Neocons Baiting Iran With Second Strike Group

**xerxes** · 27 Jan 07,, 15:31

I am not seeing terrorising and terrorism as the same animal
But I strongly agree with astralis about the terror fire bombing.

Also, there is very strong proof of political agenda on part Churchill for the creation of mighty firestorm the derstroyed Dresden. Mainly to create a Ace in the hole against Stalin during their upcoming meeting.

About Lemay's quote, I believe that quote was uttered to McNamara, who was back then some sort assistant to Lemay.

@Ray the 500% accurate was a sarcastic addition by me

**xerxes** · 27 Jan 07,, 15:35

Originally Posted by smilingassassin

The rape of Nanking- no good reason as the region was well under Japanese control. Heres where you and I could go into lengthy discussion, terrorism or war crimes? Most certainly the latter, arguably the former. One should also note the Japanese military did not recognize the geneva convention rules.

I dont think so, I belive that they had just capture Nanjing. Their treatment of Nanjing can be partly blamed on commanding officer who failed strain them. But nevertheles IMHO it was a great act of terror aimed at terrorizing the population. But do remember that the war between China and Japan was undeclared war.

Originally Posted by smilingassassin

We have already established that we both agree, beheading is a dispicable crime, but what about civilians blowing themselves up amoungst other civilians rather than military targets?

IMHO ... civilians blowing themselves up amoungst other civilians are acts terrorism and the aim is to spread terror .. pure and simple

**TopHatter** · 27 Jan 07,, 21:37

Originally Posted by Ray

Clinton Administration was not 'removed from office".
That is not a correct statement.
It had finished its term. It did its two mandatory term, elected by the people of the USA.
Nixon was removed!

Apologies, It would have been more accurate had I said the Democratic Party's control of the Executive Branch.

**smilingassassin** · 28 Jan 07,, 03:11

Ray, I agree the Mujaheddin could be construed as terrorists, I merely stated it as debatable as some would see the Mujaheddin as freedom fighters who later became dis-illusioned and morphed into the Taliban.

It was still very similar to the current situation, a non-government faction shelling civilians in an attempt to oust the government and its backing partners.

Israel honestly is not a subject I like to touch, BOTH sides are guilty of horrible acts, however even with GPS bombs we still get colateral damage, sad fact of war and warfare. We could argue till the cows come home if the targets are terrorists or civilians....

**xerxes** · 28 Jan 07,, 05:24

Originally Posted by smilingassassin

Ray, I agree the Mujaheddin could be construed as terrorists, I merely stated it as debatable as some would see the Mujaheddin as freedom fighters who later became dis-illusioned and morphed into the Taliban.

that is very wrong ... By 1992, when the communist regime was overthrown, the Mujaheddin fractured to various pieces and into civil war. It didnot morph into anything. One of the factions that were made of Sunni Pushtans were supported by the ISI in their bid to gain control of Afghanistan. Enter the Taliban. Other pieces of Mujaheddin - mostly made of non-Pushtans - formed the Northern Alliance under the leadership of Dr. Rabbani and Ahmad Shah Massoud, both of them were former Mujaheddin. The Northern Alliance was supported by Russia, Iran and India, while the Taliban was supported by America's best friends: UAE, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Russia's aim in supporting its former enemies were merely of contaiment strategy in order to contain radical Islam (Taliban) from spreading into the young muslim republics of Central Asia. Kabul itself fell in 1996 to the Taliban and the Northern Alliance lost most of its footing.. you know the rest ......

Originally Posted by smilingassassin

It was still very similar to the current situation, a non-government faction shelling civilians in an attempt to oust the government and its backing partners.

agreed

Originally Posted by smilingassassin

Israel honestly is not a subject I like to touch, BOTH sides are guilty of horrible acts, however even with GPS bombs we still get colateral damage, sad fact of war and warfare. We could argue till the cows come home if the targets are terrorists or civilians....

that is fine ... that is touchy subject indeed... just remember the act of terror may not even be dropping bombs .. but also it could be the secret police going door to door in the middle of the night much like the NKVD's Red Terror in 1937-38.

Terror is not clean cut as you say. Any act that is meant to intimidate a population in peace time or war time is an act of war. It could be a large-scale incineration like Dresden or the SS going door to door in Warsaw.

About bombings that I mentioned all of them carry a political agenda so even they fit your own description. For example, the London blitz was first meant to be destruction of the RAF based but then switched to full-scale bombing of London. That is terror pure and simple. Same goes with Tokyo, Dresden, Warsaw, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Kiev, Nanjing and all others.

**smilingassassin** · 28 Jan 07,, 06:47

Your correct, I should have been more specific, elements of the Mujaheddin did sort themselves out into separate factions. However the Taliban dispite being supported by some of America's "freinds" still developed a hatred of America. My main point however was the fact that the Mujaheddin by definition would be no different that the current day Taliban.

Far enough on the Israel/Palistine issue but to be fair Palestinian gunman do the same, as I said neither side is squeaky clean, we can find many injustices on both sides. Israel simply has far more tools at its disposal thus incuring the expectation to turn the other cheak.

On the issue of Dresden/London Blitz ect. we will just have to agree to disagree. The current accuracy of bombing and mindset towards warfare in general is far different than it was in the 30's-40's. In the case of the Blitz the British civilians stood defiant despite the horrendous loss of life so the "terrorism" as you call it didn't work.

**xerxes** · 29 Jan 07,, 00:28

Originally Posted by smilingassassin

My main point however was the fact that the Mujaheddin by definition would be no different that the current day Taliban.

Absolutly ...

Originally Posted by smilingassassin

Far enough on the Israel/Palistine issue but to be fair Palestinian gunman do the same, as I said neither side is squeaky clean, we can find many injustices on both sides. Israel simply has far more tools at its disposal thus incuring the expectation to turn the other cheak.

I will add one last comment if I may in light what you have said about Israel not using all its military sources: ... the current situation there is not about Genocide but that of terror. Genocide is a easy short-term solution which cannot be practised in that part of the world with all the light spots .Germans used it and so did the Turks and others. But in case of Palestinean-Israeli situation terror is the key.

Each side and I mean very clearly - each side - is terrorizing the other side by maintaining the life in their respective side of the border compeletly untolerable. The terror of Palestiean suicide bomber or the rockets are meant to make life very uneasy for the common Israelis minding their own business, while the Israeli siege and treatment of the Palestinean is meant to equally frustate them completely as they live like animals caged into zoos. Each sides want the other to be yield first and to leave. There is a long term plan behind both cases and that long-term can only be accomplished by terror. Israel has nothing to gain by killing thousends more Palestinean, they will only get critisim. It is not about killing. It is about reversing the desire to stay by making life untolerable. But Palestieans, stubborn that they are the will never leave and only in turn return the favor to the Israelis.

Originally Posted by smilingassassin

On the issue of Dresden/London Blitz ect. we will just have to agree to disagree. The current accuracy of bombing and mindset towards warfare in general is far different than it was in the 30's-40's. In the case of the Blitz the British civilians stood defiant despite the horrendous loss of life so the "terrorism" as you call it didn't work.

what accuracy .... it is strategical bombing of cities meant to terrorize the people. It is meant to bomb and incinerate cities. If you are talking about industrical cities you have a point on accuracy issue but not major capital cities. Tokyo, Dresden, Warsaw, Berlin, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Kiev, Nanjing etc. etc. were not best known to be the source of arm factories.... maybe Hiroshima??

But you are correct about the British not giving in, but they are not the only ones, the Poles withstood it too with bravery, so did the Germans and the Japanese.

**Kansas Bear** · 29 Jan 07,, 00:53

Originally Posted by xerxes

Genocide is a easy short-term solution which cannot be practised in that part of the world with all the light spots .Germans used it and so did the Turks and others.

You might be careful assigning genocide to the Turk's actions. They might label you an Armenian....

**darth_malick** · 29 Jan 07,, 00:54

Originally Posted by smilingassassin

I strongly disagree with your labeling all acts of war as terrorist acts. There IS a fine line in war between legitamate acts of war and Terrorist acts. For the record I'll correct myself and agree with you, beheading for any reason is an unspeakable act of cruelty and as such IS terrorism, now or in the 11th century.

To put it bluntly however the firebombings, Blitz and Dresden bombings as horrible as they were, were not only strategic targets but moral targets, in that they were used to break the moral of those fighting.

Anyone with a shred of knowledge of the accuracy of WW2 bombing knows it was not very accurate and almost always ended up with some civilian deaths.
These are not acts of terrorism, its simply the way war was fought with the weapons at hand. If more accurate weapons were available then, the allies and quite possibly the more respectable German generals would have used them.

Equally Hiroshima and Nagasaki, while horrible acts of war taking the lives of thousands of civilians, ironically likely saved many more simply by making the cost of continuing a war already lost unsustainable.

The rape of Nanking- no good reason as the region was well under Japanese control. Heres where you and I could go into lengthy discussion, terrorism or war crimes? Most certainly the latter, arguably the former. One should also note the Japanese military did not recognize the geneva convention rules.

To sum it up, war is not like summer camp, people die, normally thats murder withing the confines of society but war has rules and these rules have changed according to the higher standards the civilized world demands.

We have already established that we both agree, beheading is a dispicable crime, but what about civilians blowing themselves up amoungst other civilians rather than military targets?

Some of your arguments mirror those of "Terrorists",

"moral" targets, what difference do they have to the type of bombing we see in Iraq, they also hit indescriminantly, not always military targets. The Firebombings of Japan and the Atomic boms dropped, were done so that it would be easier to win because the US was bankrupt and could't fund the war effort? Like a "Terrorist" justifying striking cities since they have not the funding or man-power to take over a Nation. It would save countless more lives to take over phisically, or would cost other nations even more lives if they didn't.

Your reasoning is quite similar as the ones who perform acts you denounce.

We kill because we are afraid of our own shadow, afraid that if we used a little common sense we'd have to admit that our glorious principles were wrong. ~Henry Miller

**xerxes** · 29 Jan 07,, 01:02

Originally Posted by Kansas Bear

You might be careful assigning genocide to the Turk's actions. They might label you an Armenian....

hehehe ... I am no Armeniean

I am just being fair .. personnaly I do like Ottoman history immensely and tend to talk about them. But at one point in another forum a Bulgarian nationalist got pissed off because in his view I was gloryfying the Turks ..

Therefore, since in this forum my avatar displays a the flag of middle eastern nation, I am trying to be fair to both sides so people wont assaign biasism on me ....

**smilingassassin** · 29 Jan 07,, 07:41

Originally Posted by xerxes

what accuracy ....

Thats my point, it took entire bomber sqadrons to pound a city in an effort to hit a specific target, something quite oten not achieved, hence the multiple attacks on a city. Several raids on German U-boat pens for example failed to distroy the pens themselves but completely leveled the surrounding city.

Originally Posted by xerxes

it is strategical bombing of cities meant to terrorize the people. It is meant to bomb and incinerate cities. If you are talking about industrical cities you have a point on accuracy issue but not major capital cities. Tokyo, Dresden, Warsaw, Berlin, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Kiev, Nanjing etc. etc. were not best known to be the source of arm factories.... maybe Hiroshima??

Startegic bombing of city's was meant to destroy the enemy's infrastructure. If the enemy has no power, no water, no factory's and no Oil his ability to continue fighting the war wanes. Few cities of the era lacked a large industrial region thus making major city's prime targets.The moral issue was merely a bonus.

Again the main point is precision bombing has negated the moral busting effect via civilain casualty's to a large degree, thus using WW2 bombing practices as a guide to terrorism is a poor choice. Precision bombing a mall or sports arena would clearly be a terrorist act.

**smilingassassin** · 29 Jan 07,, 07:45

Originally Posted by darth_malick

Some of your arguments mirror those of "Terrorists",

"moral" targets, what difference do they have to the type of bombing we see in Iraq, they also hit indescriminantly, not always military targets. The Firebombings of Japan and the Atomic boms dropped, were done so that it would be easier to win because the US was bankrupt and could't fund the war effort? Like a "Terrorist" justifying striking cities since they have not the funding or man-power to take over a Nation. It would save countless more lives to take over phisically, or would cost other nations even more lives if they didn't.

Your reasoning is quite similar as the ones who perform acts you denounce.

We kill because we are afraid of our own shadow, afraid that if we used a little common sense we'd have to admit that our glorious principles were wrong. ~Henry Miller

Your missing the point. Precision bombing is different than WW2 era bombing, the accuracy level is entirely different. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know moral was a HUGE factor in WW2.

I'd also caution you against accusing me of "mirroring" terrorist thinking.

**smilingassassin** · 29 Jan 07,, 07:49

Originally Posted by xerxes

hehehe ... I am no Armeniean

I am just being fair .. personnaly I do like Ottoman history immensely and tend to talk about them. But at one point in another forum a Bulgarian nationalist got pissed off because in his view I was gloryfying the Turks ..

Therefore, since in this forum my avatar displays a the flag of middle eastern nation, I am trying to be fair to both sides so people wont assaign biasism on me ....

The Turks like anyone else got some things right and some things wrong. The Armenian genocide is a huge blackspot on their image, but even so its overshadowed by the holocaust and the sweeping reforms of Mustafa Kemal.

**darth_malick** · 30 Jan 07,, 02:04

Originally Posted by smilingassassin

Your missing the point. Precision bombing is different than WW2 era bombing, the accuracy level is entirely different. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know moral was a HUGE factor in WW2.

I'd also caution you against accusing me of "mirroring" terrorist thinking.

Morale is a huge factor in any war. Dropping thousands of "precision" bombs a night, on a city for weeks is simply bombing, it may be more effective and cause less widespread devastation but shock and awe are the reason "terrorists" bomb as well.

My point was that in War either side often has a similar POV when it comes to striking their enemy, certainly at times one may be simply defending an invasion or and invader will be "saving/freeing" a population.

But the strike is always seen on one side to be justifiable,

Being outside a conflict we often choose a different POV.

I mentioned terrorist thinking to illustrate my point not to accuse someone of being one. Just to show similarity.

I meant no offense

**smilingassassin** · 30 Jan 07,, 05:48

Originally Posted by darth_malick

Morale is a huge factor in any war. Dropping thousands of "precision" bombs a night, on a city for weeks is simply bombing, it may be more effective and cause less widespread devastation but shock and awe are the reason "terrorists" bomb as well.

My point was that in War either side often has a similar POV when it comes to striking their enemy, certainly at times one may be simply defending an invasion or and invader will be "saving/freeing" a population.

But the strike is always seen on one side to be justifiable,

Being outside a conflict we often choose a different POV.

I mentioned terrorist thinking to illustrate my point not to accuse someone of being one. Just to show similarity.

I meant no offense

I disagree, POV has nothing to do with the accuracy of the bombs and how they are used. In WW2 bombs were not very accurate, many where needed to hit a specific tartget, not always successfully.

Now if you do the same with precision bombs, you are definately a "terrorist" for two reasons...
1) you wasting money on expensive and accurtate bombs to simply use them as dumb bombs, which clearly demonstrates your intent
2) Precision bombs are just that, precise, usually you only need one for a target.

The main problem is the loser always cry's foul when they are bombed, and the world is currently fixated with the underdog syndrom.