Thread: Killing Civilians & Obselesence of War

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

I did.

Apparently you didn't because nothing I posted supports your conclusions.

The WTC was not a military target, nor was it a target of any strategic relevance to America's ability to survive as a nation or wage wars. It was a strike designed to inflict the maximum amount of terror in the minds of the American population. It was never meant to cripple us as a nation, nor has it had that effect.

Regardless, you're using events that haven't even happened yet (if they'll happen at all) to support your conclusions? Smart.

Originally Posted by ThorHammer

None of your links really support your claim. All they show is that civilians died, which no one is arguing. The specific targeting of civilians certainly was done but was not the norm after, I'd say, the 30 Years War in Europe.

It was the norm and my links prove it beyond ANY reasonable doubt. A million civilians died under Caesar over 2,000 year ago and not accidentally nor were they merely collateral damage. And the very idea of limited war befuddled MacArthur in Korea. So, what is an idea that has only been around for 6 decades, you suppose was the norm in human warfare despite all evidence to the contrary: Caesar, Khan, America's 1st & 2nd Wars of Independence, & WWII.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

While keeping our military for defense not invasion, why would making a declaration of assassination not work in the real world?

Because we don't live in a Robert E. Howard novel.

Conan is able to slay the king of Aquilonia, take his crown, and assume his duties because it is fiction. In the real world a government doesn't just acquiesce because the king is assassinated. The royal guard would kill Conan, hand the crown over to the next in line, and the regime would carry on with its business until the whole regime was beaten into submission. That's just how it works.

If the United States found itself in a conflict serious enough to go to war over and elected to assassinate the head of state instead we would just find ourselves conflicting with a new head of state with improved security. There would be no resolution of the original problem until things escalated high enough to force someone's hand.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

It was the norm and my links prove it beyond ANY reasonable doubt. A million civilians died under Caesar over 2,000 year ago and not accidentally nor were they merely collateral damage. And the very idea of limited war befuddled MacArthur in Korea. So, what is an idea that has only been around for 6 decades, you suppose was the norm in human warfare despite all evidence to the contrary: Caesar, Khan, America's 1st & 2nd Wars of Independence, & WWII.

I said nothing of the sort. I said it was the norm at one point in human history, and even gave an example when I believe the shift to it no longer being the norm took place. Please stop putting words in my mouth. The idea of total war does not go hand in hand with the deliberate targeting of civilians in Western thinking.

Originally Posted by ThorHammer

I said nothing of the sort. I said it was the norm at one point in human history, and even gave an example when I believe the shift to it no longer being the norm took place. Please stop putting words in my mouth. The idea of total war does not go hand in hand with the deliberate targeting of civilians in Western thinking.

I don't want to interrupt a perfectly good flame war, but would you expound and expand on that?

Originally Posted by tsquare

I don't want to interrupt a perfectly good flame war, but would you expound and expand on that?

Which part exactly?

Originally Posted by ThorHammer

nor was it a target of any strategic relevance to America's ability to survive as a nation or wage wars.

That is why I call you a fool. The strike crippled us financially. That you cannot understand how that impacts our ability to survive tells the story. Maybe we ought to keep spending $100 billions we do not have to combat goat herders with primitive technology in Afghanistan that we cannot beat after 10 years!

Meanwhile, we abdicate our commitment to nuclear weapons, Click here as North Korea, Iran and Pakistan of Osma Bin Laden housing fame, terrorist regimes all are now armed with nuclear weapons. Their targets will first be Israel then the US. And our ability to survive as a nation has not been jeopardized by 911? Keep living in denial - it is not just a river in Egypt.

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by ThorHammer

I said nothing of the sort. I said it was the norm at one point in human history, and even gave an example when I believe the shift to it no longer being the norm took place.

And I proved you wrong by referencing 3 major US wars ending 6 decades ago.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

That is why I call you a fool. The strike crippled us financially. That you cannot understand how that impacts our ability to survive tells the story. Maybe we ought to keep spending $100 billions we do not have to combat goat herders with primitive technology in Afghanistan that we cannot beat after 10 years!

We have spent and, yet, we're still standing (not saying we should continue to spend). Our financial problems are not the result of the strike on the WTC, or 9-11 as a whole. The causes of our financial issues we're laid well before that date.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

Meanwhile, we abdicate our commitment to nuclear weapons, Click here as North Korea, Iran and Pakistan of Osma Bin Laden housing fame, terrorist regimes all are now armed with nuclear weapons. Their targets will first be Israel then the US. And our ability to survive as a nation has not been jeopardized by 911? Keep living in denial - it is not just a river in Egypt.

And yet our nuclear arsenal remains and our ability to counter emerging nuclear states grows.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

And I proved you wrong by referencing 3 major US wars ending 6 decades ago.

No you didn't. You simply referenced 3 major US wars and didn't even begin to explain how you feel the deliberate targeting of civilians was a matter of policy. All you have so far shown was that civilians were killed in these wars.

Originally Posted by ThorHammer

Which part exactly?

This one

The idea of total war does not go hand in hand with the deliberate targeting of civilians in Western thinking.

Originally Posted by ThorHammer

We have spent and, yet, we're still standing (not saying we should continue to spend). Our financial problems are not the result of the strike on the WTC, or 9-11 as a whole. The causes of our financial issues we're laid well before that date.

I never said our fiscal problems are the result of the strike on the WTC, or 9-11 as a whole. To throw your own standard back at you, pay attention to what I write and stop putting words into my mouth. In short, we are bankrupt. 911 did not help. It hurt. It sped us to this point.

The fatal blow to the Titanic did not instantaneously result in it sinking. Yet, that was the cause. I am not saying America will disintegrate in this thread. I am saying that the risk of our survival is much worse because of 911. To say the effect of action that could sink us was not a military attack/target is foolish. What you are saying is as myopic as claiming the bullet did not hit a vital organ while denying the resulting gangrene IS killing the victim.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

Then you are a new-age, limited war mentality fool. The plan was brilliantly conceived and flawlessly executed, surpassing all expectations of its designers. Americans were not terrorized by the attack on the Pentagon but by 3,000 civilians getting butchered for going to work. The stock market plunged greater than it ever did and took our, the greatest economy the world ever seen, years to recover.

The cost of that + the cost of our military response in the decade since is pushing us to abdicate our sovereignty via debt. It is the greatest attack on American soil, the greatest terrorist attack in the history of the world and marks the age in which we live, i.e., the post-911 era.

ahoy JohnLocke,

imma enjoyin' this rare, sustained period 'o agreement with ye, matey. though i disagree that the honorable Thorhammer be any kind 'o fool, i do agree with every other word that ye scribed.

as a plan, it was indeed brilliant, and the results (in terms 'o return fer the effort and money spent) truly spectacular, as ye note in the bolded.

i actually told a friend 'o mine today, "this swabby, Bin Laden, plans an attack that flattens the WTC, hits the Pentagon, inflicts huge terror on our country, forces us into not one war, but two wars....each lastin' a decade, wipes out our stockmarket, plunges us further into ruinous debt and then goes into hidin' next to what is the Pakastani (our "allies" whom we send millions upon millions 'o dollars to) equivalent 'o West Point. he be not livin' in some cave, livin' on MRE's and readin' by candlelight, he's watchin' tv on the second floor 'o suburban split level!"

i wish he was workin' fer us, he seems like he was a pretty capable fella.

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

i actually told a friend 'o mine today, "this swabby, Bin Laden, plans an attack that flattens the WTC, hits the Pentagon, inflicts huge terror on our country, forces us into not one war, but two wars....each lastin' a decade, wipes out our stockmarket, plunges into unimaginable debt and then goes into hidin' next to what is the Pakastani (our "allies" whom we send millions upon millions 'o dollars to) equivalent 'o West Point. he be not livin' in some cave, livin' on MRE's and readin' by candlelight, he's watchin' tv on the second floor 'o suburban split level!"

- MeadHallPirate

On this point I must disagree...

The strategic goal of the 9/11 attack was to force the withdraw of the US from the Middle East, remove our support from the secular Arab governments and Israel. After that the men of true faith would rise up and and found the Pan-Islamic Caliphate.

None of that happened.

The strategy behind 9-11 attacks on U.S. | Comment | London Free Press

Originally Posted by tsquare

On this point I must disagree...

The strategic goal of the 9/11 attack was to force the withdraw of the US from the Middle East, remove our support from the secular Arab governments and Israel. After that the men of true faith would rise up and and found the Pan-Islamic Caliphate.

None of that happened.

The strategy behind 9-11 attacks on U.S. | Comment | London Free Press

ahoy Tsquare,

imma sure that was its stated goal. just like if i play Powerball, me goal be to win the big jackpot.

*muses*

still, if i walk away with just the smaller 1.4 million dollar prize instead, imma not a dissapointed fella.

when ye shop yer portfolio around, imma sure it would great to be commisioned to design the new Museum of Modern Art, right off central park...aye? but what the hell, if ye get only get contracted to design the new Westin Hotel in Kansas City, that would probably still make ye a happy laddy.

- MeadHallPirate