Israel Bombing footage

[theflyingpig]

Originally posted by: NoShangriLa
It is hard for me to believe that Western forces go out of their way to avoid civilian casualties after historic reviews on Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden.

IMHO, we are capable of being the monsters that we try to disassociates with, and it is likely that we are the evil villain with out knowing it.

It was our intent to kill civilians. Fool, those campaigns were designed to destroy the enemy's will to fight, and they worked. These are effective tactics, no matter who uses them. In war everyone is evil.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: NoShangriLa

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: NoShangriLa

Deaths in Hiroshima & Nagasaki at 200,000.
South Vietnamese civilian dead: 1,581,000*
Cambodian civilian dead: ~700,000*
North Vietnamese civilian dead: ~3,000,000*
Laotian civilian dead: ~50,000*
First Gulf War Iraqi civilian dead: 113,000 civilians and 35,000 directly from US bombing(whole sales slaughtered 10 of thousands soldiers & civilians on the Highway of Death).
Afganishtan: direct deaths at least 4,800 - 6,873, and indirect deaths in initial invasion at 3,200 - 20,000.
Second Gulfwar Iraq: total >1000,000 deaths (in 2003 alone, 7299 civilians killed primarily by US air and ground forces).

Bush&Co Akba, Zionism Akba.....

But see that wasn't our intent! You see if we intended to kill all those people we would be monster but since our direct actions caused those deaths but we didn't want to do it...you know.

It is hard for me to believe that Western forces go out of their way to avoid civilian casualties after historic reviews on Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden.

IMHO, we are capable of being the monsters that we try to disassociates with, and it is likely that we are the evil villain with out knowing it.

There's a lot of good to say about the US avoiding civilian casualties and as a culture caring about them, and being better about it than a lot of others.

The problem is that the idiots use that good to bury the truth about when we do not follow those values, helping to create the situations where we don't.

There's a strong case to be made for the use of nuclear weapons on Japan - at least one - saving a lot more lives.

But there's a real lack of any takin gresponisbility for things like the overall lack of justification for the Vietnam war that killed millions who only wanted freedom or food.

Too many people do no more than rationalize the war and refuse to take responsibility even while they condemn others for far less. That's 'thug history'. Biased.

How can we condemn the Japanese for not accepting their atrocities in WWII when we refuse to accept our own wrongs?

Hiow can we ask Israel or the Palastenians to accept their own wrongs in the heat of the ongoign conflict when we struglle with ours centuries later in many ways?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: theflyingpig
These are effective tactics, no matter who uses them.

You answer a question about whether there are wrongful civilian killings with that?

In war everyone is evil.

How was Grenada evil in our war with them? How was Allende evil in our proxy war that killed him and democracy and installed Pinochet? How was Czechoslovakia evil when Hitler invaded them? How were the Native Americans evil when Columbus arrived and enslaved them, or the Souther hemisphere Indians evil to the Spaniards who waged war on them? How were the Jews evil to the Nazis? Your pithy little saying is another excuse for violence.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: keird

Originally posted by: Lemon law
As kierd resolves, that "I still can't find Palestine on my map.", he has unerringly gotten to the root of the conflict.

Because the just and the rational realize both Israelis and Palestinians are on the same map, and denying one or the other is irrational. And even more stupid is the assumption that we can ignore the rights of one group to the exclusion of the rights of the other group.

Or maybe it's because it's not on the map.

Aren't you supposed to be killing children?

Care to seek your heart and tell us why it isn't on the map?

Well said.

Well said in what way??

Prior to 1949 Palestine did not exist and has NEVER existed as an independent country.

Even the existence of a group of people called "Palestinians" is a recent creation.

So... Who made it ok for one group to be chosen as Superior/Supreme over the other group

There never existed a USA before/until we murdered and subjugated Native Americans either

Too bad homo-sapiens still can't get past this dominance and superiority

And both sides are absolutely loony when it comes to "their God" thinking "it" has chosen them over any other human being.. God doesn't take sides and Gods love is equal for all

Until these "Superior" religious creatures learn to love all as they love themselves.. the world will be at war

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: NoShangriLa

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: NoShangriLa

Deaths in Hiroshima & Nagasaki at 200,000.
South Vietnamese civilian dead: 1,581,000*
Cambodian civilian dead: ~700,000*
North Vietnamese civilian dead: ~3,000,000*
Laotian civilian dead: ~50,000*
First Gulf War Iraqi civilian dead: 113,000 civilians and 35,000 directly from US bombing(whole sales slaughtered 10 of thousands soldiers & civilians on the Highway of Death).
Afganishtan: direct deaths at least 4,800 - 6,873, and indirect deaths in initial invasion at 3,200 - 20,000.
Second Gulfwar Iraq: total >1000,000 deaths (in 2003 alone, 7299 civilians killed primarily by US air and ground forces).

Bush&Co Akba, Zionism Akba.....

But see that wasn't our intent! You see if we intended to kill all those people we would be monster but since our direct actions caused those deaths but we didn't want to do it...you know.

It is hard for me to believe that Western forces go out of their way to avoid civilian casualties after historic reviews on Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden.

IMHO, we are capable of being the monsters that we try to disassociates with, and it is likely that we are the evil villain with out knowing it.

Capable?? All we have to do is sign a piece of paper declaring a 3 letter word and then start labeling unnecessary deaths as Collateral Damage

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
Do you think the Palestinians are angry for fun? How would you like it if you were displaced from your home and moved into refugee camps? Most of these "settlers" are nuts anyway. They are imported Jews given free housing and a machine gun to claim the land. Those settlers are the biggest right wing nutbags I've ever seen. They make our right wing fundies in this country look like angels.

Anyway, the only way to solve this mess is to create an independent state for Palestine. Give them some land. Draw some lines on a map. Put the UN in between and move on. There will always be some hostility but at least the senseless violence will cease for the most part. Israel is not winning anything right now by lobbing missiles and suffocating them from food and medicine. They are creating more and more upset people who will be willing to blow themselves up for the cause.

You have no clue at all......no clue...how sad!!

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Mani
Israel cannot _ever_ claim the moral high ground in my eyes. Not as long as they have killed orders of magnitude more civilians. I don't care who they are "targeting".

First os all your allegations cannot be substatiated at all!
Second you have no clue what you are speaking about!!
All it is is dribble without facts!!

 

[SolMiester]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: dainthomas

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
How nice, attrocities documented.

Actually, the videos of Palestinians purposely blowing up women and children are on a different site.

How is that an atrocity?

They call it 'collateral damage' when we bomb women and children in Iraq and Afghanistan.

OMG, do you really need someone to explain that to you?....

When you guys do it, I am sure it is not intentional, whereas with the Palestinians it is!....

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: dainthomas

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
How nice, attrocities documented.

Actually, the videos of Palestinians purposely blowing up women and children are on a different site.

How is that an atrocity?

They call it 'collateral damage' when we bomb women and children in Iraq and Afghanistan.

For once, I have to agree with jpayton. IDF bombs and planes killing innocents is no different than terrorists killing innocents. It's all the same, they just use better equipment and technology.

How nice for you to not have a clue as to why civilians get killed in wars.
They are not purposely targeting innocents. The same cannot be said for those lobbing rockets into Israel!!

 

[SolMiester]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
It's pointless to argue Israel's merits for bombing.

Unless they nuke Gaza into oblivion, they might as well be dropping candy from their warplanes. Conventional bombs are like seeds; you might kill a few Hamas militants, but a new one will always sprout up to replace them.

Interesting you state this....and you are quite right.....I would take that as a vote to nuke, along with mine!

 

[SolMiester]

Originally posted by: SoundTheSurrender

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: jpeyton
It's pointless to argue Israel's merits for bombing.

Unless they nuke Gaza into oblivion, they might as well be dropping candy from their warplanes. Conventional bombs are like seeds; you might kill a few Hamas militants, but a new one will always sprout up to replace them.

So how do you suggest they stop the terrorist from shooting rockets at them and blowing themselves up to kill civilians?

Dismantling Israel and giving the land back to the people who original lived there would be a good start.

You need to read some history......

 

[SolMiester]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: keird

Originally posted by: Lemon law
As kierd resolves, that "I still can't find Palestine on my map.", he has unerringly gotten to the root of the conflict.

Because the just and the rational realize both Israelis and Palestinians are on the same map, and denying one or the other is irrational. And even more stupid is the assumption that we can ignore the rights of one group to the exclusion of the rights of the other group.

Or maybe it's because it's not on the map.

Aren't you supposed to be killing children?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As the totally clueless keird misses quite obvious sarcasm and asks, " Aren't you supposed to be killing children?"

And then goes on to assert the total fallacy that anything but his own biased standards of fairness are on the map. Simply not the case.

But I will point out in my own sarcasm, no real children have been harmed, I just wish I could say the same for many Gaza Palestinians who are being butchered for the sins of the not controlling their extremists.

In the grand scheme of things, I should ask, because I did not take proactive action to assassinate GWB&co, should I be bombed for not stopping an almost certain international war criminal?

The other point being keird, my same external standards of justice lead me to support the right of the State of Israel to exist, but at the same time, those same standards of external justice lead me to question current Israeli conduct.

There is no conflict in that above position unless you are biased.

Are you forgetting these people voted in Hamas as their government and are the same people who pre-dig the graves for their martyr suicide bomb children?

 

[runestone]

Wow, there sure are a lot of juice haters here, judging by the responses.

 

[SolMiester]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: keird

Originally posted by: Lemon law
As kierd resolves, that "I still can't find Palestine on my map.", he has unerringly gotten to the root of the conflict.

Because the just and the rational realize both Israelis and Palestinians are on the same map, and denying one or the other is irrational. And even more stupid is the assumption that we can ignore the rights of one group to the exclusion of the rights of the other group.

Or maybe it's because it's not on the map.

Aren't you supposed to be killing children?

Care to seek your heart and tell us why it isn't on the map?

Well said.

Well said in what way??

Prior to 1949 Palestine did not exist and has NEVER existed as an independent country.

Even the existence of a group of people called "Palestinians" is a recent creation.

So... Who made it ok for one group to be chosen as Superior/Supreme over the other group

There never existed a USA before/until we murdered and subjugated Native Americans either

Too bad homo-sapiens still can't get past this dominance and superiority

And both sides are absolutely loony when it comes to "their God" thinking "it" has chosen them over any other human being.. God doesn't take sides and Gods love is equal for all

Until these "Superior" religious creatures learn to love all as they love themselves.. the world will be at war

Read the bible..what did the lord say unto David who had both wife and mistress?, both of whom had sons?

 

[Zebo]

Why are you guys so worried about 'civilian' casualties? They arnt! Never mind solely attacking Israeli civilians - Hamas and PLO and everything I hear from region says they 'love death more than we (or Israel) love life.' Seriously, shouldn't they be thanking the IDF for killing them? Not only do they get their wish they even get a reward in heaven for martyrdom which is greater than owning the earth and everything in it as the Holy Qu'ran describes it. Pretty good deal if you ask me..

Israel should really be getting funding from Hamas.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: RichardE
IDF set up a youtube site to show Israel bombing footage ect ect. For those who enjoy war videos here is the link.

IDF youtube video site

"enjoy"

sick fuck you are

 

[Elias824]

People will bomb or kill whoever they can get the best result from killing. If Isreal bombed civilians they couldnt use the "we didnt mean to approach" if hamas attacked only military targets they wouldnt get anywhere. What it really boils down to is money and power, hamas dosent have any and they want it. The problems is if isreal gives them any leway, then they will fight harder to get more. On the other hand if they dont fight then they don't get anywhere either. Its a no win situation for them, maybe they should just play a game of chess?

 

[ZzZGuy]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: RichardE
IDF set up a youtube site to show Israel bombing footage ect ect. For those who enjoy war videos here is the link.

IDF youtube video site

"enjoy"

sick fuck you are

Perhaps if hamas had a suicide bomber cam, or maybe a rocket cam.

 

[keird]

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: RichardE
IDF set up a youtube site to show Israel bombing footage ect ect. For those who enjoy war videos here is the link.

IDF youtube video site

"enjoy"

sick fuck you are

Perhaps if hamas had a suicide bomber cam, or maybe a rocket cam.

Well if Estes can do it, what does that say about Hamas' weapon designs?

 

[Elias824]

Originally posted by: keird

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: RichardE
IDF set up a youtube site to show Israel bombing footage ect ect. For those who enjoy war videos here is the link.

IDF youtube video site

"enjoy"

sick fuck you are

Perhaps if hamas had a suicide bomber cam, or maybe a rocket cam.

Well if Estes can do it, what does that say about Hamas' weapon designs?

Enjoy can be used in different contexts, perhaps you find it interesting?

 

[Carmen813]

Originally posted by: NoShangriLa

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: dainthomas

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
How nice, attrocities documented.

Actually, the videos of Palestinians purposely blowing up women and children are on a different site.

How is that an atrocity?

They call it 'collateral damage' when we bomb women and children in Iraq and Afghanistan.

For once, I have to agree with jpayton. IDF bombs and planes killing innocents is no different than terrorists killing innocents. It's all the same, they just use better equipment and technology.

That's complete bullshit.

Those who wish to remain intellectually honest know that it's all about intent.

Our enemies intentionally target civilians.

We (US and Israel) do not. In fact, Western military forces go out of our way -- to the point of endangering ourselves and our missions -- to avoid civilian casualties in every engagement.

We do everything within our power to limit civilian casualties while our enemies do everything in their power to cause civilian casualties.

Ultimately, this basic truth is what makes us The Good Guys...

Deaths in Hiroshima & Nagasaki at 200,000.
South Vietnamese civilian dead: 1,581,000*
Cambodian civilian dead: ~700,000*
North Vietnamese civilian dead: ~3,000,000*
Laotian civilian dead: ~50,000*
First Gulf War Iraqi civilian dead: 113,000 civilians and 35,000 directly from US bombing(whole sales slaughtered 10 of thousands soldiers & civilians on the Highway of Death).
Afganishtan: direct deaths at least 4,800 - 6,873, and indirect deaths in initial invasion at 3,200 - 20,000.
Second Gulfwar Iraq: total >1000,000 deaths (in 2003 alone, 7299 civilians killed primarily by US air and ground forces).

Bush&Co Akba, Zionism Akba.....

The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic.
-Stalin

While these numbers are tragic, they do little to refute the fact that the U.S. does go out of its way to avoid civilian casualties, at least since the Vietnam War ended. In that case, I suspect many who fought in Vietnam would say the difference between a citizen and a solider was hard to tell.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are poor examples of targeting civilians. If you really want examples from World War 2, you should be talking about Tokyo and Dresden. The atom bombs served a purpose, and vile as it was, they worked. Taking Japan would have been extremely costly, both in American and Japanese lives.

I think that ultimately, at the end of the day, statistics like these are meaningless. We see the number, we know the atrocities, but we cannot actually understand them. Hell, the 5,000 people you state as having been killed in Afghanistan would probably amount to every single person I have met, ever, being killed. It's difficult to wrap your head around.

I think discussing whether or not the wars were necessary is a better way to frame this discussion. WW2 and the Persian Gulf War both had legitimate reasons for us to employ whatever means necessary to end the conflict, at least in my opinion.

As for Israel and the Palestinians, I don't really have an opinion. It's a fight I don't understand. Seems to me that both sides have a lot in common, and if they could get over their differences the world would be a better place.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SoundTheSurrender

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: jpeyton
It's pointless to argue Israel's merits for bombing.

Unless they nuke Gaza into oblivion, they might as well be dropping candy from their warplanes. Conventional bombs are like seeds; you might kill a few Hamas militants, but a new one will always sprout up to replace them.

So how do you suggest they stop the terrorist from shooting rockets at them and blowing themselves up to kill civilians?

Dismantling Israel and giving the land back to the people who original lived there would be a good start.

:roll: Have any RATIONAL ideas?

More rational than trading high explosives for another half-century?

So you think it's rational for Isreal to just up and move so they don't get attacked by terrorists? Buying stock in white flags?

Lookup how Israelis/Zionists plotted and planned to murder and terrorize palestinians before they ever got the land.. Did some Jewish Terrorists murder UN peacekeepers as soon as they got there in the beginning of Israels creation.. look it up

There were extremists on both sides.

You also had the Brits that were responsible for the territory, handing over the keys to the armories to the Arabs when they pulled out.

The Brits were also responsbile to stopping Jews from coming into the Territories after WW2 and before Israel was created.

Then you had the Arab armies/nations that went back on their word to the UN
1) Accept the division of the Mandate into Israel and Palestine
2) Take care of the Palestinians until it was felt that they were ready for their own state. Notice that the Arabs did not want a Palestinian state at the time.

People can chose to go back in time to find a starting point that satisfies their own criterea.

Blaming the past will never solve the future. Logical/realistic options may work IF the past is not used as an excuse to not try to move forward.
Options based on taking advantage of a weakness will go nowhere.

 

[tvarad]

Originally posted by: NoShangriLa
.....
Deaths in Hiroshima & Nagasaki at 200,000.
South Vietnamese civilian dead: 1,581,000*
Cambodian civilian dead: ~700,000*
North Vietnamese civilian dead: ~3,000,000*
Laotian civilian dead: ~50,000*
First Gulf War Iraqi civilian dead: 113,000 civilians and 35,000 directly from US bombing(whole sales slaughtered 10 of thousands soldiers & civilians on the Highway of Death).
Afganishtan: direct deaths at least 4,800 - 6,873, and indirect deaths in initial invasion at 3,200 - 20,000.
Second Gulfwar Iraq: total >1000,000 deaths (in 2003 alone, 7299 civilians killed primarily by US air and ground forces).

Bush&Co Akba, Zionism Akba.....

Can you explain to me why the Japanese, Germans, Italians and Vietnamese who suffered so many casualites at the hands of the U.S. normalized their relations as did a number of other countries but the only ones that seem to bear a grudge are Arab or Muslim (if you count out whackos like Chavez)?

Not only that, can you also explain to me why so many millions of Arabs and Muslims have emigrated to the U.S. with hardly any type of emigration going in the opposite direction?

 

[Elias824]

Originally posted by: Carmen813

Originally posted by: NoShangriLa

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: dainthomas

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
How nice, attrocities documented.

Actually, the videos of Palestinians purposely blowing up women and children are on a different site.

How is that an atrocity?

They call it 'collateral damage' when we bomb women and children in Iraq and Afghanistan.

For once, I have to agree with jpayton. IDF bombs and planes killing innocents is no different than terrorists killing innocents. It's all the same, they just use better equipment and technology.

That's complete bullshit.

Those who wish to remain intellectually honest know that it's all about intent.

Our enemies intentionally target civilians.

We (US and Israel) do not. In fact, Western military forces go out of our way -- to the point of endangering ourselves and our missions -- to avoid civilian casualties in every engagement.

We do everything within our power to limit civilian casualties while our enemies do everything in their power to cause civilian casualties.

Ultimately, this basic truth is what makes us The Good Guys...

Deaths in Hiroshima & Nagasaki at 200,000.
South Vietnamese civilian dead: 1,581,000*
Cambodian civilian dead: ~700,000*
North Vietnamese civilian dead: ~3,000,000*
Laotian civilian dead: ~50,000*
First Gulf War Iraqi civilian dead: 113,000 civilians and 35,000 directly from US bombing(whole sales slaughtered 10 of thousands soldiers & civilians on the Highway of Death).
Afganishtan: direct deaths at least 4,800 - 6,873, and indirect deaths in initial invasion at 3,200 - 20,000.
Second Gulfwar Iraq: total >1000,000 deaths (in 2003 alone, 7299 civilians killed primarily by US air and ground forces).

Bush&Co Akba, Zionism Akba.....

The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic.
-Stalin

While these numbers are tragic, they do little to refute the fact that the U.S. does go out of its way to avoid civilian casualties, at least since the Vietnam War ended. In that case, I suspect many who fought in Vietnam would say the difference between a citizen and a solider was hard to tell.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are poor examples of targeting civilians. If you really want examples from World War 2, you should be talking about Tokyo and Dresden. The atom bombs served a purpose, and vile as it was, they worked. Taking Japan would have been extremely costly, both in American and Japanese lives.

I think that ultimately, at the end of the day, statistics like these are meaningless. We see the number, we know the atrocities, but we cannot actually understand them. Hell, the 5,000 people you state as having been killed in Afghanistan would probably amount to every single person I have met, ever, being killed. It's difficult to wrap your head around.

I think discussing whether or not the wars were necessary is a better way to frame this discussion. WW2 and the Persian Gulf War both had legitimate reasons for us to employ whatever means necessary to end the conflict, at least in my opinion.

As for Israel and the Palestinians, I don't really have an opinion. It's a fight I don't understand. Seems to me that both sides have a lot in common, and if they could get over their differences the world would be a better place.

Good Post, yes we do try to minmalize the civilian casulties, but it is inevitable that somthing bad will happed when were bombing the crap out of another country. If im not mistaken more bombs were dropped in Vietnam then in WW2, as well.

If we had a good enough reason to go to war, or stay at war is obviously a good question to ask. but how about if we can gain something positive from it in the future. If Iraq can actually maintain a stable govt I think it will be of a huge benefit to us having another country we have a hope of being friends with.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: tvarad

Originally posted by: NoShangriLa
.....
Deaths in Hiroshima & Nagasaki at 200,000.
South Vietnamese civilian dead: 1,581,000*
Cambodian civilian dead: ~700,000*
North Vietnamese civilian dead: ~3,000,000*
Laotian civilian dead: ~50,000*
First Gulf War Iraqi civilian dead: 113,000 civilians and 35,000 directly from US bombing(whole sales slaughtered 10 of thousands soldiers & civilians on the Highway of Death).
Afganishtan: direct deaths at least 4,800 - 6,873, and indirect deaths in initial invasion at 3,200 - 20,000.
Second Gulfwar Iraq: total >1000,000 deaths (in 2003 alone, 7299 civilians killed primarily by US air and ground forces).

Bush&Co Akba, Zionism Akba.....

Can you explain to me why the Japanese, Germans, Italians and Vietnamese who suffered so many casualites at the hands of the U.S. normalized their relations as did a number of other countries but the only ones that seem to bear a grudge are Arab or Muslim (if you count out whackos like Chavez)?

Not only that, can you also explain to me why so many millions of Arabs and Muslims have emigrated to the U.S. with hardly any type of emigration going in the opposite direction?

The same reason the US normalized relations with the country who abused them so badly they fought a revolutionary war against them.

Countries tend to do what they think is in their interest. Sometimes that's war, and sometimes that's having relations with a former enemy or even oppressor.

Are you trying to suggest that those were not atrocities - are you saying for example that if China today trades with Japan, all the war atrocities weren't really too bad?

As to your last question, the answer is simple - the US has a lot to offer in quality of life, including not being run by US-supported tyrants to secure the export of oil.

When Britain was ruling India, was it somehow proving they didn't do anything wrong if some Indian was happy to leave the slums of Bombay to live in London?