Gaza strip offensive

[VictoriaWong]

I can't find a more neutral article (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87837153), but the Gaza strip is having... ah... diplomatic problems.

[olaf]

lol I love the statement from the UN

STOP FIGHTING GUYS SRSLY

[Lum]

http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showthread.php?t=42743

[MikeSofaer]

The draft resolution, put forward by Pakistan and supported by the 15 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference on the council, including Malaysia, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, expressed shock at the "collective punishment against the civilian population, which constitute a war crime."
Something's wrong there; but should it be "who constitute a war crime" or "which constitutes a war crime"?

[Lum]

No, no, the civilian population constitutes a war crime. It makes perfect Mideast sense!

Also, to beat the dead horse, yet again, in my mind imposing a blockade on Gaza isn't a war crime, it's fighting a war. Hamas used the week-long break in the Egyptian border to import Grad rockets last month, and shot them off this week. Just to, you know, show what happens when that blockade breaks.

Now, realistically, there SHOULD be able to be, in supposed peacetime, normal trade crossing the border. But this isn't peacetime by any stretch of the imagination. And blockading your enemy isn't exactly a new strategy - it was used by Germany against Britain in 1916-1917, Britain against Germany in 1918, Germany against Britain again in 1940-1941, and the US against Japan in 1943-1945.

It sucks. During blockades, innocent civilians starve and die. NEWS FLASH: WAR SUCKS AND PEOPLE DIE. If Hamas is going to bang the war drum about what badass resistance fighters they are and how they won't negotiate with Israel because that makes them impure or something, than they shouldn't be surprised when their declared enemy, you know, fights back.

Or, just maybe, they should take the advice of Field Marshal von Rundstedt, when, newly fired by Hitler, was asked what the hell to do about the Russians by his successor. "Make peace, you fools."

Of course, by the logic of the Palestinians and their supporters, the West shouldn't have invaded Europe in 1944, because clearly Germany wasn't capable of winning the war and sending Russians into Berlin and bombing their cities into rubble was just disproportionate violence! I mean, those V1s and V2s couldn't actually kill people, much.

[MikeSofaer]

Sure, war is tough, but that doesn't mean it needs to include attacking civilian populations. I just think we should be looking at the strategies used, as well as the root causes, and trying to figure out if there are ways to minimize impact on the civilians, children, etc, and I'm not sure you've given much thought to the "why" of the whole thing. Did you ever wonder why they have to run for shelter when the promise of a brave new world unfurled beneath a clear blue sky? It seems unnecessarily harsh.

[Jag]

Sure, war is tough, but that doesn't mean it needs to include attacking civilian populations. I just think we should be looking at the strategies used, as well as the root causes, and trying to figure out if there are ways to minimize impact on the civilians, children, etc, and I'm not sure you've given much thought to the "why" of the whole thing. Did you ever wonder why they have to run for shelter when the promise of a brave new world unfurled beneath a clear blue sky? It seems unnecessarily harsh.

Using Lum's example, if the Germans put the V1/2 launchers in schoolyard, the allies would have bombed the hell out of the school without hesitation.

Abba Iban said: The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. I've read Palestinian leaders saying the same thing.

Gold Meir said: "We will have peace with Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us."

Both are still true today.

[Tim Partlett]

Of course, by the logic of the Palestinians and their supporters, the West shouldn't have invaded Europe in 1944, because clearly Germany wasn't capable of winning the war and sending Russians into Berlin and bombing their cities into rubble was just disproportionate violence! I mean, those V1s and V2s couldn't actually kill people, much.

You are comparing the Palestinians to Nazis? Nice one.

I missed the bit of their history which is analogous to invading Poland and conducting the Holocaust.

(I actually agree with the rest of what you said.)

[Unicorn McGriddle]

Yeah, the Allies would have done that without question. During WWII, aerial bombing went from being an unusual atrocity to being standard procedure on a surprisingly rapid timeline. It never went back. If you can afford the airplanes, you have a license to kill.

[Rimbo]

I agree -- Gaza should leave his clothes on. Seriously, that's not merely offensive, that's gross.

[Walter Yarbrough]

Yeah, the Allies would have done that without question. During WWII, aerial bombing went from being an unusual atrocity to being standard procedure on a surprisingly rapid timeline. It never went back. If you can afford the airplanes, you have a license to kill.

Yes, a rare and unusual atrocity, that started 5 minutes before the war nominally began.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Wielu%C5%84

[VictoriaWong]

http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showthread.php?t=42743

Sorry for not finding it: I woke up this morning to news of more Gaza atrocities and posted a link before running to class.
Next time, I'll wait until I come back and am actually awake.

[Bahimiron]

Every time I come up on a part of the year where I will be able to go back to Israel, things like this start up. 'Course, it's just getting worse and worse. Sometimes I worry I just won't be able to go back in my lifetime.

[Grifman]

Yes, a rare and unusual atrocity, that started 5 minutes before the war nominally began.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Wielu%C5%84

And I thought Hitler kept the trains running on time . . . bastard!

[Lum]

You are comparing the Palestinians to Nazis? Nice one.

Well, I'd compare them to the allies, but they actually won the war! Feel free to replace them with Japan, but the parallel of militarily useless V1 rocket strikes was too good to pass up. Or, you could just do what we do in computer gaming, and pretend WW2 was fought on the German side by "Germans" who didn't use swastikas or commit any war crimes. Parallel still holds.

[Lum]

Yes, a rare and unusual atrocity, that started 5 minutes before the war nominally began.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Wielu%C5%84

Actually, Japan was terror bombing China well before 1939.

[/dirt]

[Unicorn McGriddle]

What I meant to indicate was that popular sentiment was against aerial bombing in WWI, people were horrified by it in the Spanish Civil War, there were Allied disagreements about it for a while, but by the end of the war, everyone was doing it and it was celebrated. You may remember a famous headline to the effect of 500,000 JAPS DIE IN TOKYO FIRESTORM.

If you'd like to go back to before the invasion of Poland and even before Guernica, the Germans were bombing on a large scale even in WWI. This can be attributed to their national character if you like -- personally, I think it's because their computer games don't have red blood -- but yeah, they were early adopters. And it pissed everyone else off. There was a limit to that discomfort, of course. Enemies seen as subhuman were gladly bombed. This includes the Japanese bombing in China mentioned earlier, but also the American bombing of Japan.

But in Europe, there was more reluctance to bomb (except for the Germans). The British only started bombing cities after the Germans did it. A key figure in advocating British bombing was Winston Churchill, who was also a gas attack fan. The Americans were persuaded to join in, and only a few years after proposing their most recent anti-bombing treaty, they were building test villages modelled on working-class districts in Berlin and Tokyo so that they could experiment with the effects of firebombing.

In other words, as I said, world opinion about aerial bombing of cities changed a great deal. Except, I must concede, in Germany.

[Lum]

I don't know if I'd call bombings in WW1 "large scale". Yes, German zeppelins dropped a few bombs on London and Paris, but it had about as much effect on the cities as Qassams do Sderot - lots of sound and fury and air raid sirens and maybe one actually lands on someone and blows up. There just wasn't the capacity to drop huge payloads of explosives on something. The Germans certainly tried; they even had a huge artillery gun that could shell Paris.

That's one reason why Guernica had such an impact on people at the time; it was the first true large-scale terror bombing. It was something new and horrible and of course was immediately embraced by every warring party.

There wasn't any reluctance at all on the part of the British to bomb Germany, by the way, Britain was doing bombing raids on Germany in 1940 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Bomber_Command). It didn't have much impact, because they were daylight raids trying to hit relatively military targets and bombers at the time didn't have the range, payload capacity, or targeting technology for precision bombing. It was definitely grist for Nazi propaganda, though, and ironically enough Germany used them as an excuse for the (far more bloody) pounding of Britain from the air.

Bomber Command was also indirectly responsible, in part at least, for the switch of Luftwaffe attention away from Fighter Command to bombing civilian targets. A German bomber on a raid got lost due to poor navigation and bombed London. Churchill consequently ordered a retaliatory raid on the German capital of Berlin. The damage caused was minor, but the raid sent Hitler into a rage. He ordered the Luftwaffe to level British cities, thus precipitating the Blitz.

After the Battle of Britain, "Bomber" Harris invented night bombing raids, which could be described as "hey, drop bombs in the general area of a city, they're all Germans, right? We'll get somebody. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Travers_Harris)"

[David Erikson]

It's about time current Israel administration grows some and start responding efficiently to Hamas rockets that have been killing and crippling israel civilian population. And to all "inadequate response", “violence only breeds violence”, et cetera sayers - get a fucking grasp. Government not capable of fighting back when its people are being killed has no right to exist.

Yes, it is clear that diplomacy will be needed as part of any long-lasting solution for palestinian conflict. However country not capable of protecting its people will never achieve much behind negotiation table - certainly not in the Middle East.

[marxeil]

It's about time current Israel administration grows some and start responding efficiently to Hamas rockets that have been killing and crippling israel civilian population. And to all "inadequate response", “violence only breeds violence”, et cetera sayers - get a fucking grasp. Government not capable of fighting back when its people are being killed has no right to exist.

Yes, it is clear that diplomacy will be needed as part of any long-lasting solution for palestinian conflict. However country not capable of protecting its people will never achieve much behind negotiation table - certainly not in the Middle East.
A country has a right to defend its civilians from attacks? By attacking back? Oh the humanity.

Edit:
I guess I am mostly appalled at my own inability to express what David Erikson wrote here.
I would never say that we as a country are without blame for what is happening, but reading stuff like this:
Sorry for not finding it: I woke up this morning to news of more Gaza atrocities and posted a link before running to class.
is infuriating. Get a grip on reality - other counties being bombarded for 3 years would lash out much more violently. We are entirely right to defend ourselves. What do you think is the goal of Hamas with the bombardments - to have Israeli soldiers enter the strip. We don't want to play that today. They throw bombs, we throw bombs. Sorry that ours are bigger.

[hong]

This thread made me think that someone found a stripper named Gaza offensive. We now return you to your regularly scheduled bomb-throwing.

[Unicorn McGriddle]

I don't know if I'd call [German] bombings in WW1 "large scale".

To put it another way, it wasn't ethics that limited them.

That's one reason why Guernica had such an impact on people at the time; it was the first true large-scale terror bombing. It was something new and horrible and of course was immediately embraced by every warring party.

I think you mean "decried loudly and embraced slightly afterward."

There wasn't any reluctance at all on the part of the British to bomb Germany, by the way, Britain was doing bombing raids on Germany in 1940 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Bomber_Command).

That was post-Rotterdam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Rotterdam).

[Fooey]

After the Battle of Britain, "Bomber" Harris invented night bombing raids, which could be described as "hey, drop bombs in the general area of a city, they're all Germans, right? We'll get somebody. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Travers_Harris)"

Harris is one of history's worst war criminals. He purposely killed almost a million civilians in directly targeted attacks on civilian areas across Germany and mass fire bombings of militarily insignificant cities like Dresden and Hamburg. If he'd been on trial at Nuremberg with the others, no one there except Goering would have been more deserving of being hanged.

[Tim Partlett]

Well, I'd compare them to the allies, but they actually won the war! Feel free to replace them with Japan, but the parallel of militarily useless V1 rocket strikes was too good to pass up. Or, you could just do what we do in computer gaming, and pretend WW2 was fought on the German side by "Germans" who didn't use swastikas or commit any war crimes. Parallel still holds.

Actually the V1 wasn't useless at all. It damaged or destroyed over a million houses, nearly as many houses as the Blitz, and at a far lower cost (less than a tenth of the sorties and zero pilots killed). They also caused over 22,000 casualties, a rate per ton of bombs of 1.6/1, the same as the Blitz managed.

I don't think much else about the Palestinians compares to Germany in World War 2 either, Nazis or no Nazis.

[Brendan]

They're all full of shit. Both sides of the conflict are fighting primitive religious wars that cannot be justified this side of the 1600's.

[Tim Partlett]

The divides might be down religious lines (Jewish vs Muslim and Christian Arabs), but the conflict is definitely secular.

[marxeil]

They're all full of shit. Both sides of the conflict are fighting primitive religious wars that cannot be justified this side of the 1600's.
Nonsense, its a territorial dispute.

[Shiroko]

They're all full of shit. Both sides of the conflict are fighting primitive religious wars that cannot be justified this side of the 1600's.

You're quite far from the truth.
Palestinians are rather secular muslims, some are even christian.
Israel is a mostly secular state. 51% of its Jewish population define themselves secular, and 30% more as traditional.
Yet both sides have a lot of right wing people, most of which as you can see are not religious people, and instead have cold hard arguments for their stands.
And as marxeil says, most of the dispute is territorial these days, and economical.

[Anaxagoras]

I don't think much else about the Palestinians compares to Germany in World War 2 either, Nazis or no Nazis.

When entering a discussion, it is helpful to support opinions with stated reasons for said opinions.