27 Israeli pilots to refuse missions in West Bank, Gaza

Putting aside the fairly obvious party play here, and the fact that the same rationale you use now for Iraq was used by many for Nam, at the time, I'd like to ask you a question on an academic point:


What was just or non-ridiculous about WWI, let alone our involvment in it?

 

Hayes, one more thing the spitting on GI's and baby killer things did happen, but not very often. It is a comforting urban myth for certain folks to think otherwise. How come I remember being in anti Vietnam War demostrations and it being discussed not to diss the troops since they were just draftees. "where there but for the grace of god".

That would be like claiming that all our troops in Vietnam committed war atrocities like My Lai. A few did, but not all or a majority.

Talking about GI's. How come no parades or public celebrations or prominent filmed visits by Bush or Powell or the Generals to Army hospitals or cemeteries for this war? You certainly can't claim that the anti-war movement is spitting or whatever and responsible for the lack of public appreciation for these veterans.

I feel sorry for these GI's in this war because I think they are going to be forgotten sort of like the Vietnam War vets were when as I believe we don't have a totally successful outcome and it is ultimately viewed as a stupid war. ( Have you seen that in Britain a growing majority now feel that way). The troops can't help it that they were sent into that mess unnecessarily.

 

Then I'm not sure why you write so much about 'orders' below.

I think its clear that his claim is that the morality of the USAF is less than these Israeli pilots, and that they were equivalent of Nazis when the followed orders. Following orders does not make you a Nazi, following orders that should not normally fit within the parameters of your job as a soldier might.

I disagree. It is only fair to allow individuals the right to opt out of following orders that are perceived to be so immoral as to be out of the pervue of their responsibilities as a soldier. Nuremberg at its core was about stopping 'crimes against humanity' not about stopping military action.

And I've yet to see where the USAF has committed a comparable atrocity. That is my point. Glynch would contend that the actions we've seen in Iraq would fall under the same covenant that Nurmberg sought to establish. I don't see how you can argue that without arguing that war itself is a crime against humanity.

Well, none of the German soldiers that carried out these individual orders were tried for war crimes at Nuremberg. The only people tried were those with a greater overall responsibility. And its important to remember that there were more than military defendants at Nuremberg. Most of the pre-genocide/concentration camp actions were not taken by the military but by the Interior Ministry and other like official departments, which is why they were held responsible for that. So when we're talking about those decisions its completely off the subject. Certainly Himmler's right hand man cannot say 'but I was only following orders.' That is a far cry from an individual soldier saying 'no, i am not going to load these people on a train.' Again, the emphasis was on those that stepped outside the normal bounds of military action, and those could not rely on the previously acceptable 'i was following orders.' The reason is that they had a much better idea of what was going on, and much more responsibility. Hans Frank said "Don't let anybody tell you that they had not idea. Everybody sensed there was something horribly wrong with the system."

I disagree. Again it depends on what you think Nuremberg was about. Look at those sentenced to long terms or hanged, the major defendants. They are those responsible for the "final solution," those responsible for stepping outside the bounds of what can normally be expected to be a duty of a soldier. Planning the mass deportation and execution of the Jews, planning the confiscation and 'aryanization' of Jewish assets, supporting the killing of POWs etc. Nuremberg was not about pilots selecting their targets.

I'll let those you are speaking to defend themselves.

I am merely pointing out that there is hardly a comparable situation between the intervention in Iraq and the extermination of the Jews and others that led to the Nuremberg Trials. Those on the receiving end of what glynch calls an immoral action, and what he equates with Nazism, would hardly call it a 'crime against humanity' to remove Hussein.

 

Of the three sections of Article 6 of the Charter for the Nuremberg Trials, really only (b) and (c) are relevant to this discussion. In them we can see that USAF actions can in no way be equated nor disparaged for violating the intent of the Nuremberg precedent.

(b) War Crimes: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;
(c) Crimes against Humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war,14 or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of domestic law of the country where perpetrated.

 

Sure I see the harm in lots of Vietnamese dying. What's the point? (And you make way too many assumptions to blame the US for Pol Pot's actions.) This is not Vietnam. Iraqis are glad to be rid of Saddam.

I advocated THIS 'preemptive war.' Millions are not dying. You accuse me of some Soviet inspired threat perception, but you do the same in reverse. This is not Vietnam. Moral analysis DOES condone removing totalitarian regimes. It DOES condone removing genocidal dictators. Do you deny this? Do you deny that there is precedent in international law for this?

I do care about the WMD thing. I really thought there was WMD. You consistently ignore that FACT that Saddam purposely made it look like he HAD WMD. However, I do also say, and have always said, that removing a totalitarian regime is itself moral, and that is what we are talking about. Not whether or not Bush used WMD to get support.

In addition, you fail to balance the picture. You speak about the Iraqi soldiers (which make up most of your bloated casualty figure). What sympathy should we feel for them? They were the boot Saddam used to crush his own people. Don't you think they are a more likely comparison to those on trial at Nuremberg than USAF pilots trying to remove their dictatorial control?

Well, not really. Even you admit that my main position is based on the justness and legality of removing a totalitarian and genocidal dictator. That completely undercuts this assertion.

 

In 1967, we returned to the states. We landed at Travis AFB, CA. As we landed everyone on board that Freedom Bird, cheered. As we went down the stairs, we watch as some of those guys knelt down and kissed the ground. We all had tears in our eyes. Then as we went out the main gate we saw the anti-war demonstrators burning the US flag, flying the North Vietnam flag. They spit on us, and called my dad a baby killer. It was tough enough to be an Air Force Brat without having to go through that.

http://www.americanradioworks.org/features/vietnam/scrapbook/entries/429_233.html

According to the conventional wisdom passed down from the anti-war left of the '60s and '70s and absorbed by the shapers of the popular culture, the Vietnam War was uniquely unjust and brutalized those who fought it. At first vilified by the anti-war left as a war criminal and a baby-killer, the Vietnam veteran soon evolved into a victim — victimized first by his country, which made him poor and then sent him off to fight an unjust war, then victimized by a military that dehumanized him and turned him into a killer.

http://www.claremont.org/writings/021111owens.html

Returning veterans were ignored. Some of us were spat at, called murderer, or baby killer, or asked how come we were stupid enough to go. If we came home blind or missing a limb we were made to feel that it served us right.

http://www.forgottensoldier.com/veterans_account/vietnam/gary_mcmahon/livingwiththeaftermath4.htm

Many returning soldiers before him were spat upon and branded as murderers, often just after surviving their own harrowing experiences. No wonder there was a "Vietnam Syndrome." Like my brother, few wanted to go to war, yet Americans on the left did not respect their sacrifice, because it somehow conflicted with their passionate antiwar beliefs. Draped in the freedom of speech this country provides, self-righteous and designating themselves as true patriots, they waved the Viet Cong flag and justified their silence over the treatment of the POWs by saying that all that has to be done to help the POWs is end the war. Unfortunately, that took a while. Today, many antiwar protesters proudly claim that they were right about the war, in part as a result of Robert McNamara's belated admission that he was wrong. Whether the war was right or wrong, these were our boys. They deserved our support whatever the cause, whatever the result. The antiwar movement has yet to recognize the pain and heartache that it caused. My brother had no say in the politics that sent him to war. The lack of appreciation for what he had done, combined with the rationale of those who gave aid and comfort to the enemy, helped destroy the will to live that had kept him alive for all those years.

Newsweek June 1, 1998, MY TURN, BY ROBERT J. BRUDNO


Ultimately its public perception that determines whether its viewed as a 'stupid war.' You certainly are doing your part to make that sad fate a reality. But then, you did it before and feel pretty good about it.

 

In fact, to kill people randomly is not intentional targeting, but it can bring more deaths than intentionally targeting people. For example, if one innocent man stands beside OBL, and I know if I wanna blow away OBL that man'll be dead as well but I don't give a damn about it, is it morally better that way when I'm not targeting him but OBL?

 

http://www.white-man-killer.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=Tatu;action=display;num=1057219914

Debate about :
The palistinian/isreali conflict , and us’ war against iraq

I wanted 2 participate in this debate but lotsa words I didn’t understand and I didn’t read lotsa things r said in her but I will do that later cuz I have 2 study

But @ bamaslammer , its not a farce its true

@all...

http://www.shiaweb.org/Palestine/palfacts/index.html

look @ isreal's crimes against palestinian children and babies

 

I don't see any evidence of crimes there. All that has been provided is a collection of pictures of dead people. Well, in a war, there tend to be dead people. When one side hides behind their children, there tend to be dead children. To say that it doesn't make any diference if a person is killed intentionally or as a result of collateral damage (as Panda does) is horrible, and shows no understanding of the reality of war.

 

It's not that simple, what I said is intentional killing is not better than killing without due discretion, such as, use a sniper rather than a bomb to kill OBL to avoid killing adjacent innocent people. I'm making this point since some makes no distinction between accidents with discretion and those without.

 

Yeah.....WWI was ridiculous. We had no business intervening because.... neither side was good or evil. Now if the Germans didn't have the stupid leadership they had and did not engage in unrestricted submarine warfare, we would have never entered the war. Now as for the so-called "obvious" party play, all of those wars I mention were useless. I'm sure you'd want me to add Panama, Grenada, and the operations over Libya, but I'd like to add one that I think was a disaster under a GOP president: Lebanon. Just to be fair.

 

JERUSALEM, Sept 25 (AFP) - Israel's air force Thursday cashiered seven pilots who refused to take part in missions in the Palestinian territories, with their commander accusing them of stabbing their country in the back, a military source said.

On Wednesday, 27 reserve pilots submitted a petition to air force commander Dan Halutz, saying they were no longer prepared to take part in missions that they regarded as "illegal and immoral".

The military spokesman said Thursday that 20 of the signatories were no longer even attached to units flying such missions, but that they were to be grounded anyway.

Halutz replied to the pilots in a harsh letter in which he accused them of having "shoved a knife in the back of combatants and of Israeli democracy," the source said.

Halutz was quoted in the Haaretz daily earlier Thursday as saying he planned to treat the signatories "in the same way as the IDF (military) has dealt with refuseniks until now," indicating that they would be dismissed.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon also warned the pilots not to become embroiled in politics.

"The army carries out the instructions of the political echelon, and it will continue to act against terrorists and murderers whose sole purpose is to strike at crowded population centers inhabited by innocent citizens," said Sharon.

"This is a very severe matter, which will be dealt with soon and appropriately."

One of the pilots, whose name was given as Alon, told the Yediot Aharonot daily that he felt like he had "come out against his family".

"I was proud to belong to the organization called the Israel air force, and today I am ashamed," said the Blackhawk helicopter captain.

"This is an organization that carries out actions that in my eyes are immoral and patently illegal. It is an organization that has no qualms about dropping bombs -- it doesn't matter if they are 250, 500 or 1,000 kilos (550, 1,100 or 2,200 pounds) -- on the densest neighborhoods in the world, causing massive killing of civilians."

Another captain, whose name was given only as Yonathan, said: "Does it matter to so many civilians who were killed for no wrongdoing of their own, if the pilot meant to carry out a mission that someone told him is important for the defense of the State of Israel?"

Alon said he would be prepared to fly missions which carried the possibility of killing civilians if he felt it was vital to the state's survival.

B]"This is not the situation in Israel 2003. We are not in a war for our existence," he said.[/B]

"We are in a war for continuing the occupation in the territories. And in light of this dubious goal, I am not willing to be the murderer of innocent civilians."

Former air force commander Major General Amos Lapidot said that while the pilots were in a minority their unease was widely shared.

"It's a minority but it's not just limited to those 27," he told AFP. "Others feel this in their stomach."

But Major General Nati Sharoni, the military's former head of planning, said the pilots had no right to air their grievances in such an open way.

"Much of what they say, I can identify with myself but this is not the way to do it," Sharoni told AFP.

"Anyone who serves in the armed forces, whether active or reserve, cannot, should not, must not say this is something that I am not going to do, even if it's questionable.

"One has to realise that this is not a democratic organisation."

The pilots should have voiced their misgivings to other officers but could only justify their actions if they were given patently illegal orders such as being instructed "to slaughter kids".

Yael Paz-Melamed, a columnist for the Maariv daily, said the writing had been on the wall for a long time.

"In private conversations, more and more pilots voiced their disgruntlement with the assassination missions they were sent on," he wrote.

"From the F-16 jet, one does not see the white in the victims' eyes. One cannot hear the outcries, the pain, the wails of the wounded. One does not see the children bleeding to death. But people who do not turn their back on their conscience, know that this is not the reason that they joined the Air Force."

bur/al/dab

I think this purpose of the war is a key point. None of our wars since WW II are for our very existence. Thus our negligent killing of huge numbers of innocent civilians such as in our bombings of Iraq since the First Gulf War till the present meet this test.

link

 

Uh, I think it would hardly be a stretch to say the Cold War was a war for our very existence. In addition, this would clearly prohibit you from condoning the intervention in Bosnia, or any other humanitarian intervention, since they by definition those situations do not 'threaten our existence.'

And unless I'm mistaken the first Gulf War was a UN action.

And unless I'm mistaken you have supported the first Gulf War in the past.

And our bombings have never targeted civilians, nor has there been targeting in population centers with no concern of potential civilian damage, as the Israeli pilot claims Israel practices.

 

Nope I was extemely against the first Gulf War. It was a mistake. It lead to troops in Saudi and additional hatred by the Arabs. I feel it was a major contributing factor to 9/11 happening.

The only recent wars I didn't speak out against were the Serbia thing and the Afghan thing. I was reluctantly for them for awhile.

In retrospect I believe that was a mistake on my part.

That is not to say I don't oppose ethnic cleansing or wasn't in favor of arresting Bin Laden and fighting terrorism. I just think the whole attempt to label these actions "wars" and the taking over and occupying of countries is not productive and leads to unncecessary arms buidups and innocent civilian deaths.

 

hayes, osh sthit, I got a 11:00 am deadline. Later.

 

No problem. Understand about the deadline.

Well I guess you and MacBeth seriously diverge on the first Gulf War. Most of his justifications stem from the UN as a viable barometer of 'global will,' which you've echo'd on many occasions. I guess you are now saying that even actions that have the backing of 'the whole world' (as you like to say) aren't justifiable. And I guess that deflates SO MANY of your repeated arguments against Iraq because the 'whole world' was against it, as it matters not to you what the 'whole world' thinks.

Its not suprising that you are against military action. You did dodge the draft yourself (like our fearless leader GWB) and are predisposed to oppose any such action. However, I think its sad that you would have us stand aside while Bosnian and others are put into rape camps and murdered en masse. How long would you wait before you came to the realization that it was the 'last possible solution?' The UN waited almost ten years. There was no possible UN action in the future (as Russia would have 'veto'd). There was no EU or NATO action on the horizon. Embargoes were already in place, and had been for a long long time. This is where your ideology fails you. And if you were in charge where it would fail those in need. You talk about immoral actions. How does standing aside while genocide is committed sound? Is that a 'moral' action?

 

@lil ..
thanx 4 the info
and YUP LETS HOPE

@mleahy999 ..
( He may be trying to OFFSET some posters here who don't seem care for the Palestinians and BROADLY PAINTS them as PRACTITIONERS of a violent religion.)

Can u plz tell me the meaning of these ( big letters ) words ?

@x-pac
if an occupier killed ur love/baby/kid/wife will u stay @ home and keep ur mouth shut ?
I AGREE with the SUICIDE BOMBERS , THEY r NOT silly

@bamaslammer
( The difference is, GV76, that the Israelis don't go purposely targeting civilians )

BIG LIE , u want me 2 prove that they go STRAIGHT 2 civilians?
And yup Palestinians do go 4 civilians and OF COURSE ZIONESTS R NOT INNOCENT , THEY R OCCUPIERS WHETHER THEY R SOLDIERS OR CIVILIANS

( How can you MORALLY EQUIVICATE DELIBERATELY morally targeting innocents by the Palestinians with accidentally killing a few of them by the Israelis? )

These word in big letters wot do they mean ?

( The Hamas assholes have no such qualms about killing civilians, in fact, that is their favorite target.)

About the as*hole thing , I guess u c others just like u , and about the fact that its their favorite target , its right and the zionests r NOT innocent

@GreenVegan76
( I guess those thousands of Palestinian children and women killed in bombing raids were *actually* soldiers.)

Babies r NOT soldiers , zionests as*holes they kill them purposely , they r monsters , they KILL the BABIES 2 make the pple of Palestine less so that there wud b less resistance.

( So you think it's worth the deaths of 305 Americans to occupy Iraq for the next 50 years. Interesting.
You do realize, of course, that our *children* will eventually have to defend Iraq.
I wonder if it will be worth it to them )

War on iraq was 2 MAKE IRAQ UNDER THE CONTROL OF US GOVT , I PROVED THAT
IN MY DEBATE ON THE SITE I GAVE its address , bush has NO HEART or feelings , these poor soldiers got killed and their parents and their relatives and loved 1’s r in pain and sorrow , and hes having a nice coffee @ home , I FEEL sorry 4 these poor soldiers ,and YEAH ITS NOT WORTH IT


@glynch
( I must warn you of certain ground rules if you intend to post from other than the Israelis are always right point of view..
Don't let some of the folks initmidate you into not posting. I wouldn't be too concerned for posters who always self proclaim themselves unbiased and moderate and claim to lose respect for you. Don't be surprised if you are accused of anti-semticism, or "antI-Israel" which they at times substitute at the drop of the hat.)

Even though Its not 4 me , but please can u tell me the meaning of it ?

( Talk about a moral ( SUPERIORUTY COMPLEX ). Its damn ( SLANDEROUS )( assuming your opinion about Israeli policies toward the 'occupied territories' are correct - by no means a fact) to ( EQUATE ) USAF policy with Israeli policy. Its more than stepping over the line to ( EQUATE) a US soldier with a Nazi, particularly considering the ( RHETORIC INSINUATES ) US policy is somehow comparable to the execution of the holocaust. I find these statements completely ( REPUGNANT).
I know that you feel strongly that little Iraq and ( NUMEROUS ) other small countries are a mortal danger to the huge US, just like the Russians of your youth. You feel that this danger justifies a huge ( AMOUNT of PREMPTIVE ) killing on our part.
Perhaps you are even like Bama and believe that the military code of honor is the ( PINNACLE ) of human moral codes. Maybe you feel like Mao that "all pwer grows out of the barrel of a gun" and there is no such thing as morality in international relations, just military power. I don't know, but you are ( ADVOCATING ) moral positions, too.
The principles established at ( NURENBERG ) are a legal concept that is not only applicable to Nazi Germany. Perhaps you fail to understand this and that is why you say I am equating the USAF with the Nazis.
( NURENBERG ) established that it is not ok to just follow orders. The right to ( CONCSIENTES OBJECTER's ) status is well established. It is also well estblished that you have a duty to disobey what you consider illegal orders.
You certainly must be aware that most of the world's religious authorities and international law experts viewed the war you so ENTHUSIATICALLY backed against Iraq as wrong and illegal.)

Can u please tell me the meaning of the words between the brackets ?

@StupidMoniker
U R RIGHT THAT IN WARS THERE R DEAD BODIES , BUT THE ZIONESTS WAR ON PALESINIANS IS UNFAIR , THEY R OCCUPIERS , THEY DON’T HAVE THE RIGHT 2 DO THAT , SO THEY R CRIMES

@ n e 1 …
I CUDNT/CANT read the whole second and third page , so if there is n e thing u wanna debate me about . go a head ..

N e way I DIDN’T read the debate between samfisher and t-j , and I didn’t read the things about Vietnam war , all I read and heard that it was wrong

 

You think it is okay for people to blow up a bunch of teenagers at a pizza parlor, but any action taken by Israel against Palestine is criminal? I think that may be the most extreme viewpoint on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict that I have ever seen posted here. You would have gotten along very well with Azadre. Good luck with your campaign to drive all the Jews into the sea though.

 

Thanks StupidMoniker, I did not even see that among all the other crap.

chick, you are not cool. You have a lot to learn. The suicide bombers are freaking idiots and if they think that killing innocent civilians will get them into heaven, they are in for a big surprise.

 

SM, Azadre wouldn't have supported this. Don't even put him in the camp.