Tactics in war


PDA






ksnecktieman
October 29, 2004, 01:47 AM
In a war, is not one of the first objectives to interrupt the communications of the enemy?

There have been many declarations, displays, and "call to arms" transmissions on Al Jazeera television. The one that comes to mind is about two weeks ago, I have been expecting someone to post about it. Basically it was a leader of the religious (terrorist?) fanatics that was telling the youths that it does not matter if the leaders are killed or not, they should attack the infidels (invaders) anyway.

Why do we allow Al Jazeera to continue to transmit this type of message?

If I called my local radio station, and told them my neighbor should be killed, and asked for help to do it, not only would I be arrested, but the radio station would be closed down if they aired it.

If you enjoyed reading about "Tactics in war" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Hawkmoon
October 29, 2004, 01:52 AM
Nominally, at least, Al Jazheera is not "the enemy's" communications. It is a commercial media outlet which is not located in either the United States or Iraq. Just how would you propose we knock it out ... without violating innumerable international laws and protocols?

HankB
October 29, 2004, 09:56 AM
Actually, we should USE Al-Jazeera. We'd do it by putting together teams of Special Forces as Al-Jazeera camera crews, and sending them into Pakistan, Iraq, etc., and using them to get access to the bad guys. Once we have access, we can take them out.

Once word got out, the "real" Al-Jazeera reporters - who are effectively the propaganda arm of various Islamic terror organizations - would likely come under fire themselves. :D

An added benefit is that the bad guys might "retaliate" by doing bad things to newscrews from CBS, NBC, ABC, etc. Which wouldn't be such a bad thing, since these folks certainly aren't on OUR side these days anyway.

Thumper
October 29, 2004, 11:00 AM
Why do we allow Al Jazeera to continue to transmit this type of message?

Because roughly half the country believes that we have to fight a more "sensitive" war on terror.

If you're one of those who is convinced that "get a bigger hammer" isn't a valid wartime solution, you've seriously complicated your line of thinking regarding conflict. Don't dismiss what I just wrote out of hand.

Sometimes simpler really is better.

John Hicks
October 29, 2004, 11:21 AM
From what I understand, we get a lot of good intel from AJ as well.

To us, it looks like nothing but propoganda (which it mostly is), however, the sad fact is, their reporters do have access to our enemies and any information we can get can help.

And if the excrement does hit the fan and they need to be dropped, I'm sure our Air Force has a way of making that satellite disappear. :)

jh

Standing Wolf
October 29, 2004, 05:30 PM
Don't dismiss what I just wrote out of hand.
Sometimes simpler really is better.

Almost always, friend.

GEM
October 29, 2004, 07:17 PM
If their actions somehow are useful to us, then they should continue. If they actively contribute to terrorist actions then I disagree that they are protected by international law. This is a war and we should abandon such pseudo-legalisms.

I would recall that beheading folks is illegal. If they are the official conduit for such tapes as a collaborator in enhancing the terror of such actions, then they have no right to exist.

Like I said, their existence should be a pragmatic decision based on whether they aid our enemies or us.

Hawkmoon
October 30, 2004, 12:10 AM
This is a war and we should abandon such pseudo-legalisms.
It is no "pseudo" legalism that this is NOT a war. Under the Constitution of the United States of America, only the Congress has the power to declare war, and they have not done so since WW2.

Al-Jazeera is an accredited journalistic outlet. They happen to have a bias, as do our own media outlets. However, by reporting what terrorist extremists do (regardless of how sympathetically and/or enthusiatically they do so) they have done nothing illegal that I can think of. I know many of you don't care much about world opinion, but if the US goes out of its way to alienate every other country out there, we're going to be in much deeper kimchee than we're in right now. I can't see how nuking (literally or figuratively, take your pick) Al-Jazeera is going to endear us to any potential or actual allies.

Thumper
October 30, 2004, 04:15 AM
They happen to have a bias, as do our own media outlets.

Fifteen yards: Moral Relativism/Failure to pick a team. Repeat first down. Play beer!

jefnvk
October 30, 2004, 05:10 AM
If you're one of those who is convinced that "get a bigger hammer" isn't a valid wartime solution, you've seriously complicated your line of thinking regarding conflict. Don't dismiss what I just wrote out of hand.

Bigger is ALWAYS better :D

But, do any of you support bombing that newspaper in England that gave the impression that we should assassinate Bush?

And, do you think that taking out Al Jazerra would solve more problems then it would cause?

ksnecktieman
October 30, 2004, 06:24 AM
I will admit that if the only tool you have is a hammer that you have no choice but to treat every problem like a nail. Our government has many tools.

My reaction is specifically for the religious fanatic that said on the airwaves that islamic youth should not wait for leadership, or concern themselves with the capture or death of the present Islamic leadership, they should just go and kill infidels.

If Al Jazeera transmits messages of this nature, maybe we should commit one of our "AWACs" planes to patrol offshore, in international territory, or maybe we can do it from a satelite, and blanket the frequency that Al Jazeera transmits on with pro american messages of peace, love, and brotherhood. Do it for 72 hours, with promises of more if they continue to transmit "Call to Arms messages" for the terrorists.

Does anyone doubt that we have the ability to electronically keep them off of the air, or replace their message with our own, without physical destruction of their equipment?

Silent-Snail
October 30, 2004, 08:40 AM
And, do you think that taking out Al Jazerra would solve more problems then it would cause?

I harbor no illusions on that front, but thier removal would make me smile:)

mr_dove
October 30, 2004, 10:42 PM
Part of MY problem is that regardless of what international law or local law in a particular country says, I'm an American and I believe in freedom of speech for everyone. Not just americans who happen to be in the US presently. That's not the reality of it but that's what I believe.

In reality Al Jazeera provides the american people with alot of information as well. I have no doubt that our government would sensor much of what comes out of the war if it didn't come through Al Jazeera first.

Our government didn't even want to release the latest Bin Laden tape. We did our best con convince AJ not to release it too but they did it anyways. If our govenment had their way the american people would have never seen it.

It shames me the amount that our govenment hides from the people.

Leatherneck
October 31, 2004, 10:46 AM
If Al Jazeera transmits messages of this nature, maybe we should commit one of our "AWACs" planes to patrol offshore, in international territory, or maybe we can do it from a satelite, and blanket the frequency that Al Jazeera transmits on with pro american messages of peace, love, and brotherhood. Do it for 72 hours, with promises of more if they continue to transmit "Call to Arms messages" for the terrorists. Exactly. IMO, one of the things we did the most poorly in Iraqi Freedom was the info war. On day one I advocated setting up a credible, if biased, propaganda network with transmission sites to reach as much of the Iraqi populace as possible. Then distribute free TVs to each household that wanted one. Preset to "our" channel of course. :D
And if our transmissions just happened to step on Al Jazeera, well, too bad.

I think honest news reporting from a US-sponsored station would have had some efect for the better. Alas...

TC
TFL Survivor

GEM
October 31, 2004, 12:12 PM
Bin Laden did not declare 'war' on us. While one can bluster that Congress did not declare 'war', that is an irrelevancy in today's world of state sponsored terrorism and/or extranational organizations committing actions of mass destructions or terroristic actions not based on the usual economic criminal motives of your local robbery suspect.

That is a childish debating point and means nothing to those folks who had to jump out of the WTC.

I will repeat again, more clearly, the rationalization that Al-Jerkoff is a recognized news agency is as relevant as snot. I said if it is the case that they are actively collaborating with terrorists then we have a duty to our 'country' (not the crapheads in Botswana, Norway or Bangladesh) to deal with them in a manner that maximizes the outcome for the USA.

Maybe having them around is useful. If they are harmful to us, then we do what we need to do.

I have had close family member miss being blown up by terrorists by the vagaries of travel schedules. Real close miss. Thus, I think pseudolegalisms are for the weak.

I hope they comfort the next beheaded victim if it is the case that Al-Jerkoff is part of their death.

Mr. Clark
October 31, 2004, 02:14 PM
It is no "pseudo" legalism that this is NOT a war. Under the Constitution of the United States of America, only the Congress has the power to declare war, and they have not done so since WW2.
Bin Laden did not declare 'war' on us.
Exactly.

Whether or not Congress makes a formal declaration of war is irrelevant as far as determining whether or not we are, in fact, at war. There is an objective reality that exists separate from congress. This reality does not need Congressional approval to exist. The willingness of some politicians and other people to stick their heads in the sand and pretend that we are not at war does NOT make it so. The WAR is not going to go away or end just because you close your eyes and refuse to see it or insist on calling it something else. It is what it is. A war.

Hawkmoon
October 31, 2004, 02:46 PM
Bin Laden did not declare 'war' on us. While one can bluster that Congress did not declare 'war', that is an irrelevancy in today's world of state sponsored terrorism and/or extranational organizations committing actions of mass destructions or terroristic actions not based on the usual economic criminal motives of your local robbery suspect.

That is a childish debating point and means nothing to those folks who had to jump out of the WTC.

What you are saying, of course, is that the Constitution of the United States is a "childish debating point" ... or that it's obsolete and should be scrapped.

Sorry, but I disagree. We are not "at war." We were not invaded by military elements of any sovreign nation. We were attacked by terrorists. Sure,t he people in the twin towerrs are dead, but the people in that McDonalds in Texas are dead, too, and nobody is claiming they were victims of "war." The were killed by a common criminal.

I'm tired of semantic arguments. Our reprsentatives in Congress are doing that to us now. Many who voted to allow the use of force in Iraq and to fund the invasion are NOW saying "Oh, but we didn't declare war.That's not what we meant" It's BS. It means we have (collectively) elected a bunch of two-faced fence sitters who want to have everything both ways, and it just doesn't work.

In a practical sense, we WERE at war with Iraq. Any time one sovereign nation invades another sovereign nation with military forces, it is an act of war. Iraq did not attack us, however ... we attacked Iraq. So we were at war, illegally because Congress did not vote to declare war.

BUT ... soon after the invasion our President and Commander in Chief declared the "war" finished. "Job done" he said from that aircraft carrier. So now even the war-that-was-not-legally-a-war has officially ended.

So with whom are we at war?

I respectfully submit that we can't have a discussion when one side is gouing to play fast and loose with the terminology. And if you're not willing to accept that the Constitution is still in effect, you don't have any business living in this country and voting in this election.

JMHO ... YMMV

If you enjoyed reading about "Tactics in war" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!