“Disproportionate Attacks”

[AcePylut]

Iriemon:

For those neighborhoods in baghdad in which the terroristah scummah are survive and thrive because the population of that neighborhood accepts their presense, yes.

 

[Goobieman]

Like I said, Israel does not attack unless provoked.

Fool!
Dont know know that Israel is -supposed- to allow its citizens to be bombed dailiy by Palestinian terrorists groups bent on Israel's destruction?!?!

:roll:

 

[Iriemon]

Iriemon:

For those neighborhoods in baghdad in which the terroristah scummah are survive and thrive because the population of that neighborhood accepts their presense, yes.

Seems to me that would be the entire city, and the entire Sunni region of Iraq, and the Shiite sections of Iraq, and the Kurdish sections of Iraq, because they all have neighborhoods in which the terroristah scummah are survive and thrive.

So after leveling the entire country, and killing millions of Iraqis, that will help accomplish the objective? What is the objective again?

 

[Iriemon]

:lol: Unless the two citizens it arrests are part of a terrorist group that bombs Israel. From your own source:

Like I said, Israel does not attack unless provoked.

So they were provoked. And then I could say the same about the otherside. The Palestinians were provoked by the military incursion into their country, which provoked the Israelis to invade Gaza, which provoked Hezbolla to retialiate in defense of their allies, which provoked Isreal to bomb Beruit, which provoked ....

You can always find an argument about being provoked. The question is whether the responses were legitimate and proportionate. Seems to me both sides were itching for a fight.

 

[Kelzie]

So they were provoked. And then I could say the same about the otherside. The Palestinians were provoked by the military incursion into their country, which provoked the Israelis to invade Gaza, which provoked Hezbolla to retialiate in defense of their allies, which provoked Isreal to bomb Beruit, which provoked ....

You can always find an argument about being provoked. The question is whether the responses were legitimate and proportionate. Seems to me both sides were itching for a fight.

Except the only reason that there was a military incursion by Israel was that they were arresting people who fire rockets on them. They were quite clearly in the right.

 

[Iriemon]

Except the only reason that there was a military incursion by Israel was that they were arresting people who fire rockets on them. They were quite clearly in the right.

A legitimate provoking.

 

[Kelzie]

A legitimate provoking.

What kind of response is that?

 

[Voidwar]

But remember that the US's official stance on using nuclear weapons is open remorse and regret.

A silly bone, thrown to naive doves.

Incendiaries killed way more Japanese.

 

[Iriemon]

What kind of response is that?

In the pictures of the destroyed buildings you showed in another thread, have the survivors of Lebonese civilians killed by Isreali bombs been provoked to retaliate against Israel? Or would that be illegitimate?

 

[Hobbes]

Did Israel declare war on Lebanon or just Hezbollah?

 

[Deegan]

The fact remains, rockets rained down on Israel for almost a month, can someone name a country that would have let that stand?

I mean really folks, what nation would restrain themselves, when rockets continued to fall on their people? I would expect my country to stop those rockets no matter how many buildings, lives, bridges, or airports it took to get those rockets to stop. In my opinion, Israel is fighting a war like no other, so of course there are going to be civilian causalities, there really is no innocent civilians in this scenario, Hezbollah has to take responsibility for that. I believe this is why they now feel they must rebuild, and provide so much support for their people, because they know they are to blame!

 

[MSgt]

How so?

The first trip into Fallujah was called off after we had gotten almost to the end of the city. It was called off because President Bush gave into political pressure in the states and international political pressure.

After the Marines left, Fallujah became the terrorist capitol of the world (as we called it). It became the central hub of organization for the insurgency and the local Sunni rebels. Very soon the IED factories became popping up and they began to headquarter in the hospital and in mosques to save them selves from American attack.

2nd Fallujah was far more deadlier than the first for both sides and the city was demolished in the process to dig out deep rooted terrorists. All because we were stopped short of our goals during 1st Fallujah.

Perhaps this is what he was referring to.

 

[Kelzie]

In the pictures of the destroyed buildings you showed in another thread, have the survivors of Lebonese civilians killed by Isreali bombs been provoked to retaliate against Israel? Or would that be illegitimate?

I don't know. Depends how logical they are.

 

[AcePylut]

Seems to me that would be the entire city, and the entire Sunni region of Iraq, and the Shiite sections of Iraq, and the Kurdish sections of Iraq, because they all have neighborhoods in which the terroristah scummah are survive and thrive.

So after leveling the entire country, and killing millions of Iraqis, that will help accomplish the objective? What is the objective again?

Wouldn't have to have leveled the whole country, as the point would be made very quickly, and could have easily been made in Fallujah. The first neighborhood flattened shows what will happen where terroristah scummah survive and thrive in that neighborhood. The second flattening proves to average Joe Iraqi that we aren't going to relent and he'd better clean up his own backyard or he isn't going to have a backyard.

What I'm getting at is that this is how things should have been done from the start.

 

[AcePylut]

The first trip into Fallujah was called off after we had gotten almost to the end of the city. It was called off because President Bush gave into political pressure in the states and international political pressure.

After the Marines left, Fallujah became the terrorist capitol of the world (as we called it). It became the central hub of organization for the insurgency and the local Sunni rebels. Very soon the IED factories became popping up and they began to headquarter in the hospital and in mosques to save them selves from American attack.

2nd Fallujah was far more deadlier than the first for both sides and the city was demolished in the process to dig out deep rooted terrorists. All because we were stopped short of our goals during 1st Fallujah.

Perhaps this is what he was referring to.

This is exactly what I was referring to. Even one of my best buddies from High School, who went into the Marines (edited, lest one thinks I'm insulting you, as the term Jarhead could be taken in a deragatory fashion, even though I do not use it in this fashion) says pretty much exactly what you just said... He was stationed in Ramadi, and - if you remember the '5 Oclock Charlie' episode of MASH - had their "10AM Wednesday Hajji". He said it was like clockwork, every week on Wednesday at 10AM, an IED would explode on the road from Ramadi to Fallujah.

 

[MSgt]

This is exactly what I was referring to. Even one of my best buddies from High School, who went into the Marines (edited, lest one thinks I'm insulting you, as the term Jarhead could be taken in a deragatory fashion, even though I do not use it in this fashion) says pretty much exactly what you just said... He was stationed in Ramadi, and - if you remember the '5 Oclock Charlie' episode of MASH - had their "10AM Wednesday Hajji". He said it was like clockwork, every week on Wednesday at 10AM, an IED would explode on the road from Ramadi to Fallujah.

I don't mind "Jarhead," especially if not used in a derogitory manner.

Fallujah became a hot bed of terrorist activity. So many people in the west whine about what we did during 2nd Fallujah with complete disregard for what the Iraqis in the city were subjected to under terrorist sponsership after 1st Fallujah. Between the Fallujah events, all of our intel (which is gathered mostly by Muslim locals) pointed at Fallujah for every IED or organized attack. 2nd Fallujah was fierce for a reason - they were dug in and waiting for us to simply leave unfinished like the first time. We had to go in and get them or we were simply to accept that Al-Queda had a HQ within Iraq.

 

[aquapub]

It depends. If you are attacked by a nation there is a right to respond, but even there there is a line between efforts that legitimately reduce the nation's military power. In WWII, would the US have been justified in killing every single Japanese person?

This might make sense if Israel was trying to kill every single Lebanese instead of every single Hezbollah.

 

[AcePylut]

Posted by Iriemon
It depends. If you are attacked by a nation there is a right to respond, but even there there is a line between efforts that legitimately reduce the nation's military power. In WWII, would the US have been justified in killing every single Japanese person?

Yes, we would have.

And that's exactly what we were doing, right until the point when the Emperor decided that committing the most unthinkable sin - surrendering - was a better choice then total annihilation.

 

[Iriemon]

Yes, we would have.

And that's exactly what we were doing, right until the point when the Emperor decided that committing the most unthinkable sin - surrendering - was a better choice then total annihilation.

Well we'll have to disagree on that one. Being attacked by a nation does not provide justification for genocide, IMO.

 

[MSgt]

Yes, we would have.

And that's exactly what we were doing, right until the point when the Emperor decided that committing the most unthinkable sin - surrendering - was a better choice then total annihilation.

This is very well stated. Unfortunately, our western civilization today (with the help of the ever watchful and story frenzy media) does not have the stomach for such an endeavor. The act of "genocide" is disgusting, yet we face a situation where we are on a path towards this very thing. Instead they would rather watch individual wars that kill thousands and thousands of people, with breaks of false peace in between, instead of dealing with this once and for all.

However, there will come a day when Radical Islam detonates a nuclear device. What will our civilization do then as every Muslim government denies involvement and sends "condolensces?" Shall we wait for the next blast or act? Will we think back to a time when we could have dealt with this problem and killed far less people before they got nuclear weapons?

People just don't think the worst can ever happen. Even with 9/11, many merely hit the snooze.

 

[Iriemon]

This is very well stated. Unfortunately, our western civilization today (with the help of the ever watchful and story frenzy media) does not have the stomach for such an endeavor. Instead they would rather watch individual wars that kill thousands and thousands of people, with breaks of false peace in between, instead of dealing with this once and for all.

However, there will come a day when Radical Islam detonates a nuclear device. What will our civilization do then as every Muslim government denies involvement and sends "condolensces?" Shall we wait for the next blast or act?

People just don't think the worst can ever happen. Even with 9/11, many merely hit the snooze.

If we are hit with a nuke we are entitled to respond in kind against those responsible. The question is should we fire off nukes now on the proposition that we *may* be hit by a nuke some day in the future? That was the argument for first strike against the S.U.

 

[Hobbes]

This is very well stated. Unfortunately, our western civilization today (with the help of the ever watchful and story frenzy media) does not have the stomach for such an endeavor. The act of "genocide" is disgusting, yet we face a situation where we are on a path towards this very thing. Instead they would rather watch individual wars that kill thousands and thousands of people, with breaks of false peace in between, instead of dealing with this once and for all.

However, there will come a day when Radical Islam detonates a nuclear device. What will our civilization do then as every Muslim government denies involvement and sends "condolensces?" Shall we wait for the next blast or act? Will we think back to a time when we could have dealt with this problem and killed far less people before they got nuclear weapons?

People just don't think the worst can ever happen. Even with 9/11, many merely hit the snooze.

What exactly are you suggesting we do to deal with this problem now? How could we deal with Radical Islam all at once?

 

[AcePylut]

We can disagree on the best way to win a war, as we are all entitled to our own opinions. I happen to believe that during the war, the best way to win that war with the least amount of casualties to our side is commit to total warfare, and that means complete destruction of the everything “enemy”. When war has been joined, I don’t care about casualties to the other side, as the ‘other side’ is our enemy, committed to our destruction, and I am not going to bet my survival and the survival of my loved ones on the mercy of the enemy.

It’s sad to say, but the adage “kill them before they kill you” holds true in warfare. I’d prefer them dead before me dead. General George Patton once said, “No one ever won a war by dying for their country, they won by making the other poor b*stard die for his country”. I agree with him 100%

I would also disagree with defining “complete destruction of everything ‘enemy’” as “genocide”. I don’t define “genocide” as “killing everyone and destroying everything up until the point where the enemy surrenders” as genocide, but warfare. Should the killing and destroying continue after the surrender, however, that is what I would call genocide.

To provide a relevant example of these definitions as they relate to Japan ala WW2:
The nukes on Hiroshima & Nagasaki, the fire bombing of Tokyo, etc. etc. wasn’t genocide, but warfare.
Had we continued killing everything * after * their surrender, I would call it genocide.

 

[AcePylut]

What exactly are you suggesting we do to deal with this problem now? How could we deal with Radical Islam all at once?

Deny them paradise in the afterlife.

This can be done by drenching whatever scraps of them are left with pig blood, then wrap them in a pigskin shroud, bury them them upside down, and facing away from Mecca.

 

[DeeJayH]

How so?

cant believe I ahve to explain this simple point :roll:

bush should have followed the Powell doctrine and used overwhelming force to conquer Iraq and maintain control