School children killed in Pakistan

[The Notorious]

Sure, I accept that ultimately militants will have to be killed on the field of combat, and airstrikes are one way of accomplishing that.

Pakistan has been waging limited strikes against them for a while now right? Doesn't seem to be working judging by the recent school massacre.

[Gears of the Beast]

Tell that to the Confederacy. Or Nazi Germany. Or the Native Americans.

This whole "you can't kill an idea with weapons!" line of thought is silly.

You still need to fight them with bombs and guns regardless of whether or not Islamic extremism can be ultimately be destroyed by force, so either way, Snake's comment is useless.

[Prue]

Limited airtrikes then?

They certainly don't deserve access to such a cool new invention.... Who knows where they would cycle. ;)

[Fragile Bird]

Not necessarily. Did the Southern states or Nazi Germany suffer "genocide"?

Just pound the enemy ruthlessly until their own civilian supporters in the tribal areas decide it's not worth tolerating them anymore. It will require a strong stomach and mean lots of dead civilians, but if the alternative is to let these assholes run rampant...

To be clear I'm saying Pakistan could do this, I don't want the USA any more involved

Oh no, we wouldn't want to strengthen their "resolve." Then they might do something crazy like strap on a suicide vest or kill a bunch of schoolchildren :rolleyes:

The U.S. actually restrained itself in Vietnam to avoid antagonizing the PRC (they didn't want a repeat of Korea with the Chinese streaming over the border). We avoided destroying North Vietnam, for instance, which was well within our power.

What exactly do you suggest? Educating these folks on the value of human life?

Just read these posts.

You do realize that 2x the number of bombs dropped on all of Europe and Asia in WW2, bombs that destroyed cities and towns across Europe and even more massively destroyed Japan, were dropped on the much smaller area of North Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia during the Vietnam War?

Who won that war again?

[A True Kaniggit]

Just read these posts.

You do realize that 2x the number of bombs dropped on all of Europe and Asia in WW2, bombs that destroyed cities and towns across Europe and even more massively destroyed Japan, were dropped on the much smaller area of :leaving: North Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia during the Vietnam War?

Who won that war again?

Most of us like to pretend that is was a draw . :leaving:

[A True Kaniggit]

Just read these posts.

You do realize that 2x the number of bombs dropped on all of Europe and Asia in WW2, bombs that destroyed cities and towns across Europe and even more massively destroyed Japan, were dropped on the much smaller area of North Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia during the Vietnam War?

Who won that war again?

But you have to remember, a lot of those bombs dropped in WWII were targeted at cities, where they did a crapload of damage to both infrastructure and civilians(during Operation Meetinghouse alone it's estimated we killed near 100,000 people). In Vietnam we really weren't allowed to target civilian population centers. A lot of those bombs were wasted when we dropped them in the jungle hoping they would hit the NVA or Vietcong.

[Malik Ambar]

Bullshit. That always seems to be the American solution to everything : shoot 'em up. When that doesn't work, try more bombing.

The reason things have come so far is that from Saudi Arabia to Pakistan, Islamic militants have been seen, used and developed as assets. They turned a blind eye to these bastards for too long

[Dicer]

In Vietnam we really weren't allowed to target civilian population centers. A lot of those bombs were wasted when we dropped them in the jungle hoping they would hit the NVA or Vietcong

Are you saying that the bombs should have been dropped on civilian populations to win the war? I thought the Vietcong were in the jungles and hence it makes sense to target the jungles.

Just pound the enemy ruthlessly until their own civilian supporters in the tribal areas decide it's not worth tolerating them anymore. It will require a strong stomach and mean lots of dead civilians, but if the alternative is to let these assholes run rampant...

This can be done, but it depends on a lot of factors like terrain and who one is fighting against. The SriLankans were finally able to solve their terrorism problem and end a 25 year old civil war, destroying the LTTE by doing precisely what you suggest.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008–09_Sri_Lankan_Army_Northern_offensive

This also resulted in extensive civilian deaths, human rights abuses, imprisonment and torture of the Tamil sympathizers and rebels, the children of the rebels taken away and put into camps etc.

So yes, victory can be achieved. But the results for the civilians, women and children can be nasty. The United States brought an UN resolution against SriLanka for war crimes and human rights abuses.

But then again, there are certain terrains where it is almost impossible to win even with a direct attack. Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan fall into that category (Maybe Vietnam too). It's hard to fight an insurgency and even the British have never been able to truly win and hold onto Afghanistan. NATO/US troops have done a miserable job. As they leave Afganistan, the Taliban is taking back it's territory. A number of factors play a role: The rugged topography, different tribal groups, different ethnic and religious groups and the political/spy games played by the neighboring countries.

I think it would also be hard to eradicate the terrorists considering the large porous borders shared between these countries: Pakistan, India, Afganistan, Bangladesh. And when state actors like the Pakistani ISI (Inter services intelligence) are providing active help to the bad guys, it is very hard to beat them.

[Crixus]

Bullshit. That always seems to be the American solution to everything : shoot 'em up. When that doesn't work, try more bombing.

The reason things have come so far is that from Saudi Arabia to Pakistan, Islamic militants have been seen, used and developed as assets. They turned a blind eye to these bastards for too long

This. We have used these people as asset; just like the USA did, only back then they were called mujahideen. This isn't the result of one fuckup, but a clusterfuck over decades.

[snake]

Tell that to the Confederacy. Or Nazi Germany. Or the Native Americans.

This whole "you can't kill an idea with weapons!" line of thought is silly.

Missed this part first time around. I guess you do advocate genocide.

[TrueMetis]

Missed this part first time around. I guess you do advocate genocide.

I actually want to know, what ideas did the Native Americans have the Ramsay finds so objectionable? I mean there has to be some reason he put two continents worth of people beside those who fought for slavery and the orchestrators of the worst genocide ever. Maybe he's just giving examples but I personally object to being put beside the worst people in history.

On a similar note, confederate ideals did not die out after the war, they simply continued slavery in spirit under other names and a lot was done to continue keeping black people as an underclass. And obviously antisemitism didn't just disappear either.

[snake]

I actually want to know, what ideas did the Native Americans have the Ramsay finds so objectionable? I mean there has to be some reason he put two continents worth of people beside those who fought for slavery and the orchestrators of the worst genocide ever. Maybe he's just giving examples but I personally object to being put beside the worst people in history.

On a similar note, confederate ideals did not die out after the war, they simply continued slavery in spirit under other names and a lot was done to continue keeping black people as an underclass. And obviously antisemitism didn't just disappear either.

They had the gall to want to continue living on their land when European settlers wanted it? They weren't Christian? Perhaps it's because they didn't wear hats with belt buckles on them??

[michaelcaldwell]

It's already 6 days since the masacre and total of 143 innocent lives were claimed! I happen to lose a close friend and whenever I am thinking of this hapless incident in Pak, my friend's bereived mom's face is all I could thnk of. Can't even imagine the trauma these families are going through!

[Malik Ambar]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/18/pakistan-united-against-terrorism-not-on-terrorists-mumbai

This is a pretty good reason why Pakistani Army must do more than just hang a few of them or carry a bombing campaign. Some terrorists are roaming free in broad daylight.

This line from the article particularly gave me chills

"Pause on that for a moment. The business of toppling a national, elected government had to take a back seat to the annual Lahore pilgrimage of Hafiz Saeed, the chief of Jamaat-ud-Dawa."

People of Pakistan have been taken for granted for too long.It's time a systematic paradigm shift is bought about and the powerful are accountable to the people

[TrueMetis]

They had the gall to want to continue living on their land when European settlers wanted it? They weren't Christian? Perhaps it's because they didn't wear hats with belt buckles on them??

I'm trying to see this in the light of just another example, but it's difficult considering the other two.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Snake, TM,

I don't believe Ramsey is making an ideologically based argument supporting the massive use of force against Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, or Native Americans. I believe he is saying, pragmaticaly, those who used massive force against those three examples were able to accomplish their goals, without making any specific statement endorsing those goals. Implying he is endorsing the ideologies espoused by those who wanted to wipe out Native Americans is unfair and putting words in Ramsey's mouth that are not in evidence.

The Taliban has not been terribly condusive to negotiations to resolve their differences with either Pakistan or Afganistan. As such armed conflict with the Taliban seems, to many of us, to be a forgone conclusion. This is not an endorsement of violence, a statement that armed conflict is a "good thing", or an endorsement of massive armed conflict as a rational method for dealing with most disputes between political or religious factions. It is a statement that when a group of people decides that attacking a school and killing 143 kids is a good idea rational dialog may not be the most effective method to resolve your differences with the group that chose to target the school and kill those kids.

[A True Kaniggit]

Are you saying that the bombs should have been dropped on civilian populations to win the war? I thought the Vietcong were in the jungles and hence it makes sense to target the jungles.

Nope, I'm not saying that. I was pointing out how twice as many bombs could be dropped during Vietnam than during WWII but still have less of an impact. Because when you don't know where the enemy is in the jungle. you are going to go through a lot of munitions before you hit anything of use. Whereas if you are bombing cities, like in WWII, you're bound to his something.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Missed this part first time around. I guess you do advocate genocide.

"Advocate"??

I actually want to know, what ideas did the Native Americans have the Ramsay finds so objectionable? I mean there has to be some reason he put two continents worth of people beside those who fought for slavery and the orchestrators of the worst genocide ever. Maybe he's just giving examples but I personally object to being put beside the worst people in history.

On a similar note, confederate ideals did not die out after the war, they simply continued slavery in spirit under other names and a lot was done to continue keeping black people as an underclass. And obviously antisemitism didn't just disappear either.

Huh? All I was saying is that insurgencies (like the Natives), and ideological opponents (like the Nazis, etc.) can indeed be defeated militarily. I definitely wasn't endorsing what happened to Native Americans. Or the Confederacy for that matter.

Snake, TM,

I don't believe Ramsey is making an ideologically based argument supporting the massive use of force against Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, or Native Americans. I believe he is saying, pragmaticaly, those who used massive force against those three examples were able to accomplish their goals, without making any specific statement endorsing those goals. Implying he is endorsing the ideologies espoused by those who wanted to wipe out Native Americans is unfair and putting words in Ramsey's mouth that are not in evidence.

Thank you, Scot. :cheers:

[The Notorious]

The Taliban has not been terribly condusive to negotiations to resolve their differences with either Pakistan or Afganistan. As such armed conflict with the Taliban seems, to many of us, to be a forgone conclusion. This is not an endorsement of violence, a statement that armed conflict is a "good thing", or an endorsement of massive armed conflict as a rational method for dealing with most disputes between political or religious factions. It is a statement that when a group of people decides that attacking a school and killing 143 kids is a good idea rational dialog may not be the most effective method to resolve your differences with the group that chose to target the school and kill those kids.

Scot, if armed conflict against the Taliban is inevitable, what level of intensity do you think should the conflict be to force them to join the negotiation table or effectively eliminate their capability to engage in further terrorist attacks?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Lev,

Your guess is as good as mine. It took the use of Nuclear weapons to bring Japan to the table with the allies in WWII. I sincerely hope something below that level would be effective for the Taliban.