How To Stop Terrorists

[Cobra Commander]

I guess I'll go ahead and be the crazy one to say that some things are morally wrong, regardless of whether or not they're legal or pragmatic.

So if we were to kill 50 captured enemy soldiers to save the lives of many times that amount it's immoral how?

 

[bubblehead]

So if we were to kill 50 captured enemy soldiers to save the lives of many times that amount it's immoral how?

Special Request Chit: when answering this question, please leave religion out of the discussion.

 

[fastnumber15]

IGNORANT RANT BELOW!!

During the Revolutionary War we adopted gurailla war tactics to help defeat our enemy....seen as unruley and a horrible act by all that opposed us...yet...we defeated our enemy. What was considered morally right and respectable (standing in a straight line and lobbing bullets with little strategy), would probably have lost us our independence.

During WWI we implemented the real first use of aircraft as a means to destroy our opponent, who also retaliated with aircraft.

During WWII we saw a huge increase in the use of aircraft and tanks, which our enemy used back against us.

During Vietnam our enemy used harsh traps and torutured the hell out of Americans, they used trip wire and wooden spikes, hammered bamboo under the fingernails of American, yet.....we did not return the favor....and the outcome was less than favorable.

During our current struggle with terrorism we are fighting people who have no morals, and use tactics that are considered harsh, extreme, and violent. Yet, we are not retaliating with equal tactics, and are going to put an end to any type of torture in the US to gain intelligence. Now, terrorism is on the rise again and will continue to gain strength as world economies weaken.

Summary: In the conflicts where we used "harsh" tactics or fought fire with fire....we did pretty damn well....and where we are sticking to our morals and NOT adapting....we are struggling more....

WHY NOT UPDATE OR ALTER THE UCMJ??

 

[statesman]

During our current struggle with terrorism we are fighting people who have no morals,

Morals as you see them from your vantage point at the center of western civilization. You might feel differently were you in their shoes. You might even find that they feel we are devoid of moral fiber.

Youre going to find that many of truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view

 

[eddie]

IGNORANT RANT BELOW!!

During Vietnam our enemy used harsh traps and torutured the hell out of Americans, they used trip wire and wooden spikes, hammered bamboo under the fingernails of American, yet.....we did not return the favor....and the outcome was less than favorable.

During our current struggle with terrorism we are fighting people who have no morals, and use tactics that are considered harsh, extreme, and violent. Yet, we are not retaliating with equal tactics, and are going to put an end to any type of torture in the US to gain intelligence. Now, terrorism is on the rise again and will continue to gain strength as world economies weaken.

I'm not sure either of the above paragraphs are fair correlations.
We didn't "lose" in Vietnam for tactical considerations, did we?

And are we not winning this current set of... "conflicts?"

 

[eddie]

Youre going to find that many of truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view

"Nothing is true, Everything is permitted."

/nerd

 

[fastnumber15]

I'm not sure either of the above paragraphs are fair correlations.
We didn't "lose" in Vietnam for tactical considerations, did we?

And are we not winning this current set of... "conflicts?"

True....thats why I was very cautious and never used the term "lost" or "win". I said the outcome was less than favorable...meaning that we could have done alot better. And if we did "lose" it was because of politacal agenda getting in the way of tactical considerations!

 

[HercDriver]

IGNORANT RANT BELOW!!

During the Revolutionary War we adopted gurailla war tactics to help defeat our enemy....seen as unruley and a horrible act by all that opposed us...yet...we defeated our enemy. What was considered morally right and respectable (standing in a straight line and lobbing bullets with little strategy), would probably have lost us our independence.

During WWI we implemented the real first use of aircraft as a means to destroy our opponent, who also retaliated with aircraft.

During WWII we saw a huge increase in the use of aircraft and tanks, which our enemy used back against us.

During Vietnam our enemy used harsh traps and torutured the hell out of Americans, they used trip wire and wooden spikes, hammered bamboo under the fingernails of American, yet.....we did not return the favor....and the outcome was less than favorable.

During our current struggle with terrorism we are fighting people who have no morals, and use tactics that are considered harsh, extreme, and violent. Yet, we are not retaliating with equal tactics, and are going to put an end to any type of torture in the US to gain intelligence. Now, terrorism is on the rise again and will continue to gain strength as world economies weaken.

Summary: In the conflicts where we used "harsh" tactics or fought fire with fire....we did pretty damn well....and where we are sticking to our morals and NOT adapting....we are struggling more....

WHY NOT UPDATE OR ALTER THE UCMJ??

So if our enemy uses tactics we deem cowardly or immoral (killing children, torturing, etc.), we will beat them by chucking out all of the things that make us an example/"shining beacon on a hill"/etc., like our morals and sense of right and wrong and do the same?

This goes to the larger shift I noticed after 9/11 that some people will give up hard-earned rights, and change how we treat our enemies because of being attacked and later going to war. Your rant goes along with the idea that because we were attacked and our enemies are "evil", we can justify anything we do as we fight them.

"Who gives up their life to preserve their country's rights is a hero.
Who gives up their country's rights to preserve their life is a coward."

 

[fastnumber15]

Negative: My rant was a rant because it is something that alot of us probably think about. I certainly would never allow or believe in the unethical and down right wrong acts of using helpless civilians to accomplish military or terrorist agenda. I do however; strongly believe that certain times call for change in the way we conduct and develop our strategy, and it would be a shame to allow for p/c or the fear of the world viewing us in a negative manner to determine the course of actions that MUST be taken to counter terrorism.

I am not concerned with what a terrorists morals are, only what morals I was brought up with and what I believe America stands for.

I am concerned with the morals that INNOCENT middle eastern citizens, refugee's, vagabonds, etc etc etc have, and respect their view of religion and the world, but when it comes to a terrorist who will use anything or anyone to accomplish his means, we must adapt!

 

[Cobra Commander]

So, would dousing your enemies in pig blood/ hot dogs before you blow them away be morally wrong? I don't think so. It seems like an effective way to destroy enemy morale. Plus you don't have to level cities or poison their drinking water.

Now I'm guessing that if this happened now some Imam would decree that jihad fighters are immune, but its worth a try.

 

[LazersGoPEWPEW]

IGNORANT RANT BELOW!!

During the Revolutionary War we adopted gurailla war tactics to help defeat our enemy....seen as unruley and a horrible act by all that opposed us...yet...we defeated our enemy. What was considered morally right and respectable (standing in a straight line and lobbing bullets with little strategy), would probably have lost us our independence.

That whole paragraph = bullshit. You obviously are ignorant of the history of combat and tactics of the revolution. Guerilla tactics were not in heavy use by the Continental Army and anyone who believes that guerilla tactics won the war is looney. I know it stings to hear it, but the French coming to our aid is the reason we won the war. We were outtrained, outmanned, and outgunned. The French Caribbean Fleet moved up during hurricane season to smash the British at Yorktown which led to the surrender by Cornwallis.

Sorry but I had to clear that fallacy up. If you think you've got the facts to back up your argument about American usage of guerilla tactics to defeat the enemy in true battle then by all means present them. Or that the lack of usage would have led to defeat.

 

[FlyinRock]

A bullet in the head usually takes care of the terrorist problem. That works both ways but I'd much rather be the shooter than the shootee and that is the way I'm gonna live my life.
If you choose to violate my way of life, in MY society, or endanger those I love and care for, YOU have just given up your right to live in my society. And, I am not amenable to spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to support your ass in prison when it can be taken care of by a single round of .45ACP in the brain housing group. If you're cheap, you can do it with a couple of .22LR.
I'm really fed up with the namby pamby touchy feeley bullshit when people are trying to overthrow our way of life and bring their own problems to my peaceful way of life.
As I've said many times, I'm a pacifist with the means to enforce my rights to be a pacifist.
Now I read that our new president has signed off on, and we are going to pay for, a lot of refugees with anti american feeling into our country. the same ones who blow up malls and voting areas, and or for whatever reasons. We are now importing terrorists and paying for them?
What insanity.
disgusted and Semper fi anyway
Rocky

 

[FlyinRock]

So if our enemy uses tactics we deem cowardly or immoral (killing children, torturing, etc.), we will beat them by chucking out all of the things that make us an example/"shining beacon on a hill"/etc., like our morals and sense of right and wrong and do the same?

This goes to the larger shift I noticed after 9/11 that some people will give up hard-earned rights, and change how we treat our enemies because of being attacked and later going to war. Your rant goes along with the idea that because we were attacked and our enemies are "evil", we can justify anything we do as we fight them.

"Who gives up their life to preserve their country's rights is a hero.
Who gives up their country's rights to preserve their life is a coward."

*******************************************888
"If you force me to do violence, I shall be so savage, and so cruel, and hurt you so badly, the thought of revenge shall never cross your mind."
Machiavelli
That is the kind of mind set I have when I or my family is threatened. If a threat is terminated, they can no longer be a threat. You'll play hell trying to change my mind in that regard. I find it hard to believe a military group is going touchy feeley .............
Yes I am a hard nosed Marine and proud of it
Semper Fi
Rocky

 

[fastnumber15]

That whole paragraph = bullshit. You obviously are ignorant of the history of combat and tactics of the revolution. Guerilla tactics were not in heavy use by the Continental Army and anyone who believes that guerilla tactics won the war is looney. I know it stings to hear it, but the French coming to our aid is the reason we won the war. We were outtrained, outmanned, and outgunned. The French Caribbean Fleet moved up during hurricane season to smash the British at Yorktown which led to the surrender by Cornwallis.

Sorry but I had to clear that fallacy up. If you think you've got the facts to back up your argument about American usage of guerilla tactics to defeat the enemy in true battle then by all means present them. Or that the lack of usage would have led to defeat.

ACTUALLY: I am not completely ignorant of the concepts of how our wars were won or lost. As for evidence to "help" back up my comments:

guerrilla warfare


From: The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition | Date: 2008 | The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. Copyright 2008 Columbia University Press. (Hide copyright information) Copyright information
guerrilla warfare [Span.,=little war], fighting by groups of irregular troops (guerrillas) within areas occupied by the enemy. When guerrillas obey the laws of conventional warfare they are entitled, if captured, to be treated as ordinary prisoners of war; however, they are often executed by their captors. The tactics of guerrilla warfare stress deception and ambush, as opposed to mass confrontation, and succeed best in an irregular, rugged, terrain and with a sympathetic populace, whom guerrillas often seek to win over by propaganda, reform, and terrorism. Guerrilla warfare has played a significant role in modern history, especially when waged by Communist liberation movements in Southeast Asia and elsewhere.

History

In the American Revolution and the Nineteenth Century

Large-scale guerrilla fighting accompanied the American Revolution, and the development of guerrilla tactics under such partisan leaders as Francis Marion , Andrew Pickens , and Thomas Sumter has been called the great contribution of the American Revolution to the development of warfare. The term guerrilla itself was coined during the Peninsular War (1808-14), when Spanish partisans, under such leaders as Francisco Mina, proved unconquerable even by the armies of Napoleon I . From Spain the use of the term spread to Latin America and then to the United States.

During the U.S. Civil War, William C. Quantrill , who operated in Missouri and Kansas, was the most notorious of the Confederate guerrilla leaders, but John S. Mosby , in Virginia, was undoubtedly the most effective. During the Franco-Prussian War (1870-71) the Germans suffered so much from French partisans, or francs-tireurs, that Field Marshall von Moltke ordered the shooting of all prisoners not fully uniformed and led by regular officers. In the Philippines after the Spanish-American War, the U.S. Army conducted a long campaign against Filipino guerrillas, such as Emilio Aguinaldo , and Moro bands. There has been frequent guerrilla warfare in Latin America. Notable among early 20th-century Latin American guerrillas are Francisco (Pancho) Villa , Emiliano Zapata , and Augusto C. Sandino .

Hope that brings some or any credibility back to my name!

 

[LazersGoPEWPEW]

ACTUALLY: I am not completely ignorant of the concepts of how our wars were won or lost. As for evidence to "help" back up my comments:

guerrilla warfare


From: The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition | Date: 2008 | The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. Copyright 2008 Columbia University Press. (Hide copyright information) Copyright information
guerrilla warfare [Span.,=little war], fighting by groups of irregular troops (guerrillas) within areas occupied by the enemy. When guerrillas obey the laws of conventional warfare they are entitled, if captured, to be treated as ordinary prisoners of war; however, they are often executed by their captors. The tactics of guerrilla warfare stress deception and ambush, as opposed to mass confrontation, and succeed best in an irregular, rugged, terrain and with a sympathetic populace, whom guerrillas often seek to win over by propaganda, reform, and terrorism. Guerrilla warfare has played a significant role in modern history, especially when waged by Communist liberation movements in Southeast Asia and elsewhere.

History

In the American Revolution and the Nineteenth Century

Large-scale guerrilla fighting accompanied the American Revolution, and the development of guerrilla tactics under such partisan leaders as Francis Marion , Andrew Pickens , and Thomas Sumter has been called the great contribution of the American Revolution to the development of warfare. The term guerrilla itself was coined during the Peninsular War (1808-14), when Spanish partisans, under such leaders as Francisco Mina, proved unconquerable even by the armies of Napoleon I . From Spain the use of the term spread to Latin America and then to the United States.

During the U.S. Civil War, William C. Quantrill , who operated in Missouri and Kansas, was the most notorious of the Confederate guerrilla leaders, but John S. Mosby , in Virginia, was undoubtedly the most effective. During the Franco-Prussian War (1870-71) the Germans suffered so much from French partisans, or francs-tireurs, that Field Marshall von Moltke ordered the shooting of all prisoners not fully uniformed and led by regular officers. In the Philippines after the Spanish-American War, the U.S. Army conducted a long campaign against Filipino guerrillas, such as Emilio Aguinaldo , and Moro bands. There has been frequent guerrilla warfare in Latin America. Notable among early 20th-century Latin American guerrillas are Francisco (Pancho) Villa , Emiliano Zapata , and Augusto C. Sandino .

Hope that brings some or any credibility back to my name!

I'm well aware of the Swamp Fox. I'm also well aware of our contribution to the development of guerilla warfare tactics. Yes they made a contribution but it wasn't a turning point type and didn't have a massive effect on the war effort. You made it seem as if we would have lost if we had never used it when in reality it's not true.