War On Terror's Other Cost: Undeserved Anger At All Muslims

[MK262]

Originally Posted by Penn

This is the second time you have been intentional disrespectful. Correct it.



I have read all your post, from your expressed sympathies for KIA's, to defensive sensibilities, and the epressed understanding of the islam, in a phrase, aggressively sensitive, with purpose. I like that to watch a road being constructed.

I am not, muslim ideology is the exact opposite of my entire belief system.

I sent you an IM. I hope that clears some of this up.

[T-Rock]

It's just as useless as saying 1.2 billion people should be judged as a whole due to the actions of those who we are actually fighting.

What religious ideology inspires those we are fighting? Who said anyone was judging 1.2 billion individuals on their personal merits? Islamic ideology is very straightforward. Islamic ideology, if practiced to perfection by its founder calls for violence and intolerance towards the “Kafir” in an unrelenting effort to make the “Kafir” submit to its ideology - Sharia Law. Is this constitutional?

Do you think a large portion of that 1.2 billion would choose to live their lives in the ME without the constant domination of Islam if they had the option?

The problem is not with Muslims, IMO, the problem is with Islamic ideology and those who adopt it, that demands the earthly oppression and submission of the “Kafir”…

[nmap]

Originally Posted by T-Rock

The problem is not with Muslims, IMO, the problem is with Islamic ideology and those who adopt it, that demands the earthly oppression and submission of the “Kafir”…

But the problem remains - how to differentiate between "Muslims" and "Islamic ideology and those who adopt it"?

Resolving the problems seems to depend on changing the ideology. But that seems to imply coercive power...which is just a fancy way of saying things others have said more clearly.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by MK262

I agree that it is useless. It's just as useless as saying 1.2 billion people should be judged as a whole due to the actions of those who we are actually fighting.

Judging people as individuals, based on their specific actions, seems like it would be much more helpful.

Did the Japanese and German citizens that we blasted and burned to death deserve to die because of the actions of their leaders?

Was the decision to nuke the largely civilian target cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified, in the context of the time and not knowing if it would force the Japanese government to surrender or not?

If it would drive them to peace with the rest of the world, how many Muslim deaths would be acceptable? How many American deaths would it take for you to believe that those harsh measures might need to be taken?

I would also say that serving in theater and losing friends there might change your perspectives.

On another note, please keep your replies here civil, you are a guest in our house.

TR

[MK262]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Did the Japanese and German citizens that we blasted and burned to death deserve to die because of the actions of their leaders?

Was the decision to nuke the largely civilian target cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified, in the context of the time and not knowing if it would force the Japanese government to surrender or not?

If it would drive them to peace with the rest of the world, how many Muslim deaths would be acceptable? How many American deaths would it take for you to believe that those harsh measures might need to be taken?

I would also say that serving in theater and losing friends there might change your perspectives.

On another note, please keep your replies here civil, you are a guest in our house.

TR

First, who are the leaders of Islam who are to make this grand surrender? Is there a Caliphate I don't know about that will abdicate surrender? I don't think there is going to be any signing of terms on a Carrier like in WWII.

Secondly, the tactics we employed in WWII were due to the limited technology of the time. As someone who hasn't been in the military, but who has studied both International Law, the Laws of Armed Warfare, and the concept of Just War Theory, what you are arguing for is immoral and untenable in modern warfare.

To ask servicemen to kill indiscriminately, until some ultimate Islamic authority emerges from the shadows to give some symbolic gesture of surrender, is ridiculous.

It is even more ridiculous to ask how many dead I would accept before adopting such tactics. You're asking me what it would take for me to become a killer of innocent men, women and children.

As for the civil discussion... understood. I will keep my comments within bounds. I would hope you could understand though, that when someone questions both your loyalty, your word, and your love of country, they are being insulting as well.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by MK262

First, who are the leaders of Islam who are to make this grand surrender? Is there a Caliphate I don't know about that will abdicate surrender? I don't think there is going to be any signing of terms on a Carrier like in WWII.

Secondly, the tactics we employed in WWII were due to the limited technology of the time. As someone who hasn't been in the military, but who has studied both International Law, the Laws of Armed Warfare, and the concept of Just War Theory, what you are arguing for is immoral and untenable in modern warfare.

To ask servicemen to kill indiscriminately, until some ultimate Islamic authority emerges from the shadows to give some symbolic gesture of surrender, is ridiculous.

It is even more ridiculous to ask how many dead I would accept before adopting such tactics. You're asking me what it would take for me to become a killer of innocent men, women and children.

As for the civil discussion... understood. I will keep my comments within bounds. I would hope you could understand though, that when someone questions both your loyalty, your word, and your love of country, they are being insulting as well.

First, the Missouri was a battleship, not a carrier <<LINK>>.

Second, the statement that "the tactics we employed in WWII were due to the limited technology of the time" needs clarification if it is going to support your point of view. At present, you're hinting at a counter factual argument that belies the history of combat operations in Europe and the Pacific and also discounts the fact that technology was but one of several factors that shaped tactics. (FWIW, I'd place civil-military relations, logistics, and grand strategy before technology but that's just my two cents.)

Third, I think you're confusing the amoral use of war as a means to an end for the immoral use of violence for its own sake.

Fourth, saying that the killing of civilians is "untenable in modern warfare" turns the definition of modern warfare on its head and flies in the face of global history.

[MK262]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

First, the Missouri was a battleship, not a carrier <<LINK>>.

Thanks for the correction.

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Second, the statement that "the tactics we employed in WWII were due to the limited technology of the time" needs clarification if it is going to support your point of view. At present, you're hinting at a counter factual argument that belies the history of combat operations in Europe and the Pacific and discounts the fact that technology was but one of several factors that shaped tactics.

True... there were other driving factors at the time as well. But as it applies in today's context, we have the military power and technological means to make any such past justification irrelevant (I would argue).

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Third, I think you're confusing the amoral use of war as a means to an end for the immoral use of violence for its own sake.

No... I'm not.

The Just War theory is an authoritative Catholic Church teaching confirmed by the United States Catholic Bishops in their pastoral letter, The Challenge of Peace: God's Promise and Our Response, issued in 1983. More recently, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in paragraph 2309, lists four strict conditions for "legitimate defense by military force":

- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

- there must be serious prospects of success;

- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_War

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Fourth, saying that the killing of civilians is "untenable in modern warfare" turns the definition of modern warfare on its head and flies in the face of global history.

Allow me to clarify. The indiscriminate killing of civilians to force some sort of capitulation is untenable in modern warfare. This is what Penn and TR were advocating.

[Peregrino]

Originally Posted by MK262

Secondly, the tactics we employed in WWII were due to the limited technology of the time. As someone who hasn't been in the military, but who has studied both International Law, the Laws of Armed Warfare, and the concept of Just War Theory, what you are arguing for is immoral and untenable in modern warfare.

Your "immoral and untenable" comment bespeaks a complete lack of understanding about armed conflict/war. The ONLY immoral act in total war is losing when you have the ability to win. Though I might make allowance for including the stupidity of attempting to wage "humane" war. The sooner the enemy population can be forced to capitulate, the sooner the war is over and the fewer the atrocities/suffering of the affected populations. The world has not had a general or total war since WWII. The Soldiers I know all lose sleep praying the next one doesn't happen in the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, indications are as soon as Achmed IMANUTJOB gets his nukes (or the ISI sells him some) we'll see if Einstein was right about WWIV.

Interesting irony from someone advocating restraint that your screen name is the military designation for a cartridge adopted to make the 5.56 round a more effective "hadji killer".

[MK262]

Originally Posted by Peregrino

Your "immoral and untenable" comment bespeaks a complete lack of understanding about armed conflict/war. The ONLY immoral act in total war is losing when you have the ability to win. Though I might make allowance for including the stupidity of attempting to wage "humane" war. The world has not had a general or total war since WWII. The Soldiers I know all lose sleep praying the next one doesn't happen in the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, indications are as soon as Achmed IMANUTJOB gets his nukes (or the ISI sells him some) we'll see if Einstein was right about WWIV.

Interesting irony from someone advocating restraint that your screen name is the military designation for a cartridge adopted to make the 5.56 round a more effective "hadji killer".

I'm aware of what my screen name means. I'm glad the round is available to our troops and I hope it helps them put more effective rounds on target.

As for your advocacy of Total War.... I'm no Col. Kurtz... I'll leave that to others.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by MK262

As someone who hasn't been in the military, but who has studied both International Law, the Laws of Armed Warfare, and the concept of Just War Theory, what you are arguing for is immoral and untenable in modern warfare.

Where did I argue for that? I asked you a couple of questions that you have refused to answer.

Let me ask you again.

1. Were the firebombing of Hamburg, Dresden, and Tokyo justifiable?

2. Were the two nuclear weapons employed against Japan reasonable?

3. Were the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki acceptable targets?

4. In the event of an Islamic WMD deployment killing a large number of American citizens, would Mecca or Medina be an acceptable target? How about a lesser Islamic shrine?

5. Are you familiar with reprisals, as permitted by the laws of land warfare?

Finally, when did the era of modern warfare begin, as you define it?

Originally Posted by MK262

To ask servicemen to kill indiscriminately, until some ultimate Islamic authority emerges from the shadows to give some symbolic gesture of surrender, is ridiculous.

That is your construct. Where did I suggest that?

Originally Posted by MK262

It is even more ridiculous to ask how many dead I would accept before adopting such tactics.

I asked if there was number of American dead that could ever justify that level of response again. 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? 10,000,000? 100,000,000? Surely with all of your studies, you must have a general idea of how many Americans you are willing to sacrifice before striking back. You are the POTUS and CINC. Do you just avoid taking action and accept the losses? What if the casulaties destroy America, or make it open to invasion? What if your family was among the casualties. Does that make any difference?

Originally Posted by MK262

You're asking me what it would take for me to become a killer of innocent men, women and children.

Did I? Where?

Hypotheticals here.

You are in a convoy of three vehicles. The lead and trail vehicles are destroyed by command detonated IEDs. Your buddies are trapped inside,screaming as they are burned alive. You are close and know their families. Your remaining crewmates move quickly and you catch the trigger man still holding the detonator, but otherwise unarmed. What do you do?

Your team is receiving small arms and RPG fire from a family dwelling. You know that there are women and children there. In fact, the insurgents have deliberately selected that structure to avoid artillery and air attacks. Ground reinforcements are hours away. You lose several teammates to the fire, run low on ammo, and are at risk of being wiped out. A B-1 is on station and has acquired the target. Do you clear him to deliver the ordnance on the house?

Originally Posted by MK262

As for the civil discussion... understood. I will keep my comments within bounds. I would hope you could understand though, that when someone questions both your loyalty, your word, and your love of country, they are being insulting as well.

Where did I do that to you?

TR

[MK262]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Where did I argue for that? I asked you a couple of questions that you have refused to answer.

Let me ask you again.

1. Were the firebombing of Hamburg, Dresden, and Tokyo justifiable?

At the time, sure. It's not like precision strikes were available back then.

2. Were the two nuclear weapons employed against Japan reasonable?

We didn't have the overwhelming advantage in military power in WWII that we have now, so sure. Many many hundreds of thousands of US troops would have died had we had to invade. Now that we do have such conventional military superiority, it would not be reasonable to "nuke them til they glow".

3. Were the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki acceptable targets?

Yes. See above.

4. In the event of an Islamic WMD deployment killing a large number of American citizens, would Mecca or Medina be an acceptable target? How about a lesser Islamic shrine?

No. It would serve no military or strategic utility. Furthermore, it's likely that non-state actors would be responsible; under such circumstances, how you would nuke a definitive country as retaliation for the actions of a non-state organization? It would be beyond any logical reasoning I could see, unless that state has helped facilitate the attack in some way.

5. Are you familiar with reprisals, as permitted by the laws of land warfare?

Yes. Of strategic and military value. Decapitation of leadership, destruction of critical infrastructure, military targets, etc. The concept of Proportionality comes into play with such strikes.

This does not include holy places or civilian populations centers by and large. Only in a M.A.D. scenario are civilian population centers and civilian targets brought into the picture.

Finally, when did the era of modern warfare begin, as you define it?

I would say during the Cold War.

That is your construct. Where did I suggest that?

When you advocated for Total War as was done in WWII. You don't think fire bombing of population centers was indiscriminate killing of men, women and children?

I asked if there was number of American dead that could ever justify that level of response again. 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? 10,000,000? 100,000,000? Surely with all of your studies, you must have a general idea of how many Americans you are willing to sacrifice before striking back. You are the POTUS and CINC. Do you just avoid taking action and accept the losses? What if the casulaties destroy America, or make it open to invasion? What if your family was among the casualties. Does that make any difference?

Do you see terrorists as having the capability to even make such a scenario likely?

Say they got hold of a Soviet era Bio Warfare strain of virulent airborne virus that could kill 100,000,000 Americans. And say they made it here with it and released it. Who do you retaliate against? Islamic countries? Russia? Who would you target and who would you retaliate against? See the difficulty in such a scenario?

Did I? Where?

I assumed that's what you were getting at when you were defending WWII fire bombing and implying that such tactics might be applicable to situations today.

Hypotheticals here.

You are in a convoy of three vehicles. The lead and trail vehicles are destroyed by command detonated IEDs. Your buddies are trapped inside,screaming as they are burned alive. You are close and know their families. Your remaining crewmates move quickly and you catch the trigger man still holding the detonator, but otherwise unarmed. What do you do?

He's still holding a detonator. How do I know he doesn't have yet another IED he's trying to set off. Smoke him!

Your team is receiving small arms and RPG fire from a family dwelling. You know that there are women and children there. In fact, the insurgents have deliberately selected that structure to avoid artillery and air attacks. Ground reinforcements are hours away. You lose several teammates to the fire, run low on ammo, and are at risk of being wiped out. A B-1 is on station and has acquired the target. Do you clear him to deliver the ordnance on the house?

In that scenario, you are left with no other option. I see what you are trying to do, but the matter of fact is, we do have other options in persecuting this war other than killing civilians wholesale. That is why the war is being fought as it is today. Civilians are killed in war, but we do everything we can to prevent civilian deaths, and that is the way it should be. I am no pacifist. I believe there are plenty of people out there that need killing. I believe that WAR SUCKS and that people, both good and bad will die. It's unavoidable. However, we should do everything possible to make collateral damage as minimal as we can. It's the moral and ethical responsibility we have when conducting war.

Where did I do that to you?

Not you, I was speaking of Penn. He was insulting toward me, and I was disrespectful in response.

TR

Done

[craigepo]

Originally Posted by MK262

The Just War theory is an authoritative Catholic Church teaching confirmed by the United States Catholic Bishops in their pastoral letter, The Challenge of Peace: God's Promise and Our Response, issued in 1983. More recently, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in paragraph 2309, lists four strict conditions for "legitimate defense by military force":

- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

- there must be serious prospects of success;

- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_War

Pursuant to the Catholic Church's above-mentioned 4-part test, I doubt even the American civil war would have been fought. Surely, taking life as necessary in waging war is a greater evil than slavery. (Not to mention Christ's dictate to slaves to remain slaves).

[Sigaba]

MK262--

IMO, it is interesting that your tone is so markedly different when you write about the killing of civilians during the Second World War compared to your objections to inflicting civilian casualties today. By my reading, the crux of your argument is that it was okay to vaporize Japanese nationals and to incinerate Germans during the 1940s because of 'technological' limitations. As an example, you state:

Originally Posted by MK262

Seeing as we didn't have the overwhelming advantage in military power at that time that we do now, sure. Many many hundreds of thousands of US troops would have died had we had to invade. Now that we do have such conventional military superiority, it would not be reasonable to "nuke them til they glow".

However, by 1945, the United States had the most powerful navy in human history while the Soviet Union had the world's greatest army. Are you suggesting that there was no application of the two that might have served as a viable alternative to using nuclear weapons?

My point here is that then, as today, it was people, not machines, who made choices. If you're going to apply moral judgments now, why not also do so for historical figures?

Two other points. First, I think you are in error in your discussion of "MAD".

Originally Posted by MK262

Only in a M.A.D. scenario are civilian population centers and civilian targets brought into the picture.

IMO, this statement is debatable. It suggests that counter-force and counter value targets are mutually exclusive categories. What about the Alameda NAS? Do you think anyone in the navy believed the Soviets were not willing to vaporize Oakland in the hope of catching VP-9 off guard? As for the Soviets, given that they designated Moscow as one of the two areas defended by anti-ballistic missiles under SALT I, it clear they understood that a counter-force target (i.e. the Kremlin) could also be a counter value target.

Second, your dating the start of "modern warfare" to "during the Cold War" stretches the "modern war" debate among military historians beyond recognition. Consequently, I must ask: In your view, what is "modern" war?

[MK262]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

MK262--

IMO, it is interesting that your tone is so markedly different when you write about the killing of civilians during the Second World War compared to your objections to inflicting civilian casualties today. By my reading, the crux of your argument is that it was okay to vaporize Japanese nationals and to incinerate Germans during the 1940s because of 'technological' limitations. As an example, you state:However, by 1945, the United States had the most powerful navy in human history while the Soviet Union had the world's greatest army. Are you suggesting that there was no application of the two that might have served as a viable alternative to using nuclear weapons?

Not that I could see. Can you suggest some alternatives with the technological limitations that existed at the time? Perhaps, set up a Navy blockade and siege of the cities and starve them into surrender? Not sure that would have been effective or doable at the time.

My point here is that then, as today, it was people, not machines, who made choices. If you're going to apply moral judgments now, why not also do so for historical figures?

I give historical figures more of a pass because they had less alternatives at their disposal.

Furthermore, I put more blame on the Germans and Japanese because they had a formal leadership that was responsible for their actions and for ensuring the safety of their people. No formal leadership exists in Islam to dictate and exert command authority over the Islamic world as a whole; to make the whole Islamic world responsible for the actions of a few seems totally unjust under such circumstances. The national command authorities of Germany and Japan had the will and legitimacy (well, in theory) to act on behalf of their people. Al-Queda and like groups can act on the behalf of no one but themselves.

Two other points. First, I think you are in error in your discussion of "MAD".IMO, this statement is debatable. It suggests that counter-force and counter value targets are mutually exclusive categories. What about the Alameda NAS? Do you think anyone in the navy believed the Soviets were not willing to vaporize Oakland in the hope of catching VP-9 off guard? As for the Soviets, given that they designated Moscow as one of the two areas defended by anti-ballistic missiles under SALT I, it clear they understood that a counter-force target (i.e. the Kremlin) could also be a counter value target.

Can you name such a target in the Muslim world that serves both as a counter-force and counter value target? If not, your point is somewhat moot in our context, at least in my opinion.

Second, your dating the start of "modern warfare" to "during the Cold War" stretches the "modern war" debate among military historians beyond recognition. Consequently, I must ask: In your view, what is "modern" war?

I had written out an answer to this part but my web session timed out. I lost it and will have to type it up again later.

Response

[T-Rock]

"No formal leadership exists in Islam to dictate and exert command authority over the Islamic world as a whole;..."

IMO, this is somewhat disingenuous - Leadership starts with liquid gold...,and the region where Islam was first revealed...

> http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=HXz0B_j9eHI
> http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=rdpCOaJuBx4