You are telling me, that bombing an entire country, destroying cities, killing thousands upon thousands of civilians and decimating entire societies and cultures was not meant to incite fear?
There were military targets, there was collateral damage, there were cases in which military personal killed civilians, there case in which targets were identified incorrectly. However this does not mean every order nor the purpose of every act was to create fear. Fear was a result but not the purpose especially a generalized concept of fear.
You think the people in Washington, politicians, generals, think tanks, military and geographical experts were not aware what their bombings would accomplish?
Many thought it would accomplish their military and political objectives. If these people considered fear as a result then you admit purpose of their actions was not to create fear but that fear would be a byproduct as would economic instability, deaths of combatants and noncombatants, etc.
You're telling me they weren't even partially motivated by the fear it would spread?
Sure but you are using a generalized idea of fear. For a militant the fear of getting killed could be motivation for this individual to surrender or flee whatever group they are part of. Is creating fear with such a result is far more acceptable than just killing every combatant? Or not going after these people at all and let them run havoc? There are also consequence of actions people take which could create a situation with result in fear. A family or town hiding militants should fear attacks for they are aiding militants. This is different from creating fear in the civil population which are not allied, aiding or willing parties to militant or other combatants.
Heck ,this whole idea of bombing entire cities was originated by the british and the Germans during WWII, in fact, the bombing of bulgaria by Britain was carried out on commands from Churchill to get Bulgaria in line and fear of the RAF was the way to go.
No it was created by Sherman in the Civil War. It was called Total War. A civil population of an enemy state contributes to the war effort of said state. It provides war materials such as weapons, equipment, clothing, food, currency, etc. If civilians refuse to aid the state then the state and it's war effort collapse. If the civilians can not produce any or a limited amount of war material the state's military becomes less effective. This doesn't mean it is morally correct. However it lift the facade of complete innocence for grown adults that make choices which have consequences. Hence why people flee war zones as refugees
Shock and awe in Iraq was the modern equivalent of that.
It work against the Iraqi military but not so well against militants.
You really need to stop being so naive and/or biased, you always post about violence against certain people but when it's about violence against Muslims, in your eyes it's ok or justified. Pull the other one.
Says the one that doesn't understand the military tactics and their sources they are talking about.... Or the one that questions military tactics as if war should be fought with pistols at dawn. Seems like you have an idealistic idea of war. Hilarious. I never said war was not violent, you changed your strawman just to let you know. I just challenge your claim that every attack on Muslims has the purpose of creating fear as it primary purpose. All you have done is made a universal statement which you can never provide evidence.
I never said violence against Muslim is acceptable as a generalization. You produces a strawman in a vain attempt to discredit me. I just accept the fact that wars have nasty consequences which you seem to object to while offering no alternatives. It seems like you have a weak grasp of the realities of war. Go talk to IS about your ideas, I am sure you will convince them to stop killing your fellow Muslims.....
