US congressman: "let us call on israel to stop shooting children.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Under the current UN definition total war would be genocide.

That's OK...the UN would be the first to go in a nuclear conflagration.

[scribblet]

New 'rocks' now operating in Gaza. Hezbollah has had them for a few years...but now Hamas has managed to aquire them, as well. No doubt a gift from the 'weapon fairy'.

Pretty expensive 'rocks' doncha think, wonder how many people they could feed with that kind of money. They launch thousands of rockets without any rational logic into Israel, then wonder why Israel eventually retaliates.

Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/01/30/letter-to-gaza-from-a-soldier-we-have-a-lot-more-in-common-than-you-might-imagine.aspx#ixzz19K7jK1A6

http://www.cjpme.ca/documents/35%20En%20Qassam%20Rocket%20Attacks%20v.1.pdf

http://www.honestreporting.ca/news_article_name/987654attacks.aspx

Strange how many people always dump on Israel for defending itself, but never a word about Palestinian attacks

Not to mention the lies they continually spread like the 'Jenin Massacre' and this recent one parroted by Islamic News Daily et al.

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2010/12/burning-sheep-story-proven-fake.html

A Jordan Valley Arab farmer has exposed the tactic of leftists accepting Arab claims and falsely accusing Jews of attacking Arabs. He admitted that the “burning sheep” libel against Jews was meant to disguise his own blunder of losing control of a brush fire.

Another tactic has been to instigate violence, especially on the Shabbat when Jews are forbidden to take pictures, and then accuse Jews of attacking them.

further reading

http://www.israelunitycoalition.org/news/?p=6153

We are living through a global campaign of demonisation and delegitimisation of Israel in which the western media are playing a key role.

The British media are the global leaders of this campaign in their frenzied and obsessional attacks on Israel. In the BBC in particular, such virulence attains unparalleled power and influence since it is stamped with the BBC's global kite mark of objectivity and trustworthiness.

Israel's every action is reported malevolently, ascribing to it the worst possible motives and denying its own victimisation. Instead of the truth, which is that every military action by Israel is taken solely to protect itself from attack, it is portrayed falsely as instigating the violent oppression of the Palestinians.

Tyranny around the world — such as the 20-year genocide in southern Sudan, or the persecution of Christians in Africa or Asia — goes almost unreported, as does Palestinian violence upon other Palestinians. Yet Israel is dwelt upon obsessively, held to standards of behaviour expected of no other country and, with its own victimisation glossed over or ignored altogether, falsely accused of imposing wanton suffering.

Time after time, otherwise cynical, reality-hardened journalists have published or broadcast claims of Israeli 'atrocities' which are clearly theatrically staged fabrications or allegations. The false narrative of Arab propaganda is now so deeply embedded in the consciousness of journalists that they cannot see that what they are saying is untrue even when it is utterly egregious and indeed absurd. The war against Hamas in Gaza in 2008/9 was a case in point.

The British media had scarcely reported the constant rocket bombardment from Gaza. Most of the public were simply unaware that thousands of rockets had been fired at Israeli citizens. But when in Operation Cast Lead Israel finally bombed Gaza to put a stop to the attacks, it was denounced for a 'disproportionate' response and for wantonly and recklessly killing 'civilians' — even though,

[Jack Weber]

Any historian will tell you that that's debatable.

And any historian will tell you that the firebombing of Dresden was about vengeance for the Luftwaffe's indiscriminate bombing of British cities during the Battle of Britain...

There might have been some strategic industries barely hanging on by the time the firebombing took place,however,NAZI Germany was in its death throes by that time...

Id people would simply admit it was purely about vengeance,then fine,I suppose it's justifiable...

There was no strategic reason for it,however...

[Shady]

And any historian will tell you that the firebombing of Dresden was about vengeance for the Luftwaffe's indiscriminate bombing of British cities during the Battle of Britain...

Nope. That's complete nonsense. You're deranged.

[BubberMiley]

Nope. That's complete nonsense. You're deranged.

I agree that it's a good idea to keep the post short and to the point. Otherwise, you'll reveal how you know absolutely nothing about the subject.

[Jack Weber]

Nope. That's complete nonsense. You're deranged.

Notice how Professor Kitzel,who likens himself some sort of 20th Century historical expert,cannot back up his spetacular dissertation of my post he so selectively quoted with any historical fact...

And then,as if on cue (because he's got nothing else) questions my sanity....

Don't ever change,Professor Kitzel...

Tell us again why your so offended about Atheists mocking Christmas when you don't believe in Christ yourself???

Edited December 28, 2010 by Jack Weber

[Jack Weber]

Who frickin' cares? Everyone else is doing it.

Well...

That was kinda classless of him,was'nt it??

[Guest TrueMetis]

Nope. That's complete nonsense. You're deranged.

No it makes perfect sense because, as I've already posted, the allies didn't hit multiple important industrial, military, and infrastructure points. Which they would have hit if they were trying to hit strategic points. (I'm willing to throw you a bone in allowing that those industries actually had some significance)

[Jack Weber]

No it makes perfect sense because, as I've already posted, the allies didn't hit multiple important industrial, military, and infrastructure points. Which they would have hit if they were trying to hit strategic points. (I'm willing to throw you a bone in allowing that those industries actually had some significance)

Of course they did...

Dresden was completely and totally about vengeance.And that's completely understandable,but it still did'nt make it militarily necessary...

[Guest TrueMetis]

Of course they did...

Dresden was completely and totally about vengeance.And that's completely understandable,but it still did'nt make it militarily necessary...

I disagree that it was understandable, the deliberate targeting of civilians in their homes is nothing short of a war crime. Think about what's taught in schools, there is significant focus of the V2 rockets hitting London and how horrible it was, Dresden is almost never mentioned.

[Jack Weber]

I disagree that it was understandable, the deliberate targeting of civilians in their homes is nothing short of a war crime. Think about what's taught in schools, there is significant focus of the V2 rockets hitting London and how horrible it was, Dresden is almost never mentioned.

Well...

To the victor go the spoils and the opportunity to massage history in a positive light.

The very same can be said about chlorine and mustard gas attacks during the 1st World War.We always hear about "The Horrible Hun" and their gas attacks,specifically durng the Battles of Ypres...

The fact of the matter is that we,the Allies,did the exact same thing to them...Depending on the way the wind was blowing.

And I understand the demand for blood vengeance when you were being bombed into submission...A populous that went through that might be lookin' for a little payback on an equally unarmed populous of the enemy...

Another example of this might be what Sherman did to South Carolina after he came upon the Andersonville prison camp in Georgia during his "March to the Sea"...

Edited December 28, 2010 by Jack Weber

[Guest TrueMetis]

And I understand the demand for blood vengeance when you were being bombed into submission...A populous that went through that might be lookin' for a little payback on an equally unarmed populous of the enemy...

As I also said this was one of the few times that many people thought a bombing run went to far this includes people who were part of the unarmed populace getting bombed into submission. The Londoner's didn't want payback they wanted the war to be over and their family and friends back home.

[Jack Weber]

As I also said this was one of the few times that many people thought a bombing run went to far this includes people who were part of the unarmed populace getting bombed into submission. The Londoner's didn't want payback they wanted the war to be over and their family and friends back home.

True,but clearly,someone wanted the deed done...And got it done...

[Guest TrueMetis]

True,but clearly,someone wanted the deed done...And got it done...

Yep Churchill, who immediately tried to distance himself from the bombing after new reports called them terror bombings.

[dre]

Really? Care to draw a map that the whole world agrees on?

I dont need to, there already is one. Not a single country on earth considers the occupied territories to be part of Israel.

[Bonam]

I dont need to, there already is one. Not a single country on earth considers the occupied territories to be part of Israel.

A platitude, nothing more. The occupied territories means different things to different people. Just where is the line through/near Jerusalem drawn? Israel and some of its allies recognize all of Jerusalem as part of Israel, while the Palestinians, Arabs, and many of their supporters envision some/all of it as part of a Palestinian state. The Syrians claim the Golan Heights and demand it as a price for recognizing a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians and yet it is not an occupied territory and is officially annexed by Israel. Some people talk about the 1967 border, others the 1948 border, and others about yet other lines and borders.

There is no universal agreement on the exact borders of the proposed Palestinian state.

Edited December 28, 2010 by Bonam

[Shady]

And any historian will tell you that the firebombing of Dresden was about vengeance for the Luftwaffe's indiscriminate bombing of British cities during the Battle of Britain...

More non-historical nonsense. The bombing of Dresden was an attempt to force Germany to surrender, and end the war.

[Guest TrueMetis]

More non-historical nonsense. The bombing of Dresden was an attempt to force Germany to surrender, and end the war.

Considering the Russians at this point were 70 kilometres from Berlin this is a moronic argument. Germany wasn't surrendering with the Russians on their doorstep they aren't going to surrender because you bomb non-strategically important parts of a city who's strategic value is debatable.

[DogOnPorch]

Considering the Russians at this point were 70 kilometres from Berlin this is a moronic argument. Germany wasn't surrendering with the Russians on their doorstep they aren't going to surrender because you bomb non-strategically important parts of a city who's strategic value is debatable.

None-the-less...it was Bomber Harris's last chance to end the War via airpower alone.

[Jack Weber]

Anyone else notice how Professor Kitzel,our resident expert on 20th Century history,has quoted me twice,using the same quote...

As if I had said something new...And now twice,he's failed to come up with anything that borders on lucid for a response???

By the way TM,perhaps we should ask The Professor what part of Germany Dresden ended up in after the War???

Edited December 28, 2010 by Jack Weber

[M.Dancer]

Anyone else notice how Professor Kitzel,our resident expert on 20th Century history,has quoted me twice,using the same quote...

As if I had said something new...And now twice,he's failed to come up with anything that borders on lucid for a response???

By the way TM,perhaps we should ask The Professor what part of Germany Dresden ended up in after the War???

Never the less, Dresden was a military target struck for strategic reasons. The same is true for the other 57 german cities that were leveled and just as true for those cities that suffered even greater carnage than Dresden. The vilification of the bombing campaign is nothing but historical revisionism.

[Shady]

Considering the Russians at this point were 70 kilometres from Berlin this is a moronic argument. Germany wasn't surrendering with the Russians on their doorstep they aren't going to surrender because you bomb non-strategically important parts of a city who's strategic value is debatable.

Your point is moot, because Germany still hadn't surrendered. Ever heard of the battle of the bulge? In Jack's case, the battle of the bulge refers to something completely different. That battle's between him and cheese cake!

[Jack Weber]

Never the less, Dresden was a military target struck for strategic reasons. The same is true for the other 57 german cities that were leveled and just as true for those cities that suffered even greater carnage than Dresden. The vilification of the bombing campaign is nothing but historical revisionism.

Sir Winston Churchill...Historical Revisionist!!!

By the way,expect The Professor to be right along riding your coat tails with the little missive above...

[Jack Weber]

Your point is moot, because Germany still hadn't surrendered. Ever heard of the battle of the bulge? In Jack's case, the battle of the bulge refers to something completely different. That battle's between him and cheese cake!

Nothing like having little or nothing to add,eh Professor?

Got some dates of he Battle of the Bulge and the firebombing of Dresden???

I assume,since you are clearly an expert on 20th Century history,you can provide these things without looking it up?

Edited December 29, 2010 by Jack Weber

[M.Dancer]

Sir Winston Churchill...

That evening Churchill asked the Secretary of State for Air, Sir Archibald Sinclair, what plans had been drawn up to carry out these proposals. He passed on the request to Sir Charles Portal, the Chief of the Air Staff, who answered that "We should use available effort in one big attack on Berlin and attacks on Dresden, Leipzig, and Chemnitz, or any other cities where a severe blitz will not only cause confusion in the evacuation from the East, but will also hamper the movement of troops from the West".[21] However, he mentioned that aircraft diverted to such raids should not be taken away from the current primary tasks of destroying oil production facilities, jet aircraft factories, and submarine yards.[21][22]

Churchill was not satisfied with this answer and, on 26 January, pressed Sinclair for a plan of operations: "I asked [last night] whether Berlin, and no doubt other large cities in east Germany, should not now be considered especially attractive targets.... Pray report to me tomorrow what is going to be done."[23]

In response to Churchill's enquiry Sinclair approached Bottomley, who asked Harris to undertake attacks on Berlin, Dresden, Leipzig, and Chemnitz, as soon as moon and weather conditions allowed, "with the particular object of exploiting the confused conditions which are likely to exist in the above mentioned cities during the successful Russian advance."[23] This activity allowed Sinclair to inform Churchill on 27 January of Air Staff agreement, "subject to the overriding claims" on other targets under the Pointblank Directive, strikes against communications in these cities to disrupt civilian evacuation east and troop movement west would be made.[24]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II

Nothing there about revenge for German bombing....