After the war in Iraq in which our poddle president supported the attack, I knew something like this was going to happen. For the first time we have been set in Alqaeda target. Thank you, president Aznar. A suicide bomber blow himself up in a Spanish restaurant in Casablanca (with other attacks in the city), causing more than 40 people. Why didn´t we finish with Alqaeda before jumping on Iraq?.
By: kev35 - 22nd May 2003 at 14:00
Re: Kev
Steve.
“Nuts….you love it really! :D”
Not sure that I’m loving it at the moment.
“Basically preventing an attack taking place simply means that absolutely nothing untoward occurs – a difficult thing for the media to report in a fashion that sells its publications! Preventing those attacks and disrupting terrorist preparations though, for me anyway, do still fall in the category of “hitting terrorists hard”.”
What I’m saying is all successes against the terrorists should be reported on. All we hear is a successful suicide bombing in this, that or any other country. If the anti-terrorist agencies are having successes report them. It might just be comforting to know that the terrorists aren’t having it all their own way.
“This to me though is the same as empathising with the murderer who was just listening to what “the voices in his head” told him to do or the paedophile who was himself abused as a child.”
No! My comment was a response to your saying who would consider terrorists to be right. I’m just pointing out that there seems to be enough people willing to answer their call. Perhaps if more was seen to be done to stop terrorists they might have greater problems recruiting.
“I believe, firmly, that the greater view would be that these terrorist actions are reprehensible in the extreme. Just like Vortex said therefore the discussion should no longer be as to the legitimacy of what these people are doing, rather, how we can stop them as quickly and finally as possible.”
I agree and have absolutely no problem with that. I am not a supporter of terrorism. Nowhere have I said that the actions of the terrorists have any degree of legitimacy. Perhaps i could have made myself clearer.
“Again I’d dispute that as it lends itself to the argument that all Al Qaeda terrorists are “soldiers” in some fashion.”
They consider themselves to be soldiers. This is what I think we fail to understand. They have resolve, they have determination. That makes them very different. This is a long term problem which might continue for years.
“All of these were hit unconventionally, but, they were politico-military targets and, from a strictly military viewpoint, valid and not acts of real terrorism.”
And by saying that haven’t you just agreed with me?
“My answer to your question would therefore be yes they could, but are choosing the attrocity where they can plan in depth and are settling for simplistic suicide attacks against easy targets now that their command, control and logistics has been so heavily disrupted.”
So make a big deal of it. Show the world that the war against terrorism is at least having some success.
“Well I think intent counts for a lot here especially when you are comparing the defoliation plan to terrorist attrocities. Also it does seem a little weak to compare people who’ve had their crops destroyed to people on a hijacked airliner thats being flown into a building!.”
I’ll give you that. That’s something i should have considered more fully.
“Kev, I’d have no problem with this IF you weren’t trying to establish a parrallel between statisticians inventing body counts to justify collateral damage to the deliberate and callous targetting of civillians by a terrorist organisation.”
Wiping out whole villages was pretty callous by my standards. Equally, for those who were there it is probably an understanadable reaction.
“Forgive me if I think this is a clear contradiction Kev!. You first say that Vortex cant claim the efficacy of American bombing when they resorted to the A-bomb and yet you believe it was an absolutely valid and efficient tactic towards getting the war ended??? Huh? :)”
Vortex was espousing the American policy of pinpoint bombing while criticising the area bombing attacks by the RAF. I just pointed out the discrepancy between his view of pinpoint bombing and the two largest area bombings of the war. I have no problem with the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I just asked him to explain how he reconciles one with the other.
“Comparitive to 9/11 ALL of the above taken together has a very low order of significance. Terrible to put it that way because people have died, but, 9/11 showed an advanced level of C3I which had to be eliminated at the rush because that “intelligence” allows small forces to act in a manner disproportionate to their size. “
That’s probably why we disagree. You and I view death differently, we’ve discussed that before. I do see your point though.
” Its when those people can be trained, focussed, armed and skillfully deployed that the big problems arise. That is not happening anymore!. “
Let’s hope it stays that way.
See, all those words you and I have wrote and not once have we resorted to abusing each other.
Regards,
kev35
By: Jonesy - 22nd May 2003 at 12:31
Kev
Oh, Steve, what have I started?
Nuts….you love it really! 😀
I don’t perceive that that terrorism is being stamped on hard. Perhaps the answer to that lies in the allusion you make to special operations which are not public knowledge.
The nature of terrorism is such that hitting it isnt necessarily always “spectacular” and, quite often, if a spectacular media event ensues its because the anti-terrorist forces have failed in their task. Basically preventing an attack taking place simply means that absolutely nothing untoward occurs – a difficult thing for the media to report in a fashion that sells its publications! Preventing those attacks and disrupting terrorist preparations though, for me anyway, do still fall in the category of “hitting terrorists hard”.
As to who would consider terrorism to be right one only has to look at the terrorists, their backers and the ever growing number of people prepared to strap a few pounds of explosive on their backs and die for their cause. They may be wrong, evil, misguided or any other epithet you choose but at the moment their resolve seems strong.
This to me though is the same as empathising with the murderer who was just listening to what “the voices in his head” told him to do or the paedophile who was himself abused as a child. The objective judgement on their legitmacy can only be made by society as a whole – be that society local, national or global in nature. I believe, firmly, that the greater view would be that these terrorist actions are reprehensible in the extreme. Just like Vortex said therefore the discussion should no longer be as to the legitimacy of what these people are doing, rather, how we can stop them as quickly and finally as possible.
]Maybe so, but for these terrorists this is their ‘war’. It’s not World War II but it’s about as big as they can make it at the moment.
Again I’d dispute that as it lends itself to the argument that all Al Qaeda terrorists are “soldiers” in some fashion. I’d agree with the idea that Al Qaeda have struck at more military targets than other terrorist networks – the US embassies in 93 could be considered legitimate targets, the USS Cole was a legitimate military target, even the Pentagon was a prime C4I target even if it was hit after a terrorist event in the hijacking. All of these were hit unconventionally, but, they were politico-military targets and, from a strictly military viewpoint, valid and not acts of real terrorism.
What puts Al Qaeda back in the swamp with all the other terrorist scum though is its love of the “spectacular” the WTC and Bali being prime examples. This is not the activity of a combattant at war and has no relation to the strikes on industrial cities in WW2 Germany, or the Dams Raid as they were not designed to kill large numbers of civillians rather that the tools of war at the time didnt allow for pinpoint strikes in defended areas so area bombing was necessary to hit certain industrial targets. The WTC was a callous strike calculated to cause to most numbers of casualties and generate the most publicity possible.
The terrorists could try striking at an Army or Air Force base but would they be effective in their terms? You mention the USS Cole, they managed to hit her where she was but could they ever hope to have done the same at a Naval facility in the US?
Here though the lines blur, I hate using semantics as thats what I usually crucify Garry for!, is an unconventional attack on a military base an act of terrorism? I, starkly, remember being told when I signed up at HMS Raleigh “Congratulations gentlemen – you are all now targets for the IRA”. We knew that threat existed and it was countered in the same way any military formation goes about reducing any threat. As to them taking a crack at Naval shipping closer to the US I’ve just done a little research and I could come up with something nasty fairly easily – as a hint look at this photo:
This is a shot taken from one of the manmade islands built to carry the Chesapeake Bay Bridge/Tunnel and US Route 13. It is on their website clear as day and they even advertise a guidebook that identifies all the USN ships that come out from Norfolk for you!. I won’t go into detail about they way I’d choose to mount that attack for the obvious reasons – but the vulnerability is surely there for anyone that cares to look to fill in the blanks!. My answer to your question would therefore be yes they could, but are choosing the attrocity where they can plan in depth and are settling for simplistic suicide attacks against easy targets now that their command, control and logistics has been so heavily disrupted.
Of course not but the end result was the same, except their deaths were slower. They were casualties as soon as they had to leave their land due to the effects of Agent Orange.
Well I think intent counts for a lot here especially when you are comparing the defoliation plan to terrorist attrocities. Also it does seem a little weak to compare people who’ve had their crops destroyed to people on a hijacked airliner thats being flown into a building!.
Again, read the literature written by those who were there. Every dead Vietnamese was recorded as a Vietcong or NVA. Whether or not the intention was there the statisticians tried to reap the benefits.
Kev, I’d have no problem with this IF you weren’t trying to establish a parrallel between statisticians inventing body counts to justify collateral damage to the deliberate and callous targetting of civillians by a terrorist organisation.
Absolutely I’m glad those weapons were used. My point was that Vortex couldn’t allude to the efficacy of pinpoint bombing carried out by the Americans without accepting that they were responsible for the two biggest area bombings of the war.
Forgive me if I think this is a clear contradiction Kev!. You first say that Vortex cant claim the efficacy of American bombing when they resorted to the A-bomb and yet you believe it was an absolutely valid and efficient tactic towards getting the war ended??? Huh? 🙂
None of course. But how long will it be before the total deaths from these current incidences reach that of the 11th of September? The happy side effect from America’s point of view is that no more incidents have occurred in the US.
Well lets not forget the other happy side effect is that none have hit the UK yet either, or France or New Zealand or…or…or!. We’re all naturally primarily concerned with our own countries first so I’m not sure what point your going for there!?. How long, at a rough estimation, we’re looking at to balance the low-order strikes we’ve been seeing to 9/11 I’d guess about three to four years if you want a direct comparison IF they can keep up the momentum month-on-month. I’d say IF attacking Afghanistan has given us up to 48 months of breathing space to hunt down Al Qaeda’s heirarchy and structures and knock bits off them so that a major strike like 9/11 never happens again we’ll, I’m afraid, I’d call that a win for the good guys even if there are losses from low-order terrorist attacks in the interim.
But they are being effective still. Flights stopped to Kenya, travel advisories against travel to an increasing number of countries, embassies being closed, a rising death toll. This is evidence that they are far from beaten.
Comparitive to 9/11 ALL of the above taken together has a very low order of significance. Terrible to put it that way because people have died, but, 9/11 showed an advanced level of C3I which had to be eliminated at the rush because that “intelligence” allows small forces to act in a manner disproportionate to their size.
The local attacks with some fanatic strapping on a belt and merrily going off to see Allah in Paradise is scary, naturally, but there will always be an element like that in any society that can be engaged to perform the most attrocious acts. They are a threat, but, only quite a small one. Its when those people can be trained, focussed, armed and skillfully deployed that the big problems arise. That is not happening anymore!.
By: kev35 - 22nd May 2003 at 09:25
Vortex.
I can’t say to you what I’d like to, for the simple reason that I refuse to stoop to your level.
I stand by what I said. America attacks Afghanistan. Fine, if it helps to stop terrorism then I support you 100% But it hasn’t has it? It’s just escalated to the point where soft targets are being hit across the world. None of these attacks have occurred in America have they? Or Britain for that matter. It may only be a matter of time. I know the American people are concerned, just as we are, and I know they are not ‘happy’ about these attacks. But you have to admit you’re grateful it’s not soft targets in Galveston, Phoenix, Sioux City or any one of a thousand other American towns. Like I said, these terrorists have to be stopped. Surely you agree with me on that. When Afghanistan was targeted it hurt al-Qaeda, maybe much more than we thought, so again, why are you surprised by the increase in attacks? al-Qaeda are fighting back in the only way they know how. So discuss things instead of ranting. This is a discussion forum after all…..
As to your personal attacks on people who hold opposing views to you, well, they bring nothing to the forum do they? It shows you to be hot-headed, vindictive, abusive, petty-minded and suffering from a distinct lack of manners. I don’t doubt your intelligence, you often write on matters scientific of which I have absolutely no clue. I just fail to understand your inability to put things in context and debate sensibly. Almost every thread you get involved in turns into an argument in which you vent your spleen. I had several messages from people yesterday advising me to report your post to the Webmaster. But I won’t. The insults you hurl and the comments you make say far more about your personality than mine.
Finally, and just to prove your lack of understanding, I refer you to your comment “just because you have some kind of disability doesn’t mean you’re allowed to claim something that you assumed'”. The mention of my disability was a direct response to your calling me ‘sick’. It is what is known as self-deprecating humour. Ever heard of it?
I look forward to debating sensibly with you in future, however, I won’t hold my breath.
Regards,
kev35
By: Arabella-Cox - 22nd May 2003 at 06:05
..Arthur…
in replying to Kev, i meant it, if America is a monolithic society, the claims coming out of him while claiming it as what Americans want lies on the verge of parallelism with racism. tell me what was the word i typed after “sick…”? and just because you have some kind of disability doesn’t mean you’re allowed to claim something that you “assumed” as being stated or wanted by others or group of people. This is how racism and the likes starts…bigotry.
By: Arthur - 21st May 2003 at 12:09
Absolutely no need to thank me for that.
Now stop being such a grand person, you’re giving me the creeps 😉 !
By: kev35 - 21st May 2003 at 11:29
Arthur.
Thank you.
kev35
By: Arthur - 20th May 2003 at 22:38
Vortex, don’t leave your **** dangling out of your fly if you don’t want it kicked. Other people can play the cheap insult trick too, so please don’t provoke people. Better be very thankful that Kev is a grand enough person not to make an issue out of it. Plenty of others would.
The US did target civilians in Vietnam. In South Vietnam, as Kev stated, VC-controlled (or suspected) areas were free-fire zones. Anything that moved was a target, even if she was only four years old and helping her grandfather in the ricefields. Don’t worry though – both were tallied as VC.
In North Vietnam the US bombed dikes, canals and irrigation works in the hope that with the upcoming monsoons, large areas of the country would be flooded and that the irrigation works wouldn’t have enough water to grow enough rice. It didn’t work because the monsoons set in late that year (i believe ’68 or ’69)
Flooding an area and hoping for a famine? Sure, both are strategic targets. But the civilian population would be the prime victim.
And please stop that BS that we should only look at the US for what it has done over the last 20 years. It is exactly that attitude, of setting the standards yourself and then being proud of those ‘achievements’ which is what i consider the most disgusting thing Americans seem to enjoy so much. If the US hasn’t been nasty over the last 20 years (well, Nicaragua/Honduras still fits in this period as well as several ‘errors’ like the Chinese embassy or Iranian Airbus), then why worry? I believe no militant Islamists have done anything evil for the last 20 minutes… You don’t believe that either. I know the US could well be on it’s way to international decency, but i don’t think anyone but the most naieve star-spangled-banner-toting Texan can blame me for being sceptical.
With you, Steve, Kev and probably the rest of the sane (if we’re part of it, that is 😉 ) world i agree that terrorism should be dealt with as poweful, effective and ruthless as possible. But i also think that in order to really eradicate a problem, more is needed then only fighting the symptoms. And with Kev i agree that this symptom-fighting might in fact aggravate the disease itself.
By: kev35 - 20th May 2003 at 21:54
Re: you are one sick ******* kev…
Vortex.
“You are one sick ******* kev….”
Thank you Vortex, however you are only half right. I am sick, I have a condition called acute peripheral diabetic polyneuropathy. I am touched by your concern. As for the legitimacy of my birth? I don’t think my mother (now deceased) would appreciate your insinuations, I knew you would react this way because you are so predictable.
“who told you that Americans are happy about the recent bombings just because it’s not on US soil?”
Be honest you’re all bloody grateful that it didn’t happen in America. Your war against terrorism didn’t start in New York did it? The terrorists apparently were known but not stopped by the authorities in America. Your reaction? Not to check the activities of known terrorists within your own shores or to find out who distributed anthrax within America, but to attack Afghanistan. Then you illegally remove people from their own country and hold them without any legal status whatsoever. Are you surprised that al-Qaeda is striking back? The terrorists need to be stopped but the mixed message America is sending out is not helpful. If these Taleban or al-Qaeda you hold are guilty, as they almost certainly are, then bring the full force of your laws upon them. Send a message.
“We are quite worried and hoped for the best. “
I apologise, obviously Americans are concerned about the current situation. But I still maintain that you would prefer these attacks to take place on foreign soil. It’s only human nature. I suppose we have to hope that Jonesy is right and that intelligence agencies and other assets are making inroads into the terrorist infrastructure.
“This is so sad, this attitude of making bad things up and call them American. Remember, we believe that it’s not if but only when another strike hits here. So, stop your sadistic bs and labeling it as American.”
America is the most powerful nation on earth and has long been a supporter of freedom. No-one can deny that. My point is that I don’t always blindly believe what America does is right. I know what America has done for us in the past, I pay my respects to a Cemetery full of them at least once a year. I know America believes that another strike is inevitable, at the moment though it’s a lot of other places. I’m sure Britain will have her turn soon.
“Jonesy, with resolve a lot can be accomplished and in shorter time. Sure who knows when such a war may end, but anything that’ll end it sooner is better than later.”
That I absoloutely agree with, but your current actions seem to be bringing an end nowhere nearer. It may even be behind the current escalation.
“…and that’s what i’m talking about, there’s should be absolutely no excuse for terrorism. “
I agree.
Vortex, I don’t really care what you say about me, I can take it, if you need to be aggressive and abusive to get your point across that’s okay. But please, don’t bring my family into it.
Regards,
kev35
By: Arabella-Cox - 20th May 2003 at 21:14
you are one sick ******* kev…
who told you that Americans are happy about the recent bombings just because it’s not on US soil? We are quite worried and hoped for the best. This is so sad, this attitude of making bad things up and call them American. Remember, we believe that it’s not if but only when another strike hits here. So, stop your sadistic bs and labeling it as American.
Jonesy, with resolve a lot can be accomplished and in shorter time. Sure who knows when such a war may end, but anything that’ll end it sooner is better than later. There’s this attitude of everything is American’s fault from now on if there’s a terrorist strike…and that’s what i’m talking about, there’s should be absolutely no excuse for terrorism.
By: kev35 - 20th May 2003 at 19:47
Oh, Steve, what have I started?
“If the question is “should terrorism be stamped on hard” how can anyone disagree with the “American view”?. The method of doing the stamping may be questionable and questioned, but, who would argue that terrorists should be left to persue their aims unchallenged? Who would argue that terrorism is a legitimate means for pursuing political goals? Who would argue that terrorism is “right”.”
I don’t perceive that that terrorism is being stamped on hard. Perhaps the answer to that lies in the allusion you make to special operations which are not public knowledge. As to who would consider terrorism to be right one only has to look at the terrorists, their backers and the ever growing number of people prepared to strap a few pounds of explosive on their backs and die for their cause. They may be wrong, evil, misguided or any other epithet you choose but at the moment their resolve seems strong.
“I think that comparing the actions of national military forces commited to total warfare, in an era prior to precision guided munitions, to terrorists striking at soft-targets because their easy to hit and will cause maximum publicity and outrage is just a little disingenuous.”
Maybe so, but for these terrorists this is their ‘war’. It’s not World War II but it’s about as big as they can make it at the moment. The terrorists could try striking at an Army or Air Force base but would they be effective in their terms? You mention the USS Cole, they managed to hit her where she was but could they ever hope to have done the same at a Naval facility in the US?
“Are you proposing that the spraying of Agent Orange was INTENTIONALLY done to kill Vietnamese civillians?”
Of course not but the end result was the same, except their deaths were slower. They were casualties as soon as they had to leave their land due to the effects of Agent Orange.
“I think that B-52’s unloading on the jungle was a fairly wasteful tactic if it was intended to kill the maximum number of civillians as well – surely carpet bombing Hanoi would have been more efficient if the aim was as you say!.”
Again, read the literature written by those who were there. Every dead Vietnamese was recorded as a Vietcong or NVA. Whether or not the intention was there the statisticians tried to reap the benefits.
“I’d encourage you to read up on the anticipated consequences if Operations OLYMPIC and CORONET (the invasion of the Japanese home islands) had been undertaken. Its tragic how many died in the nuclear attacks, furthermore, the after effects and lingering deaths following on from those weapons have been terrible.”
Yes, of course I am aware. My father and uncle were both being trained to take part in a planned invasion. Absolutely I’m glad those weapons were used. My point was that Vortex couldn’t allude to the efficacy of pinpoint bombing carried out by the Americans without accepting that they were responsible for the two biggest area bombings of the war.
“One question Kev – how many 9/11 scale incidents have occured since the Taleban got booted out of Afghanistan?.”
None of course. But how long will it be before the total deaths from these current incidences reach that of the 11th of September? The happy side effect from America’s point of view is that no more incidents have occurred in the US.
“Now what are they doing? Hitting soft-targets in states that are easy to operate in with a handful of suicide-bombers here or a car-bomb there?. Either this or using people, too stupid or poorly trained to read the shelf-life date on a missile tube, to try and bring down an airliner in a repeat run of tactics used in Rhodesia back in the 70’s!”
But they are being effective still. Flights stopped to Kenya, travel advisories against travel to an increasing number of countries, embassies being closed, a rising death toll. This is evidence that they are far from beaten.
“You can criticise a tangible lack of evidence paraded in front of the global media as a lack of progress if you wish Kev, but, a lot is going on outside of the spotlight which IS having an effect on international terrorism.”
Perhaps more should be made of that, after all we don’t all have a direct link to our country’s intelligence network do we? People only reading of successful terrorist outrages will do nothing to calm nerves. Showing evidence of success against the terrorists might discourage others from following their path.
Regards,
kev35
By: kev35 - 20th May 2003 at 19:17
Re: ..right.
Vortex.
“neglegible success during dark days is nevertheless success versus inaction due to lack of resolves.”
Successfully killing half a dozen terrorists might be considered a success by someone sitting isolated in America. Perhaps the response is this rise in suicide bombings in cities around the world. But this is how America likes to fight its wars, anywhere but it’s own shores.
“As to bombing civilian areas…show me once in recent times, say last 20 years that 100% intent without reasonable doubt that the US military targetted civilians. “
I may concede that point to you, after all, you have enough trouble avoiding bombing friendly forces to worry about civilians. I could remind you that on several occasions in the last twenty years you have managed to hit the wrong country.
“What you have with these terrorists is that its 100% assured that civilians are the intent of their target. When you want Americans to hear you out, you bring such things as now is the time to have such and such (ie, war crime court) while at the same time when you criticize Americans you tend to bring up stuff that’s years ago.”
You and I both know that American’s don’t listen. Selective deafness, hearing only what you want to hear and expecting the rest of the world to hang on your every word. I assume you’re referring to the war crime court that America has refused to sign up to? Presumably this is because America is a law unto itself and can do no wrong. If international law is of the opinion that America is in the wrong then America just ignores the law? A fine example to set.
“but don’t tell me that the RAF wasn’t guilty of attacking entire cities. In fact the RAF is so afraid of strategic bombing in broad day light due to heavy earlier losses that they rather bomb at night and target the ENTIRE city.”
The RAF, or its crews, were not ‘afraid’ of daylight bombing, that is a horrible insinuation. Losses were so high as to be unsustainable, hence the switch. You must remember that this was a small country which had been fighting a war long before the intervention of the US. It had neither the manpower nor the industrial base from which to be able to equip its Air Force in the same manner. Yes, the RAF did target cities, I don’t believe I said that they didn’t.
“So, don’t give me that crap about how the USAAC bombed cities in those days. Go find any WWII documents and you’ll soon realize that often the strategic bombing target lists are very specific for the USAAC (such as a factory) and the end result is a whole block leading up to that factory is destroyed(bombing path), while the RAF’s target list is usually an entire district if not the city.”
They were often very specific for the RAF, but for both, the results were often less satisfactory than hoped for. If you must talk about precision try the Dams raid, the Tirpitz, the Antheor viaduct, Peenemunde, the Philips factory, Amiens, and many others. Don’t think the US forces were involved in any of those.
” As to Vietnam, show me where was there an official intent to target civilians”
The realities of war which you point out are often at odds with officialdom. B-52 strikes hit villages as part of their target zone. The literature shows many patrols after coming under fire from a single sniper round destroyed every village nearby, whether there was evidence to support that action or not. The use of Agent Orange was indiscriminate and directly impinged upon the lives of civilians and soldiers alike.
What I’m trying to get at is that the American attitude of using a sledgehammer to crack a peanut is not working. The peanut just grows in stature and becomes stronger. America, and other countries, have to target the leadership of the terrorist organisations. The footsoldiers are willing and prepared to die. Their leadership has to be struck such a blow that it cannot recover. With America’s intelligence assets and special operations capabilities perhaps it would be better to employ stealth than the sledgehammer.
Regards,
kev35
By: Jonesy - 20th May 2003 at 19:01
Kev
This is the problem with the American attitude to any world event. There is the wrong view and the American view.
If the question is “should terrorism be stamped on hard” how can anyone disagree with the “American view”?. The method of doing the stamping may be questionable and questioned, but, who would argue that terrorists should be left to persue their aims unchallenged? Who would argue that terrorism is a legitimate means for pursuing political goals? Who would argue that terrorism is “right”.
During World War Ii didn’t the USAAF carry out a follow up operation to Hamburg after the previous nights bombing by the RAF?
I think that the important part of what you wrote above is the “During World War II…” part. I think that comparing the actions of national military forces commited to total warfare, in an era prior to precision guided munitions, to terrorists striking at soft-targets because their easy to hit and will cause maximum publicity and outrage is just a little disingenuous.
Wholesale areas of Vietnam were bombed by B-52’s, other areas sprayed with defoliating agents, I’m sure others can come up with other examples
Are you proposing that the spraying of Agent Orange was INTENTIONALLY done to kill Vietnamese civillians? Thats a fairly extreme claim!. I think that B-52’s unloading on the jungle was a fairly wasteful tactic if it was intended to kill the maximum number of civillians as well – surely carpet bombing Hanoi would have been more efficient if the aim was as you say!.
and if you want to go the whole hog how many civilians died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
I’d encourage you to read up on the anticipated consequences if Operations OLYMPIC and CORONET (the invasion of the Japanese home islands) had been undertaken. Its tragic how many died in the nuclear attacks, furthermore, the after effects and lingering deaths following on from those weapons have been terrible. They are nothing…absolutely NOTHING compared to the deaths and horrors that a land invasion would have created. Certainly Japan would not be the same country that we see today had things gone differently.
Now I thought America had declared a war on terrorism. So far you’ve caught a few hundred Taleban, some of whom you treat humanely while others you do not. What else has been achieved? A few suspected al-qaeda were killed by a UAV. Anything else? Is America’s resolve catching those behind Bali, Kenya, Casablanca, Riyadh? Or has there been a significant increase in suicide bombings?
One question Kev – how many 9/11 scale incidents have occured since the Taleban got booted out of Afghanistan?. Prior to that the Al Quaeda movement had the resources, organisation and space to commit attrocities on an unprecedented scale or with extreme skill and cunning – referring to WTC and the USS Cole consecutively. Now what are they doing? Hitting soft-targets in states that are easy to operate in with a handful of suicide-bombers here or a car-bomb there?. Either this or using people, too stupid or poorly trained to read the shelf-life date on a missile tube, to try and bring down an airliner in a repeat run of tactics used in Rhodesia back in the 70’s!
You can criticise a tangible lack of evidence paraded in front of the global media as a lack of progress if you wish Kev, but, a lot is going on outside of the spotlight which IS having an effect on international terrorism. I know, personally, for instance of a couple of MIOPS interceptions performed by RN ships under Operation Oracle and NATO SNFM tasked vessels that have found weapons on ships in the Eastern Med/Gulf regions and have sent a message that, illegal, arms trafficking will be jumped on hard if found. This isn’t dazzlingly interesting to the general populace obviously but it is one more difficulty that terrorists have to overcome in pursuit of their ends and such measures have a cumulative effect.
Vortex,
Collateral damage to bombing another civilian area? Sad that such things are even thought of as excuses…Does it even matter?
With the exception of Israel terrorist attacks are almost always targetted for some specific reason. It IS therefore quite feasible to have a form of “collateral damage” from a terrorist attack even if the implications from it are of somewhat lesser significance to the attacker than in other circumstances. I can’t remember how many times the IRA “apologised” for killing “innocent bystanders” (usually the Catholics they were allegedly fighting for) in the pursuit of their operations.
Because of such lack of resolve…this is going to be a long war
I think perhaps Vortex some of you guys should be prepared for another nasty reality to bite you – there is no such thing as a short anti-terrorist campaign utterly irrespective of the levels resolve displayed by the involved authorities.
By: Arabella-Cox - 20th May 2003 at 18:36
..right.
neglegible success during dark days is nevertheless success versus inaction due to lack of resolves. As to bombing civilian areas…show me once in recent times, say last 20 years that 100% intent without reasonable doubt that the US military targetted civilians. What you have with these terrorists is that its 100% assured that civilians are the intent of their target. When you want Americans to hear you out, you bring such things as now is the time to have such and such (ie, war crime court) while at the same time when you criticize Americans you tend to bring up stuff that’s years ago. You have no point about WWII because that’s the norms of those days. Yes, it is wrong today, but don’t tell me that the RAF wasn’t guilty of attacking entire cities. In fact the RAF is so afraid of strategic bombing in broad day light due to heavy earlier losses that they rather bomb at night and target the ENTIRE city. So, don’t give me that crap about how the USAAC bombed cities in those days. Go find any WWII documents and you’ll soon realize that often the strategic bombing target lists are very specific for the USAAC (such as a factory) and the end result is a whole block leading up to that factory is destroyed(bombing path), while the RAF’s target list is usually an entire district if not the city. I’m not trying to single out the RAF, but that’s true for every single other AF in the world at the time. As to Vietnam, show me where was there an official intent to target civilians
By: kev35 - 20th May 2003 at 16:45
Re: what’s wrong with you guys?
Vortex.
“you’re still at a stage of deciding what’s right or wrong?”
This is the problem with the American attitude to any world event. There is the wrong view and the American view.
“It is never right to go off with INTENT on bombing innocent civilians. These terroristic acts are with FULL INTENT”
Funny that. Americans have on many occasions attacked civilian targets with intent. During World War Ii didn’t the USAAF carry out a follow up operation to Hamburg after the previous nights bombing by the RAF? Wholesale areas of Vietnam were bombed by B-52’s, other areas sprayed with defoliating agents, I’m sure others can come up with other examples.
“…if they bomb some military installation, ok you can debate on the type of warfare used, but INTENT on civilians? It is never right.”
Please see above. Add incendiary bombing of Tokyo to the list and if you want to go the whole hog how many civilians died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
“Does it even matter? Because of such lack of resolve…this is going to be a long war. “
Now I thought America had declared a war on terrorism. So far you’ve caught a few hundred Taleban, some of whom you treat humanely while others you do not. What else has been achieved? A few suspected al-qaeda were killed by a UAV. Anything else? Is America’s resolve catching those behind Bali, Kenya, Casablanca, Riyadh? Or has there been a significant increase in suicide bombings?
The people behind these bombings must be dealt with but a lot of pontification and little action from America isn’t going to do it is it?
I know you’ll throw Iraq at me. But which war was won there? The war against terrorism? The war to free the Iraqi people? Or the war over WMD’s?
These terrorists are an enemy whos greatest wish is to die for their beliefs. They are almost in a no-lose situation. I don’t know how it can be stopped but spouting about the lack of resolve others while achieving negligible success yourself doesn’t reallyseem helpful, does it?
regards,
kev35
By: Hand87_5 - 20th May 2003 at 14:33
Re: what’s wrong with you guys?
Originally posted by Vortex
you’re still at a stage of deciding what’s right or wrong? It is never right to go off with INTENT on bombing innocent civilians. These terroristic acts are with FULL INTENT…if they bomb some military installation, ok you can debate on the type of warfare used, but INTENT on civilians? It is never right. And then some of you question wether the Belgiums were targetted or were just “collateral” damage…to what? Collateral damage to bombing another civilian area? Sad that such things are even thought of as excuses…Does it even matter? Because of such lack of resolve…this is going to be a long war.
Who are you responding to?
By: Arabella-Cox - 20th May 2003 at 14:27
what’s wrong with you guys?
you’re still at a stage of deciding what’s right or wrong? It is never right to go off with INTENT on bombing innocent civilians. These terroristic acts are with FULL INTENT…if they bomb some military installation, ok you can debate on the type of warfare used, but INTENT on civilians? It is never right. And then some of you question wether the Belgiums were targetted or were just “collateral” damage…to what? Collateral damage to bombing another civilian area? Sad that such things are even thought of as excuses…Does it even matter? Because of such lack of resolve…this is going to be a long war.
By: Hand87_5 - 20th May 2003 at 13:10
I somehow agree.
Many people in those countries are born with the war.
Many of them grew up with it and are some kind of professional terrorisms. That’s the only thing they know and they can’t do any thing else.
Bring the peace and their are jobless…. Terrorism in many ways is a business!
For the morrocco bombing , just an other atrocity.
My sympathy to the families and to Morocco which is a beautiful country.
By: Comet - 20th May 2003 at 12:59
The terrorist vermin who carry out these atrocities are just bad – pure and simple. Belgium was not involved in the war with Iraq, but it didn’t prevent the attack on the Belgian Consulate. Now that the Northern Ireland thing with the IRA has died down a bit the IRA members have headed to other countries to join their terrorist groups, they are just evil, remove one terrorist cause and the scum will just invent another excuse to carry on regardless. If all the problems in the Middle East were solved, you can bet that the terrorist vermin would head off to join another terror cell or decide to make up a cause just to carry on. They should be dealt with properly, and I don’t mean just putting them in jail either…
By: Jonesy - 18th May 2003 at 03:25
Arthur,
Good point on the 10 “own goals”!.
I know what you’re saying about the IRA not going in for retaliation attack cycles in the main, though there are certain notable examples of just that pattern, what I was referring to though was the notion that hitting Afghanistan was going to eradicate the Al Quaeda terrorist organisation once and for all. By discussing the ongoing terrorist activity closer to home I was attempting to make the point that Kev made so much clearer and more adequately – that the nature of the enemy isnt such that one nice big stand-up fight was ever likely to resolve the situation. That’s not to say though, I hasten to add, Afghanistan was a waste of time and effort as, quite clearly, it wasn’t.
Ben,
I phrased that poorly and you’re quite right to pick me up on my words. I had limited amount of time to make that post and didn’t notice the blunder after I’d posted it – sorry for that.
What I was meaning, of course, was that the terrorists clearly didnt use the same logic that Keltic had proposed in that Spain’s support for the Iraq War had made their interests an “enemy” to be more robustly targetted when a nation that was very vocal in its opposition to the US/UK/Spanish sponsored actions, more likely to be considered a “friend” by them, also found its citizens victimised.
Apologies again for the clumsy language. 5/10 must try harder on my part!.
Keltic,
If you choose to look on this one Moroccan incident in isolation I could understand your point that Spain, at Aznar’s whim, had set itself up as a greater target on the global terrorist shooting range. Thing is though there is a global context here with the events in Saudi, Kenya, Mombassa, Bali and god knows in however many other places forming pieces of the same picture.
To therefore take this one incident, state it as being an attack focussed on Spanish interests and hold Aznar directly responsible for it seemed more to do with your personal antipathy for Aznar and less the unbiased and considered views you usually post.
Of course I’m not, for a second, saying its inappropriate for you to come on here and have a damn good, old fashioned, rant at someone who winds you up – after all there is a well developed tradition of that on these boards – its just that some annoying twerp is likely to pop up and disagree with you somewhere along the line!.
By: Arthur - 17th May 2003 at 23:31
Why do you guys always look at things in such a negative way?
Usually, killing ten terrorists in the War on Terror is considered to be a major succes. There was a bit more collateral damage then planned, but still…
Steve,
You know very well that neither the ETA nor the IRA cared much for the strike/counterstrike routine. I doubt it will be much different for Al Qaida or other militant islamists. Just look at Algeria (even though the GIA is not Al Qaida, they seem to be pretty close in both ideology and methods).
Sign In
May 17, 2003 at 2:26 pm