the outcome of the election

[Ashock]

Before 1990 Chechenya was part of the sovjet-union (and russia). I'm not pointing at that period. I meant the period after the break-up of the sovjet union. Chechenya wants to be independent and the russians don't like it. They are allready occupying (or what you want to call it)  the area, for quite some time now. With a complete army. People get raped, tortured and murdered there every day. (unlike before  1990). The situation is extremely volitle there, and might be compared with Iraq at the moment. The Beslan-drama and other suicide bombings are a result from this russian occupation. I don't approve of it, of course not, but this is the reason. And it directly shows that the (super) tough way does not work. With violence you only create terrorists.
[right][snapback]59955[/snapback][/right]

Thanks for the history lesson. However, there is absolutely no way that Russia can or should allow Chechnia to become independant. They are right in the middle of russian territory and always were. You think that if Kansas decided to proclaim it's independence, we could allow it? The chechens decided that Russia is now weak since communism fell, so they thought that the time was right for decisive actions. They were only partially right, but only partially. Before 1990, they would have been obliterated. Now it's a lengthy process, but there is no way they will get their wish. It's not an option. Why do you think Putin supported Bush? He did not want Kerry to bud in where he does not belong, like Clinton did in Yugoslavia.


Edit: I'm not suggesting that they should do to terrorist's kids what they did to those kids at the school. What I am saying is that the thing to do is to find and kill those that were connected to them. Not family members, unless of course they were involved. Without western interference, I'm pretty sure that Putin will be able to accomplish that.


-A

[Assur]

A. Chechnya isn't in the middle of Russia, it's right at the southern rim.

B. The Chechens were conquered only in the 19. century, after decades of resistance.

C. The Chechens are a distinct ethnic group with their own language, history and culture.

According to the principle of self-determination they have every right to independence and their own state. The only difference between Chechnya on the one hand and places like India, Kenya etc. is, that there is no ocean between the colonial power and the colony. Since the start of the 1. Chechen war of independence in 1994 about 25% of the Chechens have been killed outright or disappeared. Why should they stick to the Rules of War if their enemy doesn't?

[Ashock]

A. Chechnya isn't in the middle of Russia, it's right at the southern rim.

B. The Chechens were conquered only in the 19. century, after decades of resistance.

C. The Chechens are a distinct ethnic group with their own language, history and culture.

According to the principle of self-determination they have every right to independence and their own state. The only difference between Chechnya on the one hand and places like India, Kenya etc. is, that there is no ocean between the colonial power and the colony. Since the start of the 1. Chechen war of independence in 1994 about 25% of the Chechens have been killed outright or disappeared. Why should they stick to the Rules of War if their enemy doesn't?
[right][snapback]59963[/snapback][/right]

A. By middle, I meant simply part of the russian territory.

B. The USSR had over 100 distinct ethnic groups, with only one of them killing school kids. What's your point?

C. There's all sorts of natinalities living in all sorts of nations. Does that mean they're all entitled to carve out their own country within the borders of the countries that they populate?

I am part Russian-Orthodox, part Russian-German and part Russian-Jew. According to your principle of self-determination, I constitute a distinct people. Should I try to carve out my own little country in Northridge, CA? And better yet, should the US let me?



-A

[Assur]

[quote=Ashock,Nov 11 2004, 07:28 PM]
A. By middle, I meant simply part of the russian territory.

B. The USSR had over 100 distinct ethnic groups, with only one of them killing school kids. What's your point?

C. There's all sorts of natinalities living in all sorts of nations. Does that mean they're all entitled to carve out their own country within the borders of the countries that they populate?

As regards B. The Russians have been killing Chechen civilians, including children, for the last ten years. Do you expect the Chechens to just accept that?

As regards C. It is generally accepted that distinctive ethnic groups living in their own territory have a right to their own state, especially if they have been forcibly incorporated into the state they are living in now.

[Occhidiangela]

Interesting perspective.  Why?  Dresden was a terror bombing.  It had no strictly strategic purpose.  The A-bomb was a 'show of strength', demonstrating "how far America would go".  I'm afraid your distinction is a bit arbitrary.
[right][snapback]59936[/snapback][/right]

False.


Dresden was executed for a discete political purpose, and at that level, at the level W. Churchill operated at, strategy is a political tool that has as one element military operations.

The political aim? A reprisal for the V weapons over UK. The audience? I'd say the average Brit who suffered through the Blitz and the V weapons.

As to the atomic bomb, war is an act of force aimed at getting the enemy to do our will. By the time the A Bomb was dropped, it was clear that Japan was fighting a lost cause, but would still not bend their wills to end the war. Tokyo, when it was bombed, lost more peole than Hiroshima. There is the small problem of wooden building burning once bombing sets them on fire. :(

Given the incredible tenacity of the Japanese fighters up to that point in the war, it was reasonable to believe that they would keep fighting. Some historians have argued that signals were being sent via third parties that they were willing to work out a surrender. Trouble is, plain speaking typically works better, and the unconditional surrender doctrine in re Both Germany and Japan was already in place.

The current terror bombings aim at taking a society generally at peace and attempting to compel a change in behaviour due to fear.

Your example falls short.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

A. By middle, I meant simply part of the russian territory.

B. The USSR had over 100 distinct ethnic groups, with only one of them killing school kids. What's your point?

C. There's all sorts of natinalities living in all sorts of nations. Does that mean they're all entitled to carve out their own country within the borders of the countries that they populate?

I am part Russian-Orthodox, part Russian-German and part Russian-Jew. According to your principle of self-determination, I constitute a distinct people. Should I try to carve out my own little country in Northridge, CA? And better yet, should the US let me?
-A
[right][snapback]59965[/snapback][/right]

And more to the point, should you bomb or murder the children of anyone who gets in your way of attempting to form a sovereign condition, agruing that "the Man is keeping me down?" <_<

One would hope not. If you need any help with writing that Constitution, I'll be happy to help, and can promise that there will not be a Prohibition provision in the Articles. Also volunteering for poet Laureate . . .

Now, don't let me put ideas into your head, but you might want to call your sovereign state Poontangia! :) Might attract immigrants, legal and otherwise.

Occhi

[Chaerophon]

First of all, this is what we are talking about, please try and avoid shifting context...

Oh and just in case you are confused, bombings as in bombs from airplanes during a war and bombings as in car bombings etc, are two different things.

It is arbitrary. As has been exemplified in Iraq, bombs need not fall from the sky to be effective military tools. Perhaps my examples made my comments unclear, but they were drawn from Ashock's own post, so I thought they might be effective.

Dresden was executed for a discete political purpose, and at that level, at the level W. Churchill operated at, strategy is a political tool that has as one element military operations.

That purpose being? Intimidation. Terror. Revenge. Dresden had no strategic significance, aside from being a temporary home for thousands of fleeing refugees.

That being said, my comments had nothing to do with the context of the bombings. It had everything to do with the fact that a bomb falling from the sky is not somehow inherently a more legitimate tool than is one set up on the roadside or in a car. By this I was referring to the situation in Iraq, in particular, which is currently a nation in full-scale war - certainly not a society at peace. I find it amusing that our news automatically reports Iraqi insurgents as 'terrorists' when they are, in fact, more like underequipped military combatants. The distinction re: a nation at peace is a good one. I think that it applies perfectly in Iraq. If the Iraqis had invaded, let's say, Saudi Arabia, I sincerely doubt whether we would be referring to Saudi resistance fighters as 'terrorists'...

[Ashock]

Given the incredible tenacity of the Japanese fighters up to that point in the war, it was reasonable to believe that they would keep fighting.&nbsp; Some historians have argued that signals were being sent via third parties that they were willing to work out a surrender.&nbsp; Trouble is, plain speaking typically works better, and the unconditional surrender doctrine in re Both Germany and Japan was already in place.
Occhi
[right][snapback]59973[/snapback][/right]

Not only that, but the Japanese did not even surrender after the first bomb was dropped! It took bomb #2 to convince them.


Just remember (not you of course, Occhi) but we were not the ones who invented and implemented the term "Total War".



-A

[Ashock]

Now, don't let me put ideas into your head, but you might want to call your sovereign state Poontangia!&nbsp; :)&nbsp;
Occhi
[right][snapback]59974[/snapback][/right]

Bah, I have been excommunicated from that wonderful country for about 10 years now ;)



-A

[Occhidiangela]

First of all, this is what we are talking about, please try and avoid shifting context...
It is arbitrary.&nbsp; As has been exemplified in Iraq, bombs need not fall from the sky to be effective military tools.&nbsp; Perhaps my examples made my comments unclear, but they were drawn from Ashock's own post, so I thought they might be effective.
That purpose being?&nbsp; Intimidation.&nbsp; Terror.&nbsp; Revenge.&nbsp; Dresden had no strategic significance, aside from being a temporary home for thousands of fleeing refugees.&nbsp;

That being said, my comments had nothing to do with the context of the bombings.&nbsp; It had everything to do with the fact that a bomb falling from the sky is not somehow inherently a more legitimate tool than is one set up on the roadside or in a car.&nbsp; By this I was referring to the situation in Iraq, in particular, which is currently a nation in full-scale war - certainly not a society at peace.&nbsp; I find it amusing that our news automatically reports Iraqi insurgents as 'terrorists' when they are, in fact, more like underequipped military combatants.&nbsp; The distinction re: a nation at peace is a good one.&nbsp; I think that it applies perfectly in Iraq.&nbsp; If the Iraqis had invaded, let's say, Saudi Arabia, I sincerely doubt whether we would be referring to Saudi resistance fighters as 'terrorists'...
[right][snapback]59979[/snapback][/right]

The attempt to equate two actions as equivalent due to superficial similiarty, such as an explosion being involved, is an old rhetorical device. That does not make the analogy accurate. Let's see, soccer and basketball are the same game, via your attempt here, since they both use a round ball to score points and make their successful stars wealthy.

As far as terrorist classification, the problem the Sunni Triangle's insurgents have is that they have allied themselves with terrorists, such as Zarqawi, and they use a terrorist's methods: murdering Iraqi National Guard Recruits, car bombing police stations, IED's and car bombs versus not only non combatants, but also peaceful foreigners who are in Iraq trying to rebuild it for whoever is next in charge.

Their common, terroristic, illegitimate aim is almost apocalyptic, sort of an Iraqi Gotterdamerung: if I can't be in charge, I will bring us all down in a great battle in flames, and no one will have anything to be in charge of. Or, maybe that's Samsonian! Hehehe, one might want to tell those Arabs that they are acting like a Hebrew, that would probably send them spinning into the ceiling! Snort.

I agree with your disappointment in the mixing going on in reportage. The Sunni faction, Sadr's faction, and Al Qaeda/Zarqawi's faction, to name just three (there are some others up north who get less press, and I think Ansar Al Islam is still mucking about in the eastern borderlands) are using the tools of terror for their own ends. Each has, other than killing Americans -- who they really want out of there -- the explicit aim of the violent and bloody destruction of stability, loss of confidence in the interim government, and sabotage of the election. I could go on.

The mortar attacks and RPG attacks and the IED's versus military convoys are typical partisan activity, Lawrence of Arabia 90 years later. :rolleyes: Terroristic attacks, undisciplined and careless of who dies so long as the threat of dying remains as blackmail and a threat "if you don't do it my way!"

That activity is completely different from what comes from the sky, and is completely different from trying to end a war, and is also different from a reprisal. You miss the point about what a strategic ami is: the strategic aim of a reprisal as payback is indeed a strategic aim - strategic aims in a war ARE NOT EXCLUSIVELY MILITARY IN NATURE!

As to the folks in Fallujah and elsewhere in Iraq, "military combatants" do not cut off the heads of kidnapped aid workers and send the film the BBC or Al Jizz Here, Yeah. Your lack of precision, your half an analogy, does not add to the discussion. The underequipped combatants in Karballah, back in May, foreign recruits who ran into well disciplined troops and died with incredible dispatch, are a different case, and at present, not even on the playing field.

That said, those advocates of air power who try to "break the will of a nation by bombing them into submission" (Julio Douhet and Curtis Lemay come to mind, as do John Warden and Wesley Clarke-Bill Clinton-Jacques Chirac) more closely approximate what you are referring to in terms of terror bombing. . . when a state of war already exists between two states. The terrorists at hand in this discussion are not states, though some of the Sunni rebels were well connected to Saddam's power network. To borrow one of Jester's favorite terms, they have no legitimacy. They are by every measure outlaw, in the oldest and fullest sense of the term.

Dresden is the usual red herring. An explicit harnessing of the emotions of a nation in the grips of total war extrapolated into another context. Unless you were a participant of some of the pre Iraq War protest rallies in Canada, I don't think you have a grip on the power of emotion, particularly public emotion, and its influence on policy. The anti war protests would have given you a thin glimpse of that: try imagining that level of emotion being sustained, for about 4 years. War is a significant emotional event. If you want to second guess Winston Churchill 60 years later, go ahead, but your lack of context is showing.

Dropping bombs in a war is an accepted convention when one is at war. When one is attempting to destroy a civil society, or an emerging civil society, or to change civil society via the use of fear and terror and the threat of more, one is attempting a far different aim than simple destruction of selected targets. I can promise you, what is going on in the skies over Iraq today is explicit, discrete, incredibly restrained, target oriented attack. I spent some months involved in that. Your attempt to equate legal military action, as bloody and lethal as it is, with criminal activity is not only wrong, but insulting to anyone who has served honorably under the colors -- of any nation. I immediately forgive you, however, as I am probably too close, in both time and experience, to that particular piece of the manure pie that is Iraq of 11 November, 2004. :D

Occhi

[Chaerophon]

Dropping bombs in a war is an accepted convention when one is at war.

Yeah. OK, that's my point.

When one is attempting to destroy a civil society, or an emerging civil society, or to change civil society via the use of fear and terror and the threat of more, one is attempting a far different aim than simple destruction of selected targets.

You're right, the Blitz wasn't an attempt to cow Britain into submission. :rolleyes: The fact that panic was constrained and civil society structures maintained does not change the nature of the goal. And while we're at it, you're right, Russian activity in Chechnya wasn't aimed at reshaping civic goals and quelling resistance through fear.

I'm not condoning terrorism. However, my point, once again, was that bombing from the skies is not inherently more legitimate than a car bomb. Russia unjustly invaded Chechnya, massacring thousands. If the Chechen rebels let fly with a car bomb in the midst of some Russian soldiers, their act, to my mind, is legitimate. It was an act of war. Apparently the concept of 'total war' that you are so apt to draw out only has merit if it is backed up by a horde of diplomats. There is a much larger 'grey area' between 'war' and 'terrorism' than what you are letting on. I'm not about to define it - I can't define it - but I found it interesting that Ashock counted one type of attack as inherently more 'legitimate' than another. Resistance does not equate to terrorism - not even if it is not performed through unconventional means. That's all. Not a justification, not a claim that they are 'right' to do so. I only mean to point out that there are two sides to every story - in terms of legitimacy (although, you're right, perhaps not justice), Sunni insurgence is not necessarily terrorism, whether they use rocket launchers or car bombs to achieve their desired effect, as minimal as that may be.

Iraqis had their country invaded by foreigners. Those who don't like the fact have organized resistance as best they can. Classifying all resistance as inherently 'terrorist' if it resorts to unconventional methods is ridiculous. Sure, terrorist organizations are taking advantage of what has gone on in Iraq. Shame on them. However, in the eyes of many, particularly Sunni, muslims, Americans are not liberators, they are occupiers, and I cannot imagine Americans acting any differently were they invaded by an exponentially more powerful force than what they could take on through conventional means. In fact, they would probably even go after the 'replacement police' put in place to maintain the order of their occupiers.

That being said, that fact doesn't make the attacks any less tragic or the liberal notion of freedom (from my perspective) any less compelling. However, you must admit that, like it or not, these Iraqis hold a different value structures from us and, whether we think that their motives are just or not, they have a right to legitimately challenge their perceived occupiers through whatever force they can muster.

I can promise you, what is going on in the skies over Iraq today is explicit, discrete, incredibly restrained, target oriented attack.

Never said it wasn't - unfortunately, that wasn't my point.

I spent some months involved in that. Your attempt to equate legal military action, as bloody and lethal as it is, with criminal activity is not only wrong, but insulting to anyone who has served honorably under the colors -- of any nation.

Dirty pool. You must be a Republican.

[Ashock]

Russia unjustly invaded Chechnya, massacring thousands.&nbsp; If the Chechen rebels let fly with a car bomb in the midst of some Russian soldiers, their act, to my mind, is legitimate.&nbsp; It was an act of war.

[right][snapback]59993[/snapback][/right]

Russia did not invade Chechnya. Chechnya is a part of Russia. Please tell me how a country can invade itself.

Yes, a car bomb in the middle of a bunch of soldiers who you are at war with is acceptible. Not my cup of tea, but acceptible. Taking over a school and killing hundreds of kids (including shooting many in the back), not by accident but by design, automatically disqualifies you from the human race. If I could get my hands on them, I'd kill every one of them and every one of those who helped them personally. I don't even want to think about what their parents were and are feeling and thinking. The same goes for the animals who kidnap civilians in Iraq and cut off their heads, while they're still alive. They are not human beings. If you can't agree with at least that, then I have nothing but contempt for you.



-A

[Chaerophon]

If you can't agree with at least that, then I have nothing but contempt for you.

That's more than a little bit over the top. Never endorsed the murder of school children. Neither did most Chechens.

Russia did not invade Chechnya. Chechnya is a part of Russia. Please tell me how a country can invade itself.

Not so clear cut as all that (as I'm quite sure you well know)... http://www.infoplease.com/spot/chechnyatime1.html

The same goes for the animals who kidnap civilians in Iraq and cut off their heads, while they're still alive. They are not human beings.

But if you just sodomize them, that's okay? You're generalizing from isolated incidents.

[Ashock]

But if you just sodomize them, that's okay? You're generalizing from isolated incidents.



Bleh, you're a lost cause. That last statement made it clear to me.


Have a nice day.



-A

[Chaerophon]

Bleh, you're a lost cause.

Your problem is that you don't take the time to understand what other people have to say. Read the post. Read the line. Take it in its context from previous discussion in the thread. Understand my point.

In case you haven't figured it out yet, I'll explain: there are Americans that are guilty of 'crimes against humanity', too. That doesn't mean that all Americans are animals.

[eppie]

Russia did not invade Chechnya. Chechnya is a part of Russia. Please tell me how a country can invade itself.

[right][snapback]60006[/snapback][/right]

To Ashok: we were not discussing if chechenya has the right to fight for independece or whatever. The point was, is killing people a good idea to stop terrorism. I think it is very clear now that it isn't. I don't want to get in a debate on who started first, but teh chechen-russian conflict is one of the best examples that reacting with violence on violence does not work.

To Occhi: Bombing Dresden political? Dresden and several other cities were bombed with the sole purpose of making as many victims as possible. The thought behind this (call it political if you want, to me it is just mass murder) was that with bombing civilians the support for the Nazi's would go down. It has been one of the biggest mistakes the allied forces have been making, and has allready been admitted by mant people that were involved.

[Chaerophon]

Unless you were a participant of some of the pre Iraq War protest rallies in Canada, I don't think you have a grip on the power of emotion, particularly public emotion, and its influence on policy.

I did participate in such a rally.

The anti war protests would have given you a thin glimpse of that: try imagining that level of emotion being sustained, for about 4 years. War is a significant emotional event. If you want to second guess Winston Churchill 60 years later, go ahead, but your lack of context is showing

My opinion? There are times when context is meaningless, and a thing is just plain wrong. That being said, if you would have me excuse the Brits for Dresden on the basis of psychological 'context', then I wonder how you can so automatically dismiss Iraqi insurgents and their methods. It would seem that with you, all's fair if we can defend it on contextual grounds.

Anyways, I am truly as much against lopping off the heads of innocent people as the next guy; however, I'm not prepared to consider Iraqis who resist American occupation inherently to be 'terrorists' on the basis of their anti-American stance alone, whether they use car bombs or jet fighters to advance their cause. That being said, terrorists in Iraq have committed horrific atrocities. Where the line between terrorist and insurgent can be drawn is a matter that may never be solved; however, I think it is worth remembering that resistance goes along with invasion. You cannot expect to invade without being resisted, and reducing the reasons for all resistance solely to factors outside of the invasion is both inaccurate and unwise. It paints the picture of an Iraq that would be wholly at peace under American occupation if it weren't for 'those damn terrorists'. That is simply not the case. They were invaded, and now, many of them are resisting.

My only point continues to be simply that we cannot dismiss all resisting Iraqis as terrorists, whether their war is conducted with conventional weapons or not.

[kandrathe]

...&nbsp;

My only point continues to be simply that we cannot dismiss all resisting Iraqis as terrorists, whether their war is conducted with conventional weapons or not.
[right][snapback]60021[/snapback][/right]

I agree with you. I've listened a few times to a BBC correspondent who was with the terrorists in Falluja. His story was that the resistance was made up of an unholy alliance between followers of Zaraqawi and Baathist generals.

When the war started we did not classify the enemy as terrorists, and this resistance is partly holdovers from that struggle. But, there is also a contingent of terrorists recruited from the surrounding region, as well as some number of home grown disaffected. The Baathist generals, and terrorists would like to refer to themselves as freedom fighters. Their recruitment hinges on how effectively they can convice Iraqi's that their goal is to repel the infidel, but to me that rings hollow.

Kidnapping and beheading aid workers or truck drivers, suicide bombing non-military targets (like the hotels, or UN) or even the long lines of young Iraqi boys who are lined up to apply for police or military jobs. Even if you consider the police or soldiers as viable targets for the struggle, these boys are not yet trained or even registered. It is a massacre of non-combatants just the same. These victims came to the police stations in a desire to see peace and prosperity return to thair nation, and to provide for their families. It is convenient to label anyone who does anything other than join the resistance as aiding the enemy.

The sooner the Iraqi's can do for themselves, the sooner we can leave. But, the resistance (terrorists and baathists) are not interested, as they proclaim, in repeling the infidel. They want to see the current structures that are emerging dismantled in order to erect one sympathetic to their cause. The last thing they are fighting for is freedom.

[Occhidiangela]

My only point continues to be simply that we cannot dismiss all resisting Iraqis as terrorists, whether their war is conducted with conventional weapons or not.
[right][snapback]60021[/snapback][/right]

Sorry, EDIT, I meant to hit preview first.

I agree with you in a general sense, however, one then must look at cases. Who is providing support to the counter Coalition forces, and why? (That the methods of terror are used still marks them as terrorists.) You will know them by their works.

Former regime members and other Sunni factions, to include the rather elusive Al Douri. (The guy who looks like a Scotsman on his picture in the "deck of cards.")
Iran.
A number of extranational groups, to include Al Qaeda.
Others that I can't readily indentify.

What is their aim?

In the Sunni Triangle, it is to first destabalize the provisional government so that the public loses any confidence Alawi and others have, then to fill the vacuum of power left when the Sunni dominated power base was tossed out . . . by external players. That point is a key theme that allows them to drum up both internal and external support. "This is a problem of Iraq, to be resolved by Iraq, Yankee and the rest of you pogues, go home."

The Shia players, to include Al Sadr, a man who is trading on his father's name and is not in fact an ordained cleric, is attempting to keep the momentum of post Saddam 'rebalancing" and become a major player in the Shia faction's attempt to grab as much power as they can during the power vacuum's duration. He is at odds both with the Sunni faction, and with other Shia factions. (We heard rumor that Al Zarqawi had put out a contract on him, I have no idea if that is true or not.)

This internal power struggle, held in stasis during Saddam's iron fist days, will go on for years, and has the potential to split Iraq into three, or more, states in the theme of Bosnia.

As to Al Zarqawi, and foreign agent provocateurs, their aim is to keep Iraq unstable, and to generally make America bleed on a different agenda, so that an Islamicist power structure can infiltrate and slowly build a shadow government that will move Iraq in the direction I predicted before the war ever started: growth into an Islamic Republic. Just what the world needs, another medeival leadership cabal.

As to Iran, an unstable Iraq leaves them virtually alone as a regional power. The other Arab states are rich and weak, and are seen by some locals as hiring the Americans for muscle. :blink: It is in the interest of Iran to have a weak, or subserviant, Iraq as their regional neighbor. Iran is still the big dog in the Persian Gulf. (Eh, they have their name on it! :D)

The capacity for peaceful change? Gobs of international assistance is available to transition Iraq without a civil war. The above parties have chosen not only to perpetuate a war, but to do so via terror methods. While I have sympathy for the average Iraqi who feels "when are you Americans ever going to leave" and who is very suspicious of any promise "when things are settled down" the explicit use of terror and undisciplined mayhem to, among other things, throw the UN out, scare off any foreign aid, and for that matter foreign investment in a nation whose infrastructure was left to rot by Saddam's slash and burn management methods, is a policy of Terrorism no matter how you slice it.

Terror is counterproductive to Iraq's future as a republic, regardless of its shape.

If you choose to sustain Terror as an active policy, you are a Terrorist.

Churchill bombed one city as a reprisal.

Al Douri, Sadr, and others have committed to a continuing campaign of lawlessness and terror to get back into power.

No, Chaer, it is not the same. Context, policy, and method are different.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

To Occhi: Bombing Dresden political? Dresden and several other cities were bombed with the sole purpose of making as many victims as possible. The thought behind this (call it political if you want, to me it is just mass murder) was that with bombing civilians the support for the Nazi's would go down. It has been one of the biggest mistakes the allied forces have been making, and has allready been admitted by mant people that were involved.
[right][snapback]60017[/snapback][/right]

Yes, eppie, political. You know less than nothing of war, your ignorant comment "just mass murder" is beyond comtempt. In a case of Total War, destroying your enemy's industrial capacity is part of how you defeat him. When he has not the means to fight, your chances of ending the war to your favor go up considerably. As a European, how can you not understand Total War? Your civilization perfected it over the course of centuries, the Thirty Years war being a magnificent textbook case. We simple Americans learned it at "your" feet and improved merely in method and technique, where we improved at all.

War is a politcial act of force. When you can wrap your mind around that, we can resume this conversation. A reprisal is a political act in a war. It's strategic aim is political.

Random thought: I once had a professor of Military Theory describe war as "the human race's favorite sport: intramural homicide."

Occhi