A relatively recent concept has changed the world...for the worse. The term 'collateral damage' was never considered in wars of the past.
The manner in which wars were won in the days of yore were simply a matter of the winning side inflicting such damage on the losing side that no other possibility existed other than surrender or annihilation.
In this manner of warfare, the winning side would impose on the losing side every action, thought and philosophy it deemed as the way of life to which all under the victorious regime would abide henceforth, with dissenters killed, imprisoned and otherwise dispatched as the realm saw fit.
Of course, back in 'the good ol' days,' there were no media to cover wars in action, and broadcast to the world the tactics and messiness in general of such conflicts. Now, each and every civilian death is photographed, spread to each corner of the world and denounced by opponents as barbarian, murderous and heinous behavior.
'Collateral damage' came about only recently in human history. It became the rule of combat that soldiers of one side could only target and kill soldiers of the other, leaving be the 'innocent civilians.' If, heaven forbid, a civilian was killed in the course of combat, then a campaign was immediately undertaken to discredit the careless combat unit and its command throughout the world as evil.
Accordingly, with all civilized peoples careful to avoid at all costs (including victory) injuring civilians, the formerly weaker side in any conflict was empowered to use this abhorrence by civilized folk in inflicting collateral damage to its advantage: knowing that their adversaries would not target groupings of known civilian areas such as churches, schools, hospitals and the like, the historically weaker and more ruthless combatants would then entrench themselves and their weapons inside such areas and conduct their attacks with impunity.
Simply setting up rocket launchers, mortars, howitzers and weapons caches inside mosques, hospitals and schools along with a battery of photographers has now given much weaker combatants the upper hand in all warfare now: they know that civilized opponents will not knowingly lob artillery into a school, because if they do the ever present photographers will broadcast to the world the women, children and civilian casualties that the 'evil' warmongers did to the innocents in the population.
Works every time it is tried. But these rules only apply to civilized combatants. Muslim based combat units such as Hamas, al Qaeda, and now ISIS have based their entire war strategy on this fact of war now, and launch their weapons from within as many civilian shield areas as possible, and they launch their weapons into largely civilian populations on the other side as possible.
Muslim combatants don't play by civilized rules. That kind of nonsense is for losers, and they want no part of such foolishness. They correctly understand that there really are no such thing as innocent civilians: populations support and are complicit in all combat operations. They feed, clothe and fund their soldiers. They work in the factories that provide arms and support for their soldiers. This is unarguably true for populations on both sides.
The bad guys know this plain fact of life. They see everyone that resists sharia law as a 'Little Eichmann.' And they know that all of us 'Little Eichmanns' do not have the same view, much to the advantage of Muslim terrorists.
It's time that the West started to view Muslim populations as 'Little Eichmanns' and act accordingly. Only until this happens, we will be forced to live the the atrocities we see Muslims commit in the name of Allah on the West and our philosophy.
The violence will never end until we come to our senses.
Reverse 1776
-
Here's the thing, we have all these ships, and soldiers, and warplanes.
What are they there for? To protect CONUS and by extension the bright light
o...
43 minutes ago
13 comments:
I kind of liked the Israelis telephoning their Hamas targets, asking them to leave, and then politely sending a knock-knock bomb before destroying the building.
Not that it relieved them of the onus of destroying "civilian" targets.
Me, I think I'd pave Gaza.
Ed:
Israel, much as I support their right to exist, has got this all wrong.
You just don't send 'pretty please' notes to areas you are targeting. Mighty counter productive, if you ask me (but nobody ever asks me - just ask me whether anybody asks me anything). Not only will the civilians leave the area, if they are not held there at gunpoint, but the bad guys will also being saying 'hasta la vista, baby.'
Just bomb the damn place, and be done with it.
And yes, Gaza has no reason to exist as it currently is configured. It's nothing except an evil hell hole, filled with enemies of everybody.
Ed:
Israel, much as I support their right to exist, has got this all wrong.
You just don't send 'pretty please' notes to areas you are targeting. Mighty counter productive, if you ask me (but nobody ever asks me - just ask me whether anybody asks me anything). Not only will the civilians leave the area, if they are not held there at gunpoint, but the bad guys will also being saying 'hasta la vista, baby.'
Just bomb the damn place, and be done with it.
And yes, Gaza has no reason to exist as it currently is configured. It's nothing except an evil hell hole, filled with enemies of everybody.
Well, literally everyone in japan supported the war effort in their heart and soul. There were no civilians to bomb in Japan.
The same should be applied here.
Who asked you?
Heh.
Kid:
You are exactly right about Japan. Every citizen, each and every one of them, was committed to Emperor Hirohito and the war effort, heart and soul.
We won WWII by doing what needed to be done: inflict so much damage on the enemy, they had no choice but to surrender unconditionally.
Same thing with Muslims would work: we need to inflict so much damage to what they hold dear, such as Mecca, Medina, Cairo, Tunis, and on and on, that they simply can't keep up their aggression without suffering horrible, irreplaceable losses.
And we can inflict those damages, easy. Why don't we? We would win hands down.
Hey! That was a joke!
"if you ask me (but nobody ever asks me - just ask me whether anybody asks me anything)"
"Who asked you?"
Well Fredd..... (As Ronald Reagan would say) It is because we have a commander in chief and the entire cabinet and supporting cast who support the muslims and are working to advance their cause.
Consider that everywhere we've been over in the ME the last 11 years, the management has been removed and radicals have taken it's place. Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt are pretty transparent. we're pals with Iran.
I say nuke a middle eastern city every time a murder is committed in the name of islam, which would certainly include the recent beheading here in the states.
And has anyone noticed how these POSs go after older women?
Ed: just my point - nobody.
But they should, if you ask me. But don't get me started.
Kid:
I like the nuke plan. It'll happen once Iran nukes up and starts lobbing nukes willy nilly.
And for the record, the first Middle East management we enabled in its removal was the Shah back in 1979. Look at how well that's worked out for us. I believe a Democrat was in the oval office at the time.
Fredd, You are correct Sir !
btw - Market. If I'd have been thinking, I would have realized that the mutual funds would keep their stocks marked up thru end of the 3rd Qtr (9/30) and adjusted my guess. Also of interest, did you notice the market rally on the day Alibaba did its IPO? Chinese buying the market/stocks to maximize the Alibaba price ? Hmmm.
Just idle chat.
Amen brother
Israel learned from the 1st Intifada that public opinion counts for a lot when fighting an insurgent enemy. The problem is, that liberals and idiots control the press, and so control the message that comes out of Gaza.
When looking at ISIS and Iraq, we don't wan't to upset the delicate balance that Bush accomplished with his COIN operators. (Which Obama threw out the window.)
In strategic terms, I say we plow Syria under as a warning to others and see if that keeps ISIS and Hamas in check. It would also help if we didn't have the Metrosexual in Chief in charge of the armed forces.
Post a Comment