Discussion
Grumfutock said:
But not before VJ day so I really fail to see the point? Perhaps you believe the Japanese were going to surrender because Germany had been defeated? Even after these 3 bombing raids there was a coup attempted to prevent surrender!
The point is simply that a Nazi flag couldn't have been raised over London, not because the raids were carried out on Japan by the Americans, but because the Nazis had already either surrendered (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) or were in no position whatsoever to do anything against the UK (Tokyo). Grumfutock said:
Yep because military forces the world over are democratic organisations!!! This isn't Russia in 1917 you know!
More is the pity? Grumfutock said:
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!
You have to define legal. In this example, the gathering of information in this manner -- let alone the use it is put to -- would be illegal if used against an Israeli citizen. Grumfutock said:
Oh and tanks don't fire cluster munitions.
Just flechettes and white phosphorous? Artillery is a popular means of distributing the damn things: presumably you either use a rocket launcher or a self propelled gun (not so different from a tank), or an artillery piece. Israel used/uses MLRS and aircraft. For an IDF viewpoint see Haaretz.
Grumfutock said:
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?
I owe my life to the Nuclear bombings as my grandfather was a POW in Nagasaki who would have been executed in the event of an allied invasion.
skyrover said:
Grumfutock is correct.
A crueller person than me might say that was oxymoronic.skyrover said:
I owe my life to the Nuclear bombings as my grandfather was a POW in Nagasaki who would have been executed in the event of an allied invasion.
That's a historical accident. Your (putative) grandfather might just as well have been one of those who died in the bombings. We do not choose when we are born nor who we are born unto. To my mind the estimates are extreme, but I'm not going to argue that -- or about WW2 -- in a thread about Israel.
Edited by TheRealFingers99 on Tuesday 16th September 01:13
And yet you keep referring to it to try and make your point?
The simple fact is when you are in a war of survival you win by any and all means and use whatever you have in your arsenal. To do otherwise would invite defeat. To believe anything else is some 60's hippy utopian pipe dream.
War is a nasty business and people get killed but when it has to be fought you have to fight hard and fight to win, there is no room for namby pampy tree hugging nor is there any scope for trying to limit the targets. Modern warfare involves the entire nations of the combatants and the days of a war being decided in one battle like Waterloo are long gone.
The simple fact is when you are in a war of survival you win by any and all means and use whatever you have in your arsenal. To do otherwise would invite defeat. To believe anything else is some 60's hippy utopian pipe dream.
War is a nasty business and people get killed but when it has to be fought you have to fight hard and fight to win, there is no room for namby pampy tree hugging nor is there any scope for trying to limit the targets. Modern warfare involves the entire nations of the combatants and the days of a war being decided in one battle like Waterloo are long gone.
Edited by Grumfutock on Tuesday 16th September 06:47
Grumfutock said:
And yet you keep referring to it to try and make your point?
The simple fact is when you are in a war of survival you win by any and all means and use whatever you have in your arsenal. To do otherwise would invite defeat. To believe anything else is some 60's hippy utopian pipe dream.
War is a nasty business and people get killed but when it has to be fought you have to fight hard and fight to win, there is no room for namby pampy tree hugging nor is there any scope for trying to limit the targets. Modern warfare involves the entire nations of the combatants and the days of a war being decided in one battle like Waterloo are long gone.
This does seem like a pretty honest and straightforward statement. It is also 'telling' in that being so honest establishes a position, which in turn justifies (some MAY say that it 'attempts to justify' but I won't) the behaviour of the Israelis in the context of this conflict.The simple fact is when you are in a war of survival you win by any and all means and use whatever you have in your arsenal. To do otherwise would invite defeat. To believe anything else is some 60's hippy utopian pipe dream.
War is a nasty business and people get killed but when it has to be fought you have to fight hard and fight to win, there is no room for namby pampy tree hugging nor is there any scope for trying to limit the targets. Modern warfare involves the entire nations of the combatants and the days of a war being decided in one battle like Waterloo are long gone.
Edited by Grumfutock on Tuesday 16th September 06:47
Working on the assumption that it is an honest and heartfelt statement, it almost puts certain aspects of the debate on this thread to bed?
If I honestly (whether correct or wrongly) believed I were in Grum's position and that of the Israelis both now and over the years, I fear that I would also be arguing from his PoV. I would like to think otherwise, but I am not so sure.....
That position is at least an honest one and is a little bit like letting the genie loose
On another point, did anyone see the heavy advertising encouraging 'retirement to Israel' recently? I felt a little uncomfortable with that premise.....
Oh well!
Grumfutock said:
The simple fact is when you are in a war of survival you win by any and all means and use whatever you have in your arsenal. To do otherwise would invite defeat. To believe anything else is some 60's hippy utopian pipe dream.
So the SAS are/were living in a 60's utopian pipe dream? Remember Bravo Two Zero? They're taking cover in the desert when a little shepherd boy blunders towards them. Dilemma -- do we kill an innocent (save the mission, remain undiscovered) or let him be -- risk the mission, risk getting killed/tortured as a consequence?
Grumfutock said:
War is a nasty business and people get killed but when it has to be fought you have to fight hard and fight to win, there is no room for namby pampy tree hugging nor is there any scope for trying to limit the targets. Modern warfare involves the entire nations of the combatants and the days of a war being decided in one battle like Waterloo are long gone.
This is a bleak view. To my mind unrealistically so. I doubt it is held by even the current Israeli high command (although it probably has been by some of the psychopaths holding that position in the past). It's certainly not a view held by many currently serving (or formerly serving) Israeli troops.Take that view to its logical conclusion and you probably will face legal action. To my mind, rightly so.
TheRealFingers99 said:
Grumfutock said:
The simple fact is when you are in a war of survival you win by any and all means and use whatever you have in your arsenal. To do otherwise would invite defeat. To believe anything else is some 60's hippy utopian pipe dream.
So the SAS are/were living in a 60's utopian pipe dream? Remember Bravo Two Zero? They're taking cover in the desert when a little shepherd boy blunders towards them. Dilemma -- do we kill an innocent (save the mission, remain undiscovered) or let him be -- risk the mission, risk getting killed/tortured as a consequence?
TBH you are now talking about a subject you know nothing about. After the patrol separated Mal MacGown made the decision not to kill an elderly goat herder and instead going with him to find a vehicle. By using your theory of saving a life it later cost a further 4 men theirs. In the process of trying to get the vehicle he shot and killed 4 men and was only captured because he ran out of ammo or more would of died so that worked out well didn't it!!!!
TheRealFingers99 said:
This is a bleak view. To my mind unrealistically so. I doubt it is held by even the current Israeli high command (although it probably has been by some of the psychopaths holding that position in the past). It's certainly not a view held by many currently serving (or formerly serving) Israeli troops.
Take that view to its logical conclusion and you probably will face legal action. To my mind, rightly so.
Why have you asked them? How many Israeli soldiers have you spoken to? Take that view to its logical conclusion and you probably will face legal action. To my mind, rightly so.
You may think this is an unrealistic view but it is a reality of the real world. I seem to recall reading similar sentiments being spouted by various anti war groups in the 30's, how did that work out for them?
Edited by Grumfutock on Tuesday 16th September 12:42
Grumfutock said:
Why have you asked them? [sic...... should be "Why, have you asked them?"] How many Israeli soldiers have you spoken to?
There has been a long history of refuseniks in the IDF. For some views, see Breaking the Silence.Grumfutock said:
You may think this is an unrealistic view but it is a reality of the real world. I seem to recall reading similar sentiments being spouted by various anti war groups in the 30's, how did that work out for them?
How did it work out for those charged with war crimes at Nuremburg, at Tokyo? How will it work out for Amos Yaron (albeit he's largely a scapegoat) should he leave his foxhole? The issue here isn't one of pacifism vs total war (and I'm not a pacifist). I do believe that some wars are justifiable. The question is, how do you behave in war?
TheRealFingers99 said:
How did it work out for those charged with war crimes at Nuremburg, at Tokyo? How will it work out for Amos Yaron (albeit he's largely a scapegoat) should he leave his foxhole?
The issue here isn't one of pacifism vs total war (and I'm not a pacifist). I do believe that some wars are justifiable. The question is, how do you behave in war?
Refusniks? Have you asked them? Spoken to them? Yourself? Personally? Sorry but I think it is a load of bThe issue here isn't one of pacifism vs total war (and I'm not a pacifist). I do believe that some wars are justifiable. The question is, how do you behave in war?
ks!And yes Nuremberg (that's how you spell Nuremberg seeing how the grammar police are back!) and Tokyo didn't work out to well did it but why? Because they lost. Why did they lose? BECAUSE WE FOUGHT TOTAL WAR! Essen, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo!!!
But hang on, I didn't think we we going to use WW2 in this thread??????
Grumfutock said:
Refusniks? Have you asked them? Spoken to them? Yourself? Personally? Sorry but I think it is a load of bks!
Buy me a plane ticket and I'll happily do it! FCS man, any search will throw up plenty. Two pages of links in Haaretz alone here. ks!If you can't/won't believe a kosher Israeli newspaper, who are you going to believe? And "........an IDF spokesman, Brigadier General Motti Almoz, wrote on his Facebook page on Sunday that the refuseniks would face "the disciplinary treatment [that] would be sharp and clear"." Quoted in the Guardian.
Are the Refuseniks figments of the IDFs imagination, too?
Grumfutock said:
And yes Nuremberg (that's how you spell Nuremberg seeing how the grammar police are back!) and Tokyo didn't work out to well did it but why? Because they lost. Why did they lose? BECAUSE WE FOUGHT TOTAL WAR! Essen, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo!!!
But hang on, I didn't think we we going to use WW2 in this thread??????
You forgot your chum Amos Yaron. But hang on, I didn't think we we going to use WW2 in this thread??????
"On 15 September, 63 Palestinian intellectuals, notably lawyers, medical staff and teachers, were individually identified and killed by an Israeli unit called Sayeret Matkal and from approximately 6:00 pm 16 September to 8:00 am 18 September 1982 a more widespread massacre was carried out by a Lebanese Christian Phalangist militia." Wikipaedia.
If you're in Israel, there's a meeting at the AICafe on the 16th.
Edited by TheRealFingers99 on Tuesday 16th September 13:47
Edited by TheRealFingers99 on Tuesday 16th September 13:48
Edited by TheRealFingers99 on Tuesday 16th September 13:54
Edited by TheRealFingers99 on Tuesday 16th September 13:56
TheRealFingers99 said:
More compliments from you! Keep them coming!
But I notice nothing resembling a rational argument.
Because there is no point. After weeks of this there is one thing abundantly clear, you hate how the Israeli's fight their wars, you don't understand it and NOTHING will make you see it any other way, therefore end of discussion.But I notice nothing resembling a rational argument.
Grumfutock said:
After weeks of this there is one thing abundantly clear, you hate how the Israeli's fight their wars,
For sure, I'm against the gathering of intelligence on ordinary Palestinians so they can be blackmailed, I'm against collusion in mass murder, I'm against the use of white phosphorous and flechettes in zones occupied by civilians, I'm against assassinations in other countries, I'm against discrimination against refuseniks depending on race, and so on, and on. But -- perhaps more importantly -- I really can't see how any of these actions have increased Israel's security by one iota.
Ayahuasca said:
Is Israel still there?
Would it still be there if the Israelis had laid down their arms?
Whoever suggested they lay down their arms? Would it still be there if the Israelis had laid down their arms?
TheRealFingers99 said:
For sure, I'm against the gathering of intelligence on ordinary Palestinians so they can be blackmailed, I'm against collusion in mass murder, I'm against the use of white phosphorous and flechettes in zones occupied by civilians, I'm against assassinations in other countries, I'm against discrimination against refuseniks depending on race, and so on, and on.
Perhaps if the Americans were not supplying them they might learn to use their weapons responsibly? TheRealFingers99 said:
For sure, I'm against the gathering of intelligence on ordinary Palestinians so they can be blackmailed, I'm against collusion in mass murder, I'm against the use of white phosphorous and flechettes in zones occupied by civilians, I'm against assassinations in other countries, I'm against discrimination against refuseniks depending on race, and so on, and on.
Don't be silly. All these things are perfectly fine to do as long as it's only Israel allowed to do them. If you don't let Israel do these things then you're a horrible anti-Semite! Ssshhhhh.zuby84 said:
Don't be silly. All these things are perfectly fine to do as long as it's only Israel allowed to do them. If you don't let Israel do these things then you're a horrible anti-Semite! Ssshhhhh.
Pleased to see you're finally "on message".Took a while but you've finally seen sense,well done.
P.S. Double Sssshhhhhh
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff