What works in Military Strategy

[Rickshaw]

[This was previously posted in the thread Diemert's Defender in the Postwar Aircraft Projects forum but really doesn't belong there, so starting a new thread here]

As for breaking stuff, killing people to "break the enemy's will" I would point you to the failures of where maximum casualties were sought in the strategic bombing campaigns of WWII. They failed dismally to "break the enemy's will".

Yeah, but they broke the enemies *stuff.*

Which failed to defeat them. Amazingly, BTW their production actually increased during the height of the bombing of industry, rather than decreased.

So, killing them failed to break their will.
So, breaking their "stuff" failed to break their will.

What broke their will was military forces fighting their way to their political centre and destroying their government...

And stuff like ethnic wars (Hutus/Tutsis, frex) are all about maximising casualties.

That was not a war, that was a genocide. Perhaps you need to consult a dictionary as to the meaning of words?

Really?

Yes. it was characterised by a lack of formal fighting, consisting of planned massacre of innocents. It also, BTW, singularly failed to break the will of the groups which were their victims.

Given that one of the Nazis goal was the extermination of the Slavs, is it your contention that Germany was *not* waging war against the Soviet Union?

That was a minor political objective of the German effort on the Eastern Front, not a military one and which diverted resources and time from the real battle facing the Germans and of course ensured that the "hearts and minds" of their victims were never going to support the German war effort but detract from it.

How about the Bangladesh Liberation War of '71, where the Pakistani leadership planned to exterminate the Bengali Hindus?

Civil war and a post ipso justification by the Indians for their objective of breaking up Pakistan so they were not continually fighting on two fronts. By installing a Muslim government sympathetic to India, they made sure they only faced one enemy, not two.

"War" and "genocide" are not mutually exclusive concepts. Sometimes wholesale extermination is part and parcel of war planning.

War and Genocide are I agree not always mutually exclusive but in modern, post-WWII history their joint employment has been without an exception a failure.

Kill large numbers on either side and resentment sets in and grudges created.

To which the historically usual response has been "yeah, so?"

You appear to have forgotten ...

... nothing. I'm simply pointing out history: most of the time, for the last 6,000 years, people running wars tend to not care if they annoy the enemy populace.


"Tend" does not mean it is universal. Those military commanders who did care about it are the ones whom are usually most looked up to, compared to the others who were considered brutal and tyrannical.

As for Vietnam, it was the military men who ran that war and devised the strategy of attrition, not the politicians.

And yet it was Congress that chose to not aid South Viet Nam in April of 1975.

The South was well supplied by April 1975. That decision did not cause it's downfall. It is merely another "stab in the back" excuse. The South's government was deeply unpopular and lacked support from the majority of the population. It was generally seen as a corrupt, tyrannical and neo-Colonial organisation. The Communists OTOH were perceived as the only legitimate Nationalist force which had seen off both the French and the Americans. 1975 was the delayed outcome of 1954. America had simply put off the inevitable and failed dismally to secure it's political objectives.

The USA made the mistake of fighting the wrong enemy in the wrong war for the wrong objectives.

And yet while the US was slogging through VN, the Soviets did not spen as much effort on expansion as they had previously... no doubt in at least part due to their recognition that Americans were willign to spend blood and treasure to stop communism. And when the US demonstrated that it *wouldn't* step in to stop communist expansion, the Soviets up and invaded Afghanistan.

Mmm, see what I mean about "fighting the wrong enemy in the wrong war for the wrong objectives"?

The USA believed it was ultimately fighting against the Kremlin in Vietnam, not the local Vietnamese Communist nationalist forces. As the Kremlin did not control the fighting in Vietnam, the American effort was nearly pointless. The Kremlin utilised the Vietnamese Communist nationalist forces to hold American attention and waste American lives and lucre.

Americans had, still have this insane belief that Communism was a monolithic political ideology which was under the direction of the fUSSR from Moscow (and yet managed to identify China and even earlier, Yugoslavia as independent nations from that "Bloc'" monolith). It was not, it was always a loosely aligned group of independent (some considerably more so than others, such as in Eastern Europe) nations), each with their own national aspirations and interests. If the US had not backed the French, Vietnam could have been the Yugoslavia of Asia. Instead McCarthyism drove the US to adopt a hardline against Communism there, while at the same time accepting an independent, neutral Communist Yugoslavia. Such are the contradictions in American foreign policy.

So, to return to the original point, "breaking stuff" and "killing people" is not what military strategy is primarily about. Military Strategy is about defeating the enemy to achieve political objectives and preferably with the least casualties on both sides. From Sun Tzu through Clausewitz to Liddel-Hart, this is a common string.

“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

“The greatest victory is that which requires no battle.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

“To win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

"In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it."
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

"Do not interfere with an army that is returning home. When you surround an army, leave an outlet free. Do not press a desperate foe too hard."
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

"War is thus an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will."
- Clausewitze, On War

"War is merely the continuation of policy by other means."
- Clausewitze, On War

"No one starts a war-or rather, no one in his senses ought to do so - without first being clear in his mind what he intends to achieve by that war and how he intends to conduct it."
- Clausewitze, On War

"The military weapon is but one of the means that serve the purposes of war: one out of the assortment which grand strategy can employ."
- Liddel-Hart, Strategy

"While there are many causes for which a state goes to war, its fundamental object can be epitomized as that of ensuring the continuance of its policy -- in face of the determination of the opposing state to pursue a contrary policy. In the human will lies the source and mainspring of conflict."
- Liddel-Hart, Strategy

"It is thus more potent, as well as more economical, to disarm the enemy than to attempt his destruction by hard fighting ... A strategist should think in terms of paralysing, not of killing."
- Liddel-Hart, Strategy

"The higher level of grand strategy [is] that of conducting war with a far-sighted regard to the state of the peace that will follow. "
- Liddel-Hart, Strategy

"Inflict the least possible permanent injury, for the enemy of to-day is the customer of the morrow and the ally of the future "
- Liddel-Hart, Strategy

 

[Orionblamblam]

"Tend" does not mean it is universal. Those military commanders who did care about it are the ones whom are usually most looked up to, compared to the others who were considered brutal and tyrannical.

And yet Caesar and Genghis Khan will be remembered forever.

Look, it *sounds* nice to yammer on about trying to be minimally damaging, but it's the forces that are best at the job of destroying the enemy that are more likely to win. WWII was not won by sparing the rod, but instead by throwing masses of pissed off Russians at Germany and nukes at the Japanese. The American War of Southern Aggression was won in part because Sherman burned a good chunk of the South right down to the ground. In contrast, wars like Korea and Iraq (I and II) and Afghanistan III were characterized by "restraint," and also by "lack of victory." Julius Caser woulda nuked 'em. Khan woulda nuked 'em, then eaten the survivors.

As for VN hav ing been the "wrong war" re: communism... what would have been the "right war?" VN, as pointed out, slowed the Kremlins advance across the world. Who cares if communism wasn't monolithic and entirely controlled from Moscow? Nobody gave a crap about saving the world from being conquered by *Yugoslavian* communism. Putting the brakes on Moscow? That was kinda important. Had the US simply let the commies steamroll South VN in the mid-60's, what would be next? Cambodia? Laos? Thailand? Indonesia? Australia? Which would've been "the right war?" An alternate history with no real VN war might result in a world with a triumphant Soviet empire.

 

[Rickshaw]

"Tend" does not mean it is universal. Those military commanders who did care about it are the ones whom are usually most looked up to, compared to the others who were considered brutal and tyrannical.

And yet Caesar and Genghis Khan will be remembered forever.

And they will be remembered beste because of, their brutality or their strategic acumen?

Look, it *sounds* nice to yammer on about trying to be minimally damaging, but it's the forces that are best at the job of destroying the enemy that are more likely to win. WWII was not won by sparing the rod, but instead by throwing masses of pissed off Russians at Germany and nukes at the Japanese. The American War of Southern Aggression was won in part because Sherman burned a good chunk of the South right down to the ground. In contrast, wars like Korea and Iraq (I and II) and Afghanistan III were characterized by "restraint," and also by "lack of victory." Julius Caser woulda nuked 'em. Khan woulda nuked 'em, then eaten the survivors.

It does not sound nice, it is sensible. As I've pointed out, the one strategy which was predicated completely upon "killing people" and "breaking things" and which was designed to "break the enemy's will" was strategic bombing. It failed dismally to break the enemy's will. Germany and Japan were both willing and prepared to fight on until those Russian troops won the war in Europe and the USA threw a completely new, different weapon into the mix and even then, it was only by a hair's whisker that two atomic weapons achieve the objective sought.

As for VN hav ing been the "wrong war" re: communism... what would have been the "right war?"

One which was fought for the right reasons, obviously. The belief that Hanoi was under the thumb of the Kremlin was simplistic and stereotypical. Why Hanoi could not be treated the same way as Yugoslavia was has always made me wonder about how rational Washington's policies were during the Cold War.

VN, as pointed out, slowed the Kremlins advance across the world.

What advance? The Kremlin actually wasn't interested in "advancing across the world". Such a statement assumes that Communism was monolithic and under central direction. Most Communist revolutions occurred despite the Kremlin's instructions, not because of them. If it was so effective at slowing this supposed advance, why didn't it stop the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968?

Who cares if communism wasn't monolithic and entirely controlled from Moscow? Nobody gave a crap about saving the world from being conquered by *Yugoslavian* communism. Putting the brakes on Moscow? That was kinda important. Had the US simply let the commies steamroll South VN in the mid-60's, what would be next? Cambodia? Laos? Thailand? Indonesia? Australia? Which would've been "the right war?" An alternate history with no real VN war might result in a world with a triumphant Soviet empire.

You are still living in the Cold War and have not taken notice of the revelations which flowed from the collapse of the Soviet Union. Today we know that the Kremlin was busy trying to not get involved in fomenting revolution around the world. Local revolutionaries though, refused to listen and the few Communist revolutions that did occur, occurred usually outside the formal Communist Party structures in those nations. As to who cares, perhaps you should, afterall if your government made such massive mistakes then, why can't it make the same mistakes now? Iraq have any parallels in your mind with Vietnam?

 

[Orionblamblam]

And yet Caesar and Genghis Khan will be remembered forever.

And they will be remembered beste because of, their brutality or their strategic acumen?

They will be remembered as conquerers. *Successful* conquerers. And that's the point.

It does not sound nice, it is sensible.

And yet Pax Romana lasted longer than anything we can point to in recent history.

As for VN hav ing been the "wrong war" re: communism... what would have been the "right war?"

One which was fought for the right reasons, obviously.

Stopping communism was always a good reason.

The Kremlin actually wasn't interested in "advancing across the world".

Thank you, Mr. Duranty.

Such a statement assumes that Communism was monolithic and under central direction.

No, it does not.

Most Communist revolutions occurred despite the Kremlin's instructions, not because of them. If it was so effective at slowing this supposed advance, why didn't it stop the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968?

The Czechs were already in the Soviet sphere in 1968. How could you have missed that?

You are still living in the Cold War ...

Yawn.

 

[Rickshaw]

And yet Caesar and Genghis Khan will be remembered forever.

And they will be remembered beste because of, their brutality or their strategic acumen?

They will be remembered as conquerers. *Successful* conquerers. And that's the point.

And tyrants and melglomaniacs. Ceasar was killed because of his tyranical rule. Chingiz died because he had conquered all he could imagine.

It does not sound nice, it is sensible.

And yet Pax Romana lasted longer than anything we can point to in recent history.

And in the end no one would support it, so it was destroyed from within by social decay and from without by more vigorous societies.

Simply "killing people" and "breaking stuff" didn't work.

As for VN hav ing been the "wrong war" re: communism... what would have been the "right war?"

One which was fought for the right reasons, obviously.

Stopping communism was always a good reason.

Not according to the Vietnamese.

The Kremlin actually wasn't interested in "advancing across the world".

Thank you, Mr. Duranty.

Any time. It appears you need the obvious pointed out to you. I'm here all week, you're welcome to come back any time.

Such a statement assumes that Communism was monolithic and under central direction.

No, it does not.

I differ.

Most Communist revolutions occurred despite the Kremlin's instructions, not because of them. If it was so effective at slowing this supposed advance, why didn't it stop the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968?

The Czechs were already in the Soviet sphere in 1968. How could you have missed that?

The Czechs weren't doing what the Kremlin told them, effectively removing themselves from Kremlin control. How could you have missed that?

You are still living in the Cold War ...

Yawn.

Marvellous rebuttal.

You appear to have learnt little from the end of the Cold War.

 

[Orionblamblam]

They will be remembered as conquerers. *Successful* conquerers. And that's the point.

And tyrants and melhlomaniacs. Ceasar was killed because of his tyranical rule. Chingiz died because he had conquered all he could imagine.

Irrelevant. Note the title for the thread that you yourself chose: "What works." Not "what gets good PR for a historically brief period of time."

And yet Pax Romana lasted longer than anything we can point to in recent history.

And in the end no one would support it, so it was destroyed from within by social decay and from without by more vigorous societies.

Once again, irrelevant. The romans conquered themselves one hell of an empire by slaughter. They failed to keep it by a whole raft of reasons, most having nothing to do with what a nasty guy Julius Caesar was.

Stopping communism was always a good reason.

Not according to the Vietnamese.

Yeah, an "stopping fascism" was the wrong reason for WWII... according to the Nazis.

Most Communist revolutions occurred despite the Kremlin's instructions, not because of them. If it was so effective at slowing this supposed advance, why didn't it stop the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968?

The Czechs were already in the Soviet sphere in 1968. How could you have missed that?

The Czechs weren't doing what the Kremlin told them, effectively removing themselves from Kremlin control. How could you have missed that?

Once again, the point *zoomed* right past you. The Czechs were *already* in the Soviet sphere, had been since shortly after WWII. And thus the Soviets sending in the troops would *not* be expansion on the Soviets part. This is pretty basic stuff here.

You are still living in the Cold War ...

Yawn.

Marvellous rebuttal.

All that is required for such obvious troll bait.

 

[bobbymike]

OBB - I am squarely in your 'strategic' camp. The problem with this thread is that the topic is so vast, there are literally libraries fully of books on the subject that KM keeps changing the premise and rationale for asking the original question all seen through his lens of 20/20 hindsight.

KM I would suggest a sprinkle of Livy, Plutarch, Herodotus and Polybius for some perspective on historical strategy.

 

[Orionblamblam]

KM I would suggest a sprinkle of Livy, Plutarch, Herodotus and Polybius for some perspective on historical strategy.

the thing often lost is the understanding that "What my culture thinks is right" defines not only a small portion of the world toay, but an even smaller portion of the world throughout history. Wiping out the enemy wholesale, to the level we'd call genocide, has been a pretty popular pasttime of the warring type since, well, ever. And it's not that far in our own cultural past: you only need to go back to the Cold War to see war planning that involved planning on the nuclear *extinction* of the enemy. Currently, the Israelies have lived under the shadow of extermination for prit near seventy years. The middle east as a whole is under the sway of movements that call for the conversion or extermination of "everyone who believes differently than us." Do such strategies "work?" Well, look at the world. How many stable (or sorta-stable) nations are built on the wreckage of cultures that were invaded and crushed, ethnic groups that were basically wiped from existence? Mexico is full of Spanish speaking people living on the ruins of Aztec cities. The US is loaded with hunderds of millions of descendants of Europeans and Africans and Asians... and not near so many "injuns." Japan used to belong to the Ainu... no longer. Australia... well, it's not exactly being run by the Aborigines. In Britaina, the "Druid" culture was knocked down by the pagan Romans, who were in turn replaced by Romans who had been taken over by the Christian culture, who were then taken over by Norman and Saxon invaders. And seen any Neanderthalls lately?

Cultures and ethnic groups have replaced other cultures and ethnic groups with regularity throughout history, often quite violently, and quite successfully. Despite the modern fad for feeling bad about such things, there's no reason to assume that the future is going to be fundamentally different from the past in this regard.

 

[bobbymike]

KM I would suggest a sprinkle of Livy, Plutarch, Herodotus and Polybius for some perspective on historical strategy.

the thing often lost is the understanding that "What my culture thinks is right" defines not only a small portion of the world toay, but an even smaller portion of the world throughout history. Wiping out the enemy wholesale, to the level we'd call genocide, has been a pretty popular pasttime of the warring type since, well, ever. And it's not that far in our own cultural past: you only need to go back to the Cold War to see war planning that involved planning on the nuclear *extinction* of the enemy. Currently, the Israelies have lived under the shadow of extermination for prit near seventy years. The middle east as a whole is under the sway of movements that call for the conversion or extermination of "everyone who believes differently than us." Do such strategies "work?" Well, look at the world. How many stable (or sorta-stable) nations are built on the wreckage of cultures that were invaded and crushed, ethnic groups that were basically wiped from existence? Mexico is full of Spanish speaking people living on the ruins of Aztec cities. The US is loaded with hunderds of millions of descendants of Europeans and Africans and Asians... and not near so many "injuns." Japan used to belong to the Ainu... no longer. Australia... well, it's not exactly being run by the Aborigines. In Britaina, the "Druid" culture was knocked down by the pagan Romans, who were in turn replaced by Romans who had been taken over by the Christian culture, who were then taken over by Norman and Saxon invaders. And seen any Neanderthalls lately?

Cultures and ethnic groups have replaced other cultures and ethnic groups with regularity throughout history, often quite violently, and quite successfully. Despite the modern fad for feeling bad about such things, there's no reason to assume that the future is going to be fundamentally different from the past in this regard.

And as you rightly point out there are 'certain' cultures that would love to eradicate the West and very few 'in the West' seem to take this seriously.

 

[Rickshaw]

They will be remembered as conquerers. *Successful* conquerers. And that's the point.

And tyrants and melhlomaniacs. Ceasar was killed because of his tyranical rule. Chingiz died because he had conquered all he could imagine.

Irrelevant. Note the title for the thread that you yourself chose: "What works." Not "what gets good PR for a historically brief period of time."

So, you think that building on sand was a useful exercise. Compare that to the Chinese Empire which lasted 3,000+ years. Obviously Sun Tzu and his successors knew what they were doing when they used restraint and didn't simply "kill people" and "break things".

And yet Pax Romana lasted longer than anything we can point to in recent history.

And in the end no one would support it, so it was destroyed from within by social decay and from without by more vigorous societies.

Once again, irrelevant. The romans conquered themselves one hell of an empire by slaughter. They failed to keep it by a whole raft of reasons, most having nothing to do with what a nasty guy Julius Caesar was.


Not irrelevant but accurate. There were several other empires which lasted longer than the Roman one, even if the Eastern Roman Empire is included in your comment.

Stopping communism was always a good reason.

Not according to the Vietnamese.

Yeah, an "stopping fascism" was the wrong reason for WWII... according to the Nazis.

Not quite the same thing and you would realise that if you understood politics better. Only a minority of Germans voted for the Nazis. An overwhelming majority of the Vietnamese wanted the Communists - something President Eisenhower remarked upon when he decided to prevent the elections which the 1954 Geneva Accords required. Interference from Washington was the reason why the second Indochina War broke out.

Most Communist revolutions occurred despite the Kremlin's instructions, not because of them. If it was so effective at slowing this supposed advance, why didn't it stop the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968?

The Czechs were already in the Soviet sphere in 1968. How could you have missed that?

The Czechs weren't doing what the Kremlin told them, effectively removing themselves from Kremlin control. How could you have missed that?

Once again, the point *zoomed* right past you. The Czechs were *already* in the Soviet sphere, had been since shortly after WWII. And thus the Soviets sending in the troops would *not* be expansion on the Soviets part. This is pretty basic stuff here.


Obvious the Prague Spring passed you by it appears. Not surprising really.

You are still living in the Cold War ...

Yawn.

Marvellous rebuttal.

All that is required for such obvious troll bait.


If I am a "troll" then why have I rebutted you point by point. I suspect you believe anybody who disagrees with you is a "troll". :

 

[Rickshaw]

KM I would suggest a sprinkle of Livy, Plutarch, Herodotus and Polybius for some perspective on historical strategy.

They merely are descriptive of military campaigns (and often not terribly accurate either). At best, they tell you how the campaigns were conducted, invariably at the grand tactical level rather than the strategic. They provide little insight into the thinking, the "why" the commanders did what they did. Compared to the greats like Sun Tzu, von Clausewitz and Liddell Hart, they are pretty useless in understanding strategy.

 

[Rickshaw]

KM I would suggest a sprinkle of Livy, Plutarch, Herodotus and Polybius for some perspective on historical strategy.

the thing often lost is the understanding that "What my culture thinks is right" defines not only a small portion of the world toay, but an even smaller portion of the world throughout history. Wiping out the enemy wholesale, to the level we'd call genocide, has been a pretty popular pasttime of the warring type since, well, ever. And it's not that far in our own cultural past: you only need to go back to the Cold War to see war planning that involved planning on the nuclear *extinction* of the enemy. Currently, the Israelies have lived under the shadow of extermination for prit near seventy years. The middle east as a whole is under the sway of movements that call for the conversion or extermination of "everyone who believes differently than us." Do such strategies "work?" Well, look at the world. How many stable (or sorta-stable) nations are built on the wreckage of cultures that were invaded and crushed, ethnic groups that were basically wiped from existence? Mexico is full of Spanish speaking people living on the ruins of Aztec cities. The US is loaded with hunderds of millions of descendants of Europeans and Africans and Asians... and not near so many "injuns." Japan used to belong to the Ainu... no longer. Australia... well, it's not exactly being run by the Aborigines. In Britaina, the "Druid" culture was knocked down by the pagan Romans, who were in turn replaced by Romans who had been taken over by the Christian culture, who were then taken over by Norman and Saxon invaders. And seen any Neanderthalls lately?

Cultures and ethnic groups have replaced other cultures and ethnic groups with regularity throughout history, often quite violently, and quite successfully. Despite the modern fad for feeling bad about such things, there's no reason to assume that the future is going to be fundamentally different from the past in this regard.

And as you rightly point out there are 'certain' cultures that would love to eradicate the West and very few 'in the West' seem to take this seriously.

Individuals, certainly. Groups, definitely but entire cultures? You exaggerate. Care to name names? Is it the Indians? The Chinese? The Africans? The Australians? The New Zealanders?

Or are you with your thinly veiled bigotry suggesting a particular religion what you're referring to? :

 

[Orionblamblam]

Obvious the Prague Spring passed you by it appears.

This sort of makes my point for me. Thanks for playing.

 

[pathology_doc]

Bigotry? No, it's the religion in whose name a British soldier was hacked to death in broad daylight; in whose name a bunch of nutcases crashed planes full of terrified passengers into buildings; in whose name schoolgirls are shot in the head for speaking their minds and their schools blown up; in whose name pre-teen rape victims are stoned to death and those who would rescue them shot; etc. etc. etc.


There is no need for "bigotry" from non-Muslims when Islam so consistently makes its own bad press. Now if only the horde of "moderates" we hear about, the "peaceful silent majority", would do something about the supposedly tiny proportion of crazies in their midst. Is their silence fear... or approval? You decide.

 

[bobbymike]

KM I would suggest a sprinkle of Livy, Plutarch, Herodotus and Polybius for some perspective on historical strategy.

the thing often lost is the understanding that "What my culture thinks is right" defines not only a small portion of the world toay, but an even smaller portion of the world throughout history. Wiping out the enemy wholesale, to the level we'd call genocide, has been a pretty popular pasttime of the warring type since, well, ever. And it's not that far in our own cultural past: you only need to go back to the Cold War to see war planning that involved planning on the nuclear *extinction* of the enemy. Currently, the Israelies have lived under the shadow of extermination for prit near seventy years. The middle east as a whole is under the sway of movements that call for the conversion or extermination of "everyone who believes differently than us." Do such strategies "work?" Well, look at the world. How many stable (or sorta-stable) nations are built on the wreckage of cultures that were invaded and crushed, ethnic groups that were basically wiped from existence? Mexico is full of Spanish speaking people living on the ruins of Aztec cities. The US is loaded with hunderds of millions of descendants of Europeans and Africans and Asians... and not near so many "injuns." Japan used to belong to the Ainu... no longer. Australia... well, it's not exactly being run by the Aborigines. In Britaina, the "Druid" culture was knocked down by the pagan Romans, who were in turn replaced by Romans who had been taken over by the Christian culture, who were then taken over by Norman and Saxon invaders. And seen any Neanderthalls lately?

Cultures and ethnic groups have replaced other cultures and ethnic groups with regularity throughout history, often quite violently, and quite successfully. Despite the modern fad for feeling bad about such things, there's no reason to assume that the future is going to be fundamentally different from the past in this regard.

And as you rightly point out there are 'certain' cultures that would love to eradicate the West and very few 'in the West' seem to take this seriously.

Individuals, certainly. Groups, definitely but entire cultures? You exaggerate. Care to name names? Is it the Indians? The Chinese? The Africans? The Australians? The New Zealanders?

Or are you with your thinly veiled bigotry suggesting a particular religion what you're referring to? :

Didn't realize those were cultures define for me the African, Australian or New Zealand 'culture'? Africa from Egypt to Nigeria to South Africa not some homogeneous 'culture' or is that your 'thinly veiled bigotry'

And yes Islam is more a culture then a religion as it seek subjugation of the culture, of politics of everything into itself kind of like the Borg. Submit to Islam or be killed or enslaved.

Be careful with words like 'bigot' there buddy!

 

[Rickshaw]

Bigotry? No, it's the religion in whose name a British soldier was hacked to death in broad daylight; in whose name a bunch of nutcases crashed planes full of terrified passengers into buildings; in whose name schoolgirls are shot in the head for speaking their minds and their schools blown up; in whose name pre-teen rape victims are stoned to death and those who would rescue them shot; etc. etc. etc.


There is no need for "bigotry" from non-Muslims when Islam so consistently makes its own bad press. Now if only the horde of "moderates" we hear about, the "peaceful silent majority", would do something about the supposedly tiny proportion of crazies in their midst. Is their silence fear... or approval? You decide.

This I fear will stray the thread even further. Islam has many different interpretations. It is rent with schisms. You seem to think that the Islam of the extremists is the Islam of the mainstream.

You seem to think that the Takfiri Islamists speak for the majority of Muslims and that their interpretation of Islam is the only valid one. In doing so, you've given them the greatest victory they will ever attain - inside your head. You've decided that rather than listen to the mainstream, moderate viewpoint it's easier to erect a caricature of a monolithic religion because that's the one they've built up in your mind.

The mainstream, the main victims of the extremists are your silent majority. As for them doing nothing, they do a great deal but it's not spectacular, it's not loud and it's not flashy. They're the ones who quietly go about their business, rejecting the message of the Takfiri Islamists but they don't get any credit for it.

For every extremist who hacks a soldier to death in London there are literally millions who sit at home and quietly resist the extremists yet they get no credit for it.

There are bad Muslims but there are vastly greater number of good Muslims. Perhaps you should think about them for a change instead of letting the Takfiri do your thinking for you? :

 

[Rickshaw]

Be careful with words like 'bigot' there buddy!

I am very careful with my language. I see you slid away from naming names. Thanks for proving my point for me.

 

[Orionblamblam]

You seem to think that the Takfiri Islamists speak for the majority of Muslims and that their interpretation of Islam is the only valid one.

Pew has done polling of attitudes in the "Muslim world." Some interesting results, worthy of note.

For every extremist who hacks a soldier to death in London there are literally millions who sit at home and quietly resist the extremists yet they get no credit for it.

And for every extremist who hacks a soldier to death in London, how many others sit at home quiely and *agree* with the extremists? Not exactly the same, but the percentages who believe that suicide bombings to "defend Islam" are justifiable are disturbingly high:

There are bad Muslims but there are vastly greater number of good Muslims.

There were more "good Germans" than actual Nazi party members. There were more "good Russians/Cubans/Chinese/etc." than members of the Communist Party. In fact, it's interesting to see just what percentage of local populations were members of the Communist or Nazi parties... it really doesn't take a majority or even a necessarily large minority to turn a culture or a nation into a monster.

 

[bobbymike]

Be careful with words like 'bigot' there buddy!

I am very careful with my language. I see you slid away from naming names. Thanks for proving my point for me.

KM I would suggest a sprinkle of Livy, Plutarch, Herodotus and Polybius for some perspective on historical strategy.

the thing often lost is the understanding that "What my culture thinks is right" defines not only a small portion of the world toay, but an even smaller portion of the world throughout history. Wiping out the enemy wholesale, to the level we'd call genocide, has been a pretty popular pasttime of the warring type since, well, ever. And it's not that far in our own cultural past: you only need to go back to the Cold War to see war planning that involved planning on the nuclear *extinction* of the enemy. Currently, the Israelies have lived under the shadow of extermination for prit near seventy years. The middle east as a whole is under the sway of movements that call for the conversion or extermination of "everyone who believes differently than us." Do such strategies "work?" Well, look at the world. How many stable (or sorta-stable) nations are built on the wreckage of cultures that were invaded and crushed, ethnic groups that were basically wiped from existence? Mexico is full of Spanish speaking people living on the ruins of Aztec cities. The US is loaded with hunderds of millions of descendants of Europeans and Africans and Asians... and not near so many "injuns." Japan used to belong to the Ainu... no longer. Australia... well, it's not exactly being run by the Aborigines. In Britaina, the "Druid" culture was knocked down by the pagan Romans, who were in turn replaced by Romans who had been taken over by the Christian culture, who were then taken over by Norman and Saxon invaders. And seen any Neanderthalls lately?

Cultures and ethnic groups have replaced other cultures and ethnic groups with regularity throughout history, often quite violently, and quite successfully. Despite the modern fad for feeling bad about such things, there's no reason to assume that the future is going to be fundamentally different from the past in this regard.

And as you rightly point out there are 'certain' cultures that would love to eradicate the West and very few 'in the West' seem to take this seriously.

Individuals, certainly. Groups, definitely but entire cultures? You exaggerate. Care to name names? Is it the Indians? The Chinese? The Africans? The Australians? The New Zealanders?

Or are you with your thinly veiled bigotry suggesting a particular religion what you're referring to? :

Didn't realize those were cultures define for me the African, Australian or New Zealand 'culture'? Africa from Egypt to Nigeria to South Africa not some homogeneous 'culture' or is that your 'thinly veiled bigotry'

And yes Islam is more a culture then a religion as it seek subjugation of the culture, of politics of everything into itself kind of like the Borg. Submit to Islam or be killed or enslaved.

Be careful with words like 'bigot' there buddy!

Did you not read my post you said I made a 'veiled' reference to a religion. In my NEXT POST I mentioned directly that religion how is that slding away when I name Islam IS THE problem.

It would be interesting to see your take if there were other religions in western countires sponsered by governments (or the government's themselves calling for the eradication of Islam) let's call them Christianism that built churches around the world for the purpose of indoctrinating followers to destroy the Great Satan of Middle Eastern countries and cultures. I am sure you would just blow this off as "Just a minority doesn't matter" Oh wait I can't even carry my personal bible in Saudi Arabia let alone build massive churches all over thier countries let alone the Torah and blueprints for a synagogue.

Kadija_Man great thing about the internet you can call a person a bigot hiding anonymously. Much tougher if I was standing in front of you.

 

[Jemiba]

Topic locked

There are topics, that doesn't work here ... :