Take off the gloves

[Neu Mitanni]

I´d suggest, you "Mericans" rethink most of your made statements from the point of view, that you and your country is the one to be invaded...and you´re the ones suffering an occupying army on your nation´s territory then - and I´m quite sure, thias would change your arguements seriously (maybe except of the few idiots who simply argue "why not nuking them, `cause we can").

If the so-called "invaders" overthrew the tyrannical regime that was oppressing, imprisoning and killing my friends, family, fellow citizens and possibly even myself, I would be glad to be "invaded". The "invaders" would not be causing me to "suffer" anything other than the absence of a prison cell to be confined in. The dead-enders of the former evil regime and their allies, on the other hand, would be causing me to suffer, due to their homicide bombings, using my fellow citizens as shields, and other evil terrorist acts.

Simplistic hypotheticals shed little light on the matter.

[Dbrought]

I´d suggest, you "Mericans" rethink most of your made statements from the point of view, that you and your country is the one to be invaded...and you´re the ones suffering an occupying army on your nation´s territory then - and I´m quite sure, thias would change your arguements seriously (maybe except of the few idiots who simply argue "why not nuking them, `cause we can").

If the so-called "invaders" overthrew the tyrannical regime that was oppressing, imprisoning and killing my friends, family, fellow citizens and possibly even myself, I would be glad to be "invaded". The "invaders" would not be causing me to "suffer" anything other than the absence of a prison cell to be confined in. The dead-enders of the former evil regime and their allies, on the other hand, would be causing me to suffer, due to their homicide bombings, using my fellow citizens as shields, and other evil terrorist acts.

Simplistic hypotheticals shed little light on the matter.

yes i would mostly agree cause i will say it again
the people just want to be left alone and the soldiers just want to get paid and not die.

[Brandenburg-Altmark]

"As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."

/thread

While I disagree with the notion of "good and evil" in an absolute sense, in terms of relative morality(IE Person 1 defines Person 1 as "Good" and Person 2 as "evil" due to their conflicting aims, it is the truth in only their context.) this is 100% correct and I stand behind this quote on those grounds. If you fight your enemy using any means necessary, you are no more good than this "evil" enemy you want to eliminate.

[Grave_n_idle]

There is no prize for runner-up in a war. Unless your nation is prepared to use every single means to achieve victory, you might as well declare defeat now. If you allow your enemy to use successful tactics which you then prevent your own nation from using, you are just making their eventual victory all that much quicker.

Word.

The myth that non-state enemies like al-Qaeda can't be defeated needs to be shot in the head and buried under a ton of rubble. There is no refuting the argument that if you kill all of your enemies, you win. Also, if your actions make it unmistakeably clear to your enemy that it can't win, and that it will be crushed without mercy and everything it values will be destroyed along with it unless it permanently stands down, it is likely that that enemy will sooner or later realize it and give up.

It's all a matter of power and, more importantly, will. Who has the power, and who has the will to use it, determines who wins.

Now this man knows what he is talking about. If everyone of your foes are dead, then you've won haven't you.

No, because you'll make new foes in bringing it to pass.

Eventually, it'll just be you, alone - because you'll have found cause for war with every other person.

It's a Pyrrhic victory. At best.

Not really, after you defeat enough foes. The remaining nations will either be your allies or they will be too afraid of your military might to dare attack you.

Right.

That's why Al Qaeda disappeared after we finished invading Afghanistan AND Iraq.

Oh. Wait.

[Dododecapod]

"As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."

/thread

While I disagree with the notion of "good and evil" in an absolute sense, in terms of relative morality(IE Person 1 defines Person 1 as "Good" and Person 2 as "evil" due to their conflicting aims, it is the truth in only their context.) this is 100% correct and I stand behind this quote on those grounds. If you fight your enemy using any means necessary, you are no more good than this "evil" enemy you want to eliminate.

This assumes you seek some sort of moral high ground. Historically, there has been no real distinction between most foes, beyond "us" and "them". WWI is a good example.
On the other hand, a distinction can usually be made in the present era between those who follow the laws of war and those who do not. Violation of such laws is neither a good idea nor necessary.

[Coffin-Breathe]

I´d suggest, you "Mericans" rethink most of your made statements from the point of view, that you and your country is the one to be invaded...and you´re the ones suffering an occupying army on your nation´s territory then - and I´m quite sure, thias would change your arguements seriously (maybe except of the few idiots who simply argue "why not nuking them, `cause we can").

If the so-called "invaders" overthrew the tyrannical regime that was oppressing, imprisoning and killing my friends, family, fellow citizens and possibly even myself, I would be glad to be "invaded". The "invaders" would not be causing me to "suffer" anything other than the absence of a prison cell to be confined in. The dead-enders of the former evil regime and their allies, on the other hand, would be causing me to suffer, due to their homicide bombings, using my fellow citizens as shields, and other evil terrorist acts.

Simplistic hypotheticals shed little light on the matter.

Ever lived in such a nation ? Maybe yes, if you´re American...but whatever, you´re simply supposing, from your point of view, what inhabitants of somewhere else might think of - mostly based on your "American" filtered knowledge and the needs to legalize some unasked and incorrect invasion of foreign countries by your own...and the best is : did your (US) intervention change anything in these countries to be better for the people living there ? No ! Resistance only grew after your army occupying.
Btw, you didn´t answer my suggestion to see your own country invaded and occupied instead...

[Coffin-Breathe]

I´d suggest, you "Mericans" rethink most of your made statements from the point of view, that you and your country is the one to be invaded...and you´re the ones suffering an occupying army on your nation´s territory then - and I´m quite sure, thias would change your arguements seriously (maybe except of the few idiots who simply argue "why not nuking them, `cause we can").

nuking is only a last resort. simply because of the MAD concept. however use of any type of surgical strike or UAV missile strike i would justify. even if there were civilian casualties we need to get rid of them. just think of the damage one bomber can cause in a populated area. they are all capable of pulling off a roadside of suicide bomb. as long as the civ casualties are projected to be considerably less than what the enemy would kill if they decided to go on a shootout or bomb spree then you can consider their deaths a necessary sacrifice to save more lives. We need to strike them where they are. We need them to know that we are not too afraid to go after them when they hide with civs. think about it. if they realized we were not afraid to shoot through the shoulder of the human shield to kill them would they bother going to the trouble of taking effort to have a human shield?

...fine concept, don´t you think so ? The exchange of a few hundred victims caused by some suicide bomber to a few millions by nuking the whole area - go ahead then, eagerly supporting their cause...suicide (as the term should state) bombers and most fanatic terrorists are not afraid of dying. And I would like to read your statement again, if you´re taken for hostage and body-shielding - I´m almost sure, you would gladly yell : "Go on then and shoot through my body to make the man hiding behind me know, that you don´t care for me !", amirite, home-boy ?

[Kelewann]

Plenty. It exists and it will always exist the only thing making Al Qaeda more dangerous than the rest of them is organization.

Not even vaguely true - the IRA was far more organised than Al Qaeda.

What differentiates Al Qaeda is almost exactly the OPPOSITE of what you just said - it's the fact that it's global, and totally de-centralised.

You can't kill Al Qaeda by invading a nation. ANY nation.

Also Al Qaeda targets civillions anywhere, IRA target of choice is military personel that is on their land.

[Grave_n_idle]

Plenty. It exists and it will always exist the only thing making Al Qaeda more dangerous than the rest of them is organization.

Not even vaguely true - the IRA was far more organised than Al Qaeda.

What differentiates Al Qaeda is almost exactly the OPPOSITE of what you just said - it's the fact that it's global, and totally de-centralised.

You can't kill Al Qaeda by invading a nation. ANY nation.

Also Al Qaeda targets civillions anywhere, IRA target of choice is military personel that is on their land.

Or hotels in Brighton. Or shopping centres in the capital. Let's not pretend the IRA were anything less than they were, shall we?

[Kelewann]

Plenty. It exists and it will always exist the only thing making Al Qaeda more dangerous than the rest of them is organization.

Not even vaguely true - the IRA was far more organised than Al Qaeda.

What differentiates Al Qaeda is almost exactly the OPPOSITE of what you just said - it's the fact that it's global, and totally de-centralised.

You can't kill Al Qaeda by invading a nation. ANY nation.

Also Al Qaeda targets civillions anywhere, IRA target of choice is military personel that is on their land.

Or hotels in Brighton. Or shopping centres in the capital. Let's not pretend the IRA were anything less than they were, shall we?

If that is how what I was saying came across then I am sorry. I was mearly trying to say that the IRA is nothing like Al quidea.

[Yootopia]

Plenty. It exists and it will always exist the only thing making Al Qaeda more dangerous than the rest of them is organization.

Not even vaguely true - the IRA was far more organised than Al Qaeda.

What differentiates Al Qaeda is almost exactly the OPPOSITE of what you just said - it's the fact that it's global, and totally de-centralised.

You can't kill Al Qaeda by invading a nation. ANY nation.

Also Al Qaeda targets civillions anywhere, IRA target of choice is military personel that is on their land.

I was unaware that shopping centres were a military target.

[Kelewann]

Plenty. It exists and it will always exist the only thing making Al Qaeda more dangerous than the rest of them is organization.

Not even vaguely true - the IRA was far more organised than Al Qaeda.

What differentiates Al Qaeda is almost exactly the OPPOSITE of what you just said - it's the fact that it's global, and totally de-centralised.

You can't kill Al Qaeda by invading a nation. ANY nation.

Also Al Qaeda targets civillions anywhere, IRA target of choice is military personel that is on their land.

I was unaware that shopping centres were a military target.

True but in some cases they told people that the bomb was going to happen to prevent civillion deaths (I know they did not do this for all of them, but for some of them they did) thats how the major bomb in the shoping district only caused 1 civillion death by a jurnalist that got to close.
Edit: to the person who said lets not pretend that their less than they are: Do you mean the truth based on facts? or british propoganda? or Irish propoganda?

[Grave_n_idle]

Plenty. It exists and it will always exist the only thing making Al Qaeda more dangerous than the rest of them is organization.

Not even vaguely true - the IRA was far more organised than Al Qaeda.

What differentiates Al Qaeda is almost exactly the OPPOSITE of what you just said - it's the fact that it's global, and totally de-centralised.

You can't kill Al Qaeda by invading a nation. ANY nation.

Also Al Qaeda targets civillions anywhere, IRA target of choice is military personel that is on their land.

Or hotels in Brighton. Or shopping centres in the capital. Let's not pretend the IRA were anything less than they were, shall we?

If that is how what I was saying came across then I am sorry. I was mearly trying to say that the IRA is nothing like Al quidea.

Terrorists.

Apparently, they're kinda like them, after all.

[Buffett and Colbert]

Is this guy seriously arguing that the IRA isn't a terrorist group, and didn't bomb civilian targets?

[Garimidia]

Is this guy seriously arguing that the IRA isn't a terrorist group, and didn't bomb civilian targets?

I believe so... it's a scary thought.

[Saint Jade IV]

Sometimes I really think the only reason that Muslim terrorist groups are seen as worse than others is that they are more successful. Honestly though, when civilians are attacked by radicals, as happens in most terrorist movements around the world, to me, the intent, not the actual body count, is what matters.

I also believe that by lowering ourselves to the level of those who would attack civilians, we merely become that which we are fighting. Something we should guard against at every opportunity.

[Grave_n_idle]

Is this guy seriously arguing that the IRA isn't a terrorist group, and didn't bomb civilian targets?

The IRA were the nice kind of terrorists. Less 'terror-ist' and more like 'slightly-spooky-ists'. It's a misconception that they used, guns, bombs, mortars, and other forms of weaponry to kill, maim, and destroy - they actually did a lot of good work for charity, and mainly leveraged their political agenda through the application of bunnies and kittens.

[JJ Place]

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?

It lessens your cause down to nothing, even if your fighting the worse of the worst people. The good guys don't torture people, nor do they kill innocents. The rules apply to everyone, there are no ways to "Bend" the rules.

[Garimidia]

Is this guy seriously arguing that the IRA isn't a terrorist group, and didn't bomb civilian targets?

The IRA were the nice kind of terrorists. Less 'terror-ist' and more like 'slightly-spooky-ists'. It's a misconception that they used, guns, bombs, mortars, and other forms of weaponry to kill, maim, and destroy - they actually did a lot of good work for charity, and mainly leveraged their political agenda through the application of bunnies and kittens.

Well, not necessarily, many of these attacks were pulled off by the IRA.

[Garimidia]

Lol, I used to think the IRA was the Irish tax department.

[Tergnitz]

There is no prize for runner-up in a war. Unless your nation is prepared to use every single means to achieve victory, you might as well declare defeat now. If you allow your enemy to use successful tactics which you then prevent your own nation from using, you are just making their eventual victory all that much quicker.

Word.

The myth that non-state enemies like al-Qaeda can't be defeated needs to be shot in the head and buried under a ton of rubble. There is no refuting the argument that if you kill all of your enemies, you win. Also, if your actions make it unmistakeably clear to your enemy that it can't win, and that it will be crushed without mercy and everything it values will be destroyed along with it unless it permanently stands down, it is likely that that enemy will sooner or later realize it and give up.

It's all a matter of power and, more importantly, will. Who has the power, and who has the will to use it, determines who wins.

Now this man knows what he is talking about. If everyone of your foes are dead, then you've won haven't you.

No, because you'll make new foes in bringing it to pass.

Eventually, it'll just be you, alone - because you'll have found cause for war with every other person.

It's a Pyrrhic victory. At best.

Not really, after you defeat enough foes. The remaining nations will either be your allies or they will be too afraid of your military might to dare attack you.

Right.

That's why Al Qaeda disappeared after we finished invading Afghanistan AND Iraq.

Oh. Wait.

Obviously we havent killed them all yet.

[The galatic planes]

that's what nukes are for

[Grave_n_idle]

There is no prize for runner-up in a war. Unless your nation is prepared to use every single means to achieve victory, you might as well declare defeat now. If you allow your enemy to use successful tactics which you then prevent your own nation from using, you are just making their eventual victory all that much quicker.

Word.

The myth that non-state enemies like al-Qaeda can't be defeated needs to be shot in the head and buried under a ton of rubble. There is no refuting the argument that if you kill all of your enemies, you win. Also, if your actions make it unmistakeably clear to your enemy that it can't win, and that it will be crushed without mercy and everything it values will be destroyed along with it unless it permanently stands down, it is likely that that enemy will sooner or later realize it and give up.

It's all a matter of power and, more importantly, will. Who has the power, and who has the will to use it, determines who wins.

Now this man knows what he is talking about. If everyone of your foes are dead, then you've won haven't you.

No, because you'll make new foes in bringing it to pass.

Eventually, it'll just be you, alone - because you'll have found cause for war with every other person.

It's a Pyrrhic victory. At best.

Not really, after you defeat enough foes. The remaining nations will either be your allies or they will be too afraid of your military might to dare attack you.

Right.

That's why Al Qaeda disappeared after we finished invading Afghanistan AND Iraq.

Oh. Wait.

Obviously we havent killed them all yet.

No shit, sherlock.

[Grave_n_idle]

that's what nukes are for

who would you nuke?

[Dregruk]

that's what nukes are for

who would you nuke?

Their spawn point, obviously.