[General Battuta]

Think Iwo Jima squared, with no gender or age discrimination.

That was called Okinawa.

[iamzack]

Why is there a distinction? It's war remember, that's why we aren't feeling bad about killing Palestinian civilians. Civilians die in wars.

You don't feel bad when civilians are killed? At all? Have you no conscience? No soul? [/parody of zack's trolling]

I was referencing what someone said earlier in the thread when I pointed out how many Palestinian civilians are dying because of Israel. They said something akin to "well, it's war."

The US didn't distinguish when we dropped the A-bomb on two *cities* did we?

B). It could be argued that, since it was the only way to force a surrender (there's a whole other topic in this forum on that issue), the action was justified in that it actually reduced the amount of casualties that would have occurred had a land war (which, in Asia, is one of the great blunders) been initiated.  Think Iwo Jima squared, with no gender or age discrimination.

Well what do you think Palestinians are trying to do? Do you really believe their sole goal is to frighten Israelis? Zionists got their very own nation through terrorism, so why do you think no one else would try?

Japan *did* attack a military base, and they were still terrorists! There is no difference between terrorists and freedom fighters except complexion.

Japan attacked Pearl Harbor (killing many noncombatants, I assume) without a formal declaration of war, with the purpose of terrorizing the general population of The United States into submission.  I'm pretty sure that that's the definition of 'terrorism'.

Where's the formal declaration of war against Iraq?

[Snail]

Japan attacked Pearl Harbor (killing many noncombatants, I assume) without a formal declaration of war, with the purpose of terrorizing the general population of The United States into submission.  I'm pretty sure that that's the definition of 'terrorism'.

A grand total of... 57... Civilians were killed. Totally justifies the complete indiscriminate killing of thousands.

[Scotty]

Think Iwo Jima squared, with no gender or age discrimination.

That was called Okinawa.

 

Do I need to bring up the statistics again?  Projected casualties for the invasion the Japanese mainland were approximately 40,000 dead, 153,000 wounded/missing.  That's according to the experts at the time.

The US didn't distinguish when we dropped the A-bomb on two *cities* did we? Japan *did* attack a military base, and they were still terrorists!

Hiroshima was a Japanese naval base and production center.  Nagasaki was a target of opportunity that was very nearly stricken from the target list because it was a city.  We didn't bomb plain old cities because we wanted to.  We also dropped leaflets.  The parallel ends well before we get into target criteria.

Why is there a distinction? It's war remember, that's why we aren't feeling bad about killing Palestinian civilians. Civilians die in wars.

You don't feel bad when civilians are killed? At all? Have you no conscience? No soul? [/parody of zack's trolling]

I was referencing what someone said earlier in the thread when I pointed out how many Palestinian civilians are dying because of Israel. They said something akin to "well, it's war."

The US didn't distinguish when we dropped the A-bomb on two *cities* did we?

B). It could be argued that, since it was the only way to force a surrender (there's a whole other topic in this forum on that issue), the action was justified in that it actually reduced the amount of casualties that would have occurred had a land war (which, in Asia, is one of the great blunders) been initiated.  Think Iwo Jima squared, with no gender or age discrimination.

Well what do you think Palestinians are trying to do? Do you really believe their sole goal is to frighten Israelis? Zionists got their very own nation through terrorism, so why do you think no one else would try?

Answering BloodEagle first:  No, it was not the only way to force a surrender.  It was simply the fastest, most politically expedient way.  However, it did in face SIGNIFICANTLY reduce casualties.  By a projected two million civilians.

Now for iamzack:  Stop putting words in other peoples' mouths.  One of their goals is to frighten Israelis, or they wouldn't be firing rockets, they'd be firing rifles.  Zionists got their own nation through U.N. mandate, then defended it.

Japan *did* attack a military base, and they were still terrorists! There is no difference between terrorists and freedom fighters except complexion.

Japan attacked Pearl Harbor (killing many noncombatants, I assume) without a formal declaration of war, with the purpose of terrorizing the general population of The United States into submission.  I'm pretty sure that that's the definition of 'terrorism'.

Where's the formal declaration of war against Iraq?

Quit moving the damn goalposts.

[Snail]

I really think that people should stop ****ing glorifying the Second World War. It wasn't a ****ing Michael Bay movie for ****'s sake.

[General Battuta]

Japan attacked Pearl Harbor (killing many noncombatants, I assume) without a formal declaration of war, with the purpose of terrorizing the general population of The United States into submission.  I'm pretty sure that that's the definition of 'terrorism'.

You know, I think this betrays a bit of a misunderstanding of history. The Japanese objective in Pearl Harbor was not to terrorize the US into surrender, it was to destroy the American Pacific fleet and neutralize their ability to interfere with Japanese plans. A military objective, by and large.

Think Iwo Jima squared, with no gender or age discrimination.

That was called Okinawa.

 

Do I need to bring up the statistics again?  Projected casualties for the invasion the Japanese mainland were approximately 40,000 dead, 153,000 wounded/missing.  That's according to the experts at the time.

What the **** does that have to do with my post?

And seriously, those figures you have right there are...well, let's just say pretty ****ing conservative. 40,000 dead is a wildly optimistic viewpoint. It probably would've been ten times that.

**** knows why you think the existence of Okinawa somehow requires the need to bring up statistics about the invasion of the Japanese mainland. If anything Okinawa is evidence that the A-bomb was a tender mercy.

[Wanderer]

There was an alternative for the A-bombs but it didn't get chosen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Starvation

[Scotty]

Think Iwo Jima squared, with no gender or age discrimination.

That was called Okinawa.

 

Do I need to bring up the statistics again?  Projected casualties for the invasion the Japanese mainland were approximately 40,000 dead, 153,000 wounded/missing.  That's according to the experts at the time.

What the **** does that have to do with my post?

And seriously, those figures you have right there are...well, let's just say pretty ****ing conservative. 40,000 dead is a wildly optimistic viewpoint. It probably would've been ten times that.

**** knows why you think the existence of Okinawa somehow requires the need to bring up statistics about the invasion of the Japanese mainland. If anything Okinawa is evidence that the A-bomb was a tender mercy.

My apologies, I meant to take your quote of that little chain.  I was trying to directly respond to BloodEagle and that general line of discussion, since he did bring up the invasion.  Admittedly, opening with that kind of question didn't help much.

Anyway, those figures are from the Cheifs of Staff estimates on the cost of invading the Kyushu plain and marching on Tokyo misrememberd now that I check my source again.  Total estimated dead varies between 109,000 and 193,000, with up to half a million injured.  However, that's assuming both a fanatically hostile populace, a complete concentration of all remaining Japanese military assets.  Any report that estimates half a million dead was done by someone who didn't have a very good idea of what he was talking about.  The combination of a large number of landing zones and significantly less heavily defended areas that couldn't be simply bypassed drastically reduced the number of projected dead.

All that said, the A-bomb caused significantly less deaths than an invasion would have at ANY projection.  Now I'm going to stop talking, because I keep missing the point.

[iamzack]

The US didn't distinguish when we dropped the A-bomb on two *cities* did we? Japan *did* attack a military base, and they were still terrorists!

Hiroshima was a Japanese naval base and production center.  Nagasaki was a target of opportunity that was very nearly stricken from the target list because it was a city.  We didn't bomb plain old cities because we wanted to.  We also dropped leaflets.  The parallel ends well before we get into target criteria.

"nearly" stricken but it -wasn't- stricken. If we didn't want to bomb cities, we wouldn't have bombed cities. We decided that bombing cities would help us win faster so that's what we did. What's the difference when Palestinians are firing rockets because they think it will help them win faster? Oh, right, they're not on our side.

Japan *did* attack a military base, and they were still terrorists! There is no difference between terrorists and freedom fighters except complexion.

Japan attacked Pearl Harbor (killing many noncombatants, I assume) without a formal declaration of war, with the purpose of terrorizing the general population of The United States into submission.  I'm pretty sure that that's the definition of 'terrorism'.

Where's the formal declaration of war against Iraq?

Quit moving the damn goalposts.

What goalposts? He said it was terrorism when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor without a declaration of war. Why isn't it terrorism when we attack Iraq? Once again, when the US does it, it's okay. If it's anyone we don't like, it's terrorism.

[Sandwich]

Terrorism's lost it's meaning because it hasn't been applied in the right situations, not because it's been applied to everyone and everything "bad". Terrorism's definition in the Wikipedia is all amuck precisely for that reason - people are afraid to outright label something as "wrong" in this day and age when what used to be "wrong" is so often accepted and seen as "ok". However, the final sentence of Wikipedia's intro section to terrorism is what I would consider to be a perfect definition of "terrorism":

...the use of violence against noncombatants for the purpose of gaining publicity for a group, cause, or individual.

The purpose usually has nothing to do with the direct results of the action itself. In full-blown war, for example, attacking an enemy military formation has the express purpose of removing that threat from the battlefield, thus bringing the attacking side closer to victory. Inaccurate rocket barrages into cities and towns cannot have a specific target in mind. Suicide bombings in crowded cafes cannot have a specific target in mind. The purpose of such acts is to generate fear among the civilian populace, often with the hope that that civilian populace will pressure their government to capitulate to the demands of the rocket firing, suicide-bombing, terrorists.

It's not that difficult to define, really, as long as you realize that certain acts can be easily, unequivocally categorized as "terrorism", while other acts might be in more of a gray area. I fully recognize that.

Also, don't get me wrong. I recognize the fact that the Palestinians feel victimized/brutalized/etc by the Israelis, and that they claim to want their own state. I understand those feelings and desires, and in no way can I blame them or say that they shouldn't be feeling or desiring that. Built in to every human is the desire for freedom, to live life however you wish. It's completely natural.

What I do blame them for is the methods they choose to implement in order to make their point or get their own way: deliberate targeting of civilians for the purpose of inflicting terror. I've said it before (in this thread and others throughout the years), and I'll say it again: I, as an ex-Israeli soldier, and as an Israeli citizen who is drafted into reserve duty on a yearly basis, consider IDF soldiers as valid targets for Palestinian violence. I'm not saying I'm happy about it of course, but military forces are valid targets.

There are rules, even in war. If the terrorists followed those rules of war, they would no longer be considered terrorists, and would most likely achieve greater success in their plight.

On to Israel's side. Israel does not always do the right thing in every situation - nobody, no nation does. Yes, Israel has made mistakes in the past, and will undoubtedly continue to make mistakes in the future, especially as long as the terrorists operating among the Palestinian populace continue to use innocent Palestinian civilians as human shields. That is an impossible situation to resolve without undue bloodshed. However, I stand by the fact that Israel does everything possible to eliminate, or at least minimize, innocent civilian casualties, within the demands of needing to provide security to Israeli citizens. The two goals are not always mutually compatible, and in those cases, Israel tends to get the blame for killing innocent civilians as opposed to the terrorists being blamed for using said civilians as human shields.

From my personal, firsthand knowledge and experience of the IDF's rules of engagement, I know for a fact that Israel does go to extreme lengths to prevent civilian casualties. I also know that Israel will do whatever is necessary to defend herself - every nation would do that for its citizens.



This will be my last post in this thread (for a while, at least)... not because I'm "giving up", but because I just don't have time to debate in circles anymore - I've got deadlines I need to meet this month. You have all been told and shown the truth, time and again. If you choose to ignore the evidence of your eyes merely because it conflicts with your possibly-ignorant, preconceived notions of who's right or wrong in any given situation, I grieve for you and for what such an outlook will do throughout your life.

[iamzack]

I recognize the fact that the Palestinians feel victimized/brutalized/etc by the Israelis, and that they want their own state back.

fixt

If the world were fair, Israelis would be eating the scraps Palestinians throw over the fence, not the other way around.

Now who's putting words in someone else's mouth? Disappointing, not to mention completely wrong. // Sandwich

You've never seen anyone quote someone else, change the quote and then put "fixed" under it before?

[Flipside]

Maybe my problem is age. I'm old enough to remember reports of people being shot trying to get out of the Russian half of Berlin, I'm old enough to remember people in South Africa saying they'd be more inclined to end apartheid if the blacks 'came up to our standard'.

This has all happened before, and will happen again...

Edit: And just for clarification, that's not an attack on Israel, it's a statement of fact that anyone can justify their actions and claim them to be 'truth', everyone has their own truths, their own 'reality', everyone thinks that their way of life is the 'right' one, and that other people just have to understand how wrong they are for not being the same, it's happening on both sides of the divide now in Gaza, as well as several other places in the world, and I doubt anyone will ever really stop to think that maybe their truths aren't the only ones in the world.

[General Battuta]

Terrorism's lost it's meaning because it hasn't been applied in the right situations, not because it's been applied to everyone and everything "bad". Terrorism's definition in the Wikipedia is all amuck precisely for that reason - people are afraid to outright label something as "wrong" in this day and age when what used to be "wrong" is so often accepted and seen as "ok". However, the final sentence of Wikipedia's intro section to terrorism is what I would consider to be a perfect definition of "terrorism":

...the use of violence against noncombatants for the purpose of gaining publicity for a group, cause, or individual.

So - and again, coming from a fairly neutral guy here - why don't you disapprove of the use of terrorism to found Israel in the first place?

[iamzack]

Also, I'm pretty sure that definition doesn't really fit Palestinians firing rockets, unless someone can prove they're doing it for publicity.

[Turambar]

Asymmetrical Warfare's a real ***** sometimes.

[Nuclear1]

A fair amount of nations have been built by organizations or parties that could very well be defined as terrorists.  The French Revolution had the mass executions, the Americans had the Sons of Liberty, and the Bolsheviks had the Cheka. 

[karajorma]

Zionists got their own nation through U.N. mandate, then defended it.

And how is that supposed to happen now when the US would veto any attempt to put pressure on Israel to accept a UN solution? It worked for the Zionists because UK was willing to step back and allow the UN to resolve it. We can't get Israel to accept the need for an international inquiry into this incident even though it happened in international waters and IIRC the law does require it. What makes you think they'll listen to the UN on a larger issue?

[Flipside]

This was exactly what I was worried about when I heard it was a Turkish vessel...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/06/gaza-blockade-iran-aid-convoy

Iran are offering to send in Warships as an escort for the next convoy, they've been itching for an excuse to suggest something like this, and they are pretty close to Turkey following the Nuclear deal earlier last month. Now, I don't see it actually happening, but all of a sudden the Iranians are given the chance to portray themselves as a 'Good Samaritan' protecting people who are trying to help those who are suffering.

It's all gathering pace.... We're getting to a situation where you have British, American, Iranian, Lebanese and a host of other countries' vessels who are all supposed to be uncomfortable with each other actually working together to break a blockade. I find I have mixed feelings, here is something that has caused disparate groups to unite and work to a common cause, which almost makes me proud, but then I remember the political/religious context of it all, and it makes me nervous. Somone is going to have to blink soon, or there's going to be an even larger tragedy.

[Nuclear1]

Worst part is, I'm fully supportive of a humanitarian breaking of the blockade, but it would put the humanitarians legally in the wrong, even if morally in the right. 

And I'm not against inspections...Israel does have that right to enforce a blockade.  But they really should let the ships deliver the cargo themselves.

[Flipside]

That's what makes the situation so difficult, I can understand Israel wanting to protect their people, and I know exactly what game Iran are playing here, it's quite transparent, they've been itching for a chance to taunt the Israeli navy for years, all it takes is one hothead on either side and the entire situation could kick off, and there seem to be plenty of hotheads to go around.

But, I also recognise the cost of that security that is being paid by people in Gaza, all the people in Gaza regardless of their political affiliation, regardless of belief. Hamas got a majority, not a unanimous vote, that means that some of the people suffering in Gaza were people who are being punished for something they didn't vote for in the first place. Just as not all Jews are Zionists, neither are all Arabs extremists, or even in favour of the abolition of Israel, but people seem to judge both sides by their most extreme representations and punish them all for their actions, from the best of them to the worst. At the risk of being highly controversial, it's like Bin Laden saying that any Americans are viable targets because they voted in the Government, same mentality, same mistake.

As I've said before, both sides have allowed hard-liners to grab power, and pleasing those hard-liners is the only way for the Government to maintain its position. That means that every problem, every confrontation is underscored with a hard-line opinion of the other side, it's easy to put everyone into a box and judge them all the same, it's easy to call Israelis 'invaders' or Palestinians 'terrorists', but the world has never, ever been as simple as that.