• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Deos understanding your enemy make you a terrorist?

Does understanding your enemy make you a terrorist?

  • Yes

    Votes: 1 5.9%

  • No

    Votes: 16 94.1%
  • Total voters
    17
gree0232 said:
I, and other posters, have been called a terrorists or a terrorist sympathizer by you on dozens of occassions while trying to discuss what Hamas was doing, why they are doing it, and how to get in front it.
Click to expand...

Link the thread in where this occured. I need to see it to believe it.

Thus far, the poll is pretty clear. Talking about your enemy with a clear grasp of capabilities, intentions, tactics, and ideology, particular in reference to the polices that should be enacted against these things, is not support for terrorism.
Click to expand...

That is so common sense and amateurish; there has to be more to it.
 
gree0232 said:
Not true, at least not if we buy into the continium of conflict found in Clausewitz (I happen to). Very brutal COIN efforts may appear to eliminate an insurgency, but the effect is only temporary. A generation or so later, the insurgency re-appears and is ever more brutal and violent.

Saddam's attacks on the Southern Shia did restor order for a time, but, as US forces enetering in Najaf and Karbala discovered, there were certainly Shia resistance forces in the area.

How mant times did Britain try and solve its Irish problem through brutality? And in the end the Isle was divided and the last counter-insurgency seems to have effectively put the issue to rest on a large scale (still some minor criminal groups hiding behind the IRA mantel).

we can also look at German actions during WWII in the Balkans and other areas, and these areas were hardly pacified even in the face of near total German brutality.

The Balkans themselves are a case study in how brutality can tear an area assunder. the tangled hostory of one groups hero being every other groups villian points to the problems of brutality as policy.

Brutality, particularly in the modern world, can have dramatic effects. The Kosovo ethnic cleansing provoked a massive NATO military intervention.

Brutality in Burma may have capped the immediate problem, but would you be willing to bet that it is the last unrest generated by the inequalities and injstices in that system?

In the end, brutality rarely works as a comprehensive solution.
Click to expand...

If you can't present your case more concisely then I'm not going to bother debating you.
 
I voted the obvious choice in the poll, but I decided to skip the introductory post. Let's keep it to a couple of short paragraphs next time, ok?

Kal'Stang said:
A case could be made for any country or group of people to be considered a terrorist. As far as I'm concerned the term "terrorist" is purely subjective.
Click to expand...

This caught my eye. I disagree with this. However, [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism]Terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] claims that there is no standard definition, including state actors. To me, a terrorist is someone who practices terrorism, which is the use of uncoventional violence against a non-combatant population to coerce a political change. It is a warfare tactic. It is not subjective.

As such, I don't think states can be terrorists, who are individuals.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Cease with attacking other posters or thread bans and infractions will occur. Stick to the topic at hand and not each other.
 
reefedjib said:
This caught my eye. I disagree with this. However, Terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia claims that there is no standard definition, including state actors. To me, a terrorist is someone who practices terrorism, which is the use of uncoventional violence against a non-combatant population to coerce a political change. It is a warfare tactic. It is not subjective.

As such, I don't think states can be terrorists, who are individuals.
Click to expand...

Lets examine this a bit.

In the Iraq or Afghanistan war those that are deemed to be terrorists have killed innocent civilians..and not just with suicide bombs by also by guns. BUT US forces have also killed innocent civilians. Now granted the US forces more than likely did not mean to kill those innocent civilians. But does that matter to the relatives of those killed? Does it matter to the ones that watched the killing? How would they view such an act? Wouldn't they consider it a terrorist act by the US?
 
Kal'Stang said:
In the Iraq or Afghanistan war those that are deemed to be terrorists have killed innocent civilians..and not just with suicide bombs by also by guns.
Click to expand...

Right. They INTENDED to terrorize their victims and the community.

BUT US forces have also killed innocent civilians. Now granted the US forces more than likely did not mean to kill those innocent civilians.
Click to expand...

There are only a handful of cases where U.S. military members maliciously killed innocents. They are in prison for the rest of their lives.

But does that matter to the relatives of those killed?
Click to expand...

It might not, but I can tell you with absolute certainty that they know the difference.

Wouldn't they consider it a terrorist act by the US?
Click to expand...

Because terrorism is about intent. Either because of some ideological reason or to serve a purpose other than just to kill.

Think about what you are suggesting. Every murderer is a terrorist? Hardly. Everyone who accidently kills someone is a terrorist? No.

Terrorist do not just kill; they terrorize, purposely, for the intent of coercion or intimidation.
 
Gardener said:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/middle-east/59199-debating-israeli-palestinian-issues-daily-show.html
Click to expand...

So I read the thread and pulled this from gree0232's comments.

Got it, Hamas is fighting unfair. But guess what, they are fighting, and warriors and soldiers for millenia have realized that you fight the fight that is there, not scream and whine because it is not the fight you want. Hamas, indeed any insurgent group, is not going to line up and let themselves be slaughtered for some Western ideal of war.
Click to expand...

Gree,
This is what separates us from them.

You are stating reality that we all know, however, it would seem that you are implicitly approving of it.

Oh and that "screaming and whining" is people standing against terror, the intentional murder of innocents and barbaric brute force. It flies in the face of natural rights and freedom.

Terrorists aren't warriors. They aren't soldiers. They are murderers who are too inept and cowardly to fight fair by the internationally accepted law of war.
 
kansaswhig said:
So I read the thread and pulled this from gree0232's comments.



Gree,
This is what separates us from them.

You are stating reality that we all know, however, it would seem that you are implicitly approving of it.

Oh and that "screaming and whining" is people standing against terror, the intentional murder of innocents and barbaric brute force. It flies in the face of natural rights and freedom.

Terrorists aren't warriors. They aren't soldiers. They are murderers who are too inept and cowardly to fight fair by the internationally accepted law of war.
Click to expand...

What I find amazing, K.W, is that anybody could interpret such statements in any way OTHER than showing support for terrorist acts. Why else would one ridicule those who do not support terrorism, while honoring these murderers as "warriors"?
 
Gardener said:
What I find amazing, K.W, is that anybody could interpret such statements in any way OTHER than showing support for terrorist acts. Why else would one ridicule those who do not support terrorism, while honoring these murderers as "warriors"?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I almost want to believe he misspoke. I hope he comes on and clears it up.
 
obvious Child said:
He's not wrong though. People here think that COIN operations are judged as successes based on their body count rather then through reduction in insurgent activity, government corruption, education and economic development. Some people here think that killing terrorists in ways that increase the number of new terrorists is productive. Some people have no understanding of how corruption in Vietnam doomed many of the operations there and don't understand why boosting troops after an openly fraudulent election is bad, bad, bad idea. Granted, it's a bad idea, but he's not wrong that many people here are frankly ignorant and stupid.
Click to expand...

You can't accomplish any of that, without racking up some kills. There's a direct relation to body counts and levels of enemy activity.
 
apdst said:
You can't accomplish any of that, without racking up some kills. There's a direct relation to body counts and levels of enemy activity.
Click to expand...

Eradication of the enemy will certainly have an effect on their operations, particularly if said insurgent group is small-time.

It's a lot easier (thus less costly to the counterinsurgent force) to win over the local population so that young, disaffected youth choose NOT to join the insurgency in the first place, which prevents you from having to kill them in the first place, which prevents families greiving the loss of their son, which improves local morale, which plays to the side of the counterinsurgent.

Petreaus was right when he said "we can't kill our way out of this".
 
Knowing your Enemy: Smart; Employing that knowledge to create fear and kill innocent civilians: Terrorism.
 
gree0232 said:
No A, I, and several other members of the forum, have been called terrorists, extremists, or some other similiar term found in a theasarus by you.
Click to expand...
This is enough for me to decide that your post is probably filled with lies like the above one, and hence, I have no need to waste my time and debate against your imagination.

That is, unless you are willing to link to a post made by me, Apocalypse, where I have labeled you, gree0232, as a terrorist.
Not terrorist supporter, not extremist, a terrorist.
I stand behind all of my other labels of you, as they hold nothing but truth, but I'll never call you a terrorist unless you'll be picking up a weapon and start killing civilians to promote your political cause.
 
kansaswhig said:
It might not, but I can tell you with absolute certainty that they know the difference.
Click to expand...

And yet we have those whose family, friends, relatives were killed by US forces joining terrorist groups to get revenge. Not all certainly. Not even a majority. But it does happen.
 
Kal'Stang said:
And yet we have those whose family, friends, relatives were killed by US forces joining terrorist groups to get revenge. Not all certainly. Not even a majority. But it does happen.
Click to expand...

Yes, that does happen. From my experience it was rare.

So do you concede your original point?

You said that when U.S. forces cause collateral damage they are terrorists, which, of course, is insane.
 
kansaswhig said:
Yes, that does happen. From my experience it was rare.

So do you concede your original point?

You said that when U.S. forces cause collateral damage they are terrorists, which, of course, is insane.
Click to expand...

Just be glad some of the people who like to indulge in these more extreme examples of moral equivalence aren't writing our laws.

If they did, a person whose foot slipped off the brakes causing his car to run over a person would receive the same sentence as one who tortured somebody to death.
 
apdst said:
You can't accomplish any of that, without racking up some kills. There's a direct relation to body counts and levels of enemy activity.
Click to expand...

And once again, you prove your inability to read and comprehended what people write. The issue is not whether or not we have to kill people. The issue is the asinine belief that body count is the measure of success or failure of COIN operations. Something you have argued several times despite being informed of your utter and epic wrongness.

Seriously. Learn to understand the written English Language for once.
 
obvious Child said:
And once again, you prove your inability to read and comprehended what people write. The issue is not whether or not we have to kill people. The issue is the asinine belief that body count is the measure of success or failure of COIN operations. Something you have argued several times despite being informed of your utter and epic wrongness.

Seriously. Learn to understand the written English Language for once.
Click to expand...

So, are ignorant enough to think that if our troops are getting hit with a 1:10 kill ratio, that we are in reality winning? Body counts aren't everything, however they are a very important barometer of success. Some of us have the commons sense, experience and education to know that. You do not posess any of those, so I don't expect you to understand why a negative kill ratio is a bad thing.
 
apdst said:
So, are ignorant enough to think that if our troops are getting hit with a 1:10 kill ratio, that we are in reality winning?
Click to expand...

While it has been made painfully clear you have absolutely no concept of what COIN is, you are still failing to recognize just what I am talking about. This likely stems from your consistently proven inability to understand the basic written form of the English language.

Body counts aren't everything, however they are a very important barometer of success.
Click to expand...

Not when those body counts don't mean much. And especially when you ignore the actual parts of COIN that matter.

Some of us have the commons sense, experience and education to know that. You do not posess any of those, so I don't expect you to understand why a negative kill ratio is a bad thing.
Click to expand...

Thanks for proving my point. The success of a COIN operation is not measured in body bags. Reliance upon belief that more kills = winning pretty much ignores the history of successful COIN operations in history.

Furthermore, negative kill ratio doesn't mean much by itself. The British for a time had negative kill ratio in Malaya (I bet you have no idea where that is). But did that mean their operation was failing? No. Especially because they didn't kill many insurgents. They turned them. And especially when the number of soldiers they lost was low anyways. And for an insurgency with near limitless replacements, negative kill ratio is really irrelevant. Clearly, you no understanding of what attrition is.

Stop pretending you have any understanding of this concept, just as you pretended you had any knowledge of accounting and its aspect in the legal system. Given your posting history here, it's exceptionally questionable if you have a measurable amount of knowledge on any subject whatsoever.

Come back when you understand English.
 
apdst said:
So, are ignorant enough to think that if our troops are getting hit with a 1:10 kill ratio, that we are in reality winning?
Click to expand...

Has that happened? 1 to 10?

Body counts aren't everything, however they are a very important barometer of success. Some of us have the commons sense, experience and education to know that.
Click to expand...

In COIN; I wouldn't even say important. It would be an indicator of kinetic activity; you could be totally losing the COIN fight in an area and have a completely superior body count. It's really an irrelevant number in irregular warfare. Now, in conventional warfare, it is very important to know how much of the enemy you have attrited; those numbers can be formulated into enemy unit strength...if there were any conventional conflicts going on.
 
obvious Child said:
While it has been made painfully clear you have absolutely no concept of what COIN is, you are still failing to recognize just what I am talking about. This likely stems from your consistently proven inability to understand the basic written form of the English language.



Not when those body counts don't mean much. And especially when you ignore the actual parts of COIN that matter.



Thanks for proving my point. The success of a COIN operation is not measured in body bags. Reliance upon belief that more kills = winning pretty much ignores the history of successful COIN operations in history.

Furthermore, negative kill ratio doesn't mean much by itself. The British for a time had negative kill ratio in Malaya (I bet you have no idea where that is). But did that mean their operation was failing? No. Especially because they didn't kill many insurgents. They turned them. And especially when the number of soldiers they lost was low anyways. And for an insurgency with near limitless replacements, negative kill ratio is really irrelevant. Clearly, you no understanding of what attrition is.

Stop pretending you have any understanding of this concept, just as you pretended you had any knowledge of accounting and its aspect in the legal system. Given your posting history here, it's exceptionally questionable if you have a measurable amount of knowledge on any subject whatsoever.

Come back when you understand English.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm not going to pour out the insults the way you do, but are you seriously suggesting that if the enemy is killing more of your soldiers than you are of the enemy, you wouldn't see that a bad thing and make adjustments to your operations?

Thank God!, you never served in the military.
 
kansaswhig said:
Now, in conventional warfare, it is very important to know how much of the enemy you have attrited; those numbers can be formulated into enemy unit strength...if there were any conventional conflicts going on.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't even go that far. In a conventional war were one side has near limitless replacements, killing lots of them really doesn't matter if they can get more troops into position quickly. Think of it as like Starcraft's Zerg verse Protoss or for you Warhammer, Eldar vs Tyrannids. When your troops are expensive and hard to replace and your enemies are numerous and cheap, you killing off 50 to losing one when the cost structure for you to them is 1 to 500, you are losing. Sure you know how many you killed, but it really doesn't matter. To win a war, one does not need to kill anyone necessarily. Just remove their capacity to wage a war. That often means destroying infrastructure rather than anything else. Hard to wage war when you have no supplies, no transportation and no support.
 
kansaswhig said:
Has that happened? 1 to 10?



In COIN; I wouldn't even say important. It would be an indicator of kinetic activity; you could be totally losing the COIN fight in an area and have a completely superior body count. It's really an irrelevant number in irregular warfare. Now, in conventional warfare, it is very important to know how much of the enemy you have attrited; those numbers can be formulated into enemy unit strength...if there were any conventional conflicts going on.
Click to expand...

Are you seriously agreeing that a negative body count is no big deal? That you can deal with the enemy doing more damage to your combat power, than you're doing to his? Is that what you're suggesting, "Captain"?

Please, tell me it isn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom