Discussion
Anyone who doubts the moral bankruptcy of the apartheid IDF
should read the Guardian today .
The story exposes the blackmail tactics it uses against wholly innocent civilians.
including denial of medical treatment and threats to expose sexual orientation .
It also exposes how new IDF members are deliberately desensitised to the murder
of civilians .
I would imagine there will be immense pressure to pull the story .
should read the Guardian today .
The story exposes the blackmail tactics it uses against wholly innocent civilians.
including denial of medical treatment and threats to expose sexual orientation .
It also exposes how new IDF members are deliberately desensitised to the murder
of civilians .
I would imagine there will be immense pressure to pull the story .
TheRealFingers99 said:
There are certainly some acts committed by "the winners" which, to my mind, might justify prosecution. Whether a conviction would ensue is a different matter.
For example, the fire bombings of Dresden and Essen, the fire bombing of Tokyo, the A bombs.
I can't see that the results of not carrying out any of these would have been the UK under Nazi rule.
My reply is in 2 parts, legal and moral.For example, the fire bombings of Dresden and Essen, the fire bombing of Tokyo, the A bombs.
I can't see that the results of not carrying out any of these would have been the UK under Nazi rule.
As I have said many times the international treaties covering the conduct of war offers civilians of an enemy power who are in an area controlled by that enemy power very little protection. Other than some vague provisions about minimising risk to children and pregnant woman you can bomb them as much as you wish. So from a legal perspective its very difficult to argue any of these acts where a war crime.
The treaty on Genocide is much more widely drawn and I think you can argue you could ask for an international prosecution. The problem would be you would then need to prosecute almost every leader who is involved in a war.
So no I do not think Churchill or Truman could have faced any charges.
The moral issue is more complex.
Dresden, Essen and Tokyo. Where all part of a strategy to reduce the enemies ability to manufacture and distribute war materials. Less enemy guns, bullets, shells, tanks, aircraft, fuel etc means less allied casualties.
This is a difficult moral decision. How may enemy civilian deaths and how much enemy destruction is it worth to save one allied solder. You also have to remember the casualty rates for RAF bomber command where about 44%.
The strategy was criticised after the war when evidence suggested the campaign was less effective than expected. However, with hindsight we would never make mistakes.
With regard to dropping the A bomb, Truman was given estimates that an invasion of mainland Japan would result in between 500k and 1m America casualties.
War is hell and difficult decisions have to be made.
You are right I do not think any of these events would have resulted in Nazi flags over London. However, how many more allied solders would have been casualties is anybody's guess.
and that is where it all goes wrong Mrr T said:
TheRealFingers99 said:
There are certainly some acts committed by "the winners" which, to my mind, might justify prosecution. Whether a conviction would ensue is a different matter.
For example, the fire bombings of Dresden and Essen, the fire bombing of Tokyo, the A bombs.
I can't see that the results of not carrying out any of these would have been the UK under Nazi rule.
[big bit snipped -- I Am Not A Lawyer -- can't argue the legal bit further]For example, the fire bombings of Dresden and Essen, the fire bombing of Tokyo, the A bombs.
I can't see that the results of not carrying out any of these would have been the UK under Nazi rule.
Mrr T said:
The moral issue is more complex.
Dresden, Essen and Tokyo. Where all part of a strategy to reduce the enemies ability to manufacture and distribute war materials. Less enemy guns, bullets, shells, tanks, aircraft, fuel etc means less allied casualties.
This is a difficult moral decision. How may enemy civilian deaths and how much enemy destruction is it worth to save one allied solder. You also have to remember the casualty rates for RAF bomber command where about 44%.
The strategy was criticised after the war when evidence suggested the campaign was less effective than expected. However, with hindsight we would never make mistakes.
I've read, I think, that the Essen and Dresden raids were actually opposed at the time. It would seem that they were chosen -- as were Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- mainly because they had previously received only very light damage. Dresden, Essen and Tokyo. Where all part of a strategy to reduce the enemies ability to manufacture and distribute war materials. Less enemy guns, bullets, shells, tanks, aircraft, fuel etc means less allied casualties.
This is a difficult moral decision. How may enemy civilian deaths and how much enemy destruction is it worth to save one allied solder. You also have to remember the casualty rates for RAF bomber command where about 44%.
The strategy was criticised after the war when evidence suggested the campaign was less effective than expected. However, with hindsight we would never make mistakes.
Apropos the Israeli use of cluster munitions: they're almost sublimely effective for destroying armour. The problem is that the bomblets have a very high failure to detonate rate. This leaves the charges hanging from their detonating cords from trees in orchards, gutters, among scrap metal, washing lines, by the sides of roads, in damaged factories, on roofs, in gardens. Effectively they render the area totally unsafe for civilians.
One of the de-miners interviewed in Remnants-of-a-War says something like: "I've been to many war zones. You can generally tell exactly what ordinance has been used by the damage. Here [in South Lebanon] there's everything, it really looks as though they threw the kitchen sink, too."
It's a terrific film, well worth watching.
Edited by TheRealFingers99 on Friday 12th September 12:44
TheRealFingers99 said:
I've read, I think, that the Essen and Dresden raids were actually opposed at the time. It would seem that they were chosen -- as were Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- mainly because they had previously received only very light damage.
I try to avoid wiki links as some entries are very one sided but the follow seem reasonable.Details of the bomber strategy with reasonable comments on its effectiveness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Bomber_Command
Details on Essen which was a frequent target of raids because of the Krupps factory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Essen_in_W...
Details on Dresden which was seen as a important staging post for moving troops from West to East.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in...
There was opposition to the bomber strategy. Indeed, at times aircraft where pulled from the offensive for other uses.
The number of raids on Japan where much lower than in Germany because of distances involved.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Raids_on_Japan
I have never been clear why Hiroshima and Nagasaki where chosen. It was clear they did not want to target Tokyo because this would have crippled the Government.
It is true the target committee wanted cities which had not been raided so as to assess damage but they where still legitimate targets.
This is worth a read.
http://csis.org/blog/understanding-decision-drop-b...
if you want even more moral dilemma read up on the attack on the French navy at Mers-el-Kedir.
TheRealFingers99 said:
Reservists from elite IDF intel unit refuse to serve over Palestinian 'persecution' Haaretz reports.
Based on your previous posts I assume this is meant as a criticism of Israel. Personally I think it shows Israel in a very positive light. An Israeli newspaper is able to publicly reporting a story about dissent with in the IDF about the conduct of military operations.If you can find a story in the Gaza Daily News reporting on dissent within Hamas about the lobbing of missiles into Israel we may be making progress.
TheRealFingers99 said:
Mrr T said:
if you want even more moral dilemma read up on the attack on the French navy at Mers-el-Kedir.
Oh, I have. I often wonder what the result would have been had the French been given a little more time, but........
Japan decided not to attach Pearl Harbour but to attack only British interests. Without the ability to support forces in SEA via the Suez canal India falls to Japan.
With the allies on the run Spain joins the war on the axis side.
Without the need to divert forces to North Africa operation Barbarossa takes Moscow and Stalin commits suicide and Russia is absorbed into Germany.
With Russia as a vassal state German is able to vastly increase production and Britain has no option but to negotiate a peace treaty.
Who knows.
Mrr T said:
TheRealFingers99 said:
Reservists from elite IDF intel unit refuse to serve over Palestinian 'persecution' Haaretz reports.
Based on your previous posts I assume this is meant as a criticism of Israel. Personally I think it shows Israel in a very positive light. An Israeli newspaper is able to publicly reporting a story about dissent with in the IDF about the conduct of military operations.If you can find a story in the Gaza Daily News reporting on dissent within Hamas about the lobbing of missiles into Israel we may be making progress.
I'm not a Hamas fanboy -- nor a Fatah one, come to that. Both depress in both their actions and the ease with which they're manipulated by Israel.
Haaretz -- as I've pointed out before -- is the voice of the conscience of Israel. That voice doesn't come without a cost.
Of course, the liberal democracy that many would like to see Israel as doesn't apply at all if you're not an Israeli citizen, and much less if you're not Jewish.
See Druze refuse to join Israel military service for example.
Guardian has an interview with some of the Unit 8200 refuseniks here.
Edited by TheRealFingers99 on Friday 12th September 16:32
Mrr T said:
TheRealFingers99 said:
Mrr T said:
if you want even more moral dilemma read up on the attack on the French navy at Mers-el-Kedir.
Oh, I have. I often wonder what the result would have been had the French been given a little more time, but........
Mrr T said:
Who knows.
Indeed. Mrr T said:
Based on your previous posts I assume this is meant as a criticism of Israel. Personally I think it shows Israel in a very positive light. An Israeli newspaper is able to publicly reporting a story about dissent with in the IDF about the conduct of military operations.
If you can find a story in the Gaza Daily News reporting on dissent within Hamas about the lobbing of missiles into Israel we may be making progress.
Have you ever seen anything that does not show Israel in a positive light ?If you can find a story in the Gaza Daily News reporting on dissent within Hamas about the lobbing of missiles into Israel we may be making progress.
The Haaretz account is a very sanitised version of the Guardian story that gives undue weight
to the usual IDF spin .
Destroying lives for the sake of being able to do it is not a positive action even if it's done to
beasts with legs .
Speak the truth and you are branded a criminal!
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/15/israe...
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/15/israe...
SR7492 said:
Speak the truth and you are branded a criminal!
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/15/israe...
And rightly bloody so! They are serving members of their armed forces, albeit reservists. You cannot go around picking and choosing what orders to follow!http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/15/israe...
Officer: I say old chap, go charge the enemy!
Soldier: Errrr, sod that I might get hurt.
Isn't going to work is it? I can just imagine Nelson saying no! Wellington refusing to fight! Rourkes Drift saying "I don't fancy them odds"! Or Guy Gibson moaning refusing to fly that low!
TheRealFingers99 said:
There are certainly some acts committed by "the winners" which, to my mind, might justify prosecution. Whether a conviction would ensue is a different matter.
For example, the fire bombings of Dresden and Essen, the fire bombing of Tokyo, the A bombs.
I can't see that the results of not carrying out any of these would have been the UK under Nazi rule.
Could I also point out that Tokyo, Nagasaki and Hiroshima were not carried out by the UK so are not relevant to the Nazi flag over London.For example, the fire bombings of Dresden and Essen, the fire bombing of Tokyo, the A bombs.
I can't see that the results of not carrying out any of these would have been the UK under Nazi rule.
Dresden was a mistake, commonly accepted today as such, but Essen was the home of Krupps so was a very valid target!
Grumfutock said:
And rightly bloody so! They are serving members of their armed forces, albeit reservists. You cannot go around picking and choosing what orders to follow!
Officer: I say old chap, go charge the enemy!
Soldier: Errrr, sod that I might get hurt.
Isn't going to work is it? I can just imagine Nelson saying no! Wellington refusing to fight! Rourkes Drift saying "I don't fancy them odds"! Or Guy Gibson moaning refusing to fly that low!
I think the "just following orders" line went out of fashion after Nuremberg.Officer: I say old chap, go charge the enemy!
Soldier: Errrr, sod that I might get hurt.
Isn't going to work is it? I can just imagine Nelson saying no! Wellington refusing to fight! Rourkes Drift saying "I don't fancy them odds"! Or Guy Gibson moaning refusing to fly that low!
By convention, Jewish Israeli refuseniks have largely escaped trial and etc. Druze Israeli refuseniks generally get 3 year sentences.
To my mind, a better parallel might be a tank commander who finds he's been supplied with white phosphorous or cluster munitions and refuses to fire on a civilian area until more suitable munitions are supplied.
Still, these intelligence refuseniks took legal advice. They knew what could happen. All power to them.
Edited by TheRealFingers99 on Monday 15th September 17:22
Grumfutock said:
Could I also point out that Tokyo, Nagasaki and Hiroshima were not carried out by the UK so are not relevant to the Nazi flag over London.
More important than who did it, Nagasaki and Hiroshima both occurred long after VE day -- Operation Meetinghouse on Tokyo a month or so before it. TheRealFingers99 said:
Grumfutock said:
Could I also point out that Tokyo, Nagasaki and Hiroshima were not carried out by the UK so are not relevant to the Nazi flag over London.
More important than who did it, Nagasaki and Hiroshima both occurred long after VE day -- Operation Meetinghouse on Tokyo a month or so before it. To capture the Japanese home islands modern conservative estimates are that it would of cost around 10,000,000 casualties from all sides. Now surely it is better to kill 300,000 in 3 bombing raids than face that, wouldn't you agree?
TheRealFingers99 said:
I think the "just following orders" line went out of fashion after Nuremberg.
By convention, Jewish Israeli refuseniks have largely escaped trial and etc. Druze Israeli refuseniks generally get 3 year sentences.
To my mind, a better parallel might be a tank commander who finds he's been supplied with white phosphorous or cluster munitions and refuses to fire on a civilian area until more suitable munitions are supplied.
Still, these intelligence refuseniks took legal advice. They knew what could happen. All power to them.
Yep because military forces the world over are democratic organisations!!! This isn't Russia in 1917 you know!By convention, Jewish Israeli refuseniks have largely escaped trial and etc. Druze Israeli refuseniks generally get 3 year sentences.
To my mind, a better parallel might be a tank commander who finds he's been supplied with white phosphorous or cluster munitions and refuses to fire on a civilian area until more suitable munitions are supplied.
Still, these intelligence refuseniks took legal advice. They knew what could happen. All power to them.
Edited by TheRealFingers99 on Monday 15th September 17:22
As long as the order is legal then the refusal to follow it is a military crime. Very simple, very basic and a foundation of the whole military set up! Has to be and will never, ever change!
Oh and tanks don't fire cluster munitions.
Edited by Grumfutock on Monday 15th September 20:42
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff