StarDestroyer.Net BBS

The rather, ummm, passionate, exchanges in the 12 Billion $$$ to Israel thread http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=9652 brought up the issue of how Israel combats terrorism and how it fights, or reacts, rather to homicide bombers from the Gaza strip and West Bank. The exchanges were spirited and made me wonder about how a "western democracy" - I use the term in quotations to amuse some and annoy others - should combat terrorism - particularly terrorism that is aimed squarely at the murder of innocents.

I specifically mentioned "murder of innocents" because the common reaction to the death of law enforcement or military personnel is: "Well, these people knew the risks when they put on the uniform." Somehow implying that their lives have less value than someone who is not uniform.

A few specific scenarios to deal with... Generic in nature but people may draw real world parallels as they are wont to.

1) Internal threat. Group or groups of people with similar political beliefs are dedicated to the overthrow of the government - through any means necessary... Some factions of the group engage in non-violence, political activism, legal harrassment... Others are more violent - advocating and carrying out murder and other violent crimes to achieve their goals... These groups do not have the support of the populace as a whole, indeed have relatively little support from the "mainstream population."

2) Internal threat, modified. As number #1 save say 20% of the population have no problem with any of what the terrorists are doing and in fact support them - "They killed the governor? I never liked him anyway..."

3) External threat. Small groups of people, clandestinely supported by both foreign governments and private individuals from aboard (money - safe havens - training etc), engage in acts of terrorism against a Western country. How is the Western country to proceed?

4) External threat - modified. A country, say non-nuclear third-world nation has dedicated itself to destroying your country through clandestine and terrorist means. And the vast majority of its population, say 80%, is supportive of this and moreover *hates* your country - if invaded directly, these people would suicide themselves in trying to kill your invading troops.

5) External threat. Occupation. Your nation (for better or for worse) has invaded the terrorist sponsoring state in example number 4 in order to stop the attacks upon your country and topple the existing terrorist-sponsoring state...



What would an "ethical" "western democracy" do or should do in these situations?

US would whine a lot and bribe them to stop. A few European countries might assassinate the terrorist leadership.

since when do ethical+combat go into the same sentence?

willburns84 wrote:The rather, ummm, passionate, exchanges in the 12 Billion $$$ to Israel thread http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=9652 brought up the issue of how Israel combats terrorism and how it fights, or reacts, rather to homicide bombers from the Gaza strip and West Bank. The exchanges were spirited and made me wonder about how a "western democracy" - I use the term in quotations to amuse some and annoy others - should combat terrorism - particularly terrorism that is aimed squarely at the murder of innocents.

Let's look at Timothy McVeigh's case. They investigated, tracked him down, arrested him, and executed him. They did not harm his family in any way, or his friends, even though some of them were undoubtedly cognizant of his intentions.

I specifically mentioned "murder of innocents" because the common reaction to the death of law enforcement or military personnel is: "Well, these people knew the risks when they put on the uniform." Somehow implying that their lives have less value than someone who is not uniform.

It is not that their lives have less value; they have deliberately chosen to risk them. They think that whatever they are risking them for is worth it. A noncombatant has not made this choice, and has the right NOT TO HAVE THE CHOICE MADE FOR HIM/HER.

1) Internal threat. Group or groups of people with similar political beliefs are dedicated to the overthrow of the government - through any means necessary... Some factions of the group engage in non-violence, political activism, legal harrassment... Others are more violent - advocating and carrying out murder and other violent crimes to achieve their goals... These groups do not have the support of the populace as a whole, indeed have relatively little support from the "mainstream population."

This has already happened, so there is no need to speculate on how it would be handled.

2) Internal threat, modified. As number #1 save say 20% of the population have no problem with any of what the terrorists are doing and in fact support them - "They killed the governor? I never liked him anyway..."

This has also happened (see Waco). Again, there is no need to speculate on what would happen since we can simply observe from precedent. They could have simply used rockets and bombs to annihilate the whole compound, Israeli-style, but they didn't. They tried to go in while causing as few casualties as possible; I saw it live on TV, with the rammer poking a hole in the wall, the troops moving in, and the flames starting from the opposite end of the compound. They tried their best. If they were the IDF and the Branch Davidians Arab, they would have flattened the whole building with heavy weapons, no questions asked. And Shep would be cheering them on.

3) External threat. Small groups of people, clandestinely supported by both foreign governments and private individuals from aboard (money - safe havens - training etc), engage in acts of terrorism against a Western country. How is the Western country to proceed?

Those are called acts of war. They should proceed by declaring war on the sponsoring states and taking appropriate action. However, this is not what they do; they never declare war on anybody. Instead, they try to hit specific targets here or there in retaliation.

4) External threat - modified. A country, say non-nuclear third-world nation has dedicated itself to destroying your country through clandestine and terrorist means. And the vast majority of its population, say 80%, is supportive of this and moreover *hates* your country - if invaded directly, these people would suicide themselves in trying to kill your invading troops.

If they've declared war on you, declare war on them. I don't see the problem.

5) External threat. Occupation. Your nation (for better or for worse) has invaded the terrorist sponsoring state in example number 4 in order to stop the attacks upon your country and topple the existing terrorist-sponsoring state...

You have to find and arrest the terrorists, and either build up the state into a viable colony or erect a puppet government to do it for you. It is your property now, and you must treat it accordingly. The treatment of terrorists should be the same as it was in scenarios #1 and #2.

Darth Wong wrote:

willburns84 wrote:The rather, ummm,

4) External threat - modified. A country, say non-nuclear third-world nation has dedicated itself to destroying your country through clandestine and terrorist means. And the vast majority of its population, say 80%, is supportive of this and moreover *hates* your country - if invaded directly, these people would suicide themselves in trying to kill your invading troops.

If they've declared war on you, declare war on them. I don't see the problem.

5) External threat. Occupation. Your nation (for better or for worse) has invaded the terrorist sponsoring state in example number 4 in order to stop the attacks upon your country and topple the existing terrorist-sponsoring state...

You have to find and arrest the terrorists, and either build up the state into a viable colony or erect a puppet government to do it for you. It is your property now, and you must treat it accordingly. The treatment of terrorists should be the same as it was in scenarios #1 and #2.

But, the occupation, once the troops are there - *that* is what I'm aiming for. An entire population wants you and your countrymen (sexist term I know ) to suffer and bleed and die, how do you deal with the population as a whole? Erecting a puppet government would go against the "popular will of the people" and could only be done by ignoring the "self-determination of the people."

And if the puppet government is toppled and a regime comes to power which is exactly the same as the one that was originally toppled by you in the first place, what then?

Enforcer Talen wrote:since when do ethical+combat go into the same sentence?

Welcome to modern western civilization.

willburns84 wrote:And if the puppet government is toppled and a regime comes to power which is exactly the same as the one that was originally toppled by you in the first place, what then?

Invade again?

willburns84 wrote:

Enforcer Talen wrote:since when do ethical+combat go into the same sentence?

Welcome to modern western civilization.

true, true. send in the panzers then.

Darth Wong wrote:

willburns84 wrote:

I specifically mentioned "murder of innocents" because the common reaction to the death of law enforcement or military personnel is: "Well, these people knew the risks when they put on the uniform." Somehow implying that their lives have less value than someone who is not uniform.

It is not that their lives have less value; they have deliberately chosen to risk them. They think that whatever they are risking them for is worth it. A noncombatant has not made this choice, and has the right NOT TO HAVE THE CHOICE MADE FOR HIM/HER.

What you so eloquently wrote is precisely what I mean. On a certain level I appreciate the words and the meaning behind them, but the rest of me cannot accept them.

The fact is that if three thousand men and women in uniform had died as a result of a terrorist attack (the mechanics are not relevant for this exercise) many many fewer people would have given a shit. And that, *that* angers me.

I'm an Army brat, so I'm a wee bit biased.

So that's why Pearl Harbor shocked the nation just as much as 9/11, right?

IRG CommandoJoe wrote:

willburns84 wrote:And if the puppet government is toppled and a regime comes to power which is exactly the same as the one that was originally toppled by you in the first place, what then?

Invade again?

And then what?

Invade again and again? Stay and bleed yourself white trying to "pacify" the locals? All the while having national media organizations inevitably becoming sympathetic to the locals - "Day ten of our occupation and the locals are so unhappy to have us here that they are blowing themselves up in a bid to get us to leave."

How do you deal with such a gross level of hatred? Hate does not disappear over time, it does not fade away in any way shape or form.

IRG CommandoJoe wrote:So that's why Pearl Harbor shocked the nation just as much as 9/11, right?

The United States of 2003 is *not* the same nation of 1941. Different eras, different populations, different circumstances...

Enforcer Talen wrote:

willburns84 wrote:

Enforcer Talen wrote:since when do ethical+combat go into the same sentence?

Welcome to modern western civilization.

true, true. send in the panzers then.

Then we're not a "western democracy" any longer.

willburns84 wrote:

IRG CommandoJoe wrote:So that's why Pearl Harbor shocked the nation just as much as 9/11, right?

The United States of 2003 is *not* the same nation of 1941. Different eras, different populations, different circumstances...

I just don't agree that if a Pearl Harbor-type incident happened today Americans wouldn't give a shit.

willburns84 wrote:

IRG CommandoJoe wrote:

willburns84 wrote:And if the puppet government is toppled and a regime comes to power which is exactly the same as the one that was originally toppled by you in the first place, what then?

Invade again?

And then what?

Invade again and again? Stay and bleed yourself white trying to "pacify" the locals? All the while having national media organizations inevitably becoming sympathetic to the locals - "Day ten of our occupation and the locals are so unhappy to have us here that they are blowing themselves up in a bid to get us to leave."

How do you deal with such a gross level of hatred? Hate does not disappear over time, it does not fade away in any way shape or form.

It depends. Was the puppet regime a good one or was it similar to the original or the one that toppled it? If it were a good one...well...I'd probably pull out the forces. If it were a bad one, then I'd distribute food, medicine, blankets, etc. to the populace and persuade them to let the U.S. establish a better government. If they refuse, well, then I'd pack it up.

-- Then we're not a "western democracy" any longer. --

Youre right. To be a proper western democracy we must bullshit, blowshit up, then bullshit some more all the while claiming that we're defending the God given freedom of the world..

IRG CommandoJoe wrote:

willburns84 wrote:

IRG CommandoJoe wrote:So that's why Pearl Harbor shocked the nation just as much as 9/11, right?

The United States of 2003 is *not* the same nation of 1941. Different eras, different populations, different circumstances...

I just don't agree that if a Pearl Harbor-type incident happened today Americans wouldn't give a shit.

Well, a significant portion would care, half of the country, I don't know. But there would be a great many people, with their sympathetic allies in the media, would have the following attitude:
"Well, we must have done something to deserve this attack..."
or
"Well, they were only those war mongering military thugs, who cares? It's not as if the innocent died. They volunteered..."
or
"Instead of lashing out like some testosterone hyped Southerner with the gunrack in his truck, we should instead understand why this happened and take steps to make sure it doesn't happen again..."

Indeed, the third reaction was prevalent amongst a great many people in the USA even after 9/11.

kojikun wrote:-- Then we're not a "western democracy" any longer. --
Youre right. To be a proper western democracy we must bullshit, blowshit up, then bullshit some more all the while claiming that we're defending the God given freedom of the world..

I was being sarcastic.
The point I'm trying to make is that a modern western democracy is not prepared to take the steps necessary to defeat a people or peoples that are truly dedicated to destroying that western democracy. What steps are those? I think we can imagine what those steps might be.

Do not mention World War Two, with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.

The peoples of those two nations were not truly dedicated to destroying western democracy. They were fighting for other reasons, but not to destroy western civilization for the sake of destroying it. They did not HATE the US or Britain or France.

Think of the Draka - the dedication the Domination of the Draka had, their will to achieve victory - that is the kind of HATE I speak of.

Oh, the sarcasm that I use and the quotations I put around western civilization. I use it because there are so many people in the United States and Europe who believe that all cultures and societies are equal and deserve equal respect.

I don't agree with this at all. I think Western Civilization is the greatest in the world, despite its faults.

I don't think that Western Civ is on the same moral level as cultures that engage in female circumcision (such as in some African nations), slavery (still practiced in Sudan), or denial of sufferange and even basic human rights to women (in many Middle Eastern nations).

Call me a narrow minded bastard, but I happen to be grateful I'm in a nation with western values.

Lets assume that the terrorist attack was fully focused on the Pentagon. The terrorists rammed all of their planes into the Pentagon and killed three thousand military personnel inside the building. You still don't think America would be pissed off and would want to go to war?

IRG CommandoJoe wrote:Lets assume that the terrorist attack was fully focused on the Pentagon. The terrorists rammed all of their planes into the Pentagon and killed three thousand military personnel inside the building. You still don't think America would be pissed off and would want to go to war?

I think America would still have gone to war, but there would have been much more resistance to it from a much larger portion of the population.

Remember, to the anti-war crowd, the lives of those who work for the Department of Defense be they civilian or military are worth nothing.

I constantly bring up the anti-war crowd and the blame America first groups because so many people underestimate their influence. I do not.

Maybe you're right.

IRG CommandoJoe wrote:Maybe you're right.

Don't get me wrong. I wish it was otherwise, but remember (warning political views going to become apparent) - even in the US Congress during the 80's there were a group of Representatives who went down to Nicaragua to embrace Manuel Ortega, a repressive communist dictator allied with the USSR - our political enemy. The fact that American voters will send people to Washington who embrace people who govern with a political-economic system that necessitates the murder of entire groups of people is still something which I cannot abide.

And the above is just one example of the groups I speak of...

::shakes self:: Okay. I'm better...

Darth Wong wrote:

willburns84 wrote:The rather, ummm, passionate, exchanges in the 12 Billion $$$ to Israel thread http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=9652 brought up the issue of how Israel combats terrorism and how it fights, or reacts, rather to homicide bombers from the Gaza strip and West Bank. The exchanges were spirited and made me wonder about how a "western democracy" - I use the term in quotations to amuse some and annoy others - should combat terrorism - particularly terrorism that is aimed squarely at the murder of innocents.

Let's look at Timothy McVeigh's case. They investigated, tracked him down, arrested him, and executed him. They did not harm his family in any way, or his friends, even though some of them were undoubtedly cognizant of his intentions.

And what would you do when his supporters took hostages and demanded you released him? Then the act of taking prisoners becomes a liability.

That's the situation Israel has faced many times.

So you have a choice:

1.) Risk your own lives protecting the very people who want to see you dead.
2.) Bombs away!

Ok, you could try surgical strikes to get the leadership, but that isn't as effective in completeing your main goal, and could endanger the people sent in to complete such a mission.

2) Internal threat, modified. As number #1 save say 20% of the population have no problem with any of what the terrorists are doing and in fact support them - "They killed the governor? I never liked him anyway..."

This has also happened (see Waco). Again, there is no need to speculate on what would happen since we can simply observe from precedent. They could have simply used rockets and bombs to annihilate the whole compound, Israeli-style, but they didn't. They tried to go in while causing as few casualties as possible; I saw it live on TV, with the rammer poking a hole in the wall, the troops moving in, and the flames starting from the opposite end of the compound. They tried their best. If they were the IDF and the Branch Davidians Arab, they would have flattened the whole building with heavy weapons, no questions asked. And Shep would be cheering them on.

And the Wacos would have been part of an organization that had carried out hundreds of attacks, killed hostages to get prisoners released and be responsible for at least 2 attempted attacks that week.

And the IDF would have 3 other such organizations to deal with at the same time.

The situation isn't the same, so the analogy breaks down. With the Wacos that was their first major offense, no one knew what they were going to do. With Hamas, you pretty much know how it's going to end up.

3) External threat. Small groups of people, clandestinely supported by both foreign governments and private individuals from aboard (money - safe havens - training etc), engage in acts of terrorism against a Western country. How is the Western country to proceed?

Those are called acts of war. They should proceed by declaring war on the sponsoring states and taking appropriate action. However, this is not what they do; they never declare war on anybody. Instead, they try to hit specific targets here or there in retaliation.

Again, not the situation. There is no government to declare war on, cause it's non-official non-government agencies carrying out these attacks.

And when there was a government and when there is a government and they do declare war, people jump up and down screaming that they are the aggressors.

5) External threat. Occupation. Your nation (for better or for worse) has invaded the terrorist sponsoring state in example number 4 in order to stop the attacks upon your country and topple the existing terrorist-sponsoring state...

You have to find and arrest the terrorists, and either build up the state into a viable colony or erect a puppet government to do it for you.

And if doing either is sited as the reason for further attacks?

willburns84 wrote:
What would an "ethical" "western democracy" do or should do in these situations?

The minimum necessary to end the threat, without any fixed upper restraint; the only upper restraint being what is rationally calculated as being necessary, and not exceeding that (as exceeding the rational calculus for necessary force would be by definition, done for irrational reasons). What is rationally calculated as necessary, however, does not poentially have a limit simply because a nation is a western democracy.

There is no such thing as an ethical State; it would not survive in the world.