al-Qaeda starts a means of execution worse than beheading...

[roo_ster]

It makes me wonder about you, it really does.

MW:

I do not wonder. 

If one does not make the assumption that everyone in the USA loves the USA and takes it part in conflicts with its enemies, but is in fact aligned with its enemies, much of the perceived cognitive dissonance sloughs away.

[roo_ster]

We should have nuked Mecca September 12, 2001.

That would have done what exactly?
I am finishing a book on the Malayan crisis of 1948-1960.  It is one of the few examples of a succesful battle against communist insurgents.  It wasn't accomplished by being easy with people but it wasn't accomplished by acts of cruelty either.

Which book?  I have read a couple large essay-length accounts from military periodicals, but never an entire book-length treatment.  What do you think of the book outside its data content (writing, style, pace, depth, etc.)?

I will second your point that it was not a "colonial war" except in the most pedantic sense.  If it was a colonial war, so was the fight against the Greek commies, post WWII.  IOW, it was a cold war conflict, not a colonial conflict.

[The Rabbi]

A book called The Running Dog War, published in the 1970s.
Excellent book, well presented.
The temptation is to compare it to Vietnam, and indeed the US hired one of the British figures from there as a consultant on Vietnam. 
The differences are immediate.  The French were fighting to keep control of Indochina while the British had already determined to hand over the country.  Many many other differences, which probably account for the different outcome.

[De Selby]

We should have nuked Mecca September 12, 2001.

That would have done what exactly?
I am finishing a book on the Malayan crisis of 1948-1960.  It is one of the few examples of a succesful battle against communist insurgents.  It wasn't accomplished by being easy with people but it wasn't accomplished by acts of cruelty either.

Studying a previous successful colonial attack on the natives would be too rational in this case.

The genocide bandwagon is much more simple and more satisfying to people eager to show off their nations' military might, and that is why your suggestion that we rationally take stock of the problem and do something effective short of genocide will fall on deaf ears.

Be accurate.

Malaysia was not an example of a "colonial attack on the natives" in any way, shape or form.  It was a struggle by minority (in number) Communists, most of whom were ethnic Chinese, not indigenous peoples, to take political power under the guise of anti-colonialism.

This is easily proven by their continuation/resumption of attacks after complete sovereignty was granted in '57.  At no point in the emergency did their "counter-colonial" effort have any widespread real support amongst the Malaysian population.

 

In what sense is a war fought by the colonial power, while it occupies the home of the people it fights, not a "colonial attack on the natives"?

Maybe you don't think they were popular-they weren't, judging by the evidence.  But they were natives, and the police forces that destroyed the movement were colonial police, serving not at the behest of the Malay people, but at the pleasure of the government of England.  And they fought to stop threats to Colonial rule, not to "preserve the freedom of malaya" or any other such notion.

Those facts made it a colonial war, regardless of the popularity/unpopularity of the movement crushed by the colonial forces.

I am consistently amazed at your breadth of knowledge.  It doesn't matter what period or what country, you are a wealth of information.
If some of it were actually true it would be even more impressive.
In this case your facts are way off.  The British had already determined to make Malaya independent.  The struggle was for post-colonial Malaya, whether it would be communist or not.
So any opinion you have on this is invalid because your factual basis is simply wrong.

Wait, so you think the British fought that war for the interests of the malayans???

Either way, you are addressing the wrong fact.  The fact is, the MCP were natives.  The British forces that destroyed them were, without a doubt, a colonial force.  You can argue back forth all day about the aims of each, but there is really no legitimate way to debate the classification of colonial vs. native in this context. 

It doesn't matter what we think or the British thought of the MCP-they were fighting in their homes for what they wanted, and the British were fighting in a colony for what the British wanted.  That is the essence of a colonial war. 

[De Selby]

Most importantly, if one day the West finally gets fed up and wipes out those toilets in a nuclear deployment, it will ultimately make the world a better place, because it will wipe out the barbaric cultures and reinforce the global notion that barbarism will not be tolerated. And that more easily than anything else establishes the inequivalence between us and them.

This is just bizarre-the terrorists are bad why?  Because they do things like burn innocent people alive.

But if the "West" burns a billion people alive, that's just good housecleaning?

I have no idea how you reconcile these two positions in your head.  It's got to be the worst case of cognitive dissonance I've ever seen in print.  Butchering a billion people will prove that the nation who does it is the most barbaric nation ever to exist in the history of mankind.  It will do nothing more.

[The Rabbi]

We should have nuked Mecca September 12, 2001.

That would have done what exactly?
I am finishing a book on the Malayan crisis of 1948-1960.  It is one of the few examples of a succesful battle against communist insurgents.  It wasn't accomplished by being easy with people but it wasn't accomplished by acts of cruelty either.

Studying a previous successful colonial attack on the natives would be too rational in this case.

The genocide bandwagon is much more simple and more satisfying to people eager to show off their nations' military might, and that is why your suggestion that we rationally take stock of the problem and do something effective short of genocide will fall on deaf ears.

Be accurate.

Malaysia was not an example of a "colonial attack on the natives" in any way, shape or form.  It was a struggle by minority (in number) Communists, most of whom were ethnic Chinese, not indigenous peoples, to take political power under the guise of anti-colonialism.

This is easily proven by their continuation/resumption of attacks after complete sovereignty was granted in '57.  At no point in the emergency did their "counter-colonial" effort have any widespread real support amongst the Malaysian population.

 

In what sense is a war fought by the colonial power, while it occupies the home of the people it fights, not a "colonial attack on the natives"?

Maybe you don't think they were popular-they weren't, judging by the evidence.  But they were natives, and the police forces that destroyed the movement were colonial police, serving not at the behest of the Malay people, but at the pleasure of the government of England.  And they fought to stop threats to Colonial rule, not to "preserve the freedom of malaya" or any other such notion.

Those facts made it a colonial war, regardless of the popularity/unpopularity of the movement crushed by the colonial forces.

I am consistently amazed at your breadth of knowledge.  It doesn't matter what period or what country, you are a wealth of information.
If some of it were actually true it would be even more impressive.
In this case your facts are way off.  The British had already determined to make Malaya independent.  The struggle was for post-colonial Malaya, whether it would be communist or not.
So any opinion you have on this is invalid because your factual basis is simply wrong.

Wait, so you think the British fought that war for the interests of the malayans???

Either way, you are addressing the wrong fact.  The fact is, the MCP were natives.  The British forces that destroyed them were, without a doubt, a colonial force.  You can argue back forth all day about the aims of each, but there is really no legitimate way to debate the classification of colonial vs. native in this context. 

It doesn't matter what we think or the British thought of the MCP-they were fighting in their homes for what they wanted, and the British were fighting in a colony for what the British wanted.  That is the essence of a colonial war. 

Your facts are incorrect and therefore your opinions are not valid.

[De Selby]

We should have nuked Mecca September 12, 2001.

That would have done what exactly?
I am finishing a book on the Malayan crisis of 1948-1960.  It is one of the few examples of a succesful battle against communist insurgents.  It wasn't accomplished by being easy with people but it wasn't accomplished by acts of cruelty either.

Studying a previous successful colonial attack on the natives would be too rational in this case.

The genocide bandwagon is much more simple and more satisfying to people eager to show off their nations' military might, and that is why your suggestion that we rationally take stock of the problem and do something effective short of genocide will fall on deaf ears.

Be accurate.

Malaysia was not an example of a "colonial attack on the natives" in any way, shape or form.  It was a struggle by minority (in number) Communists, most of whom were ethnic Chinese, not indigenous peoples, to take political power under the guise of anti-colonialism.

This is easily proven by their continuation/resumption of attacks after complete sovereignty was granted in '57.  At no point in the emergency did their "counter-colonial" effort have any widespread real support amongst the Malaysian population.

 

In what sense is a war fought by the colonial power, while it occupies the home of the people it fights, not a "colonial attack on the natives"?

Maybe you don't think they were popular-they weren't, judging by the evidence.  But they were natives, and the police forces that destroyed the movement were colonial police, serving not at the behest of the Malay people, but at the pleasure of the government of England.  And they fought to stop threats to Colonial rule, not to "preserve the freedom of malaya" or any other such notion.

Those facts made it a colonial war, regardless of the popularity/unpopularity of the movement crushed by the colonial forces.

I am consistently amazed at your breadth of knowledge.  It doesn't matter what period or what country, you are a wealth of information.
If some of it were actually true it would be even more impressive.
In this case your facts are way off.  The British had already determined to make Malaya independent.  The struggle was for post-colonial Malaya, whether it would be communist or not.
So any opinion you have on this is invalid because your factual basis is simply wrong.

Wait, so you think the British fought that war for the interests of the malayans???

Either way, you are addressing the wrong fact.  The fact is, the MCP were natives.  The British forces that destroyed them were, without a doubt, a colonial force.  You can argue back forth all day about the aims of each, but there is really no legitimate way to debate the classification of colonial vs. native in this context. 

It doesn't matter what we think or the British thought of the MCP-they were fighting in their homes for what they wanted, and the British were fighting in a colony for what the British wanted.  That is the essence of a colonial war. 

Your facts are incorrect and therefore your opinions are not valid.

Please state which facts are incorrect, of those listed in my post.

[Gewehr98]

Well, we're back to a pissing contest again.

Damnit.

Closed.