Israel Bombing the Crap Out of Gaza

[Slytovhand]

Ok... given that Horishima and Nagasaki bombings are considered terrorist attacks (let's just go with it for now...), doesn't that mean that some terrorist attacks can be justified? And if so, what's the line?? If, say, Hamas did continue it's reign of terror on Israel over the next, say, 12 months, and it was enough for the Israelies to then give them more land in a peace settlement - rather than a full scale war (involving nukes), wouldn't those attacks then be considered justified??

(just thinking logical progression - not condoning actions... 'K??)

[Greenday]

Slyt, do you really think the Hamas has even a remote chance of getting more land from Israel from these attacks, even though they are facing a much larger and technologically advanced military?

[Rapscallion]

I think the main thing Hamas is going for is the sympathy of the rest of the world. They can't hope to defeat Israel by themselves, and even if their neighbours do join in against a common enemy, they know they'll be up against America in pretty short order. They can only hope for the rest of the world to see how shittily they are treated and then for everyone to put pressure on Israel to stop expanding its borders or even give up land.

I can't see it working, but it's all they've got.

Rapscallion

[Evandril]

Ok... given that Horishima and Nagasaki bombings are considered terrorist attacks (let's just go with it for now...), doesn't that mean that some terrorist attacks can be justified? And if so, what's the line?? If, say, Hamas did continue it's reign of terror on Israel over the next, say, 12 months, and it was enough for the Israelies to then give them more land in a peace settlement - rather than a full scale war (involving nukes), wouldn't those attacks then be considered justified??

(just thinking logical progression - not condoning actions... 'K??)

Assuming all of that was true, history would most likely forgive them. Then again, the winners tend to be 'vindicated' by history, so that's not saying much.

In a full year of terrorist attacks, it'd be hard to say if less people would die...and it's almost certain the people who died would not be the ones who were part of the military. If we'd have had to invade Japan, at least as many civilians would have died during the invasion (Assuming it worked the way most do...and from having lived in Japan, I'm sure there would have been a HIGH body count).

The main problem with terrorist attacks...they *VERY* rarely do more than attract attention to the 'cause', on a global scale. Most nations have figured out that if you give in once, you *increase* the amount of terrorist attacks...so 'tis a fool's game to go along with them.

[Tanasi]

I don't claim to be an expert on war or warfare but I've been to war more than once and I've shot at folks, I've been shot at and I've been wounded twice.
In Viet Nam the VC purposely placed guns, rockets, supplies and other implements of war in civilian areas. Those civilian areas become legitimate targets. Check out the movie "The Flight of the Intruder."

Hiroshima and Nagisaki were also legitimate military targets since the Japenese located factories there that produced implements of war. The population worked in those factories and therefore they're also legitmate targets especially when at work. I've seen the figure that the US alone expected to loose at least one million casulities (wounded and KIA) if the home islands were invaded. The Japanese started the war and we finished it.

Hamas: If they want the IDF to stop then they need to stop firing rockets into Israel and meet the Israeli government at the peace table. But as far as the IDF not being fair in the fight with Hamas, where's it written that war is supposed to be fair??? I'm a peaceful person but if you mess with me I will respond and I will do so with as much overwhelming force that I can bring. You bring a knife to a gun fight you fucked up not me. If I was PM of Israel I'd wouldn't leave anything standing in the Gaza strip in the areas I invaded. When someone makes war on you, you pound on them until they beg you on their bellies for you to stop and then you pound some more. Hamas and the residents of Gaza ought to be thankful for the relief supplies that the IDF are allowing through, I wouldn't allow it without inspections. Hamas don't like too damn bad you could be getting nothing.

IMO Israel messed up when they tried to make peace with the PLO by trying to trade land for peace. Israel legitimately acquired the land they have and had through war and the rules of war say what you capture is yours as spoils of war. Israel captured the West Bank from Jordan, funny how you don't hear about Jordan asking for it back. At one time Israel had the whole Sini but gave most of it back in exchange for a peace treaty with Egypt.

[Evandril]

I don't claim to be an expert on war or warfare but I've been to war more than once and I've shot at folks, I've been shot at and I've been wounded twice.
In Viet Nam the VC purposely placed guns, rockets, supplies and other implements of war in civilian areas. Those civilian areas become legitimate targets. Check out the movie "The Flight of the Intruder."

Hiroshima and Nagisaki were also legitimate military targets since the Japenese located factories there that produced implements of war. The population worked in those factories and therefore they're also legitmate targets especially when at work. I've seen the figure that the US alone expected to loose at least one million casulities (wounded and KIA) if the home islands were invaded. The Japanese started the war and we finished it.

Thank you, I'd thought there were valid targets there, but wasn't certain, so was letting it stand...I do know the 'porportionality' part of our strikes wouldn't fit with today's rules, but even taking them out with carpet bombing would have caused massive collateral damage...Which is currently a no-no, if possible.

That would take the atomic strikes out of the 'terrorist' catagory, IMO, anyone have any other examples?

[Rapscallion]

You bring a knife to a gun fight you fucked up not me.

I agree with pretty much everything you said apart from this - other bits I'm so-so about. I'm convinced that they're not after victory on their own, but the sympathy from the rest of the world (especially their arab neighbours) to get the help to kick Israel into the sea.

They must have known that as soon as they sent rockets - no matter how inaccurate they were - into Israel then the reprisals would start in force. Their real battlefield is the international media.

Rapscallion

[Slytovhand]

When someone makes war on you, you pound on them until they beg you on their bellies for you to stop and then you pound some more.

Ummm - I'd just like to point out - not everyone who gets caught in the middle of a war has actually 'made war on you'. In fact, if you take a look around, maybe all of, ho, say 20% of a population might actually do that. The rest are just getting on with their lives as best they can, and don't really give too much of a rat's what's going on in other parts of the world (even if they are grumbling and moaning about it).

Hamas may be a bunch of idiots (patriotic, nationalistic, and fanatical nonetheless) - doesn't mean that the rest of the population should suffer for their actions. If that line is to be advanced, then Deities help the USA! (and UK, and Canada and Australia, and NZ and.. and and and)

[Greenday]

Hamas may be a bunch of idiots (patriotic, nationalistic, and fanatical nonetheless) - doesn't mean that the rest of the population should suffer for their actions. If that line is to be advanced, then Deities help the USA! (and UK, and Canada and Australia, and NZ and.. and and and)

I'd like to point out that Hamas actually has a huge following in that region. 20% sounds kinda low.

[Tanasi]

Thank you, I'd thought there were valid targets there, but wasn't certain, so was letting it stand...I do know the 'porportionality' part of our strikes wouldn't fit with today's rules, but even taking them out with carpet bombing would have caused massive collateral damage...Which is currently a no-no, if possible.

That would take the atomic strikes out of the 'terrorist' catagory, IMO, anyone have any other examples?

Proportionality has nothing to do with anything, if it takes the enemy 20 ship loads of bombs to accomplish what you can with one then that's there problem. Just because your enemy is technology inferior to you is no reason to hold back and especially if they picked the fight.
There's always collateral damage but if you think about it, if the population can't or won't work in the factories that make implements of war because they don't have any place to live or anything to eat then their government will loose the ability to make war. During the War of Yankee Agression the damnyankees stole everything that wasn't nailed down and burned the rest because the southern soldiers wouldn't quit until the folks back home didn't have anything to support them with.
BTW nukes are political weapons and weapons of last resort.

I agree with pretty much everything you said apart from this - other bits I'm so-so about. I'm convinced that they're not after victory on their own, but the sympathy from the rest of the world (especially their arab neighbours) to get the help to kick Israel into the sea.

They must have known that as soon as they sent rockets - no matter how inaccurate they were - into Israel then the reprisals would start in force. Their real battlefield is the international media.

You're absolutely correct Hamas isn't fighting to win on the battle field but in the press and the MSM is stupid enough to give them the ink and paper. Except for some deniers anyone with any common sense knows this. Hamas's neighbors are going to come to their in a military sense, they'll give them money for two reasons to kills Jews and to keep them (the Palasteinians) where they are. Their Arab neighbors don't want them because to their neighbors they're trash.

Ummm - I'd just like to point out - not everyone who gets caught in the middle of a war has actually 'made war on you'. In fact, if you take a look around, maybe all of, ho, say 20% of a population might actually do that. The rest are just getting on with their lives as best they can, and don't really give too much of a rat's what's going on in other parts of the world (even if they are grumbling and moaning about it).

Hamas may be a bunch of idiots (patriotic, nationalistic, and fanatical nonetheless) - doesn't mean that the rest of the population should suffer for their actions. If that line is to be advanced, then Deities help the USA! (and UK, and Canada and Australia, and NZ and.. and and and)

If Hamas was an usurper governemnt then I'd say you were 100% correct but Hamas is an elected government. They made it known when running for control what their agenda would be, so that being said it doesn't matter if the 80% is making war or not their elected government is making war.
In war the civilians have very few choices they can get out of the way, stay and suffer the consequences, or join in on one side or the other and fight. Generally the elderly's, the women's and children's best option is to run away but if they can't and decide to stay and they allow implements of war and soldiers to use their facilities then they can expect to suffer the consequences. Hamas has purposely based several of their lauch areas in residential areas because they know the IDF will try to hold down collateral damage but after a certain point you've got to take that position out regardless of collateral damage after all you're damaging the enemy's stuff not yours.
To western thinking hiding behind women and children is cowardly, evidentially the middle-eastern thinking doesn't concur in action. In some cases the women and children will willingly stand there and shield their "soldiers".
General William T. Sherman said "War is Hell" and General Robert E. Lee said "It's a good thing war is so terrible lest we become too fond of it." So knowing that it would behove the electorate to elect an government that will keep them out of war except when they have no choice. Hamas had a choice and they elected to bring a knife to a gun fight.

[AdminAssistant]

During the War of Yankee Agression the damnyankees stole everything that wasn't nailed down and burned the rest because the southern soldiers wouldn't quit until the folks back home didn't have anything to support them with.

.....bring a knife to a gun fight.

To the last point, I must quote a saying, "Knives don't run out of bullets". A knife isn't always a badthing.

The best part about the Civil War is that since the Confederacy was never recognized as a sovreign nation, all this technically happened against US citizens. Then after the South had properly 'learned its lesson', the governments were taken away from the people, corrupt friends of Union politicians were put in as governers and Congressmen, military rule was instituted in many places, etc. Sherman's march through Georgia can't hold a candle to the damage done by Reconstruction.

[Tanasi]

To the last point, I must quote a saying, "Knives don't run out of bullets". A knife isn't always a badthing.

The best part about the Civil War is that since the Confederacy was never recognized as a sovreign nation, all this technically happened against US citizens. Then after the South had properly 'learned its lesson', the governments were taken away from the people, corrupt friends of Union politicians were put in as governers and Congressmen, military rule was instituted in many places, etc. Sherman's march through Georgia can't hold a candle to the damage done by Reconstruction.

A knife is a good thing at times but you gotta get real close to use one, again I know from experience.
I won't debate the legitimaticy of the CSA but the damnyankee soldiers and officers certainly carried off a lot of valuble stuff for no other reason that to steal it. When everything of value was gone the damnyankee carpetbaggers came in to take the land, is it any wonder why a lot of southern folk still distrust damnyankees???

[Rapscallion]

Hmm - is it worth someone setting up a spare thread for the Americalandian Civil War? Just a touch worried about thread drift here.

Rapscallion

[Evandril]

Proportionality has nothing to do with anything, if it takes the enemy 20 ship loads of bombs to accomplish what you can with one then that's there problem. BTW nukes are political weapons and weapons of last resort.

Proportionality is using the right weapon for the job. Ie, if you have one soldier running at you, you shoot him with a gun, not a tank. If you have a soldier hiding in a church, it does make the church a valid target...but blowing up the entire church is not a 'proportional' response, and as such, would *currently* be concidered a war crime. Likewise, hitting a factory with a nuke is not proportional *NOW*...because we can hit it more directly. At the time, carpet bombing would have been needed, and would have made it a 'closer' fit, if that makes sense.

[Tanasi]

Proportionality is using the right weapon for the job. Ie, if you have one soldier running at you, you shoot him with a gun, not a tank. If you have a soldier hiding in a church, it does make the church a valid target...but blowing up the entire church is not a 'proportional' response, and as such, would *currently* be concidered a war crime. Likewise, hitting a factory with a nuke is not proportional *NOW*...because we can hit it more directly. At the time, carpet bombing would have been needed, and would have made it a 'closer' fit, if that makes sense.

For one soldier no I wouldn't waste a shell unless that's all I had. If a soldier(s) was hiding in a church and/or firing from that church then it becomes a legitimate target. It's just as much against the rules of war to use a house of worship as a base as it is to fire upon one. But the rules of war also say if you are fired upon you can return fire.
No you wouldn't use one nuke for one factory but dozens of factories and support facilities. Nukes aren't practical tactical weapons but strategic weapons and more generally political weapons. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were major industrial cities that produced the weapons of war therefore legitmate targets. Those cities were purposely left alone to test the effects of bomb. At the time they really didn't know the effect such a weapon would have upon a city and it's population. The bombs turned out to very devistating to say the least. At the time we only had enough material for 3 bombs. One was used for testing. Some wanted to blow up some island as a warning for the Japanese but President Truman thought differently and used the potential test on a real target. Was he correct or incorrect??? The war ended didn't it and on our terms???