Author | Message | |||||
|
Seriously, me either. If you don't make any sense I have no idea how you expect people to respond to you? -----  click! | |||||
|
aoe3. Ugh, no thanks. It's just no fun without stone walls and the cavalry. Lol, you know aoe3 has both those things, and is in shiney 3d with physics for cannons? No downside. | |||||
|
On October 24, 2009, 7:08PM, nodgene said: Terrorism is a criminal matter, not a military one. So no. well, no. terrorists are basically paramilitary. ----- insert nerdy signature here | |||||
|
On November 2, 2009, 2:38PM, xellence said: On October 31, 2009, 3:01PM, hezekiah said: So, what, you've met them? i grew up in the islamic republic of hammersmith and fulham mate,most of my mates in secondary school were from the swat valley which is southern afghanistan in everything but name Which would mean they would probably not admit their peadophilic tendencies.... I worked in the Jungle, Calais, home of the single largest Afghan immigrant population in Europe, and met more Afghans than you've probably seen on TV. I've heard of the culture of "beautiful boys" but to call these guys crappy Muslims is absolute shit. ----- DS Bureaucracy™: Sorry. The forums are under maintenance, please call one of our Phone Operator in Malaysia for more infomation. | |||||
|
On November 3, 2009, 6:06PM, rlc said: On October 24, 2009, 7:08PM, nodgene said: Terrorism is a criminal matter, not a military one. So no. well, no. terrorists are basically paramilitary. No. Paramilitaries are very different. Hezbollah, al Shabab, or Hamas soldiers use Paramilitary tactics, but Al-Queda cells working in US, or UK, or Al-Aqsa Martyrs in Israel, to bomb civilians are not. They are plotting mass homicide, a criminal problem. ----- DS Bureaucracy™: All our decisions are scrutinised for impartiallity by our very own DS Bureaucracy Probes™ who are proven in our conclusive studies to be 99.9% conclusive. | |||||
|
paramilitary doesn't depend on tactics, but maybe i should've clarified what i meant. if you're timothy mcveigh or that kid who shot up v-tech, you're not paramilitary, but you're definitely a terrorist. if you're attacking the enemy of your country or starting a revolution and use terrorism, you're paramilitary. ----- insert nerdy signature here | |||||
|
paramilitary doesn't depend on tactics, but maybe i should've clarified what i meant. if you're timothy mcveigh or that kid who shot up v-tech, you're not paramilitary, but you're definitely a terrorist. if you're attacking the enemy of your country or starting a revolution and use terrorism, you're paramilitary. "Paramilitary" as a term denotes quasi-legality, as such often organisations such as coast guard or border guards are referred to officially as paramilitary. The same can be said for any secret police organisations or rebel groups. The Virginia Tech massacre wasn't terrorism, it was just mass-murder. Terrorism is defined by its inherently political intent. The man that did that wasn't doing it for a greater cause, he was just rebelling against society, that doesn't make it terrorism per say. McVeigh on the other hand was a terrorist, as he planned and justified his attacks primarily on the basis that he wanted to force political change against the US government. His exact wording was something similar to it being a "pearl harbour" as he liked to think. The problem as I see it, is that terrorists for the most part in the western sense where there are free and fair democratic processes to resolve disputes are probably mentally ill in some form. Their actions are based on anger problems or a disconnection from reality, which is why they act out as they do. Put those in a mix with the fuel of nationalism and belonging to a group which encourages and orders such acts... the justification for such psychosis becomes inevitable, and sadly reaches political levels of acceptance. By treating terrorists as soldiers, even if somewhat so, you are feeding their psychosis and false belief that they are in any way legal. By tackling them as they are, a mental issue and a civilian matter of criminals with a sexed-up amount of weapons, you are reducing their potential recruitment ability and support. If you justify their "war" as they see it, they will be able to use that against you. If "soldiers", are supposed to be para-military or proper military, then they should adhere to the rules of war and Geneva convention. If they do not they fall into two categories; war criminals or terrorists. War criminals tend to be ones who are under a legally accountable military-political body, and simply commit atrocities under orders, or do so and then the state ignores them for political reasons. Paramilitary in the sense would accurately be soldiers working for a quasi-legal authority who are still classifiable as soldiers... they are accountable to generals working under a civilian leadership that is related to a legal-executive authority, (and the military hierarchy is NOT a Junta of any sort) that means that their actions are accountable to a body that seeks legitimacy. And as a result, they are by nature limited in what they can do, and answerable if they do wrong. Terrorists however are not accountable to anyone, and simply glorified criminals with mental issues and a legitimacy complex. That's how I see it anyway. | |||||
|
Definitions of paramilitary on the Web: * of or relating to a group of civilians organized to function like or to assist a military unit wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn so basically, by definition, paramilitary are civilians. terrorists who belong to terrorist organizations are obviously organized to function like military units. that's not saying that they're anything like the coast guard, but that they can be classified as paramilitary. ----- insert nerdy signature here | |||||
|
Would you of counted Che Guevara and his Guerilla columns in Bolivia, Cuba, and the Congo paramilitaries, or terrorists? They definitely didn't attack civilians... I also think it's very hard to define terrorists within some conflicts. Some aspects of Hezbollah, Hamas, and Fatah are or were terrorist in nature, but similarly they also served predominantly paramilitary roles. Largely, Fatah and Hamas sought to destroy military/police targets, but groomed, and supported those "mentally ill" Palestinians who wanted to blow themselves up. (Most suicide bombers previously had no previous history of fighting/joining the Fighters). Some News agencies don't even refer to anyone, save groups who just plant themselves the middle of cities trying to bomb them/cause huge casualties, as terrorists. Al Jazeera for example calls Al-Queda, or the Pakistani men who attacked the Indian Taj Mahal Hotel, terrorists, but calls Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Shabab, FARC, or Al-Houthi, fighters. ----- DS Bureaucracy™: Locking this thread in about 4 minutes | |||||
|
On November 4, 2009, 3:19PM, rlc said: Definitions of paramilitary on the Web: * of or relating to a group of civilians organized to function like or to assist a military unit wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn so basically, by definition, paramilitary are civilians. terrorists who belong to terrorist organizations are obviously organized to function like military units. that's not saying that they're anything like the coast guard, but that they can be classified as paramilitary. Yeah, but the complete argument is that these Civilian units organized like a military should be dealt with by the Military, when they should and could be classified as Criminals. ----- DS Bureaucracy™: Please stay off the grass... We make no exceptions to posts under influence. | |||||
|
On November 4, 2009, 10:28AM, hezekiah said: I also think it's very hard to define terrorists within some conflicts. pretty much, yeah. On November 4, 2009, 10:30AM, hezekiah said: Yeah, but the complete argument is that these Civilian units organized like a military should be dealt with by the Military, when they should and could be classified as Criminals. like you said earlier, it's hard to put your finger on exactly what terrorism is. terrorists are definitely criminals, nobody other than a terrorist would disagree with that. if they can be captured by the civilians law enforcement, that'd be great. if they can't and they still continue to threaten the world, they should be dealt with by the military. and as for che, there are definitely arguments for and against fidel and co using using terrorism in cuba, but when che was leading a revolution in bolivia he didn't attack civilians because he was trying to win the hearts of the people. in bolivia, he wasn't using terrorism. in cuba, maybe. ----- insert nerdy signature here | |||||
|
No. Terrorists should always be dealt with by the law enforcement agencies. Even if that includes a top secret assassination by CIA agents. Never dealt with by the military. ----- He was going to put his thick, hard candy cane into her no-no place, but then the Wiggles came on! | |||||
|
On November 4, 2009, 3:45PM, rlc said: and as for che, there are definitely arguments for and against fidel and co using using terrorism in cuba, but when che was leading a revolution in bolivia he didn't attack civilians because he was trying to win the hearts of the people. in bolivia, he wasn't using terrorism. in cuba, maybe. Hmm. Within Cuba he would famously execute any guerilla fighter who terrorised/robbed/abused the peasant population. He was criticised as a Dictorial style leader for this. ----- DS Bureaucracy™: Working towards the uninterchangability and disaccountability abilities in the smallest unimpossiblity of time frames. | |||||
|
It really depends, the Taliban in Swat, or Waziristan aren't really normal terrorists, they are forming road blocks, and occupying the area. The Military can be used there. The insurgency within Afganistan itself could, in my opinion, be far better dealt with using Military/Afghan police. Investigations into their cells, and arrests, rather than bombing. The methods being used now are creating more terrorists. Much like the British military involvement in NI, which caused a surge in the number of paramilitaries. The successful dealing of terrorists there was when they were treated as criminals, and were paralysed. Before that, under the Military attempts, they ran riot, killing civilians, and soldiers. Much like Afghanistan now. ----- DS Bureaucracy™: All our decisions are scrutinised for impartiallity by our very own DS Bureaucracy Probes™ who are proven in our conclusive studies to be 99.9% conclusive. | |||||
|
Ok. So I guess if it is to the point that insurgents are practically turning the whole country upside down on its head then perhaps it is fine to use the military. But it still shouldn't be tactics that the military would normally use in conventional warfare. It's an insurgency. Not a war. ----- As long as you keep your mouth shut you'll still be fucking beautiful. | |||||
|
Hmm. Within Cuba he would famously execute any guerilla fighter who terrorised/robbed/abused the peasant population. He was criticised as a Dictorial style leader for this. He no doubt wanted his revolutionary activities to be seen as valid military activity, and so tried to uphold the Geneva convention. Say what you will about his support for Marxist theories, he did it by the book. Which is far more than we can hope for most self-styled revolutionaries. It really depends, the Taliban in Swat, or Waziristan aren't really normal terrorists, they are forming road blocks, and occupying the area. The Military can be used there. Because other terrorists don't use roadblocks or attempt to occupy/control regions? Many iterations of the IRA used those same tactics. The same no doubt applies to the likes of ETA or LTTE. The insurgency within Afganistan itself could, in my opinion, be far better dealt with using Military/Afghan police. Investigations into their cells, and arrests, rather than bombing. The methods being used now are creating more terrorists. Much like the British military involvement in NI, which caused a surge in the number of paramilitaries. The successful dealing of terrorists there was when they were treated as criminals, and were paralysed. Before that, under the Military attempts, they ran riot, killing civilians, and soldiers. Much like Afghanistan now. In part I agree with you, I think what would have helped in both instances of unrest is if native judicial systems and police forces were given huge investments to create systems whereby the locals could speedily order arrests or military actions, and then upon any captures, try and convict. It would probabaly do well for local morale and fears of the whole local government being simply a foreign pawn if they had a strong judiciary. In an insurgency the role of the military is para-civilian, in a way... they need to beef up the police forces and government and assure that the violent renegades cannot depose the regime by force. That will force them into moderation or sharp decline long-term, like in Northern Ireland or Spain. Interestingly, by chance I found this article on the Afghan police. BBC News [This post was last updated on November 5, 2009, 5:28PM by nodgene.] | |||||
|
On November 5, 2009, 5:15PM, nodgene said: He no doubt wanted his revolutionary activities to be seen as valid military activity, and so tried to uphold the Geneva convention. Say what you will about his support for Marxist theories, he did it by the book. Which is far more than we can hope for most self-styled revolutionaries. I have a tremendous amount of respect for Che, behind the whole hype that is. Because other terrorists don't use roadblocks or attempt to occupy/control regions? Many iterations of the IRA used those same tactics. The same no doubt applies to the likes of ETA or LTTE. I don't mean to say that doesn't make them terrorists, but a group in de facto military control of a region need to be dealt with using means other than policemen, really. ETA have never, to my knowledge, formed road blocks. They stick almost exclusively to assassination, and bombing. ----- DS Bureaucracy™: Sorry. The forums are under maintenance, please call one of our Phone Operator in Malaysia for more infomation. | |||||
|
On November 5, 2009, 4:59PM, ImAWhat said: Ok. So I guess if it is to the point that insurgents are practically turning the whole country upside down on its head then perhaps it is fine to use the military. But it still shouldn't be tactics that the military would normally use in conventional warfare. It's an insurgency. Not a war. Well, then you support the changing of international law then? Because as it stands it quite tricky to deal with them, and not break the law. Dealing with insurgencies via military force in every case so far has led to at least one of the following: human rights abuse, crimes against humanity, war crimes, mass civilian death, targeting civilian structures, targeting state infrastructure etc etc. ----- DS Bureaucracy™: Sorry. The forums are under maintenance, please call one of our Phone Operator in Malaysia for more infomation. | |||||
|
I have no clue. Whatever works, I suppose. However, half the time there's a conflict going on, there shouldn't be. At least when the U.S is involved. ----- All I know is ball, and good...and rape. | |||||
|
However, half the time there's a conflict going on, there shouldn't be. At least when the U.S is involved. It's a generally inaccurate statement. The majority of the wars the USA has been involved in in the past 100 years have been either sanctioned by international consent, or have happened due to them sending soldiers to back allies. World War I, Korean War, Vietnam, Gulf War... World War II was self defence. Panama was a item of strategic asset defence. Afghanistan and Iraq however are anomalous conflicts, whose roots lie in an anomalous terrorist incident that was far outside of what the USA could respond to logically. All this "Urh, the USA bombs everything because they feel like it and they're evil and stuff." is utter shit, spun and encouraged by a majority of counter-culture individuals with little understanding or appreciation for the context or history of the USA's behaviour. And why the fuck is the USA the big bad guy all the time? Nobody would ever make the same comment as you did and have replaced the USA with the likes of "Soviet Union", "Nazi Germany" or "Imperial Japan", in commenting on the history of military intervention. You know why? Because it's just a fashion statement. [This post was last updated on November 6, 2009, 7:52PM by nodgene.] 1 members enjoyed this post. |
| Last 10 Members to View This Thread | |
| Name | Time |
| rlc | Nov 12, 2009, 12:58PM |
| nodgene | Nov 11, 2009, 8:49PM |
| ImAWhat | Nov 10, 2009, 5:31PM |
| Sgath | Nov 10, 2009, 10:49AM |
| xellence | Nov 9, 2009, 1:47PM |
| Kashikoi | Nov 8, 2009, 12:12AM |
| i_dont_die | Nov 7, 2009, 11:05PM |
| Tapioca | Nov 7, 2009, 12:17PM |
DarkStarling Forums, v.0.8 (Virgo) © 2005 |
