• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

A second DAY OF INFAMY

As much as I am appaulled by the events in NYC & Washington. I am even more appaulled by this thread. The solution is not an eye for an eye, for that only means the whole world becomes blind. I understand your pain and fustration. However, terrible these bombings are there are no excuse to launch nuclear or other weapons of mass distruction.

When NATO was bombing Belgrade, it was hoped that someone could strike back. Because these were innocent civilian targets that were hit. Instead, people just prayed for the madness to stop. What ought to be the feelings of the citizens of Belgrade? Hatred toward the United States and NATO. No. We realize that the bombing was directed against a dictator and a fanatic.

Justice will only be served when the rule of law is upheld. Calls for nukes are only calls for State Terrorism. Do you really want to decend to those depths? Just because you have the power, it gives one the moral imparative to restain from action. Less the next strike against some civilian target would be nuclear in nature.

Let us mobilize those resources that are being called up for War be directed to help the victims of this terrible tragedy.
 
I think that if afganistan is implicated in this the army should certainly invade and seize the government. The actual culprits should be found and tried while the contry is controled (this would be very difficult and likely produce a lot of really traumatic stories of intruige, ambush, fanatacism and atrocity.) It would also be a good time to get some people into afganistan and feed that half of the country that is starving to death. Free elections should be held and the US forces should then just leave. In a nutshell I think that the Taliban should be replaced (except in the unlikely event that they manage to win a free election after whats happened) if it turns out that they had anything to do with the attacks on NY and DC. I certainly do not want to hear about some lady who is already one of the most oppressed people on earth get a bomb dropped on her head just because she lives in afganistan (that will happen often enough even without meaning to do it).

I hope that a US soldier of afgan descent will walk through down town Kabul and say to the locals, "don't let this happen again." Because I imagine that those that hear him/her will probably take it to heart.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kafka47:
As much as I am appaulled by the events in NYC & Washington. I am even more appaulled by this thread. The solution is not an eye for an eye, for that only means the whole world becomes blind. I understand your pain and fustration. However, terrible these bombings are there are no excuse to launch nuclear or other weapons of mass distruction.

When NATO was bombing Belgrade, it was hoped that someone could strike back. Because these were innocent civilian targets that were hit. Instead, people just prayed for the madness to stop. What ought to be the feelings of the citizens of Belgrade? Hatred toward the United States and NATO. No. We realize that the bombing was directed against a dictator and a fanatic.

Justice will only be served when the rule of law is upheld. Calls for nukes are only calls for State Terrorism. Do you really want to decend to those depths? Just because you have the power, it gives one the moral imparative to restain from action. Less the next strike against some civilian target would be nuclear in nature.

Let us mobilize those resources that are being called up for War be directed to help the victims of this terrible tragedy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

State terrorism?

No. You are wrong, and have very little concept on the nature of conflict, and what it all entails.

My call for a nuclear strike to anhilate the operative base for these organizations is just.

They do not discriminate targets. We have. The only problem with out counter tactic is that by arresting the people involved we leave out, and do not touch, all those who urge them on, and give them other forms of moral, but not direct, support. An attack of this magnitude requires a response of overwhelming force, as we have done in the past.

In my book this means vaporizing their support base; all their cities, all their roads, all their houses, all their farms, all their cars, and all other things of their person and being.

This seems to frighten you. This is what makes war a thing to be avoided. These are the stakes. We either put an end to it now, or forever suffer attacks which, in my opinion, will only grow greater in magnitude.
 
Hey..got a new rule..

The country who has terrorists fighting for it IS the country responsible.
So, if the USA decides to release our imprisioned serial killers with a "you kill as many Whomevers as you can and we'll give you some holy salvation/monetary reward/parade" then the USA is responsible.
Since some think that simple US policy is reason to strike, so should a country's 'handling' of some people striking in their name.
We all KNOW that it would be demanded that USA make reparations if some supposedly 'Rouge' people started blowing up Mecca.
Responsibilty is the first of societies rules.
If we have enough proof for NATO to admit country 'X' is responsible, then country 'X' has a whole lot of ofiicail military whoop-ass and CIA covert ops coming their way.
If NATO doesn't think it is enough proof, then it's up to the US government to make the call and then the USA'll be, likewise, responsible....
I think nations might stop terrorist actions in their name when they are held responsible.
That's not an eye for an eye...that's punsihment where due. Everyone will know the rule: stay at the diplomatic table, 'cause if you use violence, you accept violence in return - your choice.
 
Also, it is the culture of terrorism that needs to be killed. The only way to do that is to show it does not work. The only way to do that, without MASSIVE casualties on your side, is to deny the goals of the terrorists EVEN MORE SO and punish them. When the country, itself, tells their people that terrorism will not be of any use and they die needlessly and without reward, then terrorism begins to scale back. Terrorist using nations MUST be forced into the conclusion that terrorism is regressive.
They don't think that now. Their people don't think that now.
That's the problem, kids, now are there any other solutions? Simple diplomacy is being called, by the terrorists, as the REASON for thier actions: "It is the policies of the US that makes them our enemies."

[This message has been edited by Gatsby (edited 13 September 2001).]
 
“The enemy still lives. They want to run away, to hide in their caves so they can creep out and kill and maim and destroy. It’s all they know. We see what they do and we say that’s inhuman. Brothers and Sisters! It is inhuman. They do inhuman acts because they are no longer human themselves!

For every one you kill today you’ll save the life of a Spartan, a dozen Spartans….Too many live and while they live they threaten our homes. Every one of them killed is a victory. Every one that escapes is a defeat for us….

Now we must hunt them down and kill them. Hunt them down like the wolves they are. For our homes. For our country. Kill them.”

From “Go Tell the Spartans”
By Jerry Pournelle and S.M. Stirling, 1991.


------------------
Dave "Dr. Skull" Nelson
 
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blue Ghost:
State terrorism?

No. You are wrong, and have very little concept on the nature of conflict, and what it all entails.

My call for a nuclear strike to anhilate the operative base for these organizations is just.

They do not discriminate targets. We have. The only problem with out counter tactic is that by arresting the people involved we leave out, and do not touch, all those who urge them on, and give them other forms of moral, but not direct, support. An attack of this magnitude requires a response of overwhelming force, as we have done in the past.

In my book this means vaporizing their support base; all their cities, all their roads, all their houses, all their farms, all their cars, and all other things of their person and being.

This seems to frighten you. This is what makes war a thing to be avoided. These are the stakes. We either put an end to it now, or forever suffer attacks which, in my opinion, will only grow greater in magnitude.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, your tone frightens me greatly. A belief that might makes right is one that is grounded in the absurd doctaraines that has led us to believe in every increasing levels of terror. Forgive me when I coined the term State Terrorism, by those people who launched their strike against NYC and DC never saw the people that they were attacking. They only saw them as representations of ideology, by going down this path blinded them that they were people they were killing. Conversely, the use of nuclear weapons on the basis they it will wipe out everything seems to a poor moral excuse to their use. Logic such as these can easily be abused by others who face threats against their citizens.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kafka47:
Yes, your tone frightens me greatly. A belief that might makes right is one that is grounded in the absurd doctaraines that has led us to believe in every increasing levels of terror. Forgive me when I coined the term State Terrorism, by those people who launched their strike against NYC and DC never saw the people that they were attacking. They only saw them as representations of ideology, by going down this path blinded them that they were people they were killing. Conversely, the use of nuclear weapons on the basis they it will wipe out everything seems to a poor moral excuse to their use. Logic such as these can easily be abused by others who face threats against their citizens.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, you're wrong. You are invoking your own persona into my words. You are projecting your personality on myself.

My reasoning for the employment of a nuclear strike is not out of some moral code, but one of pragmatism. Not only will it wipe out the supermajority of the network and support base, but will also set a fine example to all such groups across the face of this Earth.

What part of that don't you understand?
 
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blue Ghost:
My reasoning for the employment of a nuclear strike is not out of some moral code, but one of pragmatism. Not only will it wipe out the supermajority of the network and support base, but will also set a fine example to all such groups across the face of this Earth. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The only lesson that anybody is likely to take from a nuke retaliation strike is that we are actually as bad as the terrorists claim we are. To be effective our retaliation must be much more selective. We must capture, try and (though I am usually an opponent of the death penalty) kill all of those responsible for planning, supporting, and hosting the organization or organizations responsible for this act of barbarism. Our cause will not be forwarded by resorting to barbarism in return. Those who are behind these attacks (and the many others in other lands that share their political beliefs and evil tactics) are no more likely to surrender because we have bombed the crap out of Kabul than we are to alter our foreign policy because they have attacked the WTC and the Pentagon.

I understand and share your rage but your proposed course of action is wrong. Wrong because it requires us to stoop to the same level as the terrorists. Wrong because even a liberal application of firepower (say nuking the capitols of every state we suspect of ever harboring any terrorist organizations) would not guarentee the deaths of all of the guilty parties but mostly wrong because it just wouldn't stop this kind of attack in the future.

Military action could very well be required in this instance but let us hope (and those who are of a religious bent may choose to pray) that the leaders of this nation have the wisdom to see beyond grief and anger to craft a response worthy of the greatest democracy ever rather than just a terrorist strike of our own.

David Shayne

[This message has been edited by DaveShayne (edited 13 September 2001).]
 
Oh, give me a break.

Do you think we lust to do this?

Do you think we've been waiting for an opportunity to do this?

Do you think that were some trigger happy war mongers?

Get it through your head. These acts will only continue to escalate. People of strong character perform neccesary actions regardless of what people think. Your "We'll look bad" attitude is demonstrable of your own. You may want to find a "clique" to hang out with, because then you won't have to worry about your friends passing judgement on you.

The whole point of war is to destroy the opposition, and to establish one's dominance. The reasons for this remain upon those who are involved, but do not dictate the form of force to be used. The immediacy of tactics and objectives do.

Our actions must be decisve, complete, and overwhelming. The other alternative is to get mired in a long protracted desert engagement where it will be rifleman to rifleman type of combat.

Arrest them? Put them on trial? I got news for you, you're living in a dreamworld.

This is it.

This is conflict in the raw.

If you're not willing to commit yourself to what is neccesary, then go hide. If you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem.

Not all conflicts are nice neat clean affairs like our actions in the Gulf, Kosovo, and the Dominican Repulic. There are times when men, women and children die at the business end of weapon.

Nobody likes it. Nobody cherishes it. Nobody savors nor lusts after this. No sane person has any type of desire for this, but there comes a time when you need to crush the enemy. If they want to surrender, then great. Otherwise their lives are forfeit.

What part of this are you not understanding?
 
I've lurked on this thread for two days waiting for emotions to cool a little. I've seen calls for massive reprisals, nuclear strikes, all to put the fear of god into those responsible. These will not work. Fear works only if your target has any.


People call this attack "cowardly", it was not. The people who committed this act (I've not been able to find an adequate adjective to describe it) are not cowards, they are fanatics. A coward fears death, the fanatic awaits it with eager anticipation. There is no point trying to scare the fanatic, it is doomed to fail and in the process is guaranteed to create even more fanatics.

This is not to say that force has no place in the solution. It does. Precision strikes against the fanatics to reduce their ability to act. Precision strike against those who support terrorism as an arm of policy, those people do fear (though the west would do well to put its own house in order first here). But all the military power in the world can not end terrorism. Israel has tried for 53 years and failed, the UK for 40 years and failed, the list just goes on. No amount of force will stop terrorism, you can stop some, most perhaps, but the suicide bomber will always get through sometimes. What is needed is to address the root cause of the fanatics.

Terrorists do not exist in a vacuum. For every terrorist there is a real problem that feeds them. To end terrorism you must solve the problem and that can only be done by diplomacy and negotiation. Yes you can not negotiate with the fanatic, but for every fanatic there are many more moderates who you can negotiate with. Solve the problem and the fanatics will wither and die. Don't solve the problem and you are forever doomed to live with a gun in your hand.

And now I will turn over the soapbox and retire to don my absestos underware.


[This message has been edited by Andrewmv (edited 14 September 2001).]
 
I just wrote a long rambling 'thoughts on terrorism'....then I started getting involved in cases and 'what ifs'...but I am a straightforward guy:

If, for whatever reason, you plan to kill an unsupecting innocent human who could not defend himself, and plan to keep doing it, you NEED to be stopped with whatever means possible. If you cannot be arrested, you will be killed.

Terrorists are simple MURDERORS. War is against military and infrastructure targets.
It is admitted to by the agressor or the agressors host.
This was cowardly murder...and appropriate actions, despite some of the letters on this board, MUST be taken. Until a foe declares himself and admits it - until innocent targets - NOT collateral damage BUT TARGETS and those whose destruction CANNOT help a war effort- are not chosen, it is cowardly murder.

THAT IS THE TRUTH.

If the terrorists AND THOSE THAT AGREE with such acts wish to depart from the rules of society, then they cannot cry 'foul' for any reason or act suffered upon them. If you can't take responsibility for your acts, you are a coward and, purposefully, not a reasonable adult.

THAT IS FAIR.

You can argue about 'policy driven hardships' and such things, but the above is the boiled down TRUTH. The rest is just excuses for acting on hatred in a violent manner. If you allow such excuses then think of this:

IF AMERICAN POLICY CAUSES HARDSHIPS WHICH MUST BE REPAID BY SUCH A LOW ACT, THEN THE HARDSHIP SUFFERED FROM SUCH A LOW ACT CAN BE REPAID IN KIND....AND TERRORISM HAS NO RULES.

So you either play by the rules:

Imprisonment or death for Murder [note that terrorism IS Murder not War, as defined above] and the SAME JUSTICE for those that harbor and reward such acts, be they religions or governments.

Or you don't:

One can use whatever means necassary to attack your percieved opponenet.

IT IS THAT SIMPLE.
 
Precision weapons; super against a mechanized force, like the Soviet military, or an armed force utilizing Soviet hardware.

When you're dealing with a guerilla force things beomce a little dicier. There're very few hard targets (tanks, artillery, apcs and so forth) to hit.

So, no, there really isn't a way to execute the type of precision bombing that we have done in past conflicts, particularly against a force like the Taliban.

On the taking of innocents.

I hope people will remember past conflicts where we fire bombed places like Dresdin, Tokyo and so forth. We killed people, and made life miserable for those who survived, as well as hitting vast industrial and military centers, and the economy that supports them.

You people somehow think that only the Afghani military are the bad guys.

That somehow if we just take away their weapons they'll see the error of their ways and give up.

That somehow really no one wants to kill anyone.

This is wrong. The evidence is so stark, so plain, so astoundingly IN YOUR FACE, that they want us DEAD.

Not only do they want us dead, but they're willing to KILL THEMSELVES to achieve this.

And not only do they want to kill us, but they want to kill AS MANY OF US AS THEY CAN.

And it's not just the AK-47 wielding supporter, but his personal supporters who are in the form of his family and friends; the people who give him hugs and kisses when comes home. The people who feed him and keep his bed warm. They encourage him. They tell him how great he is for being part of the cause.

Again, what are you not understanding about this?

What do you need to get this driven into your skulls? A colored diagram with big lettering arrows?

They don't care about us. They don't like us. They think we're inferior. They want us dead.

Additionally NPR is now reporting that Pakistan has publicly stated that no one makes war with them without using nuclear weapons.

And you people want to arrest them? Christ almighty, what are you going to do? Call Kabuls finest and have them issue a search warrant of bin Laden's home?

You people are living in a fantasy.

Acts of war do not always entail attacks on military targets. The whole point of war is to conquer the other side through destructive means.

Again, why are you NOT understanding this?

Stop role playing for once and go outside and great a breath of fresh air! Go to a park, sit down, and REALLY THINK about the history of conflict, and what has proven to work, and what has not.

[This message has been edited by Blue Ghost (edited 14 September 2001).]
 
I meant 'arrest', for that is the considered, humane option to do. I DO know beyond doubt that these people will not allow themselves to be 'arrested'. Which, I guess, leaves us with the other option....and I have no qualms about it.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TheRaptor:
I am an Australian, and I offer my sympathy
and condolences to the families of the victims. And I think that very soon the people behind the WTC and pentagon attacks will get a nice little gift from some marine recon team or a seal team.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While many do not realize you folks down under have been a strong supporter of our country for many years, there are some that remember. Always happy to have the folks down under with us.
 
It is long past the time when we should care about what another country thinks about us. Do they like us? Don' they like us. It does not matter whether or not they like us what matters is they should fear us above anything else. They should fear us so much that the thought of giving aid or shelter to our enemies make they soil they pants.

No amount of nuclear force is going to stop terrorism. What nuclear force will do is stop any other government for giving aid or shelter to terrorists. If you know a nuclear attack will be the result of helping or sheltering a terrorist it will be something you will not do.

We must deal with the terrorists in one way and the governments that give them shelter and aid in another. Terrorists only understand death and that is what they should get. Governments understand fear of nuclear strikes and that is what they should get.

They have had their warning from President Bush, they need no further warning. The way to avoid a nuclear strike is to exterminate any terrorist within their boarders.
 
You people are starting to scare me. How does raining nuclear death on countless innocent civilians for the actions of their government (which btw is not chosen by said civilians) make us any better than the terrorist? How does hunting down and murdering terrorists make things better? Israel has been trying it for decades and all they've achieved is to create two new suicide bombers for every one they kill.

Mass death and destruction brought down on a percived enemy may well be cathartic, but it goes nowhere towards actually solving the problem and probably makes things worse.

We must never abandon our principles and freedoms, even when fighting terrorism. Hunt them down, arrest them (if possible) and give them a fair trial. Isolate and strike with precision against the governments who support them. But never, never must we use the methods of the terrorists themselves. If we sink to their level then they have truly won. One of the US founding fathers (I forget which) summed it up best "Those that surrender liberty and freedom for security deserve neither".
 
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrewmv:
One of the US founding fathers (I forget which) summed it up best "Those that surrender liberty and freedom for security deserve neither".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not talking about surrendering any liberty or freedom. Freedom has a price and those not willing to pay the price will lose their freedom. The price here is this nice feeling of being able to allow terrorists and those who aid them to live.

Isreal has not done what I have stated. They have never used a nuclear strike on their enemies. They have been pressured by well meaning people to give up land for peace and you can see the results. Those who they give up the land to demand more and more while attacking the very government who is trying to make peace with them.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Shadow Bear:
I am not talking about surrendering any liberty or freedom. Freedom has a price and those not willing to pay the price will lose their freedom. The price here is this nice feeling of being able to allow terrorists and those who aid them to live.

Isreal has not done what I have stated. They have never used a nuclear strike on their enemies. They have been pressured by well meaning people to give up land for peace and you can see the results. Those who they give up the land to demand more and more while attacking the very government who is trying to make peace with them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay I can well understand how in light of the thousands of dead, people will be angry and want to see blood. But please just stop and think.

Subjecting thousands of innocent civilians to nuclear anhilation will not bring a single one of the dead back. It will not achieve anything that can not be achieved through other far less dramatic and destructive means. It is guaranteed to create thousands of new suicide bombers. And above all it will reduce us to the same level as those who committed this act in the first place.

As to Israel, this is not the place to discuss that topic, but for the past 53 years Israel has responded to terrorism by ever increasing levels of force and violence, and still its citizens live in fear of the terrorist's bomb. Force alone will never solve this problem.
 
I have avoided this thread as well since I am still pretty mad. However on tanknet. www.tanknet.org in the forums, they have some powerful arguments going on as well. Andrew, the founding father was Benjamin Franklin IIRC. I personally think a multi-tiered approach using few (if any) nuclear strikes, massive conventional bombing using FAE to collapse the caves, and insertion of Ranger/SEAL/Force Recon/Special Forces/SAS teams to eradicate the guilty would work. I have personally backed off of the "nuke 'em till they glow" outlook of a few days ago. If nukes ARE used, they need to be small tactical weapons, under 10 kt, directly targeted on very High priority targets (such as Baghdad). However the use of special weapons needs to be agonized over, and only used if the target cannot be gotten any other way.

A reminder: Donate blood, blankets, money to the Red Cross/Red Crescent/Red Star of David organizations. Please.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
A different paradigm for naval warfare (and maybe even piracy?)
7 8 9
Replies
163
Views
9K
Liam Devlin
L
K
What is the impact of a Frontier War?
Replies
3
Views
1K
The Oz
The Oz
Back
Top