WHERE ARE MULLAH SUICIDES?
DGVREIMAN
WHERE ARE MULLAH SUICIDES?
In a regular Army men will not go to into combat unless someone
is willing to lead them. The leaders are typically the Sergeants
and lower rank officers (usually Lieutenant's that in truth are
also following the Sergeants).
Leadership means that the officer leading the men is committed to
winning the battle and the war. The leader instills confidence
that he too is willing to "put his life on the line" to win the
battle or accomplish the mission.
Now what would happen if all those leaders hid behind a tree and
told their troops to charge a mine field or strap bombs to their
asses and run into an enemy camp and blow themselves up?
What is likely to happen is the men would probably shoot the
"leader" before they would shoot the enemy.
Yet what we see coming from the Palestinians is they are
recruiting impressionable and feeble-minded children to run out
and kill themselves, while the Mullahs and terrorist leaders hide
behind trees, and compounds, and very large Swiss bank accounts.
You would think that at least once a Palestinian or Terrorist
Goon leader would also strap a bomb to his ass and show all the
kids how it's done? But the absence of such "leadership" or
"Martyrdom" is conspicuously missing in the Muslim world.
Could it be the Mullahs and the Terrorist leaders really know
that they will not go to paradise for the murder of innocent
people? And in fact, it is very likely not only will they not
experience paradise, they probably will experience somewhere a
lot hotter than where they live now?
It would appear the Council of Mullahs and the Terrorist Goon
leaders (like Arafat/Osama/Saddam) are cowards. Cowards to a
point they send impressionable children out to kill themselves
while murdering other children, so they can claim "vengeance" and
collect more money from those that hate and wish to destroy
Israel and America.
I suppose if we could reach out to all of the Teenagers in our
country that wish to comint suicide and "encourage" them to do so
by strapping bombs to their asses and making their parents proud
(and rich) then I suspect we could recruit tens of thousands of
suicide bombers also. But would such recruitment be a moral
thing to do? Would it even be a human thing to do?
Those that would use the confused and impressionable minds of
children to kill themselves and other innocent children
simultaneously are beyond explanation in human terms. They are
understandable actions in a monster or mad dog terms, but those
that comint such horrific acts cannot be real humans. Real
humans have some semblance of morality, conscience and
compassion. These "Mullahs" seem to be void of all human
characteristics and human morals. They also seem to have the
ethics of Mad Dogs . . . and consequently should be treated as
such.
Israel needs to keep those Tanks rolling and exterminate these
vermin, and stop them once and for all from butchering innocent
Children . . . both Palestinian and Israeli.
Doug Grant (Tm)
--
De Oppresso Liber
Happy Birthday
Jerry Okamura
even try to understand what is happening in that region of the world. Here
is a question in return. Why do we call soldiers hero's when they charge a
heavily fortified enemy position, then call these young men (after all all
wars are fought by young men) from Palestine something else.
"DGVREIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:EREr8.7547$Rw2.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
TDodge
news:7zFr8.28157$VQ2.11...@twister.socal.rr.com...
> Let me suggest that posings like this do nothing to further the dialogue
or
> even try to understand what is happening in that region of the world.
Here
> is a question in return. Why do we call soldiers hero's when they charge
a
> heavily fortified enemy position, then call these young men (after all all
> wars are fought by young men) from Palestine something else.
because the soldier is charging an armed position, with people fighting
back.
The young pali is charging a 13 yr old girls birthday party, or a bunch of
people eating dinner. I can see a big difference.
--
"I fear that we have awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a
terrible resolve "
Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto
"We will not tire, we will not falter, we will not fail"
George W Bush
Redneck
It has alot to do with understanding what is going on. The Western press
covers the suicide bombers as though they are a sign of utter desperation. The
truth, as Doug points out, is that here in the US we have thousands of suicidal
teenagers, we just try to talk them out of the act, not encourage the act
and/or try to control it to achieve a political purpose. The suicide bombers
are an indication of the evil driving one of the sides in the conflict.
Jerry Okamura
"TDodge" <NOSPAMb...@sny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:PYFr8.22027$hq2.6...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
> "Jerry Okamura" <OKAMU...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:7zFr8.28157$VQ2.11...@twister.socal.rr.com...
> > Let me suggest that posings like this do nothing to further the dialogue
> or
> > even try to understand what is happening in that region of the world.
> Here
> > is a question in return. Why do we call soldiers hero's when they
charge
> a
> > heavily fortified enemy position, then call these young men (after all
all
> > wars are fought by young men) from Palestine something else.
>
> because the soldier is charging an armed position, with people fighting
> back.
> The young pali is charging a 13 yr old girls birthday party, or a bunch of
> people eating dinner. I can see a big difference.
Good point. But the suicide bomber runs a risk of dying long before they
detonate the bomb. On your second point, I guess you are making an argument
that there is a difference between someone who is in the military killing
civilians vs. someone who is not in a formal military, killing civilians.
Or are you making the argument that civilians should not be targets.
Because if that is your argument, I point you to what the military did in
WWII.
Jerry Okamura
that is how we view it through our so-called civilized eyes.
"Redneck" <Red...@telocity.com> wrote in message
news:3CAF598C...@telocity.com...
Marc Sylvestre
> news:7zFr8.28157$VQ2.11...@twister.socal.rr.com...
> > Let me suggest that posings like this do nothing to further the dialogue
> or
> > even try to understand what is happening in that region of the world.
> Here
> > is a question in return. Why do we call soldiers hero's when they
charge
> a
> > heavily fortified enemy position, then call these young men (after all
all
> > wars are fought by young men) from Palestine something else.
>
> because the soldier is charging an armed position, with people fighting
> back.
Yeah, right. In "AMERICAN WARS" no civilians are targeted.
Americans would never kill civilians, not on purpose.
Except Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Dresden, Viet Nam, Iraq, etc.
To win a war you can go after the opposing military, or you can go after the
civilians that are needed to finance and politically support a war.
Duh.
> The young pali is charging a 13 yr old girls birthday party, or a bunch of
> people eating dinner. I can see a big difference.
Suicide bombing is despicible, but honestly, what other weapons do the
Palestinians have?
Jerry Okamura
press
> covers the suicide bombers as though they are a sign of utter desperation.
The
> truth, as Doug points out, is that here in the US we have thousands of
suicidal
> teenagers, we just try to talk them out of the act, not encourage the act
> and/or try to control it to achieve a political purpose. The suicide
bombers
> are an indication of the evil driving one of the sides in the conflict.
It would just seem to me that using words like "evil" is something one uses
for propaganda purposes and has no useful purpose in discussing what is
going on in that region. The Palestinians, whether we like it or not, are
using what they have at their disposal to fight against a well armed
military on the other side. It is as simple as that.
TDodge
>
> "TDodge" <NOSPAMb...@sny.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:PYFr8.22027$hq2.6...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
> > back.
> > The young pali is charging a 13 yr old girls birthday party, or a bunch
of
> > people eating dinner. I can see a big difference.
>
> Good point. But the suicide bomber runs a risk of dying long before they
> detonate the bomb. On your second point, I guess you are making an
argument
> that there is a difference between someone who is in the military killing
> civilians vs. someone who is not in a formal military, killing civilians.
the difference is the purposeful targeting of teenagers and civilians, who
pose no threat at all, and innocents caught in a crossfire. Innocent
civilians
should never be targeted, and aren't by civilised people. War is a bitch,
and non combatants always get hurt. One of the spins the pro pali side
makes is civilian pali casualities..they're *all* civilians, even the
bombers.
That bunch holed up in the church with AK47's will be counted as pali
civilian casualities.
There is no cause, no insult, and no percived injustice that validates
the purposeful killing teenagers, shoppers and other non-combatants.
I think the pali people are being used as cannon fodder by other
Arab states as a way to irritate and discredit Israel.
If Israel is such a big deal to them, they could form an alliance,
rally the troops, and have a war, but killing kids with kids keeps
their hands clean.
The populace can't be in favor of this, but I've seen on the
news what happens to any pali not in favor of these monstrous
tactics, or heaven forbid, be in favor of a peace.
> Or are you making the argument that civilians should not be targets.
> Because if that is your argument, I point you to what the military did in
> WWII.
>
I'm not interested in re-fighting a war that ended over a half century ago.
In another forum, I'd discuss it at length..I know quite a bit about WWII.
This is a different world, and a different war.
Redneck
Jerry Okamura wrote:
OK, we'll be morally and culturally equivalent and drop references to evil.
That aside, the original point that we have suicidal teens in the US which we
choose not to manipulate for a political agenda still stands (except when
platitudes are written about certain suicides such as Kurt Cobain). As long as
this tactics is seen an act of heroic martyrs, as opposed to manipulation of
gullible youth, this is guarranteed to continue.
As far as 'effectiveness' goes, it seems the Palestinians did not have
Israelli tanks running through their towns before the bombings started. What
exactly are suicide bombers effective at other than starting wars?
NewJewHater
Who talks about the innocent people (victims) on the Palestinian side
which outnumber innocent Jews by at least a factor 10?
You talk about leadership of muslims.
The opposite of what you write is true. The fact that the most
currageous and best men (and women!) give their lives freely for a
just cause is to blame, that there is not many good leaders left on
the Palestinian side.
(Giving Sharon, that would-like-to-be Nazi a free hand.)
The best people have long since passed away, either blown themselves
up for their people or murdered by the new Nazis on our planet: The
Jews.
The only ones acting like mad dogs are the Jews and you know it.
Their justification is the atomic bomb and only the fact that Jews and
the US were faster in the atomic race allowed Jews to steal the land
of Palestinians in the first place.
What is happening today is a try to extinct people, just like red
indians in the USA where murdered and killed. Only it is done by Jews
- and of all people, they should know the very best not do such
monstrosities...
Goes to show how worthless, racicist, even faschist and stupid the
jewish religion must be.
I never disliked Jews before, even had a jewish friend.
But now I'm a new Jew hater. The've earned it.
Yours,
NewJewHater
"DGVREIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<EREr8.7547$Rw2.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
Jerry Okamura
Perrhaps we need to take the time to ask ourselves a basic question. What
is the purpose of war? First and foremost to "win". Let me suggest that
one basic theme in all wars it to gain control over land you don't already
have. That is the primariy directive as a famous TV program of the past use
to say. Let me further suggest that it does not matter how you go about
achieveing the goal, what matters is achieving the goal. If one side or the
other feels that a way to achieve that goal is to scare the heck out of the
population or break the will of the population in supporting the war
(something the allies did during WWII) and they succeed, that is all that
matters in the end.
Jerry Okamura
> As far as 'effectiveness' goes, it seems the Palestinians did not have
> Israelli tanks running through their towns before the bombings started.
What
> exactly are suicide bombers effective at other than starting wars?
>
>
to continue the war. If you succeed in doing that, then the chances are you
will have won the war, whatever winning means. In the case of the
Palestinians, if they could continue to punish the Israeli's my guess is
they would hope that at some point the people would throw up their hands and
give up supporting the so-called war. Should that happen, the Palestinians
would have won. Of course we see what can happen if they made the wrong
decision. Because one way to stop the attacks is to go on the offensive.
Captain Compassion
So the Palestinians are using the maximum force possible to fight
their war. And ofcourse you grant the Isralies that same right. Right?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"If you can't eat their food, drink their liquor, fuck their
whores and take their money and STILL vote AGAINST them, you
don't belong in this business." -- Jess Unruh.
"In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us,
'Make us your slaves, but feed us.'" -- Dosteovsky
I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one:
"O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it.
--Voltaire
"You can never really own more than you can carry with two hands while
running at full speed." -- Robert A. Heinlein
Joseph R. Darancette
res0...@NOSPAMverizon.net
vonroach
Irrelevant remarks. The question is WHERE ARE THE MULLAH SUICIDE
BOMBERS? Do they force children to do their dirty work while hiding
in mosques or caves?
vonroach
<OKAMU...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> The Palestinians, whether we like it or not, are
>using what they have at their disposal to fight against a well armed
>military on the other side. It is as simple as that.
Everything is `simple' to the simple-minded.
vonroach
wrote:
>"Jerry Okamura" <OKAMU...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:7zFr8.28157$VQ2.11...@twister.socal.rr.com...
>> Let me suggest that posings like this do nothing to further the dialogue
>or
>> even try to understand what is happening in that region of the world.
>Here
>> is a question in return. Why do we call soldiers hero's when they charge
>a
>> heavily fortified enemy position, then call these young men (after all all
>> wars are fought by young men) from Palestine something else.
>
>because the soldier is charging an armed position, with people fighting
>back.
>The young pali is charging a 13 yr old girls birthday party, or a bunch of
>people eating dinner. I can see a big difference.
Suicide bombers are fools - Kamikazes or Palestinian, no difference.
They never win.
vonroach
<OKAMU...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>Good point. But the suicide bomber runs a risk of dying long before they
>detonate the bomb. On your second point, I guess you are making an argument
>that there is a difference between someone who is in the military killing
>civilians vs. someone who is not in a formal military, killing civilians.
>Or are you making the argument that civilians should not be targets.
>Because if that is your argument, I point you to what the military did in
>WWII.
War is hell. There is no fault in making civilians working for the
enemy aware of this fact. Palestinians are becoming acutely aware of
this. WWII was a good example of all out war where decisions are
made: does one kill a few hundred thousand people outright to
demonstrate power or allow millions to die in an invasion. On the
other hand, Hirohito and Arafat share a different decision: does one
allow one's people to be needlessly slaughtered or does one make peace
with the enemy to avoid extermination. One always must be aware than
any offensive may provoke an overpowering response when attacking a
more powerful foe.
vonroach
wrote:
> OK, we'll be morally and culturally equivalent and drop references to evil.
>That aside, the original point that we have suicidal teens in the US which we
>choose not to manipulate for a political agenda still stands (except when
>platitudes are written about certain suicides such as Kurt Cobain). As long as
>this tactics is seen an act of heroic martyrs, as opposed to manipulation of
>gullible youth, this is guarranteed to continue.
Suicide is a mental illness around the world, but the `suicide bomber'
is bent on murder not suicide - the term suicide is very loosely used
in this instance. There are also suicidal teens and teens who murder
knowing they may lose their life though they usually don't and are
subsequently tried for murder. You are mixing your terms and motives
up in this note.
Cobain's case is a variant on suicide where a person cannot shake a
long standing drug habit and elects a swift rather than a slow death.
Pathetic, but related to drugs, nothing more. If it is a slow day in
the copy room, the press make try to make a big deal of the departure
of another addict.
Scott Marquardt
>
>Perrhaps we need to take the time to ask ourselves a basic question. What
>is the purpose of war? <snip>
Every read much on Just War Doctrine?
Try Google. Learn why it's important to differentiate between combatants and
noncombatants.
Some people don't need to *read* about just war theory to know this. I'm
always amazed, though, at how many people's intuition doesn't lead them at
least in the general direction of understanding the basics -- these are
people who need to be told that it's wrong to target children.
That's true whether the agressor is Israel or the Palis.
- Scott
vonroach
<msylv...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Yeah, right. In "AMERICAN WARS" no civilians are targeted.
>Americans would never kill civilians, not on purpose.
>Except Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Dresden, Viet Nam, Iraq, etc.
>To win a war you can go after the opposing military, or you can go after the
>civilians that are needed to finance and politically support a war.
>Duh.
>
Did you forget Sherman's march across Georgia? German and USSR tactics
in WWII? Blitz in England? Japanese behavior in China, and elsewhere?
Iraq's little incursion into Kwait, and the Viet Cong's tactics in
South Vietnam and neighboring countries? Taliban's behavior in
Afghanistan? Your memory and knowledge of war are both deficient.
>
>> The young pali is charging a 13 yr old girls birthday party, or a bunch of
>> people eating dinner. I can see a big difference.
>
>Suicide bombing is despicible, but honestly, what other weapons do the
>Palestinians have?
AntiAmerican Palestinian sympathizers and propagandists such as
yourself.
vonroach
<OKAMU...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>Perrhaps we need to take the time to ask ourselves a basic question. What
>is the purpose of war? First and foremost to "win". Let me suggest that
>one basic theme in all wars it to gain control over land you don't already
>have.
And I will answer that your assumption is as flawed as your spelling
of `perhaps'. The `purpose' of war is to carry out a strategic
objective than can't be obtained by any other means. It is very often
to liberate land that is under the control of a tyrant as was the case
in WWII. It is often to liberate people oppressed by a dictator. It is
a means of stopping people who are terrorizing the people: `war on
drugs', `war on illegal immigration', `war on terrorism and proponents
of weapons of mass destruction. This land grabbing thesis indicates
that you've been influenced too much by Hitler and Hirohito in your
`consideration' of war - its origin, its tactics and strategy, and its
objective.
Jerry Okamura
"Scott Marquardt" <no...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:soquau0mscm1c7bj2...@4ax.com...
> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>
> >
> >Perrhaps we need to take the time to ask ourselves a basic question.
What
> >is the purpose of war? <snip>
>
> Every read much on Just War Doctrine?
Nope
>
> Try Google. Learn why it's important to differentiate between combatants
and
> noncombatants.
I don't think I need to do a google search. I think by now I have heard just
about all the arguments on that point.
>
> Some people don't need to *read* about just war theory to know this. I'm
> always amazed, though, at how many people's intuition doesn't lead them at
> least in the general direction of understanding the basics -- these are
> people who need to be told that it's wrong to target children.
The only reason it is wrong to target children is if you just increase the
resolve on the other side and for the long term effect of such a policy.
But let me suggest that the long term impact doesn't mean squat if in the
interim you lose a war. As you are amazed, I too am amazed from exactly the
opposite direction. I simply will never understand why some killing is
okay, after all that is what happens in a war, and some killing is not. I
just believe that wars should be avoided at all cost, but if a country
decides that is what they should do, then do it with the intent of winning.
Fighting a war without the intent to win, is simply using our citizens who
we ask to fight the war as fodder. Let me also suggest that playing by the
rules is just fine if you end up on top. Playing by the rules and losing is
not an acceptable alternative. Final comment. Will it be any consolation
to play by the rules and lose a war, espcially if the other side won simply
because they did not play by the rules?
vonroach
wrote:
>I guess you are making an argument
>that there is a difference between someone who is in the military killing
> civilians vs. someone who is not in a formal military, killing civilians.
>the difference is the purposeful targeting of teenagers and civilians, who
>pose no threat at all, and innocents caught in a crossfire. Innocent
>and non combatants always get hurt.
Dodge, civilians are not innocent if they are supporting and giving
aid and comfort to the enemy. War is hell. The enemy is targeted -
military, industries, civilian population lending support, etc.
Tactics are to kill and break things to achieve an objective which
can be broadly characterized as Victory, there is no substitute. War
is not clean and diplomatic. It is very blunt and deadly.
Jerry Okamura
"vonroach" <vonr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3cbe6c94...@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
> On Sat, 06 Apr 2002 19:06:09 GMT, "Jerry Okamura"
> <OKAMU...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >Perrhaps we need to take the time to ask ourselves a basic question.
What
> >is the purpose of war? First and foremost to "win". Let me suggest that
> >one basic theme in all wars it to gain control over land you don't
already
> >have.
>
> And I will answer that your assumption is as flawed as your spelling
> of `perhaps'.
Sorry about that but I am a lousy typist and really too lazy to proof read
my notes before hitting the "Enter" button.
The `purpose' of war is to carry out a strategic
> objective than can't be obtained by any other means. It is very often
> to liberate land that is under the control of a tyrant as was the case
> in WWII. It is often to liberate people oppressed by a dictator. It is
> a means of stopping people who are terrorizing the people: `war on
> drugs', `war on illegal immigration', `war on terrorism and proponents
> of weapons of mass destruction. This land grabbing thesis indicates
> that you've been influenced too much by Hitler and Hirohito in your
> `consideration' of war - its origin, its tactics and strategy, and its
> objective.
I think we are now in the area which I would refer to as symantics and
definitions. I will readily admit to the tendency to use words to describe
things which are not the same as defined in a dictionary. So this time,
lets look at what the dictrionary says about the word. "Open armed conflict
between countries or between factions within the same country".
But lets finish up responding to you. How do you liberate people. Let me
suggest that can only happen when either you occupy the territory, or the
"people" take back the territory. Ditto for stopping terrorist. As for the
rest of what you refer to as war, other than people putting a label on these
actions as "war" it is not a war.
vonroach
<OKAMU...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>Let me suggest that posings like this do nothing to further the dialogue or
>even try to understand what is happening in that region of the world. Here
>is a question in return. Why do we call soldiers hero's when they charge a
>heavily fortified enemy position, then call these young men (after all all
>wars are fought by young men) from Palestine something else.
Because most of the world recognizes child suicide bombers a stupid
deluded children following orders of an old tyrant. Soldiers are
ordered to fight, not commit suicide. Do you consider a market place
or a coffee shop as a `heavily fortified enemy position'? How odd.
Pathetic and odd.
vonroach
wrote:
>You talk...
More meaningless talk by Palestinian sympathizer and propagandist.
DGVREIMAN
> > De Oppresso Liber
> > Happy Birthday
> >
news:7zFr8.28157$VQ2.11...@twister.socal.rr.com...
dialogue or
> even try to understand what is happening in that region of the
world. Here
> is a question in return. Why do we call soldiers hero's when
they charge a
> heavily fortified enemy position, then call these young men
(after all all
> wars are fought by young men) from Palestine something else.
Doug Says:
On the contrary, I think this posting says it all. Palestinian
murderers are recruiting children to murder other children and
themselves. That should be stopped. I understand that perfectly
well, and I am surprised that you do not.
Jerry, the soldiers that fight in a war are men trained to do so.
They are representatives of their country in a military position.
They are not recruited as children, and their families are not
paid a stipend if they kill themselves!
Children that are recruited via religious indoctrination to
murder other children are nothing but pawns being used by
murderers. Hardly a connection between a solider that is
fighting for his country and some pathetic child that is enticed
to commit suicide to kill other children. If you cannot
understand the difference between a solider fighting for his
country, and a child recruited and brainwashed to kill himself
along with 12 year-old little Israeli girls at their birthday
parties then you have missed some very basic moral education that
I cannot provide..
Doug Grant (Tm)
vonroach
<OKAMU...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>Let me suggest that wars in and of itself is a so-called "evil" act. Or
>that is how we view it through our so-called civilized eyes.
Yes it was `evil' to you to liberate vast areas in Europe and the
Pacific, and it was `evil' to protect Japan from threats in Korea, and
the world from the communist spread by halting it in Vietnam and
Afghanistan. It is evil of Israel to protect itself from terrorists,
and the US to protect itself from terrorist attacks. Let me suggest
that your so-called civilized eyes have a very dim , clouded, and
tunnel vision, probably the result of a modern campus pc brainwashing.
Jerry Okamura
> On Sat, 06 Apr 2002 13:25:59 -0800, Redneck <Red...@telocity.com>
> wrote:
>
> > OK, we'll be morally and culturally equivalent and drop references to
evil.
> >That aside, the original point that we have suicidal teens in the US
which we
> >choose not to manipulate for a political agenda still stands (except when
> >platitudes are written about certain suicides such as Kurt Cobain). As
long as
> >this tactics is seen an act of heroic martyrs, as opposed to manipulation
of
> >gullible youth, this is guarranteed to continue.
>
> Suicide is a mental illness around the world, but the `suicide bomber'
> is bent on murder not suicide - the term suicide is very loosely used
> in this instance.
Good point. Never thought about it that way, i.e. that these people are
bent on murder not suicide. Thanks. But then again is suicide a mental
illness. Hmmm, got to think about that.
.
Redneck
vonroach wrote:
I don't totally agree. Many suicides have a dramatic effect edge to them,
usually in the form of a suicide note. I'm sure many people commit suicide without
telling anyone, but many more write notes. Why, if you want to kill yourself,
settle for writing notes when you also have a chance to make the news and be a part
of some larger romanticized struggle? How hard could it be to say to someone who is
contemplating suicide: "Yeah, life is really hard and your future is totally
screwed, but it is really the fault of ________ (fill in the blank). Why not take
some of them with you when you off yourself?" All you really need to do is gain
their confidence and respect, then play them like guitar strings.
Jerry Okamura
Hmmm "most of the world"...what does that mean? Do we know what "most of
the world" think? Child? As I recall most of these young people are about
the age of the young people who are called upon to serve their country in
the military. It is true that soldiers are ordered to fight, not commit
suicde. But we also call those who attack a heavily fortified position
hero's, not an act of committing suicide. Hmmm another definition problem I
see. Two definitions from my dictionary seems to apply. The first is an
act of killing oneself intentionally, and the other is ruin of one's
interest or prospects through one's own actions, policies, etc.
Finally, does it really matter whether the person died charging a heaily
defended position or a coffee shop. Each act has as its goal what they
think will help in the cause of defeating the "enemy". About the only
difference is one act is against an armed oponent, and the other is against
an unarmed opponent. I don't see that one is any more of a heroic act than
the other.
Jerry Okamura
> See below:
> >
> > "DGVREIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> >
> news:EREr8.7547$Rw2.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > >
> > > WHERE ARE MULLAH SUICIDES?
> news:7zFr8.28157$VQ2.11...@twister.socal.rr.com...
> > Let me suggest that posings like this do nothing to further the
> dialogue or
> > even try to understand what is happening in that region of the
> world. Here
> > is a question in return. Why do we call soldiers hero's when
> they charge a
> > heavily fortified enemy position, then call these young men
> (after all all
> > wars are fought by young men) from Palestine something else.
>
> Doug Says:
>
> On the contrary, I think this posting says it all. Palestinian
> murderers are recruiting children to murder other children and
> themselves. That should be stopped. I understand that perfectly
> well, and I am surprised that you do not.
Older people have always used young people to fight their wars for them.
Wars are about killing people. If the Palestinians are "murdering" people,
then let me suggest that the Israeli army is also "mudering" people.
>
> Jerry, the soldiers that fight in a war are men trained to do so.
> They are representatives of their country in a military position.
> They are not recruited as children, and their families are not
> paid a stipend if they kill themselves!
Does it really matter. A country trains their people to fight a war because
they have learned that a trained person is more effective at winning a
battle. Unitl fairly recently, wars were fought by people who did not
necessarily have any training at all. As a matter of fact, previous wars
have used very young boys to fight their wars for them. As far as payment
is concerned, we pay our soldiers to fight for us, the Palestinians families
are paid for their childrens sacrifice...doesn't make any sense to pay a
suicide bomber for doing their assigned task. .
>
> Children that are recruited via religious indoctrination to
> murder other children are nothing but pawns being used by
> murderers.
Well, that is a true statement. But then again, a peace activist or at
least some of them would probably say the same thing about asking our
soldiers to fight a war.
Hardly a connection between a solider that is
> fighting for his country and some pathetic child that is enticed
> to commit suicide to kill other children.
Let me suggest that both are fighting for their country. It just that each
side uses a different method.
Keynes
wrote:
>
Spoken like a true war ciminal.
Keynes
The ends justify the means.
Another war criminal chimes in.
DGVREIMAN
> >
> > It has alot to do with understanding what is going on.
The Western
> press
> > covers the suicide bombers as though they are a sign of utter
desperation.
> The
> > truth, as Doug points out, is that here in the US we have
thousands of
> suicidal
> > teenagers, we just try to talk them out of the act, not
encourage the act
> > and/or try to control it to achieve a political purpose. The
suicide
> bombers
> > are an indication of the evil driving one of the sides in the
conflict.
>
> It would just seem to me that using words like "evil" is
something one uses
> for propaganda purposes and has no useful purpose in discussing
what is
> going on in that region. The Palestinians, whether we like it
or not, are
> using what they have at their disposal to fight against a well
armed
> military on the other side. It is as simple as that.
>
Doug Says:
No Jerry it is not as simple as that. The Palestinians are the
aggressors. They attacked Israel in 1948, 1967 and again in 1973
for no reason other than to try to exterminate the state of
Israel. Then when all of their surprise attacks failed, they
started to recruit misguided children to murder other Israeli
children for profit. The profit came from the money they received
for each murder from Muslim sources that wanted Israel destroyed.
Now they are recruiting even more depressed teenagers, and
exploiting them to murder other children for the purpose of clear
and unmistakable genocide.
Genocide against the Jews is not new, I grant you that. Yet it
is impossible to call genocide "fighting back" and the
recruitment of innocent and misguided children to murder other
children not "evil." It is evil Jerry, it is not fighting back,
it is an evil tactic being used for an equally evil
purpose...genocide.
Remember the Nazis Jerry? They tried similar tactics. I suspect
you think those poor Nazis were just "fighting back with what
they had" also?
Doug Grant (Tm)
Keynes
>On Sat, 6 Apr 2002 12:52:21 -0500, "Marc Sylvestre"
><msylv...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>Yeah, right. In "AMERICAN WARS" no civilians are targeted.
>>Americans would never kill civilians, not on purpose.
>>Except Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Dresden, Viet Nam, Iraq, etc.
>>To win a war you can go after the opposing military, or you can go after the
>>civilians that are needed to finance and politically support a war.
>>Duh.
>>
>Did you forget Sherman's march across Georgia? German and USSR tactics
>in WWII? Blitz in England? Japanese behavior in China, and elsewhere?
>Iraq's little incursion into Kwait, and the Viet Cong's tactics in
>South Vietnam and neighboring countries? Taliban's behavior in
>Afghanistan? Your memory and knowledge of war are both deficient.
All of these were technically immoral and actual war crimes.
The hysteria of a combatant tries to make all things acceptable
and they are not. It was the crimes of Germany and Japan
that brought them their enemies and their destruction.
American tactics were also despicable in many cases.
(and did not even produce desirable promised results)
That it has been done before and by Americans
(who escaped endictment) does not make it right.
DGVREIMAN
> >
> > "TDodge" <NOSPAMb...@sny.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:PYFr8.22027$hq2.6...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
people fighting
> > > back.
party, or a bunch
> of
> > > people eating dinner. I can see a big difference.
> >
before they
making an
> argument
> > that there is a difference between someone who is in the
military killing
> > civilians vs. someone who is not in a formal military,
killing civilians.
>
> the difference is the purposeful targeting of teenagers and
civilians, who
> pose no threat at all, and innocents caught in a crossfire.
Innocent
> should never be targeted, and aren't by civilised people. War
is a bitch,
> and non combatants always get hurt. One of the spins the pro
pali side
> makes is civilian pali casualities..they're *all* civilians,
even the
> bombers.
> That bunch holed up in the church with AK47's will be counted
as pali
> civilian casualities.
> There is no cause, no insult, and no percived injustice that
validates
> the purposeful killing teenagers, shoppers and other
non-combatants.
> I think the pali people are being used as cannon fodder by
other
> Arab states as a way to irritate and discredit Israel.
> If Israel is such a big deal to them, they could form an
alliance,
> rally the troops, and have a war, but killing kids with kids
keeps
> their hands clean.
> The populace can't be in favor of this, but I've seen on the
> news what happens to any pali not in favor of these monstrous
> tactics, or heaven forbid, be in favor of a peace.
>
> > Or are you making the argument that civilians should not be
targets.
> > Because if that is your argument, I point you to what the
military did in
> > WWII.
> >
century ago.
> In another forum, I'd discuss it at length..I know quite a bit
about WWII.
> This is a different world, and a different war.
>
> --
> "I fear that we have awakened a sleeping giant and filled him
with a
> terrible resolve "
> Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto
>
> "We will not tire, we will not falter, we will not fail"
> George W Bush
>
>
>
Doug Says:
I would like to point out that during WWII the Allies did not
target civilian areas until their civilian areas were targeted
first. Retaliation to such attacks is much different that
purposefully targeting innocent people for the purpose of
instilling terror in the population.
Moreover, the allies *never* recruited their children to commit
suicide while murdering other children. That evil is unique to
the Palestinians and represents a clear and unmistakable criminal
act.
The Palestinians have purposefully attacked 12-year old little
girl's birthday parties, and religious affairs, and Pizza Parlors
filled with nothing but teenagers. There is no military
objective to such attacks, no purpose other than murder and
vengeance or profit.
Doug Grant (Tm)
DGVREIMAN
"NewJewHater" <abcd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:55281985.0204...@posting.google.com...
> You talk about innocent people (victims).
> Who talks about the innocent people (victims) on the
Palestinian side
> which outnumber innocent Jews by at least a factor 10?
That is just the point, the Palestenians are not "innoncent."
Here is a recent article from AP that depicts just how
"innoncent" the Palestenian civilians really are:
NBC, MSNBC AND NEWS SERVICES
Israeli forces continued to surround the Balata
refugee camp in
Nablus, and at a camp in Jenin, another northern West Bank
city, residents
said Israeli helicopter gunships targeting anything that
moved were
keeping them and Palestinian gunmen pinned inside houses.
The two cities
and their camps have seen some of the bloodiest battles
since Israel began
reoccupying Palestinian cities eight days ago after a
Palestinians suicide
bombing killed 26 Israelis in the city of Netanya at the
start of the
Passover holiday.
Outside the siege area, Palestinian militants also
attacked a
heavily fortified Israeli settlement in the Gaza Strip
early Saturday with
guns and grenades, according to Israeli army officials. An
Israeli soldier
was killed and four were injured, they said. Islamic Jihad
claimed
responsibility and said two of its militants were killed.
HAMAS: EXPLOSIVES BELTS HANDED OUT
In Jenin, a local Hamas leader said Palestinian
militant factions
have banded together and handed out explosives belts to
camp residents to
become suicide bombers.
"Nobody works as Fatah or Hamas, everybody works
together," said
Jamal Abu al-Haija. "All the factions have distributed
explosive belts and
hand grenades to the people of the camp to defend
themselves."
Abu al-Haija said a Palestinian woman blew herself
up early
Saturday when soldiers approached the door to her home in
the camp, also
killing or injuring some of the soldiers. Separately, he
said Israeli tank
fire killed three Palestinian policemen overnight in a camp
alley.
Reports from inside the camps couldn't be
independently verified.
The Israeli military didn't immediately comment on
the report of
the woman blowing herself up, but reported a somewhat
similar situation in
the area. The army said Israeli troops fired on a
Palestinian man early
Saturday in Jenin who had explosives strapped to his body,
causing a blast
that killed only the man.
An Israeli commander said those who fought on would
die.
"They (Palestinian murderers have their backs
against the walls. We
trapped them in there, attacked them with the intention
they should
surrender. Those that don't surrender, we will kill them,"
Tat Aluf Eyal
Shlein, told Israel Radio.
"It is determined fighting," he said, adding: "There have
been many
casualties on the other side."
One Palestinian fighter said he had counted at least
30 bodies.
"There are a tremendous number of injured people. The
international
community will be shocked by the numbers of victims," the
Palestinian
fighter, Abu Irmaila, said by mobile phone.
The Palestinian Authority asked the world community
to intervene
immediately to stop "the massacres."
Palestinian militants, meanwhile, reported that hours
earlier a
22-year-old militant identified as Jamil Arboudi from the
old city of
Nablus blew himself up after charging into a Nablus field
occupied by
Israeli soldiers. They claimed four Israelis were injured
or killed in the
assault, but the Israeli army denied any such attack had
occurred.
Since launching its military campaign, Israeli
forces have captured
six major West Bank cities and towns. Hebron and Jericho
were the only key
cities where Palestinian authority hadnĆt been eclipsed.
A half-dozen Israeli tanks watched over each of the
northern and
southern entrances to Hebron.
TWO MILITIA LEADERS DEAD
The hunt for militants left two militia leaders dead
Friday,
including Qeis Odwan, believed responsible for
masterminding the Passover
suicide bombing that triggered the Israeli incursions.
Tanks and
helicopter gunships pounded OdwanĆs hide-out in Tubas,
killing him and
five other gunmen.
Also killed was Nasser Awais, a militia leader of
the Al Aqsa
MartyrsĆ Brigade. Awais was killed when explosives strapped
to his body
went off prematurely, said Abu Mujahed, a spokesman for the
group linked
to ArafatĆs Fatah movement.
Among the 36 Palestinians who died Friday were eight
people killed
by militants who accused them of collaborating with the
Israelis. The dead
also included a 14-year-old girl who had gone out onto her
balcony in
Tubas to look around.
End of Article:
Doug Says: It is clear the Palestinians have always armed their
civilian population in the camps, and tried to force them to be
killed for propaganda purposes. Human shields makes for good
propaganda, and the Palestinian goons are not above murdering
their own people for some propaganda opportunities.
Also take note what happened to those poor Palestinians that
simply wanted the murder to stop. They were murdered by their
own criminal leadership. Now I wonder if they got a fair trial?
Right, sure they did. If you try and stand up to these
Palestinian tyrants, you will be hung from the nearest lamppost.
That is "Justice" Palestinian style.
You talk about leadership of muslims.
> The opposite of what you write is true. The fact that the most
> currageous and best men (and women!) give their lives freely
for a
> just cause is to blame, that there is not many good leaders
left on
> the Palestinian side.
Strange, I have yet to see a Palestinian leader become a suicide
bomber? All the suicide bombers are young children that can be
easily exploited. While the Palestinian "leaders" hide in their
compounds or leave the country.
So why hasn't Arafat been in the streets fighting? Where are the
leaders of Hamas, Hezzbolah and the Islamic Jihad? Why aren't
they out in the streets leading their troops? Where are their
body bomb belts? Strange, these "leaders" never seem to get a
scratch, but their children are the ones leading the massacres.
We have a word for those kind of people in the States...cowards.
Just like Osama Bin Fruitcake, heading for the hills as fast as
his cowardly legs will take him...while his recruits are
introduced to the pleasures of a B-52 raid.
> (Giving Sharon, that would-like-to-be Nazi a free hand.)
> The best people have long since passed away, either blown
themselves
> up for their people or murdered by the new Nazis on our planet:
The
> Jews.
I think you have it backwards. It the Palestinians that are
sending their children out to murder Israeli children, not the
other way around.
>
> The only ones acting like mad dogs are the Jews and you know
it.
> Their justification is the atomic bomb and only the fact that
Jews and
> the US were faster in the atomic race allowed Jews to steal the
land
> of Palestinians in the first place.
The Israelis did not steal anything, and their land belongs to
them. The Mad Dogs are the Palestinians that keep exploiting
their own children to murder other children.
>
> What is happening today is a try to extinct people, just like
red
> indians in the USA where murdered and killed. Only it is done
by Jews
> - and of all people, they should know the very best not do such
> monstrosities...
> Goes to show how worthless, racicist, even faschist and stupid
the
> jewish religion must be.
Once again you have it backwards. The Palestinian constitution
calls for the genocide against the Jews, not the other way
around. The Israelis are content to stay in their borders and
give the Palestinians their land back and their own state, but
each time this is offered in return for the Palestinians to stop
their attempted genocide, the Palestinians refuse the offer. The
aggressors here are obvious.
>
> I never disliked Jews before, even had a jewish friend.
> But now I'm a new Jew hater. The've earned it.
>
> Yours,
> NewJewHater
If you have based your newly found hatred on the points you have
made in this post, then I would say you are misguided and you
have been reading too much terrorist propaganda. If I were you I
would go back to Osama or wherever you received such abject
nonsense and ask him to explain why the Palestinians have
attacked Israel three different times in war, and use their own
children to murder Israeli children?
Doug Grant (Tm)
>
>
>
> "DGVREIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:<EREr8.7547$Rw2.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>..
DGVREIMAN
question. What
suggest that
> one basic theme in all wars it to gain control over land you
don't already
the past use
> to say. Let me further suggest that it does not matter how you
go about
> achieveing the goal, what matters is achieving the goal. If
one side or the
> other feels that a way to achieve that goal is to scare the
heck out of the
> population or break the will of the population in supporting
the war
> (something the allies did during WWII) and they succeed, that
is all that
> matters in the end.
>
Then Jerry, are you saying the Geneva Convention should no longer
apply to war?
Doug Grant (Tm)
Keynes
wrote:
The difference is the target.
If you accept non-combatants as legitimate targets
then you are a terrorist. Political tyrants claim the
same privilege of killing whomever they please.
Is this your considered opinion, that the end
justifies the means, all's fair in love and war?
If so, you are thinking just like a war criminal.
We don't need any of those around here.
DGVREIMAN
Fighting an armed enemy, you know, someone that can shoot back,
as opposed to murdering little 12-year-old girls at their
birthday parties is about as different as it gets. Moreover,
using or exploiting children for suicide to murder other children
is not found in any Military hand book of regulations. There is
not a solider in the world that would do such a thing, not to
mention be labeled a "hero" for using innocent children to murder
other innocent children. IF you cannot see the difference, then
you need a lesson in morality, and reality.
Doug Grant (Tm)
DGVREIMAN
Please Jerry, you obviously do not have a clue about the American
Military. There are no 13 year-olds in the American military.
Moreover, wars are not about murdering people they are about the
imposition of one nation's will upon the other. Murder is a
crime, even in the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
According to you, all soldiers should kill all prisoners and
murder all civilians and non-combatants representing the
opposition. If that is what you think, then you belong on the
Palestinian and terrorist side, because that is exactly what they
are doing.
Also, Israel is retaliating and trying to separate the terrorists
from the civilians. Hardly murder considering it was Israel that
was attacked 72 times since the Camp David failures.
Doug Grant (Tm)
Scott Marquardt
>"Scott Marquardt" wrote
>> Every read much on Just War Doctrine?
>Nope
>> Try Google.
>I don't think I need to do a google search. I think by now I have heard just
>about all the arguments on that point.
Yet you said you've never read much on Just War Doctrine. It's the
fundamental Western tradition on war. And the Muslim counterpart is almost
identical.
> [...] I simply will never understand why some killing is
>okay, after all that is what happens in a war, and some killing is not.
So let me get this straight:
1. You've never read much on Just War Doctrine, the most important tradition
in the ethics of war in the Western world
2. You say you don't need to look into it, because you "think" you've heard
just about all the arguments related to the killing of civilians during war
3. You say you will never understand why some killing is OK, and some is not
Has it occured to you that your lack of understanding might be due to your
mistaken notion that you've read enough, and that the single most important
tradition in the ethics of war in the Western world isn't worth your time to
look into?
>I just believe that wars should be avoided at all cost, but if a country
>decides that is what they should do, then do it with the intent of winning.
That's one part of the Just War Doctrine, yes.
>Fighting a war without the intent to win, is simply using our citizens who
>we ask to fight the war as fodder. Let me also suggest that playing by the
>rules is just fine if you end up on top. Playing by the rules and losing is
>not an acceptable alternative. Final comment. Will it be any consolation
>to play by the rules and lose a war, espcially if the other side won simply
>because they did not play by the rules?
I'd like to hear an example that's relevant to the current crisis in the
Mideast. Can you ask the question with something like that in view?
- Scott
vonroach
wrote:
>Every read much on Just War Doctrine?
"Just war doctrine" - that should be as big a joke as a UN resolution
(UN has never shown any real _resolution_, just 3rd world propaganda)
>Try Google. Learn why it's important to differentiate between combatants and
>noncombatants.
You think changing the terms, makes that differentiation any easier?
You are a fool. In present engagement every Palestinian is an
antiIsrali and capable of being a suicide bomber - they are ALL
combatants!
>Some people don't need to *read* about just war theory to know this. I'm
>always amazed, though, at how many people's intuition doesn't lead them at
>least in the general direction of understanding the basics -- these are
>people who need to be told that it's wrong to target children.
I am amazed when I see people as ignorant of war who are guided by
`intuition'. They will soon be dead combatants. Does this deluded fool
really think children can't be combatants? Sounds like some fool who
has _read_ about war, and thinks he understands it - he urgently needs
some experience to shake this book-learning out of his way.
vonroach
wrote:
>The ends justify the means.
>Another war criminal chimes in.
Another Palestinian sympathizer-propagandist chimes in.
Tom Abbott
I think you have found the answer. Yasser ought to come
charging out of his compound with guns blazing, and
screaming "On to Jerusalem!". Instead he cowers in his
office and whine's for help from anyone who will listen to
his pleas. Then when the anti-Semitic Europeans and the
acquiecent Bush administration save Arafat's hide, he will
prance around like the bravest of men.
TA
vonroach
<OKAMU...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>Good point. Never thought about it that way, i.e. that these people are
>bent on murder not suicide. Thanks. But then again is suicide a mental
>illness. Hmmm, got to think about that.
Check the rates of depression, substance abuse, and schizophrenia in
those who commit suicide. Keep in mind that stupid errors in dosage in
the second group belong in accidental category, not suicide - as in
`accidental death' due to drug overdose (alcohol is also a drug). It
is a problem since many substance abusers are also depressed or
schizophrenic.
Never confuse `suicide' with murder - the latter has the murder of
others as the sole objective, outside some brainwashed crap in
children about becoming heros. What is a toddler with a grenade
tucked in its diaper by its mama - I don't know - they were seen in
Vietnam - something akin to a very late abortion.
vonroach
wrote:
>How hard could it be to say to someone who is
>contemplating suicide: "Yeah, life is really hard and your future is totally
>screwed, but it is really the fault of ________ (fill in the blank). Why not take
>some of them with you when you off yourself?" All you really need to do is gain
>their confidence and respect, then play them like guitar strings.
You must be in a time warp Redneck. Death is not a child's game, where
one can `enjoy' the re-runs. It is the final scene, fade to black.
It's not a part in some melodrama.
vonroach
wrote:
>All of these were technically immoral and actual war crimes.
>The hysteria of a combatant tries to make all things acceptable
>and they are not. It was the crimes of Germany and Japan
>that brought them their enemies and their destruction.
>
>American tactics were also despicable in many cases.
>(and did not even produce desirable promised results)
>That it has been done before and by Americans
>(who escaped endictment) does not make it right.
Left wing antiAmerican fruitcake, you have a total misunderstanding of
war. Some little moral play with kids like you. The tactics you
deplore had exactly the effect desired on the German population - they
were totally shell shocked and dispirited immediately after the war.
Definition of a `war criminal' - one who gambled and lost. Hirohito
was paroled because the little creep was a useful tool for the army of
occupation. Hitler - a depressed drug addict - correctly foresaw that
his would be a different fate (he had word of the fate of Mussolini -
hanged by his ankles from a lamp post). Arafat has no future except as
an empty suit doing as he is told.
vonroach
<OKAMU...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>...
Let me keep it simple for you, kid, some soldiers are mortally wounded
doing their duty, and awarded medals and designated as heros. It was
not their intention for this to happen.
On the contrary, some brainwashed young fools murder themselves and
others around them deluded into thinking they are `heros'. Their act
is intentional and they are indiscriminate in their victims (last fool
killed Palestinians as well as Israelis in a coffee shop - not a
heavily armed position). Best strategy is to round up those with
similar brainwashing and kill or imprison them before they get a
chance to make phony `heros' of themselves by murdering others.
vonroach
<OKAMU...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>The only reason it is wrong to target children is if you just increase the
>resolve on the other side and for the long term effect of such a policy.
>But let me suggest that the long term impact doesn't mean squat if in the
>interim you lose a war. As you are amazed, I too am amazed from exactly the
>opposite direction. I simply will never understand why some killing is
>okay, after all that is what happens in a war, and some killing is not. I
>just believe that wars should be avoided at all cost, but if a country
>decides that is what they should do, then do it with the intent of winning.
>Fighting a war without the intent to win, is simply using our citizens who
>we ask to fight the war as fodder. Let me also suggest that playing by the
>rules is just fine if you end up on top. Playing by the rules and losing is
>not an acceptable alternative. Final comment. Will it be any consolation
>to play by the rules and lose a war, espcially if the other side won simply
>because they did not play by the rules?
I'm amazed by both of you. War is hell. Rules go out the window when
people begin shooting at you. You've both seen too many movies.
`Fighting a war without an intent to win' - that is almost a
definition of subversion, underground resistance, sabotage, guerilla
war. `Rules' are for the rear area geniuses who fight their wars on
paper. General Douglas MacArthur nailed it to the fence when he said.
"Rules are made to be broken" and again when he said, "There is no
substitute for Victory".
vonroach
<OKAMU...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> "Open armed conflict
>between countries or between factions within the same country".
Which is the reason behind the Second Amendment to the US
Constitution.
>But lets finish up responding to you. How do you liberate people. Let me
>suggest that can only happen when either you occupy the territory, or the
>"people" take back the territory. Ditto for stopping terrorist. As for the
>rest of what you refer to as war, other than people putting a label on these
>actions as "war" it is not a war.
You do not differentiate imperialism from liberation. Where is the US
government in Europe and in Japan if your blurred `definition' is
correct? To reclaim territory from an imperialist tyrant is not
imperialism. You can only liberate people who want to be liberated,
otherwise you will find yourself fighting a war against undergr5ound
resistance, sabotage, etc.
vonroach
wrote:
Key boy continues his antiAmerican rant.
vonroach
wrote:
>Has it occured to you that your lack of understanding might be due to your
>mistaken notion that you've read enough, and that the single most important
>tradition in the ethics of war in the Western world isn't worth your time to
>look into?
Has the thought ever sneaked into your head that you don't learn much
about war if you limit yourself to `reading about it' and learning
some phony rules?
vonroach
wrote:
>The difference is the target.
>If you accept non-combatants as legitimate targets
>then you are a terrorist. Political tyrants claim the
>same privilege of killing whomever they please.
>Is this your considered opinion, that the end
>justifies the means, all's fair in love and war?
>If so, you are thinking just like a war criminal.
>We don't need any of those around here.
And Key boy, this applies mainly when your side is getting its ass
kicked?
DGVREIMAN
Doug Says:
You are right Vonroach, but unfortunately these teenagers do not
see it that way. Redneck is just providing a very likely glimpse
into their thought processes immediately prior to their suicide.
Confusion abounds in these kids, to them death is glorified, not
a "fade to nothingness" like you say.
To them suicide is a way to be recognized, to be thought of, to
emerge from the crowd.
Recognition is perhaps the most important thing in a teenagers
impressionable mind. They are emerging into adulthood and they
want to believe they will be accepted and gain all of the things
their society has promised, but when they realize they may not be
one of the chosen ones, they sink into despair and rationalize
their suicide with as many reasons as they can muster....politics
being one of them, as is vengeance on all those they envy.
These kids exaggerate their despair to a level that it overwhelms
them. If no caring parent is around to assure them that this too
will pass as they grow older, they will act out their despair and
resentment on themselves and on others.
Add the element of someone from their Government that actually
"encourages" their despair and misguided hatred, then I suspect
you will have a long line of misguided teenagers ready and
willing to kill someone, anyone they are told to kill, right
along with themselves.
I can think of no greater evil than the leaders of a nation
exploiting their own children to butcher themselves and other
innoncent children, so those leaders can directly and personally
profit from such horrific acts of murder.
Arafat, and the Hamas/Islamic Jihad/Hezzbolah goons must be the
most immoral and blood thirsty mad dogs the world has ever seen.
They need to be recognized and treated as such by the press and
by our Military.
Doug Grant (Tm)
vonroach
<OKAMU...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>> Children that are recruited via religious indoctrination to
>> murder other children are nothing but pawns being used by
>> murderers.
>
>Well, that is a true statement. But then again, a peace activist or at
>least some of them would probably say the same thing about asking our
>soldiers to fight a war.
Childish street refuse complaining about a war that they are to scared
to serve in. `Combatants' in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm,
and Afghanistan were not `children'. They were men of disparate age -
and it is because of their service that children are safe in the US
today.
Keynes
So. What is your final solution, Von Roach?
"If at first you don't succeed, try, try and blame Bill Clinton."
( CONs - men at work greasing the "Axles of Evil". )
Keynes
Shine those jackboots, Von Roach. Click those heels.
Keynes
Bombing of civilians failed in London. It failed in Tokyo.
It failed in Berlin. It failed in Viet Nam.
Sure it's fun to be a mass murderer, but what does it get you?
Achtung, Von Roach. Open the oven and climb in.
Keynes
Achtung, Von Roach. Open the oven and climb in.
Boomer
news:7zFr8.28157$VQ2.11...@twister.socal.rr.com...
> Let me suggest that posings like this do nothing to further the dialogue
or
> even try to understand what is happening in that region of the world.
Here
> is a question in return. Why do we call soldiers hero's when they charge
a
> heavily fortified enemy position, then call these young men (after all all
> wars are fought by young men) from Palestine something else.
>
Statistically, in this very easy-going, fat, economically advantaged country
alone there are about three successful suicides a day. There are far more
attempts that are not successful for various reasons. It is not difficult to
find someone that wants to blow him/herself away for any number of reasons.
But a really good reason is hard to find. Hamas and the like are in the
business of selling snake oil to children. And now the cash flow isn't all
that great. That's capitalism for ya!
Keynes
I agree. But you knew that.
Jerry Okamura
read them again. I've left it for your reference at the top of this page.
Jerry Okamura
> On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 00:33:16 GMT, "Jerry Okamura"
> <OKAMU...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >...
>
> Let me keep it simple for you, kid, some soldiers are mortally wounded
> doing their duty, and awarded medals and designated as heros. It was
> not their intention for this to happen.
I must be getting under your skin with my responses to your postings. Sorry
about that. By the way I am not a kid, I am in the terminal stages of my
life (score one for you, it managed to hit a nerve). If you don't want to
respond to this posting, I will understand why. But I'll bite. If we just
changed the title and use the words soldier to those who commit suicide one
could say they were "mortally wounded doing their duty" ... "and designated
as heros". We give medals to our heros., but just maybe they don't need
medals to glorify their actions. Besides, these kids are dead, what good
are medals to them.
>
> On the contrary, some brainwashed young fools murder themselves and
> others around them deluded into thinking they are `heros'. Their act
> is intentional and they are indiscriminate in their victims (last fool
> killed Palestinians as well as Israelis in a coffee shop - not a
> heavily armed position). Best strategy is to round up those with
> similar brainwashing and kill or imprison them before they get a
> chance to make phony `heros' of themselves by murdering others.
One could say we brainwash our young to fight our wars for us. What sane
person would "want" to fight in any war. Hero, "any man admired for his
courage, nobility, or exploits" (I guess this dictionary was written before
the politcal correct people got involved). There is no doubt there acts are
intentitional. But what is the "intent"? Let me suggest that just maybe
their "intent" is to break the will of the "people" to continue with this
war. I personally don't think they have a chance in hell of winning, but
who knows for sure.
>
Jerry Okamura
> On Sat, 06 Apr 2002 20:38:18 -0600, Keynes <Key...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >The difference is the target.
> >If you accept non-combatants as legitimate targets
> >then you are a terrorist.
Oh this is probably going to really annoy the heck out of you. Then if we
follow that line of reasoning, what we did in World War II, by intentionally
"targetting" cities where there were a whole bunch of non-combatants, these
were "terrorist" acts? Was our use of nuclear weapons on the cities of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki terorist acts? I think not.
Political tyrants claim the
> >same privilege of killing whomever they please.
> >Is this your considered opinion, that the end
> >justifies the means, all's fair in love and war?
> >If so, you are thinking just like a war criminal.
> >We don't need any of those around here.
I think I've stated my opinion on thess issue before. But in case you don't
know my position, I will repeat it. As Macarthur was suppose to have said,
avoid wars at all cost, but if you decide to go to war, do it to win. As
far as I am concerned there is only one goal in any war, if you decide to go
to war, i.e., go to war with the intention of "winning" To do otherwise is
to use the people we send into combat as human sacrifice for no reason at
all.
As for this entire idea that somehow there is a nice way to wage a war, I
think that is one of the dumbest ideas every devised by man. Why we think
there is any morality in killing some people and not others is beyond my
imagination. For the sake of discussion, would it be any consolation to the
loser in a war to know that they played by the rules? How would you feel if
you played by the rules and the other side did not and won?
Besides this entire concept is a sham. When has the winning side in a war
been punished for violations? As a society we punish the losers for
violating these laws, not the winners. How often have we punished people in
a civil war, who have committed far worse crimes against humanity that any
war has?
Jerry Okamura
I seem to recall that some of those suicide bombers were eighteen or older.
What age to do we accept in our military?
Jerry Okamura
"Keynes" <Key...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:jv7vauke7mvovo4gj...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 06 Apr 2002 22:20:03 GMT, "Jerry Okamura"
<OKAMU...@hawaii.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Scott Marquardt" <no...@spam.com> wrote in message
> >news:soquau0mscm1c7bj2...@4ax.com...
> >> Jerry Okamura wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Perrhaps we need to take the time to ask ourselves a basic question.
> >What
> >> >is the purpose of war? <snip>
> >>
> >> Every read much on Just War Doctrine?
> >
> >>
> >> Try Google. Learn why it's important to differentiate between
combatants
> >and
> >> noncombatants.
> >
just
> >about all the arguments on that point.
> >>
I'm
> >> always amazed, though, at how many people's intuition doesn't lead them
at
> >> least in the general direction of understanding the basics -- these are
> >> people who need to be told that it's wrong to target children.
> >
the
> >resolve on the other side and for the long term effect of such a policy.
> >But let me suggest that the long term impact doesn't mean squat if in the
> >interim you lose a war. As you are amazed, I too am amazed from exactly
the
> >opposite direction. I simply will never understand why some killing is
> >okay, after all that is what happens in a war, and some killing is not.
I
> >just believe that wars should be avoided at all cost, but if a country
> >decides that is what they should do, then do it with the intent of
winning.
> >Fighting a war without the intent to win, is simply using our citizens
who
> >we ask to fight the war as fodder. Let me also suggest that playing by
the
> >rules is just fine if you end up on top. Playing by the rules and losing
is
consolation
> >to play by the rules and lose a war, espcially if the other side won
simply
> >because they did not play by the rules?
> >
> >
>
What is a war criminal? One who is on the losing side in a conflict. If
you are on the winning side you are never a war criminal. Okay, so I
exagerated a little. I don't know of anyone on the winning side that has
been accused of a war crime, but just in case I am wrong, I will modify that
to say that just about everyone who is charged with a war crime is on the
losing side.
Jerry Okamura
> On Sat, 06 Apr 2002 22:18:15 GMT, vonr...@ix.netcom.com (vonroach) wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 06 Apr 2002 18:11:17 GMT, "TDodge" <NOSPAMb...@sny.rr.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>I guess you are making an argument
> >>that there is a difference between someone who is in the military
killing
> >> civilians vs. someone who is not in a formal military, killing
civilians.
> >>the difference is the purposeful targeting of teenagers and civilians,
who
> >>pose no threat at all, and innocents caught in a crossfire. Innocent
> >>and non combatants always get hurt.
> >
> >Dodge, civilians are not innocent if they are supporting and giving
> >aid and comfort to the enemy. War is hell. The enemy is targeted -
> >military, industries, civilian population lending support, etc.
> >Tactics are to kill and break things to achieve an objective which
> >can be broadly characterized as Victory, there is no substitute. War
> >is not clean and diplomatic. It is very blunt and deadly.
>
> The ends justify the means.
> Another war criminal chimes in.
In a war, IMO, the end always justifies the means.
Jerry Okamura
> On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 14:20:41 GMT, vonr...@ix.netcom.com (vonroach) wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 06 Apr 2002 19:35:35 -0600, Keynes <Key...@earthlink.net>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>All of these were technically immoral and actual war crimes.
> >>The hysteria of a combatant tries to make all things acceptable
> >>and they are not. It was the crimes of Germany and Japan
> >>that brought them their enemies and their destruction.
> >>
> >>American tactics were also despicable in many cases.
> >>(and did not even produce desirable promised results)
> >>That it has been done before and by Americans
> >>(who escaped endictment) does not make it right.
> >
> >Left wing antiAmerican fruitcake, you have a total misunderstanding of
> >war. Some little moral play with kids like you. The tactics you
> >deplore had exactly the effect desired on the German population - they
> >were totally shell shocked and dispirited immediately after the war.
> >Definition of a `war criminal' - one who gambled and lost. Hirohito
> >was paroled because the little creep was a useful tool for the army of
> >occupation. Hitler - a depressed drug addict - correctly foresaw that
> >his would be a different fate (he had word of the fate of Mussolini -
> >hanged by his ankles from a lamp post). Arafat has no future except as
> >an empty suit doing as he is told.
>
> Bombing of civilians failed in London. It failed in Tokyo.
> It failed in Berlin. It failed in Viet Nam.
> Sure it's fun to be a mass murderer, but what does it get you?
Do some of you just make up stories to support your postions? How long
would England have lasted without outside help from the U.S.? How long
could they have survived if Gernany had not made a tactical blunder by
opening up a second front in Russia. We will never know the answer to those
questions, but to say that the bombings failed is to over simplify the
facts.
When you target a city like Tokyo and Berlin, one goal is to demoralize the
people who support the war. I cannot speak for the German theater, but I
lived in Japan right after WWII. The U.S. bombings in Japan had the desired
effect.
Our attacks in Vietnam were never intended to do the same. Think about it
this way. A sortie of B-52's dropping conventional weapons, will kill or
debilitate everyone in a strip of land 0.6 miles wide and 1.6 miles long.
If we had moved our target to the major cities how many sorties would it
have taken to destroy every city and/or town in North Vietnam? How long
would it have taken? In WWII we sent hundreds of bombers to do the same job
a flight of four b-52's can do. Had we utilized that tactic, what would
have been the outcome? At the time, I think we had an inventory of around
100 B-52's.
Jerry Okamura
"DGVREIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:4MNr8.8256$Rw2.7...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> No Jerry it is not as simple as that. The Palestinians are the
> aggressors. They attacked Israel in 1948, 1967 and again in 1973
> for no reason other than to try to exterminate the state of
> Israel. Then when all of their surprise attacks failed, they
> started to recruit misguided children to murder other Israeli
> children for profit. The profit came from the money they received
> for each murder from Muslim sources that wanted Israel destroyed.
>
I don't know what part of my note you are referring to, so if you don't
mind, I will just wing it. At this point it really does not matter who
started this thing or who did not. It does not matter if one side has right
on their side and the other does not. It does not matter who is supporting
each side. These people are engaged in a low level war. Each is using the
tools available to wage this war in the way they hope will result in victory
for their side (whatever victory means).
> Now they are recruiting even more depressed teenagers, and
> exploiting them to murder other children for the purpose of clear
> and unmistakable genocide.
That is what you do in a war. You replace those you have lost with others
to continue the fight, until you run out of bodies to throw into the effort.
I don't know if anyone remembers but toward the end of WWII, the Gernams had
to use ever younger people (we would call them boys) into the war effort.
>
> Genocide against the Jews is not new, I grant you that. Yet it
> is impossible to call genocide "fighting back" and the
> recruitment of innocent and misguided children to murder other
> children not "evil." It is evil Jerry, it is not fighting back,
> it is an evil tactic being used for an equally evil
> purpose...genocide.
War is evil. Let me suggest that to try an make a distinction between one
form of evil vs another is meaningless. All we are then talking about is
which evil act is worse than the other.
>
> Remember the Nazis Jerry? They tried similar tactics. I suspect
> you think those poor Nazis were just "fighting back with what
> they had" also?
>
> Doug Grant (Tm)
>
>
Jerry Okamura
> I would like to point out that during WWII the Allies did not
> target civilian areas until their civilian areas were targeted
> first. Retaliation to such attacks is much different that
> purposefully targeting innocent people for the purpose of
> instilling terror in the population.
Hmmm, interesting theory. Which came first the chicken or the egg. Let me
suggest that the allies targeted cities not for retailation (not my
understanding of events) but for the primary purpose of breaking the will of
the people.
>
> Moreover, the allies *never* recruited their children to commit
> suicide while murdering other children. That evil is unique to
> the Palestinians and represents a clear and unmistakable criminal
> act.
I guess you are trying to make a distinction between one kind of killing vs
another. One being okay, and the other kind not.
>
> The Palestinians have purposefully attacked 12-year old little
> girl's birthday parties, and religious affairs, and Pizza Parlors
> filled with nothing but teenagers. There is no military
> objective to such attacks, no purpose other than murder and
> vengeance or profit.
The military objective is the break the will of the people who support the
actions of their government.
Jerry Okamura
> Then Jerry, are you saying the Geneva Convention should no longer
> apply to war?
>
> Doug Grant (Tm)
>
I am afraid the Geneva Convention is here to stay, unless some event in the
future makes countries rethink their support. No, my postings about this
convention, as well as, other similar laws, is simply to (1) show the
hyposcrisy of such laws, and (2) what I view as the foolishness in the
entire concept.
Jerry Okamura
Hey, why are you attacking me on this. I'm on your side on this. There is
nothing you just said that I do not totally agree with.
vonroach
wrote:
>>Another Palestinian sympathizer-propagandist chimes in.
Once again.
>Shine those jackboots, Von Roach. Click those heels.
Are we in a contest?
>"If at first you don't succeed, try, try and blame Bill Clinton."
Why bother, he is such a poor liar, he eventually is forced to admit
the truth himself .
vonroach
<OKAMU...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>I am afraid the Geneva Convention is here to stay, unless some event in the
>future makes countries rethink their support. No, my postings about this
>convention, as well as, other similar laws, is simply to (1) show the
>hyposcrisy of such laws, and (2) what I view as the foolishness in the
>entire concept.
`Geneva Convention' applied by winner to the loser. Forget
Switzerland, their only real interest is in running an operation to
hide money. No conventions are observed in accumulating this money and
none apply to its dispersal. They also have a few mercenaries that
guard the Pope. Otherwise they are irrelevant.
vonroach
wrote:
>Achtung, Von Roach. Open the oven and climb in.
Your campus-acquired left wing fanatic rhetoric is showing, Keyboy.
Please continue to make it even clearer that you are totally
brainwashed.
vonroach
<OKAMU...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"vonroach" <vonr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:3cc45d33...@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
>> On Sat, 06 Apr 2002 22:32:56 GMT, "Jerry Okamura"
>> <OKAMU...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> >But lets finish up responding to you. How do you liberate people. Let
>me
>> >suggest that can only happen when either you occupy the territory, or the
>> >"people" take back the territory. Ditto for stopping terrorist. As for
>the
>> >rest of what you refer to as war, other than people putting a label on
>these
>> >actions as "war" it is not a war.
>>
>> You do not differentiate imperialism from liberation. Where is the US
>> government in Europe and in Japan if your blurred `definition' is
>> correct? To reclaim territory from an imperialist tyrant is not
>> imperialism. You can only liberate people who want to be liberated,
>> otherwise you will find yourself fighting a war against undergr5ound
>> resistance, sabotage, etc.
>>
>Where in the world did you pick that out of the comments I made. Please
>read them again. I've left it for your reference at the top of this page.
>
Are you really unaware of the meaning of what you write?
Jerry Okamura
vonroach
<OKAMU...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>In a war, IMO, the end always justifies the means.
That is a dangerous assumption. The imperialist gains of Germany and
Japan in WWII didn't justify the unnecessary bestiality of their
tactics. The end does not justify the means if the means require too
much effusion of blood from one's own forces to justify the end. One
has to carefully weigh both the means and the end in plotting
strategy.
For example, the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the close
of WWII, where the incineration of two large cities killed hundreds of
thousands of people, was well justified by the millions of American
and Japanese lives that would surely have occurred had an invasion
been necessary against a last ditch defense by a people deluded by
their leader.
Conclusion: very terrible means are only justified by very great ends.
If a commander miscalculates, then one is left with the R. E. Lee
experience at both Sharpsberg and Gettysberg.
vonroach
wrote:
>So. What is your final solution, Von Roach?
Another foolish freshman remark - there is never a `final' solution in
war, only a winner and a loser who have to work things out from there
forward.
vonroach
wrote:
>Bombing of civilians failed in London. It failed in Tokyo.
>It failed in Berlin. It failed in Viet Nam.
>Sure it's fun to be a mass murderer, but what does it get you?
There was no strategic value to London. The bombing was too
concentrated, it only served to consolidate resolve. It didn't fail in
Tokyo along with other cities in Japan - it had a devastating effect
on Japanese morale. Also the industries in and around Tokyo made a
much more strategic target. In Vietnam it was an effective weapon, but
was guided too much by armchair bureaucrats in Washington playing
games. There is an old truism in the British Army that if you want to
win your battles, take and work your bloomin' guns! We did not `work
all the power available to us in Vietnam, and still won our battles
with one hand tied behind our backs.
vonroach
<OKAMU...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>Oh this is probably going to really annoy the heck out of you. Then if we
>follow that line of reasoning, what we did in World War II, by intentionally
>"targetting" cities where there were a whole bunch of non-combatants, these
>were "terrorist" acts? Was our use of nuclear weapons on the cities of
>Hiroshima and Nagasaki terorist acts? I think not.
Not annoyed at all by a false premise. Cities in Europe and Japan
were supplying the German and Japanese forces and thus were anything
but `noncombatants' - they were in the war effort up to their necks,
including the strategic ports of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The bombing
removed them as combatants.
vonroach
<OKAMU...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> How long
>could they have survived if Gernany had not made a tactical blunder by
>opening up a second front in Russia.
They certainly blundered tactically by the excessive use of harsh
force; however, the opening of a another major front when they were
still defending positions in Europe and fighting in Africa, was a
STRATEGIC blunder. They were outnumbered on very unfriendly terrain
also fighting the weather; they were on a collision course with
disaster. Then the Japanese caused their worst nightmare to
materialize at Pearl Harbor. The intelligent generals knew the `end
game' had begun.
vonroach
wrote:
>Yasser ought to come
>charging out of his compound with guns blazing, and
>screaming "On to Jerusalem!".
When one follows dog tracks, one doesn't expect to encounter a lion.
Jerry Okamura
In some ways, can't we say that about just about any city. In one way or
the other, they are supporting the war effort. But I will admit that the
two ports were good strategic targets. By the way, I don't have any
problems with targetting cities in a war..
Don't know about Nagasaki, but we killed an awful lot of civilians in
Hiroshima. Have an interesting story to tell about Hiroshima (well at least
interesting to me). My grandparents got stuck there (in I guess what we
would call a suburb), during the war. When we arrived in Japan about one
year after the war (my father arrived in Japan, I think in Dec. '45), we had
brought over with our household goods a lot of "goodies". So around
November, we took an occupation force train to Hiroshima (many fond memories
of riding in those occupation force trains, also staying in all those resort
hotels the military had taken over). When we arrived, I was really
surprised to see so many people going about the business of living...I had
expected to see hardly anyone in the city itself. Another picture I had was
a city totally flatten, which it was. But I thought to myself, "this was
not much different than the area between Yokohama and Tokyo". Of course the
difference was that one bomb did the damage in Horoshima and many bombs were
used to destroy the area between Tokyo and Yokohama. Don't know why I never
thought about it earlier, but I have to wonder why we have this terrible
image of a nuclear bomb, when enough conventional bombs can do the very same
thing. From a psychological standpoint, I think I would prefer to have one
bomb that can hit my area (assuming I survive of course), then day in and
and day out bombs falling on me. One other story about those days has
always amused me. My grandmother was at the well they had, drawing water
when the bomb went off. It scared her so much that she jumped in the well.
Jerry Okamura
> On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 20:23:12 GMT, "Jerry Okamura"
> <OKAMU...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >In a war, IMO, the end always justifies the means.
>
> That is a dangerous assumption. The imperialist gains of Germany and
> Japan in WWII didn't justify the unnecessary bestiality of their
> tactics. The end does not justify the means if the means require too
> much effusion of blood from one's own forces to justify the end. One
> has to carefully weigh both the means and the end in plotting
> strategy.
By ends justifying the means, I meant do what is necessary to win. Winning
means in this context winning the war, not the battle. Of course history
should teach us that like the German's on the Russian front, and the
Japanese in the areas they occupied, you can make a big mistake by having no
concern about the people.
>
> For example, the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the close
> of WWII, where the incineration of two large cities killed hundreds of
> thousands of people, was well justified by the millions of American
> and Japanese lives that would surely have occurred had an invasion
> been necessary against a last ditch defense by a people deluded by
> their leader.
No argument from me. Got another story about that. My fathers first duty
station was Hokkaido. Imagine leaving Hawaii and arriving in Hokkaido in
the dead of winter with six feet of snow on the ground (at least that was
his version). He toild us that the Japanese had amased a huge arsenal of
weapons and planes up there because our bombers could not reach that area at
the time. The Japanese had also built undeground compleses all over the
island in anticipation of an attack their homeland.
>
> Conclusion: very terrible means are only justified by very great ends.
> If a commander miscalculates, then one is left with the R. E. Lee
> experience at both Sharpsberg and Gettysberg.
Wars are sometimes won and lost by miscalculation and sometimes luck.
Another good example is the battle over Midway. But I suspect a military
historian could tell many stories about that.
DGVREIMAN
"Jerry Okamura" <OKAMU...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:sM1s8.30625$VQ2.13...@twister.socal.rr.com...
Jerry, although your opinion is understandable, it is not quite
correct. War is a function of man, much like an emotion of man.
Consequently, nations banded together to try and set rules and
controls for this emotional event. Although "rules for war" seem
to be a contradiction in terms, these "rules" have probably saved
the human race from total annihilation thus far.
If a belligerent party in a war commits a war crime, he knows
that if he should lose the war he will probably be tried as a
war criminal. You are generally right about winners never being
tried as war criminals in most cases, but consider Vietnam when
we tried several of our officers for war crimes. That is a clear
example of a nation trying to adhere to the Articles of the
Geneva Convention. America tries to conform to these articles
during war, but does not always succeed, but tries nevertheless.
In addition, according to the US Uniform Code of Military
Justice, an American solider in the field has a right to refuse
to obey an "unlawful" order, such as to execute POW's or murder
civilians. These rules of engagement were promulgated to
protect POW's and non-combatanants. In some cases these rules
are ignored, but in the majority of cases they are strictly
adhered to.
These rules also prevent rogue commanders from successfully
ordering massacres...but then that is a luxury of a well
organized and wealthy military force. Belligerents like the
Palestinians do not have such luxuries, that point I will grant
you.
You are also right about the wealthy nations having the "luxury"
of fighting a war according to the rules. Yet the militarily
poor nation or faction cannot afford those rules, and therefore
must fight with every means available which includes guerrilla or
irregular forces and tactics.
Also I agree that murdering Civilians with bombs in retaliation
to the opposition murdering our civilians has become a mainstay
of war ever since WWII. It seems the unwritten law in this case
is that retaliation is justified, but initial aggression against
unarmed and innocent civilians is not justified. Moreover,
bombing civilians is not considered as egregious as shooting
civilians or blowing them up in close combat....for some reason
that I could never understand. (In my opinion the bombs were
worse in respect to falling indiscrimately on population
centers.)
So all these points you have made are correct, and I agree with
them. So where are you wrong?
You are wrong in the respect of the Palestinians exploiting
impressionable children to kill themselves while purposefully
hunting down and murdering other children and calling such
tactics "war." Specifically targeting innocent children and
women, while bypassing military targets completely is not
retaliation, nor is it warfare, it is murder.
The Palestinians must know that such suicide attacks never
succeed in cowering a civilian population, and history proves
such horrific attacks will never gain any military nor political
objective.
So my point is the Palestinians are not conducting war, they are
conducting something else. This "something else" I believe is
vengeance, murder for profit, and genocide. All which have
nothing to do with war, or the rules of war, or the rules of
anything moral in this world. Murder, for the sake of profit or
vengeance is a criminal act. Such tactics cannot be justified
under the guise of war, no more can they be justified under the
guise of freedom fighters.
If the Palestinians attacked only military targets, and did not
use their children to commit suicide, and occasionally fired a
car bomb a political targets, then I would grant you their
freedom fighter status. But they specifically target little
children, while using their own children to kill themselves and
other children. This is not war Jerry, it is murder. Moreover,
since there is quite a bit of money involved in each suicide, it
is murder for profit and vengeance.
There is not a country in the world that does not consider murder
for profit or vengeance a criminal act.
Doug Grant (Tm)
Redneck
DGVREIMAN wrote:
> "vonroach" <vonr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:3cbf52c1...@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
> > On Sat, 06 Apr 2002 18:28:33 -0800, Redneck
> <Red...@telocity.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >How hard could it be to say to someone who is
> > >contemplating suicide: "Yeah, life is really hard and your
> future is totally
> > >screwed, but it is really the fault of ________ (fill in the
> blank). Why not take
> > >some of them with you when you off yourself?" All you really
> need to do is gain
> > >their confidence and respect, then play them like guitar
> strings.
> >
> > You must be in a time warp Redneck. Death is not a child's
> game, where
> > one can `enjoy' the re-runs. It is the final scene, fade to
> black.
> > It's not a part in some melodrama.
>
> Doug Says:
>
> You are right Vonroach, but unfortunately these teenagers do not
> see it that way. Redneck is just providing a very likely glimpse
> into their thought processes immediately prior to their suicide.
> Confusion abounds in these kids, to them death is glorified, not
> a "fade to nothingness" like you say.
>
> To them suicide is a way to be recognized, to be thought of, to
> emerge from the crowd.
>
> Recognition is perhaps the most important thing in a teenagers
> impressionable mind. They are emerging into adulthood and they
> want to believe they will be accepted and gain all of the things
> their society has promised, but when they realize they may not be
> one of the chosen ones, they sink into despair and rationalize
> their suicide with as many reasons as they can muster....politics
> being one of them, as is vengeance on all those they envy.
>
> These kids exaggerate their despair to a level that it overwhelms
> them. If no caring parent is around to assure them that this too
> will pass as they grow older, they will act out their despair and
> resentment on themselves and on others.
>
> Add the element of someone from their Government that actually
> "encourages" their despair and misguided hatred, then I suspect
> you will have a long line of misguided teenagers ready and
> willing to kill someone, anyone they are told to kill, right
> along with themselves.
>
> I can think of no greater evil than the leaders of a nation
> exploiting their own children to butcher themselves and other
> innoncent children, so those leaders can directly and personally
> profit from such horrific acts of murder.
>
> Arafat, and the Hamas/Islamic Jihad/Hezzbolah goons must be the
> most immoral and blood thirsty mad dogs the world has ever seen.
> They need to be recognized and treated as such by the press and
> by our Military.
>
> Doug Grant (Tm)
Well said!
Scott Marquardt
>Has the thought ever sneaked into your head that you don't learn much
>about war if you limit yourself to `reading about it' and learning
>some phony rules?
Not yet -- because I consistently find that people who aren't willing to
look into what warriors and philosophers have thought about warfare for 1500
years (and more), aren't capable of providing much insight into the
contemporary skirmish they're ranting about.
- Scott
Scott Marquardt
>"Just war doctrine" - that should be as big a joke as a UN resolution
>(UN has never shown any real _resolution_, just 3rd world propaganda)
Yet when complaints about injustic in war are trotted out from war to war,
they almost always end up falling in lockstep with Just War Doctrine.
Gee, I wonder why?
>You think changing the terms, makes that differentiation any easier?
>You are a fool. In present engagement every Palestinian is an
>antiIsrali and capable of being a suicide bomber - they are ALL
>combatants!
No, they're not. But if you think I'm arguing this in defense of the Palis,
you're wrong.
- Scott
Keynes
And how do you propose to win?
"If at first you don't succeed, try, try and blame Bill Clinton."
( CONs - men at work greasing the "Axles of Evil". )
Keynes
wrote:
>
If you fight the purest evil with the purest evil your self,
and win, then you have really lost.
Keynes
wrote:
>
>"Keynes" <Key...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:hnu0bu0cr8fef5a08...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 14:20:41 GMT, vonr...@ix.netcom.com (vonroach) wrote:
>>
>> >On Sat, 06 Apr 2002 19:35:35 -0600, Keynes <Key...@earthlink.net>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>All of these were technically immoral and actual war crimes.
>> >>The hysteria of a combatant tries to make all things acceptable
>> >>and they are not. It was the crimes of Germany and Japan
>> >>that brought them their enemies and their destruction.
>> >>
>> >>American tactics were also despicable in many cases.
>> >>(and did not even produce desirable promised results)
>> >>That it has been done before and by Americans
>> >>(who escaped endictment) does not make it right.
>> >
>> >Left wing antiAmerican fruitcake, you have a total misunderstanding of
>> >war. Some little moral play with kids like you. The tactics you
>> >deplore had exactly the effect desired on the German population - they
>> >were totally shell shocked and dispirited immediately after the war.
AFTER the war. Not during the war.
>> >Definition of a `war criminal' - one who gambled and lost. Hirohito
>> >was paroled because the little creep was a useful tool for the army of
>> >occupation. Hitler - a depressed drug addict - correctly foresaw that
>> >his would be a different fate (he had word of the fate of Mussolini -
>> >hanged by his ankles from a lamp post). Arafat has no future except as
>> >an empty suit doing as he is told.
>>
Hitler finally realized that aryans were not in fact the master race.
Events made that obvious. He wasn't satisfied just to kill himself.
He ordered that germany fight to the last man. He didn't think
germany deserved to outlive himself.
>> Bombing of civilians failed in London. It failed in Tokyo.
>> It failed in Berlin. It failed in Viet Nam.
>> Sure it's fun to be a mass murderer, but what does it get you?
>
>Do some of you just make up stories to support your postions? How long
>would England have lasted without outside help from the U.S.? How long
>could they have survived if Gernany had not made a tactical blunder by
>opening up a second front in Russia. We will never know the answer to those
>questions, but to say that the bombings failed is to over simplify the
>facts.
>
Paris was recaptured without much fuss.
Yet Berlin was defended almost to the last man.
>When you target a city like Tokyo and Berlin, one goal is to demoralize the
>people who support the war. I cannot speak for the German theater, but I
>lived in Japan right after WWII. The U.S. bombings in Japan had the desired
>effect.
>
After the war, Europe and Japan were destitute and in ruins.
They had lost and had nothing left. Sure they were demoralized.
Britain was never demoralized by bombing civilians, neither was Germany.
Rather their will to fight was strengthened.
It was the recent spate of civilian bombings in Israel
that finally got the IDF to go after terrorists directly.
In spite of all the attacks on american military and
embassy personnel over the years, it was only 9/11
that got America mad enough to finally make war.
Unlawful war, meaning terrorism, gets people mad, not demoralized.
Therefore American policy should be to never even have the
appearance of being terrorists or pre-emptive attackers (aggressors).
It's not only morally wrong (even if WE do it)
it is completely counter-productive
If we cross the line --
YOU may not think we are acting like Stalin or Hitler,
but the rest of the world is not blinded by our 'pure hearts'.
They just look at what we do and figure it out for themselves.
>Our attacks in Vietnam were never intended to do the same. Think about it
>this way. A sortie of B-52's dropping conventional weapons, will kill or
>debilitate everyone in a strip of land 0.6 miles wide and 1.6 miles long.
>If we had moved our target to the major cities how many sorties would it
>have taken to destroy every city and/or town in North Vietnam? How long
>would it have taken? In WWII we sent hundreds of bombers to do the same job
>a flight of four b-52's can do. Had we utilized that tactic, what would
>have been the outcome? At the time, I think we had an inventory of around
>100 B-52's.
>
In order to win there, we'd have had to do genocide.
Keynes
Germany need asian oil.
Keynes
wrote:
The difference is that ICBM H-bombs are much easier to use than
to marshal a fleet and sail to the target with 1000's of men.
All it takes is two men to turn two keys
and in less than an hour the deed is done for all time.
Also there is the radiation and fallout left behind.
Keynes
wrote:
>
>"vonroach" <vonr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:3cc75fb4...@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
>> On Sat, 06 Apr 2002 20:38:18 -0600, Keynes <Key...@earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >The difference is the target.
>> >If you accept non-combatants as legitimate targets
>> >then you are a terrorist.
>
>Oh this is probably going to really annoy the heck out of you. Then if we
>follow that line of reasoning, what we did in World War II, by intentionally
>"targetting" cities where there were a whole bunch of non-combatants, these
>were "terrorist" acts? Was our use of nuclear weapons on the cities of
>Hiroshima and Nagasaki terorist acts? I think not.
>
The intentional bombing of civilian targets
rather than military ones IS a war crime.
Did America commits such acts? Yes.
Were they effective in ending the war? No.
Were the perpetrators punished? No.
This does not make it right by any means.
An exception might be made for the a-bombs in Japan.
This is still controversial. Some say that Japan was
ready and negotiating through 3rd parties to surrender,
but the USA demanded unconditional surrender.
The a-bombs were a terror weapon that did work - Once.
I don't think we can count on that again now that our
monopoly is broken.
BTW - atom secrets were leaked to USSR by an
american scientist for free and he wasn't even a
communist. But he realized what America would
do with a monopoly of ultimate weapons. Today
as the last superpower left standing, we face the
same temptation - to strike out in all directions
carelessly, just because we can. This wasn't
wise then, and it is even less wise today.
>Political tyrants claim the
>> >same privilege of killing whomever they please.
>> >Is this your considered opinion, that the end
>> >justifies the means, all's fair in love and war?
>> >If so, you are thinking just like a war criminal.
>> >We don't need any of those around here.
>
>I think I've stated my opinion on thess issue before. But in case you don't
>know my position, I will repeat it. As Macarthur was suppose to have said,
>avoid wars at all cost, but if you decide to go to war, do it to win. As
>far as I am concerned there is only one goal in any war, if you decide to go
>to war, i.e., go to war with the intention of "winning" To do otherwise is
>to use the people we send into combat as human sacrifice for no reason at
>all.
>
>As for this entire idea that somehow there is a nice way to wage a war, I
>think that is one of the dumbest ideas every devised by man. Why we think
>there is any morality in killing some people and not others is beyond my
>imagination. For the sake of discussion, would it be any consolation to the
>loser in a war to know that they played by the rules? How would you feel if
>you played by the rules and the other side did not and won?
>
>Besides this entire concept is a sham. When has the winning side in a war
>been punished for violations? As a society we punish the losers for
>violating these laws, not the winners. How often have we punished people in
>a civil war, who have committed far worse crimes against humanity that any
>war has?
>>
Is jail and hanging the only thing that keeps you from murder?
>> And Key boy, this applies mainly when your side is getting its ass
>> kicked?
>
vonroach
wrote:
Scott - what don't you understand besides the difference between a war
and a skirmish?
vonroach
wrote:
>>Another foolish freshman remark - there is never a `final' solution in
>>war, only a winner and a loser who have to work things out from there
>>forward.
>
>And how do you propose to win?
The Israelis are already on the brink of that, and also seem to have
some suggestions for post war agreements: that include land areas
designated for Palestinians, separating `demilitarized zones',
international peacekeepers patrolling the zones, very limited access
by Palestinians to Israel including Jerusalem for starters. The
Palestinians having lost will lose their access to the State of Israel
and those that find this a handicap can blame old Yasser and see what
he suggests they do. Losers don't make popular leaders. They sometimes
hang on for a time as tyrants such as Sadaam.