How to fight a civilized war against an uncivilized enemy

[Black Widow]

sir, sorry for that got carried away.
but there are other ways to fight for independence.
and AFAIK our forefathers didn't attack any innocent people. and Americans kicked out soldiers not British women and children.
Palestine people should fight for their independence but they should fight with Israel soldiers. attacking innocent people is not right way to fight for independence.

This is Mongol-Arabic war strategy.. Killing women, plundering, Capturing women (I heard there religious book of hadis promote booty)... The idea was to decimate the civilized tribe.

Rape there women so that the kids will be uncivilized terrorists (Tikka khan used this strategy against Bangladeshi women). Kill all male member and enslave women (Shahjahan did with mumtaz husband. Mumtaj Mahal was married, Shahjahan killed her husband and enslaved her and forced her to breed 14 kids.)..

 

[AUz]

This is Mongol-Arabic war strategy.. Killing women, plundering, Capturing women (I heard there religious book of hadis promote booty)... The idea was to decimate the civilized tribe.

Rape there women so that the kids will be uncivilized terrorists (Tikka khan used this strategy against Bangladeshi women). Kill all male member and enslave women (Shahjahan did with mumtaz husband. Mumtaj Mahal was married, Shahjahan killed her husband and enslaved her and forced her to breed 14 kids.)..

LMAO!



What do you think Europeans did during middle ages? Oh, they did not killed women, plundered property, and captured enemy's women...correct?

Stop being an idiot.

On the topic: This is yet another propaganda article from Israel where the author is dehumanizing the enemy and humanizing itself----even though author fully well knows that it is Israel who is the aggressor.

Palestinians are colonized by Israel. They are humiliated, killed, and imprisoned on almost daily basis. Yet when Palestinians resist using insurgent methods (since colonized people do not have standing armies), they become "the uncivilized enemy"

To Indians here: Europeans did that to India as well. They described Indian resistance fighters as uncivilized barbarians. Do not cheer for Israel for dehumanizing Palestinians. Because when you do that, you are accepting the European model of dehumanization of 'the other'....it is an insult to our ancestors.

The real barbarians were Europeans who enslaved, killed, maimed, raped, and plundered millions around the world, including indians.

Similarly, real "uncivilized enemy" here is Israel that has plundered, stole, and colonized the Palestinian land and has ethnically erased Palestinians from their native land. It is classic mode of European settler colonization yet again..this time, not in Austrailia or Americas---but in Palestine. And it is happening right infront of our eyes.

 

[HariPrasad]

Excuse me, your ancestors never fought against Brits..

A poetry of Vajpayee:


Azadi ka mol kya samjauge tume.

Tum ko mufta main mili na kimat tumne chukai.

Man ke tukade karte tum ko laj na ayee.

Dusaron ke ghar me khoon bahane ka khayal bura hota hai.

Dusaron ke ghar main Aag lagane ka sapna Apne hi Ghar main sach hota hai.


How right Vajpayee was when he wrote that poem.

 

[gambit]

what is permissible depends on combatants. I was just pointing that you cannot dehumanize palestinians. Thats something I felt personally when I met israelis in my life. They talk of palestinians as some barbaric horde.

Civilized people or countries will only take the military force as the last one choice to guard themselves,but not come to kill others for their named "justice" with named "civilized tools or tactics".

What I said means war is evil in itself.

Using chemical weapons or common bullets don't equal to uncivilized or civilized,but too evil or evil,especially when you fight against poor countries.

You guys missed the point.

While there were customs of war before WW II, it was after WW II that the Geneva Conventions were agreed upon as rules and conducts of war that are acceptable and are not. What prompted all the major powers to create these rules and conducts, and persuaded the lesser powers to concede to them, were the scale and scope of destruction meted out during the war, from the Nazi systematic prosecution of the Jews to Unit 731 in Asia, the fire bombings in Europe and Japan, and even to the nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, all gave everyone pause on whether we should commit any conflict to that scale ever again, and what would be the initial violation that could lead to a war that contains unrestricted tactics and methods.

So it was agreed that in any war, combatants should make themselves visually distinctive from non-combatants; that structures such as hospitals, schools, homes, houses of worships, and culturally significant places should be off limits to both sides; and several other rules, if you want to look them up.

The point of the first article in this thread is that the Israelis are fighting an opponent that recognizes no such rules, and as such, the Israeli military had to respond with tactics and methods that may be at least morally, if not legally, prosecutable. The Palestinian, Hamas, and Hezbollas fighters have been using hospitals, schools, and houses of worship as munition storage and centers of battles. These -- not even the most sympathetic to the Palestinian cause can deny.

 

[Black Widow]

You guys missed the point.

While there were customs of war before WW II, it was after WW II that the Geneva Conventions were agreed upon as rules and conducts of war that are acceptable and are not. What prompted all the major powers to create these rules and conducts, and persuaded the lesser powers to concede to them, were the scale and scope of destruction meted out during the war, from the Nazi systematic prosecution of the Jews to Unit 731 in Asia, the fire bombings in Europe and Japan, and even to the nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, all gave everyone pause on whether we should commit any conflict to that scale ever again, and what would be the initial violation that could lead to a war that contains unrestricted tactics and methods.

So it was agreed that in any war, combatants should make themselves visually distinctive from non-combatants; that structures such as hospitals, schools, homes, houses of worships, and culturally significant places should be off limits to both sides; and several other rules, if you want to look them up.

The point of the first article in this thread is that the Israelis are fighting an opponent that recognizes no such rules, and as such, the Israeli military had to respond with tactics and methods that may be at least morally, if not legally, prosecutable. The Palestinian, Hamas, and Hezbollas fighters have been using hospitals, schools, and houses of worship as munition storage and centers of battles. These -- not even the most sympathetic to the Palestinian cause can deny.

In modern world after seeing devastation of WW I and WW II , we all agree upon Geneva convention. Before that if we read history our war were fought on rules. The rules were broken by Mongol-Arab warlords and then it became tradition till WW-II......

 

[livingdead]

You guys missed the point.

While there were customs of war before WW II, it was after WW II that the Geneva Conventions were agreed upon as rules and conducts of war that are acceptable and are not. What prompted all the major powers to create these rules and conducts, and persuaded the lesser powers to concede to them, were the scale and scope of destruction meted out during the war, from the Nazi systematic prosecution of the Jews to Unit 731 in Asia, the fire bombings in Europe and Japan, and even to the nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, all gave everyone pause on whether we should commit any conflict to that scale ever again, and what would be the initial violation that could lead to a war that contains unrestricted tactics and methods.

So it was agreed that in any war, combatants should make themselves visually distinctive from non-combatants; that structures such as hospitals, schools, homes, houses of worships, and culturally significant places should be off limits to both sides; and several other rules, if you want to look them up.

The point of the first article in this thread is that the Israelis are fighting an opponent that recognizes no such rules, and as such, the Israeli military had to respond with tactics and methods that may be at least morally, if not legally, prosecutable. The Palestinian, Hamas, and Hezbollas fighters have been using hospitals, schools, and houses of worship as munition storage and centers of battles. These -- not even the most sympathetic to the Palestinian cause can deny.

I was no defending their tactics. I would prefer if they follow gandhian pacifist way. people dont follow moral principles during insurgency/civil war, palestinians are not special people.
I would say the same about terrorists who attack India (and I have no sympathy for, obviously). They are human too, not animals. We should treat them with compassion as any civilized society will do.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

OPINION
By ERIC R. MANDEL \
12/28/2014

How to fight a civilized war against an uncivilized enemy
This is not a war of financial resources; it is a battle of power and determination.

An Islamic Jihad militant attends an anti-Israel rally in Rafah.. (photo credit:REUTERS)

How do you fight a war against an enemy who loves death more than they love life? How do you fight a war against a people who, in the name of religion, deliberately kill, enslave and torture innocent children, women and men? How do you maintain a moral compass while confronting an enemy with no respect for the rules of war? To begin to answer these questions, we must start with an honest examination of our security interests.

In this “war,” military operations will likely be choices of last resort, but our chance for success will be drastically limited unless we confront this enemy as if we were in a full-scale military confrontation. Our current ad-hoc military operations, i.e. drone strikes, will be ineffective over the long term unless they are part of a comprehensive strategy with a clear vision for success.

Seventy-nine years ago, we faced an enemy that was pure evil, and it was known as Nazism. But then, unlike now, we knew that absolute evil had to be extinguished by one means or another.

In the case of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, the answer was their unconditional surrender.

In the case of Communism during the Cold War (remember Ronald Reagan’s “evil empire”?), there was no quick exit. There were many military battles and diplomatic skirmishes fought over decades, with no end in sight, until the very end. Yet the non-wavering vision in each case was to bring home as complete a victory as possible, knowing that America and the West were in the right, and the enemy was beyond the civilized pale.

Today’s “evil empire” is radical jihadist Islamism, the 21st century version of Nazism. The jihadists of all sectarian stripes, i.e. Sunni and Shi’ite, expect victory, because their (accurate) assessment of the West is that it does not have the willpower to fight an enemy without a clear exit strategy, or one that may not be vanquished in their lifetime. So we need to ask ourselves: • Are we willing to map out an effective and flexible strategy to destroy, or at least profoundly weaken, radical Islamism, knowing many obstacles and setbacks lie ahead? • Is there a visionary Western leader on the horizon in the 21st century who can look beyond our need for instant gratification and explain that we must confront the menace of jihadism because over time it could destroy and threaten all that we hold dear? • Does the West in the era of 24/7 instantaneous news coverage have the “stomach” to fight a war where all of its actions will be under a magnifying glass, and withstand the inevitable accusations of war crimes for killing civilians purposely embedded within terrorist operating bases? • Can the West fight an enemy that measures success in centuries, has infinite patience, and has tens of millions of adherents and supporters? • Is it too late for America and the West to act? The answer to that last question is no, but it seems that only the Israelis understand the existential dangers posed by radical Islamism. Perhaps that is because it is their survival that is most obviously threatened by it.

There is no appeasement or placation that can satisfy radical Islamism. Until America realizes that our way of life is endangered by the growing radical threat of jihadists, we will be fighting with two hands behind our back.

How does one define radical Islamists? Today’s flavor of the day is the Sunni Islamic State. However, whether Sunni or Shi’ite, Arab or Persian, radical Islamists should be viewed by the West as sides of the same jihadist coin. We must not be confused by the fact that sometimes they are at each other’s throats as mortal enemies, and sometimes cross sectarian lines to work together against the greater evils, i.e. America, Israel and the West.

The next American president must abandon the idea that there are good and bad radical Islamists. The Sunni Islamic State must be defeated, but the danger of radical Iranian Shi’ite Islamism is more likely to be a greater threat to America and Western interests over the long term.

The Obama administration mistakenly believes that Shi’ite Islamist Iran needs to be embraced as part of the solution against radical Islamism. Nothing could be further from the truth. It also mistakenly embraced the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood as the face of moderate Islamism. American allies like Jordanian King Abdullah knew better, and chastised America by stating that the Muslim Brotherhood is simply a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Muslim nation-states must, for their own self interest, become the leaders in this war against radical Islamism.

This is anti-Islamist, not anti-Islam. This can only happen if the strategy has the buy-in of the Sunni nation-states, i.e. Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the Gulf States, and includes the Kurds, the Turks and Shi’ites who do not support the Iranian regime. Getting into bed with allies like the Wahabi Sunnis of the Arabian Peninsula is certainly distasteful, but it is necessary for success at this point.

The complexity of this overwhelming grand vision should be self-evident. Different theaters of action against differing radical Islamist groups will require different strategic partners and ever-changing strategies. The tools will include support of allied nation-states, recruitment of dissidents, diplomatic pressure, economic incentives and disincentives, clandestine actions, counterterrorism, effective use of social media, and, yes, military operations, among many other possibilities.

The potential length of this conflict makes this war much more analogous to the Cold War than WWII, but even that analogy is a stretch, as this conflict will be profoundly different. This is not a war of financial resources; it is a battle of power and determination.

As was the case for WWII and the Cold War, the war against radical Islamism is a fight against ideologies that want to destroy our freedoms and our way of life.

The author is the director of MEPIN (Middle East Political and Information Network), a Middle East research analysis read by members of Congress, their foreign policy advisers, members of the Knesset, journalists and organizational leaders.

First of all - Israel is not exactly 'civil'. Take this as a compliment.

US and NATO will never win any war against any of the Islamic nations, because they don't know what they are fighting. You can't 'win' against an enemy that's not afraid to die. You can only kill them.

 

[PeaceGen]

OPINION
By ERIC R. MANDEL \
12/28/2014

How to fight a civilized war against an uncivilized enemy

Well, cozying up to the Saudis that are known to promote violence between muslims doesn't seem the right thing to do to, to me.

But the article is right on many other points it puts forward. Israelis, you're kinda wrong to assume you're the only people who understand the nature of the islamic-extremist enemy. Nothing you said in this article, I didn't know already, and I'm a Dutch guy. I'm pretty sure plenty of Americans understand things as well as I do.

First of all - Israel is not exactly 'civil'. Take this as a compliment.

US and NATO will never win any war against any of the Islamic nations, because they don't know what they are fighting. You can't 'win' against an enemy that's not afraid to die. You can only kill them.

I disagree. Killing them validates all they say to their own kind. I now have to vote for nonlethal force when possible against muslim extremists, followed by lockup in enough prison space until they've *actually* and *fully* deradicalized..

 

[SarthakGanguly]

until they've *actually* and *fully* deradicalized..

Good luck with that.

You underestimate their motivation and dedication.

 

[PeaceGen]

Good luck with that.

You underestimate their motivation and dedication.

hence the "until"... i did imply potentially life long prison terms for extremists.

 

[Vassnti]

How to fight a civilized war against an uncivilized enemy?

Who said either side in the Israel/Palestinian conflict was civilized?

Palestine lobs missiles at anyone who happens to live north of Gaza, Israel has "hunting season" as a decleared policy

 

[PeaceGen]

How to fight a civilized war against an uncivilized enemy?

Who said either side in the Israel/Palestinian conflict was civilized?

Palestine lobs missiles at anyone who happens to live north of Gaza, Israel has "hunting season" as a decleared policy

*I* will say both the Palestinians and Israelis are civilized peoples, for both practice peaceful commerce (and worship!) as much as they can.
Both these cultures are locked in a longterm war with eachother, and they dont always follow the geneva conventions which makes them appear uncivilized in confrontations, but if you look at daily life in between confrontations between the two, I assure you both cultures are civilized.
There is also the growing trend of peaceful resistance by the Palestinians, which is a sign their level of civlization is increasing.

 

[Vassnti]

I stand corrected, the people as a whole you are correct are civilized and my appologies to the populations of Israel and Palestine for my poor choice of words.
The policies and conduct of those policies by a few are uncivilized on both sides.