Gawain, isn't it the goal of every religion to convert the world?
Printable View
Gawain, isn't it the goal of every religion to convert the world?
Does the bible call for Jihad?Quote:
Gawain, isn't it the goal of every religion to convert the world?
That works for me. My only concern is that our foreign agents dont see us handing a former agent over to the government he worked against. That undermines confidence.Quote:
3. He already had a fair trial, in Venezuela. Carriles is an escaped fugitive. OK, don't send him to Cuba. Send him back to prison in Venezuela.
My definition of terrorist is a paramilitary or civilian who targets civilians rather than military targets.
Canadians as well. My opinion is that the men who ordered it were war criminals, but not terrorists. I cannot see any value in murdering German housewives any more than I can see any legitimate purpose to murdering American secretaries on September eleventh. I do understand that during wartime civilians die despite what you might do to prevent that. What I do not understand is the deliberate targeting of civilians by military forces with little or no gain for the war effort. The raids were called terror raids and were in fact a form of terrorism that has never been proven to work. The same effort concentrated on any other military target like oil, rail, roads, etc would have resulted in far greater returns.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
If terrorism is just some vague tactic what so bad about it?Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
Its a common tactic of total warfare to target enemy civilian targets as well as military and industrial targets. Attacking civilian targets greatly demoralizes the enemy populace, reducing their willingness to continue the fight. Without support from the civilian population the Germans could not have continued the war. Think of Sherman in Atlanta.Quote:
I cannot see any value in murdering German housewives any more than I can see any legitimate purpose to murdering American secretaries on September eleventh. I do understand that during wartime civilians die despite what you might do to prevent that. What I do not understand is the deliberate targeting of civilians by military forces with little or no gain for the war effort.
Also, attacking the civilian population reduces the enemy production capacity. A dead or incapacitated worker is unable to work in a munitions factory, treat wounded enemy soldiers or grow crops to feed the enemy army. Without these logistical components, an army cannot function.
The British bombing raids on German cities also caused Hitler to target the Luftwaffe away from the British air and ground defenses and onto British civilian targets. The British defenses were nearly completely spent just prior to the end of the Battle of Britain, with insufficient pilots and planes to continue the war indefinitely. By forcing the shift of German offensives to targets that by comparison they could afford to lose, their armed forces were able to recover and the Germans lost the initiative.
Then total war is crime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Khalifah
After the German attacks on Warzaw and Rotterdam President Roosevelt warned all countries and told them that bombing of cities is not acceptable for any reason.
And think of the military ethos before WW1. No officer from Germany, France or GB would have thought of attacking a citiy just to kill the civilists. This is abhorrent.
Some examples of total warfare before the First World War that featured attacks on civilian targets:
The Punic Wars
Caesar's Gallic Campaigns
Zhànguó Shídài
French Revolution
American Civil War - Sherman's March to the Sea
Taiping Civil War
In addition, attacking of other nations maritime interests during wartime has been common throughout history. This form of attack on civilian targets was very common during the Age of European Expansion and the American War of Independance. Private and military vessels would be given free reign to attack civilian ships on the official grounds that they hindered the enemy war effort. It also had a major revival during the First and Second World Wars.
Almost every war also involves attacking the food supply of the opposition army. Ultimately this will lead to civilian casualties.
During city sieges (especially in the 16th - 19th centuries), civilian populations were starved out as well as the armed forces occupying the settlement. If these cities were captured by the aggressor storming the city, mass civilian casualties would insue as well as great damage to property.
I'm not saying that all the generals involved were attacking or besieging the cities in order to kill the civilian population or were guilty of intentionally doing them harm, but they must have been fully aware that their actions would result in extensive civilian casualties.
Actually for most of the war it just pissed them off and made them more determined to win. Same for the Brits when the Germans bombed them. Japan wasnt about to give up even with B-29s destroying their cities everyday until we nuked them. It can and many times does work in just the opposite fashin that you described.Quote:
Attacking civilian targets greatly demoralizes the enemy populace, reducing their willingness to continue the fight. Without support from the civilian population the Germans could not have continued the war.
THat it is and there are conventions and laws against it now.Quote:
Then total war is crime.
It may be common but its still a war crime. Bombing military targets and industrial targets is fine. If a guys working in a factory thats suppying things for the war and he gets killed thats the way te cookie crumbles. But to target large residential areas is nothing short of murder and fits to a T the definition of terrorism.Quote:
Its a common tactic of total warfare to target enemy civilian targets as well as military and industrial targets.
I'm with Gawain and Franconicus. Total war is most deffinetly a crime. Anyone that targets a non combantant is a criminal, IMO.
I think Gawain said most of it for me. I would add that the resources that are often used against civilians would generate far greater results against industrial or military targets. For example, the thousands of bombers that were used in the terror raids could have made a substantial difference in the anti-submarine campaign from 1939 to 1942. It was only later than significant numbers of bombers were given to Maritime Command and it should have been done much sooner.
The same number of men, material and money could have been turned to fighter bombers like the Mosquito, B-26, B-25, etc with a much higher accuracy for bomb delivery as well as generally higher survival rates for the crews. The crippling campaign in northern France by these same aircraft against a variety of targets showed what could have been done if they had been thinking more clearly.
Except that they did continue the war, and they were more than willing to fight! The Volksgrenadier divisions were largely composed of newly recruited civilians, so the tactic doesn't seem to have produced much in the way of results.Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Khalifah
By the fall of 1864 the CSA had lost the war. Regarding Sherman in Atlanta when was Atlanta recaptured by the Confederacy? My understanding was that it remained in Union hands. What purpose was served by attacks on civilians and the destruction of Union held property?Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Khalifah
As you point out it was a godsend to the British that the Germans began to concentrate on civilian targets. Attacking civilian targets is rarely cost effective for modern armed forces.Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Khalifah
I dont believe Germany would have lost WW2 if German cities and areas that civilians inhabited were left unmolested.
About Sherman, I think he should have been tried and locked up for a very long time for his war crimes. And don't give me anything about different time different mroals, because the Union tried and I believe executed war criminals on the Confederate side.