NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level_English.php?cat=Security&loid=8.0.322578407&par

Now, if Israel can do no wrong, and Israel is only going after the terrorists, and Israel bombs a prominently christian portion of Beirut, than these christians were obviously terrorists!

http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level_English.php?cat=Security&loid=8.0.322578407&par

Now, if Israel can do no wrong, and Israel is only going after the terrorists, and Israel bombs a prominently christian portion of Beirut, than these christians were obviously terrorists!

I'm not saying that Israel does no wrong.

But it's perfectly OK for Israel to attack Hezbollah, since Hezbollah kidnapped soldiers and rockets Israel on a regular basis.

I don't expect Israel to sit there and do nothing, or to capitulate.

Likewise, I expect Hezbollah to fight back. Although now that they are "out of supply", i.e, their supply routes by sea, air, and land are interdicted to all but foot traffic, and their areas are under fairly heavy air attack, they are going to get their butts handed to them by the IDF.

Same for Gaza. Israel retreated from Gaza. No more settlers or soldiers in Gaza. Evidently, that's not OK with the Palestinians, who were launching rockets into Israel at random (perhaps in retaliation for the "assassination by Hellfire missile" that the Israelis engage in - both sides of which are understandable).

I would have to say that on an attack per attack or round per round basis, the Arabs in this conflict either deliberately engage masses of civilians (suicide bombers) or don't care if they hit civilians (unguided rockets fired into random geographic areas). Israelis seem to hit civilians when civilians happen to be either a misidentified target, or in a location where a target (say a power station) is going to be destroyed.

Can't have a war without collateral damage and the occasional misidentified target. But no one is holding the Hez to that standard at all.

Then you should also say its okay for Palestinians to react to the occupation and, later on, shelling of Gaza.

Then you should also say its okay for Palestinians to react to the occupation and, later on, shelling of Gaza.

As long as they use a conventional military, and do not deliberately target civilians as a rule.

Suicide bombing and random Katyusha (or Qassam) rocketing is essentially a deliberate targeting of civilians.

Knowing that you don't have the military to be able to take, consolidate, and hold the area, and then engaging in deliberate acts ONLY against civilians and ONLY with the goal of scaring the local population into doing your bidding is terrorism, not legitimate warfare.

For all of you who pride yourself on following international law concerning warfare, you seem last in line to criticize anything that the Palestinians or Hezbollah have done.

they are going to get their butts handed to them by the IDF.

A derisive 'Hah' is my response to that. Didn't work during near two decades of occupation, why would it work now?

All thats happening is that their numbers will swell because of this action.

Can't have a war without collateral damage and the occasional misidentified target. But no one is holding the Hez to that standard at all.
The world is black and white, woe is we who can see in color.

Israel is a free nation considered stable and "one of the good guys." Hezbollah is a non-state supported guerilla group. Why should Israel be allowed to work at the same standards as Hezbollah?

It's like saying "Hey, al-Queda does this, why can't the US?"

As long as they use a conventional military, and do not deliberately target civilians as a rule.
This wave of assaults is in response to Hezbolalh attacking a military isntallation.

I guess Kazus forgot that Israel is at war?

I guess Kazus forgot that Israel is at war?
With who? Oh that's right, no one.

The world is black and white, woe is we who can see in color.

Israel is a democratic nation. Hezbollah is a non-state supported guerilla group. Why should Israel be allowed to work at the same standards as Hezbollah?

They aren't working at the same standards as Hez.

But quite obviously, Hez is held to no standard at all. In fact, the world press and pundits give a round hurrah to blowing up schoolchildren and buses, and shelling settlements that contain only civilians. Good job Hezbollah! Boo Israel!

As long as they use a conventional military, and do not deliberately target civilians as a rule.

Suicide bombing and random Katyusha (or Qassam) rocketing is essentially a deliberate targeting of civilians.

Knowing that you don't have the military to be able to take, consolidate, and hold the area, and then engaging in deliberate acts ONLY against civilians and ONLY with the goal of scaring the local population into doing your bidding is terrorism, not legitimate warfare.

For all of you who pride yourself on following international law concerning warfare, you seem last in line to criticize anything that the Palestinians or Hezbollah have done.

The Christian part of Beirut, I am pretty sure, is not a legitimate target.

Weve got two Lebanese Christians here at our university, and theyre not particularly fond of Israel.

They aren't working at the same standards as Hez.

But quite obviously, Hez is held to no standard at all. In fact, the world press and pundits give a round hurrah to blowing up schoolchildren and buses, and shelling settlements that contain only civilians. Good job Hezbollah! Boo Israel!
You obviously don't realize that this assault is in response to Hezbollah attacking a military installation. Oh wait, you probably do know that and are completely blocking it out of your mind to excuse Israel.

With who? Oh that's right, no one.
Technically, Lebanon and Syria since the Yom Kippur War.

Then again, technically North and South Korea are still at war.

The Christian part of Beirut, I am pretty sure, is not a legitimate target.

Yes, and it's perfectly legitimate to criticize that hit, as soon as we know exactly what they thought they were trying to hit, what was there at the time, and what's there now.

I'm still waiting, however, for the criticism of suicide bombers, and shelling of civilian areas with unguided munitions.

At least with precision guided munitions, you have a chance to hit the exact thing you're aiming at.

With unguided munitions, it's free shrapnel for everyone.

And don't tell me the guided versions are not available, because they are. They just cost more.

Technically, Lebanon and Syria since the Yom Kippur War.

Then again, technically North and South Korea are still at war.
Technically I won a $70 item, but it can be gotten for $20.

Yes, and it's perfectly legitimate to criticize that hit, as soon as we know exactly what they thought they were trying to hit, what was there at the time, and what's there now.

I'm still waiting, however, for the criticism of suicide bombers, and shelling of civilian areas with unguided munitions.

Okay.

A dehumanized palestinian is no more right to blow himself up and take out Israeli civilians with him as Israeli forces shelling Gaza for no reason.

Happy?

Yes, and it's perfectly legitimate to criticize that hit, as soon as we know exactly what they thought they were trying to hit, what was there at the time, and what's there now.
That is irrelevant unless facts can be produced of any attacks coming from within that neighborhood.

I'm still waiting, however, for the criticism of suicide bombers, and shelling of civilian areas with unguided munitions.
"al-Queda does it, so why can't the US?"

At least with precision guided munitions, you have a chance to hit the exact thing you're aiming at.
Within 60 meters.

With unguided munitions, it's free shrapnel for everyone.
Doing very little damage comparitively.

And don't tell me the guided versions are not available, because they are. They just cost more.
And would probably actually kill people.

Okay.

A dehumanized palestinian is no more right to blow himself up and take out Israeli civilians with him as Israeli forces shelling Gaza for no reason.

Happy?

Sure.


Israel, can, however, retaliate for such an atrocity by shelling the crap out of Gaza with precision weapons, and knocking out power, water, sewer, bridges, and destroying government or military buildings.

Retaliation by either is fair. As long as civilian personnel are not the primary targets.

I have no problem, for example, with the kidnapping of soldiers (although I have an international law problem with holding them hostage to demand a ceasefire or demand prisoner exchanges). Nor do I have a problem with a suicide bomber blowing up Israeli soldiers.

But you can't expect Israel not to retaliate. That's entirely unreasonable, as it appears that they are using modern weaponry in a fairly reasonable fashion (they could have, for instance, carpet bombed Gaza with cluster munitions, and they haven't).

Neither of you are actually listening to each other, which is just as well, because neither of you have your facts straight. This debate is pointless. End quote.

As long as they use a conventional military, and do not deliberately target civilians as a rule.

Suicide bombing and random Katyusha (or Qassam) rocketing is essentially a deliberate targeting of civilians.

Knowing that you don't have the military to be able to take, consolidate, and hold the area, and then engaging in deliberate acts ONLY against civilians and ONLY with the goal of scaring the local population into doing your bidding is terrorism, not legitimate warfare.

For all of you who pride yourself on following international law concerning warfare, you seem last in line to criticize anything that the Palestinians or Hezbollah have done.
I have news for you: Any war that lasts any amount of time at all will have civilian casualties. If one knows that engaging in war will result in civilian deaths, then engaging in war is accepting guilt for the civilians that are killed by your side. No, Israel is not targeting civilians, but that is because they don't have to. Palestinian militants have little chance going head to head against Israeli military forces, so they attack a more vulnerable target.

I really don't understand why civilians are so sacrosanct, anyway. I mean, you fight wars to win, don't you? Shouldn't we fight them so as to win as decisively as possible? "If injury must be done to a man, it must be done so that his retribution need not be feared."

You people have such dumbass double standards. Sure, we can attack the soldiers who were drafted, but we can't attack the civilians who sent them to war in the first place. I mean, think about your assumptions here.

60 meters

Katyushas, in my experience (seen the pattern they lay down) will put rockets from a single launch site into an area roughly 500 meters by 1500 meters at random. Kind of hard to hit something unless your target is that large.

The guided versions are GPS guided, and will land within 8 feet of what you aim at.

So you could aim at a legitimate target, like an IDF bunker or artillery position.

But, I guess it's cheaper to use the unguided version to kill and wound and terrorize civilians - and you know the world press and the Left around the world will support your decision to kill people at random.

I really don't understand why civilians are so sacrosanct, anyway. I mean, you fight wars to win, don't you? Shouldn't we fight them so as to win as decisively as possible? "If injury must be done to a man, it must be done so that his retribution need not be feared."


If that were actually true, Israel could use cluster bombs on the Palestinian refugee camps, and inside of a day, kill several million people. They might actually be able to reduce the local Palestinian population to a few thousand people with modern weapons.

And in your words, "his retribution need not be feared".

However, the world doesn't approve of killing civilians today, unless you're either a left-wing insurgent, or an Islamic extremist, in which case, the New York Times will trot out your heroic struggle to kill children in their nappies as an example of the best way to live.

But, I guess it's cheaper to use the unguided version to kill and wound and terrorize civilians - and you know the world press and the Left around the world will support your decision to kill people at random.

Right now, the left is in retreat on this issue for they do not want to be seen cheering on the Hezbollah terrorists.

Katyushas, in my experience (seen the pattern they lay down) will put rockets from a single launch site into an area roughly 500 meters by 1500 meters at random. Kind of hard to hit something unless your target is that large.

The guided versions are GPS guided, and will land within 8 feet of what you aim at.

So you could aim at a legitimate target, like an IDF bunker or artillery position.

But, I guess it's cheaper to use the unguided version to kill and wound and terrorize civilians - and you know the world press and the Left around the world will support your decision to kill people at random.

Hang on, does that mean that the IDF is siting it military within 1500m of civilians? Isn't that kind of akin to using human shields?

But, I guess it's cheaper to use the unguided version to kill and wound and terrorize civilians - and you know the world press and the Left around the world will support your decision to kill people at random.Oh, please. Enough with the "leftist conspiracies."
Israel has the right to go after Hezbullah for invading its territory. This right was reaffirmed when Hezbullah started launching rockets against civilian targets in Israel. Lebanon is required by international law to disarm Hezbullah, and has failed to do so.
This notwithstanding, the blockade the Israelis began feels like a gross overraction to me.

Okay.

A dehumanized palestinian is no more right to blow himself up and take out Israeli civilians with him as Israeli forces shelling Gaza for no reason.

Happy?

Deep Kimchi won't ever be happy until every Muslim in the world is dead. This is the same Bushevik who openly said the best solution in the "War on Terror" is to sterilize every Muslim in the world and/or kill them.

Oh, please. Enough with the "leftist conspiracies."
Israel has the right to go after Hezbullah for invading its territory. This right was reaffirmed when Hezbullah started launching rockets against civilian targets in Israel. Lebanon is required by international law to disarm Hezbullah, and has failed to do so.
This notwithstanding, the blockade the Israelis began feels like a gross overraction to me.

Israel is doing what Israel and the United States do best: Undermine an expectation they impose on another nation by doing exactly what cripples their ability to do what is expected of them.

Hang on, does that mean that the IDF is siting it military within 1500m of civilians? Isn't that kind of akin to using human shields?

Nope.

Using human shields means that civilians are in your bunkers (which you use as military command and control centers during the day), or sitting on your armored vehicles, or sitting in an army camp, or living in army barracks.

The Hezbollah bunker system on the Israeli border, for instance, makes no distinction between combat bunker and living space for children. They are intermingled meter by meter.

Katyushas, in my experience (seen the pattern they lay down) will put rockets from a single launch site into an area roughly 500 meters by 1500 meters at random. Kind of hard to hit something unless your target is that large.

The guided versions are GPS guided, and will land within 8 feet of what you aim at.

So you could aim at a legitimate target, like an IDF bunker or artillery position.

But, I guess it's cheaper to use the unguided version to kill and wound and terrorize civilians - and you know the world press and the Left around the world will support your decision to kill people at random.
And the Israel bombing campaign is still killing 10x as many people. Looks like Hezbollah fails at random killing of civilians.

Right now, the left is in retreat on this issue for they do not want to be seen cheering on the Hezbollah terrorists.
And "the right" is blind to any points made against Israel.

Kimchi has refused to acknowledge my points that: this campaign is in retaliation for attacks on a military compound; Israel has killed 10 times as many people as Hezbollah in the campaign; and that Hezbollah is not on the same level as Israel.

Israel is doing what Israel and the United States do best: Undermine an expectation they impose on another nation by doing exactly what cripples their ability to do what is expected of them.

I think its fair to say Lebanon had its opprotunity to disarm Hezbollah... but chose not to because of hezbollah's relative popularity and power. Now Israel and the United States have the opprotunity and justification to meet those ends themselves.

I think its fair to say Lebanon had its opprotunity to disarm Hezbollah... but chose not to because of hezbollah's relative popularity and power. Now Israel and the United States have the opprotunity and justification to meet those ends themselves.
Why not ask Israel to disarm the US?

The US couldn't disarm law-abiding, government-loving civilians, much less gang-members and much, much less a rogue guerilla force if one existed.

And the Israel bombing campaign is still killing 10x as many people. Looks like Hezbollah fails at random killing of civilians.

Not quite.. they actually do it quite effectivly... However, you forget (or neglect) to mention that Hezbollah uses civilians as a shield as all of their operations, and weapon depots are located in densly populated residential areas. Given this reality, it seems only logical Israel will take on more collateral damage even with precision weapons. If Israel's goal was the same as Hezbollahs, most of Beriut could be rubble by now through carpet bombing.

Nope.

Using human shields means that civilians are in your bunkers (which you use as military command and control centers during the day), or sitting on your armored vehicles, or sitting in an army camp, or living in army barracks.

The Hezbollah bunker system on the Israeli border, for instance, makes no distinction between combat bunker and living space for children. They are intermingled meter by meter.

But Israel is aware that the weapons system being used against them is only accurate to withing 1500m. Therefore they should site their military furthur than that distance away from any civilian population to avoid the possibility of civilian collateral damage. If they are within that distance then my logic suggests that the Israelis don't mind accepting civilian deaths.

your forgetting the fact that 99% of arabs hate israel and want to massacre all the jews in it

so why feel guilty given half the chance the arabs would do exactly the same thing why loose sleep over killing people that hate you

go Israel boo terrorist muslim scum and christianity is a peacful religion unlike hateful islam

I think its fair to say Lebanon had its opprotunity to disarm Hezbollah... but chose not to because of hezbollah's relative popularity and power. Now Israel and the United States have the opprotunity and justification to meet those ends themselves.

Ironically, Israel is in the process of forcing compliance with 1559 on Lebanon.

And the Israel bombing campaign is still killing 10x as many people. Looks like Hezbollah fails at random killing of civilians.
Hezbollah is dropping a fraction of the ordnance that Israel is dropping.

And Israel is dropping them on target. A Katyusha that lands outside of town because the idiots firing it are incompetent artillerymen (but feel they are doing well because the rocket landed in Israel) isn't going to kill anyone.

I think the primary problem may be that most Arabs have no idea how to conduct a modern war with modern weapons.

Even if given modern weapons, there is one history lesson after another that shows them being savaged by people who know how to use the weapons. The 67 war, the 73 war - it doesn't matter - sometimes I think they use suicide bombers because they have a 10th century idea on how to conduct war.

Israel is doing what Israel and the United States do best: Undermine an expectation they impose on another nation by doing exactly what cripples their ability to do what is expected of them.Indeed, however they do have the legal right to do so in this case. To my knowledge, however, they havent deliberately targetted the Lebanese military yet, with the exception of one incident that I hear is being investigated. My impression of Olmerts and Perez speeches recently delivered is that they think theyre doing Lebanon a favor with this.
But after having to watch the UN observer mission do nothing but observe Hezbullah shoot rockets into Israel, what are they supposed to do? I find Olmerts rhetoric disgusting, but Israel is reacting to a clear threat, albeit with means that I find are exaggerated.

But Israel is aware that the weapons system being used against them is only accurate to withing 1500m. Therefore they should site their military furthur than that distance away from any civilian population to avoid the possibility of civilian collateral damage. If they are within that distance then my logic suggests that the Israelis don't mind accepting civilian deaths.

It's not the way opinion on the use of military systems works nowadays.

If you are not using precision weapons, you're an asshole.

your forgetting the fact that 99% of arabs hate israel and want to massacre all the jews in it

so why feel guilty given half the chance the arabs would do exactly the same thing why loose sleep over killing people that hate you

go Israel boo terrorist muslim scum and christianity is a peacful religion unlike hateful islam

I wouldn't paint all of islam with the same brush in this case as the Arab League has condemned Hezbollah.

Why not ask Israel to disarm the US?

The US couldn't disarm law-abiding, government-loving civilians, much less gang-members and much, much less a rogue guerilla force if one existed.

The reality that average americans and even radical fringe groups are not largely armed (outside of what the law permits) shows the government IS able to disarm and maintain control over such groups... Also you might not, gag members arn't nearly as well armed as say.. Hezbollah.. or hamas.. and such weapontry isn't nearly as availble in the US as it is in Lebanon... again this speaks to our governments ability to exert great control over.

And Israel is dropping them on target. A Katyusha that lands outside of town because the idiots firing it are incompetent artillerymen (but feel they are doing well because the rocket landed in Israel) isn't going to kill anyone.
I would quote news stating rocket attacks hitting Israel civilian compounds are killing or wounding no one, but you don't care.

I wouldn't paint all of islam with the same brush in this case as the Arab League has condemned Hezbollah.

condemnation perhaps.. but they have taken far too long to do so.. and still have exerted no influence over hezbollah or atempted to assist in a resolution. As is common in the Arab world.. the moderates have failed to act fast enough and harsh enough to make any kind of meaningful difference, allowing radicals to hijack their good names

The reality that average americans and even radical fringe groups are not largely armed (outside of what the law permits) shows the government IS able to disarm and maintain control over such groups... Also you might not, gag members arn't nearly as well armed as say.. Hezbollah.. or hamas.. and such weapontry isn't nearly as availble in the US as it is in Lebanon... again this speaks to our governments ability to exert great control over.
Your averag hunting rifle is very powerful and your average gun enthusiast has a working automatic rifle. And those are the law abiding people. The government cannot disarm people because the people don't let them. The US could not disarm the law-abiding populace if it tried, much less the non-law-abiding ones.

I would quote news stating rocket attacks hitting Israel civilian compounds are killing or wounding no one, but you don't care.

That's because Israelis have bunkers and warning systems.

That, and the people there are scared, and have to stop work.

Several hundred have already been wounded and a few killed.

Hez could actually hurt some of the IDF, and fire fewer rockets, if they had half a brain.

condemnation perhaps.. but they have taken far too long to do so.. and still have exerted no influence over hezbollah or atempted to assist in a resolution. As is common in the Arab world.. the moderates have failed to act fast enough and harsh enough to make any kind of meaningful difference, allowing radicals to hijack their good names

That's because the arab world doesn't have influence over Hezbollah. Only Syria and Iran have that kind of influence.

I would quote news stating rocket attacks hitting Israel civilian compounds are killing or wounding no one, but you don't care.


If they're too incompetent to effective attack Israel, why are they even trying?

Your averag hunting rifle is very powerful and your average gun enthusiast has a working automatic rifle.

Semiautomatic. And with most models, effectively impossible for even someone with a knowledge of light machinery to turn into a fully automatic weapon.

And most hunting rifles are not even semiautomatic - most are either lever action or bolt action.

Your average hoplophobe has next to no knowledge about firearms.

We can always go back to the ignored point Israel is assaulting Lebanon because of a Hezbollah attack on a military installation.

If that were actually true, Israel could use cluster bombs on the Palestinian refugee camps, and inside of a day, kill several million people. They might actually be able to reduce the local Palestinian population to a few thousand people with modern weapons.

And in your words, "his retribution need not be feared".

However, the world doesn't approve of killing civilians today, unless you're either a left-wing insurgent, or an Islamic extremist, in which case, the New York Times will trot out your heroic struggle to kill children in their nappies as an example of the best way to live.
No, not my words. Machiavelli's, actually.

Where are the left-wing insurgents? I've never heard of any, other than a couple disorganized anarchists. I think you're thinking of right-wing insurgents (the religious fundamental type).

Also, please shut your damned face until you can actually find someone advocating the killing of civilians. And don't point at me, either. I'm just asking a question that nobody will give a satisfactory answer to.

your forgetting the fact that 99% of arabs hate israel and want to massacre all the jews in it

so why feel guilty given half the chance the arabs would do exactly the same thing why loose sleep over killing people that hate you

go Israel boo terrorist muslim scum and christianity is a peacful religion unlike hateful islam
*boots from thread*
And stay out!

Lansce-IC']If they're too incompetent to effective attack Israel, why are they even trying?

Because the more they launch up the better the chance of actually killing someone like they did today by killing 2 kids in Nazareth which is primarily an ARAB town.

It's not the way opinion on the use of military systems works nowadays.

If you are not using precision weapons, you're an asshole.

How, pray tell, are groups like Hezbollah supposed to afford these precision weapons. War is an expensive business when the US hasn't got your back.

Where are the left-wing insurgents? I've never heard of any, other than a couple disorganized anarchists. I think you're thinking of right-wing insurgents (the religious fundamental type).

Let's visit sunny South America...

We can always go back to the ignored point Israel is assaulting Lebanon because of a Hezbollah attack on a military installation.

Which is an act of war.

Which is an act of war.
Not by Lebanon.

Ironically, Israel is in the process of forcing compliance with 1559 on Lebanon.
You're right. That is ironic. Israel complying with UN Resolutions?!
The world is ending.

How, pray tell, are groups like Hezbollah supposed to afford these precision weapons. War is an expensive business when the US hasn't got your back.How do they afford rockets in the first place?

Not by Lebanon.

In this case, yes it is because Hezbollah is part of the Political System of Lebanon with seats in the Lebanonese Parliment.

Not by Lebanon.No, but Lebanon is culpable insofar as they are legally required to disarm Hezbullah.

How do they afford rockets in the first place?

They were given to Hezbollah by Sryia and Iran.

How do they afford rockets in the first place?

Unguided weaponry is a lot cheaper and more readily avalible than the snazzy guided stuff.

How do they afford rockets in the first place?
Syria and Iran manufacture them for Hezbollah.

Let's visit sunny South America...
...where the Marxist rebels hide out in the jungle and can't do much. The left-wing insurgency in Colombia is numbered at a couple thousand at best. Argentina, Venezuela, and other countries have little trace of a left-wing insurgency.

How, pray tell, are groups like Hezbollah supposed to afford these precision weapons. War is an expensive business when the US hasn't got your back.
Yeah, but it ain't so bad when Iran has your back. Incidentally, Hezbollah does have some precision weapons, and uses them.

Your averag hunting rifle is very powerful and your average gun enthusiast has a working automatic rifle. And those are the law abiding people. The government cannot disarm people because the people don't let them. The US could not disarm the law-abiding populace if it tried, much less the non-law-abiding ones.

The government could not disarm those citizens in the cases you have described because it would not be legal for them to do so.. It is our right to hold those weapons... However, Hezbollah amounts to what is a criminal organzation, and it is the requirement of the government to bring them under control. Of course not every gun will be found and taken.. but how many gang groups do you see in the US with rocket propelled gernades at their disposal ?

I have news for you: Any war that lasts any amount of time at all will have civilian casualties. If one knows that engaging in war will result in civilian deaths, then engaging in war is accepting guilt for the civilians that are killed by your side. No, Israel is not targeting civilians, but that is because they don't have to. Palestinian militants have little chance going head to head against Israeli military forces, so they attack a more vulnerable target.

I really don't understand why civilians are so sacrosanct, anyway. I mean, you fight wars to win, don't you? Shouldn't we fight them so as to win as decisively as possible? "If injury must be done to a man, it must be done so that his retribution need not be feared."

You people have such dumbass double standards. Sure, we can attack the soldiers who were drafted, but we can't attack the civilians who sent them to war in the first place. I mean, think about your assumptions here.

I agree. Israel should have the right to carpet bomb Gaza into oblivion. Less Israeli casualties, and Israel would win.A bit of sarcasm, yes, but just hilighting the point of his argument. Whee.

Yeah, but it ain't so bad when Iran has your back. Incidentally, Hezbollah does have some precision weapons, and uses them.

Irans GDP $554.8 billion
USs GDP $13.059 trillion

Not really a comparison there.

I would quote news stating rocket attacks hitting Israel civilian compounds are killing or wounding no one, but you don't care.

then you qoutations would be wrong...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5184428.stm

Because the more they launch up the better the chance of actually killing someone like they did today by killing 2 kids in Nazareth which is primarily an ARAB town.


You're proud of them killing to arab kids?

Irans GDP $554.8 billion
USs GDP $13.059 trillion

Not really a comparison there.

Then perhaps they shouldn't be provoking violence since they can hardly afford it.

Lansce-IC']You're proud of them killing to arab kids?

Care to point out where I said or implied that?

Lansce-IC']You're proud of them killing to arab kids?

It seems to me many arabs making the case against israel are proud or indifferent to killing israeli kids... so i dont see your point too clearly >.>

Neither side has any sort of moral high ground in this debate, i find it humerous how some try to establish one

They were given to Hezbollah by Sryia and Iran.I know that. It was a rhetorical question, silly...
Unguided weaponry is a lot cheaper and more readily avalible than the snazzy guided stuff.Now to turn the tables, if the US or Israel used that excuse to explain high civilian casualties, what would you respond to that?

then you qoutations would be wrong...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5184428.stm

Pantless is wrong here as well: http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/740309.html

Care to point out where I said or implied that?
"Because the more they launch up the better the chance of actually killing someone like they did today by killing 2 kids in Nazareth which is primarily an ARAB town."


I asked why do they bother attacking if they were too incompetent and you listed that the more they attack the bigger the chance they have of killing someone like two children. I wondered why you specified the two children specifically. They way you phrased your statement implied that the children were the target of the attack.... and from your other statements I assumed you thought they were justified in their attack. Sorry if you really aren't a child killer.

It seems to me many arabs making the case against israel are proud or indifferent to killing israeli kids... so i dont see your point too clearly >.>

Neither side has any sort of moral high ground in this debate, i find it humerous how some try to establish one



Hang. I might have misunderstood. Was it Israel that killed the children or Palestine? I thought it was Palestine.

Now to turn the tables, if the US or Israel used that excuse to explain high civilian casualties, what would you respond to that?

I would respond by saying US=rich and Hezbollah=poor.

I agree. Israel should have the right to carpet bomb Gaza into oblivion. Less Israeli casualties, and Israel would win.A bit of sarcasm, yes, but just highlighting the point of his argument. Whee.
I'm asking someone to come up with a logical reason why, if civilians start and maintain a war, they should be sheltered from its consequences. I don't think we should go around killing civilians; I don't think we should go around killing anybody.

But why can't we attack civilians? "Oh, because they're civilians." So instead of the militants using civilians as a human shield, we have the civilians selecting a portion of the younger population to use as a shield.

The sanctity of civilians is so dear to us that we've completely forgotten why it exists, and I'm wondering if anyone here remembers.

Lansce-IC']I asked why do they bother attacking if they were too incompetent and you listed that the more they attack the bigger the chance they have of killing someone like two children.

I can see where you got that but the fact is that 2 kids were killed in the arab town of Nazareth. They just continue to lob rockets into Israel in the hopes of killing civilians. That's why they continue to launch rockets.

I wondered why you specified the two children specifically. They way you phrased your statement implied that the children were the target of the attack.... and from your other statements I assumed you thought they were justified in their attack. Sorry if you really aren't a child killer.

Oh hell no. I condemn terrorism which is why I am supporting Israel in their actions against terrorists.

Oh hell no. I condemn terrorism which is why I am supporting Israel in their actions against terrorists.
What do you define as terrorism? Intentional attacks against civilians? If so, the United States is a terrorist state for the atrocities we committed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

What do you define as terrorism? Intentional attacks against civilians?

yes.

If so, the United States is a terrorist state for the atrocities we committed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I do not think you want to go there because judging by this statement, you know jack about the attacks or why they were selected to be bombed.

What do you define as terrorism? Intentional attacks against civilians? If so, the United States is a terrorist state for the atrocities we committed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.Fire-bombing German cities as a hope to make the population war weary would be a better example. However, the Germans did this too, and the blame for allied bombings falls mainly on Churchill, and less on the US.

yes.



I do not think you want to go there because judging by this statement, you know jack about the attacks or why they were selected to be bombed.

Special Pleading Fallacy. You set a concrete definition of what you believe terrorism is, then you hem and haw trying to make an exception for the atomic bombings.

Typical.

Special Pleading Fallacy. You set a concrete definition of what you believe terrorism is, then you hem and haw trying to make an exception for the atomic bombings.

Typical.

And yet one more person who is ignorant on why Hiroshima and Nagaski were bombed. Also forgetting that a war was also still in progress too.

Special Pleading Fallacy. You set a concrete definition of what you believe terrorism is, then you hem and haw trying to make an exception for the atomic bombings.

Typical.
I think he's hinting on the fact that both Hiroshima and Nagasaki had military significance.

Fire-bombing German cities as a hope to make the population war weary would be a better example. However, the Germans did this too, and the blame for allied bombings falls mainly on Churchill, and less on the US.
We also firebombed Tokyo quite a bit.

I think he's hinting on the fact that both Hiroshima and Nagasaki had military significance.

Yep. That they did.

Yep. That they did.

and also a fair number of civilians which were also vapourised.

I think he's hinting on the fact that both Hiroshima and Nagasaki had military significance.
Hiroshima was headquarters for a military unit, and had several factories directly related to war production.

Technically, the only reason it was chosen was because most other large Japanese cities with military targets had already been hit, and they wanted a clean target for bomb damage assessment.

We also firebombed Tokyo quite a bit.

Yokohama, Osaka, and other cities to boot. On top of that, we dropped leaflets over towns soon to be firebombed to get the civilians time to leave.

and also a fair number of civilians which were also vapourised.

And yet, more died in the firebombings of Tokyo than they did at Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined :rolleyes:

We also firebombed Tokyo quite a bit.That would be more of an act of terror. If I recall correctly, there was a lot of speculation going on as to how to maximize the effect of firebombs by targetting areas with many wooden structures.

And yet one more person who is ignorant on why Hiroshima and Nagaski were bombed. Also forgetting that a war was also still in progress too.
Because if a war is in progress, we have to have a Final Solution.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed to force the Japanese into an unconditional surrender. They were ready for armistice, but did not want to accept many of the U.S. terms, including the removal of their emperor.

You know, Israelis can't be called terrorists. It's an act of war, or its not. You can't have a legally sanctioned military action be a terrorist attack. Dumbasses. And they thought there were missiles being transported, no one got hurt, which tells you how good their aim is, and there were no missiles, which means their intel. isn't perfect. Big whoop, despite your title I still don't give a rip.

Because if a war is in progress, we have to have a Final Solution.

Oh brother.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed to force the Japanese into an unconditional surrender.

Goes back to the Pottsdam Declaration.

They were ready for armistice, but did not want to accept many of the U.S. terms, including the removal of their emperor.

Which isn't exactly true.

That would be more of an act of terror. If I recall correctly, there was a lot of speculation going on as to how to maximize the effect of firebombs by targetting areas with many wooden structures.

The act of terrorism is an act of war. If we start from that premise, and exclude terrorism from "criminal acts", then we can start treating today's terrorists like soldiers (i.e., kill them when our military finds them, instead of trying very hard to capture them and put them on trial), and we can retaliate against state sponsors of insurgent groups in conventional war fashion.

The act of terrorism is an act of war. If we start from that premise, and exclude terrorism from "criminal acts", then we can start treating today's terrorists like soldiers (i.e., kill them when our military finds them, instead of trying very hard to capture them and put them on trial), and we can retaliate against state sponsors of insurgent groups in conventional war fashion.

Hell, that'd be somewhat effective, no? ;)

But I've grown apathetic to the conflict in the region, so meh.

And yet one more person who is ignorant on why Hiroshima and Nagaski were bombed. Also forgetting that a war was also still in progress too.

Again you're using the Special Pleading Fallacy (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html).

What do you define as terrorism? Intentional attacks against civilians?yes.If so, the United States is a terrorist state for the atrocities we committed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I do not think you want to go there because judging by this statement, you know jack about the attacks or why they were selected to be bombed.

There, you just set a solid definition what you say terrorism is. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both civilian population centers that were targeted with atomic bombs. Therefore by your agreement to the definition, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both terrorist acts that succeeded in achieving a political objective- in this case of forcing Japan to surrender.

But instead you hem and haw that it was a special case that it was during a war and that that it saved more lives, yada yada yada et cetera.

And you wonder why I call you Communal Property. Contantly being owned and passed around.

:rolleyes:

The act of terrorism is an act of war. If we start from that premise, and exclude terrorism from "criminal acts", then we can start treating today's terrorists like soldiers (i.e., kill them when our military finds them, instead of trying very hard to capture them and put them on trial),

Probably a good idea. That way, when they surrender they will be covered by the Geneva Convention and not have to wait for the judgement of whichever egomaniacal freak who happens to be in the White House

and we can retaliate against state sponsors of insurgent groups in conventional war fashion.

Thought the US already did that. Afganistan springs to mind.

And yet, more died in the firebombings of Tokyo than they did at Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined :rolleyes:

And that makes it ok does it? By your logic the attacks by Hezbollah are perfectly reasonable because they kill fewer people than 11/9 did.

That would be more of an act of terror. If I recall correctly, there was a lot of speculation going on as to how to maximize the effect of firebombs by targetting areas with many wooden structures.
And boy, did we find a lot of wooden structures.
Hiroshima was headquarters for a military unit, and had several factories directly related to war production.

Technically, the only reason it was chosen was because most other large Japanese cities with military targets had already been hit, and they wanted a clean target for bomb damage assessment.
I live in Portland, Oregon, USA. Here in Portland, within walking distance of my house, we have a place called Precision Castparts. Back in the day, they helped manufacture the trigger mechanisms for atomic bombs. Portland itself was anything but a military installation, though it certainly had military units posted here.

Any major city will have military production going on during a war. Is the entire city therefore a military target?

Any major city will have military production going on during a war. Is the entire city therefore a military target?

According to the war doctrine during WWII (held by all sides, mind you), yes, the entire city is a military target.

Which is another thing that bothers me. Stop comparing actions now to actions then. The war doctrine/ideology of the nations has changed, therefore it's comparing apples to oranges.

And that makes it ok does it? By your logic the attacks by Hezbollah are perfectly reasonable because they kill fewer people than 11/9 did.

I just assume to have Hezbollah disarmed. I hate terrorists and the only good terrorist is a dead terrorist.

Hezbollah is intentionally targeting civilians and that has got to stop if there is any hope for a cease-fire.

And that makes it ok does it? By your logic the attacks by Hezbollah are perfectly reasonable because they kill fewer people than 11/9 did.
That was definitely not the point. The point was that we often overlook the firebombings because the nukes were more dramatic and well-known.

According to the war doctrine during WWII (held by all sides, mind you), yes, the entire city is a military target.
Thank you! Now, it appears to me that we don't follow this any more. If Hezbollah or Hamas starts blowing up Israeli towns that have military installations or factories near them, how can they be committing an act of terror? I mean, they're just attacking military targets. No, we've definitely changed the rules. Why? Well, because now it's us getting attacked.

Probably a good idea. That way, when they surrender they will be covered by the Geneva Convention and not have to wait for the judgement of whichever egomaniacal freak who happens to be in the White House

Thought the US already did that. Afganistan springs to mind.

Then why do I hear so much European press about how "terrorists" are not really the result of state sponsors, and are not committing acts of war, but are a "police problem" that should be dealt with on an event-by-event basis in court?

It's an act of war. Shoot them when you find them. Blow up where they live. Attack their sponsors and blow them up, too.

Maybe if a few nations were destroyed as a result of sponsoring insurgents, people would knock off that sort of thing, and insurgents would be completely on their own (makes a movement more honest, if you ask me).

If the US government backing the "contras" made the "contras" illegitimate, what does Syria and Iran backing Hezbollah look like?

That was definitely not the point. The point was that we often overlook the firebombings because the nukes were more dramatic and well-known.

Correct. And, if you look at the total image rather than just the large mushroom clouds, it's a damn good thing those cities were nuked. If they weren't, lots more people would have died, and we'd never have truely known the destructive capabilities of the bomb. Think if the USSR and the US got in a war, not knowing how powerful the weapons they possessed really were, and started chucking them at each other...

And that makes it ok does it? By your logic the attacks by Hezbollah are perfectly reasonable because they kill fewer people than 11/9 did.
You are retarded. Jesus, at least use a valid analogy. Look, Hezbollah is not a legitimate, recognized national government. It therefore cannot legally be at war with another country. Thus, it cannot be compared to Japan, at all.

By the way, the nuke strikes on Japan were done to save American soldiers from the horrifying death tolls they would have faced in a land assault. Two bombs later, we ended the war, and incidentally less Japanese died as well because of the tactic.

:headbang: :D

Oh yea, and the conclusion you drew from his post was ridiculous anyways.

That was definitely not the point. The point was that we often overlook the firebombings because the nukes were more dramatic and well-known.

and also a fair number of civilians which were also vapourised.

The post he was responding too ^.

I think I got his point otherwise his post made no contextual sense.

You are retarded.

Keep it civil. It hasn't devolved into a flame war yet, don't spark it.

You are retarded. Jesus, at least use a valid analogy. Look, Hezbollah is not a legitimate, recognized national government. It therefore cannot legally be at war with another country. Thus, it cannot be compared to Japan, at all.

By the way, the nuke strikes on Japan were done to save American soldiers from the horrifying death tolls they would have faced in a land assault. Two bombs later, we ended the war, and incidentally less Japanese died as well because of the tactic.

:headbang: :D

Oh yea, and the conclusion you drew from his post was ridiculous anyways.

And not just american but Brits, japanese, chinese, and other nationalities as well.

Keep it civil. It hasn't devolved into a flame war yet, don't spark it.
I'm sorry, that was uncalled for. :fluffle:

I'm sorry, that was uncalled for. :fluffle:

:fluffle:

:p :D

your title was a little offending to say the least, don't generalize that notion off of people in the Middle East as people in other parts of the world

your title was a little offending to say the least, don't generalize that notion off of people in the Middle East as people in other parts of the world

It was to get a point across, albeit a dumb one based off a generalized fallacy.

Correct. And, if you look at the total image rather than just the large mushroom clouds, it's a damn good thing those cities were nuked. If they weren't, lots more people would have died, and we'd never have truely known the destructive capabilities of the bomb. Think if the USSR and the US got in a war, not knowing how powerful the weapons they possessed really were, and started chucking them at each other...
You have a point. Part of the reason the bombs were used was to show off our power to the Soviet Union and try to establish dominance in the postwar environment. That is the only good reason I have ever heard for the use of the bomb, simply because it may have prevented World War III.

However, the argument that some people like Surf Shack are proposing, that it was done to prevent a land invasion, is preposterous. The possibility of a land war was very very remote at best. Sure, the military was preparing for it, because they have to try to be prepared for everything. But the Japanese would have surrendered long before it got to the point of fighting for every inch of their country.

You are retarded. Jesus, at least use a valid analogy. Look, Hezbollah is not a legitimate, recognized national government. It therefore cannot legally be at war with another country. Thus, it cannot be compared to Japan, at all.

My conclusion from his post was that in terms of scale, the nukes dropped on Japan weren't that bad of a thing because the US had done worse things. In this case my analogy works.

It was the US president who declare a 'War On Terror', so terrorists are at war and the US declared it. The US can't have its' cake and eat it.

By the way, the nuke strikes on Japan were done to save American soldiers from the horrifying death tolls they would have faced in a land assault. Two bombs later, we ended the war, and incidentally less Japanese died as well because of the tactic.

I happen to disagree about the justifications used to drop the 2 bombs on Japan but this isn't the thread to discuss that.

Calling me retarded? Please, you used an animated smilie.

However, the argument that some people like Surf Shack are proposing, that it was done to prevent a land invasion, is preposterous. The possibility of a land war was very very remote at best. Sure, the military was preparing for it, because they have to try to be prepared for everything. But the Japanese would have surrendered long before it got to the point of fighting for every inch of their country.

Actually...they had an invasion date set and troops moving towards the area to be used in an invasion if Japan did not surrender unconditionally as stated in the Pottsdam declaration.

It was the US president who declare a 'War On Terror', so terrorists are at war and the US declared it. The US can't have its' cake and eat it.

But I just baked a cake and ate it, and I'm from the US.

How dare you deny me the baked goodness! :gundge:

Oh brother.



Goes back to the Pottsdam Declaration.



Which isn't exactly true.
The first was sarcasm, the second, I'm right, and the third, please elaborate.

The first was sarcasm, the second, I'm right, and the third, please elaborate.

There wasn't any plans on removing the emperor directly but to eliminate his God-like status among his people.

wake me up when we're back on topic

wake me up when we're back on topic

*puts Deep Kimchi in a comfortable, soft bed with lots of pillows and tucks him in*

wake me up when we're back on topic

We all know that Israel is at war so bombing the country is to be expected.

There wasn't any plans on removing the emperor directly but to eliminate his God-like status among his people.
Fair enough. I suppose I oversimplified it.
wake me up when we're back on topic
We are. We're talking about terrorism, I think. The title includes "terrorists", so that seems pretty on-topic.

My conclusion from his post was that in terms of scale, the nukes dropped on Japan weren't that bad of a thing because the US had done worse things. In this case my analogy works.

It was the US president who declare a 'War On Terror', so terrorists are at war and the US declared it. The US can't have its' cake and eat it.



I happen to disagree about the justifications used to drop the 2 bombs on Japan but this isn't the thread to discuss that.

Calling me retarded? Please, you used an animated smilie.
LOL. I used the smiley to mitigate the caustic effects of my words. You can make fun of that if you want, but think about this. I said you were retarded because you put forth a well-thought out opinion, and it was retarded. I posted a smiley so people wouldn't think I was a total dickhead, just that I was amazed by your.... well... I hate to dignify them, but well call them responses.


Now, just because we call it a "War on Terrorism" doesn't make it so. We don't have an official target, other than people who blow other people up. That doesn't qualify as a war. That makes this a targeted attack at anyone who shows themselves to be an enemy of the US. When we decided Iraq was an enemy, we started a war. Afghanistan was a war. Terrorists don't count as a war, and that's why we have to treat them like criminals now. You can disagree with the idea of a land invasion, etc. but you would be wrong, so I'm glad you decided not to start that discussion and force me to insult your intelligence again.

By the way, the Japanese trend during the entire war in the Pacific theater was to defend every inch of their ground. Failure was shame. They proved to be tenacious fortifiers who made us pay with blood for every island we took. Japan would have been worse.

wake me up when we're back on topicI'm not all that indisposed to a short break from threads on the situation in Lebanon and Israel. :p

By the way, the Japanese trend during the entire war in the Pacific theater was to defend every inch of their ground. Failure was shame. They proved to be tenacious fortifiers who made us pay with blood for every island we took. Japan would have been worse.

Hence ONE of the reasons for the nuclear weapon. We wanted to make sure we buried the Japanese's face in the ground and made sure they realized they were completely and utterly defeated, and at the mercy of the United States.



And let us not go into insulting of other peoples' intelligence.

By the way, the Japanese trend during the entire war in the Pacific theater was to defend every inch of their ground. Failure was shame. They proved to be tenacious fortifiers who made us pay with blood for every island we took. Japan would have been worse.
Oh, I know they fought brutally for every inch of Iwo Jima and whatnot. And I am familiar with the concept of saving "face". But they were already at the negotiating table.

Oh, I know they fought brutally for every inch of Iwo Jima and whatnot. And I am familiar with the concept of saving "face". But they were already at the negotiating table.

Which was simple, accept pottsdam or else.

Oh, I know they fought brutally for every inch of Iwo Jima and whatnot. And I am familiar with the concept of saving "face". But they were already at the negotiating table.

Sometimes if they get stubborn it's nice to remind them how much they're being owned. The American position was simple, accept Potsdam or "face complete and utter destruction." Considering we were in a position to own Japan, we were not compromising.

I'm not all that indisposed to a short break from threads on the situation in Lebanon and Israel. :p
Well, then let's discuss the battle of Savo Island...

Well, then let's discuss the battle of Savo Island...

How about we discuss having and eating cake? Everyone loves cake.

LOL. I used the smiley to mitigate the caustic effects of my words. You can make fun of that if you want, but think about this. I said you were retarded because you put forth a well-thought out opinion, and it was retarded. I posted a smiley so people wouldn't think I was a total dickhead, just that I was amazed by your.... well... I hate to dignify them, but well call them responses.

Calling me stupid doesn't make it so. Now if you'd like to explain why my analogy was flawed then maybe we'll be able to get somewhere.

Now, just because we call it a "War on Terrorism" doesn't make it so. We don't have an official target, other than people who blow other people up. That doesn't qualify as a war. That makes this a targeted attack at anyone who shows themselves to be an enemy of the US. When we decided Iraq was an enemy, we started a war. Afghanistan was a war. Terrorists don't count as a war, and that's why we have to treat them like criminals now. You can disagree with the idea of a land invasion, etc. but you would be wrong, so I'm glad you decided not to start that discussion and force me to insult your intelligence again.

When was the last time a country use F-16 to round up some burgulars? Or maybe in your nieghbourhood the traffic wardens frequently carry M-16s?

By the way, the Japanese trend during the entire war in the Pacific theater was to defend every inch of their ground. Failure was shame. They proved to be tenacious fortifiers who made us pay with blood for every island we took. Japan would have been worse.

Like I said, not in this thread. Go start one on WW2 if you really want to get into this.



And let us not go into insulting of other peoples' intelligence.

Thank you but any flaming directed at me will remain one sided. I don't get offended by generalites.

Which was simple, accept pottsdam or else.
Ummmm, what do you mean by "accept"? I accept its existence, certainly, and I'm familiar with what it was. Are you saying that since the Japanese didn't agree to Potsdam they were asking for it?

Ummmm, what do you mean by "accept"? I accept its existence, certainly, and I'm familiar with what it was. Are you saying that since the Japanese didn't agree to Potsdam they were asking for it?

In a word? Yes. Notice after Nagasaki that they agreed to the Pottsdam declaration?

The Christian part of Beirut, I am pretty sure, is not a legitimate target.


It is if hezbollah is hiding there.

In a word? Yes. Notice after Nagasaki that they agreed to the Pottsdam declaration?
I do notice that. And I agree that Japan's leaders were stupid to keep on after they should have seen defeat. But I am also a little bit skeptical of the "they were asking for it" point of view. I generally tend to imagine that there are better ways to achieve peace than slaughtering tens of thousands of men, women, and children indiscriminately.

I generally tend to imagine that there are better ways to achieve peace than slaughtering tens of thousands of men, women, and children indiscriminately.


Name one.

I'm not all that indisposed to a short break from threads on the situation in Lebanon and Israel. :p
Seriously, that stuff is burning me out. It's just getting boring...

I do notice that. And I agree that Japan's leaders were stupid to keep on after they should have seen defeat. But I am also a little bit skeptical of the "they were asking for it" point of view. I generally tend to imagine that there are better ways to achieve peace than slaughtering tens of thousands of men, women, and children indiscriminately.

Meh. The war was over by 45 anyway. It was just a matter of time before Japan would've been forced to accept her fate. However, they refused to accept her fate even after Okinawa fell to the Americans. An invasion was imminent and Japan was digging in to fight said invasion. They were prepared to fight to the death until August 6 and August 9.

Name one.
Hmmm... I would have to say *not* slaughtering tons of people. Peace has been achieved many times throughout history by means that don't require bloodshed, even though we seem to prefer stomping our enemies into the dirt.


If nothing else, one atomic bomb could have sufficed. The Hiroshima bomb so completely wiped out communications that it was days before anybody in charge knew what had happened.

Hmmm... I would have to say *not* slaughtering tons of people. Peace has been achieved many times throughout history by means that don't require bloodshed, even though we seem to prefer stomping our enemies into the dirt.


If nothing else, one atomic bomb could have sufficed. The Hiroshima bomb so completely wiped out communications that it was days before anybody in charge knew what had happened.

They had two different types and wanted to play with all of their new toys.

1. Calling me stupid doesn't make it so. Now if you'd like to explain why my analogy was flawed then maybe we'll be able to get somewhere.

2. When was the last time a country use F-16 to round up some burgulars? Or maybe in your nieghbourhood the traffic wardens frequently carry M-16s?

3. Like I said, not in this thread. Go start one on WW2 if you really want to get into this.

4. Thank you but any flaming directed at me will remain one sided. I don't get offended by generalites.
1. Because Japan and Hezbollah have nothing in common. You claimed it was a matter of scale. By that logic I can compare a lot of things, such as 9/11 to Chernobyl. That doesnt make it valid.

2. Probably the last time the burglars were in another continent? An these aren't burglars, they are killers. Another bad comparison.

3. This thread is already on the WWII bent, and no one cares. That's why you want to avoid the discussion, because you have already realized your position is untenable.

4. They aren't generalities. Use more appropriate words. They were extremely specific, and I alread told you exactly what is was that you said that caused me to flame you, and why. The point wasn't to make you mad, I just needed to quickly vent, and then continue with rational discussion.

Hmmm... I would have to say *not* slaughtering tons of people. Peace has been achieved many times throughout history by means that don't require bloodshed, even though we seem to prefer stomping our enemies into the dirt.
Name one time. One large-scale conflict that was peacefully solved.

Name one time. One large-scale conflict that was peacefully solved.
Umm... Cuban Missile Crisis?

Umm... Cuban Missile Crisis?

Well one could say that it wasn't a large scale conflict. You could though say the Cold War though and that I would actually agree to since in reality, that was a conflict.

1. Because Japan and Hezbollah have nothing in common. You claimed it was a matter of scale. By that logic I can compare a lot of things, such as 9/11 to Chernobyl. That doesnt make it valid.

I took corns post to mean that it his opinion the nuking of japan was ok because earlier in the war more people had died in the firebombing of tokyo.
I never tried to say that japan and hezbollah had anything in common. I simple pointed out that by following this logic any act could be justified by saying that although it is bad, you've done something worse before.
Hence my comment that this logic allows the conclusion that hezbollahs current rocket campaign can be justified by saying that 11/9 was worse.

You can see the link between 11/9 and Hezbollah can't you? Both terrorist acts.

2. Probably the last time the burglars were in another continent? An these aren't burglars, they are killers. Another bad comparison.

You said you wanted to treat them like criminals. When you want to arrest a criminal you send the police not the army. What does it matter where they are?

3. This thread is already on the WWII bent, and no one cares. That's why you want to avoid the discussion, because you have already realized your position is untenable.

I'll bite in a minute if it makes you happy.

4. They aren't generalities. Use more appropriate words. They were extremely specific, and I alread told you exactly what is was that you said that caused me to flame you, and why. The point wasn't to make you mad, I just needed to quickly vent, and then continue with rational discussion.

Generalite is a term used to describe those who post in the gereral forum of nationstates. Hence you are a generalite and generalites don't wind me up.

Well one could say that it wasn't a large scale conflict. You could though say the Cold War though and that I would actually agree to since in reality, that was a conflict.
Although the Cold War wasn't solved by diplomacy. it was solved because the USSR fell apart from economic disaster.

1. I took corns post to mean that it his opinion the nuking of japan was ok because earlier in the war more people had died in the firebombing of tokyo.
I never tried to say that japan and hezbollah had anything in common. I simple pointed out that by following this logic any act could be justified by saying that although it is bad, you've done something worse before.
Hence my comment that this logic allows the conclusion that hezbollahs current rocket campaign can be justified by saying that 11/9 was worse.

You can see the link between 11/9 and Hezbollah can't you? Both terrorist acts.



2. You said you wanted to treat them like criminals. When you want to arrest a criminal you send the police not the army. What does it matter where they are?



3. I'll bite in a minute if it makes you happy.



4. Generalite is a term used to describe those who post in the gereral forum of nationstates. Hence you are a generalite and generalites don't wind me up.

1. That's great, but that wasn't what Corn was saying. So, you can be wrong now. Cheers.

2. I never said I wanted to treat them like criminals. I'm a soldiers in the US Army. I want to shoot them. Now, the International Community and people within the US are forcing us to give them due process. I think that's wrong.

And the other two are pointless to respond to.

1. That's great, but that wasn't what Corn was saying. So, you can be wrong now. Cheers.

Odd that corn never disagreed with me about it then. If he does then I will conceed the point a bow to your superiour mind reading abilities.

2. I never said I wanted to treat them like criminals. I'm a soldiers in the US Army. I want to shoot them. Now, the International Community and people within the US are forcing us to give them due process. I think that's wrong.

Umm...yes you did. Post #123. In case you forgot I'll quote it here;

LOL. I used the smiley to mitigate the caustic effects of my words. You can make fun of that if you want, but think about this. I said you were retarded because you put forth a well-thought out opinion, and it was retarded. I posted a smiley so people wouldn't think I was a total dickhead, just that I was amazed by your.... well... I hate to dignify them, but well call them responses.


Now, just because we call it a "War on Terrorism" doesn't make it so. We don't have an official target, other than people who blow other people up. That doesn't qualify as a war. That makes this a targeted attack at anyone who shows themselves to be an enemy of the US. When we decided Iraq was an enemy, we started a war. Afghanistan was a war. Terrorists don't count as a war, and that's why we have to treat them like criminals now. You can disagree with the idea of a land invasion, etc. but you would be wrong, so I'm glad you decided not to start that discussion and force me to insult your intelligence again.

By the way, the Japanese trend during the entire war in the Pacific theater was to defend every inch of their ground. Failure was shame. They proved to be tenacious fortifiers who made us pay with blood for every island we took. Japan would have been worse.

I even bolded the part where you said it to make it easier for you.

And the other two are pointless to respond to.

As you wish. I was merely trying to educate you on the vocabulary around here.

Name one time. One large-scale conflict that was peacefully solved.
By the time it's at a shooting war, it typically ends when one side decides it is better to capitulate than go on. But nevertheless, diplomacy has worked in situations like the Missile Crisis.

By summer of 45, Japan was at a disadvantage, and they knew it. Given that, an armistice agreement could have been worked out in time.

By the time it's at a shooting war, it typically ends when one side decides it is better to capitulate than go on. But nevertheless, diplomacy has worked in situations like the Missile Crisis.

By summer of 45, Japan was at a disadvantage, and they knew it. Given that, an armistice agreement could have been worked out in time.

And given that it was an island with few natural resources, a naval blockade would have stripped them of the ability to wage war in a relativly short space of time.

Odd that corn never disagreed with me about it then. If he does then I will conceed the point a bow to your superiour mind reading abilities.

Umm...yes you did. Post #123. In case you forgot I'll quote it here;

I even bolded the part where you said it to make it easier for you.

As you wish. I was merely trying to educate you on the vocabulary around here.
Funny how I had just addressed that post already. I guess I'll just copy and paste then.

I never said I wanted to treat them like criminals. I'm a soldier in the US Army. I want to shoot them. Now, the International Community and people within the US are forcing us to give them due process. I think that's wrong.

And given that it was an island with few natural resources, a naval blockade would have stripped them of the ability to wage war in a relativly short space of time.

They were preparing to have people fight with bamboo sticks sharpened at one end. I believe a lot of Japanese would have died horribly if there had been a conventional invasion and occupation.

I believe that insurgencies thrive when a people do not believe they are "beaten". The Emperor's surrender order was very necessary, and I do not believe it could have been obtained conventionally.

Funny how I had just addressed that post already. I guess I'll just copy and paste then.

lmao.....you made post #123, you said you want to treat them like criminals and then you said in post #147 that you never said that and you were a soldier and blah blah blah...

Seriously dude, it wasn't that long ago, a little short term memory is all that is required.

lmao.....you made post #123, you said you want to treat them like criminals and then you said in post #147 that you never said that and you were a soldier and blah blah blah...

Seriously dude, it wasn't that long ago, a little short term memory is all that is required.
Wow. In post #123, I never said I WANTED to treat them like criminals, by which I meant with due process. What I said was that US military forces DO treat them like criminals. That doesn't mean we agree with it. I.e. events like Abu Ghraib happen because soldiers haven't been able to take revenge.

So, just because I have to do it doesn't mean I agree with it. Do you understand now? I'm in the military, I do things I disagree with all the time. It's called following orders. I wish they'd let us shoot them and be done with it.



EDIT: By the way, are you getting this at all? Go back and read the wording, and tell me where in #123 I said I agreed with the ituation. I simply stated what we were required to do, and the reason was that the international community doesn't rcognize terrorists as soldiers, but merely as criminals. Criminals have rights to due process, which means we can't shoot them. Therefore, even though I have to consider them criminals, I would rather say they were enemy combatants who shot first, and then were executed with extremem prejudice. Got it? I know what I said, don't blame ME because you aren't listening.

They were preparing to have people fight with bamboo sticks sharpened at one end. I believe a lot of Japanese would have died horribly if there had been a conventional invasion and occupation.

I believe that insurgencies thrive when a people do not believe they are "beaten". The Emperor's surrender order was very necessary, and I do not believe it could have been obtained conventionally.

And the deployment of 2 nuclear weapons had nothing to do with wanting to test them on a real target. God forbid we suggest the use may have had something to do with wanting to let the Russians have a good look at the consequences of attempting to push communism through europe. The desire by the US scientific and military community to monitor the effects of large doses of radiation on a population couldn't have been further from peoples minds.

How about this, you offer the Emperor safe passage to come to the US and observe a test and then see his reaction? Or you drop one on an uninhabited area of japan so that the destructive effects can be observed?

And the deployment of 2 nuclear weapons had nothing to do with wanting to test them on a real target. God forbid we suggest the use may have had something to do with wanting to let the Russians have a good look at the consequences of attempting to push communism through europe. The desire by the US scientific and military community to monitor the effects of large doses of radiation on a population couldn't have been further from peoples minds.

How about this, you offer the Emperor safe passage to come to the US and observe a test and then see his reaction? Or you drop one on an uninhabited area of japan so that the destructive effects can be observed?
Or, we were at war, and we don't HAVE to play nice. Get over it. I wish you knew what it was like. Obviously, you have absolutely no grasp of military matter. When it comes down to us or them, I pick us, and so did our country. We won, we won hard, and we left no doubt about it. We then rebuilt their country and made it stronger than before. We dropped two bombs because we figured it would ensure their surrender, since if one didn't do it, it might be more difficult to get a second in. That is good logic, from a military standpoint. And guess what? No one condemned us for it then. It isn't an atrocity, it's simply strategy.

http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level_English.php?cat=Security&loid=8.0.322578407&par

Now, if Israel can do no wrong, and Israel is only going after the terrorists, and Israel bombs a prominently christian portion of Beirut, than these christians were obviously terrorists!

Christans are terrorists. Yes they go Jesushad on non Christan asses!
A religon cannot be a terrorist. Just because some is part of said religion doesn't make them a terrorist! Its people that are terrorist. (I agree what Israel is doing is terrible and I can't believe they havent been condemed for it.)

I took corns post to mean that it his opinion the nuking of japan was ok because earlier in the war more people had died in the firebombing of tokyo.

I thought it was a military necessity just as firebombing Japan was a military necessity though Nuking them had more of an affect as one bomb did something that multiple bombs did, destroy a whole city. Hiroshima and Nagaski were military targets and thus were destroyed. Thank God the Japanese surrendered for if they didn't, hundreds of thousands, if not over a million more civilians would've died in an invasion that would've cost us hundreds of thousands of casualties as well.

By summer of 45, Japan was at a disadvantage, and they knew it. Given that, an armistice agreement could have been worked out in time.

If they truly wanted one. We've been calling on them to surrender for quite awhile when it became apparent that japan had lost the war.

I thought it was a military necessity just as firebombing Japan was a military necessity though Nuking them had more of an affect as one bomb did something that multiple bombs did, destroy a whole city. Hiroshima and Nagaski were military targets and thus were destroyed. Thank God the Japanese surrendered for if they didn't, hundreds of thousands, if not over a million more civilians would've died in an invasion that would've cost us hundreds of thousands of casualties as well.

Estimates on the cost in US troops alone were over a million.

And given that it was an island with few natural resources, a naval blockade would have stripped them of the ability to wage war in a relativly short space of time.

The Jap merchant fleet was pretty much knocked out by summer 1945 and a naval blockade was pretty much in affect and it didn't force them to capitulate.

EDIT: By the way, are you getting this at all? Go back and read the wording, and tell me where in #123 I said I agreed with the ituation. I simply stated what we were required to do, and the reason was that the international community doesn't rcognize terrorists as soldiers, but merely as criminals. Criminals have rights to due process, which means we can't shoot them. Therefore, even though I have to consider them criminals, I would rather say they were enemy combatants who shot first, and then were executed with extremem prejudice. Got it? I know what I said, don't blame ME because you aren't listening.

Wow, you are a very angry man.

I didn't know you were in the military until post #147. As far as I knew you were just a US citizen and I'm sure you can see how the phrase 'we have to treat them like criminals' can be misconstrued to mean 'we should treat them as criminals' in that situation. I apoligise for my mistake.

The Jap merchant fleet was pretty much knocked out by summer 1945 and a naval blockade was pretty much in affect and it didn't force them to capitulate.

How long did you give it? Blockages can take more than a few months.

Estimates on the cost in US troops alone were over a million.

And one estimate had 5,000,000 Japanese dying in an invasion. Not to mention the US was contemplating the use of chemical weapons during said invasion.

Or, we were at war, and we don't HAVE to play nice. Get over it. I wish you knew what it was like. Obviously, you have absolutely no grasp of military matter. When it comes down to us or them, I pick us, and so did our country. We won, we won hard, and we left no doubt about it. We then rebuilt their country and made it stronger than before. We dropped two bombs because we figured it would ensure their surrender, since if one didn't do it, it might be more difficult to get a second in. That is good logic, from a military standpoint. And guess what? No one condemned us for it then. It isn't an atrocity, it's simply strategy.

You assume alot my friend.

How long did you give it? Blockages can take more than a few months.

Knowing the culture of the time...longer than a few months due to who was in control of the country at the time.

Not to mention, how many japanese civilians would have starved to death if we just stuck with a blockade instead of just ending the war the way it ended? More than the number killed in both bombs. That much is certain.

http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level_English.php?cat=Security&loid=8.0.322578407&par

Now, if Israel can do no wrong, and Israel is only going after the terrorists, and Israel bombs a prominently christian portion of Beirut, than these christians were obviously terrorists!

Jews are gods chosen people according to the Bible but you are mistaken when you say they are Christian. Most Jews don't recognize Jesus as the
Messiah.
.

Jews are gods chosen people according to the Bible but you are mistaken when you say they are Christian. Most Jews don't recognize Jesus as the
Messiah.
.

That ins't what he is saying Kormanthor. He stated what he did because the Christian section of Beirut, Lebanon was struck by the IDF. Therefor, according to him, they must be terrorists because the IDF hit that sector of the city, forgetting that the IDF is at war and will hit whatever they suspect Hezbollah is hiding.

Wow, you are a very angry man.

I didn't know you were in the military until post #147. As far as I knew you were just a US citizen and I'm sure you can see how the phrase 'we have to treat them like criminals' can be misconstrued to mean 'we should treat them as criminals' in that situation. I apoligise for my mistake.
You're right, and I apologize for reacting so badly. I was just frustrated that you were'nt understanding the situation, and so I got upset.

And yes, I did make some assumptions in that last post, but no more than you *assuming* they dropped two bombs to satisfy scientific interest.

Christans are terrorists. Yes they go Jesushad on non Christan asses!
A religon cannot be a terrorist. Just because some is part of said religion doesn't make them a terrorist! Its people that are terrorist. (I agree what Israel is doing is terrible and I can't believe they havent been condemed for it.)


The people of Isreal are gods chosen people, but they are no differant then anyone else when it comes to god requiring them to follow Jesus' teaching. God will see that they get their just desserts for what they do. Why? Because God says in the scriptures that revenge is his and nobody else's. More importantly for all of us is that we make sure that we are right with the Lord before the day of our deaths or of his pending return.

your forgetting the fact that 99% of arabs hate israel and want to massacre all the jews in it

so why feel guilty given half the chance the arabs would do exactly the same thing why loose sleep over killing people that hate you

go Israel boo terrorist muslim scum and christianity is a peacful religion unlike hateful islam

yay educated people boo redneck racist scum

BTW: that's not a fact dolt its an opinion if it is like you claim, a fact give me a source i want a gallup poll that asked all people of arabic descent to get their opinion on Israel

http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level_English.php?cat=Security&loid=8.0.322578407&par

Now, if Israel can do no wrong, and Israel is only going after the terrorists, and Israel bombs a prominently christian portion of Beirut, than these christians were obviously terrorists!

I hate Christians like everyone on this forum (mostly because our Christian parents try to stop us from having sex, and since the Supreme Court says that sex is a fundamental right, it is the equivilent of terror to teens), but to be fair to the fundies and their side Christian Lebanese don't join Hizbullah and are not committing terror in Lebanon.

I hate Christians like everyone on this forum

Like everyone on this forum?

I hate Christians like everyone on this forum (mostly because our Christian parents try to stop us from having sex, and since the Supreme Court says that sex is a fundamental right, it is the equivilent of terror to teens), but to be fair to the fundies and their side Christian Lebanese don't join Hizbullah and are not committing terror in Lebanon.



Your parents are trying to protect you, and the Supreme Court should keep there nose out of family business.

Generalite is a term used to describe those who post in the gereral forum of nationstates. Hence you are a generalite and generalites don't wind me up.

I apologize for nitpicking, but I feel like being an overbearing asshole right at this particular moment.

Actually, a generalite is someone who posts predominantly or entirely in the General forum. While I post in the General forum, I am not a generalite, as I am on Nationstates for the roleplay, not the political debates. I post more in Nationstates and International Incidents than General. /nitpick

The people of Isreal are gods chosen people, but they are no differant then anyone else when it comes to god requiring them to follow Jesus' teaching. God will see that they get their just desserts for what they do. Why? Because God says in the scriptures that revenge is his and nobody else's. More importantly for all of us is that we make sure that we are right with the Lord before the day of our deaths or of his pending return.

But that policy doesn't work on the international stage. Go ahead, take a nation and hold that policy, see how long you last.

Israel is surrounded and infested (yes, infested) by people that want Israel to not exist. If Israel took the stance of appeasement and non-responsiveness, Israel would no longer exist.

Such policies are good on a personal level, but not good on a national and international level.

I hate Christians...

Well, I hate you too, so don't worry about it.

(mostly because our Christian parents try to stop us from having sex, and since the Supreme Court says that sex is a fundamental right, it is the equivilent of terror to teens),

I'm going to assume you are:

A) A man
B) too immature to control your sexual drive
C) selfish

When you engage in sexual activities, the woman stands a chance to get pregnant (no birth control is 100% effective). You clearly do not care about her life, as if she had that baby, if she chose not to give it up for adoption, her life is effectively ruined. She would also have to live through the humiliation of having that baby.

Christian parents tell their children not to have sex outside of marriage because it damages them and their partner.

Some Christian parents tell their children not to have sex outside of marriage because it damages them and their partner.
Fixed.

Fixed.

Point. Some aren't responsibile enough to raise their children in the Christian manner.

However, this is very close to sparking a debate on religion, which will inevitably lead to a flame war due to the inherent hatred of Christianity held by the majority of the people in the General forum, so I would suggest we stop now.

http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level_English.php?cat=Security&loid=8.0.322578407&par

Now, if Israel can do no wrong, and Israel is only going after the terrorists, and Israel bombs a prominently christian portion of Beirut, than these christians were obviously terrorists!


You know I am Catholic Christian and labeling Christians as Terrorists is very offensive and just because they bombed a Christian part does not make christians terrorists its war everyone is a target

You know I am Catholic Christian and labeling Christians as Terrorists is very offensive and just because they bombed a Christian part does not make christians terrorists its war everyone is a target

His purpose was to demonstrate the absurdity of the position he thinks everyone who supports Israel holds, however he domonstrates his own lack of understanding of those who support Israel by voicing such a gross and radicalized generalization.

And if you want to stick around the General forum, you better learn to deal with stuff, because as a Christian, you are a prime target to be ripped to shreds by personal attacks.

And I'm a Calvinist, so I'm in an even worse boat than you, because of some of my predecessors.

But that policy doesn't work on the international stage. Go ahead, take a nation and hold that policy, see how long you last.

Israel is surrounded and infested (yes, infested) by people that want Israel to not exist. If Israel took the stance of appeasement and non-responsiveness, Israel would no longer exist.

Such policies are good on a personal level, but not good on a national and international level.


Don't take me wrong I support Isreal in defending their nation. I'm saying that God will repay each group involved for there part in it.

Don't take me wrong I support Isreal in defending their nation. I'm saying that God will repay each group involved for there part in it.

Ah, okay.