Take off the gloves

[Des-Bal]

It seems prepostorous to follow rules of etiquette when dealing with enemies that exercise a policy of murdering civillians. Under certain conventions a nation cannot respond to acts of terrorism or genocide with all of its resources, for example a blade with more than two edges or incendiary ammuniton. Following these rules when combatting an enemy that doesn't can only promise more death. Why should my country tie its own hands in this situation?

I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT SETTING BABIES ON FIRE, I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT TOTAL WAR, I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT NUKING AFGHANISTAN, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE WAR ON TERROR.

I'm talking about how it is an inherently bad idea to follow ALL provisions when your enemy doesn'yt follow ANY.

[Dbrought]

And nothing that has been done in Afghanistan or Iraq has made them want to stop fighting. If cruise missiles, carpet bombing, air support, artillery barrages and armour doesn't faze a gang of paramilitary fighters with cold war equipment, don't you think pure force might be the wrong method?

I never said pure force. i said fear. our enemies need to fear us if we are to win, and our allies should fear not being with us when they see what happens to our enemies. To cite another source read about Machiavelli. he also has a bunch of theories on the subject in the prince or at least his own version. cause here is the natural truth of the world. the civilians just want to be left alone and the soldiers just want to get paid and not die. that is why a few determined people can accomplish great amounts. really what we need is not a WMDs but a WMFs. Weapons that make them fear us. If they are too busy being afraid of consequences they won't have time to fight back

So we don't use pure force, just weapons of such power that they terrify them? You want to obtain allies through crude shows of force?
And I wasn't aware terrorists got a pay cheque. In this case AQ and the insurgents are the few determined people, who aren't fighting for money or land, just out of anger.

um many of our current allies were once our enemies. they only switched because they realized what we had made and feared it and though of how with it on their side their enemies might fear them. Take Brittan for example. We were at ends for a long time untill after the civil war. Why the switch. Brittan which depended on its navy watched us build two ironclads which could decimate an entire fleet by themselves (the confederate's ironclad sank a flagship, middle class, and frigate) and not even an iron clad could kill an ironclad. They became allies afterward.
Again like i have been saying. all war is is fear.

[Unchecked Expansion]

um many of our current allies were once our enemies. they only switched because they realized what we had made and feared it and though of how with it on their side their enemies might fear them. Take Brittan for example. We were at ends for a long time untill after the civil war. Why the switch. Brittan which depended on its navy watched us build two ironclads which could decimate an entire fleet by themselves (the confederate's ironclad sank a flagship, middle class, and frigate) and not even an iron clad could kill an ironclad. They became allies afterward.
Again like i have been saying. all war is is fear.

You know that the Royal Navy was being made all-iron before the outbreak of the civil war? I just looked it up, took moments. Is it not more likely that a British-American alliance is based on a large nautical trading economy and an undeveloped country full of resources were a good combination, leading to today's state where the UK and the US are both the largest source of foreign investment in each others economies?
Economics can be more powerful than fear for international diplomacy. Showing you would crush everyone who dared defy you is a good way to scare everyone to your enemies. Look at WW1

[Dbrought]

um many of our current allies were once our enemies. they only switched because they realized what we had made and feared it and though of how with it on their side their enemies might fear them. Take Brittan for example. We were at ends for a long time untill after the civil war. Why the switch. Brittan which depended on its navy watched us build two ironclads which could decimate an entire fleet by themselves (the confederate's ironclad sank a flagship, middle class, and frigate) and not even an iron clad could kill an ironclad. They became allies afterward.
Again like i have been saying. all war is is fear.

You know that the Royal Navy was being made all-iron before the outbreak of the civil war? I just looked it up, took moments. Is it not more likely that a British-American alliance is based on a large nautical trading economy and an undeveloped country full of resources were a good combination, leading to today's state where the UK and the US are both the largest source of foreign investment in each others economies?
Economics can be more powerful than fear for international diplomacy. Showing you would crush everyone who dared defy you is a good way to scare everyone to your enemies. Look at WW1

but we were the first to actually use them in battle. actually we were making them about the same time. yes there are different reasons and factors that also came into play but we made weapons that changed the face of war during the civil war. repeater rifle... Gatling gun

[Ashmoria]

Ends justify the means rarely takes into account where the real ends lie. Proxy wars and 'enemy of my enemy' have contributed to our current conflict. To match brutality, to in essense sstep up and say, "Yes, we are an oppressive power and can and will do whatever we want" is essentially to throw water on a grease fire.

The same logic that goes into justifying this 'gloves off' attitude is the very one that convinces people that the only resort is to strap bombs to themselves and kill civilians or any one they can. The idea that you can end a brutality, especially a self afflicted one, with more brutality is remarkable short-sighted. More than ever, this is an ideological 'war.' This is not a war of lines and commanders, there will be no surrender on the deck of a ship followed by ticker-tape parade. It can barely be called a war at all, except in that we have abused the term in our haste to appear serious about something-the war on drugs, the war on poverty, the war on crime, the war on obesity-that it has begun to lose all meaning anyway.

It is a war of ideals and to sacrifice them is to win a battle and lose the war.

I prefer to think of it as a war of 'don't blow up my stuff'. And again this isn't about shooting into crowds of civillians and hoping you hit a terrorist its about whether or not its logical to ban certain weapons that DON'T put civillians at unnecessary risk when your enemy lacks that compassion.

obviously it IS logical to ban these mysterious weapons that only kill the right people or they wouldnt BE banned.

Many weapons banned by hague were banned because they killed the enemy in a way that made it difficult for them to be treated by a medic. My goal is to not have them come back and shoot again.

in a war its GOOD to not kill the enemy on the battlefied. if he is wounded then the enemy has to use resources to take care of him. if he is dead, they walk past him now and make him a martyr later. its harder to deal with the wounded than the dead.

and you cant KILL terrorism. we have made far more terrorists by invading iraq than were IN iraq when we invaded.

if we were stupid enough to invade saudi arabia (luckily not even george bush was THAT stupid) we would make 10s of millions more.

[Dbrought]

respectably disagree about there being more terrorists. However i will give you the whole point about not killing them. its like this quote from orson scott card
"the enemy will come at you like a wild dog. he will try to bite you and you will have to defend yourself. you can shoot him, but then you have no dog. wait a while though. see what make him bite and maybe you remove it. then you not only got a dog which won't bite you, you might have found your new best friend

[Dododecapod]

I believe we should enforce the laws of war strictly.

This means: We should hang all those who fight without a uniform, or use civilians as screens; utilize appropriate force on any combatant, regardless of location (endangerment of civilians is invariably the responsibility of those who are using them as shields, never that of their attackers); and and exercise our right to retaliatory actions when and if our opponent commits atrocities. It also means we should hang any and all of our own troops who conduct atrocities, unless ordered to do so by a higher authority, at which point said authority should be hanged.

The people we fight get away with violating the laws of war because we let them. We should grow some balls and enforce the conventions, as they were intended to be.

[Chumblywumbly]

Terrorism wil always exist by dealing with the bulk of it and breaking up the organization between cells Al Qaeda will be no more dangerous than any of the other whack jobs.

The whole point of individualised cells operating is that they can operate independently from one another.

Moreover, I believe you are overestimating both the level of terrorist global organisation and it's proximity to Afghanistan.

[North Suran]

I believe we should enforce the laws of war strictly.

This means: We should hang all those who fight without a uniform, or use civilians as screens; utilize appropriate force on any combatant, regardless of location (endangerment of civilians is invariably the responsibility of those who are using them as shields, never that of their attackers); and and exercise our right to retaliatory actions when and if our opponent commits atrocities. It also means we should hang any and all of our own troops who conduct atrocities, unless ordered to do so by a higher authority, at which point said authority should be hanged.

The people we fight get away with violating the laws of war because we let them. We should grow some balls and enforce the conventions, as they were intended to be.

And tell me, John, what do we then do when someone starts complaining that the US Air Force firebombed her entire town because they saw a terrorist run aside?

Those kind of brutally pragmatic, draconian measures may have been the norm during the Middle Ages. But the Iraq and Afghan conflicts are as much PR wars as they are shooting wars. If you want any hope for lasting peace in the Middle East, you can't leave the local populace bearing a grudge. The whole world learnt that when World War II reared its ugly head.

[Dododecapod]

I believe we should enforce the laws of war strictly.

This means: We should hang all those who fight without a uniform, or use civilians as screens; utilize appropriate force on any combatant, regardless of location (endangerment of civilians is invariably the responsibility of those who are using them as shields, never that of their attackers); and and exercise our right to retaliatory actions when and if our opponent commits atrocities. It also means we should hang any and all of our own troops who conduct atrocities, unless ordered to do so by a higher authority, at which point said authority should be hanged.

The people we fight get away with violating the laws of war because we let them. We should grow some balls and enforce the conventions, as they were intended to be.

And tell me, John, what do we then do when someone starts complaining that the US Air Force firebombed her entire town because they saw a terrorist run aside?

Those kind of brutally pragmatic, draconian measures may have been the norm during the Middle Ages. But the Iraq and Afghan conflicts are as much PR wars as they are shooting wars. If you want any hope for lasting peace in the Middle East, you can't leave the local populace bearing a grudge. The whole world learnt that when World War II reared its ugly head.

No, what we learned in WWII (and then promptly forgot) was never do an enemy a small injury.

In WWII we SMASHED Germany, Italy, Japan and the other Axis nations. We BEAT them, CRUSHED their armies, LEVELED their cities and basically shoved their leaders (such as survived) and the citizens (ditto) noses in the fact that they LOST. BIG TIME.

Our mistake in Gulf 1, Iraq and Afghanistan is that we were far too humane. Gulf 1, especially - we basically didn't do anything much to Iraq. Oh, there were a few embargoes, and they lost a big chunk of their army - but armies are made to get smashed, reformed and rebuilt. Saddam Hussein lost nothing but a bit of prestige.

Now, Iraq was a mistake, but if we're going to take out a country we need to TAKE IT OUT. Destroy their civilian morale, shatter their military, DESTROY THEIR CAPACITY TO RESIST. Instead, we pussyfooted around, avoided civilian casualties even when justified, avoided doing too much infrastructure damage, basically left the country a mess but functional.

Or to put it another way, we dealt the Iraqi people a small injury.

Of course they resisted! Of course the occupation was a joke! The Iraqis did not respect us. They did not fear us. They had no reason to believe there would be consequences. And by and large, they were right.

War is, must be, the final option. All else needs to be tried first, and preferably twice, and yes, let's GO that extra mile for the sake of peace. But when war is upon you, and no other option remains, then we must fight with EVERYTHING we have. We must show the enemy his mistake, in no uncertain terms. There must be pain, and death, and consequences. And in the modern world, when you defeat a foe, you must show him that he is beaten, that he has lost. Defeat occurs, not on the battlefield, but in the mind of the enemy. Until that happens, victory means nothing.

[North Suran]

I believe we should enforce the laws of war strictly.

This means: We should hang all those who fight without a uniform, or use civilians as screens; utilize appropriate force on any combatant, regardless of location (endangerment of civilians is invariably the responsibility of those who are using them as shields, never that of their attackers); and and exercise our right to retaliatory actions when and if our opponent commits atrocities. It also means we should hang any and all of our own troops who conduct atrocities, unless ordered to do so by a higher authority, at which point said authority should be hanged.

The people we fight get away with violating the laws of war because we let them. We should grow some balls and enforce the conventions, as they were intended to be.

And tell me, John, what do we then do when someone starts complaining that the US Air Force firebombed her entire town because they saw a terrorist run aside?

Those kind of brutally pragmatic, draconian measures may have been the norm during the Middle Ages. But the Iraq and Afghan conflicts are as much PR wars as they are shooting wars. If you want any hope for lasting peace in the Middle East, you can't leave the local populace bearing a grudge. The whole world learnt that when World War II reared its ugly head.

No, what we learned in WWII (and then promptly forgot) was never do an enemy a small injury.

In WWII we SMASHED Germany, Italy, Japan and the other Axis nations. We BEAT them, CRUSHED their armies, LEVELED their cities and basically shoved their leaders (such as survived) and the citizens (ditto) noses in the fact that they LOST. BIG TIME.

Eh...no.

The whole point of the aftermath of World War II was that we learned from World War I; if you leave someone with a grievance, they will avenge it. BIG TIME. That's why we rebuilt Germany, instead of isolating it. That's why the settlement of World War II was less harsh than the settlement of World War I - even though Germany had caused it. We learned that your infantile, jingoistic "BLOOD OF THE INFANTS JNFIUghakufuiwh" babble will never set the foundations for lasting peace.

Our mistake in Gulf 1, Iraq and Afghanistan is that we were far too humane.

That's our "mistake"?

I take it our mistake in World War II was that we didn't up all our Jews and put them into a furnace. After all, apparantly the way to win a war is to make yourself absolutely indistinguishable from your opponent.

Gulf 1, especially - we basically didn't do anything much to Iraq. Oh, there were a few embargoes, and they lost a big chunk of their army - but armies are made to get smashed, reformed and rebuilt. Saddam Hussein lost nothing but a bit of prestige.

And his ability to wage any warfare, of any kind.

Hence why he was sitting around, doing nothing, when we invaded him the second time.

Now, Iraq was a mistake, but if we're going to take out a country we need to TAKE IT OUT. Destroy their civilian morale, shatter their military, DESTROY THEIR CAPACITY TO RESIST. Instead, we pussyfooted around, avoided civilian casualties even when justified, avoided doing too much infrastructure damage, basically left the country a mess but functional.

Or to put it another way, we dealt the Iraqi people a small injury.

You're insane.

You know that, right?

Of course they resisted! Of course the occupation was a joke! The Iraqis did not respect us. They did not fear us. They had no reason to believe there would be consequences. And by and large, they were right.

Actually, the Iraqi people initially accepted you with welcome arms. Until you started dropping incendiary bombs on their houses.

Once again, you fail to see why "crushing" your opponent's morale will backfire on you. Badly.

War is, must be, the final option. All else needs to be tried first, and preferably twice, and yes, let's GO that extra mile for the sake of peace. But when war is upon you, and no other option remains, then we must fight with EVERYTHING we have. We must show the enemy his mistake, in no uncertain terms. There must be pain, and death, and consequences. And in the modern world, when you defeat a foe, you must show him that he is beaten, that he has lost. Defeat occurs, not on the battlefield, but in the mind of the enemy. Until that happens, victory means nothing.

Sorry to interrupt you, General Shepherd, but apparantly we were the ones who declared war on Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Neu Mitanni]

I believe we should enforce the laws of war strictly.

This means: We should hang all those who fight without a uniform, or use civilians as screens; utilize appropriate force on any combatant, regardless of location (endangerment of civilians is invariably the responsibility of those who are using them as shields, never that of their attackers); and and exercise our right to retaliatory actions when and if our opponent commits atrocities. It also means we should hang any and all of our own troops who conduct atrocities, unless ordered to do so by a higher authority, at which point said authority should be hanged.

The people we fight get away with violating the laws of war because we let them. We should grow some balls and enforce the conventions, as they were intended to be.

And tell me, John, what do we then do when someone starts complaining that the US Air Force firebombed her entire town because they saw a terrorist run aside?

Those kind of brutally pragmatic, draconian measures may have been the norm during the Middle Ages. But the Iraq and Afghan conflicts are as much PR wars as they are shooting wars. If you want any hope for lasting peace in the Middle East, you can't leave the local populace bearing a grudge. The whole world learnt that when World War II reared its ugly head.

No, what we learned in WWII (and then promptly forgot) was never do an enemy a small injury.

In WWII we SMASHED Germany, Italy, Japan and the other Axis nations. We BEAT them, CRUSHED their armies, LEVELED their cities and basically shoved their leaders (such as survived) and the citizens (ditto) noses in the fact that they LOST. BIG TIME.

Our mistake in Gulf 1, Iraq and Afghanistan is that we were far too humane. Gulf 1, especially - we basically didn't do anything much to Iraq. Oh, there were a few embargoes, and they lost a big chunk of their army - but armies are made to get smashed, reformed and rebuilt. Saddam Hussein lost nothing but a bit of prestige.

Now, Iraq was a mistake, but if we're going to take out a country we need to TAKE IT OUT. Destroy their civilian morale, shatter their military, DESTROY THEIR CAPACITY TO RESIST. Instead, we pussyfooted around, avoided civilian casualties even when justified, avoided doing too much infrastructure damage, basically left the country a mess but functional.

Or to put it another way, we dealt the Iraqi people a small injury.

Of course they resisted! Of course the occupation was a joke! The Iraqis did not respect us. They did not fear us. They had no reason to believe there would be consequences. And by and large, they were right.

War is, must be, the final option. All else needs to be tried first, and preferably twice, and yes, let's GO that extra mile for the sake of peace. But when war is upon you, and no other option remains, then we must fight with EVERYTHING we have. We must show the enemy his mistake, in no uncertain terms. There must be pain, and death, and consequences. And in the modern world, when you defeat a foe, you must show him that he is beaten, that he has lost. Defeat occurs, not on the battlefield, but in the mind of the enemy. Until that happens, victory means nothing.

Well said.

And thank God we fought WWII the way we did.

[North Suran]

Well said.

And thank God we fought WWII the way we did.

I thought you would be dissappointed.

After all, what with all your "We must do everything our enemy does!" crap, we never ended up shoving Jews into death camps.

[Unchecked Expansion]

respectably disagree about there being more terrorists. However i will give you the whole point about not killing them. its like this quote from orson scott card
"the enemy will come at you like a wild dog. he will try to bite you and you will have to defend yourself. you can shoot him, but then you have no dog. wait a while though. see what make him bite and maybe you remove it. then you not only got a dog which won't bite you, you might have found your new best friend

So now you argue in favour of diplomacy and goodwill, rather than fear?

[Des-Bal]

Ends justify the means rarely takes into account where the real ends lie. Proxy wars and 'enemy of my enemy' have contributed to our current conflict. To match brutality, to in essense sstep up and say, "Yes, we are an oppressive power and can and will do whatever we want" is essentially to throw water on a grease fire.

The same logic that goes into justifying this 'gloves off' attitude is the very one that convinces people that the only resort is to strap bombs to themselves and kill civilians or any one they can. The idea that you can end a brutality, especially a self afflicted one, with more brutality is remarkable short-sighted. More than ever, this is an ideological 'war.' This is not a war of lines and commanders, there will be no surrender on the deck of a ship followed by ticker-tape parade. It can barely be called a war at all, except in that we have abused the term in our haste to appear serious about something-the war on drugs, the war on poverty, the war on crime, the war on obesity-that it has begun to lose all meaning anyway.

It is a war of ideals and to sacrifice them is to win a battle and lose the war.

I prefer to think of it as a war of 'don't blow up my stuff'. And again this isn't about shooting into crowds of civillians and hoping you hit a terrorist its about whether or not its logical to ban certain weapons that DON'T put civillians at unnecessary risk when your enemy lacks that compassion.

obviously it IS logical to ban these mysterious weapons that only kill the right people or they wouldnt BE banned.

Many weapons banned by hague were banned because they killed the enemy in a way that made it difficult for them to be treated by a medic. My goal is to not have them come back and shoot again.

in a war its GOOD to not kill the enemy on the battlefied. if he is wounded then the enemy has to use resources to take care of him. if he is dead, they walk past him now and make him a martyr later. its harder to deal with the wounded than the dead.

and you cant KILL terrorism. we have made far more terrorists by invading iraq than were IN iraq when we invaded.

if we were stupid enough to invade saudi arabia (luckily not even george bush was THAT stupid) we would make 10s of millions more.

OOf course you can't kill terrorism but you can however kill enough terrorists to cripple terrorism.

[Chumblywumbly]

Of course you can't kill terrorism but you can however kill enough terrorists to cripple terrorism.

How? Once again you're talking about terrorism as if it is a coherent centralised organisation.

[Dregruk]

OOf course you can't kill terrorism but you can however kill enough terrorists to cripple terrorism.

The moment it becomes a war of attrition, you've handed them a victory. They won't present a nice easy target like an organised force, and they'll rack up their tally by attacking civilians (hence the terrorist part). And for every mistake you make, the harder you try to wipe them all it, the easier it is for them to spin it into a "us v the West" war to recruit more and more civilians. It just doesn't work.

[Dbrought]

Of course you can't kill terrorism but you can however kill enough terrorists to cripple terrorism.

How? Once again you're talking about terrorism as if it is a coherent centralised organisation.

you can never kill human nature. We constantly caught in a cycle. what used to be new and liberal is now considered old and conservative. Terrorism is extreme radicalism and hate. we cannot remove that from our nature. there will always be something to hate. the main thing though is still fear. all actions are based from it. we do our actions either because we are afraid or are trying to force fear on another. right now terrorist try to use fear of trust. They have potentially a sleeper in every city in every country. the nations fear this and this make them powerful. if we want to kill their power we need to switch the tables. find what they fear and use it. then they will stop. Another will eventually take their place but we will only have to rinse and repeat.

[Chumblywumbly]

right now terrorist try to use fear of trust. They have potentially a sleeper in every city in every country. the nations fear this and this make them powerful.

When we should be worried about genuinely dangerous threats, like heart disease and diabetes.

[Neu Mitanni]

OOf course you can't kill terrorism but you can however kill enough terrorists to cripple terrorism.

The moment it becomes a war of attrition, you've handed them a victory. They won't present a nice easy target like an organised force, and they'll rack up their tally by attacking civilians (hence the terrorist part). And for every mistake you make, the harder you try to wipe them all it, the easier it is for them to spin it into a "us v the West" war to recruit more and more civilians. It just doesn't work.

Eventually they will run out of civilians, either because the civilians will finally wake up, realize they're being used solely for the terrorists' interests, and say "no" to them, or because there won't be any left to recruit (or recruiters to recruit them, for that matter).

Again, this myth of the undefeatable terrorist movement and its infinite sea of potential recruits is nonsense, and dangerous nonsense at that. The myth is itself a weapon of terrorist movements that must be removed from their arsenals.

[Chumblywumbly]

Again, this myth of the undefeatable terrorist movement...

Arguing that all-out war is not an effective way to combat terrorism does not equate to arguing that certain terrorist organisations cannot be defeated.

[North Suran]

OOf course you can't kill terrorism but you can however kill enough terrorists to cripple terrorism.

The moment it becomes a war of attrition, you've handed them a victory. They won't present a nice easy target like an organised force, and they'll rack up their tally by attacking civilians (hence the terrorist part). And for every mistake you make, the harder you try to wipe them all it, the easier it is for them to spin it into a "us v the West" war to recruit more and more civilians. It just doesn't work.

Eventually they will run out of civilians, either because the civilians will finally wake up, realize they're being used solely for the terrorists' interests, and say "no" to them, or because there won't be any left to recruit (or recruiters to recruit them, for that matter).

So it is genocide, then.

Don't pussy foot around. What you are advocating is flat-out genocide. But because the targets are just some brown people with a strange religion, it is no doubt all justified in your mind.

Again, this myth of the undefeatable terrorist movement and its infinite sea of potential recruits is nonsense, and dangerous nonsense at that. The myth is itself a weapon of terrorist movements that must be removed from their arsenals.

As long as people can breed, there will be an "infinite sea of potential recruits".

[Dregruk]

OOf course you can't kill terrorism but you can however kill enough terrorists to cripple terrorism.

The moment it becomes a war of attrition, you've handed them a victory. They won't present a nice easy target like an organised force, and they'll rack up their tally by attacking civilians (hence the terrorist part). And for every mistake you make, the harder you try to wipe them all it, the easier it is for them to spin it into a "us v the West" war to recruit more and more civilians. It just doesn't work.

Eventually they will run out of civilians, either because the civilians will finally wake up, realize they're being used solely for the terrorists' interests, and say "no" to them, or because there won't be any left to recruit (or recruiters to recruit them, for that matter).

It's kinda hard to make the argument that the civilians caught in the middle of this mess should "wake up" when, in spite of reassurances to the contrary, foreigners are attacking their countrymen on their soil. I won't even indulge your "there won't be any left to recruit" comment with a response. Oh wait, damn...

[Dregruk]

But because the targets are just some brown people with a strange religion, it is no doubt all justified in your mind.
As long as people can breed, there will be an "infinite sea of potential recruits".

Mitanni belongs to that dangerous, loud-mouthed set of the West that thinks it's at war with the Middle-East/Islam; they're the poster boys for terrorist recruitment ("Look! We told you they want to destroy us!")

[Dbrought]

i think that terrorism itself is an idea. ideas are immortal. they cannot be killed. you can kill all who know about it and burn all that speaks of it and it will still exist. There is evil in the world. It cannot be killed. Terrorist however can die and change. It will not always be the middle east that breeds them. hell in the future who knows where they might be from or background they have. Even America could be a place where terrorist harbor years from now. We cannot think battle an idea without having logic and reason on our side. We can battle people though with anything that will breed fear. Fear is also an immortal unchanging weapon and idea