Post by sgt0311usmc on May 12, 2006 16:23:49 GMT -8
fightingfalcon said:
I anticipated this response; possibly from you.
*Sigh* I feel like the token liberal on this board....even though I really hate them.
I knew that you'd think this over - NOT that you're a token anything - GEEZ! You need a hug? ;D
I have no problem with the fire-bombing of Dresden/Tokyo or the dropping of the Atomic bomb on Japan because it was against legitimate targets in a wartime enviornment.
When we start to abduct family members of terrorists and hold them hostage....that's when I start getting nervous that we are becoming terrorists ourselves.
The fire-bombing statement was an example of escalation until the point is made. Find their breaking point & you save lives - on BOTH sides. It has to do with putting yourself in the enemy's cultural, tactical & strategic mindset - and then figuring out how to defeat them. It's the same thought process to "winning the hearts & minds" of the civilian populace.
And, (not sure if I was unclear or not, but) - WerBell DIDN'T kidnap anyone. He took covert photos of them. He never TOUCHED anyone. As for the Soviets - they snatched-up clerics that were of the same RADICAL sect as the Terr's - widely known information. The results pretty much speak for the accuracy of their OP.
As long as you're talking about punishing those RESPONSIBLE, sure. I used to always get into arguments with my mother because she once told me that she wanted to be-head Zarqawi's family. I was like wow Mom....that's disgusting.
I would support this, if I thought that it (or kidnapping them) would actually WORK on a nutcase like him. When it comes to komeni - we KNEW where he was, and COULD have nailed him & made the point.
I'm a History major with a concentration in Christian-Moslem military history....I know all about their militant past.
Then you understand the fanaticism, BEHIND the religious fanaticism. WE learn about our forebears - the minutemen, GI Joe, Khe Sahn, etc - They learn about Muhammad, assassins, the crusades & Saladin. Our historical lessons often mention "the ultimate sacrafice" (even diving on grenades) - but not "the glory of death", unlike THEIR history.
Not to mention, going through life, wiping your ass with a handfull of sand CAN'T be fun.
Again, I think everyone is missing what I'm saying here. If you want to kill those responsible - I'm all for it. Hell, I'll do the killing myself. When you advocate killing innocent bystanders, that's when I start to have serious objections.
I'm talking about targetting (NOT NECESSARILLY FOR DEATH) WHAT motivates THEM. If that includes co-conspiritors then so be it. In south america - threatening, or scooping, their families - IS a motivator. AND - either way - it HAS to be behind the scenes. Everyone in the world knows that, if an ACTIVE OP like that went public in the US, then the threat to the "counter-hostages" would immediatly be removed.
Either way - THEY chose the tactics - "by-standers"? Time to reconsider definitions.
If the 3rd Party is guilty of terrorism or supporting terrorism, I'll pull the trigger myself. If the 3rd party is a random Islamic cleric who has hasn't even advocated using force against America or our allies, then I'd never follow that order. I won't intentionally kill innocent people unless they are a legitimate target in a wartime enviornment, e.g. the atomic bombs. But total wars like WWII are hopefully a thing of the past.
Again, they weren't (totally) random - they were shiites, and, quite possibly targetted specifically from KGB G-2. Suffice to say - it worked, and quickly - what does THAT tell you? Just making the point that, from an F-111, or out on a jungle patrol, the results MIGHT be the same. So, maybe the ROE should be the same.
Can't happen? I suggest that you research the US response to "disco bombed in germany - GI's Killed - US (Reagan's) Response" - By the way - THAT little crackpot wailed, stomped his sandals, cried out to the court of public opinion, gnashed HIS teeth - & got out of the Terr business.
The raid on Qadaffi that you are referring to was carried out beacuse we thought that he was in the convoy. I highly doubt that Reagan wanted to kill his family and not him.
The Target WAS Khaddafi-duck. The "message" was - "we tie terrorist acts to you - & we bomb YOU (personally) in response". And, the message was heard loud & clear. He quit that shit. Who knows - MAYBE (I forget the timeline) RONALDUS MAXIMUS LEARNED from the soviet example & applied the object lesson to khaddafi-duck. (You'll ALSO notice that, when Bush II went into Iraq, he immediatly stated publicly that he was out of the Ter & WMD business & invited inspectors in... ;D )
I've never advocated Lidice'. (YES, I know exactly what you're talking about - I started studying WWII when I was about 7-8 years old). In each of the points made above, the expansion of targetting was both - localized & effective. I've ALSO given this a lot of thought (since about April of '83) - Payback would be great. BUT - SOLVING the problem LASTS LONGER.
