Matrix Games Forums

excellent post Moore4807, very well put

Originally posted by moore4807
MSG,
While I agree with your comments for the most part - check the bottom of my last post " If they want to hate us -Lets give them a reason..." is exactly WHY one can be opposed to violence yet understand and accept its inevitability.

I never will accept violence as an inevitability. I do however accept violence as a regrettable necessity sometimes. Do you see the difference?

Originally posted by moore4807

I do not expect anyone to think America is right and good in all things, I do not expect that everyone will like us as a nation, I DO expect that no one will purposely fly commercial airliners filled with innocent passengers into buildings - ever!, or bomb them from the skies, calling fear as a "holy" means to change world power?

I dont think any reasonable person would disagree with this. there are just so many unreasonable people all over this planet...

The same statement would hold for most other nations as well.

Originally posted by moore4807

As obviously wrong as I was about that, I strongly feel that those who would wage "war" against non-military innocents lose the right to exist or breathe air. I believe exterminating the family of the terrorist is the only way to cause enough fear in them to stop thier activities since killing our non-military family members is "ok" by them. (funny we are the "barbarians" and they are holy men?)

Killing innocents as retribution is an abominable notion. Anyone doing so is hardly of better moral fibre than OBL himself...

While taking a life in direct self defence, or defence of others can be justified, what you suggest is nothing more than a horrible crime. The Nazis tried this method all over Europe, and it acted more as a reason to defy them and join the resistances than as a deterrant.

Originally posted by moore4807

As I understand it, certain Muslims have multiple wives and it is honorable to have many sons... its been ok for centuries and its ok with me - just if they are terrorists who attack non-military civilians then the same/next generation of thier family is killed in retribution for the terrorist act (an eye-for-an-eye overkill, but deterrent nonetheless) I imagine we would see them spending a lot more time protecting and providing for their family than making themselves into bombs to kill others.

Originally posted by moore4807


Or would it enforce the conception of you as "evil"? You certainly would be performing a drekload of evil acts... You are suggesting that sometimes it is perfectly ok to specifically go after innocent civilians...

Someone once said, if we adhered to an eye for an eye, we would all be blind...

Originally posted by moore4807

Feel free to disagree and flame me if you must -fortunately I dont make America's foreign policy and think wiser men do this instead. Just record my vote at election time because I follow the laws of my country and I DO think theres a lot wrong with us as a nation- I just dont see the need to kill over it, we already settled that here about 150 yrs ago.

I hope Im not flaming anyone, I dont intend to at least.

I would disagree that "wiser men" men run ANY nations foreign policies. Wisdom aint hip NOR pc anywhere it seems. The popular way is to sell out for some short term economical benefits...

Now Im just asking. What, that is relevant to this issue, was settled? I believe you refer to the CW?

There has flowed a lot of water under the bridges since then, and a lot of administrations has passed legislations and proclaimed policy as well.

Originally posted by moore4807

BTW - thank you for the attribute - I didnt know it was Lee.

Knowledge is for sharing! You are welcome.

moore consider this. Did Allied strategic bombing of their families back home make German soldiers stop fighting? No. It made them more determined to fight. Collective punishment never works...

Originally posted by Noodleboy
i knew it was one of them -he had a beard didn't he?

http://usa-civil-war.com/Lee/lee.html
Photo of R.E. Lee and a short Bio.

Originally posted by lefty_nutter
moore consider this. Did Allied strategic bombing of their families back home make German soldiers stop fighting? No. It made them more determined to fight. Collective punishment never works...

Lefty, I'm not sure I agree that collective punishment never works. Don't critics of the US use of atomic weapons at Nagasaki and Hiroshima argue that we purposely targeted civilians? Yet, one can hardly argue that Fat Boy was ineffective. It certainly hastened the end of the war and even chastened the Russians for a few years. BTW, I feel that the use of atomic weapons was justifiable, even though cities were targeted. It was justifiable on a dispassionate balance sheet of terror and death, but perhaps not on a moral plane. Morality had been declared immaterial somewhere in 1939.


The real proponents of collective punishment were the SS and Stalin. They suceeded in the short run because they gave up any pretense of civilized behavior and apparently weren't worried about going to Hell. Of course, as soon as they lost power.......

I am wondering when someone would bring up the A bomb, it was exactly the wholesale murder of civilians I started discussing here.

MSG you have a logical and credible objection to this type of warfare. However it wasnt only the Germans who engaged in extermination warfare against civilians. Both the Chinese (against fellow Chinese no less), the Japanese, and even the British in India did this and it failed in nearly every case.

It has worked in a few particular cases, The A-Bomb, Shermans march to the sea, where resisters were killed - land was laid bare and fallow in many cases. Ghengis Kahn in the Baltic area did basically the same while swallowing whole regions (killing whole ruling families and servants) so it hasnt failed in every instance -just when you pick too large a target, your chances to succeed diminish.

Again -my problem is the ability to deter further actions while limiting retaliation against us, not an easy balancing act for anyone. Still its necessary in my mind because terrorists as a group do not seem to care about normal deterrents or conventions of warfare - so no quarter is given or asked in return.

Not exactly State Dept. thinking I'm afraid.

PS - MSG your point of making all acts dispicable is correct - how dispicible or how long is the question for themselves to answer...

Originally posted by moore4807
I am wondering when someone would bring up the A bomb, it was exactly the wholesale murder of civilians I started discussing here.

Hehe, it HAS a tendency to pop up now and then, and what a can of worms it is!

Originally posted by moore4807
MSG you have a logical and credible objection to this type of warfare. However it wasnt only the Germans who engaged in extermination warfare against civilians. Both the Chinese (against fellow Chinese no less), the Japanese, and even the British in India did this and it failed in nearly every case.[/B]

I just brought up the first example out of my mind, thinking about Yugoslavia and occupied Russia. The list of nations not guilty of these types of atrocities would be a lot shorter than that of the guilty, perhaps even empty, but moral equivalency isnt the same as moral justification.

Originally posted by moore4807
It has worked in a few particular cases, The A-Bomb, Shermans march to the sea, where resisters were killed - land was laid bare and fallow in many cases. Ghengis Kahn in the Baltic area did basically the same while swallowing whole regions (killing whole ruling families and servants) so it hasnt failed in every instance -just when you pick too large a target, your chances to succeed diminish.[/B]

It can be argued that the Russian invasion of Manchuria was as large a part of the Japanese surrender as the A-bombs, and the use of them was to get Japan to surrender to the USA, and not the Soviets. While the hawks of Japan didnt wish to surrender before Fat Man and Little Boy, they didnt after either. Japan KNEW they were defeated before the nukes were used. PERHAPS they would have chosen to go down hard without them, but that is not nowhere near certain. If all the US wanted was to spare its soldiers lives Truman could just have let the Russians do it, they would have been willing...

The South surrendered because she couldnt fight. Simply put the South couldnt fight because her logistics were destroyed by Sherman's march and naval interdiction. The South did not surrender to save her civilian population.

Originally posted by moore4807
Again -my problem is the ability to deter further actions while limiting retaliation against us, not an easy balancing act for anyone. Still its necessary in my mind because terrorists as a group do not seem to care about normal deterrents or conventions of warfare - so no quarter is given or asked in return.
[/B]

I'm not sure this type of enemy CAN be detered this way. Family members killed by retaliation would also become martyrs. Acts like this would also make it easier to recruit for organisations like AQ, since in it would inevitably lead to "collateral damage" and prove that it doesnt matter if you are organized or not (and if it does, these guys, not us, control the local propaganda), and that the fight against the west is "justified" by our own acts.

I believe that putting more pressure on a hotspot may just as easily brew it up as extinguish it.

This is more complicated than just blowing up relatives of terrorists would fix, even if it was morally justified, wich it is not...

Originally posted by moore4807
PS - MSG your point of making all acts dispicable is correct - how dispicable or how long is the question for themselves to answer...

No, the terrorists are not responsible for OUR acts, WE are. OBL tries to use that same logic against us, that we are responsible for his acts.

I dont agree either way.

If we need to kill to stop this, so be it, but it is blood on OUR hands, and claiming otherwise is just escapism.

Sometimes hard and ugly things have to be done, but we should also be willing to shoulder the responsibility for that wich we do...

Originally posted by moore4807
I believe exterminating the family of the terrorist is the only way to cause enough fear in them to stop thier activities since killing our non-military family members is "ok" by them.

I disagree. Such an act wouldn't be moral, legal, or effective. IMO

Originally posted by The MSG
[/B]



It can be argued that the Russian invasion of Manchuria was as large a part of the Japanese surrender as the A-bombs, and the use of them was to get Japan to surrender to the USA, and not the Soviets. While the hawks of Japan didnt wish to surrender before Fat Man and Little Boy, they didnt after either. Japan KNEW they were defeated before the nukes were used. PERHAPS they would have chosen to go down hard without them, but that is not nowhere near certain. If all the US wanted was to spare its soldiers lives Truman could just have let the Russians do it, they would have been willing.[/B]

So are you of the opinion it would have been better for history if we had a Stalin controlled Japan?

I never find watching real people die amusing/fun/entertaining/etc

IMHO this video has no place on a wargaming forum. Videos of real death and posts glorifing/justifing it are what give wargamers a bad name (to the uninformed about our hobby).

I have been wargaming for over 30 years and we do not have a good reputation in the real world (face it). Things like this do nothing to help.

My 2 cents.

Originally posted by Grumbling Grogn
I never find watching real people die amusing/fun/entertaining/etc

IMHO this video has no place on a wargaming forum. Videos of real death and posts glorifing/justifing it are what give wargamers a bad name (to the uninformed about our hobby).

I have been wargaming for over 30 years and we do not have a good reputation in the real world (face it). Things like this do nothing to help.

My 2 cents.

They aren’t real people, they’re Al-Qaeda terrorists. I like to see them die. It warms my heart to see the filthy dung-eating scum wallow in pain and suffer a slow horrible death at the hands of U.S. Troops. More, more, more.

My 2 cents…

Originally posted by Grumbling Grogn
I never find watching real people die amusing/fun/entertaining/etc

IMHO this video has no place on a wargaming forum. Videos of real death and posts glorifing/justifing it are what give wargamers a bad name (to the uninformed about our hobby).

I have been wargaming for over 30 years and we do not have a good reputation in the real world (face it). Things like this do nothing to help.

My 2 cents.

You ever watch old WW2 movies were they use real combat footage?

Originally posted by Twotribes
So are you of the opinion it would have been better for history if we had a Stalin controlled Japan?

No, I am saying the issue is more complicated than saying it was done to save US soldiers lives.

Originally posted by Old Eagle101
They aren’t real people, they’re Al-Qaeda terrorists. I like to see them die. It warms my heart to see the filthy dung-eating scum wallow in pain and suffer a slow horrible death at the hands of U.S. Troops. More, more, more.

My 2 cents…

Ok, now its official, you need psychiatric help!

Originally posted by Grumbling Grogn
I never find watching real people die amusing/fun/entertaining/etc

IMHO this video has no place on a wargaming forum. Videos of real death and posts glorifing/justifing it are what give wargamers a bad name (to the uninformed about our hobby).

I have been wargaming for over 30 years and we do not have a good reputation in the real world (face it). Things like this do nothing to help.

My 2 cents.

Beer!

We need more gimmicks. Old Eagle101 is the best so far.

Originally posted by Old Eagle101
They aren’t real people, they’re Al-Qaeda terrorists. I like to see them die. It warms my heart to see the filthy dung-eating scum wallow in pain and suffer a slow horrible death at the hands of U.S. Troops. More, more, more.

My 2 cents…

For all you can tell on the video it might have been some poor hick Afghan farm complex.

Goodness! From what i've heard and read about US Spec Ops raids in Afghanistan it might have been US allies.

it might even have been Canadian PBI.

Originally posted by The MSG
Ok, now its official, you need psychiatric help!

So you feel sorry for the widdle terrorists that got blowed away? Socialism has made you soft and lazy. I guess Government hand-outs will do that. Watching the cowardly Al-Qaeda savages die, makes me feel good.

A person who loves their enemy = Loser

Originally posted by Noodleboy
For all you can tell on the video it might have been some poor hick Afghan farm complex.

Goodness! From what i've heard and read about US Spec Ops raids in Afghanistan it might have been US allies.

it might even have been Canadian PBI.

I hate to tell you this, since you obviously don't know, but in wartime their are always friendly fire casualties. Always has been, always will be. Ask anybody that's been in one. . I'm surprised you did'nt know that. You should read more.