middle east war: who do you want to win? [Archive]

Punk Rocker

26th November 2005, 23:03

Unfortunately, the Palestinians who are actually doing the fighting do not support yours. It's ironic how so many socialists here are willing to support groups who would happily cut their throats given the opportunity, but there you go.

Remember; you're infidels too.

Dumbass. Ever heard of the PFLP? They're socialist guerillas in the PLO.

The Palestinian freedom fighters are not Al Qaeda. This war was forced on them by the genocidal Zionists who herded them off their land and into concentration camps like cattle, who smashed their homes with bulldozers and destroyed their way of life, who use small children for target practice and pose for "trophy photos" with the dead bodies of innocent people. You can be a racist in hell.

Here is a poem written to you by the average boy you call a throat-slitting terrorist because of his race.

Eye to Eye: A Palestinian poem
By Gihad Ali

Look into my eyes
And tell me what you see
You don't see a damn thing,
'cause you can't, until you try to relate to me.

You're blinded by our differences.
My life makes no sense to you.
I'm the persecuted Palestinian.
You are the American red, white and blue.

Each day you wake in tranquility.
No fears to cross your eyes.
Each day I wake in gratitude.
Thanking God he let me rise.

You worry about your education
And the bills you have to pay.
I worry about my vulnerable life
And if I'll survive another day.

Your biggest fear is getting ticketed
As you cruise your Cadillac.
My fear is that the tank that just left
Will turn around and come back.

American, do you realize,
That the taxes that you pay
Feed the forces that traumatize
My every living day?

The bulldozers and the tanks,
The gases and the guns,
The bombs that fall outside my door,
All due to American funds.

Yet do you know the truth
Of where your money goes?
Do you let your media deceive your mind?
Is this a truth that no one knows?

You blame me for defending myself
Against the ways of Zionists
I'm terrorized in my own land
And I'm the terrorist?

You think that you know all about terrorism
But you don't know it the way I do.
So let me define the term for you.
And teach you what you thought you knew.

I've known terrorism for quite some time,
Fifty- four years and more.
It's the fruitless garden uprooted in my yard.
It's the bulldozer in front of my door.

Terrorism breathes the air I breathe.
It's the checkpoint on my way to school.
It's the curfew that jails me in my own home,
And the penalties of breaking that curfew rule.

Terrorism is the robbery of my land.
And the torture of my mother.
The imprisonment of my innocent father.
The bullet in my baby brother.

So American, don't tell me you know about
The things I feel and see.
I'm terrorized in my own land
And the blame is put on me.

But I will not rest, I shall never settle
For the injustice my people endure.
Palestine is OUR land and there we'll remain
Until the day OUR homeland is secure.

And if that time shall never come,
Then we will never see a day of peace.
I will not be thrown from my own home,
Nor will fight for justice cease.

And if I am killed, it will be Falasteen.
It's written on my breath.
So in your own patriotic words,
Give me liberty or give me death.

Free Palestine

27th November 2005, 01:48

I suspect Tungsten's act of equating the Palestinian resistance to "Al Qaeda" or the Iraqi resistance stems from his deep-seated racism. In his (small) mind, all Arabs are barbaric decapitators who want to take over the world and convert everyone to their religion.

warnerraider

27th November 2005, 08:01

I don't know, but it seems that Tungsten has quite a rep. on this forum. Here's my issue:

I don't think it's fair to say the Palestinians deserve the whole area back, without any terms, without joint occupation of some sort, simply because it would do to the Israelis what we (Western Civilization) did to the Palestinians. Two wrongs don't make a right and all of that jazz. Although the zionists did some horrible shit, it was not them that carved out the territory, and it was not them who ordered the Palestinians out in the first place. It was the U.N. and all of the Caucasian fucks in our own civilization. So a little less blame on the zionists who were fighting their asses off to get that last 1 inch covered on the four thousand year road to a homeland free of persecution.

However, I think it is only fair that Palestinians get land back, and a lot of it, because it IS theirs. Personally, I think there is no correct solution to this. But let's not be close-minded here, folks. Talk to the Kurds about a homeland.

FleasTheLemur

27th November 2005, 09:13

I support who ever is more Marxist. :lol:

In all seriousness though, I think it would be great if either:

A) A new Isreali/Palestinian government was constructed, with the government becoming secular and outside of tourist destinations, all connections to religion is destroyed, including the current Isreali flag. Affairs would then be ran by the Palestine people with the Jewish people... A marriage of two ethinic peoples, if ya will.

B) The nation of Isreal is totally devoid and NO ONE runs it except the U.N. It becomes the United Nations' own little nation.

Of course, the problem is that A) has already been proposed [most people don't like it] B) something simular to this was tried in the middle ages. Plus, both the Isrealis and the Palestinians would be jointly pissed and they'd attack the UN, etc.

So, going back to the question, I support the Palestinians, but at this point I think it is impossible to just 'give back' the region to them. Two nations is going to have to be formed.

sovietsniper

27th November 2005, 11:16

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 09:18 AM
A marriage of two ethinic peoples, if ya will.

.
They tried that in yugoslavia.A great idea but cant possibly work in the current situwathion.

Nothing Human Is Alien

27th November 2005, 11:37

No, it can't work in the present situation in Occupied Palestine, but of course multiple ethnic groups can coexist peacefully.

Tungsten

27th November 2005, 14:29

Armchair Socialism

There has always been and still is a large Communist and Socialist presence in the Palestinian "resistance."
Proving my point; you'll join forces with anyone who is percieved to oppose the US (or capitalism), regardless of their credentials or what they happen to think about your ideology.

Not only that but the PLO was never a militant Islamic organisation and they have been the main "resistance" for decades.
Why limit this argument to the PLO? What about Islamic Jihad and Hamas, is there a large socialist presence in those groups, too? Are suicide bombers we frequently hear about blowing themselves up in the name of communism?

Comrade Hector

Its even more ironic that so many capitalists ***** about Islamic Fundamentalism, when they supported and funded it in Afghanistan 1978-2001, Bosnia 1992-1995, and Kosovo 1997-present.
Do you mean the conservatives? They're as almost as bad you are; generally, we have more principles and are more picky about who we choose as allies. The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend.

Intifada

And the award for the most ignorant statement ever made about the Palestinian people goes to...
You, for your inability to read: "Palestinians who are actually doing the fighting do not support yours."

Punk Rocker

Dumbass. Ever heard of the PFLP? They're socialist guerillas in the PLO.
I've heard of Islamic Jihad too, who think that communist are godless infidels.

You can be a racist in hell.

Here is a poem written to you by the average boy you call a throat-slitting terrorist because of his race.
Who mentioned anything about race? Stay away from the drugs, Punk, you're hallucinating.

"Free" Palestine

I suspect Tungsten's act of equating the Palestinian resistance to "Al Qaeda" or the Iraqi resistance stems from his deep-seated racism.
Where is the evidence of this "racism" and how did you come to such an absurd conclusion?

In his (small) mind, all Arabs are barbaric decapitators who want to take over the world and convert everyone to their religion.
Only the militant islamic ones. The communist ones will settle for firing squads. The rest don't bother me because they don't want to rule me.

dakewlguy

27th November 2005, 15:13

With Sharon out of the way perhaps a more brave leader will be elected for the Israeli's and maybe someone can finally get a decisive advantage. And whoever said egyptians arent the people in the middle: they are. They have to deal with shit from Israel and Palestine. They could maybe attack both, element of supise and all.

Amusing Scrotum

27th November 2005, 15:57

Proving my point; you'll join forces with anyone who is percieved to oppose the US (or capitalism), regardless of their credentials or what they happen to think about your ideology.

How is it "proving your point?"

You said, "Unfortunately, the Palestinians who are actually doing the fighting do not support yours."

Now a few of us have pointed out that the people who "do the fighting" do actually support "our cause."

All you have proved, is that you are a cretinous fool.

Why limit this argument to the PLO? What about Islamic Jihad and Hamas, is there a large socialist presence in those groups, too?

Why limit my argument to the PLO? ....well they are the biggest group in the "resistance." The group that does the most "resisting" and the group that has the most support from the Palestinian people.

Hamas, as far as the "resistance" goes, is pretty irrelevant.

Are suicide bombers we frequently hear about blowing themselves up in the name of communism?

Well I suppose you have to ask the bombers. I can't read minds and I doubt you can either.

I've heard of Islamic Jihad too, who think that communist are godless infidels.

There is, as far as I know, no Islamic Jihad in Palestine. At least not one that is significant.

In future, provide evidence when you make outlandish claims.

Only the militant islamic ones. The communist ones will settle for firing squads. The rest don't bother me because they don't want to rule me.

Do you think anyone in the Palestinian resistance is thinking about ruling you? ....they are likely just concerned with being able to rule themselves.

Tungsten

27th November 2005, 17:30

Armchair Socialism

How is it "proving your point?"

You said, "Unfortunately, the Palestinians who are actually doing the fighting do not support yours."

Now a few of us have pointed out that the people who "do the fighting" do actually support "our cause."

No, they don't support your cause; they support your opposition to the US and therefore Israel, but nothing else. This does not mean that they all embrace socialism as an ideology, not does differing ideologies preclude Stalinists, the so-called moderate socialists, religious radicals and even Nazis from joining forces to fight capitalism, or whatever happens to be considered capitalism.

Why limit my argument to the PLO? ....well they are the biggest group in the "resistance." The group that does the most "resisting" and the group that has the most support from the Palestinian people.

Hamas, as far as the "resistance" goes, is pretty irrelevant.

Irrelevent because it doesn't support your argument, you mean. Do you support Hamas's involvement and it's goals? Are they socialists?

Do you consider Hamas more dangerous than the US or Israel, ideologically?

There is, as far as I know, no Islamic Jihad in Palestine. At least not one that is significant.

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

Amusing Scrotum

27th November 2005, 19:11

No, they don't support your cause; they support your opposition to the US and therefore Israel, but nothing else. This does not mean that they all embrace socialism as an ideology, not does differing ideologies preclude Stalinists, the so-called moderate socialists, religious radicals and even Nazis from joining forces to fight capitalism, or whatever happens to be considered capitalism.

They are not fighting Capitalism, they are fighting for a Palestinian state.

Now if a Palestinian state is the goal of Palestine Socialists, Communists and the PLO. Why shouldn't they join forces? ....they all support the "cause" of creating a Palestinian state.

However you seem to think the whole "resistance" is controlled by Islamic extremists. Which is totally and utterly wrong.

Irrelevent because it doesn't support your argument, you mean. Do you support Hamas's involvement and it's goals? Are they socialists?

Hamas is in the main irrelevant because it makes up only a small part of the "resistance."

As for its goals, well I do support the creation of a Palestinian state. I'd actually prefer a joint Israeli-Palestinian state, but that's unlikely to happen.

Therefore as Hamas is fighting for a Palestinian state, I grudgingly support some of its actions. Though been as Hamas is a small part of the "resistance," what it does is not that important.

Do you consider Hamas more dangerous than the US or Israel, ideologically?

Well Hamas was created by Israel, so it likely has some similar ideological traits.

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

Wikipedia as a source. :lol:

Anyway from that article -

Unlike the far larger Hamas the Islamic Jihad has a smaller support base, and no real social or political role. The Palestinian Islamic Jihad was formed in the Gaza Strip during the 1970s by Fathi Shaqaqi as a branch of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad.

(Emphasis added.)

Yeah, it really looks like the Palestinian "resistance" is driven by Islamic Jihad. :rolleyes: :lol:

dakewlguy

27th November 2005, 19:27

Hamas, as far as the "resistance" goes, is pretty irrelevant.
Ahahahahahahahahahahaha

Amusing Scrotum

27th November 2005, 19:39

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 07:32 PM

Hamas, as far as the "resistance" goes, is pretty irrelevant.
Ahahahahahahahahahahaha

Do you have a point, or are you just going to be a childish sod all your life?

Intifada

27th November 2005, 20:05

You, for your inability to read: "Palestinians who are actually doing the fighting do not support yours."

Do you want to give evidence which supports your baseless accusation?

The fact is, most Palestinian resistance comes in the form of peaceful protest. The problem is, the Western media does not cover these protests, which are very often met with violence on behalf of the Israeli occupiers.

All you find out about are the rare suicide bombings against Israelis.

Everything you see and hear about the Palestinian resistance in the Western media is distorted pro-Israeli (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B30B5B6B-D04B-4156-B4EF-478CE9595E11.htm) crap, and so it's no wonder that people like you are so misinformed.

The Invisibility of Palestinian Nonviolent Resistance in the New York Times (http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article4263.shtml)

Nonviolent Resistance to Illegal Occupation (2005) (http://www.pnn.ps/english/nonviolence/nonviolence1.htm)

Lord Testicles

27th November 2005, 20:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 03:18 PM
With Sharon out of the way perhaps a more brave leader will be elected for the Israeli's and maybe someone can finally get a decisive advantage. And whoever said egyptians arent the people in the middle: they are. They have to deal with shit from Israel and Palestine. They could maybe attack both, element of supise and all.
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/map_1982.gif

If you notice Egypt is not inbetween Israel and Palestine and i doubt they will attack Israel or Palestine and thinking that way without evidance is just stupit and childish.

bcbm

27th November 2005, 20:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 02:06 AM
Although the zionists did some horrible shit, it was not them that carved out the territory, and it was not them who ordered the Palestinians out in the first place. It was the U.N. and all of the Caucasian fucks in our own civilization. But let's not be close-minded here, folks. Talk to the Kurds about a homeland.
Um... Dir Yassin? The Zionist paramilitary terror organizations were enacting a policy of ethnic cleansing against Palestinians. It was certainly Zionists that forced Palestinians off their land, not the UN.

So a little less blame on the zionists who were fighting their asses off to get that last 1 inch covered on the four thousand year road to a homeland free of persecution.

A little less blame on people who will happily switch from being persecuted to persecuting others? No.

However, I think it is only fair that Palestinians get land back, and a lot of it, because it IS theirs. Personally, I think there is no correct solution to this.

All of the land should become a single Palestinian-Israeli state, with all citizens able to move freely therein. Palestinians should have the right of return to the villages they lived in pre-48, at the very least.

---

No, they don't support your cause; they support your opposition to the US and therefore Israel, but nothing else.

I'm fairly certain that at least the PFLP and probably the DFLP are supportive of the cause of world revolution towards communism. So clearly there are some elements of the Palestinian resistance that support "our cause," wouldn't you say?

Free Palestine

27th November 2005, 21:01

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 08:06 AM
I don't think it's fair to say the Palestinians deserve the whole area back, without any terms, without joint occupation of some sort, simply because it would do to the Israelis what we (Western Civilization) did to the Palestinians. Two wrongs don't make a right and all of that jazz.

Nobody is asking Israel to 'give up' all of the land which was usurped from the Palestinians. We are however, asking Israel to withdraw from the land which it illegally occupies in defiance of UN resolutions and allow the people with an actual right to live there (under international law) to return. The refugees simply want to cement their legal right to return to their homes where they were driven from and left in the two instances of Zionist ethnic cleansing of historic Palestine.

Although the zionists did some horrible shit ... and it was not them who ordered the Palestinians out in the first place. It was the U.N. and all of the Caucasian fucks in our own civilization. So a little less blame on the zionists who were fighting their asses off to get that last 1 inch covered on the four thousand year road to a homeland free of persecution.

To respond to this I'll simply quote Benny Morris, the Israeli historian who has done the most serious archival work and is generally regarded as the leading scholar on this topic of the origin of the refugee problem. Here's his conclusion about the origin of the refugee problem: "Above all, let me reiterate, the refugee problem was caused by attacks by Jewish forces on Arab villages and towns and by the inhabitants' fear of such attacks, compounded by expulsions, atrocities, and rumors of atrocities - and by the crucial Israeli cabinet decision in June 1948 to bar a refugee return," leaving the Palestinians "crushed, with some 700,000 driven into exile and another 150,000 left under Israeli rule."

dakewlguy

27th November 2005, 22:29

Originally posted by Skinz+Nov 27 2005, 08:11 PM--> (Skinz @ Nov 27 2005, 08:11 PM)
[email protected] 27 2005, 03:18 PM
With Sharon out of the way perhaps a more brave leader will be elected for the Israeli's and maybe someone can finally get a decisive advantage. And whoever said egyptians arent the people in the middle: they are. They have to deal with shit from Israel and Palestine. They could maybe attack both, element of supise and all.
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/map_1982.gif

If you notice Egypt is not inbetween Israel and Palestine and i doubt they will attack Israel or Palestine and thinking that way without evidance is just stupit and childish. [/b]
Are you retarded? Do you have downs? Did you get any brains you had fucked out of you as a child? Is it possible for a country to be in the middle without physically being in the middle, perhaps in the middle in a conceptual way?

The answer to all these, folks, is yes.

YoUnG192

28th November 2005, 03:46

All you find out about are the rare suicide bombings against Israelis.

Rare? Asshole

justice

28th November 2005, 04:55

this discussion is becoming somewhat ridiculous.

a few points, in no specific order:

1) egypt is neither physically, nor politically in the middle of the conflict. the everyday palestinian and israeli is. If you really need to look outside of the territory of palestine and israel, look at Jordan. Egypt is home to 50,000 refugess, while Jordan is home to more than 300,000. This is a constant reason to keep jordan involved in the struggle.

2) there is most deffinitely Islamic Jihad elements operating in Palestine.

3) Hamas is far from irrelevant as long as they continue blowing things up, and killing people. Destruction and life is always relevant, even if their popular support is minor (which, i am not stating, merely entertaining the possibilty)

4) a vast majority of Palestinian resistance is non-violent and responsible; the palestinian cause is just, and resistance is also.

5) insults and degradation do not help advance this conversation, or our disclosure of knowledge; neither does making unsubstantiated, and objectvely false claims.

6) if revolution is to benefit people, and to expand freedom, social justice, and peace (as i beleive it is) then the palestinian cause is just as much mine as the israeli cause.

Finally, it is almost disgusting--as many of you have stated--to break such a complex and real situation down to a process of "picking sides." Would it not be more beneficial to discuss possible sollutions to the crisis? Or, maybe discuss some history to bring those here who are obviously severely misled in their understanding of the situation come to speed.

in closing perhaps everyone could throw out a short outline of a "leftist" sollution to this situation....we could then look at this from a realistic perspective, and discuss what oppurtunities we see to assist those like minded people who are directly involved in this conflict. go ahead and dream, imagine a perfect world, what would be, and then we will tear our dreams apart, and work together...maybe actually, acheiving something.

"I come bearing an olive branch in one hand, and the freedom fighter's gun in the other. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand." Yasser Arafat, Chairman of the PLO (November, 1974, while speaking at the United Nations)

--Justice

bcbm

28th November 2005, 06:58

in closing perhaps everyone could throw out a short outline of a "leftist" sollution to this situation

Immediately end the occupation and grant autonomy to the former occupied territories, including open borders and airspace. Bring up the material conditions in the territories to wane the need for the social aspect of the various Islamist elements. Following this, allow for the right of return and form a new joint Israeli-Palestinian state.

Tungsten

28th November 2005, 14:42

Armchair Socialism

However you seem to think the whole "resistance" is controlled by Islamic extremists. Which is totally and utterly wrong.
I never said that. I was pointing out the fact that the majority of leftists here support the Palestinian cause to the point where they are willing to join forces with Islamic fundamenatalists in order to achieve leftist goals. Ergo, leftists in general, whether they are members of the PLO in Palestine, or anti-capitalist protestors in New York, see US-backed Israel as more of an enemy than militant Islamists.

Wikipedia as a source. :lol:
I'm not too keen on the use of collectivised knowledge, but it is sufficient to make a point.

Yeah, it really looks like the Palestinian "resistance" is driven by Islamic Jihad. :rolleyes: :lol:
You've missed the point of why I posted in the first place.

Intifada

Do you want to give evidence which supports your baseless accusation?
I've given plenty; Islamic Jihad and Hamas are not socialists. Never mind the peaceful protesters, they're not fighting for anything and protesting won't make Israel dissappear.

KGB5097

28th November 2005, 15:29

Who do I want to win? A better question is "Which imperialist do I want to oppress the people of the Middle East?"

No side is right in my eyes, all have their points where they are right, and all have points where they are wrong.

Palestine deserves its 1967 borders back, I do belive that much....

And although I'm far from a Isreali supporter I do recognise that without US support Isreal and its people would be alot worse off. I consider US support in the area a good thing, but thats only discounting the real reason behind the support: a door into the middle east.

Simple fact is that the Jews are not popular people in the Middle East, they choose just about the WORST place possable for a homeland, and now they need constant protection....

Intifada

28th November 2005, 18:19

(YoUnG192)

Rare?

Yes.

Suicide bombings are very rare, compared to the nonviolent resistance that ordinary Palestinians participate in.

In fact, suicide bombings, in the context of the conflict, are relatively new to the conflict too.

The root of the conflict is, quite simply, the illegal occupation of Palestinian land.

Asshole

Ahh.

So you have nothing to add to the debate.

(Tungsten)

I've given plenty; Islamic Jihad and Hamas are not socialists.

I never stated that they were.

You stated:

It's ironic how so many socialists here are willing to support groups who would happily cut their throats given the opportunity

And that:

Remember; you're infidels too.

Nobody on this board gave support to the likes of Hamas or Islamic Jihad.

In fact, it was the Zionists that supported Hamas. They saw them as a way of undermining the authority of the PLO and Arafat.

Now, unless you give evidence that most of the Palestinian resistance would gladly "cut our throats" or view us as "infidels", I suggest you simply shut up.

Most of the resistance to the illegal Israeli occupation takes the form of nonviolent struggles.

Never mind the peaceful protesters, they're not fighting for anything

:blink:

They are fighting for nothing?!

They are fighting for freedom and justice.

I, as a socialist, support that wholeheartedly.

protesting won't make Israel dissappear.

Maybe not.

Amusing Scrotum

28th November 2005, 18:51

I never said that. I was pointing out the fact that the majority of leftists here support the Palestinian cause to the point where they are willing to join forces with Islamic fundamenatalists in order to achieve leftist goals.

What you have to ask is, are the leftists joining the extremists or are the extremists joining the leftists?

Anyway, as of yet you have presented no evidence that Islamic extremists are fighting "side by side" with the PLO and leftists in the Palestinian "resistance."

Your attempt at a rhetorical point with regards the "ethics" of the left, has, fallen flat on its face.

Ergo, leftists in general, whether they are members of the PLO in Palestine, or anti-capitalist protestors in New York, see US-backed Israel as more of an enemy than militant Islamists.

Who is "more" of an enemy, the US or militant Islam? ....well given the massive financial and military "clout" of the United States Government. I think it's reasonable to say that at this point in time, the US is more of a threat to world peace.

Militant Islam, is in the main, an urban myth.

I'm not too keen on the use of collectivised knowledge, but it is sufficient to make a point.

What point is this? ....that you are willing to make statements which lack any credible evidential support.

BorisB

29th November 2005, 12:57

I am for Palestine cause what Israel is doing is indirect genocide. The country of Israel should have never been formed what should have happened is the jews should have been re-settled after the second world war in many different countries, or they should have gone to their ancestoral homeland but then integrated with the Arabs instead of playing the hermit and only sticking to their communities. Dont get me wrong I am not anti-semitic I have many jewish and Israeli friends. I support Irans bid to acquire nukes for i think it will balance things out in the middle east and Israel wont be such a big bully. But I am also affraid that Iran may abuse their power this comes after Ahmedinejad said he will wipe Israel of the world map. That move i do not agree with.

Tungsten

29th November 2005, 14:54

Armchair Socialism

What you have to ask is, are the leftists joining the extremists or are the extremists joining the leftists?
They're working in unison.

Your attempt at a rhetorical point with regards the "ethics" of the left, has, fallen flat on its face.
Come now, you're not trying to tell me that you have morals, are you? I thought they were just social constucts...

Who is "more" of an enemy, the US or militant Islam? ....well given the massive financial and military "clout" of the United States Government.
Clout schmout. The size of the gun doesn't tell you anything about the morals of its owner.

I think it's reasonable to say that at this point in time, the US is more of a threat to world peace.
There is, and never has been any "world peace" to threaten in the first place.

Amusing Scrotum

29th November 2005, 16:07

They're working in unison.

You have provided no evidence to support this claim.

Come now, you're not trying to tell me that you have morals, are you? I thought they were just social constucts...

"Morals" and "ethics" are subjective.

All of us do have "morals" and "ethics" it's just they are different.

Clout schmout. The size of the gun doesn't tell you anything about the morals of its owner.

No, but that the American "gun" has killed far more civilians than the Islamic extremists "gun." Does tell us a lot about the owners morals.

There is, and never has been any "world peace" to threaten in the first place.

Yet it could be achieved and therefore it is fair to point out who is "more of a threat" to such a goal.

Tungsten

29th November 2005, 20:20

Armchair Socialism

You have provided no evidence to support this claim.
You might not endorse militant Islam, but you do the next best thing by offering it moral support against what you believe to be greater enemies than these militants.

"Morals" and "ethics" are subjective.

All of us do have "morals" and "ethics" it's just they are different.
So why do you prefer socialist ethics?

No, but that the American "gun" has killed far more civilians than the Islamic extremists "gun." Does tell us a lot about the owners morals.
Are morals a matter of scale? No. Does it automatically mean that those killed didn't deserve it? No, but you have assumed that it does, because your opposition to the US is axiomatic to your argument, which is the reason most of you run to the defence of militant Islamists in preference to a group that has US support.

Islamic extremists not as bad as the US, you say? Would you trust Islamic Jihad, Hamas or the Taliban with nuclear weapons? Who would be the biggest threat to world peace if those groups had them?

Yet it could be achieved and therefore it is fair to point out who is "more of a threat" to such a goal.
Who wants peace if the cost is a life of slavery or subordination to "sharia law"? Not me. I'm sure the Israelis don't either.

Ownthink

29th November 2005, 20:44

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 03:31 PM

Yet it could be achieved and therefore it is fair to point out who is "more of a threat" to such a goal.
Who wants peace if the cost is a life of slavery or subordination to "sharia law"? Not me. I'm sure the Israelis don't either.
It's too bad your dumb ass has fallen for the "global Islamic Jihad" conspiracy. It's a surpiringly small number of these militants, and it is blown way out of proportion by the fanatical right, and just with the intention of getting good little voters to fall for it and vote in the way of "national security". Looks like you fell for it!

This "movement" is BY FAR, NOT a world threat, while America, who posseses the most Nukes on the planet Earth, is much more of a threat to the peace of this planet.

warnerraider

29th November 2005, 20:58

Ownthink has a point. US military spending was 372 billion in 2003, the 2nd place country was China with 66 billion dollars. Just thought I'd throw that in.

Amusing Scrotum

29th November 2005, 21:50

You might not endorse militant Islam, but you do the next best thing by offering it moral support against what you believe to be greater enemies than these militants.

So far you have failed to prove that militant Islam and the Palestinian "resistance" are even linked.

Therefore you can't even accuse anyone of providing "moral support."

All you have managed to prove is that some of this board mildly supports the PLO and and the PFLP.

Now if you want to argue about the ethical implications of supporting such groups, then go ahead, but so far you have just made baseless accusations about the whole of the left without providing any evidence to support your claims.

So why do you prefer socialist ethics?

This is a wholly different topic. Needless to say, I possess Socialist "ethics" because I despise racism, sexism, homophobia etc.

Are morals a matter of scale? No. Does it automatically mean that those killed didn't deserve it? No, but you have assumed that it does, because your opposition to the US is axiomatic to your argument, which is the reason most of you run to the defence of militant Islamists in preference to a group that has US support.

If you notice I referred specifically to dead civilians. Now I don't know what dictionary you use, but for most people civilians mean innocents who shouldn't have been killed. They didn't deserve death.

Now as for "the left" supporting militant Islam. Again you have provided no evidence of this. If you look through my posts, you will see that I have on occasions gone to great lengths arguing against people who support the Islamic elements (as small as they are) in the Iraqi "resistance."

Now the problem someone like yourself has, or indeed the person who started this thread, is that you are determined to draw lines and make sides in complex issues. You think everything boils down to either supporting America or supporting militant Islam.

Which is a frighteningly simplistic view to take, especially as it has been shown that there are more than "two sides to the coin." Indeed I would imagine that you would be the kind of person who would say that the Israeli left supported Hamas.

Islamic extremists not as bad as the US, you say? Would you trust Islamic Jihad, Hamas or the Taliban with nuclear weapons? Who would be the biggest threat to world peace if those groups had them?

Funny that you bring up the issue of nuclear weapons. After all which country is the only country to have ever used them? ....I'll give you a clue, it wasn't "evil" Russia. :lol:

That being said I wouldn't trust anyone with nuclear weapons, though very few people are "beastly" enough to actually use them.

Who wants peace if the cost is a life of slavery or subordination to "sharia law"? Not me. I'm sure the Israelis don't either.

Here you are working on the assumption that the Palestinian "resistance" is controlled by militant Islam. An assumption that you have provided no evidence to support.

It is a fact that the Palestinian territories are some of the most liberal places in the whole of the Middle East. For instance you can buy an alcoholic drink on "holy days" and women do wear revealing clothing. How many other places in the Middle East do these things.

Yet you persist in accusing the Palestinian "resistance" of being a militant Islamic force that wants to brutalise everyone by subjecting them to their barbaric ways.

And the right calls the left "idealist dreamers." :o

Guerrilla22

29th November 2005, 23:26

Sharon's departure doesn't mean a whole lot, because his new party will simply win the March elections and he will return to power. He wouldn't have left Likud if he wasn't sure he could win. Also, contary to what they say, the zionist love it when Palestinian militants attack Israel because it gives the IDF an excuse to launch attacks.

Phalanx

29th November 2005, 23:46

Originally posted by Free [email protected] 27 2005, 09:12 PM
To respond to this I'll simply quote Benny Morris, the Israeli historian who has done the most serious archival work and is generally regarded as the leading scholar on this topic of the origin of the refugee problem. Here's his conclusion about the origin of the refugee problem: "Above all, let me reiterate, the refugee problem was caused by attacks by Jewish forces on Arab villages and towns and by the inhabitants' fear of such attacks, compounded by expulsions, atrocities, and rumors of atrocities - and by the crucial Israeli cabinet decision in June 1948 to bar a refugee return," leaving the Palestinians "crushed, with some 700,000 driven into exile and another 150,000 left under Israeli rule."
This is true, but for the most part Palestinian leaders blew the fighting out of proportion. Keep in mind, that the Arab forces also took part in attacking Jewish towns and kibbutzim, but the Israeli leadership did not spread as much propoganda to the Israeli public, thus the reason why there were no Israeli flights. The forces on both sides committed to attacking civilan targets were very much so in the minority.

There was also a large problem with 900,000 Jews that fled Arab countries following the 1948 war because of huge anti-semitic problems. These people, too, were driven from exile from their home countries, forced to give up their homes that had been in their families for many years. They were just as much victims as the 700,000 Palestinians driven from their homes.

jambajuice

30th November 2005, 01:11

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 08:12 PM
Palestine vs. Israel who gets your vote?

Can't post a poll for some reason, so write your votes here.
They both already lost.

La_revolucion_Vive

30th November 2005, 14:59

palestine would be victor when the the collapse of the USA takes place. Israel is not going to have way to defend it sefl from a multy front war against palestine, South Arebia and Egipt. all this arab country hate the Amercian for placing Israel on palestine arab land. Freacky USA Gov they think they can do whatever they want anywhere. sucks maybe thats its why we all here on the forum.

Tungsten

30th November 2005, 20:36

Ownthink

It's too bad your dumb ass has fallen for the "global Islamic Jihad" conspiracy.
I'm sure there are militant islamists that would love nothing more than world domination. Let's face it; when you have people insane enough to fly planes into bulidings, saying that these same groups desire world domination isn't too far fetched a scenario.

This "movement" is BY FAR, NOT a world threat, while America, who posseses the most Nukes on the planet Earth, is much more of a threat to the peace of this planet.
This planet is not, and never has been at "peace".

Armchair Socialism

Now if you want to argue about the ethical implications of supporting such groups, then go ahead, but so far you have just made baseless accusations about the whole of the left without providing any evidence to support your claims.

I don't call this whole thread a basless assertion. Whenever militant islam is the enemy of the US, you side with it or fight alongside it. Why?

This is a wholly different topic. Needless to say, I possess Socialist "ethics" because I despise racism, sexism, homophobia etc.
Yet you'll run to the defence of the definitely sexist, racist and definitely homophobic in preference to the US.

I don't like any of these either, but I don't support socialist ethics.

You think everything boils down to either supporting America or supporting militant Islam.
But given a choice, you will choose the latter. Why?

Funny that you bring up the issue of nuclear weapons. After all which country is the only country to have ever used them?
On who and why? How typically leftist to think that the means of conveyance is more important than the act itself.

Ownthink

30th November 2005, 20:43

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 03:47 PM
Ownthink

It's too bad your dumb ass has fallen for the "global Islamic Jihad" conspiracy.
I'm sure there are militant islamists that would love nothing more than world domination. Let's face it; when you have people insane enough to fly planes into bulidings, saying that these same groups desire world domination isn't too far fetched a scenario.

This "movement" is BY FAR, NOT a world threat, while America, who posseses the most Nukes on the planet Earth, is much more of a threat to the peace of this planet.
This planet is not, and never has been at "peace".

Armchair Socialism

Now if you want to argue about the ethical implications of supporting such groups, then go ahead, but so far you have just made baseless accusations about the whole of the left without providing any evidence to support your claims.

I don't call this whole thread a basless assertion. Whenever militant islam is the enemy of the US, you side with it or fight alongside it. Why?

This is a wholly different topic. Needless to say, I possess Socialist "ethics" because I despise racism, sexism, homophobia etc.
Yet you'll run to the defence of the definitely sexist, racist and definitely homophobic in preference to the US.

I don't like any of these either, but I don't support socialist ethics.

You think everything boils down to either supporting America or supporting militant Islam.
But given a choice, you will choose the latter. Why?

Funny that you bring up the issue of nuclear weapons. After all which country is the only country to have ever used them?
On who and why? How typically leftist to think that the means of conveyance is more important than the act itself.
Well, when you have people who are willing to lie to their entire country, start an illegal war by invading a peaceful nation, murder hundreds of thousands of people and be corrupt as can be, I don't think a secnario involving world domination is too far fetched.

Oh, Sorry about the "peace of the world" thing. I just said that because Nukes can reach globally, so yeah. ANY peace is threatened by a big ape with a few thousand nukes and an imperialist "pro America" agenda.

Free Palestine

30th November 2005, 20:43

EDIT:

Amusing Scrotum

30th November 2005, 20:49

I don't call this whole thread a basless assertion. Whenever militant islam is the enemy of the US, you side with it or fight alongside it. Why?

Maybe you are incredibly stupid, maybe you have difficulty reading. I don't know what is wrong with you, but before you can make claims like this you must first provide evidence that supports your claims.

I will ask you again, please provide evidence of the left "supporting" militant Islam.

Yet you'll run to the defence of the definitely sexist, racist and definitely homophobic in preference to the US.

Find one post I have made in defence of these things. You won't, so fuck off.

I don't like any of these either, but I don't support socialist ethics.

You think they are the only things involved with Socialist ethics. As I said a discussion on Socialist ethics is a wholly different topic.

But given a choice, you will choose the latter. Why?

Where have I chosen militant Islam over the US? ....go on search my posts.

You have to provide evidence for such claims.

On who and why?

On Japanese civilians because of a ruling class war.

How typically leftist to think that the means of conveyance is more important than the act itself.

So you are for the use of nuclear weapons if it means your side will win? ....and you have the cheek to say militant Islam would be untrustworthy with such weapons. :rolleyes:

Intifada

30th November 2005, 22:22

(Tungsten)

I'm sure there are militant islamists that would love nothing more than world domination.

There is no organised militant Islamic organisation which aims to gain control of the world.

Most, if not all, Islamic militants are fighting in their own countries against outside influence, or are fighting against other targets which are linked to the injustices they see in their homeland.

Chechnyans, Iraqis, Afghans, Saudis, Algerians that are linked to the likes of bin Laden are only aiming to gain control of their own "Islamic" lands, while anything else is not a concern for them.

They are not stupid enough to believe that they have a good chance of gaining world domination, through their terror attacks.

This planet is not, and never has been at "peace".

The USA has been the most aggressive nation/governmental organisation on Earth since the end of WW2.

The US government can easily be labeled the biggest terrorist organisation in the world, even if one takes the FBI definition of "terrorism".

Tungsten

1st December 2005, 16:30

Ownthink

Well, when you have people who are willing to lie to their entire country, start an illegal war by invading a peaceful nation,

First of all, let's stop this prattle about "illegal wars". There are no such things.
Secondly, Iraq a peaceful nation? Don't make me laugh. It tried to invade Iran 1980 and then Kuwait ten years later.

Intifada

The US government can easily be labeled the biggest terrorist organisation in the world, even if one takes the FBI definition of "terrorism".
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Armchair Socialism

Where have I chosen militant Islam over the US?
You see the US as a greater threat to the world than militant Islam. Ergo, you would choose militant islam over the US. Even if you didn't, the majority here do.

On Japanese civilians because of a ruling class war.
:lol: Oh right. And who was producing the armaments for this "ruling class" to have it's war? I'm afraid that's aiding and abetting and therefore makes you equally as guilty.

So you are for the use of nuclear weapons if it means your side will win?
I neither said nor implied that.

....and you have the cheek to say militant Islam would be untrustworthy with such weapons.
They're not. If the US wanted to nuke, they would have done it already. The militant groups I've described do not have nukes, but would be more than willing to use them if they got hold of them.

Intifada

1st December 2005, 16:36

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

If one goes by the definition of terrorism, as stated by the FBI, then the US Government is indeed a terrorist organisation.

Amusing Scrotum

1st December 2005, 17:42

First of all, let's stop this prattle about "illegal wars". There are no such things.

If there are internationally recognised codes of law governing the act of war. Then I think it's fair to say that there can be "legal" and illegal" wars.

Regardless of moral objections to war or objections to the law. At this point in time there is a consensus as to what wars are "legal" and what wars are "illegal."

You see the US as a greater threat to the world than militant Islam. Ergo, you would choose militant islam over the US.

Recognising that one is a greater threat cannot be equated to supporting the "lesser" threat.

If I say I dislike the colours blue and green, yet I dislike blue more. This does not mean I find green acceptable or that I will support green.

Even if you didn't, the majority here do.

I would like evidence that the majority of this board supports militant Islam over the US.

Oh right. And who was producing the armaments for this "ruling class" to have it's war? I'm afraid that's aiding and abetting and therefore makes you equally as guilty.

Does that mean it is correct that we "nuke" every American city that has produced armaments for the Iraq war?

Anyway, the majority of those killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not directly "aiding and abetting" the Japanese war machine.

Using your logic, the whole of the German population should have been killed post World War two for "aiding and abetting" the Nazi war machine.

Interesting logic you use.

I neither said nor implied that.

Originally posted by (me)
Funny that you bring up the issue of nuclear weapons. After all which country is the only country to have ever used them?

On who and why? How typically leftist to think that the means of conveyance is more important than the act itself.

You seem to think that nuclear war was an acceptable method to use. Therefore it isn't incredibly difficult to conclude that you would support the use of nuclear weapons if it meant your side would "win."

They're not. If the US wanted to nuke, they would have done it already. The militant groups I've described do not have nukes, but would be more than willing to use them if they got hold of them.

How do you know that they would be "more than willing to use them?" ....could you point to some evidence of militant Islam saying it would make nuclear war if it had nuclear weapons.

Besides, the "nuclear powers" have said they are more than willing to use them if the situation arises. After all, it is the whole point of having a nuclear deterrent.

Tungsten

3rd December 2005, 12:57

Intifada

If one goes by the definition of terrorism, as stated by the FBI, then the US Government is indeed a terrorist organisation.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. (Again.)

Armchair Socialism

I would like evidence that the majority of this board supports militant Islam over the US.
Read the posts in this thread.

Does that mean it is correct that we "nuke" every American city that has produced armaments for the Iraq war?
America isn't the guilty party.

Anyway, the majority of those killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not directly "aiding and abetting" the Japanese war machine.
Neither were the people in the world trade centre. Neither were the millions of cilivians killed in WW2 on both sides.

Using your logic, the whole of the German population should have been killed post World War two for "aiding and abetting" the Nazi war machine.
They *surrendered*. During the war, anyone other than those opposing the regime were all valid tagets.

You seem to think that nuclear war was an acceptable method to use. Therefore it isn't incredibly difficult to conclude that you would support the use of nuclear weapons if it meant your side would "win."
Under what circumstances? In any war, collateral damage should be kept to a minimum whenever possible, but not *****ed about when it happens. Life under people like Hitler and Saddam was pretty much a "living death" anyway.

How do you know that they would be "more than willing to use them?" ....could you point to some evidence of militant Islam saying it would make nuclear war if it had nuclear weapons.
Well, let's pretend we're terrorists trying to teach the Great Satan a lesson. Shall we hijack a plane and fly it into a buliding to knock it down, or shall we detonate a nuclear weapon and knock down a thousand bulidings?

Besides, the "nuclear powers" have said they are more than willing to use them if the situation arises. After all, it is the whole point of having a nuclear deterrent.
Would you have trusted the Spanish inquisition with them?

Intifada

3rd December 2005, 15:17

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. (Again.)

But, by the FBI's definition of terrorism, the US Government is indeed a terrorist organisation. (Again)

I don't care about the moral debate about terrorism itself, I am simply stating that technically speaking the US Government has been the most active and aggressive terrorist organisation since the end of WW2.

Unless you can refute that, shut up.

Amusing Scrotum

3rd December 2005, 18:20

Read the posts in this thread.

All I have seen in this thread is support for the Palestinian "resistance" which is made up most of groups like the PLO, which is not an Islamic group.

Your inability to produce evidence leads me to two conclusions. Either you think the whole of the Palestinian "resistance" is made up of Islamic extremists (something that can be easily disproved and has been disproved in this thread) or you are deliberately making false accusations.

Which is it?

America isn't the guilty party.

America is the aggressor in the Iraq war, just like Japan was the aggressor in the Second World War.

Therefore, using your logic it is morally acceptable in your eyes for the American population that has been "aiding and abetting" the war effort, to be the victims of a nuclear war.

Neither were the people in the world trade centre. Neither were the millions of cilivians killed in WW2 on both sides.

Have I said that any civilian deaths were justified? ....no. You are the one who has condoned the "nuking" of Japan.

This line of argument could only "hold water" if I had condoned these atrocities. Needless to say, I haven't.

They *surrendered*. During the war, anyone other than those opposing the regime were all valid tagets.

They were "valid" targets, but surely you have noticed that the allied forces tried to avoid undue civilian deaths for the most part. The main aim of the bombings during the war was to attack German military bases and armament factories.

Even the Nazi's avoided the indiscriminate bombing of civilians. They bombed ports and military bases, indeed were I live, Swansea, was heavily bombed. Not because Hitler disliked people from Swansea, but because Swansea was a city with a port.

Therefore why is it acceptable for the American military to deliberately bomb civilian areas, when for most of the war such a policy was avoided where possible.

Surely it's not because Japanese civilians are less important than European ones, because that is the only reason I can think of for you to support such an act of indiscriminate killing.

Under what circumstances?

Circumstances like the Second World War. You obviously support the use of nuclear weapons if it means your "side" will win. You support this bombing even if the opposing "side" doesn't have a nuclear capacity.

In any war, collateral damage should be kept to a minimum whenever possible, but not *****ed about when it happens. Life under people like Hitler and Saddam was pretty much a "living death" anyway.

Am I "*****ing" about the collateral damage of the American and British bombings of Germany? ....no. It is true that such collateral damage is inevitable if large scale bombing of an area is undertaken.

What I am "*****ing" about is the planned use of nuclear weapons on civilian targets. This was not "collateral damage." The whole point of dropping the "bomb" was to destroy a whole city. In fact the more civilians dead the better, was the strategy of the American military.

The distinction between "collateral damage" something which is an undesirable outcome of a military action and the planned indiscriminate killing of thousands of civilians. Is a distinction that should be made.

Indeed dropping the "bomb" can be described as an act of genocide.

genocide.

The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

(Emphasis added.)

dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=genocide)

All we would need to determine is whether the Japanese civilians were either a national, racial, political or ethnic group. Though they could fall under all of those categories.

Well, let's pretend we're terrorists trying to teach the Great Satan a lesson. Shall we hijack a plane and fly it into a buliding to knock it down, or shall we detonate a nuclear weapon and knock down a thousand bulidings?

Pretending, like believing, has no basis in reality. We are trying to determine whether militant Islam would actually use nuclear weapons. Something that can only be determined accurately by providing evidence of what they have said on this issue, not through "role playing."

Would you have trusted the Spanish inquisition with them?

I wouldn't trust anyone with nuclear weapons.

rossith

3rd December 2005, 20:32

Why is it that when somebody puts their own views accross that don't agree with the majority they get banned or restricted? Especially in the opposing ideologies forum. I just think maybe it would be a good idea to listen to everybodys views and not start an arguement about it. Let everyone express their views without banning them or resticting them (i'll probably be restricted now for saying this but i just wanted to make my point(even if i may be wrong))

(sorry this goes back to the last page, not whats been said recently sorry)

Ownthink

3rd December 2005, 20:50

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 03:43 PM
Why is it that when somebody puts their own views accross that don't agree with the majority they get banned or restricted? Especially in the opposing ideologies forum. I just think maybe it would be a good idea to listen to everybodys views and not start an arguement about it. Let everyone express their views without banning them or resticting them (i'll probably be restricted now for saying this but i just wanted to make my point(even if i may be wrong))

(sorry this goes back to the last page, not whats been said recently sorry)
Uh, everyone that is restricted is restricted to the OI forum. That is why there is so many restricted people there.

rossith

3rd December 2005, 20:51

lol i dunno what i was on about, im just talking gibberish because im sat here bored :D
(you can class me as a noob if you want, im still learning :blush: )

so if evry1 could ignore me and continue the thread it would be very well appreciated :D

Amusing Scrotum

3rd December 2005, 22:18

Just thought I'd help clear this up a bit more.

Why is it that when somebody puts their own views accross that don't agree with the majority they get banned or restricted?

From the description of the Opposing Ideologies Forum -

Restriction is a measure the membership uses to focus the debate on this site. We are a group of progressive Leftists, after all. That is about as much as many of us have in common however. We disagree on how the society we envision will work, how best to emancipate the workers and many other issues. We need to debate these things respectfully, amongst ourselves. So we restrict debate about whether we should emancipate the workers at all to the Opposing Ideologies forum.

Link (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?act=SR&f=8).

Especially in the opposing ideologies forum. I just think maybe it would be a good idea to listen to everybodys views and not start an arguement about it.

The opposing ideologies forum is here so that we can listen to opposing views. If we agree with these views we say so, however been as the majority of these views are repellent. It is only natural that we argue with those holding them. After all, this is a site to debate politics, arguing is a requirement.

Hope this helps. :)

Tungsten

4th December 2005, 00:53

Intifada

I don't care about the moral debate about terrorism itself, I am simply stating that technically speaking the US Government has been the most active and aggressive terrorist organisation since the end of WW2.

Unless you can refute that, shut up.
Seeing as the argument of the rightness or wrongness of the American government is primarily a moral one, perhaps it's you who ought to "shut up".

Armchair Socialism

Your inability to produce evidence leads me to two conclusions. Either you think the whole of the Palestinian "resistance" is made up of Islamic extremists (something that can be easily disproved and has been disproved in this thread) or you are deliberately making false accusations.

Which is it?
You seem to think that I care whether or not it's the PLO or Hamas who end up destroying/invading Israel. They're morally identical and neither have any legitimacy as far as I'm concerned. It's like arguing whether I want Poland run by Hitler or Stalin. It's a non-issue.

America is the aggressor in the Iraq war,
Just like Britain was the agressor in WW2 because it declared war on Germany first. Behave.

They were "valid" targets, but surely you have noticed that the allied forces tried to avoid undue civilian deaths for the most part. The main aim of the bombings during the war was to attack German military bases and armament factories.
Attacking bases was more effective than attacking civilians. They did not target bases because they specifically "wanted to avoid civilian casualties".

Even the Nazi's avoided the indiscriminate bombing of civilians.
Of course they didn't. As far as they were concerned, we were vermin to be exterminated.

Therefore why is it acceptable for the American military to deliberately bomb civilian areas, when for most of the war such a policy was avoided where possible.
Because people like this are cunning and count on cilivilian casualities as both propaganda and as a shield. For instance, Saddam deliberately put his palaces in civilian areas so that they wouldn't be bombed without causing a large number of casualties. Why did he do this? Because he knew that people like you would take to the streets and start screaming for the bombing to stop. It worked. You've all been suckered.

Circumstances like the Second World War. You obviously support the use of nuclear weapons if it means your "side" will win.
Fancy me wanting a free country to win over a dictatorship. The audacity!

You support this bombing even if the opposing "side" doesn't have a nuclear capacity.
Are you saying that the US airforce should have given the Japanese the A-bomb before using it on Hiroshima because otherwise it wouldn't have been "fair" on them?

Am I "*****ing" about the collateral damage of the American and British bombings of Germany? ....no. It is true that such collateral damage is inevitable if large scale bombing of an area is undertaken.

What I am "*****ing" about is the planned use of nuclear weapons on civilian targets. This was not "collateral damage." The whole point of dropping the "bomb" was to destroy a whole city.
Blow up a whole city with conventional bombs and kill thousands in the process = OK.
Blow up a whole city with a nuke and kill thousands in the process = Evil beyond redemption.

Spot the inconsistency.

In fact the more civilians dead the better, was the strategy of the American military.
Non sequiter. There were more heavily populated areas i Japan than those that were bombed.

genocide.

The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.
Then any war can be called genocide.

All we would need to determine is whether the Japanese civilians were either a national, racial, political or ethnic group. Though they could fall under all of those categories.
If the goal was to kill Japanese people, why weren't the more heavily populated areas targeted? Why weren't more bombs dropped afterwards? Why was there no land invasion and no death camps set up like there was in Germany to kill off the Jews? Where would answering those questions leave your "genocide" argument?

Pretending, like believing, has no basis in reality. We are trying to determine whether militant Islam would actually use nuclear weapons. Something that can only be determined accurately by providing evidence of what they have said on this issue, not through "role playing."
The evidence says that if they're willing to deliberately target and kill thousands of civilians by flying a plane into a building, then it's obvious that deliberately killing civilians is their goal. It follows that detonating a nuke and killing thousands more civilians won't bother them too much.

kingbee

4th December 2005, 01:23

Just like Britain was the agressor in WW2 because it declared war on Germany first. Behave.

er... slightly different. you cannot compare iraq to nazi germay, nor the circumstances in which the wars were fought.

Saddam deliberately put his palaces in civilian areas so that they wouldn't be bombed without causing a large number of casualties. Why did he do this? Because he knew that people like you would take to the streets and start screaming for the bombing to stop. It worked. You've all been suckered.

any evidence at all in this? i know not of the locations of any of saddam's palaces, but surely not all were built up in residential areas.

Then any war can be called genocide.

are you telling me every war attempts to wipe out a nation's population?

Amusing Scrotum

4th December 2005, 02:09

You seem to think that I care whether or not it's the PLO or Hamas who end up destroying/invading Israel. They're morally identical and neither have any legitimacy as far as I'm concerned. It's like arguing whether I want Poland run by Hitler or Stalin. It's a non-issue.

For decades the PLO has been calling for a two state settlement. They are not intent on "destroying/invading" Israel. They merely want a Palestinian homeland, where Palestinians can live in relative dignity.

They are certainly not "morally identical" with militant Islam and they certainly have legitimacy. Ask yourself, if a group of people drove you out of your house, would it not be a legitimate act to oppose this?

As for comparing the Palestinian "resistance" to either Hitler or Stalin. It is not only a comment that has no basis in reality, it is also a comment beyond contempt. Indeed it is one of the most ignorant comments I have ever heard.

Just like Britain was the agressor in WW2 because it declared war on Germany first. Behave.

No Germany invaded Poland. Which went directly against the Versailles (I think that's the correct name) Treaty. Not only that, but I am pretty sure Britain had an open mutual defence pact with Poland.

Germany was the aggressor.

Not only that but America did invade Iraq. Iraq had not committed an act of aggression against America or any of its allies.

Therefore America was (and is) the aggressor.

Attacking bases was more effective than attacking civilians. They did not target bases because they specifically "wanted to avoid civilian casualties".

Without a doubt attacking military bases is more effective. However only a fool would believe there is not ethical reason for not killing civilians. Not only that, but the Geneva Convention (adopted in 1864) forbids the attacking of civilian targets.

Of course they didn't. As far as they were concerned, we were vermin to be exterminated.

Unless you haven't noticed, white Christian Europeans were not the "vermin." They were the "master race."

If you look at the places in Britain that were bombed during the Second World War, you will see that these places were military bases, ports etc. Civilian deaths were a by-product of the initial act, not the aim.

Because people like this are cunning and count on cilivilian casualities as both propaganda and as a shield. For instance, Saddam deliberately put his palaces in civilian areas so that they wouldn't be bombed without causing a large number of casualties. Why did he do this? Because he knew that people like you would take to the streets and start screaming for the bombing to stop. It worked. You've all been suckered.

Where Saddam's Palace was, is not the issue at hand. Though there could be a variety of reasons for where he placed his Palace, especially if it was built pre 1990.

What is the question is the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And been as I have never heard the justification of Palaces being in these cities. It is not hard to conclude that this was not the justification.

That nearly all of the Japanese ruling class survived the war. I very much doubt that there was a policy of bombing their Palaces or that their Palaces were in places where there were many civilians.

Indeed it is more plausible that the Palaces were built in paces away from the "rabble." Rulers don't tend to like living near the "common folk."

Fancy me wanting a free country to win over a dictatorship. The audacity!

A complete evasion. Answer the question I asked -

"You obviously support the use of nuclear weapons if it means your "side" will win."

Are you saying that the US airforce should have given the Japanese the A-bomb before using it on Hiroshima because otherwise it wouldn't have been "fair" on them?

No I'm not suggesting that the Japanese should have been given the "bomb." I am pointing out that Japan was "nuked" when Japan itself had no nuclear capacity."

After all, the retention of nuclear weapons is viewed as a deterrent to other countries with nuclear weapons.

Therefore we can easily say that Japan posed no nuclear threat to America and therefore todays justification of "deterrence" can be completely discounted.

Though again, you have completely evaded the question. I'll ask again -

"You support this bombing even if the opposing "side" doesn't have a nuclear capacity."

Blow up a whole city with conventional bombs and kill thousands in the process = OK.
Blow up a whole city with a nuke and kill thousands in the process = Evil beyond redemption.

Spot the inconsistency.

We can't conclude that conventional warfare would have cost "thousands" of lives. After all, conventional warfare was not the method used.

We also can't say whether or not the Japanese would have surrendered or called a truce. They had after all, seen the defeat of their major allies. Not to mention that China was in the process of destroying the Japanese.

There are so many other possibilities, that we can't say for sure that dropping the "bomb" was the more "humane" option, that cost less lives.

We also have to look at how many civilians would have been killed by conventional warfare. I think it is pretty safe to conclude that the casualties would have mostly been military personnel, not unarmed civilians.

Non sequiter. There were more heavily populated areas i Japan than those that were bombed.

I believe Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen because they were closer to American bases. Though, you can't deny that the motive of dropping the "bomb" was too kill so many civilians that the Japanese would be forced into submission. That is and was the official line and denying it, would be absurd.

Then any war can be called genocide.

No, most wars don't plan the "systematic extermination" of a whole group. War is the "open and armed conflict" between two opposing sides. The deaths, especially the civilian deaths, are a by-product not the desired goal.

The "desired goal" of a war is to gain the "spoils." The "desired goal" of a genocide, is to kill a whole group of people.

If the goal was to kill Japanese people, why weren't the more heavily populated areas targeted? Why weren't more bombs dropped afterwards? Why was there no land invasion and no death camps set up like there was in Germany to kill off the Jews? Where would answering those questions leave your "genocide" argument?

"Why weren't the more heavily populated areas targeted?" .....I have already touched on this. The targets that were chosen, were chosen because of their proximity to American military bases.

"Why weren't more bombs dropped afterwards?" .....one "bomb" was sufficient to kill nearly all of the targeted geographic area.

"Why was there no land invasion and no death camps set up like there was in Germany to kill off the Jews?" .....perhaps there wasn't the desire for such a goal. Maybe the inevitable cost of such a venture outweighed the "desire" to inflict further suffering on the Japanese people.

"Where would answering those questions leave your "genocide" argument?" .....it leaves it in a fine state. The American Government pursued a temporary policy of genocide against the Japanese population. They may not have chosen to continue that policy, but on two separate occasions they carried out the "systematic and planned extermination" of Japanese civilians.

You don't have to continue with that policy to make it genocide. The American Government carried out two acts of genocide in Japan.

The evidence says that if they're willing to deliberately target and kill thousands of civilians by flying a plane into a building, then it's obvious that deliberately killing civilians is their goal. It follows that detonating a nuke and killing thousands more civilians won't bother them too much.

That is a plausible hypothesis. One that I personally agree with.

However, the fact remains that until there is specific evidence of this, this particular statement will remain a hypothesis. It may be a logical hypothesis, but it is a hypothesis all the same.

Intifada

4th December 2005, 12:05

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 01:04 AM
Seeing as the argument of the rightness or wrongness of the American government is primarily a moral one, perhaps it's you who ought to "shut up".
I wasn't arguing the "rightness or wrongness of the American government".

I was stating fact.

Tungsten

6th December 2005, 17:36

kingbee

er... slightly different. you cannot compare iraq to nazi germay,
Debatable.

any evidence at all in this?
That's how people like him work. They're manipulators and you've clearly been manipulated. Saddam did this back in the first gulf war. He disallowed any foreigners to leave the country, effectivelty using them as human shields.

are you telling me every war attempts to wipe out a nation's population?
Perhaps it's "Armchair Socialism" you need to convince.

Armchair Socialism

No Germany invaded Poland.
Iraq invaded Kuwait and wasn't punished for it, failed to respect the sanctions placed afterwards, failed to recognise the no-fly zone. And then there's the small matter of how it aquired all its oil in the first place- illegally.

Not only that but America did invade Iraq. Iraq had not committed an act of aggression against America or any of its allies.
It was for this reason I didn't support the war in Iraq, but on the other hand, I don't support Iraq's right to soverignty for the reasons listed above.

Unless you haven't noticed, white Christian Europeans were not the "vermin." They were the "master race."
Now, now. Let's be honest. The criterion for being a member of the "master race" was a little bit more specific than that, wasn't it?

Where Saddam's Palace was, is not the issue at hand. Though there could be a variety of reasons for where he placed his Palace, especially if it was built pre 1990.
There were plenty built post 1990 too.

What is the question is the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And been as I have never heard the justification of Palaces being in these cities. It is not hard to conclude that this was not the justification.
I wasn't talking about Japan. Besides, that strategy only works when you know that your enemy is going to worry about civilian casualties.

Indeed it is more plausible that the Palaces were built in paces away from the "rabble." Rulers don't tend to like living near the "common folk."
They provide wonderful shields, though.

A complete evasion.
It would only be an evasion if I cared what kind of munitions are used. I have made clear than I do not, providing they are used in the right circumstances.

Answer the question I asked -

"You obviously support the use of nuclear weapons if it means your "side" will win."
Under certain circumatances, i.e. total war, yes. It depends on what my "side" is, too.

No I'm not suggesting that the Japanese should have been given the "bomb." I am pointing out that Japan was "nuked" when Japan itself had no nuclear capacity."

After all, the retention of nuclear weapons is viewed as a deterrent to other countries with nuclear weapons.
It don't think it was worth waiting for that "deterrent" to arrive.

Therefore we can easily say that Japan posed no nuclear threat to America and therefore todays justification of "deterrence" can be completely discounted.

Though again, you have completely evaded the question. I'll ask again -

"You support this bombing even if the opposing "side" doesn't have a nuclear capacity."

And again, you seem to think that it's such big a issue, where as I don't. There is no reason for me to evade such a non-issue. If Japan had them, it would have used them. They would not have cared if the US didn't have them.

Though, you can't deny that the motive of dropping the "bomb" was too kill so many civilians that the Japanese would be forced into submission. That is and was the official line and denying it, would be absurd.
Sadly, that "official line" is lacking in logic. Why wasn't the biggest city bombed instead, if the goal was to kill civilians? I guess that does rule it out.

The "desired goal" of a war is to gain the "spoils." The "desired goal" of a genocide, is to kill a whole group of people.
We saw both motives in WW2.

"Why weren't more bombs dropped afterwards?" .....one "bomb" was sufficient to kill nearly all of the targeted geographic area.
What, the whole of Japan consists of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Why weren't more cities bombed?

"Why was there no land invasion and no death camps set up like there was in Germany to kill off the Jews?" .....perhaps there wasn't the desire for such a goal.
So why are you claiming that there was?

Maybe the inevitable cost of such a venture outweighed the "desire" to inflict further suffering on the Japanese people.
Or maybe it just didn't exist in the first place.

"Where would answering those questions leave your "genocide" argument?" .....it leaves it in a fine state.
Which your evidence for is a joke. There was no "planned extermination".

The American Government pursued a temporary policy of genocide against the Japanese population. They may not have chosen to continue that policy, but on two separate occasions they carried out the "systematic and planned extermination" of Japanese civilians.
I thought you said that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed because they were close to military bases?

You don't have to continue with that policy to make it genocide. The American Government carried out two acts of genocide in Japan.
Oh right. So if one Japanese civilian was shot, that's genocide. After all, they didn't need to shoot any more to "continue" it.

If I shoot one Jew and don't shoot any more, am I committing "genocide"?

Amusing Scrotum

6th December 2005, 18:47

Iraq invaded Kuwait and wasn't punished for it, failed to respect the sanctions placed afterwards, failed to recognise the no-fly zone. And then there's the small matter of how it aquired all its oil in the first place- illegally.

Do you not pay any attention to history? .....Iraq was punished for its invasion of Kuwait. Or have you forgot about the first Gulf war?

As for the sanctions, the UN inspectors have said Iraq was complying with weapons inspections and with hindsight, we can say the reason there were no weapons found was because there were none.

Now for the matter of Iraq attaining its oil illegally, well, it depends what oil you are referring too. The oil within Iraq's borders was certainly not attained illegally.

It was for this reason I didn't support the war in Iraq, but on the other hand, I don't support Iraq's right to soverignty for the reasons listed above.

The reasons you listed above, require a sovereign nation for them to be legitamte reasons. After all, how can a nation comply with sanctions against a nation, if it is not a nation?

Now, now. Let's be honest. The criterion for being a member of the "master race" was a little bit more specific than that, wasn't it?

Blonde with blue eyes was preferable, but white Christians were certainly acceptable. Arabs were even accepted if they opposed the "Jews."

There were plenty built post 1990 too.

No doubt, but evidence of Saddam's "cunningness" would be nice.

I wasn't talking about Japan. Besides, that strategy only works when you know that your enemy is going to worry about civilian casualties.

If the argument wasn't about Japan, why did you refer to it at all.

If you look at the transcript of this debate -

Therefore why is it acceptable for the American military to deliberately bomb civilian areas, when for most of the war such a policy was avoided where possible.

Because people like this are cunning and count on cilivilian casualities as both propaganda and as a shield. For instance, Saddam deliberately put his palaces in civilian areas so that they wouldn't be bombed without causing a large number of casualties. Why did he do this? Because he knew that people like you would take to the streets and start screaming for the bombing to stop. It worked. You've all been suckered.

If the placement of Japanese Palaces was not relevant, why did you bring up the placement of Saddam's Palaces. It seems you may have been deliberately trying to distort and confuse the debate.

They provide wonderful shields, though.

So?

You have to prove that the Palaces were built in certain places and the reason for them being built there, before you can use this line of debate.

It would only be an evasion if I cared what kind of munitions are used. I have made clear than I do not, providing they are used in the right circumstances.

There you see, you can answer the question if you wish too.

Under certain circumatances, i.e. total war, yes. It depends on what my "side" is, too.

Given that you hold this position, I presume you will refrain from criticising any of the "Communist" regimes for killing people? .....after all, they were only doing what they thought was right "under certain circumstances."

It don't think it was worth waiting for that "deterrent" to arrive.

I wasn't suggesting anyone should wait for Japan to develop nuclear weapons.

And again, you seem to think that it's such big a issue, where as I don't. There is no reason for me to evade such a non-issue. If Japan had them, it would have used them. They would not have cared if the US didn't have them.

Indeed if Japan had had them it probably would have used them on countries without them. There we are, the American government and you has the same ethical worldview as the Japanese regime.

Not something to "boast" about.

Sadly, that "official line" is lacking in logic. Why wasn't the biggest city bombed instead, if the goal was to kill civilians? I guess that does rule it out.

I have already addressed this. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were "bombed" because of their proximity to American military bases and of course, the weather, clouds etc.

We saw both motives in WW2.

As far as I am aware, the Allied forces did not follow a policy of genocide during the Second World War. Of course, if you have any startling evidence that would contradict this statement, feel free to share it.

Indeed for the most part, Britain, France and Russia were acting in self defense. The "quest" for the "spoils" can roughly be determined to have started around the time of America's officila entry into the war. From then on, the war can be charectorised as Britain, America and Russia's "quest" to capture Nazi scientists and Nazi science.

What, the whole of Japan consists of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Why weren't more cities bombed?

Did you read what I wrote? ....look again -

"Why weren't more bombs dropped afterwards?" .....one "bomb" was sufficient to kill nearly all of the targeted geographic area.

One bomb was sufficient to kill nearly all of Hiroshima and the same applies to Nagasaki.

As for more cities being bombed, I have already addressed this. There was no need to continue the bombing, Japan surrendered. This however has no relevance to the fact that in the planning and vomving of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the American government carried out a "systematic and planned extermination" of the people who lived in these geographic areas.

So why are you claiming that there was?

I am not claiming that death camps and concentration camps were set up in Japan. Indeed I would like you to provide evidence that I have ever made such a claim.

You won't be able to find any, because once again, you are "making stuff up."

Or maybe it just didn't exist in the first place.

There was certainly the "desire" to kill everyone in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I don't see what would make people in these geographic areas any worse than the rest of the Japanese population.

Indeed it is fairly obvious that the American government would have been more than willing to "bomb" the rest of Japan into oblivion had the Japanese not surrendered.

Which your evidence for is a joke. There was no "planned extermination".

What part don't you understand? ....in both the "bombing" of Hiroshima and Nagasaki the American government carried out a "systematic and planned extermination" of the people of those geographic areas.

It is surely not that hard for you to comprehend such a simple thing.

I thought you said that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed because they were close to military bases?

They were "bombed" because they were close to American military bases. However that is irrelevant to whether it was genocide or not.

It is like saying there was no genocide against the Jews because British or American Jews were not killed.

Oh right. So if one Japanese civilian was shot, that's genocide. After all, they didn't need to shoot any more to "continue" it.

If I shoot one Jew and don't shoot any more, am I committing "genocide"?

If you carried out the "systematic and planned extermination of an entire group." Then you would be comitting an act of genocide. However if you just "unlawfully killed" another human, you would be comitting an act of murder.

Amusing Scrotum

6th December 2005, 18:49

Oh, by the way, I am still waiting for the evidence of the "left" supporting Militant Islam.

Tungsten

7th December 2005, 17:07

Do you not pay any attention to history? .....Iraq was punished for its invasion of Kuwait. Or have you forgot about the first Gulf war?
How is that punisment? If I steal your car, is forcing me to give it back "punishing" me?

As for the sanctions, the UN inspectors have said Iraq was complying with weapons inspections and with hindsight, we can say the reason there were no weapons found was because there were none.
Now what about the rest of the violations I was talking about?

Now for the matter of Iraq attaining its oil illegally, well, it depends what oil you are referring too. The oil within Iraq's borders was certainly not attained illegally.
It belonged to foreign oil companies prior to nationalisation. It was therefore stolen.

The reasons you listed above, require a sovereign nation for them to be legitamte reasons. After all, how can a nation comply with sanctions against a nation, if it is not a nation?
Iraq isn't a nation? What is it then?

No doubt, but evidence of Saddam's "cunningness" would be nice.
Just as soon as I've seen evidence of Americas "planned extermination" of the Japanese.

If the argument wasn't about Japan, why did you refer to it at all.
I didn't; you did. It was you who started talking about Japanese palaces, not me.

Given that you hold this position, I presume you will refrain from criticising any of the "Communist" regimes for killing people?.....after all, they were only doing what they thought was right "under certain circumstances."
No, because I'm not a moral relativist.

Indeed if Japan had had them it probably would have used them on countries without them. There we are, the American government and you has the same ethical worldview as the Japanese regime.
Am I "sinking to their level" am I? :rolleyes: Only a moral relativist could come up with such an absurd notion. The fault in any dispute lies with the party who either steals, attacks or otherwise uses aggressive force against someone else. If you don't want to be bombed back, don't bomb in the first place.

I have already addressed this. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were "bombed" because of their proximity to American military bases and of course, the weather, clouds etc.
Then you immediately contradicted yourself by claiming that the bombs were dropped specifically to kill civilians as part of a genocide attempt. Make your mind up.

Indeed for the most part, Britain, France and Russia were acting in self defense.
Why is a moral relativist talking about self defence? (Was Russia acting in self defence when it invaded Poland?)

The "quest" for the "spoils" can roughly be determined to have started around the time of America's officila entry into the war. From then on, the war can be charectorised as Britain, America and Russia's "quest" to capture Nazi scientists and Nazi science.
Anti-American screed alert. Where's the evidence? (If it involves Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky or David Icke, don't bother.)

Did you read what I wrote? ....look again -
Yes, you evaded the question.

One bomb was sufficient to kill nearly all of Hiroshima and the same applies to Nagasaki.

As for more cities being bombed, I have already addressed this.
No, you haven't.

There was no need to continue the bombing, Japan surrendered.
So what? You claimed that America wanted to commit genocide. When did surrender ever stop anyone from doing that?

This however has no relevance to the fact that in the planning and vomving of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the American government carried out a "systematic and planned extermination" of the people who lived in these geographic areas.
Where's evidence that extermination of civilians was the primary goal?

I am not claiming that death camps and concentration camps were set up in Japan. Indeed I would like you to provide evidence that I have ever made such a claim.

You won't be able to find any, because once again, you are "making stuff up."
I never implied that. You're the one attempting to re-write history.

There was certainly the "desire" to kill everyone in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I don't see what would make people in these geographic areas any worse than the rest of the Japanese population.
That's a problem for you, not for me, seeing as I don't buy the genocide claim.

Indeed it is fairly obvious that the American government would have been more than willing to "bomb" the rest of Japan into oblivion had the Japanese not surrendered.
I'm sure the British felt the same about Germany; the flattening of Dresden being a classic example. But then, they're not American, so presumably they're exempt from moral judgement. There are more parrallels there than you'd care to admit.

What part don't you understand? ....in both the "bombing" of Hiroshima and Nagasaki the American government carried out a "systematic and planned extermination" of the people of those geographic areas.
Every bomb that was dropped on either side, nuclear or not was a "planned extermination" of someone or something.

It is surely not that hard for you to comprehend such a simple thing.
Probably because there isn't anything logical to comprehend.

If you carried out the "systematic and planned extermination of an entire group." Then you would be comitting an act of genocide.

"You don't have to continue with that policy to make it genocide."

As you can see, five minutes ago, you didn't think that it was necessary to have to plan the extermination of an *entire group* for it to be genocide, only some of them. So which is it? Can we have some consistency for a change.

Oh, by the way, I am still waiting for the evidence of the "left" supporting Militant Islam.
There's plenty of it in this very post; you'd support anyone, so long they oppose America. Militant Islam fits the bill nicely.

Amusing Scrotum

7th December 2005, 19:39

How is that punisment? If I steal your car, is forcing me to give it back "punishing" me?

It is what the international community deemed as acceptable punishment. You may not like what they decided was punishment, but it was what they decided.

Now what about the rest of the violations I was talking about?

You didn't refer to any specific violations, so what violations are you referring to?

It belonged to foreign oil companies prior to nationalisation. It was therefore stolen.

How did the foreign oil companies get the oil? ....through the illegal occupation and colonisation of Iraq. Indeed the foreign companies were the "thief's" and in this case, nationalising the oil was the "punishment."

Though I suspect you are the type of person who thinks Nasser was in the wrong during the Suez crisis.

Iraq isn't a nation? What is it then?

You were the one who suggested Iraq wasn't a nation -

I don't support Iraq's right to soverignty for the reasons listed above.

Indeed I have never suggested Iraq wasn't a sovereign nation, but you have. Therefore can you answer the question -

The reasons you listed above, require a sovereign nation for them to be legitimate reasons. After all, how can a nation comply with sanctions against a nation, if it is not a nation?

Just as soon as I've seen evidence of Americas "planned extermination" of the Japanese.

Originally posted by President Truman+--> ( President Truman)"It was to spare the Japanese people from utter destruction that the ultimatum of July 26 was issued at Potsdam. Their leaders promptly rejected that ultimatum. If they do not now accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air the likes of which has never been seen on this earth."[/b]

(Emphasis added.)

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Prelude_ to_the_bombings).

Originally posted by BRIGADIER GENERAL CARTER CLARKE+--> ( BRIGADIER GENERAL CARTER CLARKE)The military intelligence officer in charge of preparing intercepted Japanese cables - the MAGIC summaries - for Truman and his advisors)

"...when we didn't need to do it, and we knew we didn't need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn't need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs."[/b]

Originally posted by Dwight [email protected] Mandate For Change, pg. 380
"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."

William [email protected] I Was There, pg. 441.
(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

On August 8, 1945, after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, Hoover wrote to Army and Navy Journal publisher Colonel John Callan O'Laughlin, "The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul."

(Emphasis added.)

Potsdam Proclamation to Japan
"...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.'

(Emphasis added.)

Quotes from here (http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm).

Not only did the American government declare their willingness to "utterly destruct" the Japanese population. It also seems that the majority of the top American military officials thought that there was no "material assistance" to dropping the "bomb."

Now, can you present the evidence of Saddam deliberately placing his Palaces in areas which were heavily populated and that the reason for doing this was to "maximise civilian casualties."

I didn't; you did. It was you who started talking about Japanese palaces, not me.

You brought up the issue of Saddam's Palaces as an example of "cunningness" and therefore it's not unreasonable to conclude they had some relevance to the issue of "nuking" Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

After all, why bring them up if they have no relevance to this debate?

No, because I'm not a moral relativist.

So you are a hypocrite instead?

Am I "sinking to their level" am I?

It's "I am "sinking to their level." Am I?

.....and yes, you have "sunk to their level."

Only a moral relativist could come up with such an absurd notion. The fault in any dispute lies with the party who either steals, attacks or otherwise uses aggressive force against someone else. If you don't want to be bombed back, don't bomb in the first place.

Yes if you don't want to be "bombed" then you shouldn't bomb in the first place. However Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not "bombed," they were atomically "bombed."

You see it is the equivalent of me punching you in the arm and you shooting me in the head as a "punishment."

Then you immediately contradicted yourself by claiming that the bombs were dropped specifically to kill civilians as part of a genocide attempt. Make your mind up.

I have not "contradicted myself." The aim of dropping the "bombs" was to kill civilians, however where they were dropped was subject to other factors. Cloud coverage, proximity to American bases etc.

As I said earlier, "the Nazi's still carried out a genocide of the Jews, even though they didn't kill any American or British Jews."

Why is a moral relativist talking about self defence? (Was Russia acting in self defence when it invaded Poland?)

Do you even know what "moral relativism" is?

Anyway are you referring to the invasion of 1939? ......if so, it is the case that this was an act of aggression by the Russian government. Though, if you re-read what I wrote, you will see I said "for the most part, Britain, France and Russia were acting in self defence." "Most part," not "all of the time."

Anti-American screed alert. Where's the evidence? (If it involves Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky or David Icke, don't bother.)

Your choice of language baffles me. "Screed" is not an appropriate word in this context.

Anyway, there is mountains of evidence about America's "quest" for Nazi science. Indeed the man in charge at Nasa during the moon landings was a former Nazi official, who had a a factory built into a mountain which produced "rockets." The factory used slave labour to do this and thousands of Jews died in that factory alone.

However after the war, he was given a prestigious job by the American government and his past record was "covered up."

All three of the Allied countries (America, Britain and Russia) pardoned Nazi's of horrendous war crimes because these people could be useful for the countries and their "national interest."

Yes, you evaded the question.

No I didn't. You asked ""Why weren't more bombs dropped afterwards?" and I replied "one "bomb" was sufficient to kill nearly all of the targeted geographic area."

I answered the question.

No, you haven't.

What "haven't" I addressed?

So what? You claimed that America wanted to commit genocide. When did surrender ever stop anyone from doing that?

America carried out the "systematic and planned extermination" of the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

It was a temporary policy of genocide. What happened afterwards is irrelevant to the fact that the American government carried out a "systematic and planned extermination" of the people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Where's evidence that extermination of civilians was the primary goal?

The Japanese people will face "prompt and utter destruction."

Also given the fact that 95% of the casualties were civilians and that Hiroshima was a city of no real military or industrial significance. The only possible justification for the bombings was to inflict massive civilian casualties. Or as President Truman put it, "they may expect a rain of ruin from the air the likes of which has never been seen on this earth."

I never implied that. You're the one attempting to re-write history.

You said, "why are you claiming that there was?" I have never claimed that concentration camps were "set up." Therefore you should either provide evidence that I have made such a claim or admit that you made that statement up.

That's a problem for you, not for me, seeing as I don't buy the genocide claim.

Are you saying there wasn't a desire to "utterly destruct" the civilian populations of these cities?

I'm sure the British felt the same about Germany; the flattening of Dresden being a classic example. But then, they're not American, so presumably they're exempt from moral judgement. There are more parrallels there than you'd care to admit.

The issue of Dresden has not come up. If you desire I will pass a "moral judgement" on the bombing of Dresden. Though to accuse me of "exempting" the British "from moral judgement" when we have not been discussing the bombing of Dresden, is ludicrous.

Perhaps you would like me to pass a "moral judgement" on the Battle of Hastings too?

Every bomb that was dropped on either side, nuclear or not was a "planned extermination" of someone or something.

Even the bombing of Dresden had tactical reasons. Virtually every bombing raid during the Second World War was carried out in order to "destroy" something of military or industrial significance.

As I have shown, the goal of dropping the "bombs" on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Was to "utterly destroy" the population of those areas.

Probably because there isn't anything logical to comprehend.

:rolleyes:

"You don't have to continue with that policy to make it genocide."

As you can see, five minutes ago, you didn't think that it was necessary to have to plan the extermination of an *entire group* for it to be genocide, only some of them. So which is it? Can we have some consistency for a change.

There was a "systematic and planned extermination" of the entire group of people living in the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

As I said earlier, just because the Nazi's didn't manage to kill all the "Jews." Doesn't mean the Holocaust wasn't a genocide.

You should really refrain from making "strawman" arguments. The interested reader will "see right through them."

There's plenty of it in this very post; you'd support anyone, so long they oppose America. Militant Islam fits the bill nicely.

I didn't even mention "Militant Islam" in my last post.

As it stands, you have still failed to present any evidence that I support "Militant Islam" and anyone reading this thread, will likely come to the same conclusion that I have. That you are a liar.

I have also not issued my support for anyone in this thread or in any of my previous posts, "just because they oppose America." If this is your attempt to try and discredit my arguments, then I think anyone reading this thread will realise just how silly you are being.

Tungsten

9th December 2005, 17:48

It is what the international community deemed as acceptable punishment. You may not like what they decided was punishment, but it was what they decided.

Appeals to authority, especially ones to popularity aren't a very good way of resolving moral arguments.

You didn't refer to any specific violations, so what violations are you referring to?
Yes, I did.

How did the foreign oil companies get the oil?
They bought the land, which the people who owned it were quite willing to sell; it was useless for farming on and was therefore of little value to them. Then they drilled it using machinery and technology that the Iraqis did not have access to.

....through the illegal occupation and colonisation of Iraq.
That's a strange way of drilling oil.

Indeed the foreign companies were the "thief's" and in this case, nationalising the oil was the "punishment."
If a friend parks his car in your drive, is it his car or does it become yours?

You were the one who suggested Iraq wasn't a nation -

I don't support Iraq's right to soverignty for the reasons listed above.

sov·er·eign·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (svr-n-t, svrn-)
n. pl. sov·er·eign·ties
1)Supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign or sovereign state.
2)Royal rank, authority, or power.
3)Complete independence and self-government.
4)A territory existing as an independent state.

Just as soon as I've seen evidence of Americas "planned extermination" of the Japanese.

Originally posted by President Truman
"It was to spare the Japanese people from utter destruction that the ultimatum of July 26 was issued at Potsdam. Their leaders promptly rejected that ultimatum. If they do not now accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air the likes of which has never been seen on this earth."

Is there any parrallel between this wonderful analysis and your analysis of Gordon Browns non-speech in the other thread? I wonder. You take political bravado as if these people meant it literally. This speech could have easily been made by both Churchill and Hitler alike; all sides were willing to "utterly destroy" each other.

Now, can you present the evidence of Saddam deliberately placing his Palaces in areas which were heavily populated and that the reason for doing this was to "maximise civilian casualties."
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_human_shields/

So you are a hypocrite instead?
No, because I'm not a moral relativist. Most moral relativists are hypocrites, and you're no exception.

Am I "sinking to their level" am I?

It's "I am "sinking to their level." Am I?
Both are equally valid. Stop being a prat.

Yes if you don't want to be "bombed" then you shouldn't bomb in the first place. However Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not "bombed," they were atomically "bombed."

"They weren't shot with a .223, they were shot with a .50. Unforgivable!"

You see it is the equivalent of me punching you in the arm and you shooting me in the head as a "punishment."
Punching me in the arm doesn't kill me. Bombs do. Both kinds.

I have not "contradicted myself." The aim of dropping the "bombs" was to kill civilians, however where they were dropped was subject to other factors.
Yes, you have.

As I said earlier, "the Nazi's still carried out a genocide of the Jews, even though they didn't kill any American or British Jews."
An irrelevent anology.

Anyway, there is mountains of evidence about America's "quest" for Nazi science. Indeed the man in charge at Nasa during the moon landings was a former Nazi official, who had a a factory built into a mountain which produced "rockets." The factory used slave labour to do this and thousands of Jews died in that factory alone.

However after the war, he was given a prestigious job by the American government and his past record was "covered up."

All three of the Allied countries (America, Britain and Russia) pardoned Nazi's of horrendous war crimes because these people could be useful for the countries and their "national interest."

And so the US joined in the war in 1941 in order to capture rocket scientists whose handywork wouldn't be witnessed until 1944. Hmmm...

No I didn't. You asked ""Why weren't more bombs dropped afterwards?" and I replied "one "bomb" was sufficient to kill nearly all of the targeted geographic area."

I answered the question.
Why wasn't the "targeted geographical area" the whole of Japan? Why stop at a termporary genocide when they could have had a total one? The answer: there was no "genocide". You're just slinging loaded phrases around in an attempt to equate America with Nazi Germany. A kind of 1940's equivalent of the "Bush is Hitler" argument. Very original, but still lame.

America carried out the "systematic and planned extermination" of the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

It was a temporary policy of genocide.
Or maybe it wasn't one at all.

Also given the fact that 95% of the casualties were civilians and that Hiroshima was a city of no real military or industrial significance.

Which contradicts your claim that it was bombed because of their proximity to US bases. Do you enjoy contradicting yourself?

Are you saying there wasn't a desire to "utterly destruct" the civilian populations of these cities?
And everything else too. Funnily enough there was a similar desire on the other side of the Pacific to do exactly the same to America. Plenty of willingness, too.

The issue of Dresden has not come up.
Of course not. Because it wasn't bombed by Americans. It's a safe bet that if it has been, it would have been mentioned.

If you desire I will pass a "moral judgement" on the bombing of Dresden. Though to accuse me of "exempting" the British "from moral judgement" when we have not been discussing the bombing of Dresden, is ludicrous.
Go on, then. Please take note of my comment at the end before doing so.

Perhaps you would like me to pass a "moral judgement" on the Battle of Hastings too?
Just another power struggle between dictators.

Even the bombing of Dresden had tactical reasons.
Wasn't the German government demanding compensation for it only a few years ago? Weren't they calling it a war crime?

Virtually every bombing raid during the Second World War was carried out in order to "destroy" something of military or industrial significance.

As I have shown, the goal of dropping the "bombs" on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Was to "utterly destroy" the population of those areas.
It utterly destroyed everything of military and industrial significance too, so I guess it's okay.

There was a "systematic and planned extermination" of the entire group of people living in the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

As I said earlier, just because the Nazi's didn't manage to kill all the "Jews." Doesn't mean the Holocaust wasn't a genocide.
The British committed genocide every day during WW2, because they systematically planned the destruction of factories and the people working inside them.

You should really refrain from making "strawman" arguments. The interested reader will "see right through them."
You can't even keep your arguments consistent, so I don't know what you're complaining about mine for. Let's recap:

"Morals" and "ethics" are subjective.

So remind me: Why are you passing moral judgement on dropping the bomb and killing civilians? If ethics are subjective then why are your ethics any better than someone who believes war, genocide or racism to be correct? Where does this leave your *entire* argument, other than in a state of groundless contradiction?

Amusing Scrotum

10th December 2005, 20:56

Appeals to authority, especially ones to popularity aren't a very good way of resolving moral arguments.

Huh? :huh:

Yous said Iraq wasn't punished for invading Kuwait. I pointed out that it was punished by the UN, a punishment which George Bush snr. was more than happy with.

It really doesn't matter whether you agree with the punishment. It is still a punishment which the international community, including America, agreed upon.

Yes, I did.

Well I answered the point about compliance with inspectors and the issue of Iraq "stealing" oil. What else do you want me to discuss?

They bought the land, which the people who owned it were quite willing to sell; it was useless for farming on and was therefore of little value to them. Then they drilled it using machinery and technology that the Iraqis did not have access to.

(Emphasis added.)

How do you know people were "willing" to sell the land? ....indeed from what I've read it seems the Iraqi people don't want the oil to be privately owned.

That's a strange way of drilling oil.

Strange way to avoid the question too.

If a friend parks his car in your drive, is it his car or does it become yours?

Hopefully you realise that the colonisation of Iraq didn't happen in anyway like this. For a start the British were not friendly and they certainly didn't "ask" if they could control Iraq.

A better analogy would be if someone parks his car in you drive and then claims your house for his own. Shouldn't you then "chuck him out?"

sov·er·eign·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (svr-n-t, svrn-)
n. pl. sov·er·eign·ties
1)Supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign or sovereign state.
2)Royal rank, authority, or power.
3)Complete independence and self-government.
4)A territory existing as an independent state.

So?

How can a nation comply with sanctions if it isn't allowed to govern itself?

Is there any parrallel between this wonderful analysis and your analysis of Gordon Browns non-speech in the other thread? I wonder. You take political bravado as if these people meant it literally.

"Political Bravado?" ....threating "utter destruction" of the Japanese people not the Japanese army, sounds a bit more than mere "bravado" to me.

This speech could have easily been made by both Churchill and Hitler alike; all sides were willing to "utterly destroy" each other.

I have no doubt that Hitler and Churchill would have been more than willing to "utterly destruct" a whole group of people. They weren't "nice" men and neither was Truman.
___________

On a side note, I see you avoided all the other quotes.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_human_shields/

Though I wouldn't consider the CIA the most reliable source, I wouldn't specifically doubt this assertion.

Though an independent source would be preferable.

No, because I'm not a moral relativist. Most moral relativists are hypocrites, and you're no exception.

You are a "moral relativist" because you choose not to apply the same standards to your "team."

"You obviously support the use of nuclear weapons if it means your "side" will win."

Under certain circumatances, i.e. total war, yes. It depends on what my "side" is, too.

No doubt you would deplore the use of nuclear weapons by anyone other than your "side." Which makes you a "moral relativist" and a hypocrite.

I on the other hand, apply the same standards to everyone. Indeed it could be said that I apply exact moral truths to everyone which don't differ.

Both are equally valid. Stop being a prat.

They are not "equally" valid. One is "good" English and one is "poor" English.

"They weren't shot with a .223, they were shot with a .50. Unforgivable!"

:rolleyes:

Punching me in the arm doesn't kill me. Bombs do. Both kinds.

Strategic and precise bombing at least aims to destroy certain targets. A nuclear bomb destroys everything.

Yes, you have.

No, I haven't.

An irrelevent anology.

No it's not. You asked why other parts of Japan weren't bombed and I pointed out that there were practical reasons. Therefore the analogy is fine, because it highlights that the Nazi's only killed Jews within practical limits.

And so the US joined in the war in 1941 in order to capture rocket scientists whose handywork wouldn't be witnessed until 1944. Hmmm...

By then most military advisers would have been able to conclude that the Germans had overextended themselves. However America still didn't take part in that much fighting.

America's real involvement, the massive commitment of troops, happened towards the end of the war when the "spoils" were up for grabs.

Why wasn't the "targeted geographical area" the whole of Japan? Why stop at a termporary genocide when they could have had a total one? The answer: there was no "genocide". You're just slinging loaded phrases around in an attempt to equate America with Nazi Germany. A kind of 1940's equivalent of the "Bush is Hitler" argument. Very original, but still lame.

You don't seem to be able to comprehend that a single, or in this case two, specific acts of genocide can take place. They didn't need to carry on for it to become a genocide, that there was a "systematic and planned extermination" of a whole group of people is enough for it to be classed as a genocide.

If the Nazi's had stopped killing Jews in 1942, the previous killing would still have been a genocide.

Or maybe it wasn't one at all.

Was there a "systematic and planned extermination" of the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? .....yes. Therefore it can be classed as a genocide.

Which contradicts your claim that it was bombed because of their proximity to US bases. Do you enjoy contradicting yourself?

Are you fucking stupid or what? ....read again -

Also given the fact that 95% of the casualties were civilians and that Hiroshima was a city of no real military or industrial significance.

How does this contradict anything? .....the targets were selected because they were close to American military bases and not because they had any significance to the Japanese army. The aim of the bombings was therefore to kill as many civilians as possible. Why else would you bomb two cities of no significance.

And everything else too.

So you are now admitting that the American government wanted to "utterly destruct" the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? ....because this is what is called a genocide.

Funnily enough there was a similar desire on the other side of the Pacific to do exactly the same to America. Plenty of willingness, too.

So what? .....I haven't said the Japanese rulers were nice people. They did all kinds of horrendous things in China during the war and would have more than likely done the same to the American people given half a chance.

However all you are "proving" here, is that the American government was just as bad.

Of course not. Because it wasn't bombed by Americans. It's a safe bet that if it has been, it would have been mentioned.

Are you really that dull to believe that the only reason I would bring something up is because it involves America? ....I think you may have a "persecution complex" of sorts.

Anyway, America was involved in the bombing and only bad weather prevented the American air force from participating more.

Go on, then. Please take note of my comment at the end before doing so.

Personally I find the "firebombing" of Dresden reprehensible. Despite the bombing being legitimate, in the sense that destroying the railway links served to help the Soviet advance. The excessive force used was despicable.

The difference between Dresden and Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is that there were legitimate targets in Dresden and while the recklessness of the bombing, does in my opinion constitute a war crime. The bombing cannot be called a genocide, because the aim of the bombing was not to inflict massive civilian casualties.

Unlike in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there was no "systematic and planned extermination" of civilians involved in the bombing of Dresden.

Just another power struggle between dictators.

There was of course the un-gentlemanly methods used by William the conqueror. Though, what happened 1000 years ago is not relevant to todays world. What happened 60 years ago, is.

Wasn't the German government demanding compensation for it only a few years ago? Weren't they calling it a war crime?

They may well have done that and I think the recklessness of the bombing may well make it a war crime. Though if I recall properly there is some legal trouble because the specific conventions were written after the bombing.

At the very least the British, American and Russian governments should issue an official apology.

It utterly destroyed everything of military and industrial significance too, so I guess it's okay.

There was nothing of military or industrial "significance" in either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Indeed even if there were things of "significance," the aim of the bombing was to kill civilians.

The British committed genocide every day during WW2, because they systematically planned the destruction of factories and the people working inside them.

You see you are making "strawman" arguments. The factories were the targets, the civilians deaths were a by-product. In Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the civilians were the targets.

You can't even keep your arguments consistent, so I don't know what you're complaining about mine for. Let's recap:

My arguments have been consistent all along.

So remind me: Why are you passing moral judgement on dropping the bomb and killing civilians? If ethics are subjective then why are your ethics any better than someone who believes war, genocide or racism to be correct? Where does this leave your *entire* argument, other than in a state of groundless contradiction?

I'm not passing a "moral judgement." I am saying that the "bombing" of Hiroshima and Nagasaki fit under the definition of genocide. A definition is not subjective.

It doesn't matter whether someone "agrees" with genocide or not, that is a subjective question. Whether something fits under a definition, is an objective question.

For instance, 2 + 2 = 4, that is an objective statement. Whether it is "nice" or "right" that 2 + 2 = 4 is a purely subjective question.

Tungsten

11th December 2005, 14:10

How do you know people were "willing" to sell the land?
I've just said; it was no good for farming.

....indeed from what I've read it seems the Iraqi people don't want the oil to be privately owned.
It's too late once you've sold it.

Strange way to avoid the question too.
No question was avoided.

Hopefully you realise that the colonisation of Iraq didn't happen in anyway like this. For a start the British were not friendly and they certainly didn't "ask" if they could control Iraq.
A better analogy would be if someone parks his car in you drive and then claims your house for his own. Shouldn't you then "chuck him out?"
By all means. As soon as valid proof of theft is offered and the original owners are found.

"Political Bravado?" ....threating "utter destruction" of the Japanese people not the Japanese army, sounds a bit more than mere "bravado" to me.
You need to get out more.

I have no doubt that Hitler and Churchill would have been more than willing to "utterly destruct" a whole group of people. They weren't "nice" men and neither was Truman.
Then why does Truman warrant such special attention?

On a side note, I see you avoided all the other quotes.
Superb sources; very neutral. Irrelevent too.

Though I wouldn't consider the CIA the most reliable source, I wouldn't specifically doubt this assertion.
I'd say the same about Eisenhower.

Though an independent source would be preferable.
Like who, FDR's wife?

You are a "moral relativist" because you choose not to apply the same standards to your "team."
I do.

No doubt you would deplore the use of nuclear weapons by anyone other than your "side."
I support which ever side is the victim of aggression. I do not support dictatorships who attack other countries, nor do I support regimes who illegally nationalise private property and then invade other countries. It's not always a black and white affair, but I'll side with whichever side is "whiter".

Which makes you a "moral relativist" and a hypocrite.
You really are completely stupid. You can't tell the difference between an aggressor and a victim; you only see "violence". The "gulity" party to you is the one who comes off worse, drops the most bombs, drops the biggest bombs, whether it be the aggressor or the victim who does the dropping. The fallaciousness of this moral viewpoint should not need explaining.

I on the other hand, apply the same standards to everyone. Indeed it could be said that I apply exact moral truths to everyone which don't differ.
You treat aggressor and victims as if they were morally equal.

They are not "equally" valid. One is "good" English and one is "poor" English.
It isn't.

"They weren't shot with a .223, they were shot with a .50. Unforgivable!"

:rolleyes:
Damn right : " :rolleyes: " Your comparison was lame.

Strategic and precise bombing at least aims to destroy certain targets. A nuclear bomb destroys everything.
Precision bombing in WW2 wasn't very precise. Given the above comments on the moral sanction granted to the victim, this is irrelevent.

No it's not. You asked why other parts of Japan weren't bombed and I pointed out that there were practical reasons. Therefore the analogy is fine, because it highlights that the Nazi's only killed Jews within practical limits.
You're saying that the capacity to bomb every Japanese City didn't exist?

How does this contradict anything? .....the targets were selected because they were close to American military bases and not because they had any significance to the Japanese army. The aim of the bombings was therefore to kill as many civilians as possible. Why else would you bomb two cities of no significance.
If they were close to US bases, then they obviously did have significance.

So what? .....I haven't said the Japanese rulers were nice people. They did all kinds of horrendous things in China during the war and would have more than likely done the same to the American people given half a chance.
So you're now admitting that would have done the same.

However all you are "proving" here, is that the American government was just as bad.
There's that moral relativism of yours again.

Are you really that dull to believe that the only reason I would bring something up is because it involves America? ....I think you may have a "persecution complex" of sorts.
Gee...I wonder. :rolleyes:

Anyway, America was involved in the bombing and only bad weather prevented the American air force from participating more.
Yeah, right.

Personally I find the "firebombing" of Dresden reprehensible. Despite the bombing being legitimate, in the sense that destroying the railway links served to help the Soviet advance. The excessive force used was despicable.
On what grounds was it excessive? This is a war we're talking about.

The difference between Dresden and Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is that there were legitimate targets in Dresden and while the recklessness of the bombing, does in my opinion constitute a war crime. The bombing cannot be called a genocide, because the aim of the bombing was not to inflict massive civilian casualties.
We can't be sure of that. Some say it was revenge for the flattening of Coventry.

Unlike in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there was no "systematic and planned extermination" of civilians involved in the bombing of Dresden.
The bombing was planned and the bombs exterminated people.

At the very least the British, American and Russian governments should issue an official apology.
For what? They didn't start the war (although Russia was partially to blame). *All* blame should go to the *aggressor*.

There was nothing of military or industrial "significance" in either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Indeed even if there were things of "significance," the aim of the bombing was to kill civilians.
What about the proximity to US bases you mentioned?

I'm not passing a "moral judgement." I am saying that the "bombing" of Hiroshima and Nagasaki fit under the definition of genocide. A definition is not subjective.
But presumably, you're saying that genocide is morally wrong.

For instance, 2 + 2 = 4, that is an objective statement. Whether it is "nice" or "right" that 2 + 2 = 4 is a purely subjective question.
2 + 2 = 4 does not have any moral consequences, so it cannot be "nice" or (morally)"right". Bombing, on the other hand, does.

Amusing Scrotum

11th December 2005, 17:50

I've just said; it was no good for farming.

That doesn't automatically mean that the person was "willing" to sell it. After all, who knows what kind of pressure was put on these people by the various despotic rulers in Iraq.

It's too late once you've sold it.

You can buy it back. Or of course if the sale was the result of a government agency forcing the person to sell to a private company, there is a good chance you could get it back through the legal process.

I think this does show your economic irrationality. Nationalised oil and the profits from it, would do a great amount to help rebuild Iraq and bring it into the 21st century.

Though because this contradicts whichever brand over libertarian blather you follow, you oppose it fully.

No question was avoided.

How is, "That's a strange way of drilling oil." An answer to this, "How did the foreign oil companies get the oil? ....through the illegal occupation and colonisation of Iraq."

By all means. As soon as valid proof of theft is offered and the original owners are found.

I would imagine there is mountains of proof with regards what the British stole from Iraq. There is lots of proof of all of the "Empires" theft and from this statement, I suppose you must support giving the former colonies massive amounts of compensation?

You need to get out more.

I need to get out more? .....I can listen to political speeches on the television and never in my lifetime have I heard a political leader threaten a whole people with "utter destruction."

Do you maybe think when Hitler was banging on about killing the Jews, this was "political bravado" or when some Muslim crackpot shouts "death too the west" that this is mere "bravado."

Certainly from earlier statements it is clear you take statements by militant Islam at face value, so why is President Truman not believable?

Then why does Truman warrant such special attention?

Well after all Truman did make the speech and he did give the orders to "utterly destruct" parts of Japan.

As far as I am aware, Churchill never gave such a speech and even if he did, he never gave the order to destroy a whole geographic area.

Superb sources; very neutral. Irrelevent too.

How are they irrelevant? .....because you decided that they are?

I'd say the same about Eisenhower.

Though I didn't just quote Eisenhower now did I? .....I quoted William Leahy, and Brigadier General Carter Clarke as well.

Like who, FDR's wife?

No just an independent source. You are aware that the CIA can't be considered an independent source, aren't you?

I do.

No, you don't.

I support which ever side is the victim of aggression. I do not support dictatorships who attack other countries, nor do I support regimes who illegally nationalise private property and then invade other countries. It's not always a black and white affair, but I'll side with whichever side is "whiter".

Yet you "support" America in the second Gulf war, when Iraq had not acted aggressively.

I suspect you probably supported the contras as well. After all they subscribe to economic theories similar to yours and that is what your "support" is all about. Do they fit you economic ideology.

You really are completely stupid. You can't tell the difference between an aggressor and a victim; you only see "violence". The "gulity" party to you is the one who comes off worse, drops the most bombs, drops the biggest bombs, whether it be the aggressor or the victim who does the dropping. The fallaciousness of this moral viewpoint should not need explaining.

I can tell the difference between an aggressor and a victim. Yet I can also see the point when the victim becomes the aggressor.

For instance after the second World War, thousands of Russian troops took pleasure in raping most of the women of Berlin. I won't write this off as Russia being the "victim." I will say quite clearly that such an act is deplorable.

Your stance, no doubt, would lead you to support concentration camps, torture, rape, pillage etc. all as long as it was the "victim" who was doing it.

You treat aggressor and victims as if they were morally equal.

No I don't. The "victim" will have my sympathy until it goes out of its way to become the "aggressor."

It isn't.

Yes it is.

Damn right : " :rolleyes: " Your comparison was lame.

You make a silly rhetorical statement. How else am I going to reply?

Precision bombing in WW2 wasn't very precise. Given the above comments on the moral sanction granted to the victim, this is irrelevent.

Obviously the technology was still very primitive and many mistakes were made. However there is a difference between trying to destroy a target and mistakingly missing it and killing civilians and deciding that killing civilians is the aim.

You're saying that the capacity to bomb every Japanese City didn't exist?

No, I'm saying certain targets were more practical. If memory serves me correctly there was a short list of various cities that could be bombed.

If they were close to US bases, then they obviously did have significance.

They had no significance to the Japanese war effort.

Hiroshima had absolutely nothing of significance and Nagasaki had a couple of ports.

So you're now admitting that would have done the same.

I never denied that the Japanese would have dropped the "bomb" given half a chance.

However this line of debate is pure speculation and has no relevance to what we're discussing.

There's that moral relativism of yours again.

You know chucking phrases around is no substitute for actually putting forward a coherent debate.

Gee...I wonder. :rolleyes:

You really think the only reason I am making this argument is because it involves America?

Yeah, right.

Originally posted by Emphasis added.+--> (Emphasis added.)The bombing of Dresden by the British Royal Air Force (RAF) and the United States Army Air Force (USAAF) between February 13 and February 15, 1945 remains one of the more controversial events of World War II.[/b]

Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II).

Emphasis added.
1. The city of Dresden was subject to two fierce attacks by British bombers on the night of 13/14 February 1945, followed the next day by two further attacks by American bombers. The attacks are rightly seen as the high point of the strategic air war in Europe. Ill chance played a role in sealing Dresden’s fate. The head of the RAF’s Bomber Command, Arthur Harris, anticipating the complications that such a long-range attack would probably entail, sent double the number of planes in the second wave of the attack. Dresden itself was ill-prepared for the attack. Flak batteries had been removed to the Eastern front and Dresden citizens had the illusion that their city would escape the fate of so many other German towns. German defence fighters remained grounded and the first attacking wave had unusually good weather, so that marking the target was achieved without hindrance.

Link (http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.org/evidence/evans005.asp#5.2a).

"Yeah, right" indeed.

On what grounds was it excessive? This is a war we're talking about.

This is of course a point of view as to whether one considers the bombing of Dresden excessive or not. If you wish to formulate an opinion I suggest you read up on the subject because you're denial of American involvement suggests you know very little on the subject.

We can't be sure of that. Some say it was revenge for the flattening of Coventry.

Indeed some do say it was a "revenge" attack. However the evidence for this is very thin and there is a lot of official evidence which shows it was an attack aimed at destroying important strategical targets.

The bombing was planned and the bombs exterminated people.

The bombing was planned, however the plan of the bombing was not to "exterminate" civilians. Civilian deaths were a by-product.

For what? They didn't start the war (although Russia was partially to blame). *All* blame should go to the *aggressor*.

How was Russia partially to blame? .....here you are showing your ideological bias. Russia signed a "peace pact" with the Germans after the "western" countries had signed a peace pact.

I do find this un-ethical, however Russia was not the aggressor. Indeed if you look at the rise of fascism during the thirties, it was Russia who supported most of the anti-fascist movements.

Russia supported the Republicans in Spain when Britain and France refused. Russia supported the German Communists who opposed Hitler while the "western" powers were happily dealing with Hitler.

Indeed while Russia's support may not have been extraordinary, it was one of the few countries actually supporting anti-fascist groups.

As for all blame going to the aggressor. In the case of Dresden the war was nearly over and the Allied forces were by this point acting as the aggressor.

What about the proximity to US bases you mentioned?

What about it? .....they were close to US bases which meant the bombing missions could be carried out more effectively. That is irrelevant to whether it was a genocide or not.

But presumably, you're saying that genocide is morally wrong.

I do consider genocide "morally wrong." However that again is irrelevant to whether the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki can fit under an a-moral definition of genocide.

2 + 2 = 4 does not have any moral consequences, so it cannot be "nice" or (morally)"right". Bombing, on the other hand, does.

A definition of genocide has no moral consequences. A definition is an a-moral thing, just like a mathematical equation.

James

12th December 2005, 00:29

just some minor points....

How was Russia partially to blame? .....here you are showing your ideological bias. Russia signed a "peace pact" with the Germans after the "western" countries had signed a peace pact.

Well arguably they were all "partially to blame". Indeed you could even argue that signing the peace treaty to end WW1, "partly" explains WW2 (for not finishing off what had been started, one way or another).

Russia definately played apart in the early aspect of the war, and nazi aggression.
They (stalin and hitler) agreed to divide poland up between them.
Now that is rather different, and at the same time similar, to the peace treaties signed by the other allies.

the point being all played a part in one way or another.

But yes, such "debates" are usually highly partisan (like most history), and generally arn't terribly productive.

Simily with the dropping of the ABomb. It is reasonably easy to argue that both cities had military significance. Not specifically, but more the action;
+ military/political reasons - e.g. to force a jap surrender, to prevent further allied loss of life [it was after all a war], and to also influence what was feared to be soviet influence
+ you could also argue that it had military/technological importance, to see the effect of new military technology. indeed iraq could be explained in part as thus [as a testing ground for new technology, and the effectiveness of Network Centric Warfare].

But as with most historical matters, it is often easy to argue anything!

Amusing Scrotum

12th December 2005, 00:56

Well arguably they were all "partially to blame".

Indeed the British, French and American indifference to fascism is not something that deserves applause. Neither is Stalin's underfunding and lack of commitment towards the Republicans in Spain.

Indeed you could even argue that signing the peace treaty to end WW1 "partly" explains WW2 (for not finishing off what had been started, one war or another).

The strict sanctions placed on Germany may well have been a factor in the rise of nationalism. Though German pride alone, is definitely not the reason the Nazi Party came to power. It's not even a significant factor.

Russia were definately played apart in the early aspect of the war. They (stalin and hitler) agreed to divide poland up between them. Now that is rather different to the peace treaties signed by the other allies.

Russia also invaded Finland if memory serves me correctly.

Though it should be noted that Britain and France already had colonies. Attaining more colonies wasn't a priority and given the strength of the British and French empires they would not have needed Germany's "permission."

Though I think the invasion of Poland was likely a secondary factor. Accepting and making peace with fascism is what is important and it is morally and ethically reprehensible.

Especially considering that Stalin would have known full well what the Nazi Party had done to German Communists and no doubt the Western "powers" would have known about some of the Nazi's crimes as well.

But yes, such "debates" are usually highly partisan (like most history), and generally arn't terribly productive.

I've tried to keep the debate about Hiroshima and Nagasaki in a un-biased manner. I am not debating the "morals" of genocide or Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I am just outlining how Hiroshima and Nagasaki fit under the definition of genocide.

Simily with the dropping of the ABomb. It is reasonably easy to argue that both cities had military significance.

Nagasaki had a few ports, Hiroshima had nothing of significance.

Not specifically, but more the action (for military/political reasons - e.g. to force a jap surrender, to prevent further allied loss of life [it was after all a war],

If you read the quotes page I linked, you'll see most of the top American military personnel thought that Japanese surrender could be achieved without the "bombing" of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and without the need of a land invasion.

and to also influence what was feared to be soviet influence;

A lot of people (Tony Benn included) think that the main reason for the "bombing" of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to "scare" the Russians.

....and the best way to "scare" the Russians would be to kill as many Japanese civilians as possible.

The subsequent "arms race" does add weight to this "line of thought."

you could also argue that it had military/technological importance, to see the effect of new military technology.

Most of the scientists involved with the "Manhattan Project" have said the consequences of dropping "the bomb" were known before the "bombing" of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

indeed iraq could be explained in part as thus [as a testing ground for new technology, and the effectiveness of Network Centric Warfare]).

That could well be a factor, but I'd bet it has more to do with advancing American economic and military influence within the region.

Indeed our resident "hawk" "Capitalist Imperial" says this is the reason he supports the war. To strengthen the "empire." :o

But as with most historical matters, it is often easy to argue anything!

Yes you can argue anything, but what counts is what you can prove.

James

12th December 2005, 01:24

The strict sanctions placed on Germany may well have been a factor in the rise of nationalism. Though German pride alone, is definitely not the reason the Nazi Party came to power. It's not even a significant factor.

Well i was actually stating that it is possible to argue that the fact that the war was simply stopped, and not concluded, could well have been "partly" to blame for WW2.
But yes, i quite agree the reperations were also another "factor" in my opinion.

I think that pride also had alot to do with it (although again i'd like to point out that my point was simply that you could even argue that WW2 was caused by WW1 peace treaty: in that it ended, but did not conclude the war). for example, it made nationalism more appealing. Which obviously had an effect on the appeal of nationalist parties in general.

Your use of the phrase "significant factor" is significant. As i will show a little later on.

Russia also invaded Finland if memory serves me correctly.
Yes i remember it well too!
;)

This is very true. I was simply pointing out that russia allied with germany, and participated in joint aggression, very early on in the war.

Though it should be noted that Britain and France already had colonies. Attaining more colonies wasn't a priority and given the strength of the British and French empires they would not have needed Germany's "permission."

Well not really. Because i was merely "balancing" the argument by pointing out that russia can be "blaimed" too.

Though I think the invasion of Poland was likely a secondary factor. Accepting and making peace with fascism is what is important and it is morally and ethically reprehensible.

again i will come back to this.

Especially considering that Stalin would have known full well what the Nazi Party had done to German Communists and no doubt the Western "powers" would have known about some of the Nazi's crimes as well.

well i think there was a strong degree of "Realism" in the equation.

I've tried to keep the debate about Hiroshima and Nagasaki in a un-biased manner. I am not debating the "morals" of genocide or Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I am just outlining how Hiroshima and Nagasaki fit under the definition of genocide.

jolly good. Even though it is impossible to be completely unpartisan/unbiased with history, i strongly believe that one should at least strive to not to be (as it forces you to think about your own argument, and how it may be wrong).

Nagasaki had a few ports, Hiroshima had nothing of significance.

True: you shall note that i stated no specific targets.

If you read the quotes page I linked, you'll see most of the top American military personnel thought that Japanese surrender could be achieved without the "bombing" of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and without the need of a land invasion.

Doesn't change the fact that this was a factor though. Although i take your point onboard. Suffice to say, it is an area of much academic debate.

A lot of people (Tony Benn included) think that the main reason for the "bombing" of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to "scare" the Russians.

....and the best way to "scare" the Russians would be to kill as many Japanese civilians as possible.

The subsequent "arms race" does add weight to this "line of thought."

exactly.

Most of the scientists involved with the "Manhattan Project" have said the consequences of dropping "the bomb" were known before the "bombing" of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Well i'll confess that i havn't read much of the thread, so don't know if you have posted links. I think i remember reading something about this though (i think history today had a debate about this issue a few years ago, if so, this was probably where i read the above).

Either way though. Things need to be tested (i'm not "justifying" the bombs, merely stating that theory often needs to be tested): the a bomb wasn't anything special from this purely rational train of thought (although morally of course it is a different affair).

That could well be a factor, but I'd bet it has more to do with advancing American economic and military influence within the region.

Indeed our resident "hawk" "Capitalist Imperial" says this is the reason he supports the war. To strengthen the "empire."

Yes, and no doubt he is of very little significance in the grand scheme of things (can anyone be so, whom spends so much time online?).

Yes you can argue anything, but what counts is what you can prove.

this is what i said that i would come back to.

Yes, obviously it is important to give supporting evidence, and weigh the pros and cons of each argument in light of the evidence blah blah blah

But in reality there are political and logistical problems.
It requires an ability to survey all the evidence

so:
+ how do you collect it all? How do you know what constitutes evidence? Obviously this is never done. Historians are selective. Logistics force the selective collection of evidence. Selective collection is political.

+ how do you judge all the evidence?
Simily, on what grounds do you judge the individual factors? What makes a factor, a "significant factor"?

It requires a manner of ordering factors in importance.
Historiography demonstrates how such "ordering" is, again, political.

So:
history is selective.
It is political.
With evidence it is possible to argue anything (it being "proven" by the evidence).

Amusing Scrotum

12th December 2005, 03:35

Well i was actually stating that it is possible to argue that the fact that the war was simply stopped, and not concluded, could well have been "partly" to blame for WW2.
But yes, i quite agree the reperations were also another "factor" in my opinion.

I think that pride also had alot to do with it (although again i'd like to point out that my point was simply that you could even argue that WW2 was caused by WW1 peace treaty: in that it ended, but did not conclude the war). for example, it made nationalism more appealing. Which obviously had an effect on the appeal of nationalist parties in general.

I get what your saying, and I suppose it makes sense.

For instance during the "middle ages" the English didn't manage to "conclude" their wars against either the Scottish, Irish or French. Therefore those conflicts carried on "flaring up."

Where as they did conclude their war against the Welsh and Wales has remained pretty docile ever since.
________

Though what can't be overlooked is the significance of the workers uprising after the second world war and the strength of the German Communist Party. The "nationalist movement" which was later adopted by the rich and powerful, originally gained momentum by "opposing" the "reds."

This is very true. I was simply pointing out that russia allied with germany, and participated in joint aggression, very early on in the war.

....and there is no defence for that. I'm not in the business of defending Russia anyway, so I'm not going to excuse her invasions.

However on balance, I think it's fair to say that during the thirties Russia was the only country seriously taking notice of and opposing fascism.

well i think there was a strong degree of "Realism" in the equation.

Indeed, if I remember correctly Stalin was convinced that the western "powers" would back or even participate in a German invasion of Russia. He also refused to accept communications from the British government during the early stages of the because of this.

However this "paranoia" considering the "murky world" of early twentieth century European politics.

True: you shall note that i stated no specific targets.

You did note it. However I still think it is something that is all to often overlooked, so I keep "banging on about it."

Suffice to say, it is an area of much academic debate.

It is a pitty that much of the debate remains on an academic level. It's one of those things I think everyone should think about. After all, Trident is about to be renewed.

exactly.

So you more or less agree that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a "systematic and planned extermination" of a whole group of people. Which technically makes them an act of genocide.

Either way though. Things need to be tested (i'm not "justifying" the bombs, merely stating that theory often needs to be tested): the a bomb wasn't anything special from this purely rational train of thought (although morally of course it is a different affair).

I'm pretty sure they did test the bombs on an uninhabited island and they knew the effects of the radiation due to tests on pigs. I've seen the film of the testing of those pigs and it is not an easy watch.

Therefore most of the scientists from the "Manhattan Project" were completely disgusted when a defencive weapon (created in case Nazi Germany had one) was used in an aggressive manner against a country which posed no nuclear threat.

Yes, and no doubt he is of very little significance in the grand scheme of things (can anyone be so, whom spends so much time online?).

I spend most of my time online and I am definitely of very little significance. :( :lol:

But in reality there are political and logistical problems.
It requires an ability to survey all the evidence

Most definitely. Even academics can only present a sample. Presenting the "full picture" is impossible.

Therefore, everything is subjective but we should still strive to present objective conclusions.

Though in this case, the debate starts from a very objective standpoint. A definition and whether an event fits under this definition.
__________

On a side note, how's University life?

James

12th December 2005, 10:24

I get what your saying, and I suppose it makes sense.

my point was basically that anything can be said to have "partly" caused something.

The "nationalist movement" which was later adopted by the rich and powerful, originally gained momentum by "opposing" the "reds."

true true (and also the working class/middle class who felt left out/angered by the socialists).
Hayek talks about this in his Road to Serfdom.

It is a pitty that much of the debate remains on an academic level

aye well of course, what i meant by that, was that it is an area of debate, which i have no intention of getting into!

So you more or less agree that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a "systematic and planned extermination" of a whole group of people. Which technically makes them an act of genocide.

aye; as was alot of ww2 actions!

I'm pretty sure they did test the bombs on an uninhabited island and they knew the effects of the radiation due to tests on pigs. I've seen the film of the testing of those pigs and it is not an easy watch.

Therefore most of the scientists from the "Manhattan Project" were completely disgusted when a defencive weapon (created in case Nazi Germany had one) was used in an aggressive manner against a country which posed no nuclear threat.

i'm sure you know what i mean by the fact they had to test it properly.

On a side note, how's University life?

aye its all right. Sadly i'm suffering from self inflicted pain though. i have a week to do four essays in :(
Hows you?

Tungsten

12th December 2005, 17:55

Armchair Socialism

I think this does show your economic irrationality. Nationalised oil and the profits from it, would do a great amount to help rebuild Iraq and bring it into the 21st century.
Nationalisation is economically irrational and there is no reason why the private sector cannot do this.

Though because this contradicts whichever brand over libertarian blather you follow, you oppose it fully.
You should know that I oppose nationalisation on both moral and practical grounds. In other words, it's immoral and it doesn't work anyway.

How is, "That's a strange way of drilling oil." An answer to this, "How did the foreign oil companies get the oil? ....through the illegal occupation and colonisation of Iraq."
So did the oil shoot out the ground by itself when foreign troops set foot in Iraq, or did it wait until after the "colonisation"? I was under the impression that drilling oil took a massive investment of both machinery and money. Not exactly a "grab the loot and run" excercise. Speaking of which:

I would imagine there is mountains of proof with regards what the British stole from Iraq.
It should be easy for you to find it then.

There is lots of proof of all of the "Empires" theft and from this statement, I suppose you must support giving the former colonies massive amounts of compensation?
For what and who do you have in mind? Who's going to be paying it and who's it going to be given to?

I can listen to political speeches on the television and never in my lifetime have I heard a political leader threaten a whole people with "utter destruction."
But then you listen to Gordon Brown and believe him when he says wasting billions on a war is "in the national interest".

Yet you "support" America in the second Gulf war, when Iraq had not acted aggressively.
Saddam gassing his own people? Invading Kuwait? Ignoring sanctions? You're right Iraq; hasn't acted aggressively at all.

I suspect you probably supported the contras as well. After all they subscribe to economic theories similar to yours and that is what your "support" is all about. Do they fit you economic ideology.
I'm not familiar with them.

I can tell the difference between an aggressor and a victim.
You're economic ideology tells me otherwise.

Yet I can also see the point when the victim becomes the aggressor.
The error you've made rests on the idea that the citizens of Nazi Germany and Japan could "casually" support their respective countries without giving moral sanction to their actions. That said, the people in Berlin who were not fighting or supporting the war machine were not valid targets at that point in the war. Killing and destroying is one thing, but how exactly is raping and pillaging going to win a war?

How was Russia partially to blame? .....here you are showing your ideological bias.
Invasion of Poland? Finland? How is that ideological bias?

I do find this un-ethical, however Russia was not the aggressor. Indeed if you look at the rise of fascism during the thirties, it was Russia who supported most of the anti-fascist movements.
This isn't relevent because it doesn't justify the invasion of Poland.

Russia supported the Republicans in Spain when Britain and France refused. Russia supported the German Communists who opposed Hitler while the "western" powers were happily dealing with Hitler.
You mean they were fighting the Nazis for power?

As for all blame going to the aggressor. In the case of Dresden the war was nearly over and the Allied forces were by this point acting as the aggressor.
Bombing in general is permissable providing the enemy still poses a significant threat. All citizens are morally responsible for the state they live in. Where did these states get its operating funds in which to fight these wars? From the "innocents" of course, who had more than ample opportunity to oppose or flee their country.

I do consider genocide "morally wrong." However that again is irrelevant to whether the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki can fit under an a-moral definition of genocide.

Guess what; I am guilty of knowingly funding my country's government in actions which I know are morally wrong. I may not like these actions, but I'm prepared to put up with them relative to living in a total dictatorship, to which I would happily put up an armed resistance. The UK and US are still relatively free in comparison to places like Iraq under Saddam or theocratic Iran and therefore morally superior. It's this reason I choose to stay in the UK. It's obviously the same reason you do too. Then we have Chomsky, who insists that the US is worse than Nazi Germany, but still chooses to live there and pay his taxes like everyone else.

The same goes for all the "Cuba lovers" here, too. There are no morally perfect nations, but the evils of Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany far outweigh any Dresden or Hiroshima, both in terms of quantity and severity. It's not always black and white, but when it is, I'll go with whoever's "whiter".

James

12th December 2005, 22:42

actually i missed this point:

"I can listen to political speeches on the television and never in my lifetime have I heard a political leader threaten a whole people with "utter destruction.""

Well actually you can. Iran for example threatening to wipe israel off the map.

Morpheus

13th December 2005, 04:34

Wanting to wipe a particular nation-state off the map is not the same as wanting to wipe out all the people who live under that state.

James

13th December 2005, 08:30

you are of course right: wanting to "wipe it off the map" means friendly non-violent deportation.

Of course your perception would be different if Israel declared that it would wipe palestine/syria/iran off the map.

Spark

13th December 2005, 09:19

I'm against the Israeli theocracy so I definitely support a Palestinian state. I think there should be an Israeli state as much as there should be a Bulgar state in the middle of Russia.

Amusing Scrotum

13th December 2005, 10:26

To James --

my point was basically that anything can be said to have "partly" caused something.

Indeed, but we have to look at the important factors.

true true (and also the working class/middle class who felt left out/angered by the socialists).
Hayek talks about this in his Road to Serfdom.

The middle class and the police force have traditionally been very supportive of fascism, the working class less so.

In Germany working class groups, Communists and Anarchists were the ones opposing the Nazi's, the middle class didn't organise any opposition that I know of.

aye; as was alot of ww2 actions!

Apart from the Holocaust and various Japanese actions, very few World War Two actions can be classed as the "systematic and planned extermination" of a whole group of people.

i'm sure you know what i mean by the fact they had to test it properly.

I suppose it depends on what we consider "proper" testing. They more or less knew exactly what the results of using the "bomb" would be, though I suppose the case that they wanted to know for sure. Could be made.

aye its all right. Sadly i'm suffering from self inflicted pain though. i have a week to do four essays in :(

:o

Hows you?

Not bad, got until Friday to do two pieces of coursework though.

To Tungsten --

Nationalisation is economically irrational and there is no reason why the private sector cannot do this.

How is it "irrational?" ....quite a few of Britain's industries were nationalised and during this period Britain was a manufacturing powerhouse. The same applies to Russia, 70 years of State Capitalism led to Russia developing modern Capitalism far quicker than any of the other countries in Russia's "boat" in 1917. The same could also be said of China. 60 years ago it was a feudal "hellhole." Now a modern Capitalist nation.

You should know that I oppose nationalisation on both moral and practical grounds. In other words, it's immoral and it doesn't work anyway.

China and Russia have shown that nationalisation of industry can lead to modern Capitalism being developed in record speeds.

As for it being immoral, that's just silly.

So did the oil shoot out the ground by itself when foreign troops set foot in Iraq, or did it wait until after the "colonisation"? I was under the impression that drilling oil took a massive investment of both machinery and money. Not exactly a "grab the loot and run" excercise.

Obviously they had to get the machinery to drill the oil, but having the country under colonial control or a "friendly" dictator in place. Meant that they could get the oil without having to pay the "market price."

It should be easy for you to find it then.

You could probably google "British colonisation of Iraq" and find something on the subject. I have neither the time nor the resources to compile a study for your reading pleasure.

For what and who do you have in mind?

For the stuff stolen by the various empires to the countries that they stole it off.

Who's going to be paying it and who's it going to be given to?

The people who stole the stuff will compensate those who they stole it off.

For instance several British banks have been shown to have made a nice amount of money off various British colonies that are now very poor. They should pay compensation, but we know full well they won't.

But then you listen to Gordon Brown and believe him when he says wasting billions on a war is "in the national interest".

The war will no doubt have benefited quite a few British and American companies and when "Gordon" retires he will probably get a seat on the board of one of these companies.

So the war was in various members of the governments "self interest" and I wouldn't be surprised if they considered this the "national interest."

Anyway, I posted that article because I thought it might provoke a wider conversation. Actually it died a quick death.

Saddam gassing his own people? Invading Kuwait? Ignoring sanctions? You're right Iraq; hasn't acted aggressively at all.

The gassings and the invasion of Kuwait had already been punished and the UN voted that no further punishment should be delivered for the violation of sanctions.

America and Britain can't use the sanctions excuse (which they didn't use) if the body that delivered the sanctions chose not to punish Saddam for violating them.

The reason for the war was "Weapons of Mass Destruction" not any of the things you listed above. Therefore as no weapons have been found it is "fair" to say that Saddam in no way acted as the aggressor.

I'm not familiar with them.

Teaching Nicaragua a lesson (http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/sam/sam-2-03.html) -- I know you no doubt dislike Chomsky, but everything he says on Nicaragua is well documented.

Search for yourself if you wish, the Contras were an American backed and funded organisation which tried to overthrow the Sandinista government. Which contry to the lies of the Reagan administration had nothing to do with the Soviet Union.

Indeed the Sandinistas only turned to Russia after America put an economic blockade on them and then had the cheek to say that the Sandinistas were "Russian puppets."

You're economic ideology tells me otherwise.

Huh? :huh:

The error you've made rests on the idea that the citizens of Nazi Germany and Japan could "casually" support their respective countries without giving moral sanction to their actions.

I very much doubt the people of Germany or Japan were granting "moral" authority to brutal and dictatorial governments.

In case you haven't noticed, the people in these countries weren't allowed any input as to what their governments actions were.

Anyway suppose someone from Nicaragua had decided to blow up the twin towers, would they have been justified because a group of people seemingly supported American actions in Nicaragua?

That said, the people in Berlin who were not fighting or supporting the war machine were not valid targets at that point in the war. Killing and destroying is one thing, but how exactly is raping and pillaging going to win a war?

I suppose you are referring to the atrocities of the Russian soldiers in Berlin? .....well I don't "support" such actions and would give my full support to the people of Berlin if they chose to bring charges against the Russian military.

redstar2000 commented on this here (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=43222) --

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 10 2005, 06:13 PM

Would it be unreasonable of me to ask about the rape of Berlin?

What are you talking about? Do you mean the invasion of the city during WW2?
Noxion is referring, of course, to the well-documented fact that the peasant conscripts of the "Red" Army went on a raping spree when they occupied eastern Europe, especially eastern Germany, for a period of a month or two after the end of World War II.

American troops, by contrast, were "real gentlemen". They paid for their sex with packs of cigarettes and cans of food purchased at discount prices from the "Army PX".

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

I found that comment slightly amusing.

Needless to say, I don't think anyone on the "left," even the most ardent supporters of Stalin, excuse the "rape of Berlin."

Invasion of Poland? Finland? How is that ideological bias?

Those events didn't cause the war though, did they?

This isn't relevent because it doesn't justify the invasion of Poland.

It is relevant to an extent because none of the "beacons of freedom" chose to oppose fascism.

If Russia is "partially" to blame for the second World War, then so to are Britain, France and America.

You mean they were fighting the Nazis for power?

Maybe, but they were still the only country actively supporting anti-fascist organisations. That is not something to look down on. Indeed if more countries had supported various anti-fascist groups in Germany there would have been no holocaust and no second World War.

Though I suspect you don't really give a shit if fascism was opposed and you would probably support fascism if it was Russia who was "doing" the opposition.

Bombing in general is permissable providing the enemy still poses a significant threat. All citizens are morally responsible for the state they live in. Where did these states get its operating funds in which to fight these wars?

By the time of both the bombing of Dresden and the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki it was quite clear the war was over.

Again I'll ask, would you support Nicaraguan terrorism against American citizens because of the Reagan administrations actions?

From the "innocents" of course, who had more than ample opportunity to oppose or flee their country.

I doubt many people could "flee" imperial Japan or Nazi Germany. Indeed America, Russia, Britain and Canada viewed Jewish immigrants as a nuisance and if I'm not mistaken, most of these countries actively opposed the immigration of Jews.

Guess what; I am guilty of knowingly funding my country's government in actions which I know are morally wrong. I may not like these actions, but I'm prepared to put up with them relative to living in a total dictatorship, to which I would happily put up an armed resistance.

So you would be happy to be blown up by some Nicaraguans, or perhaps some Chileans, or Guatemalans, or black South Africans? .....the list could and does go on.

You see I think your "bravado" about "putting up an armed resistance to dictators" is bullshit. All through the thirties and ever since it has been "lefties" of all stripes who have challenging dictators and fascism. While people like yourself have thrown scorn on these "lefties" for doing this, as evident by your dismissal of Russia's involvement in the anti-fascist movement.

I could well imagine if a fascist dictator popped up in Europe or America tomorrow, quite a few people from this board would go and offer resistance. While you and others in the "OI" would simply mock them and back your government which would be happily supporting the fascists.

The UK and US are still relatively free in comparison to places like Iraq under Saddam or theocratic Iran and therefore morally superior. It's this reason I choose to stay in the UK. It's obviously the same reason you do too.

I choose to stay in the UK too (I thought you were American?) but that doesn't mean I can't criticise British actions. Or would you prefer me to stand in line and sing the national anthem? :lol:

Then we have Chomsky, who insists that the US is worse than Nazi Germany, but still chooses to live there and pay his taxes like everyone else.

I'd like a quote on that.

Chomsky just documents the crimes of supposed "free nations." Would you seriously prefer it if no one knew about American and British crimes?

The same goes for all the "Cuba lovers" here, too.

I neither love nor hate Cuba. I am rather indifferent on the subject.

However if I had to live in a third world nation, Cuba would be one of my preferences.

There are no morally perfect nations, but the evils of Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany far outweigh any Dresden or Hiroshima, both in terms of quantity and severity.

Indeed the "evils" of imperial Japan and Nazi Germany do outweigh those of America and Britain. Well actually the British Empire was probably worse, the Boer Wars, the Mau Mau wars, backing Apartheid etc. and American is "catching up." Its record in South America is nothing to be proud of.

It's not always black and white, but when it is, I'll go with whoever's "whiter".

Well luckily the second World War has been over for sixty years so we don't need "to pick sides." We can now objectively discuss what happened without risk and that means we have to point out all the crimes.

To James (again) --

Well actually you can. Iran for example threatening to wipe israel off the map.

....and I commented here (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=42123&hl=).

James

13th December 2005, 11:04

Indeed, but we have to look at the important factors.

I'm afraid that you have actually missed my entire point :(
How do you decide what is an important factor? By what means do you measure it?

The middle class and the police force have traditionally been very supportive of fascism, the working class less so.

In Germany working class groups, Communists and Anarchists were the ones opposing the Nazi's, the middle class didn't organise any opposition that I know of.

may i ask how you are defining fascism?

(although this is going a bit off topic now).

Apart from the Holocaust and various Japanese actions, very few World War Two actions can be classed as the "systematic and planned extermination" of a whole group of people.

Well what do you think a bomb is? Often the targets were people in general.
Simily, executions could arguably be described as such.
Indeed war in general!

Not bad, got until Friday to do two pieces of coursework though.

you lucky thing. My essays arn't going well at all....
:(

Amusing Scrotum

13th December 2005, 11:33

How do you decide what is an important factor? By what means do you measure it?

There is no way, that I know of, to objectively measure these factors. I suppose the way it happens now, is that a "body of opinion" from various academics is put forward and they outline the "important" factors.

may i ask how you are defining fascism?

I try not to "throw" the word fascism around too much. When I talk of fascism I am referring to Mussolini's Italy, Hitler's Germany and Franco's Spain. "Thirties" fascism if you wish.

Places like Chile under Pinochet could be described as proto-fascist, though "Nationalist" or "Militarist" would also describe the political situation. Iraq under Saddam could also be considered proto-fascist, the Ba'ath party was "modelled" on the Nazi Party.

However I wouldn't say Saddam's Iraq was in the "big leagues." It was no Italy or Spain and it definitely couldn't be compared to Nazi Germany.

Fascism or fascist are very broad terms these days, but I tend to only use them in reference to "classical" fascism.

Well what do you think a bomb is? Often the targets were people in general.

I'd say the targets were buildings, railway lines etc. Civilian deaths are usually by-products of the bombings, not the aim.

Simily, executions could arguably be described as such.

They could, but if memory serves me correctly the Geneva Convention has a specific term for POW executions.

Indeed war in general!

That case could be made, but it would be stretching the use of the term genocide.

you lucky thing. My essays arn't going well at all....

Lucky? .....writing about the "natural environment" and the effects construction work has on it, is incredibly boring. :(

Morpheus

14th December 2005, 03:53

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 08:30 AM
you are of course right: wanting to "wipe it off the map" means friendly non-violent deportation.
It doesn't necessarily even mean deportations at all. The original goal of the PLO was to abolish Israel and put a secular federation with equal rights for Arabs & Jews in its place. That's hardly the same as wanting to wipe out every single Jew in the Middle East. I advocate the destruction of the state of Israel along with every other government on the planet, but that doesn't mean I advocate the murder or deportation of every person currently living under the Israeli state.

Of course your perception would be different if Israel declared that it would wipe palestine/syria/iran off the map.

Israel has alrready wiped Palestine off the map. Israel is an imperialist, with more power than the other nations you refer to, so there's a clear difference between destroying an imperialist state and an imperialist state destroying subordinate states. Just as there's a difference between slaves wanting to wipe out the master class and masters wanting to wipe out slaves.

James

15th December 2005, 09:43

o come on. A little balance please. The UN created israel, its not as if they invaded.
However, they were invaded. Several times. The international community didn't exactly jump to help israel against the numerous invaders. So it was a war partly caused by said surronding nations.

Do you honestly think any of those nations woudl be better than israel?

Indeed i asked a friend what he thought of your comments;
"In other words, according to the article quoted above, the Islamist Arabs desire to reduce the sovereign state of Judaic Democratic Israel to dis-enfranchised dhimmitude. This, of course, will never happen, but the Arabs are actively seeking to erase any Jewish historic ties to Israel and Jerusalem from the razing of archaeological excavations to outragious lies. The Arab squatter Pals certainly do not seek peace with the Jews in any form, as they have rejected all reasonable treaties and consessions offered by Israel in the past outright."

Whilst i don't nesecarily agree with all of the above, he does have a point.

SCDF

7th January 2006, 11:53

They made both mistakes...... but the Palestinian terrorists are cowards, idiots who don't dare to fight against army and so kill non-militarian people. Violent is not the answer.

Noah

7th January 2006, 15:38

Palestinian terrorists are cowards

What about the Isreali terrorists? Are they not cowards hiding behind their big guns while they point point at 'terrorist' women and children.

The suicide bombings or any other form of attack, I cant not justify them, no one can.

Violent is not the answer

Abit rich from what looks like a supporter of George Bush due to the fact that you have him in your avatar.

LA GUERRA OLVIDADA

10th January 2006, 00:46

Palestine. The Jews should've never been given a country of their own, they're terrible at managing it.

Quzmar

11th January 2006, 04:55

Hello a new member here,
I think this discussion has become a bit childish,
And some of the comrades have demonstrated how ignorant they are others have shown how stubborn they are.

Well, the state of Israel was created on the Zionist project which wanted to create a home land for Jews and Jews only a homeland where any Jew in the world can flee to if needed and they are trying to collect as many Jews as they can, the reason is they believe that Jews can’t live with none-Jews coz they believe sooner or later the none-Jews will start killing the Jews, these ideas emerged as a result of the anti-Semitism (I hate to use this term is there a substitute so one help me please) in EUROPE! Not in the Middle East, anti-Semitism is pure EUROPEAN product as Jews lived in the Middle East all the time and some still do even within Palestinian like in Nablus (Palestinian Jews with no problem, in fact the problems started with creation of Israel in the shape of 1. the Zionist terror groups terrorizing Arab Jews by attacking the towns and villages so the immigrate to Israel. 2. Simply the backlash of the creation of Israel (but no were near creating camps like the Americans did with Japanese-Americans during the 2nd WW) 3. The Zionist movement paying money to some Arab governments for every Jew that migrates to Israel.
Oh I forgot to say that Jews consider the golden times of their history under the Islamic ruling in turkey and the Islamic ruling in Spain! And Jews saw the middle east as a safe place to go to when they were having a hard time in EUROPE much earlier in the history talking about 12th century and onwards!

As the anti-Semitism grow in EUROPE Jews stared to migrated to Palestine and other places about 1880s, they were welcomed by Palestinians regardless of there religion Moslems Christians and the Jews who were already there, and until 1910s years after the first Zionist conference(which also had Argentina as a potential homeland) in 1898 (or 1897 I’m not exactly sure) most of Jews who came to Palestine came live like normal Palestinians and had no problems on the opposite they were overwhelmed by the generosity of the Palestinian people! It was in the 1920s when Jews started to migrate to Palestinian in large numbers hoping to be able to build a Jewish state, so they stared living in separate towns build arms, covert tractors into tanks, and creating the Zionist terrorist groups which soon started to attack the Arabs, if fact it was them who came up with idea of blowing up busy markets.

Comrades I’m tired, will be back to finish this off soon,
And any questions I hope to be able to answer

James

11th January 2006, 19:13

anti-Semitism (I hate to use this term is there a substitute so one help me please)

I know what you mean. Why not just say "anti jewish"?
I'm interested to learn how the term evolved, if anyone knows?

Indeed, according to dictionary.com:

Sem·ite
n.
- A member of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples of the Near East and northern Africa, including the Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, and Phoenicians.
- A Jew.
- Bible. A descendant of Shem.

Quzmar

11th January 2006, 21:58

"anti jewish" is a good one thank you comrade

Like promised I’m back to continue what I started.

By that time the Palestinian resistance was getting stronger and stronger against the British Mandate of Palestine, which started after the 1st WW, and was helping the Zionist movement, by allowing the Jewish refugees to inter Palestine in large numbers, and providing them with weapons, at the same time that ordinary Palestinian was sentenced to death for owning a personal gun, the Jewish movement able to build very organized terror groups, and quickly the started the ethnic cleansing against the Palestinian people coz the simply wanted a land without people for people without land, and didn’t care what happens to the original people of Palestine, the Palestinians resisted as much as they could but that was not enough, (I could spend hrs on this period of time) this (Zionist terror groups forcing Palestinians out of their land) went of till about 1954, thinking about it now in a way it never stopped till now it only took a different shape after the creation of the Zionist state!. The British finished their mission (making sure that the Zionists are able to kick the shit out of the Palestinians) so they withdrew, and handed over to the Zionists! As a result more than 700,000 Palestinian were forced out of Palestinian, many more were forced out of their land but moved somewhere else within the borders of Palestine, most of all ended up in the west bank and Gaza which were not occupied yet!

The Palestinian revolution started from the out side, Jordan then Lebanon, and it was largely leftist, even Fateh was very close to the left for most of the time starting from 1965 and until the 2nd half of the 80s when they started to drift to the to the centre or right of the centre some would say! Of course I don’t have to talk about the PFLP and the DFLP and all the rest they all were Marxist and still are! The PFLP was as big as Feateh for most of the time again until the 2nd half of the 80s or even later maybe 1990/1991 when they received massive hits (when I join I was hoping we will discussing they situation of the Palestinian left and solutions for the Palestinian issue but unfortunately I’m having to start form basics!) the left does still exist and it is much stronger than the media like to tell it is and by the media I mean all the media even most of the pro-Palestinian media! Simply you only make the headline if you kill Israeli civilians, coz the Israelis don’t want any other type of news to come out! They only want people in the world to think that Palestinians are a bunch of murderers who are only interested in murdering civilians, which is simply not true, Palestinians live a daily struggle against the Imperialist occupation, and the Palestinians resist the occupation in the most civilized manned you just don’t do enough to know about it (don’t wait for the media to inform you coz they won’t) sometimes sending kids to school is resistance sometimes breathing resistance! And that’s the resistance that worries the Zionists!

Sooo many things to cover form late 1980s till now: peace process, where is the left, how did hamas grow so much and y, targeting civilians, the 2nd intefada, possible solutions… we can talk about that if the discussion goes on, all I was trying to point out so far is how just the Palestinian cause is!