83 soldiers dead in 12 days

[Ssickboy]

omg!  so you can close this forum down now.  Go check out that site inside and out, even DL'd the lesson plan.  It's every bit on topic to this thread.  

http://www.sonyclassics.com/fogofwar/indexFlash.html

[*NADS Lo$eMoney]

One other note: To say you support the intentional murder of innocent civilians lowers you to a level I can't imagine being at. You preach peace but when it comes down to it, you're willing to murder women and children in cold blood to get your way. What does that say about your humanity?

A war is a war, there are no rules.  America itself has targeted innocent civilians, as sixhits said, in the 2nd world war.  The theory behind it was to break the will of the people.  The Germans first did it in the battle of Britain. Hitler diverted the main focus of the bombing from the English airfields, which was highly effective, and told them to bomb london, expecting the British to fold.  The plan backfired and the British were more determined to defeat Germany than ever, and thankfully the Brits turned the tide and won the battle of Britain.  The same thing happened in 9/11, instead of America's will being broken, you saw more American flags outside of houses than ever, I expect the same in Isreal. Really terrorism is an ineffective weapon, instead of crushing the enemy it seems to unite them, but it's the only thing the Palestinians have. Economic sanctions is a tool America uses to cripple nations, but what it effectively does is deprives Innocent civilians of medicine, how is that any different? I don't support the killing of anyone but I do say if you have been wronged you are alowed to fight back with what ever weapons you can get your hands on. I am not willing to murder anyone, the closest I have come to murder is by paying the taxes that have bought the bullets, and bombs, and guns that are killing people all over the world, and in that way I am not innocent.  You support the Palestians being kicked out of their homes but can't deal with the consequences, so I'll steal a line from you and say: shit happens.

[Brutha]

Well...Shit happens is just not right. Let me recap the situation in short words: Palestine is occupied and want to be free, they dont have enough weapons so they use suicide bombers to to destroy anything israeli, ppl or property. Israel was attacked and won the folowing war and is now an occupant of the lands they conquerred. Israel wont give all up since they think they deserve it, but are willing to negotiate peace with Palestine if they lay down their weapons, while they defend themselves by killing terrorist leaders, and civilians in the same strikes, and destroying infrastructure to send a message that says: we will not tolerate an attack on Israel. Well then, which side has right? It seems that ppl bring morality and ethics into this matter without asking what are the ethical principles involved. It doesnt really matter what your gut says, because everybody agrees that a life lost is a tragedy. One ethical principle could be that you shal not take life. A nice principle that is, but it is a war so it needs to be polished a little. So let us use you shal not kill civilian life. There is still a problem here, as you cant really tell suicide bombers from civillians, so again we need to look at that line. Perhaps you shal not kill civillians if you can avoid it. Now we can say we have ONE principle. This will give us a tool to which we can say that suicide bombings, as long as it harms civilian life, is wrong. It also means that Israel is breaking the same principle when they use rockets to kill leaders of palestinian resistance movments, because they harm civilians. This is ONE principle as i said, and the discussion must go further to state wether the destruction of property is wrong or not, and then we would have to see what is gained or lost by such actions.

I do not like the situation in Israel and Palestine any more then most ppl, but it is too easy to say what is wrong or what is right........hell...its easier to say what is wrong, than what is right. And I admit that I have been one of the worst to yell words of wisdom, without giving the reasons that are the basis of my argument.........

["Sixhits"]

So Israel responds by rocketing civilian neighborhoods that are around a suspected terrorist, and then they bulldoze entire neighborhood of Palestinians? Sounds like they are doing a good job defending themselves by destroying the Palestinians whole infastructure.

What the Isrealis do often boarders on willful murder. But in the end it's not that much different, and surely much less violent, than what the US did to Japan. Or what the Japanese did to the Chinese (if you want to see a list of horrors take a look at what Japanese soldiers did in China).

And your right about the infrastructure - that's their plan, destroy it. It's one step away from their own version of the final solution. Not like the Palestinians wouldn't do the same to them if they could.

So I again say, let those fools burn their house down. The US must disengage.

["Sixhits"]

Now we can say we have ONE principle. This will give us a tool to which we can say that suicide bombings, as long as it harms civilian life, is wrong. It also means that Israel is breaking the same principle when they use rockets to kill leaders of palestinian resistance movments, because they harm civilians. This is ONE principle as i said, and the discussion must go further to state wether the destruction of property is wrong or not, and then we would have to see what is gained or lost by such actions.

I think the only principal being played out between Isreal and Palestine is this: Might makes right.

And so they each die.

[alaric]

A war is a war, there are no rules.  America itself has targeted innocent civilians, as sixhits said, in the 2nd world war.  The theory behind it was to break the will of the people.  The Germans first did it in the battle of Britain. Hitler diverted the main focus of the bombing from the English airfields, which was highly effective, and told them to bomb london, expecting the British to fold.  The plan backfired and the British were more determined to defeat Germany than ever, and thankfully the Brits turned the tide and won the battle of Britain.  The same thing happened in 9/11, instead of America's will being broken, you saw more American flags outside of houses than ever, I expect the same in Isreal. Really terrorism is an ineffective weapon, instead of crushing the enemy it seems to unite them, but it's the only thing the Palestinians have. Economic sanctions is a tool America uses to cripple nations, but what it effectively does is deprives Innocent civilians of medicine, how is that any different? I don't support the killing of anyone but I do say if you have been wronged you are alowed to fight back with what ever weapons you can get your hands on. I am not willing to murder anyone, the closest I have come to murder is by paying the taxes that have bought the bullets, and bombs, and guns that are killing people all over the world, and in that way I am not innocent.  You support the Palestians being kicked out of their homes but can't deal with the consequences, so I'll steal a line from you and say: shit happens.

First, war does have rules even if they're not always followed.

Second, I wonder why I waste my time writing these posts when no one reads them. I said the US firebombed the Japanese in and effort to SAVE lives. The same cannot be said for terrorists, either palestinian or others.

Third, you can't blame the US for what a country's leader fails to do. There has always been enough aid provided to sanctioned countries to fulfill humanitarian needs. Those country's leaders have chosen to spend that money on weapons instead. Is that our fault?

Fourth, terrorism is a very effective weapon, always has been. Fear and indimidation are the oldest tricks in the book, for a recent example let's point to the current situation in Iraq. Through terrorism, Al Qaeda has not only influenced the elections in Spain, they have also caused that country (as well as two others) to pull their troops out of Iraq. In return, Al Qaeda has promised no further attacks against Spain. Successful terrorism in action.

Five, I never said I supported kicking Palestinians out of their homes so stop putting words in my mouth. I said Israel has a right to defend themselves. Those are two very different things. Also, just because I say that Israel has a right to defend themselves does not mean I support every action Israel has taken, their hands are bloody too. But that does not change the fact that the targeting of innocent civilians by hamas and other palestinian terrorists groups is inherently wrong, nor does it change the fact that Israel has a right to defend themselves from such attacks. (This point is also my response to Cossack)

On a related point, too many of you see the world as black and white. That a someone who voices support for one part of the Israeli policy supports everything Israel does. This is not a world where you are either with us or against us. This is a world where doing one thing right does not mean you are doing everything right (or doing one thing wrong means you are doing everything wrong). There is no group of people on this planet who are always right or always wrong. Treat each issue as independant, rather than affiliated with one group or another.

["Sixhits"]

Second, I wonder why I waste my time writing these posts when no one reads them. I said the US firebombed the Japanese in and effort to SAVE lives. The same cannot be said for terrorists, either palestinian or others.

just to clarify - the US did so in order to save American lives. I'm pretty sure that's the point you're making.

[alaric]

Second, I wonder why I waste my time writing these posts when no one reads them. I said the US firebombed the Japanese in and effort to SAVE lives. The same cannot be said for terrorists, either palestinian or others.

just to clarify - the US did so in order to save American lives. I'm pretty sure that's the point you're making.

And Japanese lives too. Imagine how many more Japanese would have been killed had the invasion of Japan gone ahead as planned.

But, yes, the first goal was to save American lives. Which it should be considering the survival of our country is at stake, oh, and the fact the Japanese started it all...

[BFG]

thats a difficult argument though is it not? to justify the bombing and murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians... to protect troops. - to justify it in any way. to intentionally target civilians for whatever reason seems hard to justify.

Perhaps the palestinian bombers feel it is the same way - they kill Israeli civilians to save palestinian civilians.

["Sixhits"]

thats a difficult argument though is it not? to justify the bombing and murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians... to protect troops. - to justify it in any way. to intentionally target civilians for whatever reason seems hard to justify.

Perhaps the palestinian bombers feel it is the same way - they kill Israeli civilians to save palestinian civilians.

"Perhaps the palestinian bombers feel it is the same way"

That's the point I've been trying to figure how to make.

As for killing civilians ... in war, everyone is a target. I find it hard to validate putting limitations on what one can or cannot do in war. This is because you are expecting the other side to do the same - often they will not. And I don't want my guys to be fighting with the proverbial hand tied behind the back (no matter how much I don't want them to be fighting to begin with).

I think what it comes down to is what are the objectives of the conflict? With those objectives, what are the most efficient ways of securing them?

For the US in WWII, the objective was the unconditional surrender of Japan. A secondary objective was to minimize American casualties. In that frame, nuking Japan made sense. In it's own way, nuking Japan and burning cities was moral.

This is why I keep harping on Perspective and why I am so upset with the Bush regime. It seems clear to me that the frame of reference from which Bush runs the war and leads our nation is not the same as mine, and I think, not the right one to use. Ditto for Sharon. And ditto for Arafat.

Unilaterial policy is almost never the right policy. As our founders said, united we stand, devided we fall. Bush's policy is that of dividing the world into little bits and pieces of "for us" and "against us", almost at a whim, with little thought to the real world consequences. Clearly, little thought was expunged on what would happen after we kicked Saddam out on his ass. Compare this to the occupation of Japan and Germany after WWII and you might begin to see just how ridiculous the notion of Bush-as-leader really is.

[alaric]

Perhaps the palestinian bombers feel it is the same way - they kill Israeli civilians to save palestinian civilians.

Save them from what? From losing their homes? That's justification for taking action against the Israeli military and police forces, but to murder civilians for loss of property?

It should be noted that these terrorists also use their own people as human shields, hiding in their mosques and neighborhoods. Doesn't really sound like they are trying to save their lives does it?

I'll say again that the palestinians do have a legitimage grivance, but they're going about resovling it in the wrong way. And I think that's more due to a few bad apples than the majority of palestinians.

[Brutha]

I think the only principal being played out between Isreal and Palestine is this: Might makes right.

And so they each die.

perhaps, but what you say here is that they are fighting on equal terms, which is not right. But this is simplifying things.

[cO.gabe]

Hamas will keep carrying out attacks against innocent civilians until Israel is no more.  Conversely, Israel does not want the Palistinians gone.

dont you find it ironic that Hamas was created by Israelis to fight Arafat's OLP ?

Um, huh? Ironic? OLP? PLO?  I'm not sure what you are talking about or why that would be ironic, but maybe I'm just a noob.  Please explain.

[Brutha]

Second, I wonder why I waste my time writing these posts when no one reads them. I said the US firebombed the Japanese in and effort to SAVE lives. The same cannot be said for terrorists, either palestinian or others.

just to clarify - the US did so in order to save American lives. I'm pretty sure that's the point you're making.

And Japanese lives too. Imagine how many more Japanese would have been killed had the invasion of Japan gone ahead as planned.

By using the atomic bomb, the U.S. killed a few thousand civillians....perhaps some more than that, but to say that it may have, in the long run, saved more japaneese civilians compared to an invasion of Japan is borderline insane. Now let me ask you a question, How do you know that, on what calculation do you base your statment on? Do you even know the long term damage that warcrime did on japan? Yes, Japan started the war, but not with a nuclear bomb, not even with a little bomb against civilinans. Hiroshima and Nagasaki suffered for a long time because of those bombs, the blast itself and the radioactive fallout that harmed the city for a long time after the war. I believe that U.S.A. opened pandoras box by inventing the bomb(I know it would have been invented sooner or later, but the U.S. invented it) and the world was changed forever. Hopefully will WMD's never be used again. But know this, I am not blaming americans today their governments crimes back in 1945.

The bombings of Bremen was almost equally horrific, allthough the aftermath didnt proove to be as bad. Perhaps Truman and "bomber" harris should have been convicted of warcrimes....I know they would have been today.

If a world war is fought again, i hope it will be conventional.

[BTs_GhostSniper]

Just as a side note to all these war crimes posts.....

Only the winners decide what were war crimes.

Oh, and whoever said that the atomic bomb only killed a few thousand people....

The two atomic bombs dropped on Japan killed over 250,000 people.  Now then, military estimates show that an invasion of the Japanese Islands would have resulted in over 1,000,000 Japanese deaths, not to mention the hundred thousand or more U.S. deaths.

So personally, I say fuck the Imperialist Japanese and anybody with the mindset that says we shouldn't have dropped the bombs.....we didn't start that war.....but we sure as fuck knew how to end it.

Peace.

-GhostSniper Out.

[BFG]

Save them from what? From losing their homes? That's justification for taking action against the Israeli military and police forces, but to murder civilians for loss of property?

Homes? just their homes? No. We are talking about peoples Homes, their families, their lives... their loved ones. their children, their society... their nationality.
Fighting for the right to live and breath.

[Brain]

if another true all out war is fought (WWIII) it will undoubtedly go nuclear.  there are no 2 ways about it.  in ww3 everybody dies

[BTs_GhostSniper]

in ww3 everybody dies

YES!  It's like in America's Army when I am using the RPG....and somebody sneaks up on me so I fire it into a wall, killing both the enemy and myself.  If EVERYBODY dies in WWIII....then that means not only will I die, but people like voodoo, Typhy, BFG, and Bill Gates will die, too!

I like it!

Bring on the Global Thermal Nuclear Weapons!

w00t!

["Sixhits"]

Just as a side note to all these war crimes posts.....

Only the winners decide what were war crimes.
Now then, military estimates show that an invasion of the Japanese Islands would have resulted in over 1,000,000 Japanese deaths, not to mention the hundred thousand or more U.S. deaths.

Estimates range, but I think you're being, um, conservative.

Truman was issued a report before he used the nukes that the American's were looking at towards one million American dead in an invasion and several million Japanese dead. A good book to read to get a handle on the numbers and the disposition of material and men is FLYBOYS.

I think ppl today don't appreciate the Japanese mindset at the time - literally, the entire country was mobilized to die killing Americans.

God, I hope I never turn a corner on you with an RPG...

[*NADS Lo$eMoney]

First, war does have rules even if they're not always followed.

Yeah there are treaties to protect people.  However these rules are pretty hollow, everyone breaks international laws and treaties.

Second, I wonder why I waste my time writing these posts when no one reads them. I said the US firebombed the Japanese in and effort to SAVE lives. The same cannot be said for terrorists, either palestinian or others.

So they killed civilians who weren't prepared to die to save the lives of soldiers who are.  Sounds just as bad to me. It is a tough moral question that people have been asking since the end of the war.  I have to say I agree with you that it did save lives, but can we ever be sure?

Third, you can't blame the US for what a country's leader fails to do. There has always been enough aid provided to sanctioned countries to fulfill humanitarian needs. Those country's leaders have chosen to spend that money on weapons instead. Is that our fault?

Point well taken. Although I dont think that economic sanctions is the best solution, if there were a way to topple the people at the top I'd be all for it, and so would the government I guess.  It does illustrate that some of the leaders of nations don't give a fuck about their people and are only out for themselves.

Fourth, terrorism is a very effective weapon, always has been. Fear and indimidation are the oldest tricks in the book, for a recent example let's point to the current situation in Iraq. Through terrorism, Al Qaeda has not only influenced the elections in Spain, they have also caused that country (as well as two others) to pull their troops out of Iraq. In return, Al Qaeda has promised no further attacks against Spain. Successful terrorism in action.

I believe that people are being pulled out of Iraq because they are realizing that they really have no business being there (the terrorist attacks were vital in making that realization however).  Terrorism is a good way of achieving objectives, but no wars have been won purely through terrorism, although in Iraq it's beginning to look that way...

Five, I never said I supported kicking Palestinians out of their homes so stop putting words in my mouth. I said Israel has a right to defend themselves. Those are two very different things. Also, just because I say that Israel has a right to defend themselves does not mean I support every action Israel has taken, their hands are bloody too. But that does not change the fact that the targeting of innocent civilians by hamas and other palestinian terrorists groups is inherently wrong, nor does it change the fact that Israel has a right to defend themselves from such attacks. (This point is also my response to Cossack)

On a related point, too many of you see the world as black and white. That a someone who voices support for one part of the Israeli policy supports everything Israel does. This is not a world where you are either with us or against us. This is a world where doing one thing right does not mean you are doing everything right (or doing one thing wrong means you are doing everything wrong). There is no group of people on this planet who are always right or always wrong. Treat each issue as independant, rather than affiliated with one group or another.[/color]

Well I decided to put those words in your mouth when you said:

One other note: To say you support the intentional murder of innocent civilians lowers you to a level I can't imagine being at. You preach peace but when it comes down to it, you're willing to murder women and children in cold blood to get your way. What does that say about your humanity?

I never said I was willing to murder anyone.  You are guilty of doing exactly what you are critizing other people of doing, you assumed that since I didn't condemn Palestine for terrorism that I supported terrorism.  Well I do not support people people strapping bombs to themselves and blowing theselves up along with women and children, but I do think it is understandable why people would do it in such a hopeless situation.

It is a tragic and complex situation.  I don't have the answers, I don't think anyone does, in the end it is up to those who are doing the killing to stop and to compromise, which doesn't look like it is going to happen anytime soon with the people who are in charge.