War question
948 Views | 40 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
« Return to Politics | All Forums
Belthagor
Member since: Jun. 25, 2012
Browse All Posts (1,694)
Member Level 15 Musician
War question 2018-09-17 03:15:35
If you were in charge of a country... would you attack your own country in order to start a war, by pretending you're attacked by a different country which might attack you anyway, (for support from your allies?) This would be the ultimate form of framing, by the way. Framing a country.
All forum rules apply.
GXFICH
Member since: Aug. 24, 2016
Browse All Posts (328)
Member Level 08 Blank Slate
Response to War question 2018-09-17 08:50:42
At 9/17/18 03:15 AM, belthagor wrote: If you were in charge of a country... would you attack your own country in order to start a war, by pretending you're attacked by a different country which might attack you anyway, (for support from your allies?) This would be the ultimate form of framing, by the way. Framing a country.
No wars are unpredictable and get out of hand too easily it`s better to avoid them .
JosephStarr
Member Level 25 Art Lover
Response to War question 2018-09-17 19:22:53 (edited 2018-09-17 19:34:52)
At 9/17/18 03:15 AM, belthagor wrote: If you were in charge of a country, would you conduct a false flag operation to start a war?
Fixed. ^
And no, I wouldn't. Do you have any idea how expensive wars are? Or how expensive war reparations can be?
The people who get away with those shady tactics are the winners. If you lose the war and the international community finds out that it was a false flag operation, they will absolutely bury you. (Well, unless you're the United States.)
The Imperial Japanese used a false flag operation for pretext to invade Manchuria. They made it seem as if Chinese dissidents attempted to blow up a railway line with dynamite, but they didn't even cause significant damage, let alone destroy it.
They responded with a full invasion, and had a puppet state set up 6 months later. The operation was exposed in 1932 leading them to be shunned by the international community, and they withdrew from the Leauge of Nations in March of 1933.
Outdated ideals and crackpot solutions with a face you can trust.
billybobthwarten
Member since: Nov. 6, 2013
Member Level 16 Gamer
"some people who believe they're smart do nothing but talk incessantly. if they didn't, how else would they let you know how smart they are?"
orangebomb
Member since: Mar. 18, 2010
Absolutely not, for a variety of reasons.
1. People will catch on quick to the act at hand, not just the conspiracy theorists. Once upon a time, this would be not only possible, but commonplace for false flag attacks to happen, but now with the advent of 24 hour news, social media and the like, getting away with it is a Sisyphean task that no government wants to deal with. (Of course this doesn't apply to dictatorships who fully control the media)
2. It only serves to demoralize and/or panic the home front that the enemy could attack from everywhere and anywhere, even when they most likely wouldn't, or would go after a "softer" target. Especially when the public is not fond of war or is war-weary, which would only demoralize the war effort further.
3. The international community will most likely get involved and come down hard on those who do just that. Just like the first reason mentioned above, in the past they would usually not bother with another country's business if it didn't affect them outright, or if there wasn't substantial proof. (Not that it was a hard and fast rule though)
As I said before, with the advent of 24 hour news and social media along with alliances on political and economic levels, false flag attacks are not only immoral, but also very counterproductive to the cause. Western governments in the modern era know this and mostly refrain from such actions, but developing countries probably didn't get that memo yet.
Just stop worrying, and love the bomb.
AcidX
Member since: Feb. 2, 2004
Supporter Level 10 Blank Slate
This sounds like something one of the 8 families would do.
That's fucking horrible.
YΓIΘA
RIP, never forget
At 9/17/18 07:22 PM, JosephStarr wrote:
Not really fixed, more like ruined. Because were discussing it as in "if you have an alliance consisting of several countries." When a country has an alliance it needs to be attacked first before allies send help... (for support from your allies)
With your fix it would be 1v1, which is not what I meant in the original post.
At 9/21/18 07:25 PM, belthagor wrote:
If you were in charge of a country, would you conduct a false flag operation to bring your allies into a war you wish to start?
^Corrected.
And that just adds a whole other can of worms to the situation.
If you were in charge of a country, how would you feel if one of your allies was supposedly attacked by another nation leading you to send millions of dollars worth of supplies and material to them in support, sending tens of thousands of your country's young men and women to risk their lives for your ally, and putting your neck out for them as far as international relations goes, only to find out that they lied about the whole thing and dragged you into their war for nothing?
Honestly, I would be tempted to turn around and declare war on them.
But many other countries would send help as well, you wouldn't be alone if you sent aid to the country being false flag attacked...
It gives a sense of security. You have no chance of losing, unless the country being framed has allies.
At 9/21/18 07:58 PM, belthagor wrote: But many other countries would send help as well, you wouldn't be alone if you sent aid to the country being false flag attacked...
It's still a morally despicable act, and I'm pretty damn sure there are international laws against that sort of conduct.
It doesn't matter if the side I was tricked into joining would win or not.
I would be disgusted at they way my supposed "ally" had deceived me, my nation, and it's people.
I would be furious about how I had been deceived into sending my people, who I was elected to honorably lead and protect to risk their lives for a false ally who only started the war for their own gains.
Now that I think of it, I actually would petition the other involved allies of the belligerent nation to declare war on them.
well you're no fun...
Qamitiam
Member since: May. 31, 2017
Browse All Posts (13)
What you described is outdated stuff. Nowadays, ultimate framing is to attack the country, then by all your local and international media to persuade other countries that that country attacked itself and false flagging to get on you. While other countries are confused and trying to understand what is truth and to whom to help, you trash that country so hard, that even/when they would realize it was you, there is nothing to save, you a winner, they can't do anything (winners always right). Not necessary always work, I guess, but it's definitely contemporary ways of framing a country.
Nope, I wouldn't do that, but I wouldn't be in charge of a country in the first place. I hate to deal with people. I wanna live on my own island. Or my own planet.
FinaLee
Member Level 18 Audiophile
This is something that only the most degenerate and narrow-minded realists would consider. Putting morality aside, I would say that the risk of getting caught, and the consequences of getting caught far outweigh whatever benefit can be gained from waging war with another country. The Cold War era is over, and Americans in particular pay more attention than ever to their leaders.
Another reason as to why this is a bad idea is because there are a myriad of less bad ways to invade a country. I could think of far more plausible scenarios that would lead to the U.S. invading Iran than a false flag attack. Here's one:
1. The U.S. demands Iran halt production of and remove all of its missiles that have a 2,000+ km range.
2. Iran doesn't do this.
3. Out of "national security," as well as Israel's, the U.S. invades.
While I don't believe this is likely to happen, there is far less liability involved in this scenario than a false flag. It certainly fits more or less within the conventional criteria in initiating a "just war." Why add any unnecessary risk when there are plenty of better alternative options?
|Soundcloud| |YouTube|
Xuvero
Member Level 10 Writer
Well, I'd say that I wouldn't, and if it depended only on me wanting or not, I definitely wouldn't. But I know that things get more complicated then that, it's not just pure black and white "if it's not right it's wrong". Maybe the thing is that I need to, or I'm in a situation in which doing this would be less harmful then not doing. But you need to remember that you would be cheating on your own county, the enemy's county and your allies. And worse, you'd be manipulating them, which could easily get them in a war against you or other types of consequences.
But yeah, can't say if I would or not, depends on the context, política is not black and white, do right and not wrong. It's just a bunch of shades of gray, and trying to do what is less worse... Sadly.
P.S.: Also, if you actually have a good reason to wage war against a country, you can just gather your allies and show them why you think they should give you aid in this war, should you convince them, they will join you in the war effort. If they don't agree, you probably didn't really have a good reason to go to war anyways.
The Original Hip Cat
{Be Rational} {You've been...}
I had permission to bump this with a meaningful reply...
Would you do it against Islam?
@GXFICH
@RightTime
@JosephStarr
@Zornuzkull
@billybobthwarten
@orangebomb
@AcidX
@Qamitiam
@FinaLee
@Xuvero
I would not conduct a false flag attack against my own people. Islam or otherwise.
Don't we have enough of that already?
Member Level 01 Programmer
If the situation was bad enough to the point you have a war, chances are you do not need a false flag attack to gain the support of allies and citizens. I would say no.
Tempus Edax Rerum
Heretic-Anchorite
Member since: Feb. 28, 2005
At 9/18/18 12:02 PM, orangebomb wrote:
1. People will catch on quick to the act at hand, not just the conspiracy theorists.
Would it really be so obvious?
I remember back in the early days of the Iraq war people treated it as if if you weren't for it you were some kind of traitor, and reliable people who offered evidence to disprove the made up "grounds" to go to war had their careers threatened and destroyed by the administration.
2. It only serves to demoralize and/or panic the home front that the enemy could attack from everywhere and anywhere . . . Especially when the public is not fond of war or is war-weary, which would only demoralize the war effort further.
you mean like the terror state and culture we've been since 9/11 happened? Why do you think all this was called the "war on terror"?
As I said before, with the advent of 24 hour news and social media along with alliances on political and economic levels, false flag attacks are not only immoral, but also very counterproductive to the cause.
They also sell a fuck ton of weapons systems, land a fuck load of contracts, line a ton of pockets, and make neo-cons like Cheney and Rumsfeld cream their pants.
Western governments in the modern era know this and mostly refrain from such actions,
Don't get me wrong, I can agree to many of the points you make about this being wrong, but I wouldn't assume the west is so clean. We can't forget what we've done just because it was over 10 years ago.
To Destiny
"parcere subiectis et debellare superbos"
At 2/7/19 12:45 PM, Heretic-Anchorite wrote:
Well, I could easily answer your question with a tiny fact about Islam and a question after it.
There is a passage in their book, the Quran, (or however you spell it) which says that a muslim can break all the rules in the entire religion if they give their life for holy war. What is the problem with this?
At 2/7/19 01:19 PM, belthagor wrote:
It's called the war on terror, not a war on Muslims. Terror itself is a fundamental human emotion you can never really get rid of and will always exist.
there are literally billions of Muslims world wide and the fact that the world isn't in complete anarchy shows that only the minority of that large group adopt such an extreme and violent point of view.
Even with all that has happened, you are still far more likely to die from a car crash, domestic crime, and an array of ordinary things far far more then an act of terrorism.
Honestly, just compare how many people that have died in the US from health issues like obesity, from car accidents, or from violent crime and compare it to the amount of US people who have died from an act of terror.
The point was that it is rooted as part of the religion. So the minority, (although occasionally fluctuating in size based on current events,) will always be there... it might not be the number one cause of problems, but it won't really lessen much with the passing of time.
EdyKel
Moderator Level 28 Gamer
At 2/7/19 01:37 PM, belthagor wrote: The point was that it is rooted as part of the religion. So the minority, (although occasionally fluctuating in size based on current events,) will always be there... it might not be the number one cause of problems, but it won't really lessen much with the passing of time.
Is it rooted in the religion? Or are you just misinterpreting it to have an argument against them, while ignoring other religions, and other atrocities, committed by non-Muslims. You know that Christianity often absolves people of their sin, right? That's how the Church in the late 11th century justified the wholesale slaughter of millions of people in the MiddleEast in their crusades to retake the holy lands. Hell, in the US, Christians justified slavery with their religion. Even the Iraq war was justified by our religion as a righteous thing against evil, and we ended up killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, and destroying untold numbers of residential areas and infrastructure.
The US has killed more people, and destroyed more structures, in Muslim countries, by leaps and bounds, than Muslim people have against our country, or other Western countries. But, you don't hear about that, because no one gives a shit about it, it's all about Muslim extremist, and making them 100 times worse because we need a bogeyman for our wars, and presence, in the Middle East. Not to mention, to make ourselves feel better about our own culture by vilifying entire groups. It's all one sided and superficial.
I think where you are failing is that you are stereotyping the entire religion with one interpretation of the Islamic religion, where you think everyone of them has the same interpretation of their holy book... They don't, just like all Christians don't have the same interpretation of the bible.
At 2/7/19 02:18 PM, EdyKel wrote:
You also don't hear that a bunch of countries in Europe decided to help the US out as much as they could in the Iraq war. Most people in the US have no knowledge of this. However it says a lot of things on how Europe feels about Islam. And most of these countries, maybe not as a whole, but a fairly large number of the population in them have negative interpretations of Islam.
Their religion is two hundred years newer than Christianity, just one example, and they are not used to it, so they need more time to catch up.
Just like people made theories on the flaws of Christianity, such as "Thou shalt not lie" being modernly challenged by a simple phrase like "Would you lie to save someone from a concentration camp during WW2." Of course you would, regardless of some of Christianity's outdated laws. It's obvious. It would be cruel to answer "no."
The problem with Islam is that it controls it's population. Many other religions are more modern by now, and do not attempt to do this in order to keep their followers...
Because that is often promoted by the right, to make their own culture seem better, while ignoring the realities that led to it - constant interference in the Middle East by foreign countries, mostly Western ones. Not to mention their support of Israel, a contentious issue there.
A lot of Muslims see all this foreign influence, wars, in Muslim counties as Western crusade against them and their religion. That was the reasoning that Osama bin Laden used to rally support for his cause against Western powers, and which led to the 9-11 attacks - not because they hate our culture, but because of our influence, and wars in the Middle East.
That makes sense. Also I edited my post before you could see the rest, feel free to comment on that, if you'd like.
At 2/7/19 02:47 PM, belthagor wrote: That makes sense. Also I edited my post before you could see the rest, feel free to comment on that, if you'd like.
At 2/7/19 02:26 PM, belthagor wrote: Their religion is two hundred years newer than Christianity, just one example, and they are not used to it, so they need more time to catch up.
The problem here is that they were on their way to become more modernized. Afghanistan, Iran, were a lot more modern/westernized in the 50's and 60's, but foreign influence, and the cold war, destroyed that, as those foreign powers took control of those countries through either invasion, or installing puppet dictators, which led to rebellion and fighting against those foreign powers, and placing far right conservatives (Muslim extremists) into power.
Very good argument, and very good links, I am interested in what everyone else will say as well after reading.
True, but at the same time, there was plenty of those who opposed the war and the Bush administration could do nothing about it. (see Bernie Sanders) Opinions can change very quickly, in a similar way that the Vietnam War did.
Buying and selling weapons and contracts is one thing, (which is questionable on so many levels, especially to dictators) it's another to outright invade and destabilize countries.
You can't expect buyers of weapons at a state level to be on the up and up, especially during the Cold War when the Soviets were doing the exact same thing in other countries. It's easy to have 20/20 hindsight now, but no one could've predicted fully that they've would've turned on us. (even to those who should know better)
Here's my response. Name a successful false flag attack (as in an actual false flag and not just conspiracy talk) that had happened in recent memory that spurred us to the War on Terror? Exactly.
You can point out that selling weapons and logistics could backfire, which it did, but in that case, it's still not a false flag attack. It's as I said before, FF attacks is counterintuitive for any self-respecting democratic government, and considering that people now view the War on Terror to be a mess on both fronts, a FF attack would make any justification impossible to take.
SERCO DID 9/11
« Return to Politics Forum
Dig down and craft new items.
DED GUY
You are dead.
Play Boy Mansion
Hi Play Boy, it´s your suprise birthday party, some friends are hidden in the mansion