OT: Interesting and informative speech on British-Israel relations
Mike Burke
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/5620681/an-inconvenient-truth.thtml
Mique
Willow
Harris' bombing campaign against German cities has now been shown to
be a flawed strategy. There is proof that even after Hamburg, war
production was not crippled nor much stopped. Area or Terror bombing
was not an effective strategy and many now consider it a war crime
against civilians.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/mar/27/comment.secondworldwar
http://www.amazon.com/Allied-Terror-Bombing-reader-comments/lm/R1VK4TRWVGTSZW
http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Terror_bombing_-_Legal_framework/id/5511091
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a792289360~db=all~jumptype=rss
http://www.atlantic-times.com/archive_detail.php?recordID=553
There is the interesting case of the one bomber crew to face their
victims. On a bombing run, parts of a city were hit. An American
bomber crew was captured and directed under guard through the same
city. In a long wag from one train station to another (in a round-
about manner) the citizens struck back, killing the entire crew and
burying them in the back of a local cemetery. The mayor of the town
and a woman, deemed to be the instigator, were amongst the only
civilians to be tried for war crimes after the war ended.
In any event, the use of one war crime as a precedent for another war
crime is flawed logic. A war crime is wrong. While we can seek out
all sorts of justification for the deliberate area bombing of German
cities, some estimates are that it extended the war by as much as two
years. Yes, still debated, but not a closed issue at all.
This should tweek a tail or two in th southern hemisphere...
Willow
http://www.b-29s-over-korea.com/Russelsheim/Russelsheim01.html
Like Othello - "More sinned against than sinning"??
Willow
Mike Burke
wrote:
>This should tweek a tail or two in th southern hemisphere...
Answer the question, Willow.
Mique
Willow
> Answer the question, Willow.
I have. Each side has done horrid things and committed what we would
call war crimes. Who did it first? I don't know - nor do you. Does
being the first to do something bad excuse all the bad things done by
the first to be attacked in some manner? Not to me. The question of
retaliation and tit-for-tat is simply the way of continuing a blood
feud. As in all blood feuds, it only matters if you want to continue
the warfare. Then you can always find something to retaliate
against. In Bosnia, the original battle was sometime in the 1400s.
Now, answer a question yourself. How many deaths occurred as a result
of the rocket attacks from Gaza? I have already given you the answer
to that question. And then how many Palestinians were killed, wounded
or made homeless as a result of the Israeli military action. Again,
you have the answer. So, as those two do not balance with equal
deaths, do the Palestinians get to kill off more Israelis to make the
score even? And then what?
Which piece of land was the first taken by Jewish settlers from Arab
owners? Want to go back that far? To the Ottoman Empire? Nonsense.
We have to deal with the present if there is any way to stop this
madness. And that cannot be done other than as an honest broker, not
a "my side has to win" mode.
Willow
Mike Burke
wrote:
>On Dec 10, 3:06�pm, Mike Burke <mbu...@pcug.org.au> wrote:
>
>> Answer the question, Willow.
>
>I have.
You have not. The question was not an invitation for you to have
another anti-Semitic rant.
It specifically asked you to detail what, in your view, would be a
proportionate response to _any number_ (since you questioned the
generally accepted figure of 10,000) of missiles fired by Palestinians
from the midst of their own civilian population into Israeli populated
areas.
Just answer the question.
Mique
Willow
> Just answer the question.
So, as I understand you, suggesting that both sides are in error is
"anti-semitic". I gather that from your perspective, anyting but
unconditional support for Israel is somehow anit-semitic.
There is nothing in my replies that is in any way "anti-Semitic". It
is your use of the derogatory term that is both offensive and
unwarranted. Misuse of the term, as happens so often is a disservice
to Jewish people everywhere. It seems that for some, if confronted
with any statement that is critical of the policies of Israel in any
way, they most attack using that insult. Which proves the point that
so many others have made over the years - one is freer to be critical
of Israeli policies in Israel that in the US or Canada.
Your question in the abstract is useless. And I did not question your
figure, I gave you the correct figures for Gaza.
What pray is the would be a proportionate response to all bombs
dropped on the civilian Palestinian population by Israeli forces? The
answer is the same as I would give to you for your question, and that
is why this conflict continues as a blood feud.
Willow
Mike Burke
wrote:
>On Dec 10, 6:21�pm, Mike Burke <mbu...@pcug.org.au> wrote:
Just answer the question, Willow, or admit once and for all that you
haven't got a clue. Resorting to diversionary arguments is not an
answer.
Mique
Willow
> Just answer the question, Willow, or admit once and for all that you
> haven't got a clue. Resorting to diversionary arguments is not an
> answer.
What total nonsense. Has something happened to the water in your part
of Australia?
See above:
'Your question in the abstract is useless. And I did not question
your
figure, I gave you the correct figures for Gaza.
What pray is the would be a proportionate response to all bombs
dropped on the civilian Palestinian population by Israeli forces?
The
answer is the same as I would give to you for your question, and that
is why this conflict continues as a blood feud."
Willow
Jim Gysin
Mike Burke sent the following on 12/10/2009 8:21 PM:
Heh. I'm really enjoying this, but I'm evil like that. :)
--
Jim Gysin
Waukesha, WI
Jim Gysin
Willow sent the following on 12/11/2009 4:15 PM:
> On Dec 11, 1:23 pm, Mike Burke <mbu...@pcug.org.au> wrote:
>
>> Just answer the question, Willow, or admit once and for all that you
>> haven't got a clue. Resorting to diversionary arguments is not an
>> answer.
>
> What total nonsense. Has something happened to the water in your part
> of Australia?
>
> See above:
>
> 'Your question in the abstract is useless. And I did not question
> your
> figure, I gave you the correct figures for Gaza.
>
> What pray is the would be a proportionate response to all bombs
> dropped on the civilian Palestinian population by Israeli forces?
I'm guessing that Israel prolly wouldn't be dropping any bombs on the
civilian Palestinian population if it weren't for the fact that
Palestinian terrorists (like many terrorists) seem to like to hide
behind civilian populations, often with the direct assistance of some of
those "civilians."
That's just me, though.
And just out of curiosity, how many Israeli bombs qualify in your
question's premise, exactly? 'Cuz I'm not aware of an abundance of
Israeli attacks on Palestinian "civilians," whether in the form of
dropped bombs or anything else. OTOH, I've stopped trying to count how
many Palestinian suicide bombers have strapped on the ol' nails and ball
bearings...
Mary
> Mike Burke sent the following on 12/10/2009 8:21 PM:
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
>
> >> On Dec 10, 3:06 pm, Mike Burke <mbu...@pcug.org.au> wrote:
>
> >>> Answer the question, Willow.
> >> I have.
>
> > You have not. The question was not an invitation for you to have
> > another anti-Semitic rant.
>
> > It specifically asked you to detail what, in your view, would be a
> > proportionate response to _any number_ (since you questioned the
> > generally accepted figure of 10,000) of missiles fired by Palestinians
> > from the midst of their own civilian population into Israeli populated
> > areas.
>
> > Just answer the question.
>
> Heh. I'm really enjoying this, but I'm evil like that. :)
Indeed you are.
Mary
Fomenting war between Australia and Canada!
Mike Burke
wrote:
>On Dec 11, 1:23�pm, Mike Burke <mbu...@pcug.org.au> wrote:
It's not an abstract question, Willow. It's absolutely fundamental to
your position, and your credibility. Your whole case is based on the
disproportionality of the Israeli actions. You can only argue such a
point rationally if you define proportionality. And turning my
question back to me is not answering the question.
Go to it. What should the Israelis proportionally do about one random
rocket fired from among the cover of an innocent civilian
non-combatant population that kills or wounds dozens of innocent
Israeli non-combatant civilians?
Mique
Willow
decades. To isolate one form of mayhem from all the other forms of
violence is an impossible task - yet that is exactly what you have
requested me to do.
Let's assume that the answer you are hunting for is something like
"one rocket = two 500 pound bombs" or the like. Tied into any answer
would be "Well, the rocket was sent over as retaliation for bulldozing
my house" and then "We bulldozed the house because the fellow two
doors away might have joined Hamas" and on and on forever. These
cannot be isolated as each ties in to many more; any attempt to do as
you demand simply gets silly.
In brief, that is the whole problem with this and any other blood
feud. The battle between the Guess Jeans comes to my mind, although
there are so many others. "Why did you fire that rocket?". "Because
back ten years ago, they bulldozed my orchard". And on, and on, and
on. Each side - not just one as you seem to claim - can do that over
and over. In most cases, the "justification" is quiet correct, viewed
through the eyes of those doing the justification.
And then, like trying to define "pornography", we have to look at the
most basic of questions - is any of the last five+ decades possible to
justify on any basis? Does the fact of the Holocaust justify taking
the lands of a people who had no role in that disaster? Remember,
there was also a proposal to send the survivors to Zanzibar and other
locations around the world. What right did England have to give away
land that it did not own? To anyone? To me and many others, the
destruction of South Lebanon was excessive when measured against the
claimed provocation. To me, and others as well, the response of
Israel to the few rockets fired from Gaza by some malcontents did not
justify the invasion of Gaza. Gaza is now a large concentration
camp. Is that justified? Not to me. And no, that is not "my whole
case", merely part of it. Specifically, the invasions of both South
Lebanon and Gaza were disproportionate to the advanced reasons. I
may not know what is proportional in such cases, but I can certainly
see that the actions of Israel were - yes, I shall use the word -
grossly disproportional to the supposed "causes".
I simply do not see how anyone, you or your chorus, can lay all the
blame on one side. And, looking at your post, please identify any
instance where "dozens of innocent Israeli non-combatant civilians"
were killed by the rockets fired from Gaza? These home made unguided
rockets are a nuisance. Indeed, "As of January 2009, rockets have
killed 28 Israelis. Most of those killed were civilians, including
four children". Where are the dozens you have alleged?. Certainly
the limited deaths are terrible. But contrasting those to the many
deaths due to the Israeli actions is must certainly not equal by any
means. Then you say, without any proof, that the rockets were fired
from the cover of innocent civilians. Where do the Israeli jets take
off from? Given the civilian component of the Israeli military,
cannot it be said that the soldiers are stationed under the cover of
"innocent civilians". The whole thing is such a mess and you find
only one side to blame.
Willow
Frankly, I do not see how anyone can say any evil is justified or
Mike Burke
wrote:
>As we all know, the Israeli Palestinian conflict has gone on for
Answer the question, Willow.
Stop obfuscating the issue with irrelevancies. And to say there is no
proof of Palestinians launching missiles from amidst their own
civilian population is to deny hundreds of unbiassed reports over the
years. There is film of their doing it, just as there is film of
their launching missiles literally right under the noses of UN
"peace-keepers", ie from hard up against a UN observation post that
couldn't be counter-attacked even with rifle fire without endangering
the "peace-keepers".
The reason you won't answer is that you can't answer. And since you
can't answer, get off your moral high horse and understand that you
have no moral or rational basis for your arguments. All you have is
anti-Semitic prejudice and emotion which is beyond disgraceful.
I can't guarantee I promise not to attack you if you promise to STFU
about Israel's alleged disproportionate defence policies.
Mique
Mike Burke
wrote:
Sorry that should read that I can't guarantee this to be my last word
on the subject but I promise...
Mique
Willow
> I can't guarantee I promise not to attack you if you promise to STFU
> about Israel's alleged disproportionate defence policies.
Firstly, I don't really care about your attacks. If that is how you
wish to behave, go right ahead.
Secondly, anyone here is entitled to their own opinions and has the
right to express them. Just where do you get off trying to stifle
discussion - or points of view you do not agree with...
I don't give a donkey's behind what insults you send along - it shows
your character, not mine. You keep bellowing "Anti-Semite" and I am
no such thing. I am in very good company if you view my comments as
such. And I would rather be in their number than pandering to your
threats. "Man From Plains" was an excellent documentary, following
Jimmy Carter after publication of his recent book. You might watch
it.
"Promise not to attack"? Seems to me that is a direct admission of
what you have been doing of late, Mr. Burke. Heck, if it is what your
ego demands, go to it.
Willow
Mike Burke
wrote:
>On Dec 11, 6:29�pm, Mike Burke <mbu...@pcug.org.au> wrote:
Answer the question, Willow.
Mique
Willow
Jeremy Ben-Ami, Executive Director of J Street, sent the following
letter to Abe Foxman, Director of the Anti-Defamation League, in
response to Foxman’s comments to the JTA News Service.
Dear Abe,
I am deeply troubled by your attack on J Street for opposing Sarah
Palin’s unqualified support for settlement expansion on the West Bank.
Last I checked, it has been United States policy under every President
since 1967 to oppose the development and expansion of settlements on
the West Bank – and, yes, J Street along with a sizeable portion of
the Israeli and American Jewish public also opposes settlement
expansion.
Sarah Palin – recently nearly Vice President of the United States and
doubtless soon to be a candidate for President – appears to disagree
with this long-established, deeply bipartisan consensus on settlements
– and seems further to imagine that large numbers of Jews around the
world are packing their bags to move to the West Bank in the coming
days and weeks.
Her views are outside the mainstream of American and Israeli thinking
and her statements lack understanding of either the Jewish community
or the meaning of the settlement issue to the chances of Israel’s
survival as a Jewish democracy.
In our view, those views when introduced into the national policy
debate by a potential leader of our country need to be called out for
what they are: misinformed and dangerous.
If I am to understand your view, however, it seems to be that opposing
her statements makes J Street not pro-Israel. And I gather that to
meet your definition of pro-Israel requires holding the same views as
you and Sarah Palin.
I make no apologies that my definition of pro-Israel is slightly
different. I take pro-Israel to mean advocating for the future,
security and survival of Israel as the Jewish, Democratic state
envisioned by its founders.
And my view is that unlimited expansion of settlements on the West
Bank means the two-state solution is no longer feasible and means
Israel will no longer be either Jewish (by virtue of the demographic
trends) or democratic.
To quote the most recent Prime Minister of Israel Ehud Olmert – if the
two-state solution collapses and Israel faces a South African-style
struggle for equal voting rights, the state of Israel is finished.
Perhaps you believe the former Prime Minister is not pro-Israel
either?
Abe, we can disagree on matters of policy. You may support unlimited
settlement expansion, I do not. You may support immediate, unilateral
sanctions on Iran at a delicate moment in international negotiations,
J Street does not. We say give diplomacy the full opportunity to
succeed and if it doesn’t then take action against Iran with broad,
international support. You may be willing to go along with the
defamation of a world-renowned (and Zionist) jurist who has asked
tough questions about the Gaza War, but, while we came out clearly
against one-sided UN action against Israel, we have refused to join
the chorus of personal attacks against Judge Goldstone.
You, of course, have every right to disagree with us. It’s a free
country.
But you have no right to decide who is and is not pro-Israel based on
whether they agree with your views.
I am very pleased that just this weekend David Harris and I will be
appearing together on Christiane Amanpour’s show on CNN and David was
good enough to say exactly that: we may disagree – vigorously – but
only out of the best of intentions toward Israel, a love of the Jewish
people and deep concern for the future.
These are difficult days and tough questions. Neither you nor I can
predict the future nor state with certainty that our views are
correct.
Let’s agree to disagree on policy – but let’s recognize that we are
all within the pro-Israel family and intend the best for Israel and
the Jewish people.
Sincerely,
Jeremy Ben-Ami
ggg
The answer to which piece of land was taken from Arab owners is none.
All lands that Israel took from Arab owners was bought and paid for.
What "conquerors" have ever given land back? Israel has taken the
Sinai now three times. Each time they gave it back including the Club
Med at Sharm El-Sheikh.
There is no nation on the planet that will stand up for Israel and
back them if they were attacked again. Israel only will defend itself.
The Arab nations surrounding it will only support the attacker if he
is winning.
Barry
ggg
That total was dozens already by my understanding of dozen. I don't
know if you have children, but if your child was killed by someone
hap- hazardly lobbing rockets and mortars onto your property, then he
hid in his child's school and/or mosque how would you respond?
I know people who were killed. A close friend's son's fiancee was
killed. She was American. Just visiting friends and relatives. Do you
say, that's a risk she took by going into a danger zone? Or, do you
say get rid of the menace. Have you been vaccinated? Do you feel more
for spiteful Palestinians than you do for bacteria and viruses that may
(!) attack you, rather than what really has attacked you?
Barry
ggg
He ain't one of my Ben-Amis.
Barry
Willow
> There is no nation on the planet that will stand up for Israel and
> back them if they were attacked again. Israel only will defend itself.
> The Arab nations surrounding it will only support the attacker if he
> is winning.
Ever hear of a country called the United States of America. It give
Israel over $5000 per resident in aid/grants annually. The next
largest recipient of US aid is Egypt, at about $57 per head. After
that the per head rate falls under $5.
Add to that with military information and more. I think one might
indeed say the US has stood up for Israel.
As to the lands a read of Iian Papp's book "The Ethnic Cleansing of
Palestine" might clear your mind a bit. "Lords of teh Land" tells the
tale of land taken from Palestinians since the 1967 war . Both are
written by Israelis.
Willow
Willow
> That total was dozens already by my understanding of dozen <sniop>
And one can look at tale from the Palestinian side equally as horrid,
or even worse.
Look, I am not saying that everything is the fault of Israle. Far
from it. I am saying that both parties have done horrid things and
committed what we woudl not call war crimes. BOTH! There is no lily
white party to this conflict and never has been.
In fact, in my opinion, the fact that you and Mr. Burke see only one
side at fault is proof of the one sided nature of media coverage in
much of the West.
Both, Barry. Not one or the other, but both. Got that?
Willow
P.S. A person who visits a war zone must be taken to have made the
decision to visit with knowledge of the risk. Sad but true. that's
why we have "travel advisories" and, one might hope, some common
sense. Sad, indeed, but...
Willow
> He ain't one of my Ben-Amis.
I suggest you go to the site for J Street:
Yeah, I know. Self-hating Jews and all that. A person who voices any
negative comment on Israels actions must be "anti-semitic"; a person
who happens to be Jewish (by whatever definition you wish to apply)
must be labeled and attacked as a "self-hating Jew". Golly. I say
bad tings about the Canadian government from time to time. I must be
a self-hating Canadian. Nonsense, total nonsense. No country is
above critical comment.
Willow
Mike Burke
wrote:
>In fact, in my opinion, the fact that you and Mr. Burke see only one
>side at fault is proof of the one sided nature of media coverage in
>much of the West.
Do NOT interpret my objection to your blatant anti-Semitism (as
defined many times in previous messages from me) as seeing only one
side "at fault". You're simply projecting again.
Mique
Mike Burke
wrote:
>On Dec 12, 12:32�pm, ggg <bmvolk...@gmail.com> wrote:
No, you're just an extreme leftist with the complete lack of common
sense and sense of proportion typical of extremists at both ends of
the political continuum.
As such you cannot see that people who advocate effectively disarming
Israel, as you do, are also advocating the inevitable destruction of
Israel - thus supporting the extreme (indeed, even the "moderate")
Islamic aim to rid the world of their hated enemies, the Jews. It is
_that_, and only that - because no more evidence is necessary - which
proves that you are anti-Semitic.
Mique
Francis A. Miniter
>
>
> The answer to which piece of land was taken from Arab owners is none.
Simply false.
> All lands that Israel took from Arab owners was bought and paid for.
Again, demonstrably false. So false I cannot understand why
you would make the claim.
> What "conquerors" have ever given land back?
The USA comes to mind. And actually, when one looks back at
a lot of peace treaties ending 18th C wars between England
and France (and Spain), there have been a lot of givebacks.
And that is the key - a peace treaty. Egypt and Israel
have one finally and the giveback was worth it.
> Israel has taken the
> Sinai now three times. Each time they gave it back including the Club
> Med at Sharm El-Sheikh.
See above. Importance of peace treaty.
> There is no nation on the planet that will stand up for Israel and
> back them if they were attacked again.
Yawn. Demonstrably false. USA, for instance.
> Israel only will defend itself.
> The Arab nations surrounding it will only support the attacker if he
> is winning.
>
I did not see anyone jumping in when Israel was getting beat
up in Lebanon.
Come on, Barry. You cannot propagandize us. False
statements undermine your argument. You can do better than
that and still support Israel.
--
Francis A. Miniter
Oscuramente
libros, laminas, llaves
siguen mi suerte.
Jorge Luis Borges, La Cifra Haiku, 6
ggg
Downtown Tel-aviv?
Barry
ggg
I know a little something about modern day Ben-Amis. I know that they
are now the descendants of 14 generations of Rabbis and Doctors.
Barry
David Johnston
wrote:
>In any event, the use of one war crime as a precedent for another war
>crime is flawed logic. A war crime is wrong. While we can seek out
>all sorts of justification for the deliberate area bombing of German
>cities, some estimates are that it extended the war by as much as two
>years.
That's insane. Bombing or no bombing there was no way the European
war could have ended in 1943
Willow
> No, you're just an extreme leftist with the complete lack of common
> sense and sense of proportion typical of extremists at both ends of
> the political continuum.
Nonsense. I am not any of the things you allege.
"As such you cannot see that people who advocate effectively
disarming
Israel, as you do, are also advocating the inevitable destruction of
Israel - thus supporting the extreme (indeed, even the "moderate")
Islamic aim to rid the world of their hated enemies, the Jews. It is
_that_, and only that - because no more evidence is necessary - which
proves that you are anti-Semitic."
Well, I have the pleasure of much company, none of whom are anti-
semitic in any way. You continue to confuse teh actions of the state
with the people or the religion.
The more land Israel takes with Settlements, the less a two state
solution is possible. That leaves only a one state solution, and
demographics scared Ben Gurien and other PMs of Israel. The only way
for Israel to survive is, as J Street rightly states, is to find a way
to make peace, and that means making friends out of enemies.
You are one sick puppy. Go chew on a bone.
Willow
Willow
> Do NOT interpret my objection to your blatant anti-Semitism <snip>
So, I wrote:
"Each side has done horrid things and committed what we would
call war crimes. Who did it first? I don't know - nor do you. Does
being the first to do something bad excuse all the bad things done by
the first to be attacked in some manner? Not to me. The question of
retaliation and tit-for-tat is simply the way of continuing a blood
feud."
In some manner, you interpret that statement in an earlier post as
"anti-Semitic". The only way that is barely possible is for you to
believe that only Israel is right all the time. You leave no room for
any other interpretation of your attitude.
Trying to be a white knight for Jane? She can look after herself, you
fool. Loose the attitude and insutls.
Willow
Willow
> That's insane. Bombing or no bombing there was no way the European
> war could have ended in 1943
Perhaps. I stated that "some estimates" gave that time. There are
several books on the bombing of German cities and two have that same
estimate.
Willow
Mike Burke
wrote:
>On Dec 12, 2:49�pm, Mike Burke <mbu...@pcug.org.au> wrote:
Why? To do so would be to condone you. I couldn't live with myself.
Mique
Francis A. Miniter
Hi Willow,
I was going to say that that made no sense to me, but then I
found a Wikipedia article on Strategic Bombing in WWII,
which seems partially to agree with your position - at least
as to the ineffectiveness of strategic bombing up to the end
of 1943. In part it reads:
-----------------------
On 14 February, 1942, Directive No. 22 was issued to Bomber
Command. Bombing was to be "focused on the morale of the
enemy civil population and in particular of the industrial
workers." Factories were no longer targets.[101]
The effects of strategic bombing were very poorly understood
at the time and grossly overrated. Particularly in the first
two years of the campaign, few understood just how little
damage was caused and how rapidly the Germans were able to
replace lost production—despite the obvious lessons to be
learned from the United Kingdom's own survival of the blitz.
Mid-way through the air war, it slowly began to be realized
the campaign was having very little effect. Despite an
ever-increasing tonnage of bombs dispatched, the inaccuracy
of delivery was such any bomb falling within five miles of
the target was deemed a "hit" for statistical purposes, and
even by this standard, as the Butt Report made clear many
bombs missed.[102] Indeed sometimes in post raid assessment
the Germans could not decide which town (not the
installation in the town) had been the intended target
because the scattering of bomb craters was so wide.
These problems were dealt with in two ways: first the
precision targeting of vital facilities (ball-bearing
production in particular) was abandoned in favour of "area
bombing" – This change of policy was agreed by the Cabinet
in 1941 and in early 1942 a new directive was issued and Air
Marshal Arthur Harris (commonly known as "Bomber" Harris)
was appointed to carry out the task – second as the campaign
developed, improvements in the accuracy of the RAF raids
were joined by better crew training, electronic aids, and
new tactics such as the creation of a "pathfinder" force to
mark targets for the main force.[103]
"Bomber" Harris, who ran the bombing campaign, said "for
want of a rapier, a bludgeon was used". He felt that as much
as it would be far more desirable to deliver effective
pin-point attacks, as the capacity to do so simply did not
exist, and since it was war, it was necessary to attack with
whatever was at hand. He accepted area bombing knowing it
would kill civilians.
During the first few months of the area bombing campaign, an
internal debate within the British government about the most
effective use of the nation's limited resources in waging
war on Germany continued. Should the Royal Air Force (RAF)
be scaled back to allow more resources to go to the British
Army and Royal Navy or should the strategic bombing option
be followed and expanded? An influential paper was presented
to support the bombing campaign by Professor Frederick
Lindemann, 1st Viscount Cherwell, the British government's
leading scientific adviser, justifying the use of area
bombing to "dehouse" the German workforce as the most
effective way of reducing their morale and affecting enemy
war production.[104]
Mr. Justice Singleton, a High Court Judge, was asked by the
Cabinet to look into the competing points of view. In his
report, that was delivered on 20 May 1942, he concluded that
"If Russia can hold Germany on land I doubt whether Germany
will stand 12 or 18 months’ continuous, intensified and
increased bombing, affecting, as it must, her war
production, her power of resistance, her industries and her
will to resist (by which I mean morale)".[105][106][107] In
the end, thanks in part to the dehousing paper, it was this
view which prevailed and Bomber Command would remain an
important component of the British war effort up to the end
of World War II. A very large proportion of the industrial
production of the United Kingdom was harnessed to the task
of creating a vast fleet of heavy bombers—so much so other
vital areas of war production were under-resourced. *Until
1944, the effect on German production was remarkably small
and raised doubts whether it was wise to divert so much
effort* – the response being there was no where else the
effort could have been applied to greater effect.
The disruption of the German transportation system was
extensive. Despite German efforts to minimize loss of
industrial productivity through dispersal of production
facilities, as well as the extensive use of slave labour,
the Nazi regime experienced a decline in the ability to
supply materiel. Furthermore, the Luftwaffe had been
significantly weakened in the course of their defensive
efforts so that by mid 1944, the Allies experienced day-time
air dominance for the balance of the war, which would be
critical to the Allied success in the Normandy Campaign and
subsequent operations to the end of the war.
------------------------
Later in the article, it was noted that while industrial
production continued to increase in Germany throughout the
war, that was true of all of the major participants, and
that German industrial production did not increase at as
fast a rate as it did for the allied nations. In 1944, the
US was finally able to deliver enough fighters and bombers
to the European front to replace lost planes. The effect
was greatest on the German Luftwaffe, creating attrition of
aircraft and destroying fuel production and storage.
Night-time bombing was always less accurate than daytime
bombing, which suffered great losses until the fighter
forces of the Luftwaffe could be reduced.
I do not see how the allied bombing of Germany prolonged the
war, however. It does seem that the combination of
misplaced emphasis on area bombing may have allowed
industrial production to flourish somewhat unnecessarily,
but that is all.
Willow
> I couldn't live with myself.
*That* I can certainly understand.
Willow
Willow
As I recall, the two books to which I referred suggested that (1)
bombing cities meant the bombing of factories was delayed (2) material
used to make the bombers and bombs (as well as the crews) was diverted
from other necessities, and (3) As with London, the bombing actually
raised morale of the Germans and made them more mad at the Allies (as
in the murder of the USAAF crew). While I read teh books some time
ago, I seem to recall an allegation that Harris ignored commands from
Churchill to continue bombing the cities, but that is a hazy
recollection.
Willow
Willow
Command, but to *both* Israel and the PLO.
http://www.threemonkeysonline.com/als/_area_bombing_civillians_wwii_war_crimes.html
Willow
Jim Gysin
Mary sent the following on 12/11/2009 5:12 PM:
> On Dec 11, 5:05 pm, Jim Gysin <jimgy...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> Mike Burke sent the following on 12/10/2009 8:21 PM:
>>
>>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 16:17:29 -0800 (PST), Willow <panga...@telus.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Dec 10, 3:06 pm, Mike Burke <mbu...@pcug.org.au> wrote:
>>>>> Answer the question, Willow.
>>>> I have.
>>> another anti-Semitic rant.
>>> It specifically asked you to detail what, in your view, would be a
>>> proportionate response to _any number_ (since you questioned the
>>> generally accepted figure of 10,000) of missiles fired by Palestinians
>>> from the midst of their own civilian population into Israeli populated
>>> areas.
>>> Just answer the question.
>> Heh. I'm really enjoying this, but I'm evil like that. :)
>
> Indeed you are.
>
> Mary
> Fomenting war between Australia and Canada!
But can there really be a war when one country so clearly pwns the other
one? Heh.
--
Jim Gysin
Waukesha, WI
Jim Gysin
Willow sent the following on 12/12/2009 4:35 PM:
> I say
> bad tings about the Canadian government from time to time. I must be
> a self-hating Canadian. Nonsense, total nonsense. No country is
> above critical comment.
If you honestly think that you only say bad things about Israel "from
time to time," then you just might be the most un-self-aware person that
I've ever met in my lifetime.
Speaking of which, nice job of following through on cutting back on the
Israel-related posts that you make here. That lasted all of... what, a
day or so?
Jim Gysin
Willow sent the following on 12/12/2009 7:58 PM:
> On Dec 12, 3:00 pm, Mike Burke <mbu...@pcug.org.au> wrote:
>
>> No, you're just an extreme leftist with the complete lack of common
>> sense and sense of proportion typical of extremists at both ends of
>> the political continuum.
>
> Nonsense. I am not any of the things you allege.
Heh. I just wanted to see *this* again, too.
Some people actually pay good money for this sort of entertainment.
Mike Burke
wrote:
>And the logic of this position applies not only to Harris and Bomber
>Command, but to *both* Israel and the PLO.
>
>http://www.threemonkeysonline.com/als/_area_bombing_civillians_wwii_war_crimes.html
It's hard to know where to start with this.
1. Whatever revisionist historians and Grayling might think about
the rights or wrongs of World War II bombing campaigns, their opinions
are irrelevant even in respect of the World War II commanders. They
weren't there, they were not in the difficult position to have to
decide which of a finite number of bad, very bad or even worse options
to choose while fighting for their very lives. (Judging by his Nobel
Prize acceptance speech, Obama has finally realised that the
simplistic idealistic claptrap that comes so easily to politicians and
their idealistic supporters when not in office is no longer acceptable
when the buck stops with them. Funny that.)
2. The lessons of World War II (and even Vietnam) are of little
relevance to today's warfare, and to suggest, as Willow has done, that
the "logic of this position applies not only to Harris and Bomber
Command, but to *both* Israel and the PLO" is, at best, only partly
true.
3. The most valid criticism that can be made of politicians and
their senior military commanders is that they all too often prepare to
fight the last war. This is as true of the Arab-Israeli conflict as
of any other, but being so continually confronted by ruthless enemies
as the Israelis have been, they are probably less guilty of that than
anyone else. As for Harris and his contemporary senior political and
military leaders, they were all 19th century men limited by 19th
century ideals and ideas. It's not surprising that they didn't act as
their mid- to late-20th century critics believe they should have done.
4. Just one example of the questionable reasoning in the
interview:
"TMO: In 1944, the Allies received concrete information about
extermination camps such as Auschwitz, and also appeals from the
Polish resistance and British diplomats based in Switzerland to bomb
the railways leading to the camps. No such action was taken, either in
'44 or in '45. Does this refusal to bomb the Nazi's genocidal
infrastructure, while continuing to bomb civilians in cities, often
with little or no strategic or military value, add a further important
moral consideration when discussing bomber command's targeting of
German cities?
A.C. Grayling: Why the RAF and USAAF did not bomb the camps or the
rail links to them is a mystery, and a shameful one. It most certainly
raises hard questions about the priorities and attitudes of the Allied
bombing commanders and their political masters."
It's not hard to think of reasons why the allies did not bomb the
camps or rail links (if that were true, and it's not). First, even
knowing the conditions pertaining in the concentration camps, which
they did not, the Allied commanders and their political masters could
not have bombed the camps without killing or wounding tens of
thousands of prisoners. Given endemic Polish anti-Semitism, at that
time every bit as extreme as the Germans', it's not surprising that
the allies ignored Polish resistance demands.
Second, they did bomb marshalling yards throughout the war, and in the
latter years, once they had gained a measure of air superiority over
the area, they constantly attacked trains using daylight fighter
bomber sweeps. But using heavy bombers to hit single railway lines
back then was a very iffy business, only practical in good weather and
broad daylight, and a very dangerous business with little prospect of
success except by pure luck.
So, there are just two good absolutely morally impeccable reasons as
to why the Allied commanders might have chosen not to bomb the
"genocidal infrastructure". I can't imagine how anyone can take
Grayling seriously after howlers like that. As for TMO? A zealot
with a mission, obviously.
5. As to Willow's views about the Arab-Israeli conflict, there is
only one relevant fact: the Arab attacks on Israel are deliberately
intended to ignore, indeed avoid, military targets and to maximise
civilian casualties. The exact opposite applies to the Israeli
response to Arab attacks.
That's all anyone looking to make moral judgements needs to know.
Mique
Willow
> 5. As to Willow's views about the Arab-Israeli conflict, there is
> only one relevant fact: the Arab attacks on Israel are deliberately
> intended to ignore, indeed avoid, military targets and to maximise
> civilian casualties. The exact opposite applies to the Israeli
> response to Arab attacks.
So, Military Mike, let's say you have limited resources and are
fighting a major military power. You have no aircraft, no tanks, no
high tech weapons. You have to live in very visible cities and towns;
your enemy has large military bases well guarded and protected. Your
enemy has pipelines of supplies from the world's only superpower; you
have kitchens and basements to make weapons. You get a few guns and
such from outside (with difficulty, but most of your "soldiers" use
rocks and stones. Not only that, but to get anywhere close, you have
to cross a well defended border. Oh yes, both you and yoru enemy
have troops "embededed" in the "civilian" population, bu8t when your
enemy fights, he or she leaves home and gets into a uniform. You
don't have uniforms and can't go anywhere (in Gaza).
Given those circumstances, how are you going to fight? You use what
you have against what you can get at. Not nice, not "good", but how
would you do it, oh great Military Mind? No, you cannot just give up.
Neither side is all good, neither side is all bad. Each side is using
the tools it has and the tactics such weapons demand. Again, a
suicide bomber is not morally different from a Skyhawk jet dropping a
bomb.
And no one thinks that Israel avoided civilian casualites in either
South Lebanon or Gaza. The facts (number of killed, etc) clearly show
this, as does the UN Report - or do you think the British judge is a
shill?
Willow
Francis A. Miniter
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 20:46:03 -0800 (PST), Willow <pang...@telus.net>
> wrote:
>
>> And the logic of this position applies not only to Harris and Bomber
>> Command, but to *both* Israel and the PLO.
>>
>> http://www.threemonkeysonline.com/als/_area_bombing_civillians_wwii_war_crimes.html
>
> It's hard to know where to start with this.
>
> 1. Whatever revisionist historians and Grayling might think about
> the rights or wrongs of World War II bombing campaigns, their opinions
> are irrelevant even in respect of the World War II commanders. They
> weren't there, they were not in the difficult position to have to
> decide which of a finite number of bad, very bad or even worse options
> to choose while fighting for their very lives. (Judging by his Nobel
> Prize acceptance speech, Obama has finally realised that the
> simplistic idealistic claptrap that comes so easily to politicians and
> their idealistic supporters when not in office is no longer acceptable
> when the buck stops with them. Funny that.)
So military analysis of previous wars is not a valid
undertaking? Mique, you will put a lot of historians out of
business. It is not valid to ask whether Hooker should have
halted two corps at Chancellorsville on April 30th, or
whether Lee should have launched Pickett at Gettysburg
without knowing if Stuart had achieved anything in the Union
rear? Come on. Such analysis is not just the realm of
historians. It is the stock and trade of war colleges that
train future generations of officers.
>
> 2. The lessons of World War II (and even Vietnam) are of little
> relevance to today's warfare, and to suggest, as Willow has done, that
> the "logic of this position applies not only to Harris and Bomber
> Command, but to *both* Israel and the PLO" is, at best, only partly
> true.
Not so. It just happens that the other evening, I was
watching the program "Battleplan" on the Military channel.
This episode analyzed the strategic factors involved in any
guerrilla warfare situation. And the Palestinians are very
much fighting a guerrilla war - which means that Israel is
as well. For reference, those strategic factors are:
1 . Objective
2. Civilian Base
3 . Build Up
4 . Attrition
5. Transition
6 . Take Over
Interestingly in the Mideast situation, Israel has done its
best to segregate the two civilian populations in order to
minimize the effectiveness of terrorism. Israel has
surpassed the Palestinians in the build-up phase, but the
issue of attrition remains undecided. That is the phase in
which that conflict remains.
>
> 3. The most valid criticism that can be made of politicians and
> their senior military commanders is that they all too often prepare to
> fight the last war. This is as true of the Arab-Israeli conflict as
> of any other, but being so continually confronted by ruthless enemies
> as the Israelis have been, they are probably less guilty of that than
> anyone else.
I don't see that.
> As for Harris and his contemporary senior political and
> military leaders, they were all 19th century men limited by 19th
> century ideals and ideas. It's not surprising that they didn't act as
> their mid- to late-20th century critics believe they should have done.
That does not ring true to me. Harris was in charge of
aerial bombing, an activity so rarely carried out in the
19th C that it makes no sense to say that as to bombing he
was limited by 19th C ideas. Now, the decision to engage in
area bombing was in fact a 20th C decision. Involvement of
the civilian population in casualty production was
definitely not a 19th C idea. This concept of "strategic
bombing" to try to enervate the will of a people was an idea
that was repeatedly tried in the 20th C without success
(e.g., London, Germany, Tokyo, Hanoi, Haiphong). Note that
21st C bombing (which began with the Gulf War) has eschewed
that as counterproductive and has focused instead upon
precision bombing of essential targets.
???????? I do not understand your point. First, there was
one moral and one military reasons given, not two moral
reasons. The moral reason is understandable. why would you
kill thousands of Jewish victims to get hundreds of Nazis?
As to the military reason, perhaps you do not know how
incredibly imprecise WWII bombing was.
>
> 5. As to Willow's views about the Arab-Israeli conflict, there is
> only one relevant fact: the Arab attacks on Israel are deliberately
> intended to ignore, indeed avoid, military targets and to maximise
> civilian casualties.
Attrition, as I said above.
> The exact opposite applies to the Israeli
> response to Arab attacks.
>
I think you would have trouble with that proposition if
you look at the evidence. Both sides are engaged in forms
of attrition. Witness the massive civilian casualties in
the most recent incursion into Gaza.
ggg
May I enlighten you about bombings. In 1943 the allied bombings were
only beginning to have an effect on Germany. The fact that they were
now doing to Germany what Germany had been doing to Britain
unmercifully for 4 years was a morale boost for the Brits. When the
V-1 rocket bombings began and then gave way to the V-2 bombings which
were even more lethal, then the allies began their day-night 1000
plane raids on the German cities, we in the day, the Brits at night.
The arrogant bastards deserved every pounding they got.
Barry
Francis A. Miniter
As to German bombings of Britain, the Blitz, which began in
August, 1940, ended May, 1941, when Hitler transferred the
Luftwaffe to the Eastern Front. German bombing was at most
sporadic after that until Hitler decided to retaliate for
the British bombing of Lubeck in March, 1942. The German
raids were carried out mostly in April, 1942, starting on
the 23rd, with a few raids in May and the start of June.
Again, bombing just about ceased for a year and a half until
Operation Steinbock, a "baby blitz" from January to May,
1944. The stated reason for these attacks was revenge for
the area bombing of German cities. Then in June, 1944, the
first V-1 hit London and the buzz-bombing commenced and
continued until near the close of the war. And since "V"
stood for "Vengeance", these attacks were also in
retaliation for the targeting of German cities by British
and American bombers.
So, during the war, there were two periods, totaling about 2
and half years where there was virtually no bombing of
England.
The following is a rough estimate of aerial bombing damage
to German cities in % of buildings destroyed by the end of
the war:
Berlin* 33
Cologne* 61
Dortmund* 54
Dresden* 59
Dusseldorf* 64
Essen* 50
Frankfurt* 52
Hamburg* 75
Leipzig* 20
Munich* 42
Bochum 83
Bremen 60
Chemnitz 41
Dessau 61
Duisburg 48
Hagen 67
Hannover 60
Kassel 69
Kiel 50
Magdeburg 41
Mannheim 64
Nuremberg 51
Stettin 53
Stuttgart 46
Given these figures, it is not hard to understand why the
Germans retaliated with indiscriminate city bombing in the
last year of the war.
The lesson of that war is that indiscriminate bombing does
not work and creates an appetite for revenge bombing.
Willow
wrote:
> The lesson of that war is that indiscriminate bombing does
> not work and creates an appetite for revenge bombing.
A logic that applies to many conflicts....
In a war, there is rarely only one "good" side. Generally both sides
have good and evil - it is the nature of the beast. To look at any
conflict - especially those in the nature of blood feuds - and state
that only one side has done wrong is simply bad (or wishful) thinking.
There was an exchange of letters between Tirpitz and Fisher during
WW1. Most enlightening. Fisher had no reluctance at all. In war, he
said, you do indeed kick a man when he is down, in the n---s if you
can, and use every dirty trick you can thing of and more. As is often
stated, the winners get to write "history". In the case of the Israel
Palestine conflict, the "history" has been manipulated in a masterful
manner, right from the start. "A land without people for a people
without land" shows clearly how artfully the history has been
written.
It is amazing to me that one critical comment about the actions of the
state of Israel calls forth such venom. "Anti-Semitic" is a very
nasty insult in our society and one would think people would only
resort to its use when confronting the truly nasty types. Instead, it
is used as a first attack on anyone who voices the mildest of negative
comments concerning Israel. One would think that those who resort to
such tactics were avid Dominionists, awaiting the return of all Jews
to Israel in order that the Second Coming could occur. Bah. Stuff
and nonsense. If I err by voicing too many critical comments
concerning Israel's military actions, it merely serves as a small
counterweight to those who clamor that Israel can do no wrong.
Since Nixon, the United States (and Canada too, for that matter) have
left the role of "honest broker" behind. I would like to see us
return to that role and leave the unconditional backing of Israel
behind. As with those at J Street, I firmly believe that such would
facilitate the continued existence of Israel while continuing the
present course will almost guarantee its demise.
Willow
Willow
came across this statement:
"During a raid on Thames Haven, on 24 August, some German aircraft
(one commanded by Rudolf Hallensleben who went on to win the Knights
Cross for other actions)[10] strayed over London and dropped bombs in
the east and northeast parts of the city, Bethnal Green, Hackney,
Islington, Tottenham and Finchley. This prompted the British to mount
a retaliatory raid on Berlin the next night with bombs falling in
Kreuzberg and Wedding, causing 10 deaths. Hitler was said to be
furious, and on 5 September, at the urging of the Luftwaffe high
command, he issued a directive "for disruptive attacks on the
population and air defences of major British cities, including London,
by day and night".
And thus the shift from bombing tjhe RAF to bombing English cities and
then the bombing of German cities and on and on and on....
A mistake leads to suffering beyond measure. This reminds me of an
old case on negligence, "In Re Polemis":
"Relevant Facts: Some of the cargo the charterers loaded in the hold
was a quantity of benzine and/or petrol in tins in cases. During the
voyage the tins leaked, and in consequence there was a considerable
quantity of petrol vapor in the hold. At one of the ports of call it
became necessary for the stevedores, who were employed by and were the
servants of the charterers, to shift some of the cases of benzine, and
for that purpose the stevedores placed a number of heavy planks at the
forward end of the hatchway, which they used as a platform for
transferring the cases from the lower hold to the between deck. When
the sling containing the cases of benzine was being hoisted up, owing
to the negligence of the stevedores the rope by which the sling was
hoisted or the sling itself came in contact with the boards, causing
one of the boards to fall into the hold, and the fall was immediately
followed by a rush of flames, the result being the total destruction
of the ship"
So we might rephrase that for the London "case":
Relevant Facts: A bomber was flying a mission over England during
World War Two and, through negligent navigation, dropped a load of
bombs on London. It was agree that the bombing was not intentional
but the result of a mistake in airmanship. As a result of the
bombing, the English authorities authorized the bombing of Berlin the
following night. That action angered Hitler, the German head of
government. He demanded that his air force retaliate for the bombing
of Berlin, They did so, starting what later became known as "The
Blitz" during which over one hundred thousand civilians perished in
London. In consideration of that action, the British authorized
Bomber Command to commence the area bombing of German cities,
resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians as well
as many bomber crews and German fighter pilot. The Court held that
the death of German civilians was the direct and foreseeable result of
the negligent airmanship of the German bomber crew.
Uh huh.
In war, that sort of tit-for-unintended-tat" results in horrible
consequences. One then goes to the taking of two Israeli soldiers by
the Hezbollah leading to the invasion of South Lebanon and on and on
and on....
Willow
Francis A. Miniter
It was my understanding that the British did not know that
the bombing was accidental. They thought that it was
deliberate, so they responded in kind.
Rik Shepherd
>Then in June, 1944, the first V-1 hit London and the buzz-bombing commenced
>and continued until near the close of the war. And since "V" stood for
>"Vengeance", these attacks were also in retaliation for the targeting of
>German cities by British and American bombers.
Why did the Nazis initialise their v-for-vengeance weapons in English?
Surely the functional name of the A-4 should have been R-2 (for Rache)?
(Ah... it's V for Retaliation - Vergeltungswaffens).
It's almost as if German scientists had been developing rockets as far back
as the 1930's (when the Versailles treaty limited Germany's conventional
artillery - it's possibly worth noting that the German army was second only
to the Red Army in its use of rockets on the battlefield);
then impressed Hitler so much that they got a shiny new research station at
Peenemunde in 1937 (functional in 1938);
then had their funding cut when Operation Sealion and the collapse of
Britain were imminent;
then had funding restored when Sealion didn't happen and started working
their socks off until (despite an completely unprovoked RAF raid targeting
the hard working scientists which meant the entire project had to be
relocated under the Harz mountains) 1944 when they'd developed the rockets
to the extent that the majority went in the direction they were supposed to;
then named the rockets as if the 1938 development was entirely in revenge
for RAF bombing raids in 1942...
> So, during the war, there were two periods, totalling about 2 and half
> years where there was virtually no bombing of England.
Was that because Hitler was an essentially nice man who chose not to bomb
Britain, or because the Luftwaffe was (a) the wrong airforce, as most of its
development had tied it to supporting Blitzkrieging ground forces and (b)
mostly in Russia, trying to supporting the now-slightly-less-Blitzkrieging
ground forces?
Willow
wrote:
> It was my understanding that the British did not know that
> the bombing was accidental. They thought that it was
> deliberate, so they responded in kind.
Yes, indeed so. The point was that in war, a simple, even a stupid
mistake can have remarkable consequences. The German pilots might
claim an act of god, bad weather driving them off course. Switching
the onus, that means the British are liable. Either way, one plane or
several off course and... hundreds of thousands dead.
And neither side was either totally right or totally wrong.
The First World War is morally less one sided - at least to me. Once
you get past the bad Germans butchering Edith Cavell and babies in
Belgium, both sides were equally stupid and culpable. Imagine the
Mexicans invading the USA - the point of the Zimmerman telegram. Even
the telegram, which Barbara Tuchmann follows so vividly is a good
example of insanity - on American cable lines as the German ones were
cut. Or the Italian front wher the two sides were about fifty feet
vertically away from one another.
Willow
Francis A. Miniter
> Francis wrote
>
>> Then in June, 1944, the first V-1 hit London and the buzz-bombing commenced
>> and continued until near the close of the war. And since "V" stood for
>> "Vengeance", these attacks were also in retaliation for the targeting of
>> German cities by British and American bombers.
>
> Why did the Nazis initialise their v-for-vengeance weapons in English?
> Surely the functional name of the A-4 should have been R-2 (for Rache)?
> (Ah... it's V for Retaliation - Vergeltungswaffens).
>
> It's almost as if German scientists had been developing rockets as far back
> as the 1930's (when the Versailles treaty limited Germany's conventional
> artillery - it's possibly worth noting that the German army was second only
> to the Red Army in its use of rockets on the battlefield);
> then impressed Hitler so much that they got a shiny new research station at
> Peenemunde in 1937 (functional in 1938);
> then had their funding cut when Operation Sealion and the collapse of
> Britain were imminent;
> then had funding restored when Sealion didn't happen and started working
> their socks off until (despite an completely unprovoked RAF raid targeting
> the hard working scientists which meant the entire project had to be
> relocated under the Harz mountains) 1944 when they'd developed the rockets
> to the extent that the majority went in the direction they were supposed to;
> then named the rockets as if the 1938 development was entirely in revenge
> for RAF bombing raids in 1942...
The name obviously was given to signify what was in their
minds at the time that the project became public. If their
mindset had been different, it would have got some other
name in 1944. Maybe it would have been the S-1, i.e., "S"
for "Sieg" meaning Victory. But given the bombing of German
cities, the name given would have had credibility with the
German public at the time.
>
>> So, during the war, there were two periods, totalling about 2 and half
>> years where there was virtually no bombing of England.
>
> Was that because Hitler was an essentially nice man who chose not to bomb
> Britain, or because the Luftwaffe was (a) the wrong airforce, as most of its
> development had tied it to supporting Blitzkrieging ground forces and (b)
> mostly in Russia, trying to supporting the now-slightly-less-Blitzkrieging
> ground forces?
>
As I noted in my summary, Hitler ordered the bulk of the
Luftwaffe to the Eastern Front. The purpose of my post was
to correct inaccuracies in a previous post alleging that
Germany had been bombing Britain "unmercifully for 4 years".
Willow
>
> I'm a graduate of one such military command and staff college where we
> studied everything from the US Civil War, the two world wars, Korea,
> Vietnam and then some. I understand very well the value of studying
> military history.
Then you are exactly the right person to answer the following
question....
Assume you are the commander of the Palestinian side of fighters. You
have very limited resources and most of what you do is in full view of
the Israelis. You have no aircraft, no tanks, no sophisticated
weapons of any sort. You do have rocks and stones, some limited hand
and long guns, and rockets made in kitchens in your area. You have no
protected military bases.'
Your enemy has all the updated weapons one might wish for, along with
an atomic bomb or more (around a hundred). he has Skyhawk and Phantom
jets along with gunship helicopters and total air superiority. He has
a large armed military force, experienced and well trained. His
military bases are well protected and impossible to attack. In
numbers, he outnumbers you and is able to control your movements by
checkpoints and other means.
You are to continue the "battle", one sided as it may be.
With your wonderful military mind, what steps do you take. How do
*you* fight such a war?
I suggest to you that looked at from a War College point of view, the
only way to fight such a war is to give up. You as Palestinian
commander, would throw up your hands and turn matters over to to the
diplomatic types and simply hope for the best. However, to do so
means forever turning your back on your family homeland and accepting
a subordinate position.
I further suggest that any military type, faced with the choices to be
made by the Palestinian commander, would try to use the materials to
hand. That is, to me, exactly what the Palestinians have done. What
would you have done that would be different, oh great Military Mind?
Willow
Willow
"Despite their detractors' selective memories, Israel does not
initiate
attacks on its neighbours."
Oh! You mean like the Suez crisis, where Israel attacked Egypt with
Anglo-Franco support? I admit we might differ on who attacked how in
both South Lebanon and Gaza of recent. These were, from the Israeli
side ) provoked, just like a Polish radio station. And certainly
Israel was totally innocent in attacking the U.S.S. Liberty; the
bombing of the Iraq reactor or more recently , whatever was in the
Syrian desert. There are two sides to this, Mr. Burke. Both grey in
tone, neither black or white...
Willow
Willow
Military Mind. You are in control of the Palestinians, cannot simply
surrender and give up, so what do you do? What type of action do you
take against the Israelis, given the relative lack of modern weapons
and overwhelming military might of Israel, not to mention all teh
intelligence gathered by Mosad and the US. How are you going to
attack? Teh Israeli military bases are well guarded - chances of
getting to them are next to nil. But you have to do something.
What, Oh Great Military Mind.
Willow
Willow
Willow
Willow
While this was withdrawn at the request of the FO, in other countries
it will not be so.
A fair hearing would certainlyh help to clear the air...
Willow
ggg
wrote:
1940, 41, 42, & 43 look like four years to me. Have you spoken with
anyone who was there recently? An uncle of mine was in the 8th Air
Force on leave in London when a V-2 hit about a block and a half away
from him. He said the devastation was enormous, but the suddenness,
the lack of warning that it was coming was almost more scary than the
explosion itself. He said with the V-1's there was a whistling sound
which was distinctive and gave one a few seconds to duck for cover.
There are still some Brits around who remember. Ask them. You'll
probably claim that they couldn't see what was happening because they
were camped out in the underground. They did go up during the daytime
and not find their homes.
Barry
ggg
> how but you haven't answered the question.
>
> What would be a proportional Israeli response to Palestinian rocket
> attacks?
>
> Mique
Mique, having just learned of your military background I beg you not
to respond as to what you would do. I don't know who he is, but I
certainly can figure out a technique or procedure that would not bring
Israeli response but eventually would erode their superiority. To work
that puzzle out and respond would be tantamount to ceding restricted
information to the enemy.
Barry
Willow
> Mique, having just learned of your military background I beg you not
> to respond as to what you would do.<snip>
Oh yes, I am most certainly an agent of the PLO. Give me a break -
can you not come up why Russian immigration (under some veyr strange
circumstances) with anything else?
Gawds. Make a negative comment in North America concerning Israel and
some dingbats call you "anti-Semitic" and the real nut cases suggest
you are an agent for the PLO, trying to get plans for the next
attack. Good lord - the next idiot will have me join the Taliban or
some other organization.
Barry, you should seek some professional help. As to "eroding their
superiority", Israeli leaders have know for years that simple
demographics will do that in another generation or two. That is one
reason why the single state solution, with equal civil rights for all,
is a no-starter in Israel. That is why thinking Jews and Israelis
favour the two state solution and abhor the conservative military
approach taken by the state which makes a two state solution
impossible. The more Settlements, the less possible any two state
solution. If the Palestinians were smart they would press for the
single state and civil rights equality, which would destroy Israel as
a Jewish state in a few decades. If all were citizens of the same
state, other countries would press for equality as we did in respect
of South Africa. Much better PR for a downtrodden majority (the
Palestinians). Demographics have always been the fatal flaw in the
creation of Israel as most PMs of Israel have commented, right from
Ben Gurian. Demographics were the reason why the refugees were not
permitted to return. why Russian immigration (under some very strange
circumstances) was encouraged, ditto from Ethiopia, and much more.
The objective was always to keep the numbers of Jewish residents as
high as possible.
As it is, the Occupied Territories no longer are settled by religious
zealots. According to Israeli papers, the current settlers are most
often young people seeking a better house, cheaper than can be found
in Israel proper. Suburbanites. There are many financial incentives
for a couple to buy a condo or home in the Settlements. Rather like
Hitler's idea of using the Ukraine as "living space" for Germans. In
fact, Hitler had planned autobauns through Kiev and to the Caucuses to
link his German farming colonies to the Reich and Germania (Berlin).
The Israelis have walled off the highways to the settlements and
Palestinians are not allowed to use these roads. The "yuppie"
settlors need then to get to their jobs in Israel proper. An old idea
made new...
Willow
ggg
Most of my professionals are Israelis.
Barry
Francis A. Miniter
> I'm a graduate of one such military command and staff college where we
> studied everything from the US Civil War, the two world wars, Korea,
> Vietnam and then some. I understand very well the value of studying
> military history.
>
> bombing of Germany by the allied air forces in World War II is being
> argued as being morally analogous to Israel's actions in countering
> Arab attacks on Israeli civilians, the comparison is inappropriate and
> irrelevant.
>
> Whatever moral judgements might be made by modern academics and
> political partisans, the fact remains that the conflicts are entirely
> different. In technology alone, there were no smart weapons in WWII.
> There were comparatively very few aircraft crews trained to any
> reasonable level of precision navigation, let alone precision-bombing.
> Hence the British Pathfinder Force and the USAAF Master Bomber system.
>
> The USAAF had the Norden bomb sight which was a large improvement on
> the British bomb sights but was only really effective in daylight.
> Also, the casualty rate in both British and US bomber commands was
> horrendous. Many crews, terrified kids in their late teens and early
> 20s for the most part, when under constant flak and/or fighter attack
> as they mostly were, tended to drop their bombs willy nilly and try to
> get the hell out of there asap. Things improved when long-range
> fighter escorts became available, but once again they were only any
> use in daylight raids.
>
> In this Arab-Israeli conflict, which really should be termed the
> Islam-Judaism conflict given the Persian involvement on one side and
> the wider support for Israel from the world-wide Jewish community on
> the other,
Israel is at peace with both Egypt and Jordan, so I think
your broad brush is a bit sloppy. Active conflict is
between Israel and the Palestinians.
> the technology available to Israel enables it not only to
> hit a specific target with a very high degree of precision, but also
> to identify and track individual combatants/leaders from remote
> airborne sensors. There is simply no modern equivalent of World War
> II or even Vietnam area bombing of heavily populated areas. With
> remote sensors and PGMs there is simply no need.
>
>>> 2. The lessons of World War II (and even Vietnam) are of little
>>> relevance to today's warfare, and to suggest, as Willow has done, that
>>> the "logic of this position applies not only to Harris and Bomber
>>> Command, but to *both* Israel and the PLO" is, at best, only partly
>>> true.
>> Not so. It just happens that the other evening, I was
>> watching the program "Battleplan" on the Military channel.
>> This episode analyzed the strategic factors involved in any
>> guerrilla warfare situation. And the Palestinians are very
>> much fighting a guerrilla war - which means that Israel is
>> as well.
>
> Israel is fighting against guerrillas. It is not itself fighting a
> guerrilla war. It is fighting a conventional war with conventional
> weapons.
>
If you can come up with another recognized category of war
other than conventional or guerrilla wars, I would be
interested. In the meantime, the conflict between Israel
and the Palestinians cannot be called a conventional war.
The Palestinians - either group of them - have no regular
army, etc. Perhaps, you should go back and check your
definitions. Wikipedia provides the following definition,
which is consistent with what I have been taught:
-----------------------
Conventional warfare is a form of warfare conducted by using
conventional military weapons and battlefield tactics
between two or more states in open confrontation. The forces
on each side are well-defined, and fight using weapons that
primarily target the opposing army. It is normally fought
using conventional weapons, not chemical, biological, nor
nuclear weapons.
-----------------------
I see no other classification than guerrilla war. I
note that guerrilla warfare is now often called "asymmetric
warfare". The term "unconventional warfare" is used to
include guerrilla warfare as well as chemical, biological or
radiological warfare, but those do not apply here.
And, no, Israel is not mounting conventional war operations
except very, very rarely. How often do you see organized
infantry or tank units moving against Palestinian troops?
>> For reference, those strategic factors are:
>>
>> 1 . Objective
>> 2. Civilian Base
>> 3 . Build Up
>> 4 . Attrition
>> 5. Transition
>> 6 . Take Over
>>
>> Interestingly in the Mideast situation, Israel has done its
>> best to segregate the two civilian populations in order to
>> minimize the effectiveness of terrorism. Israel has
>> surpassed the Palestinians in the build-up phase, but the
>> issue of attrition remains undecided. That is the phase in
>> which that conflict remains.
>
> I disagree. The Arabs
The Palestinians . . .
> might be fighting such a war of attrition, but
> where is the evidence that Israel is doing so?
Because there is no other option. The Palestinians are
fighting such a war; there is no ready option for a
conventional struggle. All Israel can do is try to slowly
eliminate the leadership, while not further offending the
base from which the guerrilla war flourishes.
Unfortunately, they are doing nothing as to the latter issue.
> Given Israel with a
> population of just under 7.4 million, of which only 5.5 million are
> Israeli Jews,
Only?
> and that it is surrounded by at least 230 million
> Islamic enemies whose leaders have sworn to destroy Israel and
> slaughter every last Jew, it simply makes no sense for Israel to
> conduct a war of attrition, even if it were possible, which it's not.
You do not understand the concept. The US in Afghanistan
and Pakistan is fighting an advanced war of attrition with
the use of drones. By again and again taking out the
leadership, in time the connection between the head and the
base will be severed. As I mentioned above, however, that
alone is not sufficient. It is necessary to deprive the
head of new nourishment by turning the base or body.
> Despite their detractors' selective memories, Israel does not initiate
> attacks on its neighbours.
???? What about the preemptive strike that began the 1967
Six Day War???? What about the destruction of Iraq's
nuclear facility. You are willfully blind, Mique.
It responds to attack by targeting only
> the attackers.
Myth. See January, 2009, invasion of Gaza and such
substantial civilian casualties that Israel stated afterward
that it would not consider any international investigation.
> The Arab civilian casualties that result from Israeli
> counter-attacks are due to Arab tactics, not Israeli ones.
Propaganda. "Look what you made me do to you!"
>>> 3. The most valid criticism that can be made of politicians and
>>> their senior military commanders is that they all too often prepare to
>>> fight the last war. This is as true of the Arab-Israeli conflict as
>>> of any other, but being so continually confronted by ruthless enemies
>>> as the Israelis have been, they are probably less guilty of that than
>>> anyone else.
>> I don't see that.
>
> You don't see what? Israel has been in a constant state of war, or
> under the constant threat of imminent attack, since World War II.
No, not constant. At times, Israel has a thriving tourist
trade, a luxury not conducive to a situation of imminent
attack But the continuing problem results from the initial
and subsequent ejections of Palestinians without
compensation for their property. Until Israel addresses the
various forms that the "right of return" may take - and
monetary compensation may do it in the end - there can be no
real peace.
> Unlike most western forces, it is right up to the minute tactically
> and technologically. There are very, very few western forces that can
> say the same, because most of them have been gutted by politicians
> unwilling to spend money on defence that could be more usefully spent
> buying re-election with short-sighted populist electoral "bribes".
Digression. No response.
>>> As for Harris and his contemporary senior political and
>>> military leaders, they were all 19th century men limited by 19th
>>> century ideals and ideas. It's not surprising that they didn't act as
>>> their mid- to late-20th century critics believe they should have done.
>> That does not ring true to me. Harris was in charge of
>> aerial bombing, an activity so rarely carried out in the
>> 19th C that it makes no sense to say that as to bombing he
>> was limited by 19th C ideas. Now, the decision to engage in
>> area bombing was in fact a 20th C decision. Involvement of
>> the civilian population in casualty production was
>> definitely not a 19th C idea.
>
> It certainly wasn't. It is as old as the human race. Only the means
> have changed, not the idea of slaughtering civilians for genocidal
> purposes.
And I thought that bombing was invented in the 20th C.
Could have fooled me, but now that I look at some rare
historical sources, I see that aerial warfare made all the
difference at Yorktown.
>
>> This concept of "strategic
>> bombing" to try to enervate the will of a people was an idea
>> that was repeatedly tried in the 20th C without success
>> (e.g., London, Germany, Tokyo, Hanoi, Haiphong). Note that
>> 21st C bombing (which began with the Gulf War) has eschewed
>> that as counterproductive and has focused instead upon
>> precision bombing of essential targets.
>
> Agreed. But it only changed because technology enabled it to change.
> And that's precisely what the Israelis are doing, unlike their Arab
> enemies who slaughter civilians indiscriminately as much as an end as
> a means.
As Willow mentioned, the Palestinians - not Arabs - fight
with what they can. Israel does not countenance the
presence of tanks and fighter jets in Gaza.
> What's not to understand? Read it again. There are two good
> absolutely morally impeccable reasons not to bomb the "genocidal
> infrastructure. I made no distinction between whether the reasons
> were moral or military. And in the immediately preceding paragraph I
> described how using heavy bombers to attack single railway lines was
> not practical or words clearly to that effect because, obviously, WWII
> bombing was incredibly imprecise.
Exactly where have I been talking about moral reasons. My
concern was practicality.
>
> Whatever else might explain the reluctance to attack the camps, etc,
> Occam's Razor suggests that the main reason was that there were more
> important targets.
>>> 5. As to Willow's views about the Arab-Israeli conflict, there is
>>> only one relevant fact: the Arab attacks on Israel are deliberately
>>> intended to ignore, indeed avoid, military targets and to maximise
>>> civilian casualties.
>> Attrition, as I said above.
>>
>>> The exact opposite applies to the Israeli
>>> response to Arab attacks.
>>>
>> I think you would have trouble with that proposition if
>> you look at the evidence. Both sides are engaged in forms
>> of attrition. Witness the massive civilian casualties in
>> the most recent incursion into Gaza.
>
> I simply don't believe the accounts of civilian casualties on the Arab
> side of this war.
So, it is simply not possible to convince you.
> The Arabs have been caught lying on virtually every
> occasion, and the NGOs are completely untrustworthy.
Oh, of course. If a nonaligned group says that Israel did
something wrong, they have to be lying. Good logic, Mique.
> The blogosphere
> is full of proof of
The blogosphere is full of proof of nothing.
> how the Palestinians manage the media with staged
> "casualties" (remember the ambulance allegedly targeted by the Israeli
> air force which turned out to be nothing of the sort).
No, I don't. But one ambulance used as a subterfuge is
hardly a good argument against a 1,000 bodies in Gaza.
> Even the less
> committed MSM
Who?
> question the casualty count.
Actually, it was a February 16, 2009 article in the
Jerusalem Post that started the counter-rumors. Not exactly
an unbiased source. But even the IDF count of 1,285
Palestinian dead had only 580 of them as combatants, and of
the neatly remaining 705, called all 320 men among them
"terror operatives". All of the men. All of them. No
exceptions. Terror operatives. The women and children -
300 of them - a nice even number - were not so designated.
> The only people who
> believe them are those on the left (who else?) who are as equally
> committed to the Palestinian cause as any Muslim.
>
Bullshit.
> When the Arabs stop hiding their fighters behind and among their
> civilians,
Do you have any clue about asymmetric warfare? Ever see the
movie Red Dawn?
> and stop forcing their civilians to remain in buildings
> chosen by the fighters to hide in or attack from, then the civilian
> body count will almost entirely disappear.
>
> The Palestinians deliberately kill Israeli civilians. Israelis
> accidentally kill Palestinian civilians. There's the difference.
I have some really nice waterfront property in Vanuatu I'd
be willing to sell you.
>
> My question remains unanswered: what would be a proportional Israeli
> response to Palestinian rocket attacks (not to mention suicide
> bombers, which are a different kind of problem)?
>
That, however, is not my concern, nor why I am in this
discussion.
Francis A. Miniter
What evidence do you have for anything more than sporadic
bombing by the Germans of England between May of 1941 and
April of 1942, or between June 4, 1942 and January, 1944?
That amounts to 2 1/2 years of relative quiet, not "what
Germany had been doing to Britain unmercifully for 4 years"
as you said on 12-13-09 @ 1443 hrs. Do you have evidence
that V-1 bombs fell prior to June, 1944?
Mike Burke
<fami...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> In this Arab-Israeli conflict, which really should be termed the
>> Islam-Judaism conflict given the Persian involvement on one side and
>> the wider support for Israel from the world-wide Jewish community on
>> the other,
>
>Israel is at peace with both Egypt and Jordan, so I think
>your broad brush is a bit sloppy. Active conflict is
>between Israel and the Palestinians.
And my figures didn't count Yemen, or Turkey, or any of the North
African Muslim states, or Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia or Uncle
Tom Cobbleigh all of which might nominally be at peace with Israel
while giving plenty of aid and comfort to the Muslim combatants.
>
>> the technology available to Israel enables it not only to
>> hit a specific target with a very high degree of precision, but also
>> to identify and track individual combatants/leaders from remote
>> airborne sensors. There is simply no modern equivalent of World War
>> II or even Vietnam area bombing of heavily populated areas. With
>> remote sensors and PGMs there is simply no need.
>>
>>>> 2. The lessons of World War II (and even Vietnam) are of little
>>>> relevance to today's warfare, and to suggest, as Willow has done, that
>>>> the "logic of this position applies not only to Harris and Bomber
>>>> Command, but to *both* Israel and the PLO" is, at best, only partly
>>>> true.
>>> Not so. It just happens that the other evening, I was
>>> watching the program "Battleplan" on the Military channel.
>>> This episode analyzed the strategic factors involved in any
>>> guerrilla warfare situation. And the Palestinians are very
>>> much fighting a guerrilla war - which means that Israel is
>>> as well.
>>
>> Israel is fighting against guerrillas. It is not itself fighting a
>> guerrilla war. It is fighting a conventional war with conventional
>> weapons.
>>
>
>If you can come up with another recognized category of war
>other than conventional or guerrilla wars, I would be
>interested.
How about nuclear? Which isn't as silly as it sounds given Iran's
current activities and the West's almost total appeasement of Iran.
>In the meantime, the conflict between Israel
>and the Palestinians cannot be called a conventional war.
>The Palestinians - either group of them - have no regular
>army, etc. Perhaps, you should go back and check your
>definitions. Wikipedia provides the following definition,
>which is consistent with what I have been taught:
>-----------------------
>Conventional warfare is a form of warfare conducted by using
>conventional military weapons and battlefield tactics
>between two or more states in open confrontation. The forces
>on each side are well-defined, and fight using weapons that
>primarily target the opposing army. It is normally fought
>using conventional weapons, not chemical, biological, nor
>nuclear weapons.
>-----------------------
> I see no other classification than guerrilla war. I
>note that guerrilla warfare is now often called "asymmetric
>warfare". The term "unconventional warfare" is used to
>include guerrilla warfare as well as chemical, biological or
>radiological warfare, but those do not apply here.
>
>And, no, Israel is not mounting conventional war operations
>except very, very rarely. How often do you see organized
>infantry or tank units moving against Palestinian troops?
Quite frequently, and the Palestinians love it when they do because it
gives them brilliant public relations coups as they dupe the ever-so
gullible/sympathetic western media. Such great TV it is too, counting
the "casualties" and bereaved "widows" howling in the streets (who are
then whisked away to play dead or howl some more in front of another
set of cameras at some other scene of an alleged Israeli atrocity
miles away. Different sets, same cast).
Why the heck is this point relevant, Francis? Are you suggesting that
the Jews should bring back David with his sling-shot? If not wtf are
you on about?
>> I disagree. The Arabs
>
>The Palestinians . . .
Bullshit. It's Arabs - using the Palestinians as proxies.
>
>> might be fighting such a war of attrition, but
>> where is the evidence that Israel is doing so?
>
>Because there is no other option. The Palestinians are
>fighting such a war; there is no ready option for a
>conventional struggle. All Israel can do is try to slowly
>eliminate the leadership, while not further offending the
>base from which the guerrilla war flourishes.
>Unfortunately, they are doing nothing as to the latter issue.
The ARABS (and other Muslims, eg Persian Iranians) are fighting the
Israelis, using the Palestinians as proxies. The "war" would be over
in minutes if it weren't achieving the strategic aims of the Islamic
world, in which case they would cut off the umbilical cord and the
guerillas would have nothing to fight with even if they wanted to.
>
>> Given Israel with a
>> population of just under 7.4 million, of which only 5.5 million are
>> Israeli Jews,
>
>Only?
5.5/(230+1.4 [Israeli Arabs]) = ONLY 12.7 per cent (at most) of the
forces ranged against them.
>
>> and that it is surrounded by at least 230 million
>> Islamic enemies whose leaders have sworn to destroy Israel and
>> slaughter every last Jew, it simply makes no sense for Israel to
>> conduct a war of attrition, even if it were possible, which it's not.
>
>You do not understand the concept. The US in Afghanistan
>and Pakistan is fighting an advanced war of attrition with
>the use of drones. By again and again taking out the
>leadership, in time the connection between the head and the
>base will be severed. As I mentioned above, however, that
>alone is not sufficient. It is necessary to deprive the
>head of new nourishment by turning the base or body.
Israel is NOT comparable to the US anywhere, let alone in that
theatre. The US chooses to be involved in the Middle East. It has
overwhelming combat power (Google is you friend) and, if it chose,
could lay waste to the area to a point where not a poppy would grow
for a thousand years. Equally, at any point it chooses, the US can
bug out of the Middle East within almost literally hours, as it would
if the American public makes it politically untenable to continue the
fight. Just as the British public is making it politically untenable
to continue the fight. And as the great Australian public has made it
almost politically untenable for our government to continue even the
ridiculous token commitment that our shamefully degraded military
capacity is capable of providing.
Israel is stuck there fighting for its life, as it will continue to
have to do until hell freezes over, or so it seems. The fight is
being made all the harder by blatant pro-Palestinian partisanship
centred in the left-wing circles particularly in the Western media and
academia. That partisanship becomes anti-Semitism when people seek to
destroy Israel's legitimacy and/or its means of self-defence by
bullshit calls to negotiate or to otherwise deal with an implacable
enemy that has never been, and cannot be, bound to treaties made on
its behalf.
>
>> Despite their detractors' selective memories, Israel does not initiate
>> attacks on its neighbours.
>
>???? What about the preemptive strike that began the 1967
>Six Day War???? What about the destruction of Iraq's
>nuclear facility. You are willfully blind, Mique.
That was then, and entirely justified in both cases, as you well know,
Francis. I'm talking about now.
>
> It responds to attack by targeting only
>> the attackers.
>
>Myth. See January, 2009, invasion of Gaza and such
>substantial civilian casualties that Israel stated afterward
>that it would not consider any international investigation.
Why should it consider international investigation. Investigation by
whom? The UN? Don't make me laugh. NGOs? Name one that hasn't been
captured by the anti-Israeli/anti-Semite claque.
>
>> The Arab civilian casualties that result from Israeli
>> counter-attacks are due to Arab tactics, not Israeli ones.
>
>Propaganda. "Look what you made me do to you!"
Bullshit. As again you well know, or you are too blinded by your
ideology to see. The evidence is compelling, Francis. If the
Palestinians stopped fighting behind often forcefully conscripted
civilian cover, there would be few if any civilian casualties.
And please don't try to argue that the Palestinians are simply
responding to Israeli attacks.
>
>>>> 3. The most valid criticism that can be made of politicians and
>>>> their senior military commanders is that they all too often prepare to
>>>> fight the last war. This is as true of the Arab-Israeli conflict as
>>>> of any other, but being so continually confronted by ruthless enemies
>>>> as the Israelis have been, they are probably less guilty of that than
>>>> anyone else.
>>> I don't see that.
>>
>> You don't see what? Israel has been in a constant state of war, or
>> under the constant threat of imminent attack, since World War II.
>
>No, not constant. At times, Israel has a thriving tourist
>trade, a luxury not conducive to a situation of imminent
>attack.
Oh, rubbish. Sure, they would have gone weeks, maybe even months,
without some form of attack, and some might even have managed a solid
night's sleep. But to suggest that they have not been under constant
threat of imminent attack for any significant time is crap. The only
people to whom that applies are the Palestinians who can at least at
least relax knowing that the Israelis will not strike if one or other
of the declared terrorist organisations that "govern" them decides to
take a night off.
>But the continuing problem results from the initial
>and subsequent ejections of Palestinians without
>compensation for their property. Until Israel addresses the
>various forms that the "right of return" may take - and
>monetary compensation may do it in the end - there can be no
>real peace.
The "right to return" is not a right at all, except in the minds of
those who want to destroy Israel. It would be national, and
individual Jewish suicide, to allow multi-millions of Palestinians to
return whether they left voluntarily or were coerced into leaving.
The Arab and other Muslims who have threatened to slaughter the Jews
ought to be believed, Francis, and it extremely perverse to leave the
peacemaking up to the Jewish people.
>
>> Unlike most western forces, it is right up to the minute tactically
>> and technologically. There are very, very few western forces that can
>> say the same, because most of them have been gutted by politicians
>> unwilling to spend money on defence that could be more usefully spent
>> buying re-election with short-sighted populist electoral "bribes".
>
>Digression. No response.
Oh, dear, how could that be? You contradicted me when I said that the
Israeli forces were less guilty of fighting the last war than other
nations. I explained why my point was valid. You have no
counter-counter-argument so now you accuse me of digression.
Sigh!
>
>>>> As for Harris and his contemporary senior political and
>>>> military leaders, they were all 19th century men limited by 19th
>>>> century ideals and ideas. It's not surprising that they didn't act as
>>>> their mid- to late-20th century critics believe they should have done.
>>> That does not ring true to me. Harris was in charge of
>>> aerial bombing, an activity so rarely carried out in the
>>> 19th C that it makes no sense to say that as to bombing he
>>> was limited by 19th C ideas. Now, the decision to engage in
>>> area bombing was in fact a 20th C decision. Involvement of
>>> the civilian population in casualty production was
>>> definitely not a 19th C idea.
>>
>> It certainly wasn't. It is as old as the human race. Only the means
>> have changed, not the idea of slaughtering civilians for genocidal
>> purposes.
>
>And I thought that bombing was invented in the 20th C.
>Could have fooled me, but now that I look at some rare
>historical sources, I see that aerial warfare made all the
>difference at Yorktown.
Sarcasm wins you no debating points, Francis. All the mass bombing
did in WWII was to achieve a little more quickly, and perhaps even
more humanely, the sort of wholesale slaughter and destruction that
the invading Huns and other conquering forces have indulged in for
millenia. Yea, even the Soviets in their assault and capture of
Eastern German cities at the end of the war.
>>
>>> This concept of "strategic
>>> bombing" to try to enervate the will of a people was an idea
>>> that was repeatedly tried in the 20th C without success
>>> (e.g., London, Germany, Tokyo, Hanoi, Haiphong). Note that
>>> 21st C bombing (which began with the Gulf War) has eschewed
>>> that as counterproductive and has focused instead upon
>>> precision bombing of essential targets.
>>
>> Agreed. But it only changed because technology enabled it to change.
>> And that's precisely what the Israelis are doing, unlike their Arab
>> enemies who slaughter civilians indiscriminately as much as an end as
>> a means.
>
>As Willow mentioned, the Palestinians - not Arabs - fight
>with what they can. Israel does not countenance the
>presence of tanks and fighter jets in Gaza.
So deliberately targetting civilians is OK, provided you agree with
the politics of the attackers, but not otherwise?
This is the real proof of the moral bankruptcy of your (and Willow's)
stance, Francis.
>
>> What's not to understand? Read it again. There are two good
>> absolutely morally impeccable reasons not to bomb the "genocidal
>> infrastructure. I made no distinction between whether the reasons
>> were moral or military. And in the immediately preceding paragraph I
>> described how using heavy bombers to attack single railway lines was
>> not practical or words clearly to that effect because, obviously, WWII
>> bombing was incredibly imprecise.
>
>Exactly where have I been talking about moral reasons. My
>concern was practicality.
Huh. You have tied yourself totally in knots, man. :-)
The topic was Grayling's and his questioner's belief that it was
morally wrong for the Allies' decision not to attack the "genocidal
infrastructure". I said that there were at least two morally
impeccable reasons that more than justified a decision not to attack
them. One of those (my) reasons was that it was impractical to attack
single railway tracks with heavy bombers. You disputed that by
suggesting that I had chosen one moral and one military reason. And
you later suggested that I obviously wasn't aware how inaccurate WWII
bombing was. So now, when I respond to indicate I'd already covered
that, you no tell us you weren't talking about morality, but
practicality. I happened to be talking about both.
>
>>
>> Whatever else might explain the reluctance to attack the camps, etc,
>> Occam's Razor suggests that the main reason was that there were more
>> important targets.
>>>> 5. As to Willow's views about the Arab-Israeli conflict, there is
>>>> only one relevant fact: the Arab attacks on Israel are deliberately
>>>> intended to ignore, indeed avoid, military targets and to maximise
>>>> civilian casualties.
>>> Attrition, as I said above.
>>>
>>>> The exact opposite applies to the Israeli
>>>> response to Arab attacks.
>>>>
>>> I think you would have trouble with that proposition if
>>> you look at the evidence. Both sides are engaged in forms
>>> of attrition. Witness the massive civilian casualties in
>>> the most recent incursion into Gaza.
>>
>> I simply don't believe the accounts of civilian casualties on the Arab
>> side of this war.
>
>So, it is simply not possible to convince you.
Not without independent, unbiassed evidence that doesn't come from
corrupt sources, no. There are very few such sources, as the
blogosphere has continuously demonstrated when this or that partisan
source has tried to highlight alleged Israeli atrocities.
As a lawyer you ought to know how little value a liar's word has and
the pro-Palestinian side has more liars than not.
>
>> The Arabs have been caught lying on virtually every
>> occasion, and the NGOs are completely untrustworthy.
>
>Oh, of course. If a nonaligned group says that Israel did
>something wrong, they have to be lying. Good logic, Mique.
There are no non-aligned groups in this fight, Francis, least of all
those who most loudly declare their neutrality.
>
>> The blogosphere
>> is full of proof of
>
>The blogosphere is full of proof of nothing.
In the absence of an ethical media, it's all we've got, unfortunately.
>
>> how the Palestinians manage the media with staged
>> "casualties" (remember the ambulance allegedly targeted by the Israeli
>> air force which turned out to be nothing of the sort).
>
>No, I don't. But one ambulance used as a subterfuge is
>hardly a good argument against a 1,000 bodies in Gaza.
I must admit that I didn't see anything other than the Australian
media on this issue, and there are few, if any, reliable sources
reporting for the Australian MSM. Again, I can only say that the Arab
(and Palestinians are Arabs) way of using civilians as cover for their
military operations would have caused most of the civilian casualties.
If you're arguing that the Israelis should not have attacked if they
couldn't do so without risking civilian casualties, you're being
disingenuous, and demonstrating once again how too many people on the
left are prepared to countenance almost any Arab crime while expecting
Israel to fight with both hands tied.
That's anti-Semitism, in all its tooth and claw.
>> Even the less
>> committed MSM
>
>Who?
>
>> question the casualty count.
>
>Actually, it was a February 16, 2009 article in the
>Jerusalem Post that started the counter-rumors. Not exactly
>an unbiased source. But even the IDF count of 1,285
>Palestinian dead had only 580 of them as combatants, and of
>the neatly remaining 705, called all 320 men among them
>"terror operatives". All of the men. All of them. No
>exceptions. Terror operatives. The women and children -
>300 of them - a nice even number - were not so designated.
See above.
>
>> The only people who
>> believe them are those on the left (who else?) who are as equally
>> committed to the Palestinian cause as any Muslim.
>>
>Bullshit.
No, Francis. What is bullshit is that you attempt to condone real
Palestinian war crimes while trying to label every civilian victim of
Israel's counter-action as a war crime. Using civilians as cover is a
war crime. The Israeli response that caused casualties among that
cover was not.
>
>> When the Arabs stop hiding their fighters behind and among their
>> civilians,
>
>Do you have any clue about asymmetric warfare? Ever see the
>movie Red Dawn?
Again, bullshit. Assymetric is a label that describes a type of war.
It doesn't legitimise it.
>
>> and stop forcing their civilians to remain in buildings
>> chosen by the fighters to hide in or attack from, then the civilian
>> body count will almost entirely disappear.
>>
>> The Palestinians deliberately kill Israeli civilians. Israelis
>> accidentally kill Palestinian civilians. There's the difference.
>
>I have some really nice waterfront property in Vanuatu I'd
>be willing to sell you.
And you really are too naive for words.
>
>>
>> My question remains unanswered: what would be a proportional Israeli
>> response to Palestinian rocket attacks (not to mention suicide
>> bombers, which are a different kind of problem)?
>>
>
>That, however, is not my concern, nor why I am in this
>discussion.
I can't understand why you're in the discussion except to try to put a
legalistic gloss on the idea that the Palestinians must be innocent
because the Israelis must be guilty.
Mique
Willow
spots.
I wonder - did your military adventures take you to Israel, perhaps?
You are so terribly one-sided....
There are none so blind as those who refuse to see....
Willow
Mike Burke
wrote:
>Oh dear, Mr. Burke. For a military mind, you show far too many blind
Answer the question.
Mique
Willow
> Answer the question.
Open your eyes - and your mind...
Willow
Jim Gysin
Willow sent the following on 12/18/2009 11:37 AM:
> On Dec 17, 9:13 pm, Mike Burke <mbu...@pcug.org.au> wrote:
>
>> Answer the question.
>
> Open your eyes - and your mind...
Yoda you seem to think you are. And wrong are you. And unanswered the
question remains...
--
Jim Gysin
Waukesha, WI