Wasn't Saddam ousted for doing precisely this sort of thing? (page 32)

rem

>> right they can do this - but then they cannot complain about terrorism!

Sure they can... we can always complain about terrorism. There is no moral equivelancy between allegedly stealing land (I'll go with your interpretation) and blowing up busses and cafe's full of innocent people. (non-military targets)

rem

Crazy151drinker

agreed. but explain this to an arab who has lost his house and land

For the safety of his family and future generations? Im sure he would do it.

Realist

rem,

allegedly stealing land (I'll go with your interpretation)

this is not an interpretation but a simple fact.

did poland have a right to fight the germans or was that also an illegal resistance?

crazy,

For the safety of his family and future generations? Im sure he would do it.

i don't think so. if someone you know steals your car and burns your house than i want to see you say: for the sake of peace i will let him get away with it.

your idea sounds good but its not a human response.

rem

Poland had a right to fight. They did not have a right to use terrorist tactics against clear civillian targets. If I were German I would complain about Poland using terrorist tactics against us even if we stole their land. Military targets are acceptable. I can even understand collateral damage - but only if a clear military target is the objective.

rem

Realist

rem,

whats your take on the allied bombings of german and japanese cities in WWII?

rem

My take is that war was different back then. Now we have smart bombs. I see that as the sad collateral damage of primitive war weapons. The intent was to kill supply lines and the war machine and hit as many military targets as possible - not to indiscriminately kill civillians. That's not efficient warfare and does not advance the millitary objectives.

rem

Realist

rem,

sorry but here the hypocrisy starts. the allies used carpet bombing of cities not aiming at industrial or military targets. if this is excused based on 'a difficult' situation or primitive weapons than the arab actions are equally excuseable because their situation is at least as complicated and their weapons at least as primitive!

rem

Realist,

Bombs were expensive. There was no reason to risk the lives of pilots and waste ordinance when there was no military target. I think you are way oversimplifying a situation.

If terrorists were trying to assasinate Israeli leaders and inocents got caught in the cross fire, I would see that as collateral damage and they would no longer be called terrorists. The fact is that they target civillians specifically. That's why they are called terrorists.

If the allies did waste their resources during some raids on some simply vengeful missions, then those were terrorist acts and should not be defended.

rem

Realist

rem,

Bombs were expensive. There was no reason to risk the lives of pilots and waste ordinance when there was no military target. I think you are way oversimplifying a situation.

do you really think the forces at work back then were different from those now? the industry surely didn't mind to produce a couple more bombs (see also korea, vietnam etc.).

did the lives of the pilots count? hardly!

look at this webpage...its one of many...it uses very conservative numbers regarding the victims and destructions.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/bombing.htm

the point of the bombings was to terrorize the civilians (officially in order to make them overthrow hitler). this was not a hidden agenda.

If the allies did waste their resources during some raids on some simply vengeful missions, then those were terrorist acts and should not be defended.

i am glad you said this....you just have to cross out the IF and the SOME!

Yerusalyim

PS: i think the arabs give shit about the empty apologies at this point.

Is this an ARAB thing or a Palestinian thing? Ya keep getting that point confused, they aren't one in the same.

Yes, it's pointless discussing this with me if you expect me to accept the B.S. you keep coming up with.

Wasn't Saddam ousted for doing precisely this sort of thing?

Share this