Political Crossfire Forums

[Duchifas]

Secondary Oak wrote: Quote: Sleep on this "The Brits lost more soldiers than the number of innocent civilians we killed" That's why we can judge you and the Spanish can say the same.
As I said before, the situation is drastically different. For starters, Israel hadn't had the chance to dominate a third (or a half) of the world with its army. And I have little doubt that faced with the same situation the British or the Spanish wouldn't do the same as Israel is doing right now. Do you? What do you think the Spanish would do if it were in Israel's place now? And do consider all the events over the past six years in your reply.

Why ask him what British would do? We do know what the British did. When rockets and bombs landed on London, in retaliation, the British carpet bombed German cities. Quite disproportionately.

Quote: Out of 28,410 houses in the inner city of Dresden, 24,866 were destroyed. An area of 15 square kilometres was totally destroyed, among that: 14,000 homes, 72 schools, 22 hospitals, 18 churches, 5 theatres, 50 banks and insurance companies, 31 department stores, 31 large hotels, 62 administration buildings as well as factories such as the Ihagee camera works. In total there were 222,000 apartments in the city. 75,000 of them were totally destroyed, 11,000 severely damaged, 7,000 damaged, 81,000 slightly damaged. The city was around 300 square kilometres in area in those days. Although the main railway station was destroyed completely, the railway was working again within a few days.

The precise number of dead is difficult to ascertain and is not known. Estimates are made difficult by the fact that the city and surrounding suburbs which had a population of 642,000 in 1939[20] was crowded at that time with up to 200,000 refugees[21], and some thousands of wounded soldiers. The fate of some of the refugees is not known as they may have been killed and incinerated beyond recognition in the fire-storm, or they may have left Dresden for other places without informing the authorities. Earlier reputable estimates varied from 25,000 to more than 60,000, but historians now view around 25,000–35,000 as the likely range[22][23] with the latest (1994) research by the Dresden historian Friedrich Reichert pointing toward the lower part of this range[24]. It would appear from such estimates that the casualties suffered in the Dresden bombings were not out of proportion to those suffered in other German cities which were subject to firebombing attacks during area bombardment[25].

Contemporary official German records give a number of 21,271 registered burials, including 6,865 who were cremated on the Altmarkt.[26] There were around 25,000 officially buried dead by March 22, 1945, war related or not, according to official German report Tagesbefehl (Order of the Day) no. 47 ("TB47"). There was no registration of burials between May and September 1945.[27] War-related dead found in later years, from October 1945 to September 1957, are given as 1,557; from May 1945 until 1966, 1,858 bodies were recovered. None were found during the period 1990–1994, even though there was a lot of construction and excavation during that period. The number of people registered with the authorities as missing was 35,000; around 10,000 of those were later found to be alive[28]. In recent years, the estimates have become a little higher in Germany and lower in Britain; earlier it was the opposite.

There have been higher estimates for the number of dead, ranging as high as 300,000. They are from disputed and unreliable sources, such as the Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda headed by Joseph Goebbels, Soviet historians, and David Irving, the once popular, but now discredited self-taught historian[29] who retracted his higher estimates[30]. Both the Columbia Encyclopedia and Encarta Encyclopedia list the number as "from 35,000 to more than 135,000 dead", the higher figure of which is in line with Irving's incorrect retracted estimates.

The Nazis made use of Dresden in their propaganda efforts and promised swift retaliation. The Soviets also made propaganda use of the Dresden bombing in the early years of the Cold War to alienate the East Germans from the Americans and British.

The destruction of Dresden was comparable to that of many other German cities, with the tonnage of bombs dropped lower than in many other areas[31]. However, ideal weather conditions at the target site, the wooden-framed buildings, and "breakthroughs" linking the cellars of contiguous buildings and the lack of preparation for the effects of air-raids by Gauleiter Martin Mutschmann[32], conspired to make the attack particularly devastating. For these reasons the loss of life in Dresden was higher than many other bombing raids during World War II. For example Coventry, the English city which is now twinned with Dresden, and is often compared and contrasted with it, lost 1,236 in two separate raids in 1940. In late 2004, an RAF man involved in the raid said in an interview on the BBC's Radio 4 that another factor was the lower-than-expected level of anti-aircraft fire, which allowed a high degree of accuracy on the part of the bombers.

Overall, Anglo-American bombing of German cities claimed between 305,000 and 600,000 civilian lives[33]. Whether these attacks hastened the end of the war is a controversial question.

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

The German blitz campaign of bombing London resulted in 43,000 British casualties. The "measured" British response resulted in 300,000-600,000 civilian German deaths.

Of course, when Israeli towns are shelled by rockets, our British buddy expects IDF soldiers to politely go house to house in Lebanon and ask the residents whether they have seen any Hizballoons around.

Hypocricy at its finest!

[mr_happy]

I find it quite funny that P&S thinks that Israel should be responsible for its enemy's civillians. In WWII, the allies knew where the concentration camps and the railways leading to them were. Not one allied bombing mission was used to stop the flow of Jewish prisoners to the concentration camps. The allies decided that their men were worth more than Germans that were being killed by their own country. So, allied bombing mission were used to protect allied lives, not German-Jewish lives. Yet, half of the world believes that ISrael should somehow be an exception, a country where they must fight their enemy to protect their people AND the enemy's people.

THe NATO mission in Kosovo is alway described as a huge success story. I wonder how many civillians we killed there.

[MoscowMatt]

Secondary Oak wrote: Plato & Socrates wrote: Well they may decide to look at how the spanish dealt with ETA or the Brits with the IRA.
You always use these analogies, and as always I find them seriously lacking.

Quote: Fighting terrorists is dirty and gritty and it costs soldiers lives. The reason it costs soldiers lives is because you fight in circumstances where civilians are about. In not killing all that moves makes you extremely vulnerable. Because Israel wants to remove that risk from the equation, you are turning a blind eye to the presence of civilians. Intellectualizing this debate regarding Hizbollahs morality in using human shields. Only exposes your own defunct and immoral position to kill them.
Israeli soldiers are - believe it or not - Israeli citizens, and as such the government is required to consider their safety before the safety of foreigners, civilian or not. At least this is my opinion, and the opinion of - I believe - most of the people in the world, but it seems you disagree.

Quote: Knowbody in the west says anything but Hizbollah is morally bankrupt in their tactics, hiding amongst the civilians.
Really? I seem to see more condemnations against Israel about, say, Qana, than against Hezbollah.

Quote: Sleep on this "The Brits lost more soldiers than the number of innocent civilians we killed" That's why we can judge you and the Spanish can say the same.
As I said before, the situation is drastically different. For starters, Israel hadn't had the chance to dominate a third (or a half) of the world with its army. And I have little doubt that faced with the same situation the British or the Spanish wouldn't do the same as Israel is doing right now. Do you? What do you think the Spanish would do if it were in Israel's place now? And do consider all the events over the past six years in your reply.

Quote: In this Lebanon crisis its much more than 10 to one the numbers of civilians killed to IDF soldiers killed.
Countless reasons have been posted on this forum for this, and I won't repeat them here.

Quote: Why is that? And your debating about the wests morality in judging Israels tactics? :roll: please...
Yes, I do. You are a good example of what I resent, I fear. You turn most of your condemnation against Israel, and thus signal to the terrorists they are doing the right thing.

:clap: :clap:

People with the opinions of Plato are exactly what the terrorists are hoping for. Thankfully there are those of us who have avoided the propaganda trap!

[psholtz]

mr_happy wrote: THe NATO mission in Kosovo is alway described as a huge success story. I wonder how many civillians we killed there.
With depleted uranium, no less.. :-|

[MoscowMatt]

mr_happy wrote: I find it quite funny that P&S thinks that Israel should be responsible for its enemy's civillians. In WWII, the allies knew where the concentration camps and the railways leading to them were. Not one allied bombing mission was used to stop the flow of Jewish prisoners to the concentration camps. The allies decided that their men were worth more than Germans that were being killed by their own country. So, allied bombing mission were used to protect allied lives, not German-Jewish lives. Yet, half of the world believes that ISrael should somehow be an exception, a country where they must fight their enemy to protect their people AND the enemy's people.

THe NATO mission in Kosovo is alway described as a huge success story. I wonder how many civillians we killed there.

Lot's. If Belgrade had of been a Middle Eastern city there would have been outrage but of course it's not and few people cared. That's why all these people who go on about the deaths of civilians in Lebanon (and yes it is terrible I'm not denying that) wind me up because they are so hypocritical. The deaths of civilians in war anywhere should be equally unacceptable so why only make a fuss about those in the Middle East??

I'm curious to know why! Really somebody tell me why does the death of a Lebanese civilian bother you so much more than when Yugoslavia was suffering too? Yes I know there are those who cared there too but just look at the volume of protest in each respective conflict and you will see my point.

[Duchifas]

And P & S is nowhere to be found.

So how about them Brits bombing the crap out of German civilians, P & S?

[Redruin]

What about the Romans having slaves? And the United States having slaves? Just because someone else did something wrong does not mean it is justifiable for you to continue the practice. I know you don't understand any of the basic concepts of morality Duchifas but put a little effort into this please. Also, you have not yet explained your fascination with WW2 and this current conflict. The two are not comparable, as I've said time and time again.

[Duchifas]

Redruin wrote: What about the Romans having slaves? And the United States having slaves? Just because someone else did something wrong does not mean it is justifiable for you to continue the practice. I know you don't understand any of the basic concepts of morality Duchifas but put a little effort into this please. Also, you have not yet explained your fascination with WW2 and this current conflict. The two are not comparable, as I've said time and time again.

My fascination is very simple because it highlights the hypocricy and double standards of many in the West.

The hypocricy is that it is unacceptable for Israel to defend itself in the same manner that the Western democracies defend themselves. It absolutely fascinates me that the Brits, who glorify the WWII generation and hold their veterans in high esteem, are so critical of Israel.

The RAF bombing campaign of Europe killed between 300,000 and 600,000 civilians. They are heroes of WWII. They are the defenders of Britain. Yet, when IAF defends Israeli civilians and kills 500 Lebanese in the process, they are the villains.

Why? Do you not see the double standards?

Sure, you say, that was back then, but now the world is different! Then, nobody heard of morality (yeah, right), but now we are all acutely tuned to it and just because the British bombed civilians into smitherines back then, does not mean that we can do it now.

Yeah? Fine, I would be fine with that kind of reasoning. On one condition. That you be fair. That you stop the double standard. Fine, Israel is committing war crimes. Fine, Israel's invasion of Lebanon is immoral. Good. I can live with that.

But first you, accusers of Israel need to do something.

You need to apply the same standard to yourselves. I want you to gather up the living veterans of the Royal Air Force, and the living veterans of the US Air Force and bring them to trial for war crimes. For those men did what the Israeli Air Force (IAF) is doing, but on a much grander scale.

I want you to rewrite the textbooks you use in schools, and I want you to describe the Anglo-American invasion of Europe in the same way that BBC is describing Israeli invasion of Lebanon.

I want those who detract Israel for civilian casualties to go on TV news and berate the RAF veterans for carpet bombing German cities. I want them to find out where the veterans of Normandy landing live and stand outside their homes and chant "murderers." Because far too many civilians died in Normandy.

If you do that, then you can level your criticism at Israel and call its actions immoral, unjustified, criminal, or whatever else you like. Then, I will acknowledge some truth to your criticism. Then, I may listen.

But until and unless you do that, you engage in double faced, duplicitous hypocricy. You teach your children that your pilots were heroes in schools by day, and you accuse Israeli pilots by night on TV.

What kind of a hypocritical message are you sending to your children?

Do you now understand my "fascination" a little better?

[Duchifas]

You also brought up slavery, Redruin. And I think it is also an appropriate example. Let me explain.

You criticising Israel for civilian casualties, would be analogous to a brutal Southern slaveholder criticizing me for spanking my kid. Spanking is immoral, the slave owner would explain to me. It hurts the child. He, the slave owner, never spanks his kids.

Do you see the absurdity? That's what it sounds like when you level criticism at Israel for defending herself.

[Plato & Socrates]

Duchifas wrote: And P & S is nowhere to be found.

So how about them Brits bombing the crap out of German civilians, P & S?

I will reply I promise. I have'nt forgotten.

[Redruin]

Duchifas you just refuse to look yourself in the mirror. You say you cannot accept criticism of Israel because of what our grandfather's did in WW2. How on earth does that have anything to do with judging the morality of current events today? You say you will only accept criticism of Israel if we "stop the double standard." Are you so shallow that you can only base your views, your morality, conditionally upon the words of others? We are not your parents teaching you what is right and what is wrong. Whether or not we criticize grandpa does not change the morality of an event. You should already know whether or not an action which unfolds before your eyes is right, or wrong. Only a child uses conditional morality.

[Duchifas]

Redruin wrote: Duchifas you just refuse to look yourself in the mirror.

Yeah, I knew you wouldn't answer. So how about them "heroes" of WWII? Are you ready to accuse them of the same that you accuse Israel of?

Quote: You say you cannot accept criticism of Israel because of what our grandfather's did in WW2.

I can accept criticism of Israel plenty, and I can dish out my own plenty too. What I don't want to accept is duplicitous and hypocritical criticism. I do not want to accept your criticizing the actions of Israel, while you hold people guilty of same types of actions in high esteem.

That is not criticism. That is hypocricy.

Quote: How on earth does that have anything to do with judging the morality of current events today?

It has everything to do with it. Because the foremost judges of morality of today (i.e., the liberal left) are the ones who condemn others for that of which they are guilty themselves. They are ready to condemn others for reacting in precisely the same way they would have reacted and did react in the past. They are ready to hold some as heroes and others as villains for doing exactly the same thing. Again, that is not judging morality. That is is hypocricy.

Like I said, I am ready to accept your criticism of Israel, as long as it is fair. It will only be fair if you are ready to hold yourself to the same standard as you hold Israelis to. Your criticism of Israeli army will only be fair if you acknowledge that American and British armies are guilty of the same.

Basically, before you criticize Israel, you should be able to pass the "child test." In school, and perhaps at home, your child is being taught about the heroic Allied efforts to defeat Germany. And here you criticize Israel for defending itself, disproportionately.

Your child watches CNN and asks you what you think of the conflict, what will you tell him? That Israeli response is disproportionate and unjustified because they kill civilians? If your child asks then you -- but daddy, didn't Anglo-American bombing campaign kill 300,000-600,000 civilians during WWII? What will you tell him? With a straight face, Redruin, what will you tell him?

What's your answer, Redruin?

Quote: You say you will only accept criticism of Israel if we "stop the double standard." Are you so shallow that you can only base your views, your morality, conditionally upon the words of others? We are not your parents teaching you what is right and what is wrong. Whether or not we criticize grandpa does not change the morality of an event. You should already know whether or not an action which unfolds before your eyes is right, or wrong. Only a child uses conditional morality.

I personally don't base my morality on anything you say. I am perfectly capable of judging actions on my own. I do not respond to you for my benefit. I respond for your benefit. Because if your kid is smart enough, one day he will ask you the same question. Why don't you think about the answer while you have time.

The issue here is more than the morality of the event. The issue is your utterly skewed perception of morality.

Like I said, I am perfectly willing to hear your criticism and even accept the immorality of Israeli action. I am open-minded. I WILL agree with you. But I will not engage in your hypocricy. Thus, I will not let you hold Israel to one standard of morality, while holding yourself to another. I will not quietly accept your implications that Israeli soldiers are war criminals, while you hold British and American veterans of WWII in high esteem.

You choose.