I can’t understand why they would use terrorist explosions in the 91% figure.
Penseivat
Was this study carried out by the same people who ‘found’ that underwater aqualung defects affect more scuba divers than bus drivers?
Sam Vara
“Iain Overton, the executive director of Action on Armed Violence, which compiled the study, said the evidence obtained was unequivocal in showing the harm to civilians from missiles and bombs designed to be used against military targets.”
The idea is to prevent Western governments taking any action against terrorist groups by allowing those groups to launch attacks from civilian areas. The terrorists’ main defence against retaliation is a human shield of their own civilian populations, which Western governments dare not breach for fear of offending their own media and influencers. I believe Hamas already do this , and Israel have attempted to get round it by using warnings such as telephoning and the “knock on the roof” before deploying munitions, backed up of course by intelligence from undercover operatives.
On a different level, the same applies to policies such as “stop and search”. Ethnic minorities can commit violent crimes more easily if they know that any police action to root them out will be labelled as racist when law-abiding members of their ethnic community get abused or inconvenienced by targeted law enforcement.
Once opponents start playing that game, there are three options. One is to give up and allow them to win. The second is to bimble along trying to not make too much of a mess, and to use whatever clean wins you get as propaganda. The third is to go in hard, causing a lot of collateral damage and then blaming the aggressors for making you do it. The hope is that this policy alienates the aggressors (either terrorists or domestic criminals) from their home population, who then turn against them.
decnine
“The third is to go in hard, causing a lot of collateral damage and then blaming the aggressors for making you do it.”
That worked really well against the IRA didn’t it?
bloke in spain
@decnine
The tactic’s got a long history of working. Roman’s used it. Germans in occupied Europe. It’s if you do it halfheartedly it can have an adverse effect
Chernyy Drakon
@decnine
I don’t know. Worked pretty well in Dresden.
bloke in spain
It was, of course, the tactic the IRA used against the UK. Fairly successfully looking at the Good Friday Agreement
philip
We should follow the Nazi example? No thanks.
Reportage from dictatorships should have to carry the strapline indicating that the reporter is only allowed to operate in cooperation with the dictators.
bloke in spain
Worked pretty well in Dresden.
Even better in Horishima & Nagasaki
Bloke in Wales
Worked pretty well in Dresden.
Worked pretty well against the IRA in Gibraltar and Loughgall, with no collateral damage either.
Sam Vara
@decnine
“That worked really well against the IRA didn’t it?”
I don’t think it was tried, was it? We are talking about bombing of urban areas here.
Grikath
The Germans Nazis… They simply copied the tried and tested Bolschewik/Stalinist method didn’t they?
“Don’t bother looking for the one or two you want, simply execute/deport the whole damn village. The Message will get across.”
Comrad Stalin had already perfected the method before herr H. became ReichsKanzler..
John77
The Grauniad headline writer says 91% of the time suggesting that 9% of bombs didn’t kill anyone, when the text says that 91% of those killed are civilians, not the same thing.
But the key point is the Grauniad wants governments to promise to give up using bombs although it is terrorists like the IRA and ISIS (and one or two right-wing nutters in the USA) that are letting off bombs in shopping aisles etc. Virtue signalling …
Boganboy
‘Even better in Hiroshima & Nagasaki’
Must admit if I ran things, that would be my immediate reaction. How lucky for everyone that I don’t.
moqifen
Amazingly despite 10% to 30% of Hamas rockets failing to reach Israel and crashing on the Gaza strip, not one civilian casualty was caused by this. If you believe this I’ve got a bridge i need to sell.
NDReader
“Worked pretty well against the IRA in Gibraltar and Loughgall, with no collateral damage either.”
There was collateral damage at Loughgall. Two locally resident brothers were shot during the ambush, one of them fatally.
TomJ
The third is to go in hard, causing a lot of collateral damage and then blaming the aggressors for making you do it. The hope is that this policy alienates the aggressors (either terrorists or domestic criminals) from their home population, who then turn against them.
This, historically, has been the response terrorists have hoped to provoke on the basis it makes their claims of, “Come see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I’m being repressed!” seem more credible and thus gain them broader support.
perjpaeorj
Really? I thought most explosivists planted their bombs in open fields in the park, where it’s less dangerous. It’s not like they have any intentions when they build the things in the first place, right?
I can’t understand why they would use terrorist explosions in the 91% figure.
Was this study carried out by the same people who ‘found’ that underwater aqualung defects affect more scuba divers than bus drivers?
“Iain Overton, the executive director of Action on Armed Violence, which compiled the study, said the evidence obtained was unequivocal in showing the harm to civilians from missiles and bombs designed to be used against military targets.”
The idea is to prevent Western governments taking any action against terrorist groups by allowing those groups to launch attacks from civilian areas. The terrorists’ main defence against retaliation is a human shield of their own civilian populations, which Western governments dare not breach for fear of offending their own media and influencers. I believe Hamas already do this , and Israel have attempted to get round it by using warnings such as telephoning and the “knock on the roof” before deploying munitions, backed up of course by intelligence from undercover operatives.
On a different level, the same applies to policies such as “stop and search”. Ethnic minorities can commit violent crimes more easily if they know that any police action to root them out will be labelled as racist when law-abiding members of their ethnic community get abused or inconvenienced by targeted law enforcement.
Once opponents start playing that game, there are three options. One is to give up and allow them to win. The second is to bimble along trying to not make too much of a mess, and to use whatever clean wins you get as propaganda. The third is to go in hard, causing a lot of collateral damage and then blaming the aggressors for making you do it. The hope is that this policy alienates the aggressors (either terrorists or domestic criminals) from their home population, who then turn against them.
“The third is to go in hard, causing a lot of collateral damage and then blaming the aggressors for making you do it.”
That worked really well against the IRA didn’t it?
@decnine
The tactic’s got a long history of working. Roman’s used it. Germans in occupied Europe. It’s if you do it halfheartedly it can have an adverse effect
@decnine
I don’t know. Worked pretty well in Dresden.
It was, of course, the tactic the IRA used against the UK. Fairly successfully looking at the Good Friday Agreement
We should follow the Nazi example? No thanks.
Reportage from dictatorships should have to carry the strapline indicating that the reporter is only allowed to operate in cooperation with the dictators.
Worked pretty well in Dresden.
Even better in Horishima & Nagasaki
Worked pretty well against the IRA in Gibraltar and Loughgall, with no collateral damage either.
@decnine
“That worked really well against the IRA didn’t it?”
I don’t think it was tried, was it? We are talking about bombing of urban areas here.
The
GermansNazis… They simply copied the tried and tested Bolschewik/Stalinist method didn’t they?“Don’t bother looking for the one or two you want, simply execute/deport the whole damn village. The Message will get across.”
Comrad Stalin had already perfected the method before herr H. became ReichsKanzler..
The Grauniad headline writer says 91% of the time suggesting that 9% of bombs didn’t kill anyone, when the text says that 91% of those killed are civilians, not the same thing.
But the key point is the Grauniad wants governments to promise to give up using bombs although it is terrorists like the IRA and ISIS (and one or two right-wing nutters in the USA) that are letting off bombs in shopping aisles etc. Virtue signalling …
‘Even better in Hiroshima & Nagasaki’
Must admit if I ran things, that would be my immediate reaction. How lucky for everyone that I don’t.
Amazingly despite 10% to 30% of Hamas rockets failing to reach Israel and crashing on the Gaza strip, not one civilian casualty was caused by this. If you believe this I’ve got a bridge i need to sell.
“Worked pretty well against the IRA in Gibraltar and Loughgall, with no collateral damage either.”
There was collateral damage at Loughgall. Two locally resident brothers were shot during the ambush, one of them fatally.
This, historically, has been the response terrorists have hoped to provoke on the basis it makes their claims of, “Come see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I’m being repressed!” seem more credible and thus gain them broader support.
Really? I thought most explosivists planted their bombs in open fields in the park, where it’s less dangerous. It’s not like they have any intentions when they build the things in the first place, right?