quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
Fine. If you want to ignore the fact British foreign policy in the 1930's was a continuation of hundreds of years of British foreign policy then be my guest. There are deep rooted structural, social and cultural issues that made British foreign policy in the 1930s the obvious course to take for us.

We always did that. The British appeased the Americans in the 1890s when territorial disputes arose.

I suppose you don't get to the top in the event you're going to fight every battle that comes your way when some of those battles will obviously be very costly to you with limited gain in return.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

I think the argument is that Chamberlain met directly with Hitler over the Sudetenland and should have known that he would not have been satisfied with that small chunk of land. Whether Britain went to war over it or not Britain should have been preparing for the war that was inevitable rather than pretending that the matter was over. And war in Czechoslovakia, which many historians argue Hitler would not have actually risked, might have avoided all that came after.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

I think the argument is that Chamberlain met directly with Hitler over the Sudetenland and should have known that he would not have been satisfied with that small chunk of land. Whether Britain went to war over it or not Britain should have been preparing for the war that was inevitable rather than pretending that the matter was over. And war in Czechoslovakia, which many historians argue Hitler would not have actually risked, might have avoided all that came after.

Britain were preparing for war, I dont know where you got the impression we weren`t.

If America knew Hitlers intentions in 1938, why didnt they do anything ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

I think the argument is that Chamberlain met directly with Hitler over the Sudetenland and should have known that he would not have been satisfied with that small chunk of land. Whether Britain went to war over it or not Britain should have been preparing for the war that was inevitable rather than pretending that the matter was over. And war in Czechoslovakia, which many historians argue Hitler would not have actually risked, might have avoided all that came after.

Britain were preparing for war, I dont know where you got the impression we weren`t.

quote:

If America knew Hitlers intentions in 1938, why didnt they do anything ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

I think the argument is that Chamberlain met directly with Hitler over the Sudetenland and should have known that he would not have been satisfied with that small chunk of land. Whether Britain went to war over it or not Britain should have been preparing for the war that was inevitable rather than pretending that the matter was over. And war in Czechoslovakia, which many historians argue Hitler would not have actually risked, might have avoided all that came after.

Britain were preparing for war, I dont know where you got the impression we weren`t.

If America knew Hitlers intentions in 1938, why didnt they do anything ?

I'm not a fan of FDR in any way, shape or form. He is no lion of moral probity to me. So, yes, we should have done something then. We didn't.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml


There has been massive ongoing debate about the rightness and the legality of the bombings of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and several German cities during the war (Berlin and Dresden being discussed a lot). As I've said before on this thread, I think that these actions were (very narrowly) justified on the basis of lives saved, and the shortening of the war.

I would agree with that. I just can't see how anyone could reasonably expect the Americans to expend huge amounts of lives in order to preserve Japanese lives, or sanitise the killing of Japanese in people's eyes, when the Japanese attacked them.

I suppose somebody could possibly argue that it then makes it fine to use biological weapons or some other killing tool that the public has no appetite for, but surely killing is killing and if you don't like people being killed then keep a check on the government.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml


There has been massive ongoing debate about the rightness and the legality of the bombings of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and several German cities during the war (Berlin and Dresden being discussed a lot). As I've said before on this thread, I think that these actions were (very narrowly) justified on the basis of lives saved, and the shortening of the war.

I would agree with that. I just can't see how anyone could reasonably expect the Americans to expend huge amounts of lives in order to preserve Japanese lives, or sanitise the killing of Japanese in people's eyes, when the Japanese attacked them.

I suppose somebody could possibly argue that it then makes it fine to use biological weapons or some other killing tool that the public has no appetite for, but surely killing is killing and if you don't like people being killed then keep a check on the government.

And several cases of the Japanese using biological weapons.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

I think the argument is that Chamberlain met directly with Hitler over the Sudetenland and should have known that he would not have been satisfied with that small chunk of land. Whether Britain went to war over it or not Britain should have been preparing for the war that was inevitable rather than pretending that the matter was over. And war in Czechoslovakia, which many historians argue Hitler would not have actually risked, might have avoided all that came after.

Britain were preparing for war, I dont know where you got the impression we weren`t.

If America knew Hitlers intentions in 1938, why didnt they do anything ?

I'm not a fan of FDR in any way, shape or form. He is no lion of moral probity to me. So, yes, we should have done something then. We didn't.

The American public would have revolted. Congress would have impeached him. The country was staunchly non interventionist. It was a struggle to do what we did until Pearl Harbor.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml


There has been massive ongoing debate about the rightness and the legality of the bombings of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and several German cities during the war (Berlin and Dresden being discussed a lot). As I've said before on this thread, I think that these actions were (very narrowly) justified on the basis of lives saved, and the shortening of the war.

I would agree with that. I just can't see how anyone could reasonably expect the Americans to expend huge amounts of lives in order to preserve Japanese lives, or sanitise the killing of Japanese in people's eyes, when the Japanese attacked them.

I suppose somebody could possibly argue that it then makes it fine to use biological weapons or some other killing tool that the public has no appetite for, but surely killing is killing and if you don't like people being killed then keep a check on the government.

And several cases of the Japanese using biological weapons.

It's almost like the Japanese invasion of Manchuria has been erased from history sometimes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

If that's the best you can do, subrosaDom, that is a pretty pathetic response. It contains a number of factual errors, such as:

quote:

Israeli does not target civilians to cause terror (as does Hamas) -- they do it to root out Hamas's terrorist infrastructure

Israeli General Gadi Eizenkot was quite specific that Israel does target civilians and civilian infrastructure : "From our perspective, these [civilian areas] are military bases. [...] Harming the population is the only means of restraining Nasrallah" A deliberate strategy of "harming the population", could it be any clearer? The enormous number of civilians killed and injured in Israel's current rampage in Gaza, with most independent estimates putting it at c75-80% or approx 1350 of the c1800 fatalities confirms the deliberate targetting of civilians.

Since I know you can read I know you know you are intentionally misrepresenting that quote.

He's saying Hezbollah is hiding amongst the civilian population so the IDF has to attack those civilians to get at Hezbollah.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

If that's the best you can do, subrosaDom, that is a pretty pathetic response. It contains a number of factual errors, such as:

quote:

Israeli does not target civilians to cause terror (as does Hamas) -- they do it to root out Hamas's terrorist infrastructure

Israeli General Gadi Eizenkot was quite specific that Israel does target civilians and civilian infrastructure : "From our perspective, these [civilian areas] are military bases. [...] Harming the population is the only means of restraining Nasrallah" A deliberate strategy of "harming the population", could it be any clearer? The enormous number of civilians killed and injured in Israel's current rampage in Gaza, with most independent estimates putting it at c75-80% or approx 1350 of the c1800 fatalities confirms the deliberate targetting of civilians.

Since I know you can read I know you know you are intentionally misrepresenting that quote.

He's saying Hezbollah is hiding amongst the civilian population so the IDF has to attack those civilians to get at Hezbollah.

If real lives weren't at stake, DKs post would rank as first class comedy. As it stands, it provides a revealing insight into the kind of intellectual gymnastics and double think necessary to maintain the kind of blind fanatical faith in Israel and its absolute inability to commit a mistake Dom Ken has displayed for as long as I have been posting here.

Even tho' the Israeli general specifically states that "harming the population is the only means of restraining Nasrallah", DK insists this doesn't mean what it says. Even tho' DK states that "the IDF has to attack those civilians", which can only mean that the civilians are being deliberately targetted, DK wants us to believe that doesn't mean that they are deliberately targetting them. One wonders if DK wants us to believe that the IDF are "attacking' those civilians accidentally (!?)...... when he concedes they are being deliberately targetted to "get at Hezbollah". There is no defence in law or morality that I know of that allows the deliberate targetting of civilians. In some circumstances, one can make a case in law and morality for collateral harm against civilians but not deliberate targetting.

Buried the depths of his spin DK thus agrees that civilians are being deliberately targetted. The contradictions are to immense and glaring for any one to resolve. DK's tries to justify the deliberate targetting of civilians as it is the "only way to get at Hezbollah". Even this tenuous defence contains a massive lie - there are other ways of "getting at" Hezbollah or Hamas or whoever Israel's enemy de jour is. For Israel Palestinian lives carry no value so Palestinians are deliberately targetted and killed, sometimes for reasons vaguely related to some kind of military objective, and often times for no reason at all, such as the incident I documented in post #702.

The IDF is quite specific that all this is deliberate and planned, this is not some low level local commander making poor decisions on the ground. The deliberate targetting of civilians and civilian infrastructure - "This isn't a suggestion. It's a plan that has already been authorized." - is an integral part of the IDF's strategy approved at high level. So there is a degree of pre-meditation to these attacks on civilians. They are no accident, they are an integral part of the overall plan.

Even tho' DK is posting the double think and gibberish analysed above he has the stupendous audacity to accuse others of "intentional misrepresent[ations]" - while, as we have seen, he is busy doing exactly that himself. I wonder precisely how tenuous his relationship with reality is. If he really believes what he is asking us to believe, one must conclude that DK's nonsensical misrepresentations suggest that his relationship with reality is very tenuous indeed.

One should also note that DK makes no attempt whatsoever to deny the main charge levelled against the IDF - that it is a terrorist force. Whatever way we look at it, the IDF is deliberately targetting civilian and civilian infrastructure - we have their unambiguous word for it. And that makes the IDF a terrorist force by any reasonable understanding of the term 'terrorist'.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

If that's the best you can do, subrosaDom, that is a pretty pathetic response. It contains a number of factual errors, such as:

quote:

Israeli does not target civilians to cause terror (as does Hamas) -- they do it to root out Hamas's terrorist infrastructure

Israeli General Gadi Eizenkot was quite specific that Israel does target civilians and civilian infrastructure : "From our perspective, these [civilian areas] are military bases. [...] Harming the population is the only means of restraining Nasrallah" A deliberate strategy of "harming the population", could it be any clearer? The enormous number of civilians killed and injured in Israel's current rampage in Gaza, with most independent estimates putting it at c75-80% or approx 1350 of the c1800 fatalities confirms the deliberate targetting of civilians.

Since I know you can read I know you know you are intentionally misrepresenting that quote.

He's saying Hezbollah is hiding amongst the civilian population so the IDF has to attack those civilians to get at Hezbollah.

If real lives weren't at stake, DKs post would rank as first class comedy. As it stands, it provides a revealing insight into the kind of intellectual gymnastics and double think necessary to maintain the kind of blind fanatical faith in Israel and its absolute inability to commit a mistake Dom Ken has displayed for as long as I have been posting here.

Even tho' the Israeli general specifically states that "harming the population is the only means of restraining Nasrallah", DK insists this doesn't mean what it says. Even tho' DK states that "the IDF has to attack those civilians", which can only mean that the civilians are being deliberately targetted, DK wants us to believe that doesn't mean that they are deliberately targetting them. One wonders if DK wants us to believe that the IDF are "attacking' those civilians accidentally (!?)...... when he concedes they are being deliberately targetted to "get at Hezbollah". There is no defence in law or morality that I know of that allows the deliberate targetting of civilians. In some circumstances, one can make a case in law and morality for collateral harm against civilians but not deliberate targetting.

Buried the depths of his spin DK thus agrees that civilians are being deliberately targetted. The contradictions are to immense and glaring for any one to resolve. DK's tries to justify the deliberate targetting of civilians as it is the "only way to get at Hezbollah". Even this tenuous defence contains a massive lie - there are other ways of "getting at" Hezbollah or Hamas or whoever Israel's enemy de jour is. For Israel Palestinian lives carry no value so Palestinians are deliberately targetted and killed, sometimes for reasons vaguely related to some kind of military objective, and often times for no reason at all, such as the incident I documented in post #702.

The IDF is quite specific that all this is deliberate and planned, this is not some low level local commander making poor decisions on the ground. The deliberate targetting of civilians and civilian infrastructure - "This isn't a suggestion. It's a plan that has already been authorized." - is an integral part of the IDF's strategy approved at high level. So there is a degree of pre-meditation to these attacks on civilians. They are no accident, they are an integral part of the overall plan.

Even tho' DK is posting the double think and gibberish analysed above he has the stupendous audacity to accuse others of "intentional misrepresent[ations]" - while, as we have seen, he is busy doing exactly that himself. I wonder precisely how tenuous his relationship with reality is. If he really believes what he is asking us to believe, one must conclude that DK's nonsensical misrepresentations suggest that his relationship with reality is very tenuous indeed.

One should also note that DK makes no attempt whatsoever to deny the main charge levelled against the IDF - that it is a terrorist force. Whatever way we look at it, the IDF is deliberately targetting civilian and civilian infrastructure - we have their unambiguous word for it. And that makes the IDF a terrorist force by any reasonable understanding of the term 'terrorist'.

None of that is true. The civilian areas are the same as military bases. To attack the military, they must therefore target civilian areas, because there are no military-only areas. They don't target civilians qua civilians. They target military areas that have civilians in them because of Hamas's immorality. The IDF is therefore in no way a terrorist force. They are attacking Hamas's military bases buried amongst civilians. 100% Hamas's moral responsibility. 0% Israel's. DK is right. You are wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

If that's the best you can do, subrosaDom, that is a pretty pathetic response. It contains a number of factual errors, such as:

quote:

Israeli does not target civilians to cause terror (as does Hamas) -- they do it to root out Hamas's terrorist infrastructure

Israeli General Gadi Eizenkot was quite specific that Israel does target civilians and civilian infrastructure : "From our perspective, these [civilian areas] are military bases. [...] Harming the population is the only means of restraining Nasrallah" A deliberate strategy of "harming the population", could it be any clearer? The enormous number of civilians killed and injured in Israel's current rampage in Gaza, with most independent estimates putting it at c75-80% or approx 1350 of the c1800 fatalities confirms the deliberate targetting of civilians.

Since I know you can read I know you know you are intentionally misrepresenting that quote.

He's saying Hezbollah is hiding amongst the civilian population so the IDF has to attack those civilians to get at Hezbollah.

If real lives weren't at stake, DKs post would rank as first class comedy. As it stands, it provides a revealing insight into the kind of intellectual gymnastics and double think necessary to maintain the kind of blind fanatical faith in Israel and its absolute inability to commit a mistake Dom Ken has displayed for as long as I have been posting here.

Even tho' the Israeli general specifically states that "harming the population is the only means of restraining Nasrallah", DK insists this doesn't mean what it says. Even tho' DK states that "the IDF has to attack those civilians", which can only mean that the civilians are being deliberately targetted, DK wants us to believe that doesn't mean that they are deliberately targetting them. One wonders if DK wants us to believe that the IDF are "attacking' those civilians accidentally (!?)...... when he concedes they are being deliberately targetted to "get at Hezbollah". There is no defence in law or morality that I know of that allows the deliberate targetting of civilians. In some circumstances, one can make a case in law and morality for collateral harm against civilians but not deliberate targetting.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dreamysubmale

Israel has the ability to take out the bad guys and destroy high priority targets without hurting civilians in the process. They have the technology.

If Israelis kill civilians to get to the bad guy who himself kills to further his position, then how are they (the Israelis) any different from him?

Killing the bad guy doesn't make you a bad guy. Killing civilians and innocent children to kill the bad guy does. It is also a war crime.

Hamas firing rockets on civilian areas is a war crime also without dispute.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
When a group such as the IDF is dedicated to the destruction, not just the overthrow of the government, of a nation they don't even live in and the extermination of everyone living there it's easy, there is no way to describe them but terrorists.