Add a Comment
Email This
Statistics
RE: What makes a legitimate military target?
I don't profess to know all of the answers either, but I will attempt to answer your question as best I can, and perhaps with the minimum amount of snark required by law. First I'd like to clarify a definition here: what constitutes "terrorist behavior." Plowing hijacked planes into buildings, running around a war zone dressed as a civilian and blowing up civilians, forming death squads to murder civilians, kidnapping and video taped decapitations-- these are all examples of terrorist behavior. If uniformed troops are fired upon from a mosque, the mosque is no longer considered a protected structure as it normally would be, and the troops under fire are obliged to respond with adequate and necessary force to remove the threat. If civilians are killed in the mosque, it is strictly the fault of the terrorists using it as a base of fire, not the uniformed troops. Therefore, engaging terrorists in a mosque is not "terrorist behavior".
Now that that is out of the way, wars aren't won by killing everybody on the other side, they are won killing enough people on the other side in such a violent, decisive way as to convince the rest that they have no hope of winning, and surrender. A good case in point is Imperial Japan in WWII. The Japanese, much like the Jihadists we now fight, were not only unafraid of death, they considered it an honor to die for their Emperor, as the Jihadists consider it an express ticket to Paradise. If the US hadn't developed the A bomb when we had, there is a good chance that we would have had to kill a vast number of Japanese- military and civilian- in the event of an invasion. However, after witnessing the devastation wrought by Fat Man and Little Boy, the Japanese realized that there would be no honor in total destruction by nuclear fire, and surrendered.
As for the root causes of terrorism, allow me to cut and paste from this op-ed by David Meir-Levi.
The “roots causes” of terrorism:
1) Poverty?
A) The most poverty-stricken areas of the world (south American indigenous, sub-Saharan Africa, parts of east Asia and India) have produced no terrorism – or almost no terrorists.
B) Almost all terror leaders and many terror perpetrators are or were rich, or at least middle class. Osama bin Laden...
C) The most poverty-stricken populations in the Arab world are in the countries where the rulers live in luxury and keep 90 percent of the country's income for their egregiously luxurious life-style, or for the enhancement of their WMD's and conventional arsenals, while their people starve (Arabia, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Saddam’s Iraq)
and
2) Hopelessness, desperation and lack of opportunity?
...But terror groups draw their leadership and rank-and-file from all classes of society. The middle and upper classes in 2nd- and 3rd- world countries are far from hopeless or desperate...
...many of the Palestinian suicide bombers have been well-to-do or even rich men; many of them are high school or college educated professionals with careers – far from hopeless or desperate...
...Even in the case of recruits from refugee camps where hopelessness may be a serious factor in defining the lives and futures of young people there, let’s recall that they have been forced to stay in those camps by their host governments (not by Israel and not by the USA), while much of the aid given to these populations by UNRWA is funded by the USA...
...Consider as well one of several countervailing examples: hundreds of thousands of Burmese have been in refugee camps in Thailand, hopeless, poverty-stricken, desperate, for more than 20 years – terrorism doesn’t not hold sway there.
3) Fury at the West’s "mistreatment" of Moslems?
a) Moslems kill Moslems by the millions and no one in the Arab world cares.
Oh there are a lot of examples for that last one, but I don't want to go nuts cutting and pasting, so here are just a few more quick hits:
b) The USA defends Moslems and the Arab world does not notice.
Bosnia and Kuwait are mentioned.
And there are more excellent points in the op-ed, but you get the point.
As for "disillusioned youth" turning to terrorism, keep in mind that the top terrorist producing nations- Saudi Arabia, "Palestine", etc. have school books that teach children "True belief means . . . that you hate the polytheists and infidels but do not treat them unjustly"; "A Muslim, even if he lives far away, is your brother in religion. Someone who opposes God, even if he is your brother by family tie, is your enemy in religion"; "Just as Muslims were successful in the past when they came together in a sincere endeavor to evict the Christian crusaders from Palestine, so will the Arabs and Muslims emerge victorious, God willing, against the Jews and their allies if they stand together and fight a true jihad for God, for this is within God's power"; "As cited in Ibn Abbas: The apes are Jews, the people of the Sabbath; while the swine are the Christians, the infidels of the communion of Jesus" and "it is part of God's wisdom that the struggle between the Muslim and the Jews should continue until the hour [of judgment]".
Also popular are cartoons and children's shows such as this one from Iran that promotes suicide bombing; Palestinian Youth Camps where young'uns "learn how to sing 'intifada songs,' including one urging them to 'kill Zionists wherever they are, in the name of God'"; Palestinian boys enjoy playing "Jews and Arabs; and Iranian women attend registration meetings indicating their readiness for martyrdom-- theirs and their children--to support Palestinians against Israel.
So, if anything, I figure a "disillusioned" Muslim youth is one that rejects terrorism.
RSS
RE: What makes a legitimate military target?
Your right, they do play both sides of the game. But are there any consequences to us doing so as well? Do you believe that we can truly annihilate all terrorist? It's difficult to obliterate an ideal. Now what if you yourself conduct yourself in the same manner as the ideal you seek to destroy, i.e. any means necessary to reach goal? By engaging in the same warfare as a terrorist, and by using unchecked force against civilians, or to use them as pawns only reinforces their ideal. If you could kill them all, then maybe it would work. But if your own actions give rise to more terrorists...then what is the endgame? Your right they don't play fair, but by playing fair ourselves it gives others to see the difference between them and us and perhaps doesn't recruit as many future terrorists. It seems complicated to me, and I don't profess to have the answer. How do you see it though? Do you think engaging in terrorist behavior (like blowing up a mosque with civilians inside though there may be more terrorists inside) would cause more young disillusioned youth to sign up for Hamas or Hezbollah or Al Qaeda?
View Full Discussion