple years while the AQ connection was purged ) and dummy Charities where Saudi Royalty and other wealthy Arabs could donate to help the poor with funds that made their way to the coffers of AQ.
A guerrilla fighter is some one who as part of a rebellion, or resistance group uses fairly standard small unit tactics of raids and ambushes, even assassination, against military targets of a larger, better equipped and trained regular army in order to achieve military objectives.
The terrorist on the other hand targets civilians in order to generate fear in the minds of the foes leaders. Whether you and I are afraid is irrelevant, even body count does not matter to the terrorist, although he may use mass as part of the effect as on 9-11, what matters is creating the image of helplessness, as when the Towers fell, George Bush wasn't going to Superman up the side of the building and hold them in place. But the Draw back to terror is that some times an act like that does not instill fear into the target leaders, instead in causes a deep rage, usually expressed in some type of massive violent retaliation, like invading Afghanistan and Iraq.
-
A guerrilla fighter is some one who as part of a rebellion, or resistance group uses fairly standard small unit tactics of raids and ambushes, even assassination, against military targets of a larger, better equipped and trained regular army in order to achieve military objectives.
The terrorist on the other hand targets civilians in order to generate fear in the minds of the foes leaders.
this is what I always thought of when I heard the word. a political or religious minority terrorizing the majority into submission. if the rest of you guys won't join us because you agree with us, then we'll make you join.
Fujimori gained alot of support here in Peru when he started to use harsh tactics against the Sendero Luminoso pinko commie bastards and put an end to the bombings and killing. my wife's uncle was a cop at that time and they blew his car up. he survived. ;)
-
Thank you Tom. That is a lot to take in and I really appriciate the time you took to write it. I will be reading and re-reading it over the next couple of days to come to a decision. Thank you.
-
There was a book published back in the eighties by Claire Stirling called "The Terror Network" that covers a lot of the Marxist groups.
-
A question comes to mind. In your list of "common views" you have 2) use of violence against NON military targets to achieve political goals.
That to me would seem to define the word very easily and less broadly. Why is this not found under common definitions?
Secondly, do you agree that the word is missused? The light your provided on the issue seems to suggest that the ideals behind organized terrorism is of the marxist variety, commonly people confuse fringe religion with that of a whole and associate anyone of that profile with the word. I would have to point out that those engaged in the middle east are fighting our military with gurrilla tactics from wars past. Again I feel it is both correct and incorrect.
?
-
A question comes to mind. In your list of "common views" you have 2) use of violence against NON military targets to achieve political goals.
That to me would seem to define the word very easily and less broadly. Why is this not found under common definitions?
Secondly, do you agree that the word is missused? The light your provided on the issue seems to suggest that the ideals behind organized terrorism is of the marxist variety, commonly people confuse fringe religion with that of a whole and associate anyone of that profile with the word. I would have to point out that those engaged in the middle east are fighting our military with gurrilla tactics from wars past. Again I feel it is both correct and incorrect.
?
Quote ; A question comes to mind. In your list of "common views" you have 2) use of violence against NON military targets to achieve political goals.
That to me would seem to define the word very easily and less broadly. Why is this not found under common definitions?
I don't know but I think part of it comes from the mind set that because things like the shooting at Ft Hood, or the bombing of the Khobar Towers were aimed at military personnel they are considered military targets, it does not take into account that they were unarmed at the time and just as helpless as civilians, it might have been more accurate if I had said "they attack defenseless targets"
Is the term misapplied ? No, I don't think so. While it is true that they have specific agenda's of either political or religious change the fact that the attacks themselves achieve no short term military purpose, (such as attacking police stations for arms, or destroying a TV station to prevent the foe from broadcasting THEIR side of the story) is the thing that separates a guerrilla fighter from a terrorist. I'll use 2 murders for an example, Back around 1990 a direct descendant of Christopher Columbus was appointed to head the Spanish anti Terrorist unit, As it happened he was good at his job, so the Basque Separatists , the ETA blew him up, (They so much explosives that it blew his car OVER the apartment building, it landed on a balcony on the other side ) This of course instilled fear in the mind of his replacement and the officers serving under him who did NOT have personal security details, but it also served the immediate military objective of removing a particularly effective opponent. Compare this to the video taped beheading of Daniel Pearl in Iraq, while it no doubt stirred fear of capture in the minds of troops, it served no other short term objective, and in fact was probably counter productive since no Westerner could watch it with out being revolted by people who would condone such conduct.
-
What do you feel is the reason they fight us, and does a reason play into what defines you as a terrorist.
Also does it not advance their goal by using a word derivitive of the very think they wish to instill? Wouldn't it take a little wind out of their sails if we gave them a name more bothersom than scary?
-
This is a great thread ;D
What do you feel is the reason they fight us, and does a reason play into what defines you as a terrorist.
Ignorant peasants being manipulated by a combination of religious fanatics who resent Western advances since the 15th century and want retain their power over every aspect of life, and a wealthy class of rulers who realize the only way to maintain their current position is to distract the masses with an outside threat . The same principle as the Magician waving his right hand while doing the trick with his left.
Also does it not advance their goal by using a word derivitive of the very think they wish to instill? Wouldn't it take a little wind out of their sails if we gave them a name more bothersom than scary?
I don't know if it would take the wind out of their sails to start calling them "deluded psycho's", or "Jihadists" instead of terrorists. What it WOULD do is clarify who we are speaking of, for example, even though terror as a political weapon was developed by Muslims of the Assassin's cult
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashshashin
They do not have a monopoly on it's use, every extortionist and shake down artist uses some for of terror tactics to get his victims to pay up.
Not only does use of more accurate terms define the motive ( Jihadist = Muslim radical, Gangster= extortionist, Marxist Revolutionary etc. )
but it also separates the anti Western fanatic menace from those fighting for freedom from oppressive regimes, examples would be the Sandanista's in Nicaragua referring to Contra's as terrorists, or the Russians labeling the Mujaheddin as terrorists during their occupation of Afghanistan. Both of these groups as well as the Viet Cong were in fact Guerrilla movements seeking to achieve military goals through the use of standard unconventional warfare tactics, for instance the VC did not kill a village head man just to get on the news, it was done to achieve the military objective of keeping the food and information flowing from the locals, but they were all labeled as "terrorists" by their opponents in an effort to cast them in a worse light.
You have hit on an interesting point here, wars are won or lost in the minds of the leaders, not necessarily the fighting abilities of the troops, our own experience in Vietnam is a perfect example, we were nearly unbeatable on the battle field but we lost the war in the streets of Washington and the Peace conference in Paris, The major battles of the war were not in Khe Sahn, or LZ XRay, they occurred in the minds of the American leadership.
This is the basic premise of Psychological warfare, and Semantics, or word usage plays a major role in that, would you rather be found with a "Courtesan" or a "high class whore", different names for the same thing, look at the change from "Suicide bomber" (A martyr, sacrificing himself for the cause) to "Homicide bomber" (some nut case that blew up a bunch of innocents).
No matter what we call them they will not change their philosophy so I think "Terrorist" while over used and not always applied accurately is understandable to the average person.
-
Thank you for putting up with my numerous spelling and mystyping errors.
so I think "Terrorist" while over used and not always applied accurately is understandable to the average person.
That right there is what sparked my thought on this, I refuse to allow myself to fall victim to a greater media ignorance, further more as I feel it is my responsbility to educate my fellow man in areas I can, I feel it is imperative to ignore all encompassing terms that are "easy to understand" instead of calling a spade a spade.
We as a country have a long history of seeing our enimies in a false light, we make them into monsters or subhumanoid beings without wit, without heart and it makes it easier for us hate them, to kill and burn them. This of course is a lie fed to us as long as need be and then it is noted that they were not evil and indeed bleed red and need our help.
War and hatred are the worst things man kind has brought to the table. We are capable of so much beauty and passion but those things will forever be overshadowed by our evil. I have a strong belief that evil can be conquered by knowledge and I owe that to my generation.
-
The casting of military foes as evil is a needed mind game for most troops, it's a lot easier to shoot "an evil Nazi" than it is "some poor shmuck that got drafted just like me " (WWII troops were a far higher percentage of draftee's than in Vietnam )
It's far easier to shoot an "evil Taliban" than it is to shoot "some Afghan hillbilly who was looking for an adventure"
The result in both cases is the same, if you hesitate to shoot him, he will kill you.
Very few modern Americans have the mindset to kill people just because the Government decided that troops of X country need the crap shot out of them.
-
But we should not, we should not needlessly and recklessly run into moral abandanment. We should not engage in evil if evil is not necessary to the survival of life or at the very least the way of. If congress or society must make his fellow man look like the boogey to attack under the false flag fo danger the situation should be reassesed.
-
Some philosopher came up with a concept of "Just wars", this was basically the Idea the some wars are Self Defense shootings on a national scale while others are more akin to a Mafia hit.
During the 20th century the US engaged in 5 Major wars, (WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and Gulf war I ) of those only 2 1/2 can be called "Just wars" WWI, WWII (in Europe ) and Vietnam were not just wars defending US territory, or vital interests abroad, they were politically motivated maneuvers aimed at gaining influence on the world political stage while under cutting our competitors. Neither Imperial or Nazi Germany posed any threat to the US, if they couldn't invade England how the devil are they going to invade US ? in 1939 / 1940 a large portion of the population, including such notable as Charles Lindbergh supported Germany and APPROVED of the Nazi regimes actions, (Google "American Bund" ) "Suffering of the Jews" ? Not likely when large numbers of Americans thought the same treatment appropriate for our own Jews and Blacks. The reason Nazi Germany had to resort to death camps was because none of the "goody 2 shoes" Democracies would accept them or allow them to emigrate to Palestine. ( from 45-49 the British waged open warfare against Jews in Palestine ) The Nazi's didn't care if the Jews lived or not as long as they were not in German Territory, when the SS Einsatz Gruppen performed mass executions of Jews in Eastern Europe the Locals watched and cheered, they willing turned in Jews for execution.
Morality and self defense played no part in our involvement, it was done so European investors would owe us
Under these circumstances it is necessary to convince your troops that the foe is evil incarnate, starting in WWI with the image of the "Hun" bayoneting babies and raping nuns, through the WWII image of Nazi world conquest, (Remember, Nazi Germany had no effective "fleet" only a few Commerce Raiders and "Pocket Battleships", the last German "Fleet action" was when they got clobbered at the 1916 battle of Jutland .Also they did not have the air power to attack us, the German air force could not even stage effective raids against Northern or Eastern England )
Yes it was pretty much BS, but without it Wilson and Roosevelt could not have raised the troops needed to make the difference in these wars which changed America from a nation where rich Europeans invested their money into a nation that invested billions of dollars in rebuilding Europe, as a side note it is interesting to note that the money that paid for the Marshal plan was the money European Countries owed us for war material. America paid for rebuilding Europe with European money.
We are not done with the Idea of fighting wars solely to gain influence in Europe either, the reason for US involvement in Vietnam initially was because the French threatened to quit the newly formed NATO (considering their record,the fact that their intelligence agencies were thoroughly penetrated by the Soviets and the fact that when they later did drop out NATO got along quite nicely I don't know why Ike cared, but he did) When the French finally had to admit defeat a combination of the Red scare and Arrogance convinced Our Generals that we could do better and save a 3rd world shithole "for democracy" over the next dozen years they found out that you can not defeat some one who refuses to give up. The only way we could have won against the North Vietnamese would have been to exterminate every person North of the DMZ, no other action would have broken their spirit of resistance. The Politicians and the public did not have the stomach for that because the foe had not been sufficiently demonized.
The 2 1/2 "Just" wars did not have a place in making my point but for the record they were,
The War against Japan in answer to Pearl Harbor and their flagrant attempt to drive us from the Pacific and the Asian markets was purely a self defensive war.
Korea, where we gained no markets that we did not already have but repelled an aggressive invasion of a peaceful nation
and Gulf War I, where again we did not gain but stood up for the little guy against the bully.
-
But we should not, we should not needlessly and recklessly run into moral abandanment. We should not engage in evil if evil is not necessary to the survival of life or at the very least the way of. If congress or society must make his fellow man look like the boogey to attack under the false flag fo danger the situation should be reassesed.
Jdepietro
I'm going to make an academic out of you yet! ;) Insisting on a clear defintion of terms, terrorist=what preicisly? Not accepting that the moral ideals are negotiable? Go Team! Now that I have forever tarnished your record, I will say this. Terrorism is as stupid a word as liberal or conservative. They are positional, not substantive categories. Liberal compared to who? Ted Kennedy, Karl Marx, Harry Reid? Conservative compared to who? Pinochet, Reagan, McCain? We all fill in our own meaning, the word just denotes our opinion in a given set of circumstances.The same is true of terrorism, it has become a word for folks we don't like. The Israelis and Palestinians accuse each other of this all the time and with some justification on both sides. Likewise in the '80s the Contras and the Sandinistas did the same. To me, the way out of this tower of Babel, where debate becomes a question of who yells the loudest, is this. Define your terms empirically, regardless of who gets hurt (yourself included). In my view it is this. Terrorism is the use, or credible threat of force against a civilian poulation to achieve a political goal.
Morally I divide war into three categories. From best to worst:
1) Trying to engage military assets while avoiding civilian damage as best you can, but knowing it will happen. This seems to be our approach today, though not historically. Actions must be judged in context..
2) Trying to engage military assets while not much giving a damn about civilian casulties, but not aiming for them either. Think Russia in Chechneya.
3) Deliberately targetting civilians and ignoring military or government assets. This is what I would call terrorism.
Just my .02
FQ13
-
2) Trying to engage military assets while not mch giving a damn about civilian casulties, but not aiming for them either. Think Russia in Chechneya.
3) Deliberately targetting civilians and ignoring military or government assets. This is what I would call terrorism.
The USA employed this strategy on the European Front, and the Pacific front. Hell we firebombed Japan, specifically targeting civilians to send a message, knowing their shacks, and residential dwellings would burn easily.
Than of course, we bombed leaflets warning them to evacuate Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but the firebombing came first, and over 100,000 (mainly civilians) died.
The "Memphis Bell" missions in Europe targeted military and industrial targets, but they were located in cities and if civilian residences were around the target, well, 150 B-17's, dropping dozens of bombs each, starting at point "A" running the length of a mile, leveled everything.
Did Roosevelt state he was going to bring Hirohito, Hitler, to a tribunal? Hell NO! He said (we) were going to bring them to their knees. Unconditionally.
Those were the "noble" wars. Now, or since Vietnam, we fight a PC war/conflict/police action,,,, and our track record is not so good.
-
Agreed, TW, but remember the technology. We didn't have smart bombs and when you aimed at a factory or railyard under fire you hoped for the best. There was no ill intent. I do think we and the Brits have some 'slainin to do over Dresden and the firebombings of Japan. These can be put into the context of "we were playing by their rules in a war they chose". I think that is an effective defense, but it doesn't make it right either. A more contemporary example is us blowing up the occasional Afghan wedding party because folks ride to these in pickups with AKs. We didn't do it deliberately, like the Taliban who TARGET these things. I do think that context and technology matter in making judgements.
FQ13
-
FQ, again you college fails you, the Brits only get HALF the blame for Dresden, WE carried out half of the "round the clock" bombing that killed 60,000 civilians.
As a side note an Air Force study after the war concluded that the strategic bombing campaign had been pretty much a waste of resources, while it inconvenienced German industry it never shut them down, there was still civilian manufacturing in May 1945, unlike the US and England, Germany never went to a total war economy, (Albert Speer, "Inside the Third Reich" )
Tactical air attacks against shipping, road, and rail traffic had far more effect in relation to resources employed than the strategic campaign.
-
FQ, again you college fails you, the Brits only get HALF the blame for Dresden, WE carried out half of the "round the clock" bombing that killed 60,000 civilians.
As a side note an Air Force study after the war concluded that the strategic bombing campaign had been pretty much a waste of resources, while it inconvenienced German industry it never shut them down, there was still civilian manufacturing in May 1945, unlike the US and England, Germany never went to a total war economy, (Albert Speer, "Inside the Third Reich" )
Tactical air attacks against shipping, road, and rail traffic had far more effect in relation to resources employed than the strategic campaign.
As to your point about Dresden, I think I said that. They had night shift, we had day shift (how we let that happen I'll never understand). As far as bombing Germany, post war records show that had we ignored oil fields and factories, and just hit power grids and rail ways, we would have been far more effective at shutting their industry down.
FQ13
-
As to your point about Dresden, I think I said that. They had night shift, we had day shift (how we let that happen I'll never understand).
Simple - we wanted it that way, FQ. Spaatz and the other air commanders wanted to use the Norden to best advantage. The Brits learned the hard way the dangers - and costs - associated with daylight bombing. The US was eager to get into the fight and were blind to the lessons the Brits paid for. Read your damn history.
As far as bombing Germany, post war records show that had we ignored oil fields and factories, and just hit power grids and rail ways, we would have been far more effective at shutting their industry down.
More Monday morning quarterbacking, FQ? I've seen nothing that indicated that we or the Brits had any idea that the bombing campaign was not as effective as they thought. For that matter, the Brit's raid on the Eber dams was a huge success - but the Brits had no idea how successful and using the initial post-raid reports - as well as the cost in lost planes and crews - ceased the effort after the initial pass. The reports were wrong, and post-war comments from various high-ranking German generals indicated that a couple more raids would have shut the entire Ruhr valley down, primarily due to the loss of hydroelectric.
Post-war data gathering helped us understand and fine tune an air campaign to the point it is today with precision guided weapons. But it is still 20-20 hindsight.
-
Post-war data gathering helped us understand and fine tune an air campaign to the point it is today with precision guided weapons. But it is still 20-20 hindsight.
We're not disagreeing, just only one of us is being a jerk about it. ;) I am well aware of the history. I merely mentioned the results (discovered post war) as a defense of our actions when we didn't know any better. Now we do. The point of this thread was "what is terrorism"? My point was saying that while we bombed the hell out of German cities, it was the result of imprecise tech and lack of knowledge rather than ill intent against civilians with the exceptions that I've mentioned. I'm not Monday morning QBing here, just trying to provide context to my answer to the OP's question.
FQ13
PS Seriously, Happy New Year, and I do mean that
-
from FQ,
rather than ill intent against civilians with the exceptions that I've mentioned.
Unlike today, WWII was a TOTAL War. "Duty is Ours, Consequences are God's."
Thomas J. (Stonewall) Jackson
Our "Duty" was to defeat the enemy at ALL costs! Our "intent" regarding civilian casualties became irrelevant to the goal; Win the damn War!
FQ
Now we do.
Like I posted, our track record of "victory" has sharply declined since we "know better" now...
Now the talking heads are asking "What is victory?" Not a question even considered in the past.
-
Yes, this is more 20/20 hindsight ;D
"Bombing the hell out of cities" was a waste of time, and the British had themselves as an example to learn from. Between the Blitz and the V weapon Terror raids they took everything Germany could throw at them, grumbled about the "bloody Hun's" and went about their business, the Germans were no different, 1,000 plane raids, around the clock bombing, it killed a lot of people, and was extremely annoying, but it did not have the capacity to break their will to resist, in fact on thinking about it I am surprised that Japan surrendered after only 2 A bombs. Tokyo suffered greater destruction from the fire bombing, 26 square miles of the city were reduced to ashes.
Path, the US were not blind to the dangers of daylight bombing, the decision was not based on enthusiasm, it was a calculated compromise based on a basic difference in strategies, the English were perfectly content to simply hit the right city since they seemed more interested in avenging the Blitz, also, their air craft lack the amount of defensive fire power ours carried so they adapted to avoid German fighters. US command felt they could accomplish more by using the Norden bomb sight to hit a particular factory while minimizing losses with heavy fire power arranged in the defensive "Box" formation that the British did not use.
The most effective tactics were the sweeps by fighter bombers and medium bombers that cleared the roads and rail roads by day and snarled traffic by destroying rail lines and bridges.
If you read Rommels account of the war in Africa it was not the British Army that defeated him, it was the Navy and air attacks destroying about 90% of the supplies shipped to him before they arrived, in conjunction with constant air attacks by the British Desert Air Force. With out that drain he would have been nearly unbeatable, bear in mind that he never had more than 3 divisions (1 Corps) against the entire British 8th Army.
from FQ,
rather than ill intent against civilians with the exceptions that I've mentioned.
Unlike today, WWII was a TOTAL War. "Duty is Ours, Consequences are God's."
Thomas J. (Stonewall) Jackson
Our "Duty" was to defeat the enemy at ALL costs! Our "intent" regarding civilian casualties became irrelevant to the goal; Win the damn War!
FQ
Now we do.
Like I posted, our track record of "victory" has sharply declined since we "know better" now...
Now the talking heads are asking "What is victory?" Not a question even considered in the past.
The question should ALWAYS be asked before committing troops, "What do I intend to achieve" Not asking that question is why we left Vietnam the way we did and will most likely face the same fate in Afghanistan. If you can not define a clear objective you have no business committing troops.
-
I'm gonna have to ask everyone to be patient, I'll try to respond best I can to everyone.
Tom, you are now delving into some history I am much better versed, I do however want to thank you for all you have expounded on previously.
Retired USMC Gen Anthony Zinni wrote of a doctrine with the same principles. I can't remember the name of the book I read but in his career he tried to justify nonsensical wars on the basis that the simple man just could not understand the complexity of victory. Again I have to point out the fatal flaw in assuming ignorance. I would not call our involvement with the Japanese during WWII as completely justified. President Theodore Rosevelt shared many views with the European empires of his time, he activily engaged in strengthening America by world conquest. The Spanish American wars, his conquest in Central America, the Manilla and Philipean conquest. Of course the latter two sealed our Japanese aggression. You can't exactly take over half of the Asian Pacific, deny the natives its resources and expect them to be ok with embargos. Thiis topic all on its own merits its on thread sticky-ed with pages of content. I mean I hate to sound cynical but if half of what I have studied is half true than the last war we fought in defense of the country was the War of 1812.
You brought a great point about using the military in the same context as a self defense shooting. Now that right there should get some people up in arms. Its another glaring example of one set of rules for the people and one set of rules for the government. Before the assumptions is made, no I don't think there is any difference, I strongly dislike the UN and do not have a need for European approval. I have a hard time understanding why the citizens of this country allow themselves to be fooled by the use of words. We should all strive to use the correct terminology when describing our enemies so as to not be drawn into conflicts outside of the scope of a self defense war.
More to come...
Some philosopher came up with a concept of "Just wars", this was basically the Idea the some wars are Self Defense shootings on a national scale while others are more akin to a Mafia hit.
During the 20th century the US engaged in 5 Major wars, (WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and Gulf war I ) of those only 2 1/2 can be called "Just wars" WWI, WWII (in Europe ) and Vietnam were not just wars defending US territory, or vital interests abroad, they were politically motivated maneuvers aimed at gaining influence on the world political stage while under cutting our competitors
-
I don't know about removing words from pop culture, but how about we remove the words "Obama", "Pelosi" and "Reid" from the political arena as soon as possible?
-
There is way too much reading involved in this thread..... I will have no part in it :D
-
Anthony Zinni's book was "The Sling and the Stone", He spends most of the book pushing the benefits of "Engagement" and what he refers to as "4th Generation Warfare" While I believe the concepts do have a place in the tool box of international relations they are no more an all encompassing answer than Von Clausewitz, who's theories did not REALLY stand up to even all the events of his own time, (if you REALLY want to know how to fight a war ignore him and read either Musashi's "Book of 5 Rings" or the more readable "Art of War" by Sun Tzu ")
Zinni's idea that "us common people" cannot understand victory is a load of crap he foisted on the War College to get his star.
Granted it may be difficult for the WWII "total war" generation to understand limited wars for limited objectives, but there is nothing complex about "We want the North Koreans OUT of South Korea", nor do you need to know the secret Annapolis handshake to understand "We want the Iraqi's out of Kuwait". His theory to that effect is nothing more than a justification for fuzzy and lazy thinking at the command level.
There are some inaccuracies in your comments about the Pacific war,
First off, other than positioning Dewey at Hong Kong TR had nothing to do with the seizure of the Philippines, at that time he had resigned as Under Secretary of the Navy to join the Army where he served in Cuba.
The President who WAS in office (McKinley I think) did the Philippines a favor by declaring the Protectorate since there were warships of several European Nations in Manila Harbor just waiting to pounce on a juicy colony, including a German fleet that was larger than Dewey's, (If you want to know how THAT would have worked out look into the history of German East Africa)
TR did NOT share the European disdain for the Asian, in fact he was quite taken with Japanese and Chinese culture and was in fact a student of the martial arts. Remember, He got his Peace prize for convincing the Russians to accept Japans terms, not the other way around.
The objective of the Pacific expansion was not as has been falsely claimed, conquest and Empire, it was the opening of markets, and the establishment of Coaling stations to service the fleet protecting our trade, we had far more resistance and hostility from the British, Germans and French than we ever did from the locals.
Lastly, the embargo on scrap metal and later oil to Japan were not put in place because FDR got up on the wrong side of the bed. They were , like Iraq and Serbia, another noteworthy examples of economic sanctions being used ineffectually to control
a militaristic Government, all that was required was for Japan to withdraw their invasion force from Manchuria.
So, all that being said, I firmly believe that the war against Japan was most definitely a "Just" defensive war.
-
Morally I divide war into three categories. From best to worst:
1) Trying to engage military assets while avoiding civilian damage as best you can, but knowing it will happen. This seems to be our approach today, though not historically. Actions must be judged in context..
2) Trying to engage military assets while not much giving a damn about civilian casulties, but not aiming for them either. Think Russia in Chechneya.
3) Deliberately targetting civilians and ignoring military or government assets. This is what I would call terrorism.
Just my .02
FQ13
While I appriciate your perspective on the subject it is not my intention to trade one mans definition for another and ignore actual definition. I had not clearly articulated in my previous replies but my reasoning in pointing out the military involvement is because our currently labeled "terrorists" are very much engaged in fighting out military.
-
Those aren't Terrorists we are fighting in Afghanistan, very seldom in Iraq either for that matter, they are militia based on tribal lines (in Afghanistan) or divided between Sunni's, Shiites and Kurds (In Iraq ). that is where similarities between those 2 conflicts ends.
In Iraq we were dealing with a relatively modernized country that was used to being governed by a strong Central government, What needed to be done was remove SH and reestablish that government in a truly representative form. But it had to be done while keeping the 3 main groups from each others throats and preventing a civil war Al Queda (the true "terrorists" ) took advantage of what they thought was a target rich environment to try to kill Americans on one hand and incite the civil war on the other. Our military had to function on 2 levels, Keeping the peace between scared Sunni's and vengeful Shiite's on one hand and killing or capture AQ operatives drawn to what was in fact a baited trap meant to grind up the AQ organization.
In Afghanistan in contrast the mostly Arab AQ element that was disliked by the locals was hosted by the Taliban Govt. but pretty much all cleared out after the battle of Tora Bora. What we have been dealing with since is a country that has never had a strong central Govt. power has always rested with a shifting coalition of warlords and tribal leaders. The main reason they shoot at our troops is because it makes an interesting change from shooting at each other, in Afghan culture a man with out a weapon is not a man. Destroying the Taliban is not practical, "Taliban" is merely the name of a militia made up of Pashtuns who are the largest of the ethnic groups that make up Afghanistan AND Pakistan and have been the traditional rulers for over 400 years.
There are only 3 ways to deal with them
1) Do a deal that gives them a place in a coalition government, this would only be a face saving gesture as no Government in Afghanistan will retain any authority beyond Kabul unless the tribes WANT to obey it.
2) Implement a plan to kill every living thing in the 2 countries, This is the only way to break their will to resist, as with the VC you can not defeat a foe that will not give up, which these tough mountain folks won't do, (they haven't in the past 2,000 years they aren't likely to change now ) and since tribal territories cross national boundaries you would have to wipe out both countries as the Russians found out, otherwise they will just hop the border and operate from their cousins house in Pakistan.
3) the last option is to call a meeting of all the different factions and tell them, "You pissed us off so we have pounded you for eight years to show we ARE willing to fight the long fight, now we are going to leave, but be warned, If you ever piss us off again we will come back and kill every man, woman, child, goat, and camel in this f-cking country and then we will knock down every building and break every brick and destroy every grave, so that the Afghan people are left as nothing but a fading memory in history". Then bring our troops home to seal the borders and round up illegal aliens.
(this is the one I favor)
-
Thanks Tom, for reasons two and three, I'll write in the T&T ticket.
Geez,,,, why can something so easy to type on a forum, not make it's way to the "professionals" in gov't???
Oh,wait,.....uh,.....er,....nevermind,...
-
That was my point from the beginning. The media labels anyone in the middle east fighting as terrorists, I know that to be incorrect, I know that many of these people are fighting for either country or resources and I find it incredibly gumptious of us to believe the lie or worse to repeat it.
Tom, I would like to thank you for all the knowledge you have bestowed, this was one of the best threads I have been a part of in a long time.
For me it still boils down to a word used incorrectly, in defamation of character, and it does not serve as a useful tool when describing someones actions or a group of people because it furthers the mindset that they indeed cause such emotion. People fight or cause fights for all sorts of reasons, some of those reasons are just and some are just evil. There is no gain to be had in fearing that which is evil, and it must not be hated because hatred can lead to evil on its own merits.
-
Hell, Napolitano calls US terrorists, and it is pretty obvious that the media seldom know what they are blathering about.
The unpleasant truth of the matter is that most of us actually feel the same way as the people fighting against US troops in Afghanistan. They have their religion, their family, a small cash crop to pay the bills, and their pride, and they will kill or die to keep from having their culture destroyed by the likes of Pelosi ,Reid, and Frank.
Damn, I think I'm a Taliban ! ;D