Alter

BRAVO!!!

Again, that's why I support both Israel and Taiwan, even though such support has consequences.

|2eason

I didn't support America for it's war in Iraq, likewise, I don't agree with Israel for it's treatment of Palestine. A countries internal demographics and degree of liberalism within it's own society does not affect my ability to judge it's foreign policy on it's own merits.

ps. I've looked around the net for Israels demographics, there seems to be no unbiased source for them. This shows a growing Arab population. But, I can't help but wonder if the stats include Arabs in occupied territories.

Jimmy Higgins

Well... can't you support Israel and not support Israel's treatment of the Palestinians at the same time?

I support America, but not Bush's awful policies.

Riley

Of course, you can support Israel and not support some of its policies as long as the criticiam is contextual and even-handed. And there are aspects of israel's treatment of the palestinains to which i object. But the issue that I have been addressing in this forum is the attempt by some to blame israel for all the troubles in the Middle east and to apply a higher standard of conduct for israel than for any other nation.

The corrupt governments, disunity, violence. tyranny, overpopulation and the squandering of resource that infects every Arab government is never touched. israel's critics start thread after thread, moaning on and on about some misdeed perpetrated by Israel, while turning silent when it is pointed out that Israel's critics are the ones guilty of the very crimes of which Israel is accused. If they were to state the struggle in the Mideast in true terms: that total Arab control of only98% of the Middle east is not enough (nor is 8% of the original Palestinian mandate, which included, what is now Jordan)that would sound grasping and imperialistic (which it is, of course but is not very politically correct). Thus the usefulness of the Palestinians, who no one (least of all, their Arab brothers) gives a crap about outside their usefulness in bashing israel and achieveing the hoped-for result: the ultimate destruction of the jewish state. Thus the massive silence regarding the treatment of palestinans in Arab countries. The huge expulsions from Kuwait and Libya, for example are never mentioned. The thousands of Palestinians killed by the Jordanians (Black September) is long forgotten but the howls and fetishization against Israeli crimes is never ending. It takes a special kind of political correctness to simultaneously embrace Goliath and convince yourself that you are Ghandi.

Loren Pechtel

I didn't want to use "innocent" as not all of them were. There were a lot of soldiers in the blast area.

I do think they were somewhat less worthy as their government was the aggressor in the war and they obviously tolerated the government. Killing them was a regrettable neccessity of war. We lacked the ability to stop Japan any other way.

What I have been saying is that in terms of casualties the a-bomb was nothing special. Yes, it killed far more than any conventional bomb ever dropped. However, in terms of damage to the city it wasn't notable. Other cities were hit worse with conventional bombing raids. The total destructive power doesn't tell the true story of the damage at all. First, the central area was subject to extreme overkill. Everyone in that area died anyway, the extra power did nothing. Second, increasing a bomb's power 1000x only increases the damage 100x. You see the same thing in reverse--against soft targets the air force drops cluster bombs because dropping the size of the bomb 1000x only drops it's damage 100x.

Ravon

I guess I see soldiers, more often than not as innocent combatants. The vast majority of people would be perfectly content never going to war but when their country calls they go.

I wouldn't necessarily agree that Japanese soldiers were less worthy than American soldiers. Someone my retaliate against the school bully who may have done nothing physical but ultimately deserved a punch in the nose because they had been tormenting the person. All I am saying is that Americans are taught that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was completely without provocation when it wasn't.

As a rationalization for using an Atomic Bomb American's have been taught that there was no other way of ending the war short of invasion and that in fact dropping those bombs was a mercy on the people of Japan. I just want you to know that not everything you learn in American schools is true.

And then you make the argument that the damage from two Abombs was no more than european cities suffered from conventional bombs. Dresdan is a good example of a city that was almost completely destroyed in allied bombing. The one thing that Germany didn't have to deal with that the Japanese did was radiation and I really don't know Loren how you can leave that out. You know of course that the Atomic bombs continued to claim victims into the next generation due to the exposure to the radioactive fallout. So you are right that in terms of damaged building and even in loss of life there is some sameness but in sure horror can there be any doubt?

rlogan

You don't use the word "innocent" because every statement you make has to protect your fiction of what Palestinians do as "illegitimate" and what Israel does as "legitimate".

So it is imperitive to hide at all costs the truth that in general the U.S. has had massive bombing campaigns expressly targeting civilians.

So we have the grotesque spin here that "not all of them" were innocent. The truth, as I quoted from official sources earlier, was that:

almost all of them were civilians

To which the miracle of Loren-spin becomes:

Hell will freeze over before you provide one scintilla of evidence. But, prove me wrong.

Maybe you mean "more than three" or something like that?

They obviously tolerated their government. So kill them. You have placed in the hands of the Palestinians the justification for striking civilians. Shall I now accuse you of supporting "terrorism" as you did for Sauron?

Agree completely. Unfortunately, the nuclear bogeyman has shifted attention away from the massive program of civilian targeting undertaken by the U.S. in the war.

Nothing personal here, Loren. I disagree completely with your view on this, obviously. That is as far as my comments extend.

Jimmy Higgins

Aww.... no red font?

Loren Pechtel

If we could take out only the leadership that would be perfect. Unfortunately, even today we often can't.

I do agree that there was provocation, but to see the start of it we need to look back further. Japan rightly feared our interference with their plans to gobble up much of Asia. However the primary cause was their expanionism.

This has been discussed on here before. Vorkosigan addressed it well enough that I'm not going to try.

Actually, I was comparing it against what happened to the Japanese cities that we had already hit.

I left it out because we didn't realize what was going to happen until afterwards. It was war, we didn't have time to carefully study all the implications of the bomb. Sometimes things will end up doing more damage than was intended.

Note, also, that I was considering the radiation deaths in comparing the outcomes.

Henry-Finland

Israel will maybe do something, if Israel gets rid of the Zionists in power.
The landgrabbing Zionists will not do anything, except grab more land.

That thieves will continue with their tefths, it has nothing to do with the Palestinians.



Henry