Browse Members |
New Members |
Reicher_Massa... 20 year old male Al-revis (US) "Hmmm...I wonder if I can trust my heart to anyone, can I?" Instant_Death 20 year old male Сталингра́ What was God doing before he made heaven? Making hell for people who ask stupid questions. AlongCameAshlyn 15 year old female The 810, MI (US) No object is so beautiful that, under certain conditions, it will not look ugly. Bud 19 year old male Morgantown, KY (US) religion is retarded and a country should not be based upon such beliefs- founding fathers [more]
|
Author | Message | |||||
|
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. | |||||
|
I think people call the USA evil the most because everyone universally accepts the evil actions taken by Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. But people are more keen on letting the USA push its weight around and kill civilians and destroy indigenous political systems for economic interests in the name of freedom and peace. It's the hypocritical nature of US foreign relations and not the inherent evil nature of the US which causes people to be so vocal about it. ----- DS Bureaucracy™: Save the environment with frequent Andromeda™ purchases! [This post was last updated on November 6, 2009, 5:14PM by Sgath.] 1 members enjoyed this post. | |||||
|
Not sure international consent is enough to qualify a conflict as just. That might just be me though. ----- Well-behaved women rarely make history. But they sure can make a damn good sammich! | |||||
|
International consent wants Israeli politicians, and Military leaders trialed for war crimes. Except... apparently the "moral majorty" don't - according to Israel - so that's the USA, and about 10 other countries. ----- DS Bureaucracy™: Expanding our powers to meet the expansive needs of forum expansion. | |||||
|
Ok, so sometimes the international community gets a few things right. Again, not exactly enough to qualify a conflict as just. Or anything as just, really. I mean, appeal to popular opinion? You jest. ----- Seek stillness in motion. | |||||
|
I was kind of getting at the idea that "international consent" is a highly selective term, and can change over time. ----- DS Bureaucracy™: Sorry. The forums are under maintenance, please call one of our Phone Operator in Malaysia for more infomation. | |||||
|
I mean, appeal to popular opinion? Democracy? Works generally, although the international community is hardly a free and fair election... yet. | |||||
|
Yeah, voting blocs, and politically motivated votes which don't represent the population they claim to represent are rather shoddy. ----- DS Bureaucracy™: Expanding our powers to meet the expansive needs of forum expansion. |
| Last 10 Members to View This Thread | |
| Name | Time |
| suckit | Nov 12, 2009, 5:43PM |
| 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 |
| Pine.Orange.Fruit.Drink | Nov 9, 2009, 5:14AM |
| 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 |