The term "terrorism" is statist

[HemlockGrey]

So I can safely assume that no one is claiming that WTC and Hiroshima are equal?

[MKSheppard]

Bingo, terrorism is just a catchword for any form of unconventional warfare that's carried out which the Geneva conventions and major world powers don't approve of.

Not really. It's a catchword that's applied to cowardly little shits who
chose to shoot at pregnant women instead of IDF soldiers.

[Darth Wong]

Then any tactic primarily designed to spread fear through the populace is terrorism? This brings us back to Kynes' "shock and awe" argument.

I believe "shock and awe" was directed against the Iraqi military, and was intended to cause large portions of it to defect.

That doesn't change the fact that tactics intended to spread fear through a civilian populace are common in warfare. Hell, most "psychological warfare" tactics fall directly into that category.

And just like one of those preparatory barrages, it was relatively ineffective, which is hardly surprising. People have been overestimating the effect that such attacks would have for a long time, at the least since Pickett thought his artillery would drive the Union troops off Cemetary Ridge.

Was it really that ineffective? I got the impression that Iraqi troops were heavily demoralized, although perhaps that was due more to their own shitty leadership and equipment than the "shock and awe" campaign.

[Darth Wong]

Bingo, terrorism is just a catchword for any form of unconventional warfare that's carried out which the Geneva conventions and major world powers don't approve of.

Not really. It's a catchword that's applied to cowardly little shits who
chose to shoot at pregnant women instead of IDF soldiers.

Right. But bombing pregnant women or shooting rockets at their neighbourhoods is OK, right?

[Darth Wong]

So I can safely assume that no one is claiming that WTC and Hiroshima are equal?

No. Hiroshima killed far more people. The firebombings of Tokyo's residential districts were arguably even worse.

[MKSheppard]

Right. But bombing pregnant women or shooting rockets at their neighbourhoods is OK, right?

Wait, so you're saying that it's OK for HAMAS to load up a bunch of
inbred fucks whose education consists of repeating verse after verse
of the Koran with C-4 and send them into a crowded shopping mall
and blow themself up? Thanks for making your views clear

[MKSheppard]

Right. But bombing pregnant women or shooting rockets at their neighbourhoods is OK, right?

Or for HAMAS to launch Katyusha rockets into major civilian centres indiscriminately? Oh thanks for clarifying it all

[Darth Wong]

Right. But bombing pregnant women or shooting rockets at their neighbourhoods is OK, right?

Wait, so you're saying that it's OK for HAMAS to load up a bunch of
inbred fucks whose education consists of repeating verse after verse
of the Koran with C-4 and send them into a crowded shopping mall
and blow themself up? Thanks for making your views clear

Thanks for yet another pathetically obvious strawman distortion, Shep. I'm saying that it's no worse to load up a bunch of inbred fucks with C-4 and send them into a shopping centre than it is to bomb that shopping centre because you think an enemy might be inside.

[Gil Hamilton]

The firebombings were more of an example of what Mike is talking about. For instance, the March 9th, 1945 raid on Tokyo was specifically targeted and designed to maximize civilian casualties. It was a night time raid using incidenary bombs rather than high explosive targeting Tokyo's most densely populated area with the objective of burning it to the ground. It was very successful and about 15 square miles of Tokyo was destroyed with ~185,000 civilians dead. (reference: the United States Strategic Bombing Survey: Summary Report (Pacific War)

Many people claim that this wasn't to target the civilian population directly, but rather the cottage industry in those neighborhoods. This is not true. According to the same report, the Japanese had largely eliminated it's home industry by 1944, a year before the Marth 9th raid of Tokyo.

[J]

Not really. It's a catchword that's applied to cowardly little shits who chose to shoot at pregnant women instead of IDF soldiers.

Right, and what about those special forces or covert soldiers shooting up and killing people? What about all the CIA & other spooks dicking around in other countries inciting revolutions and god knows what else? What are they?

[MKSheppard]

Thanks for yet another pathetically obvious strawman distortion, Shep. I'm saying that it's no worse to load up a bunch of inbred fucks with C-4 and send them into a shopping centre than it is to bomb that shopping centre because you think an enemy might be inside.

Except that we don't bomb the shopping centres anyway. We just wait till
they wander outside the shopping center and then shoot them dead, instead
of using 2,000 pounds of bombs to blow the shopping center to hell

[HemlockGrey]

No. Hiroshima killed far more people. The firebombings of Tokyo's residential districts were arguably even worse.

The Hiroshima bombing also saved the lives of more people than it killed.

[MKSheppard]

Right, and what about those special forces or covert soldiers shooting up and killing people?

Give me one concrete example of a US Special Forces A team walking into
a village in Afghanistan and machinegunning everyone dead.

[Darth Wong]

Thanks for yet another pathetically obvious strawman distortion, Shep. I'm saying that it's no worse to load up a bunch of inbred fucks with C-4 and send them into a shopping centre than it is to bomb that shopping centre because you think an enemy might be inside.

Except that we don't bomb the shopping centres anyway. We just wait till
they wander outside the shopping center and then shoot them dead, instead
of using 2,000 pounds of bombs to blow the shopping center to hell

Ideally yes, and I would have no problem with that. However, the IDF can and will use artillery against residential areas where they believe an enemy is hiding.

[Darth Wong]

No. Hiroshima killed far more people. The firebombings of Tokyo's residential districts were arguably even worse.

The Hiroshima bombing also saved the lives of more people than it killed.

Speculation. Not objective evidence.

[Darth Wong]

Right, and what about those special forces or covert soldiers shooting up and killing people? What about all the CIA & other spooks dicking around in other countries inciting revolutions and god knows what else? What are they?

Patriots.

Remember, Osama Bin-Laden is a terrorist, but the CIA people who trained him were patriots. And in fact, he himself was not a terrorist when he fought the Soviets using the same methods; he was a "freedom fighter".

[MKSheppard]

And in fact, he himself was not a terrorist when he fought the Soviets using the same methods; he was a "freedom fighter".

Except he wasn't blowing up boatloads of Russian civilians in Moscow with
suicide bombings, but instead blowing up APC loads of Red Army Soldiers
who were trying their damndest to kill him...shame he had to go over
to the bad side.

[Darth Wong]

I find it interesting that the only people who are actively fighting for this idea are the 13-year old kid and "Captain Knee-Jerk" Shep. Marina isn't playing this game because she knows better; shouldn't that tell you something?

BTW, I'm still waiting for both of you to answer my challenge for an ironclad definition of terrorism that I can't turn around on you. In fact, I'm still waiting for you to even acknowledge that the challenge was made. What's the matter, cat got your tongue?

[Gil Hamilton]

The Hiroshima bombing also saved the lives of more people than it killed.

How many lives were saved by the firebombing of Tokyo, or Kobe, or Osaka (or Dresdan, but that's a different theatre): all raids designed to with maximum civilian casualties?

[Joe]

Remember, Osama Bin-Laden is a terrorist, but the CIA people who trained him were patriots. And in fact, he himself was not a terrorist when he fought the Soviets using the same methods; he was a "freedom fighter".

The CIA did not train bin Laden. It may have funded him indirectly, however.

[HemlockGrey]

Speculation. Not objective evidence.

So you would have rather we launched a massive invasion of the home islands? I mean, sure, it would have required an enormous troop committment, sure, the Japanese were preparing to fight for every last inch of soil, sure, a huge storm was going to hit the fleet, sure we would have had repeats of Okinawa times 100, but for all we know, the invasion of the home islands could have been pulled off with only a few thousand casualties...

Honestly; every scrap of evidence points to a bloodbath that would have far exceeded the bombs. Or would it have been better to simply blockade and starve the population to death?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Was it really that ineffective? I got the impression that Iraqi troops were heavily demoralized, although perhaps that was due more to their own shitty leadership and equipment than the "shock and awe" campaign.

Has the article with the Jihadi claiming that U.S. tanks had "forcefields" that made them invulnerable to their fire been posted here, yet? I think that might give a laugh..

Well, I would have to say it really depends on the unit. I get the idea that "Shock and Awe" was intended to cause the Iraqi leadership--the officers in command of units--to defect with their men, or at least throw down their arms enmasse. It didn't.

I think I can make the following observations:

The very top of the structure was rotten, but the officers at, say, the brigade level or so and down were decent. These men held together and tried to fight. They were, however, hampered by the total lack of a decent corps of NCOs, which has been a classic weakness of Arab armies and makes them highly inflexible and generally lacking in initiative.

But I do recall that one article where the officers commented that they stood outside their trenches during the bombing as an example to their men. If nothing else, they knew how to lead--even during circumstances which must have been exceptionally horrible, with the bombs coming endlessly and there being absolutely no way to fight back. All they could do was stand their ground and try to keep their men in place for the arrival of the American ground troops.

Of course, the bombings would cause many desertions. We know this to be the case. But it appears that these were not the desertions of whole units but rather just large parts of units. So what essentially happened was that, those willing to fight, fought; and those who didn't, had already run away. I would not be surprised if in most cases the Iraqis at contact were already outnumbered by the U.S. forces, though perhaps in a few incidences of meeting the Republican Guard this was not the case.

We know from the first Gulf War that small American armoured units, then, are quite capable of destroying large groups of Iraqi Republican Guard armour and infantry in devstatingly short periods of time. What is likely to have happened is that the Iraqis stood their ground against the bombing, suffering casualties and desertion, but basically not breaking.

Then they were hit by our advancing forces. Their armour either destroyed, or, when still remaining, outdated and fragmented, could provide little resistance; they were largely reduced to infantry fighting an armoured force that was highly mobile. Infantry with an inflexible doctrine and nearly WWI-era command and control.

The result is that, almost certainly, the bulk of the Iraqi units were routed by the advance of our ground forces, as military forces always have been. Demoralized and attrited by the air attacks, it would have been this onslaught which in the end finished them, either finally breaking the units and sending them into general rout, particularly with the death of their officers, or simply outright totally destroying them.

In the case of some units like the Hammurabi division we get the idea that they endured the air attacks to lose most of their armour, but still stayed in place to fight the advancing ground forces; they simply stood no chance against our coordination and stiff, rapid advance, however, and those who fought were destroyed in place, the lucky melting back in the general populace.

[Frank Hipper]

What? No mention of Dresden?
"Bomber" Harris got pulled over one night for driving drunk, and the policeman said something to the effect of "You might kill someone", Harris replied "I kill thousands of people every night."
At least he had some personal honesty, eh?

[Joe]

The Hiroshima bombing also saved the lives of more people than it killed.

How many lives were saved by the firebombing of Tokyo, or Kobe, or Osaka (or Dresdan, but that's a different theatre): all raids designed to with maximum civilian casualties?

Japan has 300,000 civilian casualties in WWII, as I recall. Subtract that from estimates of civilian death tolls in the event of an extended blockade or an invasion, and you'll have your answer.

[MKSheppard]

BTW, I'm still waiting for both of you to answer my challenge for an ironclad definition of terrorism that I can't turn around on you.

The Ironclad definition of terrorism is pretty fucking simple to everyone
except YOU, Mike Wong. It's so simple that pretty much everyone knows
it except you.

It's when you KNOWINGLY and SPECIFICALLY target civilians as your primary objective, even though it's in your power to target military
targets only. There's a reason why there were lots of protests when
Bomber Harris got a statue in London, due to his "area bombing"
strategy.