• 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!

[W:524] Trump approves special ops raid targeting isis leader baghdadi, military says he's dead

lwf said:
Occasionally bad strategy works. That doesn't make it good policy. Occasionally torture yields useful information. Occasionally vigilantes bring the right person to justice. Occasionally terrorism cows your enemies into unconditional surrender. But no strategy is more prone to backfire as spectacularly, and predictably, as terrorism. It didn't work for ISIS. If Russia were to nuke New York City, would this be an effective strategy to conquer the U.S.? Would you be frightened enough to surrender unconditionally?
Click to expand...

This may come as a shock to you but history doesn't really support this. The ideology of care much of anything of civilian casualties is a very new thing. That's really only come about since around the 60s in any meaningful way. Before that, stretching back into pre-history, humans controlled others generally by abject fear of the repercussions.
 
Mongidig said:
Killing Bin Laden got Obama reelected.
Click to expand...

No it didn't. Gotta do more than kill one terrorist chieftain to get reelected. That's just part of the job.
 
Nalu said:
I have always been talking about targeting innocent children. A number of posters recommended it within the first several posts. That conversation has carried all the way through this thread.
Click to expand...

Not recommending it, but saying that it would be more acceptable if the process ever came to that. Given that one has the process ending then and there, while the other has them being brought up to continue such operations.

It's just the cruel reality of things at this point. Hopefully we'll never get that far.
 
Nalu said:
Here you go. I'll try to link some more later. Is your point just that Islam is "more violent" than Christianity? I already told you that you're talking about extremists and not the core of the religion. If your point is that Mohammed was a bad man, then I'll just move along. People who worship people who have been dead for hundreds or thousands of years are not a terribly interesting topic for me.

The Balkan Wars Created a Generation of Christian Terrorists – Foreign Policy
Click to expand...

Wow, you really need to do some reading. This is now bordering on comedy. I grew up in Bosnia so let me tell you the article is terribly mistaken about basically everything. The Balkan war was a national conflict based on ethnicity and had nothing to do with religious hate - suggested by the fact that Muslims and Catholic groups fought alongside each other. There were minor incidents of radicalization caused by the Balkan war, but it was on ethnic/nationalistic grounds. In other words, people were radicalized to fight and kill for their country, not their God.

Also, the article claims that the Balkan war radicalized certain people yet conveniently points out that those people committed radical violence before the war even began. LOL :doh. And in certain examples, like Jackie Arklov, it goes on to equate his murder of a policeman (for a non-religious reason) as evidence of religious radicalization. By this point it's already too much to handle. :lamo

The icing on the cake is trying to pin the Balkan war (and Christianity) for radicalizing Anders Breikvik, which is another intentional lie. Brekvik clearly stated his motive as a promotion of right-wing views and to denounce feminism and Marxism from Europe. Nothing about religion there. As if to predict this sort of ideology blame-game, he clearly stated that he is "not a Christian and never has been". He identified as a member of Odinism. See for yourself.

Any logic you think to have presented in that article basically falls apart in just the opening few paragraphs. Please, either put up some legitimate facts and constructive discussion or stop spewing lies. Your fake news has no place here.

EDIT - flicking thru the Wiki page on Breikvik, it hilariously also says that he claims he was inspired by Muslim jihadist groups like Al-Qaeda. HAHAHA so your fine example of Christian terrorism actually comes from a man who committed violence for non-religious reasons, was not even a Christian to start with, and was initially inspired by the violence committed by Muslims. This is too rich XD
 
Last edited:
Fishking said:
This may come as a shock to you but history doesn't really support this. The ideology of care much of anything of civilian casualties is a very new thing. That's really only come about since around the 60s in any meaningful way. Before that, stretching back into pre-history, humans controlled others generally by abject fear of the repercussions.
Click to expand...

And that control lasted exactly as long as their ability to enforce those repercussions lasted, while dissidents who bristled under such control grew until revolution became possible. Then those who were once controlled by fear turned the tables on their former lords and became the ones who instilled the fear. And so on ad nauseam.

Control through fear breeds rebellion. In this case where we are not the lords, and are merely trying to eradicate a dangerous ideology, this translates to creating at least two new terrorists for every child of a terrorist we murder.
 
Crusader13 said:
Wow, you really need to do some reading. This is now bordering on comedy. I grew up in Bosnia so let me tell you the article is terribly mistaken about basically everything. The Balkan war was a national conflict based on ethnicity and had nothing to do with religious hate - suggested by the fact that Muslims and Catholic groups fought alongside each other. There were minor incidents of radicalization caused by the Balkan war, but it was on ethnic/nationalistic grounds. In other words, people were radicalized to fight and kill for their country, not their God.

Also, the article claims that the Balkan war radicalized certain people yet conveniently points out that those people committed radical violence before the war even began. LOL :doh. And in certain examples, like Jackie Arklov, it goes on to equate his murder of a policeman (for a non-religious reason) as evidence of religious radicalization. By this point it's already too much to handle. :lamo

The icing on the cake is trying to pin the Balkan war (and Christianity) for radicalizing Anders Breikvik, which is another intentional lie. Brekvik clearly stated his motive as a promotion of right-wing views and to denounce feminism and Marxism from Europe. Nothing about religion there. As if to predict this sort of ideology blame-game, he clearly stated that he is "not a Christian and never has been". He identified as a member of Odinism. See for yourself.

Any logic you think to have presented in that article basically falls apart in just the opening few paragraphs. Please, either put up some legitimate facts and constructive discussion or stop spewing lies. Your fake news has no place here.

EDIT - flicking thru the Wiki page on Breikvik, it hilariously also says that he claims he was inspired by Muslim jihadist groups like Al-Qaeda. HAHAHA so your fine example of Christian terrorism actually comes from a man who committed violence for non-religious reasons, was not even a Christian to start with, and was initially inspired by the violence committed by Muslims. This is too rich XD
Click to expand...

Not gonna lie. It's Friday and I lost interest. See you in another thread maybe.
 
lwf said:
And that control lasted exactly as long as their ability to enforce those repercussions lasted, while dissidents who bristled under such control grew until revolution became possible. Then those who were once controlled by fear turned the tables on their former lords and became the ones who instilled the fear. And so on ad nauseam.

Control through fear breeds rebellion. In this case where we are not the lords, and are merely trying to eradicate a dangerous ideology, this translates to creating at least two new terrorists for every child of a terrorist we murder.
Click to expand...

Hate to break it to you but all the longest empires and governmental systems out there were brutal. How long did the Roman Empire last? Persian? How old is China? British Monarchy? The empires/nations that care about civilians, human rights, or anything not brutal is new and with younger nations.
 
Fishking said:
Hate to break it to you but all the longest empires and governmental systems out there were brutal. How long did the Roman Empire last? Persian? How old is China? British Monarchy? The empires/nations that care about civilians, human rights, or anything not brutal is new and with younger nations.
Click to expand...

With age comes wisdom. Creating enemies was often inevitable in the past. It is still is sometimes inevitable even in the modern era of globalism and cultural integration. But this is a worse case scenario. When multiplying your enemies can be avoided, it should be. Attempting to instill fear in your enemy in order to break their will runs the risk of instilling anger instead and cultivating widespread anti-American sentiment, which is far more dangerous to both our troops abroad and to America in general than allowing one or two targets to live one more day because they are surrounded by innocent non-combatants.
 
Nalu said:
Not gonna lie. It's Friday and I lost interest. See you in another thread maybe.
Click to expand...

* Article is terribly misinformed about Balkan war - it had little do to with religion since many different religions fought alongside each other.

*Article claims certain people were radicalized from the war even though they already committed radical violence before the war began

*Most examples of radicalized people were not even terrorists.

*Anders Breikvik was not a Christian and clearly published a manifesto stating he is of another religion, and committed the shootings for non-religious reasons. As a trivial note, it was found that he was actually inspired early on by ISIS.

*Fake news
 
Crusader13 said:
* Article is terribly misinformed about Balkan war - it had little do to with religion since many different religions fought alongside each other.

*Article claims certain people were radicalized from the war even though they already committed radical violence before the war began

*Most examples of radicalized people were not even terrorists.

*Anders Breikvik was not a Christian and clearly published a manifesto stating he is of another religion, and committed the shootings for non-religious reasons. As a trivial note, it was found that he was actually inspired early on by ISIS.

*Fake news
Click to expand...

You might be right. You're probably not. I just don't care, bud. And anyone who says "fake news" is third tier to me anyway.
 
lwf said:
With age comes wisdom. Creating enemies was often inevitable in the past. It is still is sometimes inevitable even in the modern era of globalism and cultural integration. But this is a worse case scenario. When multiplying your enemies can be avoided, it should be. Attempting to instill fear in your enemy in order to break their will runs the risk of instilling anger instead and cultivating widespread anti-American sentiment, which is far more dangerous to both our troops abroad and to America in general than allowing one or two targets to live one more day because they are surrounded by innocent non-combatants.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong. I'm glad that we generally try are best to minimize civilian casualties. I'm just saying that there are tons of examples where it happened and it worked and it doesn't cause terrorism. That includes modern history. There are more variables at play there, like how I highlighted Japan and Germany not turning to terrorism.
 
Fishking said:
Don't get me wrong. I'm glad that we generally try are best to minimize civilian casualties. I'm just saying that there are tons of examples where it happened and it worked and it doesn't cause terrorism. That includes modern history. There are more variables at play there, like how I highlighted Japan and Germany not turning to terrorism.
Click to expand...

Japan completely snookered Gen. MacArthur and the people who ended up actually running Japan after WWII were the same people who were actually running Japan before WWII.

Germany, on the other hand, if you take a look at the reality of Europe today, has actually accomplished almost all of its per-WWI "war aims" (which did NOT include "conquering and ruling Europe").

Since Japan actually achieved almost none of its per-WWI or pre-WWII "war aims" (and certainly none of its "conquer and rule" ones), it looks like Japan "lost" WWII about as much as the US "won" the War of 1812.
 
Fishking said:
Don't get me wrong. I'm glad that we generally try are best to minimize civilian casualties. I'm just saying that there are tons of examples where it happened and it worked and it doesn't cause terrorism. That includes modern history. There are more variables at play there, like how I highlighted Japan and Germany not turning to terrorism.
Click to expand...

Targeting civilians doesn't always cause terrorism. It can cause terrorism. It is more likely to cause terrorism than targeting only combatants. Therefore, targeting civilians is bad strategy.
 
lwf said:
Targeting civilians doesn't always cause terrorism. It can cause terrorism. It is more likely to cause terrorism than targeting only combatants. Therefore, targeting civilians is bad strategy.
Click to expand...

A minor point here - those "civilians" are NOT 'targeted", it's simply that the people doing the targeting don't actually care whether or not those "civilians" get killed "to further the struggle".

On the other hand, if "Side A" simply doesn't care whether or not "'Side B' civilians" get killed "to further the struggle", then the odds that "Side B" will stop worrying about whether or not "'Side A; civilians" get killed "to further the struggle" increase dramatically. And when "Side B" starts killing "'Side A' civilians" in order "to further the struggle" (because "Side A" does it), then the odds that "Side A" will care even less about whether or not it kills "'Side B' civilians" in order "to further the struggle" increase dramatically.

In short, what you end up doing is creating the type of vortex that you pull the plug on a sink full of water - and, if you ONLY pull the plug without turning off the taps that are running water into the sink faster than the water can go down the drain you end up with BOTH a vortex AND an overflowing sink.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
A minor point here - those "civilians" are NOT 'targeted", it's simply that the people doing the targeting don't actually care whether or not those "civilians" get killed "to further the struggle".

On the other hand, if "Side A" simply doesn't care whether or not "'Side B' civilians" get killed "to further the struggle", then the odds that "Side B" will stop worrying about whether or not "'Side A; civilians" get killed "to further the struggle" increase dramatically. And when "Side B" starts killing "'Side A' civilians" in order "to further the struggle" (because "Side A" does it), then the odds that "Side A" will care even less about whether or not it kills "'Side B' civilians" in order "to further the struggle" increase dramatically.

In short, what you end up doing is creating the type of vortex that you pull the plug on a sink full of water - and, if you ONLY pull the plug without turning off the taps that are running water into the sink faster than the water can go down the drain you end up with BOTH a vortex AND an overflowing sink.
Click to expand...

The original genesis of this conversation was a post that suggested American airstrikes target non-combatants being used as human shields in order to deter terrorists from using human shields. I do not argue that the American military is doing this, I argue against any who believe that this would be a wise strategy to adopt.
 
I think it's laughable to claim that anyone in a secure compound with the leader of ISIS is a civilian. Its just unfortunate that this scumbag decided to drag kids down with him, who often have no choice.

That being said, Muslims who are strongly against ISIS could surely be able to understand that bringing ISIS down is a tough operation that will understandably lead to collateral damage of dead civilians.
 
I think it's laughable, sadly, that so many Americans believe the statements of known liars, but they do.

Zero Dark Thirty was the CIA movie glamorizing the fiction of Abbottabad. I wonder what they will name the movie regarding this most current fiction?
 
lwf said:
The original genesis of this conversation was a post that suggested American airstrikes target non-combatants being used as human shields in order to deter terrorists from using human shields. I do not argue that the American military is doing this, ...
Click to expand...

And I agree. Very few militaries deliberately employ a tactic that is known not to work. ISISISISILDAESHWHATEVER simply doesn't care if those "human shields" get killed (other than the fact that them being killed makes very good propaganda against the agency that killed them).

lwf said:
... I argue against any who believe that this would be a wise strategy to adopt.
Click to expand...

The general rule is "If it sounds like a 'Good Idea' but it doesn't work, then it isn't actually a 'Good Idea'.".
 
Oborosen said:
Not if no one survives to retaliate, or remember it. It's a brutal, yet effective solution.

A sad reality of things.
Click to expand...

You would have to commit genocide to achieve that. Terrorism is an ideology, not a nation-state.
 
CRModeration said:
You would have to commit genocide to achieve that.
Click to expand...

For some people, that is a feature and not a bug.

CRModeration said:
Terrorism is an ideology, not a nation-state.
Click to expand...

Actually it isn't either of those two.

Terrorism is a TACTIC and that is all it is (discounting the insane for whom killing is an end in and of itself and the emotionally immature who get some sort of sexual satisfaction out of thinking about killing, maiming, torturing, humiliating, debasing, and controlling others).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom