The all purpose terrorism thread featuring plenty of allah akbar

[ikalugin]

Back on topic.

Note Ka52 in the background.

[August]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

And then I look at Hiroshima, Nagasaki and all the conventional strategic bombing campaighns.

Well then I look at Holodomor and the tens of millions of other innocent civilians deliberately murdered by the previous Russian regime. See, I can play the diversion game too, but that still doesn't answer my question about civilians in daesh held areas.

[Raptor1]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Sorry, bad phrasing, I meant what terms was Japan putting forward as conditions for its surrender?
Preservation of the Emperor and his role is obviously one (as well as his immunity from trial), but were there any others?

Their main priority seems to have been the preservation of their system of government, but besides that I don't think the Japanese ever laid out the terms under which they would be willing to surrender in detail. They were planning to send an envoy to the Soviet Union, as part of their attempts to get the Soviets to mediate peace with the Allies, which would have presumably issued such terms, but this obviously never happened.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Raptor1

Their main priority seems to have been the preservation of their system of government, but besides that I don't think the Japanese ever laid out the terms under which they would be willing to surrender in detail. They were planning to send an envoy to the Soviet Union, as part of their attempts to get the Soviets to mediate peace with the Allies, which would have presumably issued such terms, but this obviously never happened.

Aah, I see, so the Emperor would definitely have stayed and likely the military government. I wonder how the culture of Bushido, as twisted by the military government, would have survived a national surrender.
Likewise the collapsing harvest of 1945 would have meant that Japan would have had to have gone cap in hand to the Allies for food shipments or face further starvation. It would have been very humiliating, but I dare say the military could have spun it some way, but I ponder how long such a government could stay in power...although with Communist China becoming a thing, perhaps the US would have been willing to help prop it up in order to act as a bulwark against the Chinese. Like South Korea and Syngman Rhee.

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by August

Well then I look at Holodomor and the tens of millions of other innocent civilians deliberately murdered by the previous Russian regime. See, I can play the diversion game too, but that still doesn't answer my question about civilians in daesh held areas.

You miss the point, there was no diversion.

The point was the if the Hiroshima/Nagasaki (and other strategic bombing campaigns) were justified, then so would be such a campaighn against ISIS.

[Oberon]

Russia has ratified the 1977 Protocol I of the Geneva Convention which contains Articles 51 and 54 which:

"outlaw indiscriminate attacks on civilian populations, and destruction of food, water, and other materials needed for survival. Indiscriminate attacks include directly attacking civilian (non-military) targets, but also using technology such as biological weapons, nuclear weapons and land mines, whose scope of destruction cannot be limited. A total war that does not distinguish between civilian and military targets is considered a war crime."

Ironically enough, the US, Turkey, Iran, Israel, India and Pakistan have not ratified it, although the US and Iran have signed it so that indicates that they intend to work towards ratifying it...some day...some time...

Then again, who really cares about the Geneva Convention these days, I mean who is going to uphold it? The UN?

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Russia has ratified the 1977 Protocol I of the Geneva Convention which contains Articles 51 and 54 which:



Ironically enough, the US, Turkey, Iran, Israel, India and Pakistan have not ratified it, although the US and Iran have signed it so that indicates that they intend to work towards ratifying it...some day...some time...

Then again, who really cares about the Geneva Convention these days, I mean who is going to uphold it? The UN?

Well played, though I think that you got the wording wrong (nukes are not mentioned in this: https://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d...25641e0052b079 text for example within the articles you have specified).

Article 51 sections 4 and 5, article 54 section 2 are aplicable, but then if you interpret their wording strictly then a lot of people are warcriminals instead of warfighters.

[Mittelwaechter]

As long as nobody declares war there are no war crimes. There is no war.

Any robust action against terrorists is considered a robust action against terrorists - and the Geneva Convention has no rules for that.

A big gun and the power to define the terrorist justifies any action against whoever.

If there are some civilians hurt, it's their problem. They are accepted collateral damage - or simply declared to be terrorists too and therefore "legally" incinerated or phosphorized or carpet bombed or napalmed. That's what we do - what our uniformed terrorists do.

I guess anybody can do it on the exact same level of legality.

Even the other terrorists.

[August]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

You miss the point, there was no diversion.

The point was the if the Hiroshima/Nagasaki (and other strategic bombing campaigns) were justified, then so would be such a campaighn against ISIS.

There was a time when torturing and burning enemy captives within sight of their city walls was justified too. I do understand your point because if they nuked one of our cities I'd want revenge as well, but Hiroshima/Nagasaki was considered necessary to avoid a a very bloody invasion that would make all previous invasions seem like Boy Scout camping trips but Daesh is no Imperial Japan and it won't take the A-Bomb to defeat them. You can hurt them just as badly with todays conventional weapons.

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by August

There was a time when torturing and burning enemy captives within sight of their city walls was justified too. I do understand your point because if they nuked one of our cities I'd want revenge as well, but Hiroshima/Nagasaki was considered necessary to avoid a a very bloody invasion that would make all previous invasions seem like Boy Scout camping trips but Daesh is no Imperial Japan and it won't take the A-Bomb to defeat them. You can hurt them just as badly with todays conventional weapons.

Compared to the recent wars we had (ie 080808 war) invasion of ISIS would be very bloody (atleast as bloody as the war in Afghanistan). So the comparison is valid. Still, in a way I agree with you - the US way is better in this case, hence we should bomb the Gulf states instead if such an incident happens.

[August]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

Compared to the recent wars we had (ie 080808 war) invasion of ISIS would be very bloody (atleast as bloody as the war in Afghanistan). So the comparison is valid.

Well the US expected over a million casualties conquering the main islands (and another 10 million Japanese casualties, mostly civilians). No way subduing Daesh would take that.

...hence we should bomb the Gulf states instead if such an incident happens.

I agree that in the event of a WMD deployment any states supporting Daesh should receive at least some form of retribution.

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by August

I agree that in the event of a WMD deployment any states supporting Daesh should receive at least some form of retribution.

The Saudis can pay with free oil.
They're not worth spending money on bullets anyways.

[mapuc]

In a former statement ikalugin said that if Daesh dropped some kind of ABC weapon on Russian soil, there would not be any more Daesh controlled soil
(something like that, can't remember the exact phrase)

It doesn't have to be Daesh, who would do this, it could very well be some other Islamic terror group.

Daesh have supporters in Muslim countries and around the world and I'm sure that somewhere some Islamic terror group is taking an attack on Daesh as an attack on Islam and will revenge this.

So Russia should not only look after Daesh-terrorist or their supporter, but also other Islamic terror groups.

Markus

[August]

Originally Posted by mapuc

So Russia should not only look after Daesh-terrorist or their supporter, but also other Islamic terror groups.

That is a good point Markus. These groups are shadowy and somewhat nebulous. If a Russian (or any other nationality) city is attacked it might be difficult to determine just who did it. Especially in the case of a nuclear bomb as there won't be a lot of forensic evidence left to gather.

[Oberon]

https://twitter.com/Zuttish/status/711171371817168896



Such a shame, such a terrible shame that Turkey has come to this.