Black Dog Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 (edited) Whoa: on the one hand you say: I am not advocating attacking supermarkets and skyscrapers deliberately. Those kinds of attacks accomplish little. Yet on the other hand: If fanatics seek war, they should be given what they ask for. In spades. Attempts to daintily avoid civilian casualties and negotiate prematurely lead only to prolonged and greater grief. This, combined with your approving citation of Dresden, Hiroshima etc would indicate that you are advocating attacking supermarkets and skyscrapers deliberately. Look, man, if you're going to be a cheerleader for indiscriminate war, at least have the balls to leave off the half-assed disclaimers. Edited January 6, 2009 by Black Dog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted January 6, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 Um, in post #3 there is a "quote box" which has this header:"QUOTE(Ontario Loyalist @ Jan 5 2009, 10:57 PM)" [emphasis mine] Please stop being obnoxious... Did you not say what I quoted you as saying? The truth is easier to remember than a made-up story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted January 6, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 Having not read the post but guessing from the title, I suspect the solution suggested is some sort of eradication of the entire population.Not quite. Why don't you read, or are you illiterate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 Why (UN) Ambulances and ( UN) schools can become fair targets. Hamaa using Ambulances as Armed Personal Carriers Both are contrary the the GC articles....but now they are fair game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drea Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 (edited) JBG you wrote this: Both the Civil War and WW II ended when the victors became serious about fighting. General Sherman's "March to the Sea", which devastated large swaths of Georgia, convinced the remaining Confederates that their cause was hopelss. The Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks, in my view, for the first time convinced the German and Japanese people, respectively, that their "leadership" was taking them one place; to the grave.For war to end, the ultimate victors must prosecute it to the maximum extent possible. I am not advocating attacking supermarkets and skyscrapers deliberately. Those kinds of attacks accomplish little. If fanatics seek war, they should be given what they ask for. In spades. Attempts to daintily avoid civilian casualties and negotiate prematurely lead only to prolonged and greater grief. Did the bomb that hit Hiroshima "de-select" schools, hospitals and supermarkets? You, jbg, are advocating for the destruction of a people. I suggest you read the book "Hiroshima" by John Hersey. It's only $7 so even you should be able to afford it. If not, pick it up at your local library and get back to us on your lovely idea of "total war". It takes the goddamn CAKE when a JEW is calling for the destruction of an entire race -- did you learn nothing? Does history need to be repeated ala Iran? Fug! Edited January 6, 2009 by Drea Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted January 6, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 Whoa: on the one hand you say:Yet on the other hand: This, combined with your approving citation of Dresden, Hiroshima etc would indicate that you are advocating attacking supermarkets and skyscrapers deliberately. Look, man, if you're going to be a cheerleader for indiscriminate war, at least have the balls to leave off the half-assed disclaimers. I know these paragraphs were broken by your text but I am responding to them as a single post. As I tried to make clear at the opening of my post I wish there never were another war in the history of man. Almost all disputes can be better negotiated, with neither side being totally happy or totally unhappy. The problem is that wars do not seem to end for good without a March to the Sea, Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki or similar thrashing. WW I, for example, fdid not really end but blended into WW II since the German and Austro-Hungarian Empires were hardly reconciled to defeat. The Paris Peace Accord in Viet Nam was violated almost as soon as the ink was dry. There are other examples, no doubt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted January 6, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 JBG you wrote this:Did the bomb that hit Hiroshima "de-select" schools, hospitals and supermarkets? You, jbg, are advocating for the destruction of a people. I suggest you read the book "Hiroshima" by John Hersey. It's only $7 so even you should be able to afford it. If not, pick it up at your local library and get back to us on your lovely idea of "total war". There is nothing compassionate about endless war either.It takes the goddamn CAKE when a JEW is calling for the destruction of an entire race -- did you learn nothing? Does history need to be repeated ala Iran? Fug!I am not advocating for the destruction of a race. I want the madness to stop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 JBG you wrote this:Did the bomb that hit Hiroshima "de-select" schools, hospitals and supermarkets? You, jbg, are advocating for the destruction of a people. I suggest you read the book "Hiroshima" by John Hersey. It's only $7 so even you should be able to afford it. If not, pick it up at your local library and get back to us on your lovely idea of "total war". It takes the goddamn CAKE when a JEW is calling for the destruction of an entire race -- did you learn nothing? Does history need to be repeated ala Iran? Fug! I wouldn't say he's advocating the destruction of an entire people. If that were the case, the IDF would simply march into Gaza and kill everything moving in there. Turning up the intensity doesn't mean genocide. If that were the case in Japan, the U.S. would have dumped one atomic bomb per city and would have cleaned up after with their army. Obviously that did not happen. Hiroshima saved lives of millions of Japanese that would have died had the U.S. land army came in, judging by what happened at Iwo Jima, it would have been a bloodbath. However by showing the Japanese that a city can be wiped out in one shot it forced them to think a little bit, was it dirty pool? Yes, but the U.S. has a war to win and it wants the least Americans dead as possible, or are the lives of Hiroshima victims worth more than American GI's? Now that it has been established that the IDF is not performing genocide, the IDF is in fact however playing hardball. The only way the IDF is going to stop is when the PLO cries uncle. Until the IDF stops there will be dead Palestinian militants and civilians in Gaza. Standard war is beating your opponent to a pulp and stopping when they cry uncle. Genocide is beating your opponent to a pulp, not stopping when they cry uncle, and only stopping when there is nobody left. Unfortunately for the citizens of Gaza, hamas won't cry uncle. This reminds me of the Argentinians vs. British in the falklands. The British had a large group of Argentinian soldiers holed up in a town, the British commanding officer told the Argentinian commander that he would shell the town and any civilian casualties would be the Argentinians fault because they have the option of surrendering and leaving town. Guess what happened? The Argentinian's surrendered and no civilians died that day. The fact that the IDF is leaving surrender as an option is proof that the IDF is not performing genocide. Logic rules the day yet again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 You, jbg, are advocating for the destruction of a people. Certainly sounds like it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 (edited) Why are you even contesting this? Because your assertion is false. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...90106.wgaza0106 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...wgazaisrael0106 The school was used as a staging ground. When the first shell was lobbed, it became undeer the GC articles a legitimate target. Edited January 6, 2009 by M.Dancer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 I know these paragraphs were broken by your text but I am responding to them as a single post. As I tried to make clear at the opening of my post I wish there never were another war in the history of man. Almost all disputes can be better negotiated, with neither side being totally happy or totally unhappy.The problem is that wars do not seem to end for good without a March to the Sea, Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki or similar thrashing. WW I, for example, fdid not really end but blended into WW II since the German and Austro-Hungarian Empires were hardly reconciled to defeat. The Paris Peace Accord in Viet Nam was violated almost as soon as the ink was dry. There are other examples, no doubt. What's your point? I'm not arguing the question of the necessity of total war one way or another, only pointing out your enduring hypocrisy. If you are for total war, then by definition, you are for the indiscriminate destruction of innocent lives, despite your mealy-mouthed mewlings to the contrary . Now that we've established that, we can discuss the meat of the matter: whether total war is the only way to end war. Well, duh. If you totally destroy your enemy and his ability to make war, then yeah, you'll probably win and the peace will probably last. Whether it is morally acceptable to do so is another matter and one that depends on the circumstances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted January 6, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 Well, duh. If you totally destroy your enemy and his ability to make war, then yeah, you'll probably win and the peace will probably last. Whether it is morally acceptable to do so is another matter and one that depends on the circumstances.Do the children of Sderot deserve a life free from air raid sirens? Remember it's in pre-1967 Israel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ontario Loyalist Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 I wouldn't say he's advocating the destruction of an entire people. If that were the case, the IDF would simply march into Gaza and kill everything moving in there. The irony is, that this is the conclusion that JBG draws about anyone who is against Israel agrression... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ontario Loyalist Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 Because your assertion is false.http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...90106.wgaza0106 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...wgazaisrael0106 You're claiming that my assertion is false using a viedo that I was referring to. Actually, that video is an excellent example of how the media is sanitized because people who are KILLED by bombs aren't usually intact as those people were. Seems to me you have a serious comprehension problem. The school was used as a staging ground. When the first shell was lobbed, it became undeer the GC articles a legitimate target. That video was taken in October 2007, and is not all that clear what's going on there or where that is. It could be anywhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 (edited) wehsadfghj Edited January 6, 2009 by M.Dancer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 You're claiming that my assertion is false using a viedo that I was referring to. Actually, that video is an excellent example of how the media is sanitized because people who are KILLED by bombs aren't usually intact as those people were. Seems to me you have a serious comprehension problem.That video was taken in October 2007, and is not all that clear what's going on there or where that is. It could be anywhere. An expert eh? I have seen 6 people killed by a bomb. How many have you seen? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drea Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 An expert eh? I have seen 6 people killed by a bomb. How many have you seen? Well I can one-up-yah! Today I saw a bird hit a picture window! How 'bout THAT! Dancer, it's not a pissing contest. No one gives a crap about whether or not a whole person or a person in little bits -- what matters is that they are dead and most of them are children. Soldiers sign up with the explicit expectation that they COULD be killed in battle. Children sign up for no such thing. By the way, did you enjoy blowing them up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 Do the children of Sderot deserve a life free from air raid sirens? Remember it's in pre-1967 Israel. Are you suggesting the only way to achieve peace in Gaza is to indiscriminately flatten the place? Funny: at a time when most pro-Israel types are bending over backwards to show Israel is not indiscriminately wasting civilians, along comes one one of their own to suggest they should. El. Oh. El. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 One thing about all wars especially today, someone is making money on it. Whose the largest miltary arms supplier??? I would think its the US then maybe China or Russia?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ontario Loyalist Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 An expert eh? I have seen 6 people killed by a bomb. How many have you seen? So where did I claim that I'm an expert? Or is that just a pathetic attempt at a red herring? It would seem to me, though, that if you've seen people who have been killed by a bomb, you would recognize that they weren't shown on that video. As I said before, the Arab media is much more graffic when it comes to showing dead and mutilated bodies; western media sanitizes and censors a great deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 So where did I claim that I'm an expert? Or is that just a pathetic attempt at a red herring? It would seem to me, though, that if you've seen people who have been killed by a bomb, you would recognize that they weren't shown on that video. As I said before, the Arab media is much more graffic when it comes to showing dead and mutilated bodies; western media sanitizes and censors a great deal. Why would it seem like it to you, not knowing what dead and idying look like? They look a lot like the victims in the video. Arab TV is more sensational and a lot less credible too. Anyone remember the videos of theey palestinians funerals, where they paraded the coffins and then ferried them back to the begining of the line...one fell and it was empty...or in Lebanon where the victims were laid out for thecamera then they got back into their SUVs and went to the next atrocity. AP unwittingly showed the same victim a 3 different attack sites...unlucky guy ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 (edited) this is getting ferfellingable Edited January 7, 2009 by M.Dancer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 this is getting ferfellingable Forgive them, for they know not what they do. And would be scared if they did. Boom! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB Globe Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 They pulled out of Gaza and what do they get for their troubles? Please spare me the "the great Israeli altruists pulled out of Gaza because they love peace" routine. Stop moving the goalposts - Israel withdrew from Gaza because it was incapable of occupying the area anymore, and they were loosing lots of money trying to do so. I suppose I'm supposed to pretend that the blockade on Gaza which has completely crippled the economy, and meant that most people there now require foreign food aid to survive, accounts for nothing? To which of course, the genius' at Hamas responded with: Daily, random, rocket attacks. And you want to give moral equivency to Hamas and Israel? Screw morals period, morals are only useful in conflicts where there's a clear good guy and a bad guy. I'm not interested in tallying up the rights and wrongs to find out how very bad Israel is compared to how very, very bad Hamas is. Fact is both sides are acting immorally - one more than the other? Probably, but I don't want to waste my time splitting hairs, that will do absolutely nothing. I don't care about morals, those are subjective - I care about international law. I'm talking about what things work in terms of attaining peace and security and what things don't. I don't care if it satisfies Israeli or Hamas (or Goyim) bloodlust to fire off Qasam rockets or cruise missles, fact is neither approach does anything but increase hatred on the other side of the fence. Neither approach has ever proven it can work to attain the goals it's promoters claim are possible: peace and security. Your ardent PC approach makes you laughable, not respectable. Are you fully incapable of personal slander? Do you figure that this makes your argument look stronger or weaker? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB Globe Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 The school was used as a staging ground. When the first shell was lobbed, it became undeer the GC articles a legitimate target. The only source on that is the Israeli military. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.