A cartoon
-
If I'm not mistaken, the bombing of german civilians was just a retaliation on an "eye for an eye"-basis for what Hitler did to London. Did it really have that much of an impact on the outcome?
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
Did it really have that much of an impact on the outcome?
That isn't the question. The question is, could we have won if we had been unwilling to kill innocent civilians to get to him. If we had said "can't do that!" He would have simply put all his resources behind lines of civilians and we would have been powerless to defeat him. By showing we would remorselessly slaughter innocents, we left him no place to hide. Was that an evil thing to do? Of course it was. But it is a perfect exmaple of two wrongs making a right. We won.
Thank God for disproportional force.
-
Roger J wrote:
fails to see this.
We don't fail to see anything. The problem is those who criticize overt offensive operations against terrorists have no alternatives. Ultimately, you guys are saying that as long as innocent civilians are in the line of fire, nothing at all can be done. Which is precisely why the terrorists hide behind the innocent civilians. The situation today is no different at all from what we confronted during WWII. If you are going to defeat the bad guys, you are going to have to go through the innocent civilians to get to them.
Thank God for disproportional force.
Stan Shannon wrote:
If you are going to defeat the bad guys, you are going to have to go through the innocent civilians to get to them.
I just hope that people you love are never those innocent civilians. Or would you consider the deaths of your own parents, wife, children etc to be a price worth paying? Maybe if you do you'd be willing to let them swap places with some of the civilians of Southern Lebanon for a few months, perhaps driving ambulances with a nice red target cross on the top?
"He's got a lot on his mind, and it's not a load-bearing structure." - John Weak
-
-
that explains the difference[^] The thread below by fat_kid is rife with pissing and moaning about what Israel is doing in self defense. The complaints about civilian deaths are a by product of the way the ***heads choose to fight. They obviously have no respect for life: putting civilians at risk for their own protection, storing rockets in homes, etc. Fuck'em. The problem wouldn't exist had they simply stayed on the other side of the border. Yes, the Bush administration has no doubt given Israel the green light - and that is a good thing as long as they carry through and eliminate the vermin.
Mike Dear NYT - the fact is, the founding fathers hung traitors. dennisd45 wrote: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced
I see it a little bit different. The comic has of course some truth in it, but there is a big failure, too. If you drop a bomb on a foe surrounded by civilians where is the difference to dropping a bomb on civilians where are foes, too? Both is wrong. Well I'm pro Israel (I hate Hezbollah), but I don't like the way they have driven in. Ok, but take a deeper look on the way. Will it be a good way (not looking on victims among the civilians)? Will it solve the problem? The more bombs and rockets Israel launches, the more terrorists will stand up and fight. If they bomb away Lebanon then they haven't blown away those countries who support Hezbollah massively. Those countries are Syria and Iran. If they attack those countries, too. I bet the other Muslem countries won't watch it. So they can't beat Hezbollah with some bombs dropped on Lebanon, but they can get even more foes there. And this is what Hezbollah wants. They are terrorists, they don't mind if people in Lebanon are killed, they are happy about it, because this is what they want. A total war against Israel. Regards, Ingo
------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
-
There is a world of difference between criticising Israel for being heavy-handed/disproportionate in its use of force and being an anti-Semite - and if people can't see that, then there is little point in trying to have a discussion at all. It reminds me of people who say that if you criticise Bush, then you are anti-American. Hell, I regualrly criticise Blair - does that make me an anti-British Brit? :)
-
It just goes to show how insidious the Soapbox is: I've now spent so much time on here today that I'll probably have to work late to catch up. And, therefore, please feel free to take that honour for yourself. I have just got to do some work! (Stoopid NHibernate/HQL).
home
bookmarks You can ignore relatives but the neighbours live next door -
ihoecken wrote:
Look at Rabin, he was on a point where it was almost peace.
Arafat takes most of the blame for that - he was lying through his teeth. http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=3&x_outlet=17&x_article=175[^]
Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Arafat takes most of the blame for that - he was lying through his teeth.
Yes, you are right. I would blame Arafat and some fanatic Israelits*, too, because they killed Rabin. But the way Rabin was going was the right one, he didn't wanted a war and he tried other methods to go against terrorists. * In every country of the world there are fanatics, I don't talk about Israelites in general! Regards, Ingo
------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
-
I think you are missing the point. Israel is a country, we expect it to act according to human rights etc, and atleast try to minimize the civilian losses. we all know that Hizbolluh are terrorists and no one here expects them to try to act as good as possible. I think you, digital man , Stan & CO , fails to see this. Most of us do hate the terrorists and think they are fuckers. But since Israel is one of "us", we expect Istrael to behave a bit better. If some fuckhead punches my brother in his face, I dont expect him to go home to the fuckhead and kill his family.
Don't waste your time. If you don't join in their choir, you're just another terrorist lover. Remember, it's either "with us or against us".
-
Roger J wrote:
fails to see this.
We don't fail to see anything. The problem is those who criticize overt offensive operations against terrorists have no alternatives. Ultimately, you guys are saying that as long as innocent civilians are in the line of fire, nothing at all can be done. Which is precisely why the terrorists hide behind the innocent civilians. The situation today is no different at all from what we confronted during WWII. If you are going to defeat the bad guys, you are going to have to go through the innocent civilians to get to them.
Thank God for disproportional force.
>>If you are going to defeat the bad guys, you are going to have to go through the innocent civilians to get to them. I do not agree, it is not the same kind of beast they are fighting. Killing civilians in ww2 did not produce terrorists. Nor did germany have that many allies in the end to aid them. Palestina might possibly have the entire arab world on their side.
-
If I'm not mistaken, the bombing of german civilians was just a retaliation on an "eye for an eye"-basis for what Hitler did to London. Did it really have that much of an impact on the outcome?
I forget the name of the bombing run, but I know what you're talking about. It was one specific bombing raid (using firebombs) that was supposed to have been done simply for retaliatory purposes and had no strategic value. Some leftist professor (is that redundant?) tried to convince me of that back in college, but after researching it on my own I found that the city housed numerous military factories.
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
espeir wrote:
Did dennisd45 really write that?
yes he did. amazing.
Mike Dear NYT - the fact is, the founding fathers hung traitors. dennisd45 wrote: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced
-
I forget the name of the bombing run, but I know what you're talking about. It was one specific bombing raid (using firebombs) that was supposed to have been done simply for retaliatory purposes and had no strategic value. Some leftist professor (is that redundant?) tried to convince me of that back in college, but after researching it on my own I found that the city housed numerous military factories.
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
You're probably talking about the bombing of Dresden. Yes there were nazis there. But I fail to see the point in more or less oblitterating the entire city for anything but revenge.
-
>>If you are going to defeat the bad guys, you are going to have to go through the innocent civilians to get to them. I do not agree, it is not the same kind of beast they are fighting. Killing civilians in ww2 did not produce terrorists. Nor did germany have that many allies in the end to aid them. Palestina might possibly have the entire arab world on their side.
Roger J wrote:
Killing civilians in ww2 did not produce terrorists.
Yes it did. Bombing Germany increased their resolve, but screwed their military economy towards producing interceptors and AA guns. The Russians who invaded Berlin were killing 13 year old girls armed with panzerfausts.
Roger J wrote:
Nor did germany have that many allies in the end to aid them.
Other than hungary, slovakia, italy, japan, romania, austria, bulgaria etc, no.
Roger J wrote:
Palestina might possibly have the entire arab world on their side.
Not if we are clever and forment a Sunni/Shi'a war no.
Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
-
It is the kind of propaganda that makes things even worse. Cut the bullshit and start thinking about the REAL cause of this. Or maybe your brain is surrounded by a bozone layer preventing logic from getting in.
-------- "I say no to drugs, but they don't listen." - Marilyn Manson
MP (2) wrote:
the REAL cause of this.
Whats that?
Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
Did it really have that much of an impact on the outcome?
That isn't the question. The question is, could we have won if we had been unwilling to kill innocent civilians to get to him. If we had said "can't do that!" He would have simply put all his resources behind lines of civilians and we would have been powerless to defeat him. By showing we would remorselessly slaughter innocents, we left him no place to hide. Was that an evil thing to do? Of course it was. But it is a perfect exmaple of two wrongs making a right. We won.
Thank God for disproportional force.
Stan Shannon wrote:
That isn't the question. The question is, could we have won if we had been unwilling to kill innocent civilians to get to him.
I think: yes, you could. You were already marching against the German troups, and Germany didn't had any resources left. Hitler didn't mind those bombing. But even though I think that it wasn't really right, I won't blame you for that. On the other hand I'm not a strategist, so perhaps war would have last two or three weeks longer... Regards, Ingo
------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
-
I forget the name of the bombing run, but I know what you're talking about. It was one specific bombing raid (using firebombs) that was supposed to have been done simply for retaliatory purposes and had no strategic value. Some leftist professor (is that redundant?) tried to convince me of that back in college, but after researching it on my own I found that the city housed numerous military factories.
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
espeir wrote:
I forget the name of the bombing run
In Germany it has been called "Feuersturm" translated it would have been named "Firestorm". Regards, Ingo
------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
-
I am trying to play the part of Devil's Advocate [^] Partly to show how stupid and dangerous the situation is becomming.
I know. I was just quoting someone else humorly and forgot to add the smiley face. But sadly, the quote rings to for those who claim that force is the way to peace, and leave no room for those wanting to be left in peace. Oh well, gotta go download some stuff and add it to My Privates Folder. :-D
There are II kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who understand Roman numerals. Web - Blog - RSS - Math
-
ihoecken wrote:
Look at Rabin, he was on a point where it was almost peace.
Arafat takes most of the blame for that - he was lying through his teeth. http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=3&x_outlet=17&x_article=175[^]
Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
I don't doubt it one bit, and I doubt anyone else on this thread (Adnan aside, but what do you expect?) would disagree either. Arafat was no Mandela, that's for sure.
Anna :rose: Currently working mostly on: Visual Lint :cool: Anna's Place | Tears and Laughter "Be yourself - not what others think you should be" - Marcia Graesch "Anna's just a sexy-looking lesbian tart" - A friend, trying to wind me up. It didn't work.
-
MP (2) wrote:
the REAL cause of this.
Whats that?
Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
That is the question. But people don't seem to care what is the cause and try to fix it, they only care about who will win.
-------- "I say no to drugs, but they don't listen." - Marilyn Manson
-
You're probably talking about the bombing of Dresden. Yes there were nazis there. But I fail to see the point in more or less oblitterating the entire city for anything but revenge.
The reason for terror bombing at the time was to redirect Nazi industry towards producing flak and interceptors, not tanks and artillery. The actual damage caused by strategic bombing on industry was pretty low. There was an interesting documentary recently of a load of WW2 UK cabinet meetings, churchill was all for obliterating cute German villages in reprisal for German reprisals in Czechoslovakia, he was talked down. -- modified at 10:17 Wednesday 26th July, 2006