Germany would probably never have been defeated in WWII without massive air strikes

interesting take. Not that I have been looking, but haven't yet heard the 'being held hostage' argument. intriguing statement and sort of a distraction of any accountability. I guess this is how folks in germany can rationalize it. That said in WW2 and 1 pretty much both sides were all out nasty. If we had lost then we would be saying the same thing. It was a war after all.

To the victor goes the spoils and the losers the scapegoating and rationalizing. Not blaming you atw just an observation.

By this account pretty much every gov't is taken hostage.

As for the issue in gaza its the same thing. both sides are unreasonable and being pieces of crap. this bbs is funny both sides of the argument trying to urinate on each other when both sides are in the wrong. BOTH. Agree to disagree and stop there. If only it were that easy.. but to argue one side is bad and the other good is a joke and a mockery of intelligence. both are trying to f**cuk each other.

 

I don't think it fails.

The US elected GWB, therefore Americans are stupid

The US elected Obama, therefore Americans are stupid.


Looks like it works to me.

 

You are mistaking equivocation for that I truly don't consider either side morally superior. I really don't have a side in this conflict but feel terrible for both.

Is Israel an occupier? Yes.

Are Hamas terrorists? Yes.

Israel can certainly do more but so could the Palestinians.

 

Also historical context needs to be considered at a time when there was no such thing as precision guided munitions. If the Allies had access to the technology they had now, or Germany for that matter, I doubt that Dresden, Tokyo and Coventry get leveled the way they were in WWII.

A more interesting question would be if Hamas had access to the same technology the Israelis had what would they do with their rockets.

 

Just started to read this absurd thread.

I should have known ATW would go to a famous islamaphobic "institute".

from wikipedia:

The Institute of of Policy Studies has noted that "[t]he institute was founded in 2011 by Nina Rosenwald, an heiress of the Sears Roebuck empire who has been a key philanthropic backer of anti-Muslim groups and individuals in the United States".[51] Sheila Musaji's The American Muslim includes it and Nina Rosenwald in a Who’s Who of the Anti-Muslim/Anti-Arab/Islamophobia Industry,[52] Ali Gharib, of the blog Open Zion, describes it as "a spin-off of the Hudson Institute where right-wingers (along with Alan Dershowitz) champion hawkish, often "pro-Israel" policies and, not infrequently, rattle off Islamophobic blogposts."[53]

 

What is interesting to me is that the bombing of non-military targets during WWII in Europe began after an accident. The Luftwaffe, bombing at night, accidently bombed London, something they had strict orders from the highest authority not to do. Churchill, angered, of course, ordered Bomber Command to strike Berlin in retaliation. Had it ended there, perhaps the tragedy of hundreds of thousands dead and wounded, huge urban areas leveled on both sides might have been averted. Instead, Hitler became enraged (predictably, in my opinion - he was mad, after all) and ordered an all out bomber assault on civilian targets in Great Britain. And so it all began. Think that's not possible? That bombing civilians deliberately could not have been avoided in Europe? Ponder this - both sides had large stocks of poison gas and expected it to be used. Neither side ever used it. People tend to forget that bit of history.

 

It was just warfare in a different era. In WW2 when the US rolled into a town, if there was a sniper, they'd pull out, surround the town with artillery and shell it till there wasn't 2 bricks left stuck together. They did this a few times and then fewer and fewer snipers were encountered.

Today, that's a war crime, but in that era, that's just how things were done.

 

Is that really what they taught you in school? God help us. With all due respect.

 

Given the large number of military and industrial targets that Germany had in its cities, the bomber fleet that Britain was building, the leaders in charge of Bomber Command and the need to help the USSR in its life and death struggle with Germany, there was absolutely no chance that Britain would not strategically bomb Germany.

This combined with the poor accuracy of bombing in general and especially at night would undoubtedly lead to high civilian casualties.

 

That's your opinion. At the beginning of the war in 1939, almost anyone walking the streets, or in government, thought poison gas attacks to be damn near inevitable. Look it up. Yet that did not occur.

 

Deckard, I'm not sure what you are arguing here. Accord99 is correct that the Allies saw an enormous strategic value in bombing German cities. The bombing of Dresden was cited as being necessary to aid the Soviet advance from the east.

Yes you are correct that neither Allied or Axis, at least in the European theater, refrained from using poison gas but I'm not sure what that has to do regarding the massive amount of bombings carried out and the massive amount of civilian casualties from them.

Anyway as I've said citing WWII bombing to justify actions in Gaza are flawed when considering the differences in technology between now and then.

 

The difference is that when everyone agrees how horrible ISIS is the conversation isn't very long. There aren't many different opinions or circumstances to discuss.

With Israel/Palestinian conflict it's different. Because different people add different opinions and information supporting one side or the other so the discussion continues more, and people will post more about it.

I think the real problem is you trying to measure people's dislike for something based on their number of posts about it.

I have more dislike for ISIS than I do for Israel or Hamas, but there isn't as much to talk about with ISIS because most folks agree with that.

 

I'm not really sure what you are arguing about either. You seem to be justifying civilian deaths on the basis that in WWII the allies killed a lot of civilians. Yes they did but at the same time there weren't such things as guided munitions, sophisticated intelligence and surveillance techniques for better targeting to minimize civilian casualties. Israel has those sort of things and I give them some credit for trying to do so but they are still racking up a huge body count.

Further another issue regarding the difference in technology is that Israel has a very sophisticated and effective defensive shield that has stopped most of the rockets attacks. Meanwhile the aerial and artillery attack on Gaza hasn't stopped rocket fire. I think there is a good question is at what cost to the civilians of Gaza is Israel's actions when the threat of rockets is greatly diminished by Iron Dome while airstrikes don't appear to be able to take out the launchers.

Yes and the battle of Gettysburg death toll was much higher too. The historical context of these conflicts aren't comparable. There are too many differences in technology, tactics and populations for valid comparisons.

Of course. I don't need to make a 100 anti ISIS posts to state that.

Considering Hamas is associated with Shiite groups like Hezbollah I don't think they subscribe to the same ideology as the radically Sunni ISIS. That said I've said they're terrorists and ill serving the Palestinians. I don't think I need to repeat that constantly.

 

Do you really think that's something they'd teach in school? That comes from numerous first hand accounts, that's not something that gets in history books or even gets put in combat action reports. Just like the high incidence of soldiers shooting prisoners either because they didn't want to march them all the way back to HQ or because they were angry about casualties suffered in recent battles or whatever.

 

It's not splitting hairs. Most of the killing that happens in the Middle East is sectarian and between Muslims. Don't blame [clears throat] the messenger.