So The Invading Army Thread Got Me Thinking... What Tactics Would You Lower Yourself to in Order... - Page 2

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - So The Invading Army Thread Got Me Thinking... What Tactics Would You Lower Yourself to in Order... (Page 2 of 3)

Posted: 9/23/2005 5:38:04 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
Quoted:
If all means are justified towards the end of winning a conflict, do you all consider the beheadings in Iraq evil acts in themselves?

If the means are always justified by the end, then you would have to consider the beheadings morally good acts; or at the very least morally neutral.

They are subjectively bad, because the victims were Americans, but if you feel that all means are justified towards the end of winning a conflict, then you are not making sense if you morally condemn the beheadings as objectively evil acts.

I too agree that if an end is good, all means are justified in any struggle.

The beheadings haven't furthered their cause. If anything, it has only hardened the U.S. soldier's resolve. Would you let yourself get caught by the Islamo-fascists? The only thing wrong with the beheadings is that it accomplished nothing.

I certainly don't consider it a 'War Crime'. As I've posted, that term is a myth. If it isn't, then fire-bombing Japanese cities, incinerating men, women and children would be considered a 'War Crime'. Or throwing NVA POW's out of a helicopter to make his Comrades talk would be considered a 'War Crime'. You do what you need to do to get the job done.

I agree they accomplished nothing positive for them, but the beheaders did not know that would be the outcome. They did it in the hopes that it would accomplish something.

I agree that the notion of a war crime is obnoxious to the rational minded person. There are actions which go against good order and discipline, but those are different matters all together.

Posted: 9/23/2005 5:42:42 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:

No, war is never justified.

So you're what?
A 15 year old girl who just took sociology and failed history?

Posted: 9/23/2005 5:44:03 PM EDT

[#3]

I`m sure hearing/seeing my people getting killed raped etc. by an invading force, would put all the hate in my heart i would need to become pure evil. My skin feels hot just invisioning it.

Posted: 9/23/2005 5:44:37 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:

To play the devil's advocate-

By that logic, then an insurgent shooting an American soldier is justified?

Of course it is.
That doesn't keep me from realizing which side I am on and wanting them all dead.

Posted: 9/23/2005 5:45:53 PM EDT

[#5]

Hurt them however necessary

Posted: 9/23/2005 5:50:34 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Here's a question: would you target civillian (including women and children) collaborators?

If they were just playing nice with them while being a spy for the cause then ofcourse not. But if they really embraced the enemy and helped the enemy, I would hate them more than the invaders.

Posted: 9/23/2005 6:04:31 PM EDT

[#7]

I would employ any tactics that were useful. I would not consider it "lowering myself". His wife and children are invaders and my enemies too.

Posted: 9/23/2005 6:08:05 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Quoted:

No, war is never justified.

So you're what?
A 15 year old girl who just took sociology and failed history?

Yeah, dying is real fun. War IS bad, but it is something that is sometimes nessacry.

Posted: 9/23/2005 6:09:30 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

No, war is never justified.

So you're what?
A 15 year old girl who just took sociology and failed history?

Yeah, dying is real fun. War IS bad, but it is something that is sometimes nessacry.

You're not supposed to die. You're supposed to KILL.

I take it you have never served in the Armed Forces?

Posted: 9/23/2005 6:27:33 PM EDT

[#10]

The question presumes grim extremity. Put more pointedly, it might go like this:

The US has been invaded by EU troops. As the bridgehead advances, they consolidate their hold in what are judged to be pacified areas. You are in a "pacified" area. Your cell leader gives directions to a gated community 2 miles from your home, and explains that the wives, children, and parents of the officers and senior noncoms of the invader force are quartered there. You are instructed to take a detail of 25 men and kill as many of the residents of the gated community, ranging from newborns to 96 years of age, as possible. What will you do?

Posted: 9/23/2005 6:30:40 PM EDT

[#11]

Low blow. It encourages the other side to commit (even more) atrocities (on your family) and there are smarter ways to spend your energy, like getting a general or two instead. Less taint in that, too.

Posted: 9/23/2005 6:35:57 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
The question presumes grim extremity. Put more pointedly, it might go like this:

The US has been invaded by EU troops. As the bridgehead advances, they consolidate their hold in what are judged to be pacified areas. You are in a "pacified" area. Your cell leader gives directions to a gated community 2 miles from your home, and explains that the wives, children, and parents of the officers and senior noncoms of the invader force are quartered there. You are instructed to take a detail of 25 men and kill as many of the residents of the gated community, ranging from newborns to 96 years of age, as possible. What will you do?

First of all anyone who thinks that war has ever been waged in a "fair" maner needs to pick up more books. Almost all wars have ended with one side saying, "hey that wasn't 'fair'."

That being said, I must take a tactic from the peoples of yore, and kill all that are taller than my sword (colapsed M4) is high. The rest would be then promptly sold into slavery.

Posted: 9/23/2005 6:42:00 PM EDT

[#13]

There is NO innocence in WAR!

ANY MEANS NECESSARY!

Posted: 9/23/2005 6:48:53 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

No, war is never justified.

So you're what?
A 15 year old girl who just took sociology and failed history?

Yeah, dying is real fun. War IS bad, but it is something that is sometimes nessacry.

What the hell has fun got to do with it?

You said, "war is never justified."
That's just pure bullshit spewed from some socialist bullshit website or other such tripe. Either that or you are typing what your mommy tells you to. In any event, the comment is so ignorant that it casts aspersions on your intellect.

Posted: 9/23/2005 6:49:27 PM EDT

[#15]

quote]Quoted:

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

No, war is never justified.

So you're what?
A 15 year old girl who just took sociology and failed history?

Yeah, dying is real fun. War IS bad, but it is something that is sometimes nessacry.

What the hell has fun got to do with it?

You said, "war is never justified."
That's just pure bullshit spewed from some socialist bullshit website or other such tripe. Either that or you are typing what your mommy tells you to. In any event, the comment is so ignorant that it casts aspersions on your intellect.

Justified wasnt a good word to use, more like, war is never good.

Posted: 9/23/2005 7:06:31 PM EDT

[#16]

I have seen red dawn exactly once and I cant remember what low tactics they used. Can someone remind me?

Posted: 9/23/2005 7:12:21 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
to resist the enemy? Let's say the general of the invading army brought with him his wife and young children to live behind the front lines. Would you resort to kidnapping women and children as leverage? Bombing their shelter knowing that their are women and children in harms way? I know the first Americans held themselves to higher standards during their fight for independence. But it's an intriguing question.

Myself, I'd say now that I couldn't do it. But when push comes to shove and it's your family or theirs, you might think hard about it.

By day I would be carrying signs in support of the new invaders, by night I will be blowing up their crap. Just a face in the crowd, no one, not even family would know.

Posted: 9/23/2005 7:13:43 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Anything. Those that invade my beloved country will find no tactics are too low, or too brutal, as they will likewise think nothing is too brutal for the civilians they are here to enslave/murder/capture.

Heh. I have a feeling those words were echoed by some
"feedom fighter" haji in Iraq...

Those hajis blatantly target Iraqi civilians. Big difference between being a suicide bomber and taking out military targets, and massacring innocent people.

Dont think some here wouldnt do that.

Posted: 9/23/2005 7:54:38 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Anything. Those that invade my beloved country will find no tactics are too low, or too brutal, as they will likewise think nothing is too brutal for the civilians they are here to enslave/murder/capture.

Heh. I have a feeling those words were echoed by some
"feedom fighter" haji in Iraq...

Those hajis blatantly target Iraqi civilians. Big difference between being a suicide bomber and taking out military targets, and massacring innocent people.

Dont think some here wouldnt do that.

Perhaps.
In any event, targeting women and children is different from hitting them as military targets. Anything in enemy territory is a legitimate target.
Collaborators would be high priority targets for sure.

Finally, what is "innocent"?
Show me an innocent. Doesn't truly exist in modern warfare. Such rules of war are to pacify and ease the collective conscience of noncombatants only. Pick up a gun and STFU.

Posted: 9/23/2005 9:28:49 PM EDT

[#20]

"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster.
And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
Friedrich Nietzsche

Things must be done, but care should be taken that the motive is correct. Becoming a monster in the process of killing a monster, isnt necessarily an asset. I would do what had to be done, but I wouldnt become a savage, to beat a savage.

Posted: 9/23/2005 9:43:03 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
I have seen red dawn exactly once and I cant remember what low tactics they used. Can someone remind me?

It wasn't the low tactics they used. They only killed soldiers and bombed buildings taken over by the invaders.

The invaders brought their families when they invaded the country, thereby showing their intent to completely assimilate or wipe out the current inhabitants in order to further their own good.

That is what I would fight against, by whatever means necessary.

Posted: 9/23/2005 9:50:51 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Finally, what is "innocent"?
Show me an innocent. Doesn't truly exist in modern warfare. Such rules of war are to pacify and ease the collective conscience of noncombatants only. Pick up a gun and STFU.

I am totally reading you the wrong way I think. Are you in a way saying that even in Iraq, the innocents who are blown up and killed are not really innocent? Thats how the jihadists see them, not innocent and worthy of death. I think I am totally reading you wrong, but maybe not.

Posted: 9/23/2005 10:07:42 PM EDT

[#23]

I'd attack an enemies logistics and support units.

Commiting terrorism on women and children is not going to stop and army. Blowing up fuel dumps and placing land mines on roads is.

Posted: 9/23/2005 10:09:12 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Anything. Those that invade my beloved country will find no tactics are too low, or too brutal, as they will likewise think nothing is too brutal for the civilians they are here to enslave/murder/capture.

Heh. I have a feeling those words were echoed by some
"feedom fighter" haji in Iraq...

Those hajis blatantly target Iraqi civilians. Big difference between being a suicide bomber and taking out military targets, and massacring innocent people.

Dont think some here wouldnt do that.

Perhaps.
In any event, targeting women and children is different from hitting them as military targets. Anything in enemy territory is a legitimate target.
Collaborators would be high priority targets for sure.

Finally, what is "innocent"?
Show me an innocent. Doesn't truly exist in modern warfare. Such rules of war are to pacify and ease the collective conscience of noncombatants only. Pick up a gun and STFU.

You know, Dr. Jarhead, you're one of my favorite people on this site. You are right about damn-near everything under the sun.

Except this.

You guys sound like fucking RETARDS. Can you even hear yourselves? You'd do EXACTLY the same shit those filthy sand monkey assholes are doing to children in Iraq? Are you fucking kidding me? Just listen to yourselves for a moment... do you hear your conscience in the background? It's whispering, "That's WRONG - don't kill innocent civilians. It's the coward's way out. It's unChristian, and immoral."

You guys are defacto supporters of the evil Islamofascists with this kind of nonsense talk. If you're no better than the enemy, then what are you?

I know many will attack me because I post this. That's OK. For you folks that say, "anything goes," just imagine some shitheel Islamofascist, whacked out on crank, loading his AK mags to the mindless chant of "Allahu Akhbar,' as he envisions hitting the "enemy" in its soft underbelly - Jewell Elementary School, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, or your wife's workplace.

We're supposed to be BETTER than them. That's what makes us different and morally superior. If cultures can be said to be better than one another because of their accomplishments and freedoms, then how is the world you envision any better than the world of Islamofascism, where "honor killings" and clitorectomies and malignant, stifling theocracies are the watchwords?

Posted: 9/23/2005 10:15:08 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Anything. Those that invade my beloved country will find no tactics are too low, or too brutal, as they will likewise think nothing is too brutal for the civilians they are here to enslave/murder/capture.

Heh. I have a feeling those words were echoed by some
"feedom fighter" haji in Iraq...

Those hajis blatantly target Iraqi civilians. Big difference between being a suicide bomber and taking out military targets, and massacring innocent people.

Dont think some here wouldnt do that.

Perhaps.
In any event, targeting women and children is different from hitting them as military targets. Anything in enemy territory is a legitimate target.
Collaborators would be high priority targets for sure.

Finally, what is "innocent"?
Show me an innocent. Doesn't truly exist in modern warfare. Such rules of war are to pacify and ease the collective conscience of noncombatants only. Pick up a gun and STFU.

You know, Dr. Jarhead, you're one of my favorite people on this site. You are right about damn-near everything under the sun.

Except this.

You guys sound like fucking RETARDS. Can you even hear yourselves? You'd do EXACTLY the same shit those filthy sand monkey assholes are doing to children in Iraq? Are you fucking kidding me? Just listen to yourselves for a moment... do you hear your conscience in the background? It's whispering, "That's WRONG - don't kill innocent civilians. It's the coward's way out. It's unChristian, and immoral."

You guys are defacto supporters of the evil Islamofascists with this kind of nonsense talk. If you're no better than the enemy, then what are you?

I know many will attack me because I post this. That's OK. For you folks that say, "anything goes," just imagine some shitheel Islamofascist, whacked out on crank, loading his AK mags to the mindless chant of "Allahu Akhbar,' as he envisions hitting the "enemy" in its soft underbelly - Jewell Elementary School, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, or your wife's workplace.

We're supposed to be BETTER than them. That's what makes us different and morally superior. If cultures can be said to be better than one another because of their accomplishments and freedoms, then how is the world you envision any better than the world of Islamofascism, where "honor killings" and clitorectomies and malignant, stifling theocracies are the watchwords?

be careful here, samsong. using peoples own login against them makes them hate you

Posted: 9/23/2005 11:01:33 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

be careful here, samsong. using peoples own login against them makes them hate you

Perhaps I'm a little dense. What the hell are you talking about?

Posted: 9/23/2005 11:06:30 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Quoted:

be careful here, samsong. using peoples own login against them makes them hate you

Perhaps I'm a little dense. What the hell are you talking about?

I think that meant to say "logic"

Posted: 9/23/2005 11:12:48 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

be careful here, samsong. using peoples own login against them makes them hate you

Perhaps I'm a little dense. What the hell are you talking about?

I think that meant to say "logic"

Apparently, I AM a little dense. I should have seen that.

Posted: 9/24/2005 12:31:19 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
There is NO innocence in WAR!

ANY MEANS NECESSARY!

+1

Collateral Damage. Expendable. Plausible Deniability.

Posted: 9/24/2005 6:01:26 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
Quoted:

Finally, what is "innocent"?
Show me an innocent. Doesn't truly exist in modern warfare. Such rules of war are to pacify and ease the collective conscience of noncombatants only. Pick up a gun and STFU.

I am totally reading you the wrong way I think. Are you in a way saying that even in Iraq, the innocents who are blown up and killed are not really innocent? Thats how the jihadists see them, not innocent and worthy of death. I think I am totally reading you wrong, but maybe not.

Everyone is another ant in the hill.
People pay taxes, they work for the gov't, they build weapons for the gov't, they support its infrastructure. Wars now are as much economic and industrial as they are military. Always were to some extent but more so in modern times.

So no, there are no innocents. From our enemy's standpoint the World Trade Center was a legitimate target. With reservations I must agree with them, it was a legit target, their plan and its execution were outstanding from a military standpoint.

The jihadists may be seeing some of the civilians they are are hitting as collaborators. Can't speak for them but that is the sense I get. We'd do the same.

Now don't get me wrong, I have no love or respect for the enemy. However, it would be foolish to underestimate them or fail to appreciate some of their tactical and strategic responses.

Posted: 9/24/2005 6:09:54 AM EDT

[#31]

Oh brother

Posted: 9/24/2005 6:13:39 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
Any means necessary.

+ whateverinthehellitsuptonow

Posted: 9/24/2005 6:17:35 AM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
Quoted:

Perhaps.
In any event, targeting women and children is different from hitting them as military targets. Anything in enemy territory is a legitimate target.
Collaborators would be high priority targets for sure.

Finally, what is "innocent"?
Show me an innocent. Doesn't truly exist in modern warfare. Such rules of war are to pacify and ease the collective conscience of noncombatants only. Pick up a gun and STFU.

You know, Dr. Jarhead, you're one of my favorite people on this site. You are right about damn-near everything under the sun.

Thanks....I think!

Except this.

You guys sound like fucking RETARDS.

Now that is not very nice. And you started out so well.

Can you even hear yourselves? You'd do EXACTLY the same shit those filthy sand monkey assholes are doing to children in Iraq? Are you fucking kidding me? Just listen to yourselves for a moment... do you hear your conscience in the background? It's whispering, "That's WRONG - don't kill innocent civilians. It's the coward's way out. It's unChristian, and immoral."

I would dispute the innocent civilian bit. We are all soldiers in a way. We all provide support and share responsibility for the actions of our gov't.

Would I target civilians? Of course not, and that I have already stated but a legit mil target remains so even with women and children in it. Plenty of examples throughout history, especially modern warfare. Firebombing Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Vietnam, etc, etc. And that is just us.
Is it more evil to cut a childs throat or drop bombs on them that vaporize or burn alive thousands?

Now certainly I am not advocating that but drawing a comparison.

You guys are defacto supporters of the evil Islamofascists with this kind of nonsense talk. If you're no better than the enemy, then what are you?

Not supporting them at all. I would like to kill them all. They are the enemy. They are my enemy, the enemy of my wife and children, the enemy of my nation.
Maybe I am no better than they. What does that mean though? That I am scum or that they are the dehumanized enemy and in reality have less difference from all of us than we are willing to own up to. We are all capable of horrible things. All of us. Anyone who does nto believe that is either a sheep or hasn't been pushed hard enough.

know many will attack me because I post this. That's OK. For you folks that say, "anything goes," just imagine some shitheel Islamofascist, whacked out on crank, loading his AK mags to the mindless chant of "Allahu Akhbar,' as he envisions hitting the "enemy" in its soft underbelly - Jewell Elementary School, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, or your wife's workplace.

And that is different from an errant bomb hitting a civilian target how?
I can tell you if they blew up a school here thinking it was a military facility we are not going to give them a pass, nor are they.

We're supposed to be BETTER than them.

Well, BETTER is a relative term, is it not.
Maybe we are not. Maybe no one is.

That's what makes us different and morally superior. If cultures can be said to be better than one another because of their accomplishments and freedoms, then how is the world you envision any better than the world of Islamofascism, where "honor killings" and clitorectomies and malignant, stifling theocracies are the watchwords?

We hold many views that they would disagree with.
Now I choose to live my life differently from them and to try to change the world for the better. They have a different view of that for sure.

I do not support them or their activites but from an objective standpoint I can step back and logically consider their option, actions and motivations.

Posted: 9/24/2005 6:30:54 AM EDT

[#34]

Don't think I'd ever shoot children. Unless it was an obvious case of one pointing a gun at me, and it's me or him. Even then I'm sure I'd feel terrible about it for a long time.

These are supposed to be the days of equal rights, so if a woman picks up a gun, well then she can die like a man.

Posted: 9/24/2005 6:34:18 AM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

No, war is never justified.

Well, war isn't always justified. Sometimes war is a product of stupid, greedy politicians. Stupid, greedy politicians will surely be the cause of WWIII.

Posted: 9/24/2005 6:40:44 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
Don't think I'd ever shoot children. Unless it was an obvious case of one pointing a gun at me, and it's me or him.

Consider that children are frequently used by the enemy to carry explosive devices to within range of you and your comrades. Now one is walking up and refuses to halt when ordered. What are you going to do?

I think the answer is obvious.

Even then I'm sure I'd feel terrible about it for a long time.

No doubt.

Posted: 9/24/2005 8:30:25 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
Quoted:

be careful here, samsong. using peoples own login against them makes them hate you

Perhaps I'm a little dense. What the hell are you talking about?

login? yeah that is pretty wierd sounding. i certainly meant logic.

Posted: 9/25/2005 5:53:55 AM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:

I know many will attack me because I post this. That's OK. For you folks that say, "anything goes," just imagine some shitheel Islamofascist, whacked out on crank, loading his AK mags to the mindless chant of "Allahu Akhbar,' as he envisions hitting the "enemy" in its soft underbelly - Jewell Elementary School, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, or your wife's workplace.

We're supposed to be BETTER than them. That's what makes us different and morally superior. If cultures can be said to be better than one another because of their accomplishments and freedoms, then how is the world you envision any better than the world of Islamofascism, where "honor killings" and clitorectomies and malignant, stifling theocracies are the watchwords?

If it were up to you would you have done the following:

1) Fire-bombed Japanese and German cities killing men, women and children.

2) Dropped both atomic bombs killing men, women and children.

Posted: 9/25/2005 9:18:21 AM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
The question presumes grim extremity. Put more pointedly, it might go like this:

The US has been invaded by EU troops. As the bridgehead advances, they consolidate their hold in what are judged to be pacified areas. You are in a "pacified" area. Your cell leader gives directions to a gated community 2 miles from your home, and explains that the wives, children, and parents of the officers and senior noncoms of the invader force are quartered there. You are instructed to take a detail of 25 men and kill as many of the residents of the gated community, ranging from newborns to 96 years of age, as possible. What will you do?

My thought on this one would be not to kill but to abduct as many of the high profile dependents as possible and start talking prisoner exchanges, distributing supplies to local populace, etc. You could always kill them later but you might be able to get something out of the situation except a big pile of bodies.

Posted: 9/25/2005 9:38:07 AM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
Quoted:
The question presumes grim extremity. Put more pointedly, it might go like this:

The US has been invaded by EU troops. As the bridgehead advances, they consolidate their hold in what are judged to be pacified areas. You are in a "pacified" area. Your cell leader gives directions to a gated community 2 miles from your home, and explains that the wives, children, and parents of the officers and senior noncoms of the invader force are quartered there. You are instructed to take a detail of 25 men and kill as many of the residents of the gated community, ranging from newborns to 96 years of age, as possible. What will you do?

My thought on this one would be not to kill but to abduct as many of the high profile dependents as possible and start talking prisoner exchanges, distributing supplies to local populace, etc. You could always kill them later but you might be able to get something out of the situation except a big pile of bodies.

Very unlikely to be able to plan such a raid and get out with hostages. If they were in individual homes, yes, but not in a compound which is guarded.

Anyhow, my answer to such an order would be no.
It is an illegal order and would not benefit my cause but instead that of the enemy.

However, that is different from attacking the compound for it's militray value and destroying everything. Just a matter of intent, I guess.

Posted: 9/25/2005 10:32:23 AM EDT

[#41]

Is it just me, or is this question designed to elicit a lot of "any means necessary" answers, then take that as justification to what the terrorists are doing in Iraq?

Posted: 9/25/2005 10:50:44 AM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
Any means necessary.

+1

But by using any means necessary to expel an invading army I would be considered a "terrorist".

Posted: 9/25/2005 10:55:59 AM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
This will probably get me a through-the-net beating, but I wouldn't resort to some of the actions mentioned in the post. I'm an American and as such I'll hold myself to the same standards our troops are expected to fight under. I'd target combatants, of course, and installed government officers and such if it were beneficial. I'd target rear echelon and support operations but would try to minimize casualties as much as possible. If it's impossible but the target must be destroyed, fine. But I'll do what I can to fight honorably. To my mind, "never fight fair" means take every advantage you can against an enemy- but I don't consider it to mean "target women and children and commit atrocities".

As a christian, I would do whatever I could to try to avoid losing God's blessing and protection.

Plus, I will not fight like a jihaadi.

Hey bub, War is a fucking atrocity.

Posted: 9/25/2005 11:09:12 AM EDT

[#44]

I'd have no problems setting up booby traps that targeted the soldiers, but I would not harm the non-combatants even if they were dumb enough to come live in the war zone
if you're willing to harm the wife and kids you're no fucking different from the terrorists in Iraq and the Palestinians
2 groups that members here bitch about with racial and ethnic slurs on a daily basis

Posted: 9/25/2005 11:26:40 AM EDT

[#45]

Preferably military targets only. Snipers will convince the enemy that it's a bad idea to have officers or anyone who looks vaguely important out in the open. IED's and booby-traps will confine them to areas they think are safe. Any and all supply convoys will be attacked; if I can't take it for myself, I destroy it.

Civilians... I wouldn't lower myself to murdering children or family members, but if killing a contractor or two working for the military (or at least just scaring the shit out of them) hinders the military invasion, so be it.

Prisoners would be held as negotiation pieces. It is unlikely they would be executed, except in situations like the one in Red Dawn: can't afford to take prisoners, can't let them go. And it would be a swift, painless death, not some disgusting display of savage barbarism where they're tortured, beheaded, or disemboweled.

Doesn't mean the body wouldn't be found hanging from a lamppost though. Psychological warfare is an unfortunate necessity.

I would not lower myself to the hideous levels the terrorists in the Middle East find perfectly acceptable, but I would do what I believed necessary to end an invasion of my beloved nation and its freedoms.

I'm horribly mangling the quote, but here goes: "There are times when man must disguise fair nature with terrible rage, and his countenance with fierceness."

Posted: 9/25/2005 11:47:47 AM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
Civilians... I wouldn't lower myself to murdering children or family members, but if killing a contractor or two working for the military (or at least just scaring the shit out of them) hinders the military invasion, so be it.

Considering the scenario on the table, ANYBODY who picks up arms against me is an enemy.

They will be treated same as the invading mil.

Posted: 9/25/2005 5:33:05 PM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Civilians... I wouldn't lower myself to murdering children or family members, but if killing a contractor or two working for the military (or at least just scaring the shit out of them) hinders the military invasion, so be it.

Considering the scenario on the table, ANYBODY who picks up arms against me is an enemy.

They will be treated same as the invading mil.

Indeed.

Posted: 9/25/2005 6:05:59 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Civilians... I wouldn't lower myself to murdering children or family members, but if killing a contractor or two working for the military (or at least just scaring the shit out of them) hinders the military invasion, so be it.

Considering the scenario on the table, ANYBODY who picks up arms against me is an enemy.

They will be treated same as the invading mil.

Indeed.

I don't know why, but your reply conjures up in my mind some Sherlock Holmes looking dude. He puffs on the stem of his pipe, removes it from his mouth, blows out the smoke, and says, "Indeed."

Very proper.

HAHA!

EDIT: Swindle, is this you?

Posted: 9/25/2005 6:31:19 PM EDT

[#49]

"We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender." -- Winston Churchill

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse." -- John Stuart Mill

"The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his." -- George S. Patton

"The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men." -- Samuel Adams

"It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived." George S. Patton

Posted: 9/25/2005 6:56:06 PM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:
No women, no kids.

Awesome movie.

Even if it does star a frenchy =)

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - So The Invading Army Thread Got Me Thinking... What Tactics Would You Lower Yourself to in Order... (Page 2 of 3)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us