PDA

View Full Version : The causes of Wars



iqbal_soofi
02-26-2007, 08:50 PM
The motives behind waging a war on others is to capture women, money or land or to control other people's resources. The spirutual or the religious slogans are for justification of war only. History proved it. The war on terror is also a kind of justification.
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
wilberhum
02-26-2007, 09:05 PM
The spirutual or the religious slogans are for justification of war only. History proved it.
You have listed the major causes but you exclude one cause. Religion has caused many a war. It is obviously true that religion has inspired hate and war was waged to rid the world of an infdel. That is not to deney that most offen religion is just an excuse.
Reply

Philosopher
02-26-2007, 09:35 PM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
You have listed the major causes but you exclude one cause. Religion has caused many a war. It is obviously true that religion has inspired hate and war was waged to rid the world of an infdel. That is not to deney that most offen religion is just an excuse.
The biggest wars of the 20th century were not caused by religion. As a person with a grudge against theism, you love to tie atrocities in history with belief. I have never heard of a war with the goal of eliminating "infidels." Only thing close to it was wars by atheistic fascists who disliked people with a religious affiliation.
Wars have one of two goals : 1.) Gain territory 2.) Regime Change
Reply

iqbal_soofi
02-26-2007, 09:55 PM
Originally Posted by Philosopher
The biggest wars of the 20th century were not caused by religion. As a person with a grudge against theism, you love to tie atrocities in history with belief. I have never heard of a war with the goal of eliminating "infidels." Only thing close to it was wars by atheistic fascists who disliked people with a religious affiliation.
Wars have one of two goals : 1.) Gain territory 2.) Regime Change
You're right no war is caused by religion. Relgions were used only to justify the wars and to impose superamacy. The real motives were women, money, and lands. These gains were made in every religious war. History couldn't these motives, so there were controversial religious justifications given for em.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
wilberhum
02-26-2007, 10:19 PM
Men have been fighting wars since there were two tribes.

I’m sure that you have checked out each and every one of them, including all pre written history wars.

Logic would imply that in complex situations there are complex reasons. To think that all wars were for land and only land or women and only women or any other single cause can only come from mind that can not contemplate complex agendas.

To think that religion was never a primary caused in any war through out the entire history of humanity is truly absurd.

At least that’s my logical opinion.
Reply

iqbal_soofi
02-26-2007, 10:25 PM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
Men have been fighting wars since there were two tribes.

I’m sure that you have checked out each and every one of them, including all pre written history wars.

Logic would imply that in complex situations there are complex reasons. To think that all wars were for land and only land or women and only women or any other single cause can only come from mind that can not contemplate complex agendas.

To think that religion was never a primary caused in any war through out the entire history of humanity is truly absurd.

At least that’s my logical opinion.
The material gains was the basic issues in every war. Spiritual, religious or ideological issues were put in the forefront in the propaganda only to make the wars look more complex.
Reply

Philosopher
02-26-2007, 10:27 PM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
Men have been fighting wars since there were two tribes.

I’m sure that you have checked out each and every one of them, including all pre written history wars.

Logic would imply that in complex situations there are complex reasons. To think that all wars were for land and only land or women and only women or any other single cause can only come from mind that can not contemplate complex agendas.

To think that religion was never a primary caused in any war through out the entire history of humanity is truly absurd.

At least that’s my logical opinion.
Men have been fighting in early history over LAND. The paradigm shift from the Neolithic Revolution had the ramification of people's affinity to a certain territory. How do you think empires were established later in history??

There is nothing complex about wars, and neither are the reasons. The majority of the wars were for land or regime change. Care to show me an exception? People like to convert simple causes into more complex matters. Religion was NEVER a primary cause for ANY war. You will fail to provide me exceptions since you will most likely fall into the trap of intertwining religion with politics.
Reply

Talha777
02-26-2007, 10:28 PM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
You have listed the major causes but you exclude one cause. Religion has caused many a war. It is obviously true that religion has inspired hate and war was waged to rid the world of an infdel. That is not to deney that most offen religion is just an excuse.
I would have to respectfully disagree with Mr. Wilberhum. I think nationalism, and not religion, has been the greatest motivation for war. Religion is a means for peace and social justice, it can never be used appropriately to cause unnecessary harm or destruction. That said, the true religion (Islam) teaches that armed resistance (Jihad) and self-defense is not only allowed, but a religious obligation when the conditions for it are met.

أُذِنَ لِلَّذِينَ يُقَاتَلُونَ بِأَنَّهُمْ ظُلِمُوا وَإِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلَى نَصْرِهِمْ لَقَدِيرٌ

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged; and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
[Al-Haj 22:39]

Consequently, people should differentiate between agressive war and unprovoked violence, such as the US invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq, and aerial bombing of Somalia, and justified self-defense, such as Hizbullah resisting Israeli aggression, or Lashkar-e-Taiba resisting the Indian army occupying Kashmir.

Jazak Allah khair.
Reply

wilberhum
02-26-2007, 10:43 PM
One of a cupple of thousand hits I got.
The Wars of Religion
The basic intolerance of the Christian religion is revealed not only in persecutions of heretics, dissenters and witches. Religious wars was another popular outlet for this intolerance. Following the Reformation in the sixteenth century, Europe was the stage for many religious wars, most of them between Catholics and Protestants.
But of course some of you know better than every one else.
Simple minds have simple solutions, that dont work because they miss the complexity of the problem.
Reply

Philosopher
02-26-2007, 10:53 PM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
One of a cupple of thousand hits I got.

But of course some of you know better than every one else.
Simple minds have simple solutions, that dont work because they miss the complexity of the problem.
1.) We are talking about WAR, not PERSECUTIONS.

2.) I knew you will fall into my trap, and I absolutely knew that you will mention the Counter-Reformation in your post. The military campaign between the Catholics and Protestants occurred because the Roman Catholic church felt threatened by the growing influence by this new denomination. Remember, the Catholic Church was the governing body in most of Europe during that time. If there were large numbers of converts to Protestantism, the the Catholic Church will be weakened and overthrown over time. That is why they waged war: for POLITICAL stability.

3.) I am interested to know the source of your quote

Simple minds have simple solutions, that dont work because they miss the complexity of the problem.
Just because you disagree with us doesnt make us simpletons. You are being ironic by accusing us of neglecting complex thought, while actually you are the victim of this flaw. You blamed an atrocity on ideology, but if you cared to look deeper you'd know that the conflict had political roots.

Regards.
Reply

wilberhum
02-26-2007, 11:08 PM
I knew you will fall into my trap
Oh such a clever man. :D At least you think you are. :laugh:
You only think I fell because you only look at a small peace of the puzzle.

if you cared to look deeper you'd know that the conflict had political roots
Of course it did. You can go on and believe that is the one and only cause.

Of if life was as simple as you would like it to be.
Reply

iqbal_soofi
02-26-2007, 11:09 PM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
One of a cupple of thousand hits I got.

But of course some of you know better than every one else.
Simple minds have simple solutions, that dont work because they miss the complexity of the problem.
To solve the complex problems and issues, we can break them down into many factors. This makes the complex task simple and easy and we can find out where the real propbelm is. In most of the cases many simple issues are mixed up intentionally to mix it up and and to make it difficult to understand for the common people. Religion is used for this purpose also as well as to create sentimentalism which is rquired sometimes for involving the people into their war.
Reply

wilberhum
02-27-2007, 12:22 AM
To solve the complex problems and issues, we can break them down into many factors.
Right! Notice the s at the end of factor.
Reply

Philosopher
02-27-2007, 12:25 AM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
Oh such a clever man. :D At least you think you are. :laugh:
You only think I fell because you only look at a small peace of the puzzle.


Of course it did. You can go on and believe that is the one and only cause.

Of if life was as simple as you would like it to be.
No rebuttal as expected. Nice day to you, kind sir. Maybe a history book will serve you well :)
Reply

Woodrow
02-27-2007, 12:53 AM
The causes of war although interesting are not the most important question. The question that needs to be answered is "What is the prevention of war?" We as a race have yet to implement it universally in all of recorded history. True there have been areas of acceptable peace in some areas of the world. But, we have yet to see it on a World wide basis.
Reply

Philosopher
02-27-2007, 01:27 AM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
The causes of war although interesting are not the most important question. The question that needs to be answered is "What is the prevention of war?" We as a race have yet to implement it universally in all of recorded history. True there have been areas of acceptable peace in some areas of the world. But, we have yet to see it on a World wide basis.
War will never be prevented. Humans are war-philic creatures :)

Peace is like utopia: Impossible.
Reply

syilla
02-27-2007, 01:49 AM
Originally Posted by Philosopher
War will never be prevented. Humans are war-philic creatures :)

Peace is like utopia: Impossible.
that is why we need islam :)
Reply

iqbal_soofi
02-27-2007, 02:14 AM
Originally Posted by Philosopher
War will never be prevented. Humans are war-philic creatures :)

Peace is like utopia: Impossible.
Not all of em. Only a small minority which likes to dominate others. Let's help the peace loving majority. Give your idea coz you talk like a real educated person. Other educated people may also contribute their ideas.

Originally Posted by syilla
that is why we need islam
There were more fights in the name of Islam than without it. Now they can't fight face to face. So they do terrorism in the name of Islam. Innocent Muslims are exploited as well as killed by them. They make Muslims fight againts others as well as against each others in the name of Islam.
Reply

syilla
02-27-2007, 02:20 AM
Originally Posted by iqbal_soofi

There were more fights in the name of Islam than without it. Now they can't fight face to face. So they do terrorism in the name of Islam. Innocent Muslims are exploited as well as killed by them. They make Muslims fight againts others as well as against each others in the name of Islam.
you should give sources and statitics on these. Maybe the number of crimes.
Reply

iqbal_soofi
02-27-2007, 02:31 AM
Originally Posted by syilla
you should give sources and statitics on these. Maybe the number of crimes.
Islam is basically a religion of wars. Every Muslim was supposed to do jihad with sword.
Reply

syilla
02-27-2007, 02:36 AM
Originally Posted by iqbal_soofi
Islam is basically a religion of wars. Every Muslim was supposed to do jihad with sword.
these misconceptions are very tiring...

maybe you should read all the thread on the jihad stuff in this board... or you don't have the time to read it? :?

we have discussed these so many times...and these time try to learn about jihad before you post.

or maybe post here the quranic verses or hadith which agree with what you are saying...then InshaAllah we can explain it to you carefully.
Reply

Philosopher
02-27-2007, 02:53 AM
Originally Posted by iqbal_soofi
Islam is basically a religion of wars. Every Muslim was supposed to do jihad with sword.
Deleted comment

Islam means "submission by peace." We engage in wars only for defense. Jihad is self struggle. Our job is not to wage wars, but establish peace.
Reply

Philosopher
02-27-2007, 03:00 AM
Originally Posted by iqbal_soofi
Not all of em. Only a small minority which likes to dominate others. Let's help the peace loving majority. Give your idea coz you talk like a real educated person. Other educated people may also contribute their ideas.



There were more fights in the name of Islam than without it. Now they can't fight face to face. So they do terrorism in the name of Islam. Innocent Muslims are exploited as well as killed by them. They make Muslims fight againts others as well as against each others in the name of Islam.
Peace loving majority?? Wars are not caused by hate. It's caused by self interest. The Mexican and Americans love peace? Then why did America wage war with Mexico because over Texas?

As for wars with Islam --- that is a myth. They cant fight face to face??? Do you know what a war is?? America attained freedom from the Brits the same way the Iraqis are fighting the occupation. That's right -- George Washington was an insurgent. It's true Muslims are fighting each other, but then again Christians fought each other and so did the Hindus. Gandhi was assasinated by a person from the same school of Hindu thought. These conflicts have political roots, not ideological. I suggest you have faith in facts, not lies :)
Reply

iqbal_soofi
02-27-2007, 03:29 AM
Originally Posted by Philosopher
Peace loving majority?? Wars are not caused by hate. It's caused by self interest. The Mexican and Americans love peace? Then why did America wage war with Mexico because over Texas?

As for wars with Islam --- that is a myth. They cant fight face to face??? Do you know what a war is?? America attained freedom from the Brits the same way the Iraqis are fighting the occupation. That's right -- George Washington was an insurgent. It's true Muslims are fighting each other, but then again Christians fought each other and so did the Hindus. Gandhi was assasinated by a person from the same school of Hindu thought. These conflicts have political roots, not ideological. I suggest you have faith in facts, not lies :)
Iraqais are fight for their freedom. They didn't wage war. They're fighting against war. I was talking about the terrorists who attack others in the name of jihad, They target even Muslims in Muslim countries(most of the time.)
Reply

Philosopher
02-27-2007, 03:40 AM
Originally Posted by iqbal_soofi
Iraqais are fight for their freedom. They didn't wage war. They're fighting against war. I was talking about the terrorists who attack others in the name of jihad, They target even Muslims in Muslim countries(most of the time.)
Ummm..... the people you are calling "terrorists" are the ones who are fighting the US troops. Many have Al-Quaeda ties.

Target Muslims in Muslims countries, most of the time --- I wonder where you got that from. :laugh:
Reply

Akil
02-27-2007, 12:44 PM
I think causes of war such as land or resources are mostly archaic. In my opinion, in these modern times war and violence in general stems from social causes. Ignorance is one cause for war, I also believe in a perpetual cycle of loss – anger – hate – violence – death – loss.

In a lot of ways religion always has been only an excuse for war rather than the actual reason.




Philosopher: I think what he was referencing is that the vast and overwhelming amount of deaths in Iraq are caused by Al-Quada or the Mahdi Army.

Only a very small amount of deaths are caused by or inflicted on, US forces. Groups like Al-Quada or the Mahdi Army avoid hard targets (ie targets that can hurt them back) and go for the soft belly of Iraqi civilians. That’s why they're terrorists.

A soldier seeks to destroy his enemy’s will and means of perusing war by destroying enemy personnel, equipment, vehicles, locations and other assets.

Terrorists seek to inspire political change by causing fear.
Reply

Philosopher
02-27-2007, 04:24 PM
Originally Posted by Akil
I think causes of war such as land or resources are mostly archaic. In my opinion, in these modern times war and violence in general stems from social causes. Ignorance is one cause for war, I also believe in a perpetual cycle of loss – anger – hate – violence – death – loss.

In a lot of ways religion always has been only an excuse for war rather than the actual reason.




Philosopher: I think what he was referencing is that the vast and overwhelming amount of deaths in Iraq are caused by Al-Quada or the Mahdi Army.

Only a very small amount of deaths are caused by or inflicted on, US forces. Groups like Al-Quada or the Mahdi Army avoid hard targets (ie targets that can hurt them back) and go for the soft belly of Iraqi civilians. That’s why they're terrorists.

A soldier seeks to destroy his enemy’s will and means of perusing war by destroying enemy personnel, equipment, vehicles, locations and other assets.

Terrorists seek to inspire political change by causing fear.
Well, if we take it in the context of history, the amount of deaths caused by Al-Quaeda and the Mahdi army are rather insignificant. They are terrorists --that's what they do. But he is trying to say it's a nature of Muslims but proclaiming it is mandated in Islam to wage wars.

Al-Quaeda and groups like them have targeted "hard" targets. Consider the 1983 Beirut bombing that killed about 241 American servicemen by Hezbollah. Also consider Al-Quaeda attacks on US soldiers in Somalia.
Reply

Akil
02-27-2007, 10:23 PM
Well, if we take it in the context of history, the amount of deaths caused by Al-Quaeda and the Mahdi army are rather insignificant.
Give them time >.<


Al-Quaeda and groups like them have targeted "hard" targets.
Your examples are correct and Hezbollah did meet Israel in pitched fighting during the last conflict on a few occasions. But this is not normal for these types of groups.

They have in the past and do every now and again; there are 3,000 dead US soldiers. But there is 3,000 dead US soldiers in a country of 27,000,000 Iraqi’s. If even one percent of Iraqi’s are involved in the fighting (and I believe the actual number to be higher) than there are 270,000 Iraqi’s participating in the blood shed. If they targeted the US military more often I believe the 3,000 number would be much higher after almost four years.
Reply

Keltoi
02-27-2007, 10:35 PM
Historically wars were fought primarily to increase territorial possession and thereby increase wealth. This leads nations to become more warlike to protect the territory and wealth they have acquired. As time passes another mighty nation will rise, and this nation will follow the same path towards territory and wealth. Eventually these two powers will collide. The process will repeat. This historical deja vu occurs among mighty nations and weak nations, but the intent is always more territory and more wealth. Religion is a tool in some instances to inflame a population into action, but the reason for inflaming the population is what should be studied.
Reply

Philosopher
02-27-2007, 10:56 PM
Originally Posted by Akil
Give them time >.<




Your examples are correct and Hezbollah did meet Israel in pitched fighting during the last conflict on a few occasions. But this is not normal for these types of groups.

They have in the past and do every now and again; there are 3,000 dead US soldiers. But there is 3,000 dead US soldiers in a country of 27,000,000 Iraqi’s. If even one percent of Iraqi’s are involved in the fighting (and I believe the actual number to be higher) than there are 270,000 Iraqi’s participating in the blood shed. If they targeted the US military more often I believe the 3,000 number would be much higher after almost four years.
You example if flawed. This is because the Iraqis are in PARTNERSHIP with the US against terrorist Sunni and Shia groups. This is an insurgency, and I believe killing 3000 US troops in such conditions is rather impressive. The primary goal of the war was regime change, which was not be resisted by the Iraqis at all. You also negate the fact that the US is equipped with the most advanced weaponry and they have superpowers like UK allied with them in the war. The insurgents have limited resources and are poorly trained. They do target US military bases more often that u think, but getting US troops killed using obsolete bombs is not a piece of cake.

You also make the mistake of stereotyping groups like Hezbollah and Al-Quaeda. Hezbollah is a militant organization that does have the capability and the funds to attack troops. Just a look at Hezbollah's history shows us that they were primarily engaged with war against other armed forces, like the IDF. Terrorism is not their priority. Indeed, even Hassan Nasrallah condemned unjustified attacks against American civilians. Groups like Al-Quaeda and Hamas comprise of poorly trained troops with insufficient, outdated weaponry, and refuse to differentiate between civilians and troops. To them, all are their enemies. They have no chance in face to face combat againt Western troops, so they have to attack civilians, in an effort to cause "psychological" warfare.
Reply

Philosopher
02-27-2007, 11:00 PM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
Historically wars were fought primarily to increase territorial possession and thereby increase wealth. This leads nations to become more warlike to protect the territory and wealth they have acquired. As time passes another mighty nation will rise, and this nation will follow the same path towards territory and wealth. Eventually these two powers will collide. The process will repeat. This historical deja vu occurs among mighty nations and weak nations, but the intent is always more territory and more wealth. Religion is a tool in some instances to inflame a population into action, but the reason for inflaming the population is what should be studied.
Religion is a means of uniting the uneducated populace. Hitler, though an atheist, effectively used Christianity to unite the frustrated Germans against the Jews. Bin Laden is doing the exact same thing. If there was no religion, these people would craft up some other ideology to unite the people. For instance, Communism was the ideology that fuelled the Soviet Union and Maoist China.
Reply

Akil
02-28-2007, 01:21 AM
This is an insurgency,
Any time a group that is recognized as belligerent, attempts to overthrow a constituted government, it is an insurgency.


and I believe killing 3000 US troops in such conditions is rather impressive.
The point is that they for the most part, don’t target US soldiers, or the US’s war making capability, which is the core of orthodox warfare.


You also negate the fact that the US is equipped with the most advanced weaponry
. . . .
with insufficient, outdated weaponry, and refuse to differentiate between civilians and troops.
The average soldier doesn’t have that much technology and let me tell you, a 7.62 mm bullet which is what the AK series rifles shoots, can go straight through an engine block. Trust and believe it will kill. Furthermore the insurgents in Iraq are well known to possess rocket propelled grenades and other kinds of rockets, these can take out anything short of an M1 Abrams tank. Not having advanced weaponry is not an excuse for killing civilians.


The insurgents have limited resources and are poorly trained.
. . . .
Groups like Al-Quaeda and Hamas comprise of poorly trained troops
. . . .
They have no chance in face to face combat againt Western troops,
I have seen Al-Queda training videos, most soldiers have, and most people with access to U-tube have. Al-Queda ‘operatives’ move tactically, clear rooms, are accurate in their movement, their fires and supporting fires. You can tell an Al-Queda trained insurgent because they shoot their AK’s sideways, which I am told absorbs kick and improves accuracy. These people are trained, but they choose to use their training against unarmed civilians that pose no threat or danger to them. That makes them murderers.


They do target US military bases more often that u think, but getting US troops killed using obsolete bombs is not a piece of cake.
Improvised explosive devices (IED’s) having become increasingly complex, hi-tech and deadly since the war began, these are not anarchist cookbook type hack jobs. For instance fragments from IED’s have been dipped in blood thinner, meaning that the wounds created from these fragments will not clot normally. So now medics have to train on different types of blood coagulants.

Once again your characterization of the insurgents as the underdog is not appropriate. They have the time, skill and means of attacking US positions but they murder civilians instead because they are cowards.


Hezbollah is a militant organization that does have the capability and the funds to attack troops.
I was mostly referring to the fact that while Hezbollah has the funding and training to conduct orthodox military operations for the most part they do not. They got involved in one major pitched battle during their conflict with Israel and spent the rest of the time running away and lobbing rockets at random towns and cities within Israel. That is what makes Hezbollah a terrorist group.


To them, all are their enemies. so they have to attack civilians,
Anyone who attacks civilians purposely is a coward and a murderer. A civilian who is your enemy is more or less someone who doesn’t agree with your politics. It is deplorable and unconscionable to ever consider slaughtering someone for holding different ideas.


in an effort to cause "psychological" warfare.
Inspiring fear to influence politics or law is not psychological warfare, it is terrorism.
Reply

Philosopher
02-28-2007, 02:23 AM
Originally Posted by Akil
Any time a group that is recognized as belligerent, attempts to overthrow a constituted government, it is an insurgency.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency

Originally Posted by Akil
The point is that they for the most part, don’t target US soldiers, or the US’s war making capability, which is the core of orthodox warfare.
Apparently they are not now. But they were during the first 2 years of the Iraqi war.

he average soldier doesn’t have that much technology and let me tell you, a 7.62 mm bullet which is what the AK series rifles shoots, can go straight through an engine block. Trust and believe it will kill. Furthermore the insurgents in Iraq are well known to possess rocket propelled grenades and other kinds of rockets, these can take out anything short of an M1 Abrams tank. Not having advanced weaponry is not an excuse for killing civilians.
Are you implying that US troops are not significantly more equipped that the insurgents? You must be delusional.

US soldier:



Iraqi:



Weapons used by the insurgents include:

a.) IEDs
b.) AK-47 rifles
c.) Inaccurate motar and rocket strikes
d.) Obsolete Soviet missiles like SA-7

Weaponry used by US troops:

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/ira...ons/index.html

As you can see, the insurgents are considerable disadvantaged compared to the occupiers. It's no surprise that suicide bombing is their most effective means of attacking US troops. It does not justify terrorism, but it clearly explains their methodology of offense.

Originally Posted by Akil
I have seen Al-Queda training videos, most soldiers have, and most people with access to U-tube have. Al-Queda ‘operatives’ move tactically, clear rooms, are accurate in their movement, their fires and supporting fires. You can tell an Al-Queda trained insurgent because they shoot their AK’s sideways, which I am told absorbs kick and improves accuracy. These people are trained, but they choose to use their training against unarmed civilians that pose no threat or danger to them. That makes them murderers.
Al-Quaeda training is a joke. These people were trained to be suicide bombers, not land fighters. You need to compare how the Coalition troops are trained to those of the terrorists to seem the entire picture in context. These people are indeed murderers, but that is because their goal is psychological warfare.

Originally Posted by Akil
Improvised explosive devices (IED’s) having become increasingly complex, hi-tech and deadly since the war began, these are not anarchist cookbook type hack jobs. For instance fragments from IED’s have been dipped in blood thinner, meaning that the wounds created from these fragments will not clot normally. So now medics have to train on different types of blood coagulants.

Once again your characterization of the insurgents as the underdog is not appropriate. They have the time, skill and means of attacking US positions but they murder civilians instead because they are cowards.
IEDs have accounted for 33% of the American casualties. I believe they have used them effectively. It is laughable how you overrate these insurgents.

Originally Posted by Akil
I was mostly referring to the fact that while Hezbollah has the funding and training to conduct orthodox military operations for the most part they do not. They got involved in one major pitched battle during their conflict with Israel and spent the rest of the time running away and lobbing rockets at random towns and cities within Israel. That is what makes Hezbollah a terrorist group.
Hezbollah has a political and military factions. Of course they have funding. Didnt you hear how they donated about $180 million to Lebanese people whose homes have been destroyed by Israel? Also, your description of Hezbollah's activities are misconstrued. Maybe you should read more about them. Only 6 nations in the world brand them as a terrorist group. That excludes the UN.

Anyone who attacks civilians purposely is a coward and a murderer. A civilian who is your enemy is more or less someone who doesn’t agree with your politics. It is deplorable and unconscionable to ever consider slaughtering someone for holding different ideas.
Umm....and I disagree how?

Inspiring fear to influence politics or law is not psychological warfare, it is terrorism.
Terrorism is the ideal medium to promote psychological warfare.
Reply

Akil
02-28-2007, 05:41 AM
I was actually referring to the definition

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Insurgency


a.) IEDs
b.) AK-47 rifles
c.) Inaccurate motar and rocket strikes
d.) Obsolete Soviet missiles like SA-7
IED’s kill everyday in Iraq and the Soviet RPG’s and other types of rockets are accurate enough to hit what they are shooting at.


That’s all planes, tanks, missiles and crew served weapons. Aside from Arty units, Armor Units and Air type units (which are not in the Army other than attack helicopters) you won’t see this kind of stuff.


It does not justify terrorism, but it clearly explains their methodology of offense.
Explain that to the Mujahadeen who died like soldiers in Afghanistan, Tajjikistan, Chechnya, Bosnia and Kosovo fighting and overcoming superior military forces. There was a time that the word Mujahadeen was not sullied with the reputation of terrorism.


These people were trained to be suicide bombers, not land fighters.
I disagree, I saw them move a react like soldiers on those training videos.


It is laughable how you overrate these insurgents.
Tell that to the Iraqi women and children who lay buried in the sand by these monsters for what your calling ‘psychological warfare.’

I am not saying all or even most of the insurgency is well trained but I know with a certainty that a portion of them are and in my opinion training and competency will overcome technology any day of the week. Isn’t that what the Chechens showed the Russians in Grozny?


Also, your description of Hezbollah's activities are misconstrued.
No it’s not. While the IDF was rooting around Lebanon for Hezbollah, with a few notable exceptions, they were hiding in civilian population centers and lobbing rockets into Israel. Even accidentally hit a Palestinian neighborhood once.


Terrorism is the ideal medium to promote psychological warfare.
Terrorism is the ideal medium to promote terror
Speakers and leaflets are the ideal medium to promote psychological warfare
Reply

Philosopher
02-28-2007, 06:46 AM
Originally Posted by Akil
I was actually referring to the definition

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Insurgency
You are being evasive towards your own sources!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency

The Iraqi insurgency is the armed resistance by diverse groups within Iraq of the US occupation of Iraq. These groups also resist the newly created Iraqi government.

How does that contradict your definition of insurgency? Are you trying to change the standard definition of “insurgency” to squirm your way out of my refutation?

Originally Posted by Akil
IED’s kill everyday in Iraq and the Soviet RPG’s and other types of rockets are accurate enough to hit what they are shooting at.
Soviet weaponry are very inaccurate. I dont know where you get the idea that they are accurate. Hezbollah's Katyusha rockets (Soviet) are also profoundly inaccurate.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/News...e.aspx?ID=2422

Though aimed at the U.S. base, the improvised setup and relative inaccuracy of the rockets also posed a credible hazard to the citizens in the neighborhood, U.S. military officials said.

Originally Posted by Akil
That’s all planes, tanks, missiles and crew served weapons. Aside from Arty units, Armor Units and Air type units (which are not in the Army other than attack helicopters) you won’t see this kind of stuff.
I hope this eradicates your confusion:
http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/13893/

Make sure you read this time.

Originally Posted by Akil
Explain that to the Mujahadeen who died like soldiers in Afghanistan, Tajjikistan, Chechnya, Bosnia and Kosovo fighting and overcoming superior military forces. There was a time that the word Mujahadeen was not sullied with the reputation of terrorism.
Maybe you should educate yourself then:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahadeen

These terrorists are simply tainting Muslim terms.

Originally Posted by Akil
I disagree, I saw them move a react like soldiers on those training videos.
Let us use facts and not what you see in anonymous videos.

Originally Posted by Akil
Tell that to the Iraqi women and children who lay buried in the sand by these monsters for what your calling ‘psychological warfare.’

I am not saying all or even most of the insurgency is well trained but I know with a certainty that a portion of them are and in my opinion training and competency will overcome technology any day of the week. Isn’t that what the Chechens showed the Russians in Grozny?
I am becoming astounded by your weak rebuttals. Where did I say psychological warefare was right? Terrorism and psychological warfare are synonymous. The "well trained" insurgents are actually foreign fighters from Iran.

Originally Posted by AKil
No it’s not. While the IDF was rooting around Lebanon for Hezbollah, with a few notable exceptions, they were hiding in civilian population centers and lobbing rockets into Israel. Even accidentally hit a Palestinian neighborhood once.
Hezbollah began to take shape during the Lebanese Civil War with three main goals comprised of the eradication of what it viewed as Western imperialism in Lebanon, the bringing to justice of those who commited attrocities during the war (specifically the Phalangists), and establishing an Islamic government in Lebanon.Hezbollah has realized that the goal of transforming Lebanon into an Islamic state is not practical at this time and has temporarily abandoned it.


Hezbollah has not been directly involved in a suicide bombing since 1999 and has publicly denounced some of these attacks. After the September 11, 2001 attacks, Hezbollah condemned Al Qaeda for targeting the civilian World Trade Center, but remained silent on the attack on the Pentagon, neither favoring nor opposing the act. Hezbollah also denounced the Armed Islamic Group massacres in Algeria, Al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya attacks on tourists in Egypt, and the murder of Nick Berg. Nasrallah, in a 2006 interview with the Washington Post, condemned violence against American civilians: [i]“f there are American tourists, or intellectuals, doctors, or professors who have nothing to do with this war, they are innocent, even though they are Americans, and it is forbidden."

Originally Posted by Akil
Terrorism is the ideal medium to promote terror
Speakers and leaflets are the ideal medium to promote psychological warfare
Ummm....maybe you should check your definitions. Terrorism is not a medium to promote terror, terrorism is literally "an act of terror."

You use psychological warfare to brainwash people to terrorism. Hence my assertions still remain unchallenged.
Reply

Akil
02-28-2007, 09:17 AM
Are you trying to change the standard definition of “insurgency” to squirm your way out of my refutation?
What refutation are you talking about, what did you refute?


Soviet weaponry are very inaccurate. I dont know where you get the idea that they are accurate.
They are less accurate. It’s not as if you can’t hit what your aiming at, the toll Mujahadeen put on Soviet Armor using those same said weapons is a testament to that. Most Soviet weapons follow the mold of the AK series rifle, less accurate but much more durable and dependable.


I hope this eradicates your confusion:
Reread what I wrote slowly hero. The vast majority of the coalition combat forces are straight-legged infantry, M16’s or M4 carbines, M203 grenade launchers, M9 pistols, SAW’s or M60’s for machine guns, Mark 19 automatic grenade launchers, AT4 rocket launchers and that is more or less it. All the stupid off-topic articles you can find won’t change that fact.

Most soldiers don’t use computers or sensors or anything like that on the battlefield and are sometimes running with weapons from the Vietnam era. I donno what you expect, of if think we have X-ray vision and lasers, but that is just not reality.


These terrorists are simply tainting Muslim terms.
Don’t respond if your not going to read what I write


Let us use facts and not what you see in anonymous videos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cuHVLyX6Fc

There are so many parallels between what these men do in this video and my training as a US soldier, its ridicules.


Terrorism and psychological warfare are synonymous.
Terrorism has a psychological effect, but Psychological warfare is a military discipline. The closest Psychological operations get to terrorism is when leaflets are distributed saying such and such location will be obliterated at this day and time, on that day and time, plains fly and guns roar and military might is displayed.

The difference between psychological operations and terrorism is that psychological operations seek to destroy an enemy’s will to fight, which is in line with strategic orthodox warfare.

Once again terrorism seeks inspires fear, to cause political or legal change.


The "well trained" insurgents are actually foreign fighters from Iran
Muslim’s groups have had a wide array of combat experience in relatively recent history, I do not see why Islamic veterans from places like Afghanistan, Tajjikistan, Chechnya, Bosnia and Kosovo would not wind up within the Iraqi insurgents. Furthermore I still disagree about your assessment of the Al-Qaeda organization if for no other reason than it has it's roots firmly planted with the Mujahadeen of Afghanistan.


Hezbollah has not been directly involved in a suicide bombing since 1999
Whether or not that is true, I was addressing indiscriminate bombing of Israeli civil centers, not suicide bombing.


Terrorism is not a medium to promote terror, terrorism is literally "an act of terror."
Why do you think it is called terrorism? Because it has to do with the act of intentionally causing fear.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terror

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism
Reply

Keltoi
02-28-2007, 03:21 PM
As for the Al-Qaeda training videos, I agree with Akil. Many of the exercises they are going through in those videos are straight from the handbook, and as Akil said, it is very similar to what you are trained to do as a soldier. Not sure how many of those people are actually trained in this way, and it could be that only a select few recieve that extensive amount of training.

As for Soviet weaponry, it might be outdated, but it is not obsolete. An Ak-47 can do alot of damage. You aim and you fire...pretty much like the M4 or M16. As for their RPG and mortar capability, yes it is infamously inaccurate, but that doesn't mean a person trained in the use of these weapons can't cause alot of havok.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-26-2015, 09:27 PM
  2. Replies: 25
    Last Post: 03-07-2011, 03:01 PM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-05-2008, 12:38 PM
  4. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 08-15-2006, 01:28 AM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!