OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 31, 2014, 09:21:02 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: 5th of November  (Read 1652 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 7,864



« on: November 05, 2012, 02:37:52 PM »

Happy blowing up Parliament Day!

Logged

Das ist des Jägers Ehrenschild, daß er beschützt und hegt sein Wild, weidmännisch jagt, wie sich’s gehört, den Schöpfer im Geschöpfe ehrt.
Punch
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,592



« Reply #1 on: November 05, 2012, 02:53:03 PM »

Happy blowing up Parliament Day!



Same to you.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
William
Muted
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,354


« Reply #2 on: November 05, 2012, 05:10:52 PM »

I was going to watch the appropriate movie but it didn't come yet from the Netflix HQ. Oh well.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,635



« Reply #3 on: November 05, 2012, 07:26:24 PM »

A far happier day is Nov. 7.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #4 on: November 05, 2012, 07:49:22 PM »

A far happier day is Nov. 7.
Let's hope so.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Frederic
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholicism > Eastern Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 88


St Frederick of Utrecht


« Reply #5 on: November 05, 2012, 08:22:20 PM »

A far happier day is Nov. 7.

We'll know tomorrow night.
Logged

«One cannot understand the least thing about modern civilization if one does not first realize that it is a universal conspiracy to destroy the inner life.» (George Bernanos)
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #6 on: November 05, 2012, 09:04:17 PM »

A far happier day is Nov. 7.

We'll know tomorrow night.
...or in a couple of weeks.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #7 on: November 05, 2012, 09:06:21 PM »

Nice hats...
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,635



« Reply #8 on: November 05, 2012, 10:38:17 PM »

Nov. 7 1917
Logged
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 7,864



« Reply #9 on: November 05, 2012, 10:40:26 PM »

A far happier day is Nov. 7.

We'll know tomorrow night.
...or in a couple of weeks.

Civil wars take far longer than that...
Logged

Das ist des Jägers Ehrenschild, daß er beschützt und hegt sein Wild, weidmännisch jagt, wie sich’s gehört, den Schöpfer im Geschöpfe ehrt.
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,928



« Reply #10 on: November 05, 2012, 10:49:50 PM »

Other than being popularized by the movie, I fail to see how this is a positive thing to celebrate.
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,049


"My god is greater."


« Reply #11 on: November 05, 2012, 11:45:28 PM »

Other than being popularized by the movie, I fail to see how this is a positive thing to celebrate.

Yeah, it would have been better if they'd succeeded.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,928



« Reply #12 on: November 05, 2012, 11:47:38 PM »

Other than being popularized by the movie, I fail to see how this is a positive thing to celebrate.

Yeah, it would have been better if they'd succeeded.

Why is that?

It almost seems like celebrating the IRA.

Catholicism and Protestantism/Anglicanism are both bad for the UK & Ireland.
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,049


"My god is greater."


« Reply #13 on: November 05, 2012, 11:49:45 PM »

Other than being popularized by the movie, I fail to see how this is a positive thing to celebrate.

Yeah, it would have been better if they'd succeeded.

Why is that?

It almost seems like celebrating the IRA.

Now you're talking!
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Tallitot
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jewish
Jurisdiction: United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
Posts: 2,644



WWW
« Reply #14 on: November 05, 2012, 11:52:04 PM »

Nov. 7 1917
the birth of Edith Bouvier Beale?
Logged

Proverbs 22:7
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,928



« Reply #15 on: November 05, 2012, 11:52:09 PM »

Other than being popularized by the movie, I fail to see how this is a positive thing to celebrate.

Yeah, it would have been better if they'd succeeded.

Why is that?

It almost seems like celebrating the IRA.

Now you're talking!

I dunno if anyone realizes that this is kind of like celebrating the Christian versions of Muslim groups.

I'm all for Irish independence, but violence isn't/wasn't the answer. Also, I'm not at all for Irish Catholicism. The Irish, Scottish & English belong back where they were before 1066, in the Orthodox Church.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2012, 11:53:16 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,430



« Reply #16 on: November 05, 2012, 11:56:32 PM »

Sigh.  Oh really?

And a scholarly analysis by Professor Ronald Hutton (who has been mentioned in other threads) of the event postulates that if they had succeeded along with destroying a large part of the area and killing lots of other people it would have caused a backlash against English Roman Catholics that would have been a slaughter.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/civil_war_revolution/gunpowder_hutton_01.shtml

A while back I watched a program from British TV in which they build a reproduction of the hall and got proper gunpowder to test if it would have blown up the old parliament building.  It did with terrific results, fortunately on a vacant military range in the north of England.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gunpowder_Plot:_Exploding_The_Legend

Here's the first part on YouTube.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9oDBXLjQcE
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #17 on: November 05, 2012, 11:57:48 PM »

Nov. 7 1917
Dec. 25 1991
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #18 on: November 06, 2012, 12:52:16 AM »

Other than being popularized by the movie, I fail to see how this is a positive thing to celebrate.
I think the British celebrate the conflagrative failure of the Fawkean inferno.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 7,864



« Reply #19 on: November 06, 2012, 12:54:39 AM »

Other than being popularized by the movie, I fail to see how this is a positive thing to celebrate.

Yeah, it would have been better if they'd succeeded.

Why is that?

It almost seems like celebrating the IRA.

Now you're talking!

I dunno if anyone realizes that this is kind of like celebrating the Christian versions of Muslim groups.

I'm all for Irish independence, but violence isn't/wasn't the answer. Also, I'm not at all for Irish Catholicism. The Irish, Scottish & English belong back where they were before 1066, in the Orthodox Church.

They are closer now than they would be under English oppression.
Logged

Das ist des Jägers Ehrenschild, daß er beschützt und hegt sein Wild, weidmännisch jagt, wie sich’s gehört, den Schöpfer im Geschöpfe ehrt.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #20 on: November 06, 2012, 01:02:42 AM »


A sad day. I was so rooting for the coup.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,928



« Reply #21 on: November 06, 2012, 01:06:53 AM »

Other than being popularized by the movie, I fail to see how this is a positive thing to celebrate.

Yeah, it would have been better if they'd succeeded.

Why is that?

It almost seems like celebrating the IRA.

Now you're talking!

I dunno if anyone realizes that this is kind of like celebrating the Christian versions of Muslim groups.

I'm all for Irish independence, but violence isn't/wasn't the answer. Also, I'm not at all for Irish Catholicism. The Irish, Scottish & English belong back where they were before 1066, in the Orthodox Church.

They are closer now than they would be under English oppression.

Really? Last I knew, Irish Catholics weren't very religious anymore and Anglicans in England were getting very liberal. Doesn't sound like either is closer to Orthodoxy, rather both sound like they're much farther from it.
Logged
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 7,864



« Reply #22 on: November 06, 2012, 01:07:38 AM »

Other than being popularized by the movie, I fail to see how this is a positive thing to celebrate.

Yeah, it would have been better if they'd succeeded.

Why is that?

It almost seems like celebrating the IRA.

Now you're talking!

I dunno if anyone realizes that this is kind of like celebrating the Christian versions of Muslim groups.

I'm all for Irish independence, but violence isn't/wasn't the answer. Also, I'm not at all for Irish Catholicism. The Irish, Scottish & English belong back where they were before 1066, in the Orthodox Church.

They are closer now than they would be under English oppression.

Really? Last I knew, Irish Catholics weren't very religious anymore and Anglicans in England were getting very liberal. Doesn't sound like either is closer to Orthodoxy, rather both sound like they're much farther from it.

I've met plenty of liberal/nonreligious Orthodox.
Logged

Das ist des Jägers Ehrenschild, daß er beschützt und hegt sein Wild, weidmännisch jagt, wie sich’s gehört, den Schöpfer im Geschöpfe ehrt.
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,928



« Reply #23 on: November 06, 2012, 01:08:29 AM »

Other than being popularized by the movie, I fail to see how this is a positive thing to celebrate.

Yeah, it would have been better if they'd succeeded.

Why is that?

It almost seems like celebrating the IRA.

Now you're talking!

I dunno if anyone realizes that this is kind of like celebrating the Christian versions of Muslim groups.

I'm all for Irish independence, but violence isn't/wasn't the answer. Also, I'm not at all for Irish Catholicism. The Irish, Scottish & English belong back where they were before 1066, in the Orthodox Church.

They are closer now than they would be under English oppression.

Really? Last I knew, Irish Catholics weren't very religious anymore and Anglicans in England were getting very liberal. Doesn't sound like either is closer to Orthodoxy, rather both sound like they're much farther from it.

I've met plenty of liberal/nonreligious Orthodox.

Just because one is baptized Orthodox doesn't mean anything, you know that right? I know the same can be applied for Irish Catholics and Anglicans, but most of their hierarchy seems to be infected.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2012, 01:09:04 AM by 88Devin12 » Logged
William
Muted
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,354


« Reply #24 on: November 06, 2012, 01:08:58 AM »

Other than being popularized by the movie, I fail to see how this is a positive thing to celebrate.

Yeah, it would have been better if they'd succeeded.

Why is that?

It almost seems like celebrating the IRA.

Now you're talking!

I dunno if anyone realizes that this is kind of like celebrating the Christian versions of Muslim groups.

I'm all for Irish independence, but violence isn't/wasn't the answer. Also, I'm not at all for Irish Catholicism. The Irish, Scottish & English belong back where they were before 1066, in the Orthodox Church.

They are closer now than they would be under English oppression.

Really? Last I knew, Irish Catholics weren't very religious anymore and Anglicans in England were getting very liberal. Doesn't sound like either is closer to Orthodoxy, rather both sound like they're much farther from it.

I've met plenty of liberal/nonreligious Orthodox.

Doesn't Ireland have like the highest church attendance in Europe and is like one of three countries in the universe without abortion on demand?
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,928



« Reply #25 on: November 06, 2012, 01:12:14 AM »

Other than being popularized by the movie, I fail to see how this is a positive thing to celebrate.

Yeah, it would have been better if they'd succeeded.

Why is that?

It almost seems like celebrating the IRA.

Now you're talking!

I dunno if anyone realizes that this is kind of like celebrating the Christian versions of Muslim groups.

I'm all for Irish independence, but violence isn't/wasn't the answer. Also, I'm not at all for Irish Catholicism. The Irish, Scottish & English belong back where they were before 1066, in the Orthodox Church.

They are closer now than they would be under English oppression.

Really? Last I knew, Irish Catholics weren't very religious anymore and Anglicans in England were getting very liberal. Doesn't sound like either is closer to Orthodoxy, rather both sound like they're much farther from it.

I've met plenty of liberal/nonreligious Orthodox.

Doesn't Ireland have like the highest church attendance in Europe and is like one of three countries in the universe without abortion on demand?

Maybe I shouldn't listen to the BBC. I was probably thinking of the wrong thing, they do have higher "religiousity" than most of Europe and higher attendance (even moreso than Greece, to their shame).
I do recall though some of the other problems in Ireland being common (like alcoholism, etc...) but the same could be said of some Orthodox nations.
Logged
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 7,864



« Reply #26 on: November 06, 2012, 03:40:35 PM »

Other than being popularized by the movie, I fail to see how this is a positive thing to celebrate.

Yeah, it would have been better if they'd succeeded.

Why is that?

It almost seems like celebrating the IRA.

Now you're talking!

I dunno if anyone realizes that this is kind of like celebrating the Christian versions of Muslim groups.

I'm all for Irish independence, but violence isn't/wasn't the answer. Also, I'm not at all for Irish Catholicism. The Irish, Scottish & English belong back where they were before 1066, in the Orthodox Church.

They are closer now than they would be under English oppression.

Really? Last I knew, Irish Catholics weren't very religious anymore and Anglicans in England were getting very liberal. Doesn't sound like either is closer to Orthodoxy, rather both sound like they're much farther from it.

I've met plenty of liberal/nonreligious Orthodox.

Doesn't Ireland have like the highest church attendance in Europe and is like one of three countries in the universe without abortion on demand?

There are a good bit more than three, but yes, Ireland is one of them.

In Europe, it is illegal flat out in the Vatican and Malta.  There are restrictions (to varying degrees) in Ireland and Poland as well as the little-un's: Monaco, Andorra, Liechtenstein, San Marino, the Faroes, and some more lenient restrictions in England, Finland, and Bjork-land.
Logged

Das ist des Jägers Ehrenschild, daß er beschützt und hegt sein Wild, weidmännisch jagt, wie sich’s gehört, den Schöpfer im Geschöpfe ehrt.
Punch
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,592



« Reply #27 on: November 06, 2012, 03:50:00 PM »

You say that as if it something bad.  Up the Republic!

Other than being popularized by the movie, I fail to see how this is a positive thing to celebrate.

Yeah, it would have been better if they'd succeeded.

Why is that?

It almost seems like celebrating the IRA.

Catholicism and Protestantism/Anglicanism are both bad for the UK & Ireland.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,928



« Reply #28 on: November 06, 2012, 04:05:44 PM »

You say that as if it something bad.  Up the Republic!

Other than being popularized by the movie, I fail to see how this is a positive thing to celebrate.

Yeah, it would have been better if they'd succeeded.

Why is that?

It almost seems like celebrating the IRA.

Catholicism and Protestantism/Anglicanism are both bad for the UK & Ireland.

The ends don't justify the means. Terrorism is never justified.

Ireland deserves independence, but you don't commit terrorism to get it.

In fact, if I'm not mistaken, I think Scotland will actually be voting on independence in the upcoming decade.

We no longer live in the world of yesterday. I seriously doubt the UK would go into an all-out war over a part of it declaring independence.

You're all hypocrites in condemning Muslim terrorism and turning around and celebration terrorism by Christians.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2012, 04:06:13 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,049


"My god is greater."


« Reply #29 on: November 06, 2012, 04:15:31 PM »

You say that as if it something bad.  Up the Republic!

Other than being popularized by the movie, I fail to see how this is a positive thing to celebrate.

Yeah, it would have been better if they'd succeeded.

Why is that?

It almost seems like celebrating the IRA.

Catholicism and Protestantism/Anglicanism are both bad for the UK & Ireland.

The ends don't justify the means. Terrorism is never justified.

Ireland deserves independence, but you don't commit terrorism to get it.

In fact, if I'm not mistaken, I think Scotland will actually be voting on independence in the upcoming decade.

We no longer live in the world of yesterday. I seriously doubt the UK would go into an all-out war over a part of it declaring independence.

You're all hypocrites in condemning Muslim terrorism and turning around and celebration terrorism by Christians.



Never forget.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,402


St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...


« Reply #30 on: November 06, 2012, 04:20:13 PM »

You say that as if it something bad.  Up the Republic!

Other than being popularized by the movie, I fail to see how this is a positive thing to celebrate.

Yeah, it would have been better if they'd succeeded.

Why is that?

It almost seems like celebrating the IRA.

Catholicism and Protestantism/Anglicanism are both bad for the UK & Ireland.

The ends don't justify the means. Terrorism is never justified.

Ireland deserves independence, but you don't commit terrorism to get it.

In fact, if I'm not mistaken, I think Scotland will actually be voting on independence in the upcoming decade.

We no longer live in the world of yesterday. I seriously doubt the UK would go into an all-out war over a part of it declaring independence.

You're all hypocrites in condemning Muslim terrorism and turning around and celebration terrorism by Christians.



Never forget.

A military operation on a military base conducted between two parties in a declared state of war?
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,049


"My god is greater."


« Reply #31 on: November 06, 2012, 04:24:54 PM »

You say that as if it something bad.  Up the Republic!

Other than being popularized by the movie, I fail to see how this is a positive thing to celebrate.

Yeah, it would have been better if they'd succeeded.

Why is that?

It almost seems like celebrating the IRA.

Catholicism and Protestantism/Anglicanism are both bad for the UK & Ireland.

The ends don't justify the means. Terrorism is never justified.

Ireland deserves independence, but you don't commit terrorism to get it.

In fact, if I'm not mistaken, I think Scotland will actually be voting on independence in the upcoming decade.

We no longer live in the world of yesterday. I seriously doubt the UK would go into an all-out war over a part of it declaring independence.

You're all hypocrites in condemning Muslim terrorism and turning around and celebration terrorism by Christians.



Never forget.

A military operation on a military base conducted between two parties in a declared state of war?

Think of all the civilian contractors and hapless laborers aboard that base, and then think to yourself, is this the kind of Republic I want to build?
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Punch
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,592



« Reply #32 on: November 06, 2012, 04:26:48 PM »

Don't forget as you go out and vote today (if you do) that this country was also founded by terrorism.  And yes, the end DOES justify the means in this world.  It always has, and always will.

You say that as if it something bad.  Up the Republic!

Other than being popularized by the movie, I fail to see how this is a positive thing to celebrate.

Yeah, it would have been better if they'd succeeded.

Why is that?

It almost seems like celebrating the IRA.

Catholicism and Protestantism/Anglicanism are both bad for the UK & Ireland.

The ends don't justify the means. Terrorism is never justified.

Ireland deserves independence, but you don't commit terrorism to get it.

In fact, if I'm not mistaken, I think Scotland will actually be voting on independence in the upcoming decade.

We no longer live in the world of yesterday. I seriously doubt the UK would go into an all-out war over a part of it declaring independence.

You're all hypocrites in condemning Muslim terrorism and turning around and celebration terrorism by Christians.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,402


St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...


« Reply #33 on: November 06, 2012, 04:31:52 PM »

Don't forget as you go out and vote today (if you do) that this country was also founded by terrorism.  And yes, the end DOES justify the means in this world.  It always has, and always will.

You say that as if it something bad.  Up the Republic!

Other than being popularized by the movie, I fail to see how this is a positive thing to celebrate.

Yeah, it would have been better if they'd succeeded.

Why is that?

It almost seems like celebrating the IRA.

Catholicism and Protestantism/Anglicanism are both bad for the UK & Ireland.

The ends don't justify the means. Terrorism is never justified.

Ireland deserves independence, but you don't commit terrorism to get it.

In fact, if I'm not mistaken, I think Scotland will actually be voting on independence in the upcoming decade.

We no longer live in the world of yesterday. I seriously doubt the UK would go into an all-out war over a part of it declaring independence.

You're all hypocrites in condemning Muslim terrorism and turning around and celebration terrorism by Christians.

Guerrilla warfare =/= Terrorism. There is a difference.
Logged
Ansgar
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: More than an inquirer, less than a catechumen
Jurisdiction: Exarchate of orthodox churches of russian tradition in western Europe
Posts: 2,995


Keep your mind in hell and do not despair


« Reply #34 on: November 06, 2012, 04:34:09 PM »

Don't forget as you go out and vote today (if you do) that this country was also founded by terrorism.  And yes, the end DOES justify the means in this world.  It always has, and always will.

You say that as if it something bad.  Up the Republic!

Other than being popularized by the movie, I fail to see how this is a positive thing to celebrate.

Yeah, it would have been better if they'd succeeded.

Why is that?

It almost seems like celebrating the IRA.

Catholicism and Protestantism/Anglicanism are both bad for the UK & Ireland.

The ends don't justify the means. Terrorism is never justified.

Ireland deserves independence, but you don't commit terrorism to get it.

In fact, if I'm not mistaken, I think Scotland will actually be voting on independence in the upcoming decade.

We no longer live in the world of yesterday. I seriously doubt the UK would go into an all-out war over a part of it declaring independence.

You're all hypocrites in condemning Muslim terrorism and turning around and celebration terrorism by Christians.

Guerrilla warfare =/= Terrorism. There is a difference.
I would agree.
Logged

Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

-St Silouan the athonite
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #35 on: November 06, 2012, 04:37:57 PM »

Death Stars can never hold their liquor.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 7,864



« Reply #36 on: November 06, 2012, 04:42:36 PM »

Don't forget as you go out and vote today (if you do) that this country was also founded by terrorism.  And yes, the end DOES justify the means in this world.  It always has, and always will.

You say that as if it something bad.  Up the Republic!

Other than being popularized by the movie, I fail to see how this is a positive thing to celebrate.

Yeah, it would have been better if they'd succeeded.

Why is that?

It almost seems like celebrating the IRA.

Catholicism and Protestantism/Anglicanism are both bad for the UK & Ireland.

The ends don't justify the means. Terrorism is never justified.

Ireland deserves independence, but you don't commit terrorism to get it.

In fact, if I'm not mistaken, I think Scotland will actually be voting on independence in the upcoming decade.

We no longer live in the world of yesterday. I seriously doubt the UK would go into an all-out war over a part of it declaring independence.

You're all hypocrites in condemning Muslim terrorism and turning around and celebration terrorism by Christians.

Guerrilla warfare =/= Terrorism. There is a difference.
I would agree.

Shooting officers is not very gentlemanly and was abhorrent in the mores of the time...of course it didn't stop the Brits doing it to the Crapauds a couple decades later...

Also, the majority of the IRA/PROVO attacks were on British military and RUC forces.  Acts such as the Omagh bombing were aberrations and in this specific instance was condemned by the mainstream Provisional IRA and the political branch Sinn Fein.  
Logged

Das ist des Jägers Ehrenschild, daß er beschützt und hegt sein Wild, weidmännisch jagt, wie sich’s gehört, den Schöpfer im Geschöpfe ehrt.
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 7,864



« Reply #37 on: November 06, 2012, 04:43:02 PM »

Death Stars can never hold their liquor.

That's not a fart.  That's a space station exploding!
Logged

Das ist des Jägers Ehrenschild, daß er beschützt und hegt sein Wild, weidmännisch jagt, wie sich’s gehört, den Schöpfer im Geschöpfe ehrt.
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,049


"My god is greater."


« Reply #38 on: November 06, 2012, 04:44:23 PM »

To hell with your English permit- we want your motor car!
« Last Edit: November 06, 2012, 04:45:04 PM by Iconodule » Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,482


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #39 on: November 06, 2012, 04:59:06 PM »


HA!  One of my favorite Clancy's songs
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Punch
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,592



« Reply #40 on: November 06, 2012, 05:00:26 PM »

Guerrilla warfare =/= Terrorism. There is a difference.

Both are killing to achieve a means.  I suppose that fire bombing women and children is also a nice clean sanitary way of war, as long as it is properly done by nice uniformed heroes flying shiny airplanes - as opposed to killing them with a bomb in a baby buggy.  They are just as dead.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 7,864



« Reply #41 on: November 06, 2012, 05:05:36 PM »

Guerrilla warfare =/= Terrorism. There is a difference.

Both are killing to achieve a means.  I suppose that fire bombing women and children is also a nice clean sanitary way of war, as long as it is properly done by nice uniformed heroes flying shiny airplanes - as opposed to killing them with a bomb in a baby buggy.  They are just as dead.

Nope.  Terrorists kill far less than conventional bombing campaigns.
Logged

Das ist des Jägers Ehrenschild, daß er beschützt und hegt sein Wild, weidmännisch jagt, wie sich’s gehört, den Schöpfer im Geschöpfe ehrt.
mabsoota
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 2,582


Kyrie eleison


« Reply #42 on: November 06, 2012, 05:12:56 PM »

as a british person and an orthodox Christian, i would like to set straight a few things.
1. at the time of the attempted blowing up of parliament, catholics were horribly persecuted and the government was corrupt.
2. blowing up parliament is never a good Christian solution to oppression.
3. catholics in uk do not 'celebrate' november 5th.
4. 90% of the atheists, protestants and other who do, do not realise that burning the 'guy' on the bonfire is burning an effigy of an actual person who lived and is therefore very similar to witchcraft or voodoo and not a Christian thing to do.
5. about 3/4 british people are not interested in british or irish history, so we only study this era very superficially at school, never exploring the religious oppression side of things.
as i was becoming orthodox, i got fairly close to the catholic church and made many friends who explained to me more about history, which i then checked up in books and on the internet.

6. living through the era of the 'troubles' in northern ireland was scary, and i even wrote a small book based on it when i was 12 (it was like a children's story) because it affected me so much. we were aware war could spill over at any time and we knew that the work of the ira and the work of the british police could kill and main many innocent people.
there is no way that it was ok. lots of people died and there was way too much hatred on both sides.
7. as a fairly recent visitor to ireland, it was beautiful to be able to make the sign of the cross in front of churches with no one looking at me, and great to meet some lovely Christian people who were trying to serve God in their country (i attended a protestant Bible study and a catholic mass, where the sermon spoke exactly into my situation).
ireland (the south) does not have the same aggressive secularism as the uk. one is allowed to be anti abortion without feeling like an outcast (as we do in the uk). the effect of the catholic church there seems to me to be more positive than negative, despite the failures in leadership to weed out several of the dodgy priests over the decades. i think they need help and prayers.
8. britain and ireland committed many atrocities in the war at the beginning of the 20th century and much forgiveness and restoration is needed.
9. northern ireland (i admit i have not been there) is on the road to recovery, and Christians from all groups have contributed to it. there are also several orthodox churches now there.

10. in summary, i do not celebrate november 5th (since just before i became orthodox, when i realised it was about religious oppression, i just thought it was about terrorism before that). if invited to a fireworks display, i would have to politely decline.
may God give peace and grace to all those who suffer oppression.
Logged
Ansgar
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: More than an inquirer, less than a catechumen
Jurisdiction: Exarchate of orthodox churches of russian tradition in western Europe
Posts: 2,995


Keep your mind in hell and do not despair


« Reply #43 on: November 06, 2012, 05:50:05 PM »

Guerrilla warfare =/= Terrorism. There is a difference.

Both are killing to achieve a means.  I suppose that fire bombing women and children is also a nice clean sanitary way of war, as long as it is properly done by nice uniformed heroes flying shiny airplanes - as opposed to killing them with a bomb in a baby buggy.  They are just as dead.
Guerrilla warfare is defined as "the use of hit-and-run tactics by small, mobile groups of irregular forces operating in territory controlled by a hostile, regular force" and has traditionally been used about smaller groups of foot soldiers, like the ones led by Che Guevara.
Therefore, I don't think that an airborne attack can correctly be called guerrilla warfare.
Logged

Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

-St Silouan the athonite
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 7,864



« Reply #44 on: November 06, 2012, 07:11:01 PM »

Guerrilla warfare =/= Terrorism. There is a difference.

Both are killing to achieve a means.  I suppose that fire bombing women and children is also a nice clean sanitary way of war, as long as it is properly done by nice uniformed heroes flying shiny airplanes - as opposed to killing them with a bomb in a baby buggy.  They are just as dead.
Guerrilla warfare is defined as "the use of hit-and-run tactics by small, mobile groups of irregular forces operating in territory controlled by a hostile, regular force" and has traditionally been used about smaller groups of foot soldiers, like the ones led by Che Guevara.
Therefore, I don't think that an airborne attack can correctly be called guerrilla warfare.


I don't think he is saying that.  He is saying that terrorism is a means to an end, just like bombing raids.  As I pointed out, historically terrorist attacks have many less civilian casualties than bombing raids.  (Compare 9/11 to Hiroshima.  Keep in mind that the majority of those killed in Hiroshima were neither IJN not IJA personel.) 

Before people make statements regarding terrorism they need to understand how war between nation-states works.  I mean the gritty details.

1- War of maneuver between armies.  Army A finds Army B on the field of battle and beats them.  The war is decided by the outcome of a battle.  Napoleonic Wars.

2- Industrial Warfare - People don't kill people, bullets do.  People soak up bullets but they are an expendable resource.  Basically, you throw as many bullets as you can at the other side to wear out their industrial production.  WWI.

3- Blitzkreig/Shock and Awe.  You maneuver your armies so fast utilizing combined arms that you overpower their forces at one spot and are already in their hinterland threatening the base of their production before their armies are even geared up to fight.  WWII in France, Denmark, Poland, Netherlands, etc.

3a - Just use bombers.  Either way, the point it so bypass fighting and hit their industrial capabilities with minimal loss to your own forces - i.e. men are no longer bullet sponges, just kill the factories (and whoever gets in the way.  Bombing campaigns in Germany and Japan.  We tried to do the same in VN. 

4- 4th Generation Warfare is all about ROI.  Do as much infrastructure damage as you can for the least cost incurred by the aggressor.  You can continue using planes but precision drones do the same thing.  Cyberwarfare is another alternative.  They use computers for command and control - kill the computers.  Likewise, terrorist attacks can be used to sap the will of the people or better yet - cause systemic damage to their networks (electrical grids, transportation, food supply, water supply, commerce, etc.). 

Terrorism allows NGO (non-govt. organizations) to carry out systemic damages in the same way that bombing campaigns could for a regular government.
Logged

Das ist des Jägers Ehrenschild, daß er beschützt und hegt sein Wild, weidmännisch jagt, wie sich’s gehört, den Schöpfer im Geschöpfe ehrt.
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #45 on: November 06, 2012, 07:17:33 PM »

Guerrilla warfare =/= Terrorism. There is a difference.

Both are killing to achieve a means.  I suppose that fire bombing women and children is also a nice clean sanitary way of war, as long as it is properly done by nice uniformed heroes flying shiny airplanes - as opposed to killing them with a bomb in a baby buggy.  They are just as dead.
Guerrilla warfare is defined as "the use of hit-and-run tactics by small, mobile groups of irregular forces operating in territory controlled by a hostile, regular force" and has traditionally been used about smaller groups of foot soldiers, like the ones led by Che Guevara.
Therefore, I don't think that an airborne attack can correctly be called guerrilla warfare.


I don't think he is saying that.  He is saying that terrorism is a means to an end, just like bombing raids.  As I pointed out, historically terrorist attacks have many less civilian casualties than bombing raids.  (Compare 9/11 to Hiroshima.  Keep in mind that the majority of those killed in Hiroshima were neither IJN not IJA personel.) 

Before people make statements regarding terrorism they need to understand how war between nation-states works.  I mean the gritty details.

1- War of maneuver between armies.  Army A finds Army B on the field of battle and beats them.  The war is decided by the outcome of a battle.  Napoleonic Wars.

2- Industrial Warfare - People don't kill people, bullets do.  People soak up bullets but they are an expendable resource.  Basically, you throw as many bullets as you can at the other side to wear out their industrial production.  WWI.

3- Blitzkreig/Shock and Awe.  You maneuver your armies so fast utilizing combined arms that you overpower their forces at one spot and are already in their hinterland threatening the base of their production before their armies are even geared up to fight.  WWII in France, Denmark, Poland, Netherlands, etc.

3a - Just use bombers.  Either way, the point it so bypass fighting and hit their industrial capabilities with minimal loss to your own forces - i.e. men are no longer bullet sponges, just kill the factories (and whoever gets in the way.  Bombing campaigns in Germany and Japan.  We tried to do the same in VN. 

4- 4th Generation Warfare is all about ROI.  Do as much infrastructure damage as you can for the least cost incurred by the aggressor.  You can continue using planes but precision drones do the same thing.  Cyberwarfare is another alternative.  They use computers for command and control - kill the computers.  Likewise, terrorist attacks can be used to sap the will of the people or better yet - cause systemic damage to their networks (electrical grids, transportation, food supply, water supply, commerce, etc.). 

Terrorism allows NGO (non-govt. organizations) to carry out systemic damages in the same way that bombing campaigns could for a regular government.
Is this from Clausewitz?
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Ansgar
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: More than an inquirer, less than a catechumen
Jurisdiction: Exarchate of orthodox churches of russian tradition in western Europe
Posts: 2,995


Keep your mind in hell and do not despair


« Reply #46 on: November 06, 2012, 07:39:50 PM »

Guerrilla warfare =/= Terrorism. There is a difference.

Both are killing to achieve a means.  I suppose that fire bombing women and children is also a nice clean sanitary way of war, as long as it is properly done by nice uniformed heroes flying shiny airplanes - as opposed to killing them with a bomb in a baby buggy.  They are just as dead.
Guerrilla warfare is defined as "the use of hit-and-run tactics by small, mobile groups of irregular forces operating in territory controlled by a hostile, regular force" and has traditionally been used about smaller groups of foot soldiers, like the ones led by Che Guevara.
Therefore, I don't think that an airborne attack can correctly be called guerrilla warfare.


I don't think he is saying that.  He is saying that terrorism is a means to an end, just like bombing raids.  As I pointed out, historically terrorist attacks have many less civilian casualties than bombing raids.  (Compare 9/11 to Hiroshima.  Keep in mind that the majority of those killed in Hiroshima were neither IJN not IJA personel.) 

Before people make statements regarding terrorism they need to understand how war between nation-states works.  I mean the gritty details.

1- War of maneuver between armies.  Army A finds Army B on the field of battle and beats them.  The war is decided by the outcome of a battle.  Napoleonic Wars.

2- Industrial Warfare - People don't kill people, bullets do.  People soak up bullets but they are an expendable resource.  Basically, you throw as many bullets as you can at the other side to wear out their industrial production.  WWI.

3- Blitzkreig/Shock and Awe.  You maneuver your armies so fast utilizing combined arms that you overpower their forces at one spot and are already in their hinterland threatening the base of their production before their armies are even geared up to fight.  WWII in France, Denmark, Poland, Netherlands, etc.

3a - Just use bombers.  Either way, the point it so bypass fighting and hit their industrial capabilities with minimal loss to your own forces - i.e. men are no longer bullet sponges, just kill the factories (and whoever gets in the way.  Bombing campaigns in Germany and Japan.  We tried to do the same in VN. 

4- 4th Generation Warfare is all about ROI.  Do as much infrastructure damage as you can for the least cost incurred by the aggressor.  You can continue using planes but precision drones do the same thing.  Cyberwarfare is another alternative.  They use computers for command and control - kill the computers.  Likewise, terrorist attacks can be used to sap the will of the people or better yet - cause systemic damage to their networks (electrical grids, transportation, food supply, water supply, commerce, etc.). 

Terrorism allows NGO (non-govt. organizations) to carry out systemic damages in the same way that bombing campaigns could for a regular government.
I am in no way disagreeing with what you're saying, however he did make it sound like that terrorism and guerrilla warfare is the same thing (I might have misundertood him though)
Logged

Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

-St Silouan the athonite
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,928



« Reply #47 on: November 06, 2012, 10:14:15 PM »

Don't forget as you go out and vote today (if you do) that this country was also founded by terrorism.  And yes, the end DOES justify the means in this world.  It always has, and always will.

You say that as if it something bad.  Up the Republic!

Other than being popularized by the movie, I fail to see how this is a positive thing to celebrate.

Yeah, it would have been better if they'd succeeded.

Why is that?

It almost seems like celebrating the IRA.

Catholicism and Protestantism/Anglicanism are both bad for the UK & Ireland.

The ends don't justify the means. Terrorism is never justified.

Ireland deserves independence, but you don't commit terrorism to get it.

In fact, if I'm not mistaken, I think Scotland will actually be voting on independence in the upcoming decade.

We no longer live in the world of yesterday. I seriously doubt the UK would go into an all-out war over a part of it declaring independence.

You're all hypocrites in condemning Muslim terrorism and turning around and celebration terrorism by Christians.

Guerrilla warfare =/= Terrorism. There is a difference.

This is terrorism, not guerrilla warfare:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_London
Logged
Punch
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,592



« Reply #48 on: November 06, 2012, 11:12:32 PM »

Guerrilla warfare =/= Terrorism. There is a difference.

Both are killing to achieve a means.  I suppose that fire bombing women and children is also a nice clean sanitary way of war, as long as it is properly done by nice uniformed heroes flying shiny airplanes - as opposed to killing them with a bomb in a baby buggy.  They are just as dead.
Guerrilla warfare is defined as "the use of hit-and-run tactics by small, mobile groups of irregular forces operating in territory controlled by a hostile, regular force" and has traditionally been used about smaller groups of foot soldiers, like the ones led by Che Guevara.
Therefore, I don't think that an airborne attack can correctly be called guerrilla warfare.


I don't think he is saying that.  He is saying that terrorism is a means to an end, just like bombing raids.  As I pointed out, historically terrorist attacks have many less civilian casualties than bombing raids.  (Compare 9/11 to Hiroshima.  Keep in mind that the majority of those killed in Hiroshima were neither IJN not IJA personel.) 

Before people make statements regarding terrorism they need to understand how war between nation-states works.  I mean the gritty details.

1- War of maneuver between armies.  Army A finds Army B on the field of battle and beats them.  The war is decided by the outcome of a battle.  Napoleonic Wars.

2- Industrial Warfare - People don't kill people, bullets do.  People soak up bullets but they are an expendable resource.  Basically, you throw as many bullets as you can at the other side to wear out their industrial production.  WWI.

3- Blitzkreig/Shock and Awe.  You maneuver your armies so fast utilizing combined arms that you overpower their forces at one spot and are already in their hinterland threatening the base of their production before their armies are even geared up to fight.  WWII in France, Denmark, Poland, Netherlands, etc.

3a - Just use bombers.  Either way, the point it so bypass fighting and hit their industrial capabilities with minimal loss to your own forces - i.e. men are no longer bullet sponges, just kill the factories (and whoever gets in the way.  Bombing campaigns in Germany and Japan.  We tried to do the same in VN. 

4- 4th Generation Warfare is all about ROI.  Do as much infrastructure damage as you can for the least cost incurred by the aggressor.  You can continue using planes but precision drones do the same thing.  Cyberwarfare is another alternative.  They use computers for command and control - kill the computers.  Likewise, terrorist attacks can be used to sap the will of the people or better yet - cause systemic damage to their networks (electrical grids, transportation, food supply, water supply, commerce, etc.). 

Terrorism allows NGO (non-govt. organizations) to carry out systemic damages in the same way that bombing campaigns could for a regular government.

You are forgetting 3b - Terror bombing of civilian targets (Rostock, London, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki)
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 7,864



« Reply #49 on: November 06, 2012, 11:15:28 PM »

Guerrilla warfare =/= Terrorism. There is a difference.

Both are killing to achieve a means.  I suppose that fire bombing women and children is also a nice clean sanitary way of war, as long as it is properly done by nice uniformed heroes flying shiny airplanes - as opposed to killing them with a bomb in a baby buggy.  They are just as dead.
Guerrilla warfare is defined as "the use of hit-and-run tactics by small, mobile groups of irregular forces operating in territory controlled by a hostile, regular force" and has traditionally been used about smaller groups of foot soldiers, like the ones led by Che Guevara.
Therefore, I don't think that an airborne attack can correctly be called guerrilla warfare.


I don't think he is saying that.  He is saying that terrorism is a means to an end, just like bombing raids.  As I pointed out, historically terrorist attacks have many less civilian casualties than bombing raids.  (Compare 9/11 to Hiroshima.  Keep in mind that the majority of those killed in Hiroshima were neither IJN not IJA personel.) 

Before people make statements regarding terrorism they need to understand how war between nation-states works.  I mean the gritty details.

1- War of maneuver between armies.  Army A finds Army B on the field of battle and beats them.  The war is decided by the outcome of a battle.  Napoleonic Wars.

2- Industrial Warfare - People don't kill people, bullets do.  People soak up bullets but they are an expendable resource.  Basically, you throw as many bullets as you can at the other side to wear out their industrial production.  WWI.

3- Blitzkreig/Shock and Awe.  You maneuver your armies so fast utilizing combined arms that you overpower their forces at one spot and are already in their hinterland threatening the base of their production before their armies are even geared up to fight.  WWII in France, Denmark, Poland, Netherlands, etc.

3a - Just use bombers.  Either way, the point it so bypass fighting and hit their industrial capabilities with minimal loss to your own forces - i.e. men are no longer bullet sponges, just kill the factories (and whoever gets in the way.  Bombing campaigns in Germany and Japan.  We tried to do the same in VN. 

4- 4th Generation Warfare is all about ROI.  Do as much infrastructure damage as you can for the least cost incurred by the aggressor.  You can continue using planes but precision drones do the same thing.  Cyberwarfare is another alternative.  They use computers for command and control - kill the computers.  Likewise, terrorist attacks can be used to sap the will of the people or better yet - cause systemic damage to their networks (electrical grids, transportation, food supply, water supply, commerce, etc.). 

Terrorism allows NGO (non-govt. organizations) to carry out systemic damages in the same way that bombing campaigns could for a regular government.
I am in no way disagreeing with what you're saying, however he did make it sound like that terrorism and guerrilla warfare is the same thing (I might have misundertood him though)

I think many disagreements come from misunderstanding each other's position.  When Punch clarifies I'll bet you two ca see eye to eye on this.

IMO, terrorism and guerrilla warfare are not the same but they are closely related.  They both rely on having a high ROI and are typically utilized by entities with low clout on an international level.
Logged

Das ist des Jägers Ehrenschild, daß er beschützt und hegt sein Wild, weidmännisch jagt, wie sich’s gehört, den Schöpfer im Geschöpfe ehrt.
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 7,864



« Reply #50 on: November 06, 2012, 11:17:48 PM »

Guerrilla warfare =/= Terrorism. There is a difference.

Both are killing to achieve a means.  I suppose that fire bombing women and children is also a nice clean sanitary way of war, as long as it is properly done by nice uniformed heroes flying shiny airplanes - as opposed to killing them with a bomb in a baby buggy.  They are just as dead.
Guerrilla warfare is defined as "the use of hit-and-run tactics by small, mobile groups of irregular forces operating in territory controlled by a hostile, regular force" and has traditionally been used about smaller groups of foot soldiers, like the ones led by Che Guevara.
Therefore, I don't think that an airborne attack can correctly be called guerrilla warfare.


I don't think he is saying that.  He is saying that terrorism is a means to an end, just like bombing raids.  As I pointed out, historically terrorist attacks have many less civilian casualties than bombing raids.  (Compare 9/11 to Hiroshima.  Keep in mind that the majority of those killed in Hiroshima were neither IJN not IJA personel.) 

Before people make statements regarding terrorism they need to understand how war between nation-states works.  I mean the gritty details.

1- War of maneuver between armies.  Army A finds Army B on the field of battle and beats them.  The war is decided by the outcome of a battle.  Napoleonic Wars.

2- Industrial Warfare - People don't kill people, bullets do.  People soak up bullets but they are an expendable resource.  Basically, you throw as many bullets as you can at the other side to wear out their industrial production.  WWI.

3- Blitzkreig/Shock and Awe.  You maneuver your armies so fast utilizing combined arms that you overpower their forces at one spot and are already in their hinterland threatening the base of their production before their armies are even geared up to fight.  WWII in France, Denmark, Poland, Netherlands, etc.

3a - Just use bombers.  Either way, the point it so bypass fighting and hit their industrial capabilities with minimal loss to your own forces - i.e. men are no longer bullet sponges, just kill the factories (and whoever gets in the way.  Bombing campaigns in Germany and Japan.  We tried to do the same in VN. 

4- 4th Generation Warfare is all about ROI.  Do as much infrastructure damage as you can for the least cost incurred by the aggressor.  You can continue using planes but precision drones do the same thing.  Cyberwarfare is another alternative.  They use computers for command and control - kill the computers.  Likewise, terrorist attacks can be used to sap the will of the people or better yet - cause systemic damage to their networks (electrical grids, transportation, food supply, water supply, commerce, etc.). 

Terrorism allows NGO (non-govt. organizations) to carry out systemic damages in the same way that bombing campaigns could for a regular government.

You are forgetting 3b - Terror bombing of civilian targets (Rostock, London, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki)

That is 3a.  All of those cities had factories and manpower.  Remember, there are no people, just materiel.  Every dead German or Japanese was a loss in manpower which is a commodity.  The non-working women and children were after-thoughts.  If that. 
Logged

Das ist des Jägers Ehrenschild, daß er beschützt und hegt sein Wild, weidmännisch jagt, wie sich’s gehört, den Schöpfer im Geschöpfe ehrt.
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 7,864



« Reply #51 on: November 06, 2012, 11:19:40 PM »

Guerrilla warfare =/= Terrorism. There is a difference.

Both are killing to achieve a means.  I suppose that fire bombing women and children is also a nice clean sanitary way of war, as long as it is properly done by nice uniformed heroes flying shiny airplanes - as opposed to killing them with a bomb in a baby buggy.  They are just as dead.
Guerrilla warfare is defined as "the use of hit-and-run tactics by small, mobile groups of irregular forces operating in territory controlled by a hostile, regular force" and has traditionally been used about smaller groups of foot soldiers, like the ones led by Che Guevara.
Therefore, I don't think that an airborne attack can correctly be called guerrilla warfare.


I don't think he is saying that.  He is saying that terrorism is a means to an end, just like bombing raids.  As I pointed out, historically terrorist attacks have many less civilian casualties than bombing raids.  (Compare 9/11 to Hiroshima.  Keep in mind that the majority of those killed in Hiroshima were neither IJN not IJA personel.)  

Before people make statements regarding terrorism they need to understand how war between nation-states works.  I mean the gritty details.

1- War of maneuver between armies.  Army A finds Army B on the field of battle and beats them.  The war is decided by the outcome of a battle.  Napoleonic Wars.

2- Industrial Warfare - People don't kill people, bullets do.  People soak up bullets but they are an expendable resource.  Basically, you throw as many bullets as you can at the other side to wear out their industrial production.  WWI.

3- Blitzkreig/Shock and Awe.  You maneuver your armies so fast utilizing combined arms that you overpower their forces at one spot and are already in their hinterland threatening the base of their production before their armies are even geared up to fight.  WWII in France, Denmark, Poland, Netherlands, etc.

3a - Just use bombers.  Either way, the point it so bypass fighting and hit their industrial capabilities with minimal loss to your own forces - i.e. men are no longer bullet sponges, just kill the factories (and whoever gets in the way.  Bombing campaigns in Germany and Japan.  We tried to do the same in VN.  

4- 4th Generation Warfare is all about ROI.  Do as much infrastructure damage as you can for the least cost incurred by the aggressor.  You can continue using planes but precision drones do the same thing.  Cyberwarfare is another alternative.  They use computers for command and control - kill the computers.  Likewise, terrorist attacks can be used to sap the will of the people or better yet - cause systemic damage to their networks (electrical grids, transportation, food supply, water supply, commerce, etc.).  

Terrorism allows NGO (non-govt. organizations) to carry out systemic damages in the same way that bombing campaigns could for a regular government.
Is this from Clausewitz?

If those were my original thoughts I would be flattered to be compared to von Clausewitz.  But alas, much of my military thinking comes from John Robb and William S. Lind.

EDIT - von Clausewitz only lived to see 1-.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2012, 11:20:01 PM by vamrat » Logged

Das ist des Jägers Ehrenschild, daß er beschützt und hegt sein Wild, weidmännisch jagt, wie sich’s gehört, den Schöpfer im Geschöpfe ehrt.
Ansgar
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: More than an inquirer, less than a catechumen
Jurisdiction: Exarchate of orthodox churches of russian tradition in western Europe
Posts: 2,995


Keep your mind in hell and do not despair


« Reply #52 on: November 07, 2012, 08:22:51 AM »

Guerrilla warfare =/= Terrorism. There is a difference.

Both are killing to achieve a means.  I suppose that fire bombing women and children is also a nice clean sanitary way of war, as long as it is properly done by nice uniformed heroes flying shiny airplanes - as opposed to killing them with a bomb in a baby buggy.  They are just as dead.
Guerrilla warfare is defined as "the use of hit-and-run tactics by small, mobile groups of irregular forces operating in territory controlled by a hostile, regular force" and has traditionally been used about smaller groups of foot soldiers, like the ones led by Che Guevara.
Therefore, I don't think that an airborne attack can correctly be called guerrilla warfare.


I don't think he is saying that.  He is saying that terrorism is a means to an end, just like bombing raids.  As I pointed out, historically terrorist attacks have many less civilian casualties than bombing raids.  (Compare 9/11 to Hiroshima.  Keep in mind that the majority of those killed in Hiroshima were neither IJN not IJA personel.) 

Before people make statements regarding terrorism they need to understand how war between nation-states works.  I mean the gritty details.

1- War of maneuver between armies.  Army A finds Army B on the field of battle and beats them.  The war is decided by the outcome of a battle.  Napoleonic Wars.

2- Industrial Warfare - People don't kill people, bullets do.  People soak up bullets but they are an expendable resource.  Basically, you throw as many bullets as you can at the other side to wear out their industrial production.  WWI.

3- Blitzkreig/Shock and Awe.  You maneuver your armies so fast utilizing combined arms that you overpower their forces at one spot and are already in their hinterland threatening the base of their production before their armies are even geared up to fight.  WWII in France, Denmark, Poland, Netherlands, etc.

3a - Just use bombers.  Either way, the point it so bypass fighting and hit their industrial capabilities with minimal loss to your own forces - i.e. men are no longer bullet sponges, just kill the factories (and whoever gets in the way.  Bombing campaigns in Germany and Japan.  We tried to do the same in VN. 

4- 4th Generation Warfare is all about ROI.  Do as much infrastructure damage as you can for the least cost incurred by the aggressor.  You can continue using planes but precision drones do the same thing.  Cyberwarfare is another alternative.  They use computers for command and control - kill the computers.  Likewise, terrorist attacks can be used to sap the will of the people or better yet - cause systemic damage to their networks (electrical grids, transportation, food supply, water supply, commerce, etc.). 

Terrorism allows NGO (non-govt. organizations) to carry out systemic damages in the same way that bombing campaigns could for a regular government.
I am in no way disagreeing with what you're saying, however he did make it sound like that terrorism and guerrilla warfare is the same thing (I might have misundertood him though)

I think many disagreements come from misunderstanding each other's position.  When Punch clarifies I'll bet you two ca see eye to eye on this.

IMO, terrorism and guerrilla warfare are not the same but they are closely related.  They both rely on having a high ROI and are typically utilized by entities with low clout on an international level.
I think you're right.
Logged

Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

-St Silouan the athonite
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #53 on: November 07, 2012, 08:54:20 AM »

Don't forget as you go out and vote today (if you do) that this country was also founded by terrorism.  And yes, the end DOES justify the means in this world.  It always has, and always will.

You say that as if it something bad.  Up the Republic!

Other than being popularized by the movie, I fail to see how this is a positive thing to celebrate.

Yeah, it would have been better if they'd succeeded.

Why is that?

It almost seems like celebrating the IRA.

Catholicism and Protestantism/Anglicanism are both bad for the UK & Ireland.

The ends don't justify the means. Terrorism is never justified.

Ireland deserves independence, but you don't commit terrorism to get it.

In fact, if I'm not mistaken, I think Scotland will actually be voting on independence in the upcoming decade.

We no longer live in the world of yesterday. I seriously doubt the UK would go into an all-out war over a part of it declaring independence.

You're all hypocrites in condemning Muslim terrorism and turning around and celebration terrorism by Christians.

Guerrilla warfare =/= Terrorism. There is a difference.

They are not equal, and anyone who does not understand the difference most likely shouldn’t be defending or attacking either one.
Logged
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 7,864



« Reply #54 on: November 07, 2012, 10:26:29 AM »

Don't forget as you go out and vote today (if you do) that this country was also founded by terrorism.  And yes, the end DOES justify the means in this world.  It always has, and always will.

You say that as if it something bad.  Up the Republic!

Other than being popularized by the movie, I fail to see how this is a positive thing to celebrate.

Yeah, it would have been better if they'd succeeded.

Why is that?

It almost seems like celebrating the IRA.

Catholicism and Protestantism/Anglicanism are both bad for the UK & Ireland.

The ends don't justify the means. Terrorism is never justified.

Ireland deserves independence, but you don't commit terrorism to get it.

In fact, if I'm not mistaken, I think Scotland will actually be voting on independence in the upcoming decade.

We no longer live in the world of yesterday. I seriously doubt the UK would go into an all-out war over a part of it declaring independence.

You're all hypocrites in condemning Muslim terrorism and turning around and celebration terrorism by Christians.

Guerrilla warfare =/= Terrorism. There is a difference.

They are not equal, and anyone who does not understand the difference most likely shouldn’t be defending or attacking either one.

This soundbite has been expanded upon.  Care to debate any of the points I have made?
Logged

Das ist des Jägers Ehrenschild, daß er beschützt und hegt sein Wild, weidmännisch jagt, wie sich’s gehört, den Schöpfer im Geschöpfe ehrt.
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,402


St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...


« Reply #55 on: November 07, 2012, 10:50:22 AM »

Guerrilla warfare =/= Terrorism. There is a difference.

Both are killing to achieve a means.  I suppose that fire bombing women and children is also a nice clean sanitary way of war, as long as it is properly done by nice uniformed heroes flying shiny airplanes - as opposed to killing them with a bomb in a baby buggy.  They are just as dead.

Just to go back to this statement, I never claimed that fire bombing cities was morally correct; I would actually consider such actions a form of terrorism, so don't try to put words in my mouth.

Anyway, guerrilla warfare is by definition between two forces composed of combatants. Terrorism (which IMO bombing population centers would fall under) on the other hand, is by definition a combatant force attacking non-combatants for the purpose of sapping morale. Two groups of combatants fighting is not the same thing as a combatant attacking non-combatants. See the difference?
Logged
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 7,864



« Reply #56 on: November 07, 2012, 11:34:19 AM »

Guerrilla warfare =/= Terrorism. There is a difference.

Both are killing to achieve a means.  I suppose that fire bombing women and children is also a nice clean sanitary way of war, as long as it is properly done by nice uniformed heroes flying shiny airplanes - as opposed to killing them with a bomb in a baby buggy.  They are just as dead.

Just to go back to this statement, I never claimed that fire bombing cities was morally correct; I would actually consider such actions a form of terrorism, so don't try to put words in my mouth.

Anyway, guerrilla warfare is by definition between two forces composed of combatants. Terrorism (which IMO bombing population centers would fall under) on the other hand, is by definition a combatant force attacking non-combatants for the purpose of sapping morale. Two groups of combatants fighting is not the same thing as a combatant attacking non-combatants. See the difference?

I think the "who" part of the equation with guerrillas vs terrorists is very blurred.  What were the IRA?  Guerrillas or Terrorists?  Their sniper/rocket/mortar attacks on British military and RUC forces was a form of guerrilla warfare.  How about the original guerrillas, the Spanish irregular forces in the Napoleonic Wars?  There were repeated instances of them killing French wounded in their hospitals or in convoys.  They mutilated the bodies of French soldiers in order to spread terror.  The VC might have been ambushing a US Army or Marine patrol and in the next day massacring a village that showed some level (no matter how minor) of support to US occupation forces.

I don't think you can judge guerrilla vs terrorist based on who is doing what, only on "how" they are doing it.  I think you have the definition of terrorism correct in that it is a tactic used by both the armed forces of a nation state or by a NGO to instill terror and sap the morale of the opposing faction.  I think that guerrilla warfare refers to any irregular forces fighting asymmetrical warfare against enemy forces. 

Note that guerrilla warfare is often used by a state as well against a non-state actor.  I think the operations of the Selous Scouts in the Rhodesian Bush War count as guerrilla actions, even though they were perpetrated against another guerrilla force.  Likewise, US special forces in Vietnam often utilized guerrilla warfare against the PAVN and the VC.  (Especially consider Green Beret operations involving Montagnards.)

The problem with the term "terrorist" is that it is a pejorative and is very emotionally charged but does not always explain the operations of the unit in question in every circumstance (or even in most).  The Rhodesian forces referred to their enemies as terrorists, and ZANLA and ZIRPA often used terror tactics against civilians, but they often fought guerrilla actions against Rhodesian armed forces.  Almost no one refers to USAAF personnel in WWII as terrorists even though they very specifically attacked civilian targets with the intent of sowing terror in the German people. 

Terrorism is a tactic and at the end of the day it attacks the productive capabilities of an enemy.  It is an element of 4th Generation Warfare.  The only way to combat terrorism is by ensuring that the losses you receive from having your civilian elements destroyed is less than those that they incur in carrying out the attacks.
Logged

Das ist des Jägers Ehrenschild, daß er beschützt und hegt sein Wild, weidmännisch jagt, wie sich’s gehört, den Schöpfer im Geschöpfe ehrt.
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 7,864



« Reply #57 on: November 07, 2012, 11:40:32 AM »

Let me break it down like this: people don't kill people in war.  Economic systems kill economic systems.  The people involved are entirely irrelevant except where they sit in the economic system. 

In WWI, the lives of the soldiers did not matter so much as the loss in manpower and the expenditure of offensive material. 

Same thing with a terrorist attack.  The goal is not to kill people, it is to sap their will to fight and cause economic damages.  People who die in the process are only important in the symbolic aspect of their deaths.
Logged

Das ist des Jägers Ehrenschild, daß er beschützt und hegt sein Wild, weidmännisch jagt, wie sich’s gehört, den Schöpfer im Geschöpfe ehrt.
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,402


St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...


« Reply #58 on: November 07, 2012, 11:52:53 AM »


I would say Guerrilla warfare and "Terrorist" warfare sort of form two ends of a single continuum based on who the target is. One one side, if the target of a irregular force is primarily combatants, then it would fall mostly under the Guerrilla warfare umbrella. On the opposite side, if the primary target is non-combatants, including wounded soldiers, then it would fall under the "Terrorist" umbrella. I agree, though that there is a substantial grey area in the middle.

Ps. Since the word terrorist is seen as a pejorative, what would you recommend as an alternative?
Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,928



« Reply #59 on: November 07, 2012, 12:07:10 PM »

The IRA didn't just hit military targets, they hit civilian ones. Bombing civilian targets on purpose IS terrorism.

You ignore history if you don't think they committed some terrorist acts or if you assume they didn't kill non Irish Catholic civilians.
Logged
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 7,864



« Reply #60 on: November 07, 2012, 12:15:18 PM »


I would say Guerrilla warfare and "Terrorist" warfare sort of form two ends of a single continuum based on who the target is. One one side, if the target of a irregular force is primarily combatants, then it would fall mostly under the Guerrilla warfare umbrella. On the opposite side, if the primary target is non-combatants, including wounded soldiers, then it would fall under the "Terrorist" umbrella. I agree, though that there is a substantial grey area in the middle.

Ps. Since the word terrorist is seen as a pejorative, what would you recommend as an alternative?

There are a wide variety of terms that could be used.  Usually, I refer to the unit in question, but if you really aren't into modern military history then it can be hard making sense of the alphabet soup of factions (ZANLA, ZIRPA, SWAPO, MPLA, VC, IRA, PIRA, RIRA, CIRA, you get the picture!)   Grin  I think the main point is, both Guerrilla Warfare and Terrorism are tactics that are on the table in modern warfare.  The same man who uses terrorism will also use guerrilla warfare on another day, and if his faction gets strong enough may very well switch over to conventional warfare.

In short, there is no such thing as a terrorist.  All you have is a soldier who utilizes or has utilized terror to bring about his faction's interests.  Like any pejorative, I use the term to describe people I desire to denigrate, but couldn't accurately what defines the term I used.  Same thing with "terrorism".  It's just a word.  Yes, it exists as a tactic, but this tactic is almost never the only one used by an organization.

Logged

Das ist des Jägers Ehrenschild, daß er beschützt und hegt sein Wild, weidmännisch jagt, wie sich’s gehört, den Schöpfer im Geschöpfe ehrt.
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,402


St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...


« Reply #61 on: November 07, 2012, 12:18:14 PM »


Yes, it exists as a tactic, but this tactic is almost never the only one used by an organization.


Exactly, it's more of a sliding scale or a continuum of sorts. I think we see eye to eye here.
Logged
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 7,864



« Reply #62 on: November 07, 2012, 12:21:17 PM »

The IRA didn't just hit military targets, they hit civilian ones. Bombing civilian targets on purpose IS terrorism.

You ignore history if you don't think they committed some terrorist acts or if you assume they didn't kill non Irish Catholic civilians.

That's my point, you're just coming at it from a different angle.

Bombing civilian targets in order to cause fear is terrorism.  But the same man who blew the knee caps off a drug dealer one month may fire an RPG into an RUC patrol car the next month.

The RUC patrolman who shoots an IRA member planting a bomb near his police station is in the same faction as the Para who guns down protestors on a bloody Sunday.

Neither man is a "terrorist" even though in one case the man utilized terrorism to instill fear in his enemies and the other is in the same faction as one who guns down unarmed protesters.

Terrorist is a BS term.
Logged

Das ist des Jägers Ehrenschild, daß er beschützt und hegt sein Wild, weidmännisch jagt, wie sich’s gehört, den Schöpfer im Geschöpfe ehrt.
Punch
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,592



« Reply #63 on: November 07, 2012, 12:43:52 PM »

That is 3a.  All of those cities had factories and manpower.  Remember, there are no people, just materiel.  Every dead German or Japanese was a loss in manpower which is a commodity.  The non-working women and children were after-thoughts.  If that. 

The bombing of Dresden and Rostock had little to do with loss of manpower as a commodity, nor were there any industrial targets (even in Rostock, the aircraft factories were outside the city and subject to American strategic bombing).  "Bomber" Harris firebombed these cities for no other reason than to kill civilians, increase the civilian suffering to demoralize the population and turn them to oppose the war.  In other words, the EXACT same thing that a terrorist is attempting to accomplish.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
Punch
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,592



« Reply #64 on: November 07, 2012, 12:52:38 PM »

Just to go back to this statement, I never claimed that fire bombing cities was morally correct; I would actually consider such actions a form of terrorism, so don't try to put words in my mouth.

Anyway, guerrilla warfare is by definition between two forces composed of combatants. Terrorism (which IMO bombing population centers would fall under) on the other hand, is by definition a combatant force attacking non-combatants for the purpose of sapping morale. Two groups of combatants fighting is not the same thing as a combatant attacking non-combatants. See the difference?

You have a real problem with thinking people are putting words in your mouth.  If I do not preface a statement with "you said", then I have NOT put words in your mouth.  Your understanding of guerrilla warfare is woefully deficient.  Perhaps you should speak with a few Viet Nam veterans to find out what the Viet Cong did to civilians, or ask a veteran of the Congo revolt what the Simba did to civilians.  Or for that matter, read a few history books from the English perspective and see what US patriots did to Tories.  Bin Laden was far more merciful on 9-11 than these.  And I would far rather fight the IRA than either the Simba or the Viet Cong. 
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
Punch
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,592



« Reply #65 on: November 07, 2012, 12:57:30 PM »


Yes, it exists as a tactic, but this tactic is almost never the only one used by an organization.


Exactly, it's more of a sliding scale or a continuum of sorts. I think we see eye to eye here.

Perhaps we do, too.  I just find it pointless to differentiate since both types of "warfare" are used by the same people.  Killing is killing.  I really do not see a difference between killing a soldier, or killing a child because he will grow up to be a soldier, or killing a woman because she gives birth to children that will grow up to be soildiers.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 7,864



« Reply #66 on: November 07, 2012, 01:21:31 PM »

That is 3a.  All of those cities had factories and manpower.  Remember, there are no people, just materiel.  Every dead German or Japanese was a loss in manpower which is a commodity.  The non-working women and children were after-thoughts.  If that. 

The bombing of Dresden and Rostock had little to do with loss of manpower as a commodity, nor were there any industrial targets (even in Rostock, the aircraft factories were outside the city and subject to American strategic bombing).  "Bomber" Harris firebombed these cities for no other reason than to kill civilians, increase the civilian suffering to demoralize the population and turn them to oppose the war.  In other words, the EXACT same thing that a terrorist is attempting to accomplish.

I think the numbering could be worked on, I am just using the generally accepted numbering with my own 3a (my pet addition to the generations) thrown in.

I think it could be better understood this way: 1st Generation begat 3rd.  2nd Generation begat 3a.  Both Blitzkrieg and Terror Bombings are all about bypassing the other side's armies.  Blitzkrieg bypasses the armed forces and threatens the hinterland forcing surrender.  Bombing bypasses the armies and kills the economy.  A nation's morale allows it to continue fighting.  If a nation has no tanks, bullets, artillery etc it can no longer fight.  If a nation has no manpower it cannot replace losses and cannot produce more materiel.  If a nation has no morale it WILL not produce the necessities of war. 

This is why I say that terrorism is a tactic.  The Napoleonic Wars were wars of maneuver between armies yet the Spanish irregulars committed acts of terrorism.  The US Civil War was really an industrial war but Sherman committed acts of terrorism against the Southern States he invaded.  WWII was a war of bypassing armies and hitting the economy directly but the USAAF and RAF used terrorism against German and Japanese civilians (and the Germans, Japanese, and Russians all committed horrifying reprisals against enemy civilians).  Iraq is an asymmetrical war where Iraqi insurgents use both guerrilla tactics against US forces as well as committing acts of terror against rival elements of their own population.

From the Maori who ate the flesh of their foes to inspire fear to Russian reprisals in Chechnya, terror is a constant element in war.  It is NEVER the only element of a nations war making capabilities.
Logged

Das ist des Jägers Ehrenschild, daß er beschützt und hegt sein Wild, weidmännisch jagt, wie sich’s gehört, den Schöpfer im Geschöpfe ehrt.
Frederic
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholicism > Eastern Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 88


St Frederick of Utrecht


« Reply #67 on: November 07, 2012, 03:28:30 PM »

A far happier day is Nov. 7.

I first thought you were anticipating the results of the American presidential election.
Logged

«One cannot understand the least thing about modern civilization if one does not first realize that it is a universal conspiracy to destroy the inner life.» (George Bernanos)
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,928



« Reply #68 on: November 07, 2012, 08:53:07 PM »

The IRA didn't just hit military targets, they hit civilian ones. Bombing civilian targets on purpose IS terrorism.

You ignore history if you don't think they committed some terrorist acts or if you assume they didn't kill non Irish Catholic civilians.

That's my point, you're just coming at it from a different angle.

Bombing civilian targets in order to cause fear is terrorism.  But the same man who blew the knee caps off a drug dealer one month may fire an RPG into an RUC patrol car the next month.

The RUC patrolman who shoots an IRA member planting a bomb near his police station is in the same faction as the Para who guns down protestors on a bloody Sunday.

Neither man is a "terrorist" even though in one case the man utilized terrorism to instill fear in his enemies and the other is in the same faction as one who guns down unarmed protesters.

Terrorist is a BS term.

Nothing ever justifies attacks on non-military targets. Nothing.

I would include Hiroshima and Nagasaki in this (and most of WWII).

You attack the military, not the people. This includes police forces. Police forces are public servants, not the tip of a federal warhammer. The policeman who shoots a man about to explode a bomb, even at a precinct or military base is a hero and a servant of the public good.

You forget that there are many people in the police hq's and military bases who are civilians, they are non-combatants. They are not responsible for the actions of, nor are they equal with combatants.

Vamrat, you are not too far away from Osama bin Laden and Al Qaida, because your attempts to rationalize terrorism is the exact kind of rhetoric and rationalization they used to justify the 9/11 attacks.

There is a big difference between guerrilla warfare and terrorism, as you admit. However you are not drawing the line correctly here. Ignoring the violations of human rights and Geneva Conventions, out in the battlefield, the VC and the VPA engaged the United States in guerrilla warfare. This would exclude their burning of villages and attacks on civilians.

If you watch videos from Iraq and especially Afghanistan, you will also see guerrilla warfare. Hit and run attacks, ambushes & traps, surprise attacks by smaller forces.

Guerrilla warfare is far different from terrorism.

Another good example are the Serbians. There were some Serbians who were guilty of genocide and terrorism during the conflict over Kosovo. They were NOT justified in the actions that they took. If it remained a military conflict between military forces, then the UN may not of stepped in, who knows. Sure, the Muslims did the exact same to the Serbs, but a similar action by one never justifies "an eye for an eye" response from the other. Now we have to deal with Kosovo as a separate entity, and the fact that so many Muslims are afraid of and hate Jesus Christ because of what some idiots did in his supposed name. The missionary work of the Orthodox Church was made harder because of the hatred and violence. Violence against civilians is not permissible and anyone involved with it needs to be prosecuted.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2012, 08:55:17 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #69 on: November 08, 2012, 09:23:50 AM »

Don't forget as you go out and vote today (if you do) that this country was also founded by terrorism.  And yes, the end DOES justify the means in this world.  It always has, and always will.

You say that as if it something bad.  Up the Republic!

Other than being popularized by the movie, I fail to see how this is a positive thing to celebrate.

Yeah, it would have been better if they'd succeeded.

Why is that?

It almost seems like celebrating the IRA.

Catholicism and Protestantism/Anglicanism are both bad for the UK & Ireland.

The ends don't justify the means. Terrorism is never justified.

Ireland deserves independence, but you don't commit terrorism to get it.

In fact, if I'm not mistaken, I think Scotland will actually be voting on independence in the upcoming decade.

We no longer live in the world of yesterday. I seriously doubt the UK would go into an all-out war over a part of it declaring independence.

You're all hypocrites in condemning Muslim terrorism and turning around and celebration terrorism by Christians.

Guerrilla warfare =/= Terrorism. There is a difference.

They are not equal, and anyone who does not understand the difference most likely shouldn’t be defending or attacking either one.

This soundbite has been expanded upon.  Care to debate any of the points I have made?
I realized this after I read more posts.
Logged
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 7,864



« Reply #70 on: November 08, 2012, 03:15:09 PM »

The IRA didn't just hit military targets, they hit civilian ones. Bombing civilian targets on purpose IS terrorism.

You ignore history if you don't think they committed some terrorist acts or if you assume they didn't kill non Irish Catholic civilians.

That's my point, you're just coming at it from a different angle.

Bombing civilian targets in order to cause fear is terrorism.  But the same man who blew the knee caps off a drug dealer one month may fire an RPG into an RUC patrol car the next month.

The RUC patrolman who shoots an IRA member planting a bomb near his police station is in the same faction as the Para who guns down protestors on a bloody Sunday.

Neither man is a "terrorist" even though in one case the man utilized terrorism to instill fear in his enemies and the other is in the same faction as one who guns down unarmed protesters.

Terrorist is a BS term.

Nothing ever justifies attacks on non-military targets. Nothing.

I would include Hiroshima and Nagasaki in this (and most of WWII).

You attack the military, not the people. This includes police forces. Police forces are public servants, not the tip of a federal warhammer. The policeman who shoots a man about to explode a bomb, even at a precinct or military base is a hero and a servant of the public good.

You forget that there are many people in the police hq's and military bases who are civilians, they are non-combatants. They are not responsible for the actions of, nor are they equal with combatants.

Vamrat, you are not too far away from Osama bin Laden and Al Qaida, because your attempts to rationalize terrorism is the exact kind of rhetoric and rationalization they used to justify the 9/11 attacks.

There is a big difference between guerrilla warfare and terrorism, as you admit. However you are not drawing the line correctly here. Ignoring the violations of human rights and Geneva Conventions, out in the battlefield, the VC and the VPA engaged the United States in guerrilla warfare. This would exclude their burning of villages and attacks on civilians.

If you watch videos from Iraq and especially Afghanistan, you will also see guerrilla warfare. Hit and run attacks, ambushes & traps, surprise attacks by smaller forces.

Guerrilla warfare is far different from terrorism.

Another good example are the Serbians. There were some Serbians who were guilty of genocide and terrorism during the conflict over Kosovo. They were NOT justified in the actions that they took. If it remained a military conflict between military forces, then the UN may not of stepped in, who knows. Sure, the Muslims did the exact same to the Serbs, but a similar action by one never justifies "an eye for an eye" response from the other. Now we have to deal with Kosovo as a separate entity, and the fact that so many Muslims are afraid of and hate Jesus Christ because of what some idiots did in his supposed name. The missionary work of the Orthodox Church was made harder because of the hatred and violence. Violence against civilians is not permissible and anyone involved with it needs to be prosecuted.

Changes in strategies are a Pandora's Box than cannot be closed once opened.  War in no longer between generals and armies.  From the US Civil War on, and arguably earlier, wars have not been fought between armies but between economies and entire states.  As I have tried saying, even actions against military forces are not what decides the matter, it is the wearing down of the country through these military actions that decides the war.  Germany lost WWI because their economy couldn't keep up.  The South lost the Civil War because no matter how many victories they won, the North would throw out a new army as well as attacking on other fronts.  In WWII Germany and Japan lost because they could not replace losses like the US and the Soviet Union could.  The nuclear bombs dropped on Japan showed to the Japanese that we could destroy their infrastructure, one plane and one bomb at a time.

Wars will always be won by the side which fights as efficiently as necessary to have a greater return for their efforts than their opponents will.  I am not saying this is right or wrong, I am saying this is true.  I can back up this statement with numerous examples from history.  You show me one instance in the entirety of human history where a nation purposefully made themselves weaker than their opponent and won.

Guerrilla warfare and terrorism are both different tactics that may be employed at times by the same participant.  I have already said this.  You say attacks on civilians are never permissible.  I ask you, permissible by whom?  You cannot say what is permitted and what is not without having the strength to back up this direction.  The winner decides what was permissible and what wasn't.  This is why American incineration of thousands of Japanese civilians was a permissible act of war and Japanese slaughtering of civilians with sword and bayonet wasn't.  They lost.

Remember, only losers commit acts of terrorism.  The winners were freedom fighters all along.
Logged

Das ist des Jägers Ehrenschild, daß er beschützt und hegt sein Wild, weidmännisch jagt, wie sich’s gehört, den Schöpfer im Geschöpfe ehrt.
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,928



« Reply #71 on: November 08, 2012, 04:20:45 PM »

The IRA didn't just hit military targets, they hit civilian ones. Bombing civilian targets on purpose IS terrorism.

You ignore history if you don't think they committed some terrorist acts or if you assume they didn't kill non Irish Catholic civilians.

That's my point, you're just coming at it from a different angle.

Bombing civilian targets in order to cause fear is terrorism.  But the same man who blew the knee caps off a drug dealer one month may fire an RPG into an RUC patrol car the next month.

The RUC patrolman who shoots an IRA member planting a bomb near his police station is in the same faction as the Para who guns down protestors on a bloody Sunday.

Neither man is a "terrorist" even though in one case the man utilized terrorism to instill fear in his enemies and the other is in the same faction as one who guns down unarmed protesters.

Terrorist is a BS term.

Nothing ever justifies attacks on non-military targets. Nothing.

I would include Hiroshima and Nagasaki in this (and most of WWII).

You attack the military, not the people. This includes police forces. Police forces are public servants, not the tip of a federal warhammer. The policeman who shoots a man about to explode a bomb, even at a precinct or military base is a hero and a servant of the public good.

You forget that there are many people in the police hq's and military bases who are civilians, they are non-combatants. They are not responsible for the actions of, nor are they equal with combatants.

Vamrat, you are not too far away from Osama bin Laden and Al Qaida, because your attempts to rationalize terrorism is the exact kind of rhetoric and rationalization they used to justify the 9/11 attacks.

There is a big difference between guerrilla warfare and terrorism, as you admit. However you are not drawing the line correctly here. Ignoring the violations of human rights and Geneva Conventions, out in the battlefield, the VC and the VPA engaged the United States in guerrilla warfare. This would exclude their burning of villages and attacks on civilians.

If you watch videos from Iraq and especially Afghanistan, you will also see guerrilla warfare. Hit and run attacks, ambushes & traps, surprise attacks by smaller forces.

Guerrilla warfare is far different from terrorism.

Another good example are the Serbians. There were some Serbians who were guilty of genocide and terrorism during the conflict over Kosovo. They were NOT justified in the actions that they took. If it remained a military conflict between military forces, then the UN may not of stepped in, who knows. Sure, the Muslims did the exact same to the Serbs, but a similar action by one never justifies "an eye for an eye" response from the other. Now we have to deal with Kosovo as a separate entity, and the fact that so many Muslims are afraid of and hate Jesus Christ because of what some idiots did in his supposed name. The missionary work of the Orthodox Church was made harder because of the hatred and violence. Violence against civilians is not permissible and anyone involved with it needs to be prosecuted.

Changes in strategies are a Pandora's Box than cannot be closed once opened.  War in no longer between generals and armies.  From the US Civil War on, and arguably earlier, wars have not been fought between armies but between economies and entire states.  As I have tried saying, even actions against military forces are not what decides the matter, it is the wearing down of the country through these military actions that decides the war.  Germany lost WWI because their economy couldn't keep up.  The South lost the Civil War because no matter how many victories they won, the North would throw out a new army as well as attacking on other fronts.  In WWII Germany and Japan lost because they could not replace losses like the US and the Soviet Union could.  The nuclear bombs dropped on Japan showed to the Japanese that we could destroy their infrastructure, one plane and one bomb at a time.

Wars will always be won by the side which fights as efficiently as necessary to have a greater return for their efforts than their opponents will.  I am not saying this is right or wrong, I am saying this is true.  I can back up this statement with numerous examples from history.  You show me one instance in the entirety of human history where a nation purposefully made themselves weaker than their opponent and won.

Guerrilla warfare and terrorism are both different tactics that may be employed at times by the same participant.  I have already said this.  You say attacks on civilians are never permissible.  I ask you, permissible by whom?  You cannot say what is permitted and what is not without having the strength to back up this direction.  The winner decides what was permissible and what wasn't.  This is why American incineration of thousands of Japanese civilians was a permissible act of war and Japanese slaughtering of civilians with sword and bayonet wasn't.  They lost.

Remember, only losers commit acts of terrorism.  The winners were freedom fighters all along.

Maybe you've heard of human rights and the Geneva Conventions? Yeah, that determines what is and isn't permissible.

There are rules of engagement and rules for warfare. You cannot use WMDs, this includes biological attacks. You cannot strike civilians or civilian targets.

WWII was a disaster and a tragedy, and in fact, WWII (and WWI) was the primary reason that the Geneva Conventions were expanded. In WWII they struck civilian targets with carpet bombing and all other sorts of tactics.

We have the ability to try a lot of these terrorists with human rights violations and in international court, and they would be found guilty.

Terrorism is not a valid tactic for a military to use. If a military uses it, its perpetrators risk being arrested and tried for their crimes. Look at Serbia as a prime example. They were stupid and in fact, evil for doing what they did. Had they stuck to the rules of warfare and the Geneva Conventions, I seriously doubt the UN and NATO would have stepped in like they did.

Look at Syria, the government has no justification for striking civilian targets. Even if they win the war, Bashar Al Assad and the military leaders of that country will not be able to leave the nation because they will be arrested and tried for the violation of human rights and international law. The rebels who also have violated these rights should also be tried.

Going back to Serbia, Kosovo may belong in Serbia; but nothing justifies the actions many Serbians took to achieve that goal.

Also, vamrat, you need to learn a little bit about Christian just war theory and some of the writings of St. Augustine and other Saints. A Christian can be a soldier, and the killing of enemy soldiers on the battlefield is not equated with cold-blooded murder. However, Christians are not justified or excused for killing innocent human beings, that IS cold-blooded murder.

Military leaders who encourage genocide and who encourage attacks on civilians deserve to be tried in court and punished for what they did, because it is a crime. The Serbian leaders who led the crimes against the Muslim people deserved what they got. However, at the same time, the Muslim groups who did the same thing on the other side also deserve to be punished.

It doesn't matter how justified you think you are, you are never justified. Especially not as an Orthodox Christian.
Logged
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 7,864



« Reply #72 on: November 08, 2012, 04:43:49 PM »

Devin, you are missing the point entirely.  I am talking about how things are.  You are talking about how they should be.  Build yourself an army and win every campaign you ever fight.  Then how you think things should be will be.  Until then, I am not discussing politics or morals, but describing the world as it exists.

The Geneva Convention and War Crimes trials give the victor an excuse to kill off enemy leaders, just as armies have always done.  Laws are not moral unless they are evenly applied.  German soldiers killed American POWs at Malmedy and Canadian soldiers in Normandy.  In turn US soldiers killed many POWs from the Liebstandarte and Canadians killed members of the Hitlerjungend at the same time.  Polish soldiers in allied service were known to beat German POWs to death as a form of execution.  Many tank crews who had committed no crimes were executed because German tank troops wore the same skull and crossbones as the SS - whether they were in SS Panzerdivisions or Heer. 

Guess which ones were punished?  How many American, British, Canadian, French, and Soviet generals were executed in the Nuremberg trials?  None.  Plenty of German generals were killed whether they were part of the killing or not.  One example is Alfred Jodl who was posthumously declared innocent of many of the charges brought against him in his botched trial.  Even the French co-president of the trial had stated that it was a mistake.  In the Vietnam War the Vietnamese committed many excesses but were never tried...because they won.  Not a single Russian General was tried for the mass rapes in Berlin though the Japanese commanders in Nanking were.

You are saying how things should be, and I agree with you in this, but I am telling you, until laws are universally applied they will have no effect on things.  The only thing they will accomplish is "vindictive retaliation".

I do not need to read up on Christian theories on "Just War" because I am discussing how war is actually carried out.  St. Augustine has no bearing on how non-Christians fight, and many many wars have been fought by non-Christian personnel. 

You are saying that terrorism should not be committed.  Good.  I agree.  But I am telling you that it will continue to be used until a more efficient way of defeating a foe comes about that has a higher return on investment.
Logged

Das ist des Jägers Ehrenschild, daß er beschützt und hegt sein Wild, weidmännisch jagt, wie sich’s gehört, den Schöpfer im Geschöpfe ehrt.
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,928



« Reply #73 on: November 08, 2012, 04:51:05 PM »

Devin, you are missing the point entirely.  I am talking about how things are.  You are talking about how they should be.  Build yourself an army and win every campaign you ever fight.  Then how you think things should be will be.  Until then, I am not discussing politics or morals, but describing the world as it exists.

The Geneva Convention and War Crimes trials give the victor an excuse to kill off enemy leaders, just as armies have always done.  Laws are not moral unless they are evenly applied.  German soldiers killed American POWs at Malmedy and Canadian soldiers in Normandy.  In turn US soldiers killed many POWs from the Liebstandarte and Canadians killed members of the Hitlerjungend at the same time.  Polish soldiers in allied service were known to beat German POWs to death as a form of execution.  Many tank crews who had committed no crimes were executed because German tank troops wore the same skull and crossbones as the SS - whether they were in SS Panzerdivisions or Heer. 

Guess which ones were punished?  How many American, British, Canadian, French, and Soviet generals were executed in the Nuremberg trials?  None.  Plenty of German generals were killed whether they were part of the killing or not.  One example is Alfred Jodl who was posthumously declared innocent of many of the charges brought against him in his botched trial.  Even the French co-president of the trial had stated that it was a mistake.  In the Vietnam War the Vietnamese committed many excesses but were never tried...because they won.  Not a single Russian General was tried for the mass rapes in Berlin though the Japanese commanders in Nanking were.

You are saying how things should be, and I agree with you in this, but I am telling you, until laws are universally applied they will have no effect on things.  The only thing they will accomplish is "vindictive retaliation".

I do not need to read up on Christian theories on "Just War" because I am discussing how war is actually carried out.  St. Augustine has no bearing on how non-Christians fight, and many many wars have been fought by non-Christian personnel. 

You are saying that terrorism should not be committed.  Good.  I agree.  But I am telling you that it will continue to be used until a more efficient way of defeating a foe comes about that has a higher return on investment.

No, I'm not talking about how things should be. Read the Geneva Conventions. Read the Rules of Engagement.

Like I said, you cannot refer to WWII because it is pre-Geneva Conventions session 4 in 1949. What you are talking about, including Truman's decisions regarding the atom bomb would get them prosecuted today.
Logged
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 7,864



« Reply #74 on: November 08, 2012, 04:56:59 PM »

Devin, you are missing the point entirely.  I am talking about how things are.  You are talking about how they should be.  Build yourself an army and win every campaign you ever fight.  Then how you think things should be will be.  Until then, I am not discussing politics or morals, but describing the world as it exists.

The Geneva Convention and War Crimes trials give the victor an excuse to kill off enemy leaders, just as armies have always done.  Laws are not moral unless they are evenly applied.  German soldiers killed American POWs at Malmedy and Canadian soldiers in Normandy.  In turn US soldiers killed many POWs from the Liebstandarte and Canadians killed members of the Hitlerjungend at the same time.  Polish soldiers in allied service were known to beat German POWs to death as a form of execution.  Many tank crews who had committed no crimes were executed because German tank troops wore the same skull and crossbones as the SS - whether they were in SS Panzerdivisions or Heer. 

Guess which ones were punished?  How many American, British, Canadian, French, and Soviet generals were executed in the Nuremberg trials?  None.  Plenty of German generals were killed whether they were part of the killing or not.  One example is Alfred Jodl who was posthumously declared innocent of many of the charges brought against him in his botched trial.  Even the French co-president of the trial had stated that it was a mistake.  In the Vietnam War the Vietnamese committed many excesses but were never tried...because they won.  Not a single Russian General was tried for the mass rapes in Berlin though the Japanese commanders in Nanking were.

You are saying how things should be, and I agree with you in this, but I am telling you, until laws are universally applied they will have no effect on things.  The only thing they will accomplish is "vindictive retaliation".

I do not need to read up on Christian theories on "Just War" because I am discussing how war is actually carried out.  St. Augustine has no bearing on how non-Christians fight, and many many wars have been fought by non-Christian personnel. 

You are saying that terrorism should not be committed.  Good.  I agree.  But I am telling you that it will continue to be used until a more efficient way of defeating a foe comes about that has a higher return on investment.

No, I'm not talking about how things should be. Read the Geneva Conventions. Read the Rules of Engagement.

Like I said, you cannot refer to WWII because it is pre-Geneva Conventions session 4 in 1949. What you are talking about, including Truman's decisions regarding the atom bomb would get them prosecuted today.

OK.  Now show me how the Geneva Conventions have been applied uniformly in the 20th/21st Century.

WWII isn't good enough?  We bombed Vietnam plenty.  Look up operation Linebacker.  Likewise, the Vietnamese treated out POWs pretty horribly.  Look up the Hanoi Hilton.

Now, look up war crimes trials for the Vietnam War.  You might get My Lai.  Not much else was actually prosecuted.
Logged

Das ist des Jägers Ehrenschild, daß er beschützt und hegt sein Wild, weidmännisch jagt, wie sich’s gehört, den Schöpfer im Geschöpfe ehrt.
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,928



« Reply #75 on: November 08, 2012, 05:21:08 PM »

Devin, you are missing the point entirely.  I am talking about how things are.  You are talking about how they should be.  Build yourself an army and win every campaign you ever fight.  Then how you think things should be will be.  Until then, I am not discussing politics or morals, but describing the world as it exists.

The Geneva Convention and War Crimes trials give the victor an excuse to kill off enemy leaders, just as armies have always done.  Laws are not moral unless they are evenly applied.  German soldiers killed American POWs at Malmedy and Canadian soldiers in Normandy.  In turn US soldiers killed many POWs from the Liebstandarte and Canadians killed members of the Hitlerjungend at the same time.  Polish soldiers in allied service were known to beat German POWs to death as a form of execution.  Many tank crews who had committed no crimes were executed because German tank troops wore the same skull and crossbones as the SS - whether they were in SS Panzerdivisions or Heer. 

Guess which ones were punished?  How many American, British, Canadian, French, and Soviet generals were executed in the Nuremberg trials?  None.  Plenty of German generals were killed whether they were part of the killing or not.  One example is Alfred Jodl who was posthumously declared innocent of many of the charges brought against him in his botched trial.  Even the French co-president of the trial had stated that it was a mistake.  In the Vietnam War the Vietnamese committed many excesses but were never tried...because they won.  Not a single Russian General was tried for the mass rapes in Berlin though the Japanese commanders in Nanking were.

You are saying how things should be, and I agree with you in this, but I am telling you, until laws are universally applied they will have no effect on things.  The only thing they will accomplish is "vindictive retaliation".

I do not need to read up on Christian theories on "Just War" because I am discussing how war is actually carried out.  St. Augustine has no bearing on how non-Christians fight, and many many wars have been fought by non-Christian personnel. 

You are saying that terrorism should not be committed.  Good.  I agree.  But I am telling you that it will continue to be used until a more efficient way of defeating a foe comes about that has a higher return on investment.

No, I'm not talking about how things should be. Read the Geneva Conventions. Read the Rules of Engagement.

Like I said, you cannot refer to WWII because it is pre-Geneva Conventions session 4 in 1949. What you are talking about, including Truman's decisions regarding the atom bomb would get them prosecuted today.

OK.  Now show me how the Geneva Conventions have been applied uniformly in the 20th/21st Century.

WWII isn't good enough?  We bombed Vietnam plenty.  Look up operation Linebacker.  Likewise, the Vietnamese treated out POWs pretty horribly.  Look up the Hanoi Hilton.

Now, look up war crimes trials for the Vietnam War.  You might get My Lai.  Not much else was actually prosecuted.

Did I say they are applied uniformly? Sometimes you cannot capture the people responsible without risking a larger, more dangerous conflict.

The use of napalm and other such weapons was a crime, and has since been absolutely banned. As for the VC, they couldn't be prosecuted because they drove the US and pro-US forces out, the UN wouldn't risk sending anyone into a country where they would obviously be killed for trying to apprehend the criminals.

Just because someone isn't captured and tried doesn't mean they aren't a criminal. A felon is still a felon even if he escapes capture.
Logged
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 7,864



« Reply #76 on: November 09, 2012, 05:49:09 PM »

Devin, you are missing the point entirely.  I am talking about how things are.  You are talking about how they should be.  Build yourself an army and win every campaign you ever fight.  Then how you think things should be will be.  Until then, I am not discussing politics or morals, but describing the world as it exists.

The Geneva Convention and War Crimes trials give the victor an excuse to kill off enemy leaders, just as armies have always done.  Laws are not moral unless they are evenly applied.  German soldiers killed American POWs at Malmedy and Canadian soldiers in Normandy.  In turn US soldiers killed many POWs from the Liebstandarte and Canadians killed members of the Hitlerjungend at the same time.  Polish soldiers in allied service were known to beat German POWs to death as a form of execution.  Many tank crews who had committed no crimes were executed because German tank troops wore the same skull and crossbones as the SS - whether they were in SS Panzerdivisions or Heer. 

Guess which ones were punished?  How many American, British, Canadian, French, and Soviet generals were executed in the Nuremberg trials?  None.  Plenty of German generals were killed whether they were part of the killing or not.  One example is Alfred Jodl who was posthumously declared innocent of many of the charges brought against him in his botched trial.  Even the French co-president of the trial had stated that it was a mistake.  In the Vietnam War the Vietnamese committed many excesses but were never tried...because they won.  Not a single Russian General was tried for the mass rapes in Berlin though the Japanese commanders in Nanking were.

You are saying how things should be, and I agree with you in this, but I am telling you, until laws are universally applied they will have no effect on things.  The only thing they will accomplish is "vindictive retaliation".

I do not need to read up on Christian theories on "Just War" because I am discussing how war is actually carried out.  St. Augustine has no bearing on how non-Christians fight, and many many wars have been fought by non-Christian personnel. 

You are saying that terrorism should not be committed.  Good.  I agree.  But I am telling you that it will continue to be used until a more efficient way of defeating a foe comes about that has a higher return on investment.

No, I'm not talking about how things should be. Read the Geneva Conventions. Read the Rules of Engagement.

Like I said, you cannot refer to WWII because it is pre-Geneva Conventions session 4 in 1949. What you are talking about, including Truman's decisions regarding the atom bomb would get them prosecuted today.

OK.  Now show me how the Geneva Conventions have been applied uniformly in the 20th/21st Century.

WWII isn't good enough?  We bombed Vietnam plenty.  Look up operation Linebacker.  Likewise, the Vietnamese treated out POWs pretty horribly.  Look up the Hanoi Hilton.

Now, look up war crimes trials for the Vietnam War.  You might get My Lai.  Not much else was actually prosecuted.

Did I say they are applied uniformly? Sometimes you cannot capture the people responsible without risking a larger, more dangerous conflict.

The use of napalm and other such weapons was a crime, and has since been absolutely banned. As for the VC, they couldn't be prosecuted because they drove the US and pro-US forces out, the UN wouldn't risk sending anyone into a country where they would obviously be killed for trying to apprehend the criminals.

Just because someone isn't captured and tried doesn't mean they aren't a criminal. A felon is still a felon even if he escapes capture.

So what I'm saying is, it is all about power.  These "laws" have no effect if the one side cannot impose its will on the other.  Terrorism is a tactic and will continue to be utilized by those who have the desire to and they will only be punished in this life if they lose. 

If you want to end terrorism you must do two things.  First, you must understand it - how it operates, what people utilize it, what it accomplishes, ways in which it is had been effectively carried out.  From there you can understand how to defeat an enemy who uses by developing your own counter-tactics. 

So, moving out of the realm of morality and philosophy and entering the world as it is, what methods would you utilize to diminish the returns for those utilizing terrorist tactics?  Pretend for a moment that you have the resources of a nation state at your disposal, how would you defeat an enemy who resorts to terror attack against your population?

I have methods of my own but I want to hear how you would do this.  Then we can compare notes.

Also, what role could you see for morality within warfare as it exists?  I have had this discussion with a friend before, but I'd like to hear what you come up with.  Then I will share what we discussed and the conclusions we came to.  I will be interested to see if you have similar ideas to his.  (For the record, he also studies military history and modern tactics as well as having been a Iraq War veteran.)
Logged

Das ist des Jägers Ehrenschild, daß er beschützt und hegt sein Wild, weidmännisch jagt, wie sich’s gehört, den Schöpfer im Geschöpfe ehrt.
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,402


St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...


« Reply #77 on: November 09, 2012, 05:51:02 PM »

Can one of you please change your avatar. I feel like I'm listening to a schizo argue with himself online.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2012, 05:51:22 PM by sheenj » Logged
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 7,864



« Reply #78 on: November 09, 2012, 05:55:33 PM »

Can one of you please change your avatar. I feel like I'm listening to a schizo argue with himself online.

Sure.  I'm always open to requests. 
Logged

Das ist des Jägers Ehrenschild, daß er beschützt und hegt sein Wild, weidmännisch jagt, wie sich’s gehört, den Schöpfer im Geschöpfe ehrt.
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,402


St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...


« Reply #79 on: November 09, 2012, 06:53:13 PM »


Nice, is that from Sharpe?
Logged
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 7,864



« Reply #80 on: November 09, 2012, 09:24:23 PM »


Nice, is that from Sharpe?

Indeed.  Sharpe and Harper are two of my favorite 'historical' figures!   Cheesy
Logged

Das ist des Jägers Ehrenschild, daß er beschützt und hegt sein Wild, weidmännisch jagt, wie sich’s gehört, den Schöpfer im Geschöpfe ehrt.
Punch
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,592



« Reply #81 on: November 09, 2012, 10:45:07 PM »


Just because someone isn't captured and tried doesn't mean they aren't a criminal. A felon is still a felon even if he escapes capture.

A felon is only a felon because someone else says he is a felon.  Kill the person doing the talking, and you no longer have a felon.  Might makes right.  It always has.  It always will.  Those that do not understand that are doomed to do the bidding of those that do.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,402


St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...


« Reply #82 on: November 09, 2012, 11:11:48 PM »

That is 3a.  All of those cities had factories and manpower.  Remember, there are no people, just materiel.  Every dead German or Japanese was a loss in manpower which is a commodity.  The non-working women and children were after-thoughts.  If that. 

The bombing of Dresden and Rostock had little to do with loss of manpower as a commodity, nor were there any industrial targets (even in Rostock, the aircraft factories were outside the city and subject to American strategic bombing).  "Bomber" Harris firebombed these cities for no other reason than to kill civilians, increase the civilian suffering to demoralize the population and turn them to oppose the war.  In other words, the EXACT same thing that a terrorist is attempting to accomplish.

I think Vamrat was defining manpower here as available conscripts. The less people in your cities = less people available for your army/navy/air force.
Logged
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,402


St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...


« Reply #83 on: November 09, 2012, 11:36:34 PM »


Perhaps we do, too.  I just find it pointless to differentiate since both types of "warfare" are used by the same people.  Killing is killing.  I really do not see a difference between killing a soldier, or killing a child because he will grow up to be a soldier, or killing a woman because she gives birth to children that will grow up to be soildiers.

Like you said, might makes right and it always will. If we can't make warfare go away, we can at least put some restrictions on it. The distinction lets societies put limits on who is fair game during war.
Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.344 seconds with 110 queries.