Disagree strongly. Mercy is how you win, not how you lose. If you show no mercy, you close off potential allies, converts, and the now scared agents of the government will feel justified in punishing you harshly.
Take the Indian Wars. Up until the Battle of Little Bighorn, the Cavalry considered it all to be a nuisance, but nothing worth breaking a sweat over. They won some fights, they lost some fights, but they never really considered it a big deal. Then Custer and hundreds of his men died scream, wiped out almost to the last man (as no mercy was shown), and then the Indians brutalized their dead bodies to put the fear into the rest of the Cavalry. And thus the Cavalry responded, and decided that the Indians were no longer a nuisance. They were now a threat.
And the Cavalry responded by pounding them into the fucking dirt. No longer was it squadrons of cavalry, now it was divisions. No longer was it green recruits, now it was crack elites and veterans of the Civil War. No longer did they just hold the area around their forts, they went out and chased them down where they lived. No longer did they stop following if the Indians moved too far, they started living out of the saddle like their enemy. No mercy had been shown. Now no mercy would be given. And just to rub salt in the wound and really make it sting, they went and committed a few atrocities of their own (Wounded Knee). All because a few Indian warriors decided to not show mercy.
No, the most dangerous thing to the state is a populous who has so much contempt for them and so little "give a damn" that they will not be ordered around. Because at that point, the government is illegitimate, and no amount of force can make people comply. And in fact, the use of force just further reinforces their illegitimacy.
I am sure u/Gizortnik could tell you all about it. Considering he has dealt with this exact sort of problem first hand, and has explained it frequently.
You're story does not show what you think it shows. Disproportionate response works. Executing every fighting age male among your enemies works. That is quite the opposite of mercy.
It show that instead of slinking off after 1/6, the right should have retaliated one thousand fold. Instead they showed mercy to the left, as always, and the left continued on.
Disproportionate response only works temporarily, only when applied arbitrarily (to make your actions unpredictable), and only when applied against a small response. Make it systemic and you have to basically kill absolutely everyone, or you will guarantee a permanent state of war levied against you.
Disproportionate force is simply a force multiplier. It's a weapon. It doesn't win you the war long term. Your other example (executing every fighting age male), is a genocide that assumes you've already won.
My point about Mercy is that it is our weapon after we see an individual has repented. From a tactical standpoint, mercy is about taking someone out of the fight as permanently as if they had been killed, while also being able to use them as a propaganda weapon to guarantee further surrenders.
Eh, not really. The Cheyennes at LBH have been salty over Sand Creek to begin with when volunteer cavalry took things very seriously and also took novelty vagina souvenirs.
Also the Sioux have done much worse to the German settlers by massacring around 800 around Neu Ulm back in 1862, and then Lincoln personally saved great most of the suspects from hanging (only actually proven murderers or rapists got executed after he and his officers reviewed every case of the original kangaroo court). For which the woke faggots are demonizing him now because no good deed goes unpunished.
Disagree strongly. Mercy is how you win, not how you lose. If you show no mercy, you close off potential allies, converts, and the now scared agents of the government will feel justified in punishing you harshly.
Take the Indian Wars. Up until the Battle of Little Bighorn, the Cavalry considered it all to be a nuisance, but nothing worth breaking a sweat over. They won some fights, they lost some fights, but they never really considered it a big deal. Then Custer and hundreds of his men died scream, wiped out almost to the last man (as no mercy was shown), and then the Indians brutalized their dead bodies to put the fear into the rest of the Cavalry. And thus the Cavalry responded, and decided that the Indians were no longer a nuisance. They were now a threat.
And the Cavalry responded by pounding them into the fucking dirt. No longer was it squadrons of cavalry, now it was divisions. No longer was it green recruits, now it was crack elites and veterans of the Civil War. No longer did they just hold the area around their forts, they went out and chased them down where they lived. No longer did they stop following if the Indians moved too far, they started living out of the saddle like their enemy. No mercy had been shown. Now no mercy would be given. And just to rub salt in the wound and really make it sting, they went and committed a few atrocities of their own (Wounded Knee). All because a few Indian warriors decided to not show mercy.
No, the most dangerous thing to the state is a populous who has so much contempt for them and so little "give a damn" that they will not be ordered around. Because at that point, the government is illegitimate, and no amount of force can make people comply. And in fact, the use of force just further reinforces their illegitimacy.
I am sure u/Gizortnik could tell you all about it. Considering he has dealt with this exact sort of problem first hand, and has explained it frequently.
You're story does not show what you think it shows. Disproportionate response works. Executing every fighting age male among your enemies works. That is quite the opposite of mercy.
It show that instead of slinking off after 1/6, the right should have retaliated one thousand fold. Instead they showed mercy to the left, as always, and the left continued on.
Disproportionate response only works temporarily, only when applied arbitrarily (to make your actions unpredictable), and only when applied against a small response. Make it systemic and you have to basically kill absolutely everyone, or you will guarantee a permanent state of war levied against you.
Disproportionate force is simply a force multiplier. It's a weapon. It doesn't win you the war long term. Your other example (executing every fighting age male), is a genocide that assumes you've already won.
My point about Mercy is that it is our weapon after we see an individual has repented. From a tactical standpoint, mercy is about taking someone out of the fight as permanently as if they had been killed, while also being able to use them as a propaganda weapon to guarantee further surrenders.
Pass your christcuckoldry theories past actual winners. Maybe check out Afghanistan and it’s history.
Eh, not really. The Cheyennes at LBH have been salty over Sand Creek to begin with when volunteer cavalry took things very seriously and also took novelty vagina souvenirs.
Also the Sioux have done much worse to the German settlers by massacring around 800 around Neu Ulm back in 1862, and then Lincoln personally saved great most of the suspects from hanging (only actually proven murderers or rapists got executed after he and his officers reviewed every case of the original kangaroo court). For which the woke faggots are demonizing him now because no good deed goes unpunished.