reply to post by victor7
Did anyone got nuked as a result of 911.........No! Because it was the work of the non-state operators.
I am really surprised you would mention that in defense of a strategy to keep the West at bay. If I believed it was indeed the work of Islamic
terrorists, which many Westerner believe or pretend to believe, I would have quoted it for the exact opposite: against
a strategy of
In fact I was tempted to mention it when saying why terrorism wouldn't help, but only hurt, but didn't do so only because I don't believe it to be
the work of Islamic terrorists.
I am not sure anyone's objective when fighting the West is "not to get nuked". That can be done by surrendering without a fight too. We are looking
for a strategy that will keep them at bay. And that is the last thing 9/11 achieved as will any genuine terrorist attacks even if they can succeed,
the possibility of which itself is very slim.
Iran has lots of non state operators and if it is attacked we will see lots of nonsense actions.
So what do suggest? That they blow up some American civilians to prevent an invasion? Because most of the "bomb Iran" crowd are praying
some such incident blamed on Iran happen so that they can get going. Or they blow up some American civilians in response to an invasion and make them
withdraw? If that happens, the "bomb Iran" crowd is likely to see it as a license to "turn into glass" as they are so fond of saying.
Or it supposed to be some satisfaction of having gotten a few of the enemy while you are being totally destroyed? If so, that is not the objective I
am interested in.
For small nations fielding a 1980s Brezhnev era armies, the better tools are guerrilla warfare, insurgency and terrorism. Brezhnev era
equipment can be blown up in two weeks as we have seen many times.
Iraqi tried insurgency, it didn't work. It is not working for Afghans either.
The point is that the psychopaths know every
possible response from their victims, considered the costs of each of them and are prepared to pay
the cost regardless of the response chosen by the victim. There are no surprises. If they are not prepared to pay the cost of a certain response they
don't go in just then. That is why they are not in Iran yet, even though they have set their eyes on attacking Iran as far back as 2005 and have been
playing fast and loose since then.
Ask the western policy makers what it would have meant to lose even several hundred civilians as a result of the terrorist actions in response
to attacks by the "power drunk" psychopaths. When your own civilians are getting bombed then have no hesitation extending the courtesy to the
civilians of the attackers.
If you think the Western elite (most of them are not
policy makers) care terrorist attacks by a nation that has itself been attacked by them as
just or not, you are mistaken. Psychopaths don't care about what is just and what is not. If you ask
them they will tell you it is not just to
attack civilians not in war zone. Since their country is not in war zone, terrorist attacks against civilians are not justified. Hence it will
their resolve to destroy the enemy to a level they won't even consider
a retaliation. If they had foreseen a possibility of
retaliatory terrorist attacks and considered some of them unpreventable, they would have accepted the casualties of such successful attacks even
before going in (regardless of what they will admit publicly), so there isn't any chance of withdrawing because of those attacks. A few thousand
civilians is like a scratch on a hungry lion, it won't stop it, only piss it off.
If on the other hand the retaliatory attacks, whatever the mode, leave them shaken for the extent of devastation caused and fearing more successful
such attacks which they cannot prevent if they don't relent, then
they will relent.
I don't know much about weaponry, so I don't know if terrorists can successfully attack a couple of large cities, each of a few million population,
and take them out, but I suspect no such mechanisms exist. If they can, that would stop the West.