Wars and Conflicts permalink
FIBUA (Fighting In Built Up Areas)
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Tuesday, 30th December 2008
MODS: I promise you this isn't an anti-Israel rant (more a scholary discussion of the hardest fought combat of time immorial)
General Richthofen's Luftflotte 4 (I think) did to Stalingrad exactly what the IDF-AF are doing to Gaza City - obliterating it from the air. We all know what happened to 6th Army in those ruins against fierce oppostion.
Is the IDF missing a trick here or learning false lessons from operations such as Linebakker I&II (Vietnam air war 1972)? The Op. L/B 1 & 2 did force North Vietnam to the piece table again BUT the USAF were bombing reasonably large viable targets.
I really don't think that blasting down buildings (as much as if I was in charge of the IDF-AF I'd be ordering carp[et bombing) will help IDF armour if the order comes to advance into Gaza (and we all know how much infantry close support armour needs - even the big Merkava tanks).
Should the IDF make more use of its AH-64 for reasonably close pin-point strikes?
I note that the IDF hasn't yet (or not for the media) resorted to shelling GC from afar (or by sea though I know the IDF-N is an adjunct rather than a main force). -
Message 2
Posted by Frank Parker (U7843825) on Tuesday, 30th December 2008
GFR, Isn't there a similar lesson nearer in history than the ones you've quoted? I'm thinking of a leader declaring "victory" after a few weeks of "shock and awe" and what followed.
-
Message 3
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Tuesday, 30th December 2008
"I'm thinking of a leader declaring "victory" after a few weeks of "shock and awe""
Israel though hasn't declared victory and would be rather silly to do so either - another lesson that could be learnt for the Volkischer Bobachter [sp] and the Stalingrad debacle - how the popular Third Reich press had to change its tune in Jan 43 as opposed to what it was printing late Nov.-early Dec. 42.
All I meant is that the F16 fropping even the most acurate LGB will cause some collateral damage and Hamas aren't going to waste diesel on diggers to create clear lanes for IDF tanks to roll up 1st Avenue, Gaza City.
That rubble will lie there and Hamas rocket teams will use it to ambush mebe not MBT's but lighter armoured AIFV's and wheeled recon vehicles - remember too that Hamas doesn't even have to kill the IDF vehicle crews but reneder their vehicles immobilised and then hold the IDF soldiers hostage.
6th Army (or their small armoure formations in the Stalingrqad kessel) found out that Richthofen's bomber formations made Stalingrad from a neat Soviet city into a death-maze and IDF bombers threaten to do the very same (unless of course IDF-AF planes carpet bomb Gaza and leave no man standing).
If Israel really wants to stop Hamas (and as Richthofen should have done in Stalingrad) it needs to bomb the services supporting Hamas and that means in this case Iran, Syria, the smuggling points between Egypt and Gaza and areas of the West Bank - whereas Richtfhofen should have used his bombers to attack targets far to the rear of the east bank of the Volga and left Wehrmacht ground formations to destroy Soviet troops in Stalingrad (other than Ju-87's attacking riverboats - they are the 1942 version of Apache's for the IDF)
the Rolling Thunder and Linebacker raids were a false lesson for IDF-AF (in use of air power to destroy minor facilities) as the USAF and US army were not mutually supportive in NVN as an M-60 was never going to be required to drive up 1st Avenue, Haiphong or over the Paul Doumier bridge, Hanoi. -
Message 4
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Tuesday, 30th December 2008
I don't think there are really any good historical parallels for this situation.
Stalingrad stood because the Ruskies were able to insert steady reinforcements who were highly motivated--they would be shot if they tried to retreat and had a river at their back anyway. Israel is, except for some smuggling, in control of this territories borders. ( I find it interesting that their cutting off shipments is a "humanitarian crises" while Hamas still manages to get in rockets and military supplies--I guess it is a matter of priorities)
Shock and Awe 2003 was highly effective in destroying the Iraqi Army, what came after was a different war from mismanaged victory. But Hamas is not a modern army.
To find historical parallels for a solution to this problem Israel has to look back in history to a time when the norm for a nation in it's current predicament would have been to simple eradicate the Gazan. Kill most, put a few survivors to work out their short lives in mines, and enslave the very young and attractive females. A cross between what the Romans and the Germans did to them.
That of course is not acceptable to Israel so they flounder about looking for another solution--which is very difficult when the enemy gives all indication that it values it's own life less than it's enemy.
I would think that Israel must first give up caring what others think about it's doing what it must do to defend itself. Secondly they must give up the notion that it is up to them to decide what a Gazan's life is worth, or that they care what the rest of world thinks is a disproportionate response. They must resign themselves to the idea that it is soley up to Gazan's themselves to decide how much of their lives the emotional gratification of shooting rockets at Israeli's is worth.
When they make that change in mindset, they can solve this problem. They can line up 1000 artillery pieces and fire until no rockets come back at them. If a rocket comes back, repeat the process for twice as long. Next round, double the time again. Eventually the rockets will stop, The survivors, if their are any, can bury the dead. -
Message 5
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Wednesday, 31st December 2008
Israel is too small, and too dependant on external (USA) support to 'give up caring what others think', so genocide is not an option.
Bombing them till the Gazans decide to stop is not a viable option, as the average Gazan has little choice in the matter.
If the Hamas leadership want to fire rockets, they will do so, and the more innocent civilians are killed in the retaliation the better - dead babies make great TV, and that is what this is all about.
In the end, you gotta talk to these people. -
Message 6
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Wednesday, 31st December 2008
"...In the end, you gotta talk to these people..."
Yes, and suspect the Israelis know this. They are bombing Hamas, who are not talking but rocketing, not the PLO, who are talking.
However, I think the OP is wrong in talking about the Israelis bombing buildings. In my opinion they are deliberately targetting Hamas security personnel, whether police or para-military. The death toll is high precisely becuase they went for personnel. I think only about 60 of the 400-500 dead (last estimate I saw) are civilians, regrettable though that is. In my opinion this is legally permissible as the intended targets are military.
They can also stand off and reduce Hamas' military personnel for some time before launching any possible ground incursion. The disparity between hamas' ability to kill the occasional Israeli, and the Israeli ability to massacre Hamas may produce results.
Hamas, remember, have two enemies. They have opponents within the Palestinians, who will do all they can to capitalise on Hamas' loss of personnel. That may well be the hidden reason for the Israeli tactic. This would eliminate the need for a ground action.
The real difference between Gaza City and Stalingrad is that Israel does not want the city. Would would they do when they had it ? -
Message 7
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Wednesday, 31st December 2008
giraffe47.
In the end, you gotta talk to these people.
What's the point if they won't listen nor have anything to say in return? Unlike the Israelis, Hamas have no friends or allies to encourage any humanitarian instincts beyond patching up their own wounded. -
Message 8
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Friday, 2nd January 2009
GFR (OP)
Your starter is about fighting in built-up areas. The IDF were once good at this (Jerusalem in SDW and Yom Kippur) but of late they lack the ‘stomach’ to engage in such combat since Hizbollah fought them to a standstill in southern Lebanon (July 12 – August 14th 2006). Wikipedia describes the IDF showing as “lacklustre” that time. That is about right, imho.
General Richthofen's Luftflotte 4 (I think) did to Stalingrad exactly what the IDF-AF are doing to Gaza City - obliterating it from the air. We all know what happened to 6th Army in those ruins against fierce oppostion.
To link Gaza to Stalingrad is strange. At Stalingrad two massive, first rate, well-disciplined and well-equipped armies, each with air support, fought the battle which shaped the late 20th century. In Gaza today a 3rd rate army (IDF) are bullying a broken and virtually defenceless enclave, whose food, water and power supply they control. In turn, the enclave of Gaza is defended by a 10th rate group of Iranian-backed Jihadi nutters (Hamas) with a few home-made, unguided, rockets which have managed to kill 8 Israelis in 4 years.
Is the IDF missing a trick here or learning false lessons
The IDF are not daft but their hands are tied by the politicians. The standard Israeli approach to Hamas/ Hizbollah/Al Fateh low-level terrorism is to elect a more right-wing government than the last one “to put an end to this outrage”. But the new right-wing leader is usually soon displaced by stories of nepotism or snout-in-trough corruption (see, inter alia, Ariel Sharon, Benjamin Netanyahu, Ehud Olmert,).
Israel has to act against Hamas now, because in a few days time, a much less Israel-friendly president will be in the US White House and he will not wish to start his term in office by having to defend Israel’s grossly disproportionate response to Hamas’s woefully inaccurate ordnance.
we all know how much infantry close support armour needs - even the big Merkava tanks
Haven’t you reversed the usual equation? Modern big tanks and AFV’s with reactive armour are mostly RPG proof, humans are soft-bodied. If streets are wide enough for armour to become involved in FIBUA’s (and Gaza has lots of very narrow alleyways through which even an SUV cannot pass) it is usually the infantry that calls in the armour as back-up or for demolition (see “House to House” by David Bellavia, esp. the later chapters dealing with the November 2004, battle for Fallujah). Tanks are vulnerable to bombs form a/c or huge IED’s but not much else. Most of urban Gaza showed itself to be a very tank-unfriendly place (tanks need to traverse those long barrels from time to time), when Israel last stationed them there, but they worked effectively in the fields and orchards north of GC.
Should the IDF make more use of its AH-64 for reasonably close pin-point strikes?
They could, but pictures of Apache gunships hunting down stone-throwing kids in the Gaza streets with their 30mm M230 chain-guns, is going to look like really bad PR when the Israeli ambassador has to face Paxman on “Newsnight”. They are choosing to stand-off with laser and GPS-guided munitions from a safe (F16) altitude, trying to get the Qassam launch teams, with some success, it seems.
I note that the IDF hasn't yet (or not for the media) resorted to shelling GC from afar (or by sea though I know the IDF-N is an adjunct rather than a main force
Not on this occasion, not yet. Last time the IN shelled ‘rocket launch teams’ on the Gaza coast they killed 7 people, inc. 3 kids (20 other people were injured), from a family having a picnic on the beach (see 鶹Լ report by Alan Johnson and Daily Telegraph, 9th June 2006). This looked bad too, so they will probably lay off that strategy for a while.
Israel’s big problem is that it is so much more powerful than the Palestinians and Hamas that when it uses its massive hardware against such insignificant forces it conjures-up a bizarre mirror image of the brave Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto defending themselves from the SS who had them surrounded with massive, disproportionate firepower.
(Ironically, when the British ran Palestine/Israel in the mid to late 1940’s it was the Jewish refugees from the Holocaust who used terrorism against the UN mandated legitimate authority of the British. The Stern Gang, Irgun and Hagannah were invoved in blowing up the King David Hotel (91 killed) and hanging British hostages. The also sent anti-personnel bombs by post. Menachem Begin was once an anti-British terrorist before he became Prime Minister of Israel. Plus ca change!).
Now the boot is on the other foot and Israel is so desperately scared of bad publicity of that sort it will not allow any neutral journalists into Gaza to cover the results of its aerial demolition sorties. As with the Warsaw ghetto, the Palestinians of Gaza are like mice being played with by a rather bored, sadistic cat (IDF).
I have as much enthusiasm for Hamas as you do, but when David (‘Little Gaza’) is getting another kicking from Goliath (Israel) it looks one-sided and nobody likes to see a bully at work. Also, the kill ratio of 400 (Palestinians) : 8 (Israelis) looks a bit like ‘collective punishment’ of civilians, something else the SS did in Europe, and once again the claims by Israel of acting in legitimate ‘self-defence’ seem a tad hyperbolic and exaggerated.
Most Jews I know would like to erase Gaza, (just as Hamas and the Iranians would like to ‘drive Israel into the sea’), but they are smart enough to know that just isn’t on. So we’ll have another stalemate, just like 2006 in Lebanon, imho. -
Message 9
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Friday, 2nd January 2009
"To link Gaza to Stalingrad is strange. At Stalingrad two massive, first rate, well-disciplined and well-equipped armies, each with air support, fought the battle which shaped the late 20th century"
I linked the two as an example only of one "force" obiliterating a large hemmed in urban territory when it was likely they'd need to send in troops and tanks.
I mentioned the tanks needing infantry co-op support because I was basing it on Israel suing it's armour to save troops being killed/taken hostage in first instance. -
Message 10
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Friday, 2nd January 2009
the UN mandated legitimate authority of the British.
It wasn't a 'UN mandate' which the UK had in Palestine - it was a League of Nations mandate.
The League of Nations mandate, which came into effect in 1923, only rubber-stamped the fact that Palestine was enemy occupied territory which UK empire forces had occupied after the battles of Gaza in 1917. -
Message 11
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Friday, 2nd January 2009
I wonder what the Israeli reaction would be if the Fatah led West Bank decided to throw caution to wind and join in the fight against hamas of the Israeli side?
Surely then the world would lavish the West bank with showers of riches and I'd dare say equip them to fight Hamas in the "war on terror"?
A clear unequivical move to defeat Hamas. -
Message 12
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Friday, 2nd January 2009
Most modern tanks are RPG proof?
Dont think thats the case always certainly the israelies lost a couple or three in Lebanon to some of the latest russian anti tank rockets and a challenger driver was wounded while in his driving compartment by one that hit the belly plates and penetrated.
if you put tanks into a built up area then your going to haveto have a lot of infantry up with them to clear the area for them.
Put them in on their own and you will loose a few. Even if Hamas didnt get any of the latest RPG's from santa the old ones fired down onto the engine decks will do the job. Hell, an old style molotov cocktail is going to. -
Message 13
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Friday, 2nd January 2009
Though I've read about Merkava's keeping 5 or 6 rounds free and then the ammo store in rear being used to carry infantry and then the tanks just being reversed into a wall and door opened.....
I don't think it's an SOP though. -
Message 14
Posted by FormerlyOldHermit (U3291242) on Friday, 2nd January 2009
U3280211:
I was just wondering how you can describe the Soviet Army at Stalingrad as a first rate Army. From my understanding, soldiers sometimes went into battle without guns as they did not have enough of them. They were forced to rely on picking up the weapons of the dead.
Also, how come you describe the Israeli as a 3rd rate Army? I would like to understand your classifications in these matters. -
Message 15
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Friday, 2nd January 2009
It wasn't a 'UN mandate' which the UK had in Palestine - it was a League of Nations mandate.
To begin with, that is true. It was instituted by the LoN, finalised by the UN. The incidents I described in my earlier post were all after the demise of the LoN.
Here is the history:
The UN officially came into being on October 24, 1945. By that date a majority of the 50 countries that had signed the UN Charter in San Francisco on June 26, 1945, had ratified it in their national parliaments. The UN replaced the League of Nations, which had been created by the Treaty of Versailles in 1919.
Hence the League of Nations had been replaced by its successor organization, the United Nations before the acts of Irgun terrorism I described in my earlier post.
The British Mandate in Palestine ended in 1948, well after the birth of the UN and after the 1946 bombing of the King David Hotel. Thus the Mandate survived the transition from League of Nations to purview by the UN. -
Message 16
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Friday, 2nd January 2009
I linked the two as an example only of one "force" obiliterating a large hemmed in urban territory when it was likely they'd need to send in troops and tanks.
I mentioned the tanks needing infantry co-op support because I was basing it on Israel suing it's armour to save troops being killed/taken hostage in first instance.
To link Gaza to Stalingrad is strange. At Stalingrad two massive, first rate, well-disciplined and well-equipped armies, each with air support, fought the battle which shaped the late 20th century
Grand Falcon Railroad -
the linking is not that strange and is in fact understandable.
It could also be linked perhaps to the battles of Gaza in 1917. During the Second Battle of Gaza, in particular, the UK imperial forces subjected the town and its defences to a huge artillery bombardment which lasted 2 days. This included not on heavy land-based artillery but also allied sea-to-shore shelling from naval vessels.
All this succeeded in doing, however, was to churn up the beaches and the approaches to the town and create a pock-marked landscape of craters and destroyed buildings etc. It was a veritable defenders' paradise.
When the bombardment ceased and the UK tanks went in they then had to pick their way perilously through the craters and the ruins and were thus easy pickings for the Ottoman artillery. The supporting UK and imperial infantry and mounted infantry etc also took a terrible toll in casualties as a result. The situation was simply ideal for the Ottoman machine-gunners and snipers.
So bad were the conditions that the UK forces were repulsed and it was the second time that year that they had been defeated by the Ottoman defenders and had failed to take the town.
So maybe - instead of the current Israeli military planners learning from the German experience of Stalingrad - we could say, perhaps, that in 1942 it was General Friedrich Paulus who might have found it worthwhile to study the UK experience in Gaza of 25 years earlier. -
Message 17
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Friday, 2nd January 2009
Most modern tanks are RPG proof?
Yep. That's one of the basic design criteria for a modern tank. By 'RPG' I mean the old Soviet-era shoulder-launched grenade with the unintelligent warhead.
There are certainly weapons that will destroy a tank. AT4, AT 5, Spandrels, Milans, Javelins, BGM 71 TOW's, etc.
When I used the phrase 'RPG proof' I was thinking of the Soviet weapon much loved by the Muj from Kandahar to Somalia.
In Iraq (2003-) M1's and Bradley's received countless direct hits from such RPG's with very few fatalities. Lost tracks, perhaps.
If Hamas has been given anything more sophisticated by Iran, then that will certainly up the ante in Gaza...
There is evidence that Hizbollah received some 'shaped copper charges' from Iran in 2006, I believe. They will penetrate armour at close range but they are not 'RP's' in any conventional sense.
Hell, an old style molotov cocktail is going to.
Only if someone leaves the hatch open, that will happen, true.
See 'Independent', 22-9-2005 for the story of Pte. Ryon Burton's escape from a Warrior, in just such circumstances. -
Message 18
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Friday, 2nd January 2009
I was just wondering how you can describe the Soviet Army at Stalingrad as a first rate Army.
Well, Schmidt and Paulus surrendered to the Russians at 64th Army HQ, on 31st Jan 1943, so the Russians must have done something right at Stalingrad to beat a well-trained, brave and dedicated army.
From my understanding, soldiers sometimes went into battle without guns as they did not have enough of them. They were forced to rely on picking up the weapons of the dead.
All of that is true. Most of us will have read Anthony Beevor and seen "Enemy at the Gates".
Just goes to show what the Russians were willing to put their men through to gain victory.
Would you not agree that the German army was 'first rate' in 1941-1942?
We know it was defeated. So are you arguing that it was defeated by a 'second-rate' army?
Also, how come you describe the Israeli as a 3rd rate Army?
Because it has never been tested in combat by a first, or even second rate army.
Its intelligence service is superb, as are its special ops units. Its airforce, the best that the US can supply. But army morale is not good and Israeli politicians cannot tolerate the sight of even a few IDF coming back in body bags.
Israel cannot be defeated by the Palestinians but imho, it can never defeat the Palestinians this side of a 'two-state solution' (which we both know is most unlikely) -
Message 19
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Friday, 2nd January 2009
GFR (re: 11)
I wonder what the Israeli reaction would be if the Fatah led West Bank decided to throw caution to wind and join in the fight against hamas of (on?) the Israeli side?
No need to ponder.
It is not going to happen.
While there is much West Bank Sunni (Fatah) hatred towards Hamas, both would happily dance together on an Israeli's grave.
Being opposed to the state of Israel is a foundation statement in Fatah al-Islam's credo. (See Wiki)
There is more chance of Maggie Thatcher doing the Argentine Tango with the late Edward Heath, than Fatah giving Israel a little boost. -
Message 20
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Friday, 2nd January 2009
Hamas was elected without any pretense regarding their intentions to war with Israel. The Gazan's choose war when they had a chance to govern themselves autonomously in peace upon the withdrawal of Israel. There is no equivalence or proportionality here in any respect. The values, objectives and methods are too disparate for meaningful comparisons.
The only proper measure of "proportional" in any military operation is the force needed to achieve that objective. The proper objective of Israel's forces are to defend their people. If Israeli shelling kills 100,000 Gazan's, but rockets keep coming, the force is not proportionate--it is inadequate. If it takes 100,001 for the rockets to stop, then that is the minimal "proportionate" force. There is no doubt that Hamas is reflective of the will of the majority of Gazan's. Israel, just as was the allies task with the Axis, is to raise the price of aggression to an unacceptable level. Only the Gazan's can decide what that price is. If it hasn't been met yet, if they don't think enough of their suffering to stop the rocket attacks--a move that would clearly provide them with relief--why are other people so worried about it.
All this moralizing is funny coming from the inventors of massive urban fire bombing and the concentration camp. -
Message 21
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Friday, 2nd January 2009
If Israeli shelling kills 100,000 Gazan's, but rockets keep coming, the force is not proportionate--it is inadequate. If it takes 100,001 for the rockets to stop, then that is the minimal "proportionate" force.
What inflammatory bigoted crap.
I bet you $100 the rockets will not stop until there is a Palestinian homeland. Up for that?
You wouldn't be an American (with a few German genes)by any chance?
I assure you that Israel will run out of allies long before the Palestinians run out of sons willing to die for the right for freedom in the land that President Truman suddenly said wasn't theirs anymore.
All this moralizing is funny coming from the inventors of massive urban fire bombing and the concentration camp.
All this juvenile "let's zap 'em" talk is utterly consistent with the nation which gave us Hiroshima, Nagaski and the Tokyo fire-bombing that killed three times the number at Dresden -
Message 22
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 23
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 24
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 25
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 26
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Saturday, 3rd January 2009
I wonder how long the world will be paying the price for the British rape of the third world and the mess you left behind.
Are you 'the world'? And how much money have you personally paid out so far?
Tell you what - draw up an invoice and sent it in.
The Mid East, Africa, India/Pakistan, Burma, should I go on ?
You'll need to say exactly which state you yourself reside in otherwise the Brits won't know where to send the cheque. -
Message 27
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Saturday, 3rd January 2009
All this moralizing is funny coming from the inventors of massive urban fire bombing and the concentration camp.
Good point. It never ceases to amaze me how some of my fellow citzens of the UK pompously criticize each and every foreign country for them simply acting (either historically or currently) in exactly the same way that the UK has acted. They then put forward all kinds of spurious excuses why somehow it's okay when the UK does it. -
Message 28
Posted by MB (U177470) on Saturday, 3rd January 2009
I'd be interested in the solution Britain would implement if France were to be firing surface to surface rockets at England.
When the Germans were firing rockets into Britain the RAF initially used a similar method to the IDF, they tracked the launch site on radar then bombed it. But it was soon obvious that they were only killing Dutch civilians because the German launch team had long gone from the mobile launch site. The IDF continue to bomb any launch site, knowing well that the HAMAS people will have got well away from the area by the time they get there so will be only killing civilians. -
Message 29
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Saturday, 3rd January 2009
Maybe that's why Hamas, like the Nazis in Holland in 1944, deliberately choose to launch their rockets from civilian areas. They have, after all, a lot in common: they both hate Jews and want to see them eliminated as a race (vide the Hamas constitution and "Mein Kampf"), they brutally eliminate their political opponents (vide the Night of the Long Knives in June 1934 and the split with Fatah in 2007 when Hamas took over Gaza by force and removed all opposition) and are careless of the lives of the people they claim to represent.
-
Message 30
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Saturday, 3rd January 2009
Viz (27)
All this moralizing is funny coming from the inventors of massive urban fire bombing and the concentration camp. (from Kurt)
Quoted from this message
Good point.(from Viz)
Actually Viz, Kurt's point is hypocritical drivel.
He is having a go at the RAF for bombing Dresden but has forgotten that the USAAF bombed it too!
(As for the 'concentration camp' jibe,perhaps our American friends should study what they did to each other's prisoners in the American Civil War. Wasn't that before the Boer war?) -
Message 31
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Saturday, 3rd January 2009
"The IDF continue to bomb any launch site, knowing well that the HAMAS people will have got well away from the area by the time they get there so will be only killing civilians."
This is the whole US Army/VC argument isn't it that Mao put so well about their case - they [hamas] move like fish in the sea of peasants and they are hard to catch.
However the people of Gaza knew exactly what they were getting in their election - just like the US electorate knew what they were getting by electing Bush for a 2nd term. -
Message 32
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Saturday, 3rd January 2009
Re: "Mission Accomplished"
He declared no such thing. That came from a home made sign that the crew of a carrier displayed for the President’s arrival.
鶹Լmade! Oh, really?
Google: 'Mission Accomplished, picture' and look at that impressive 'homemade sign' 8 feet high, complete with dazzling tromp d'oeil 'stars and stripes' graphics, which stretches for 50 feet, high across the tower of the USS Abraham Lincoln.
Those aircraft carriers certainly have some impressive artwork studios aboard. The sign is uniformly and securely fixed throughout its length just below the bridge. It must have come as a complete surprise to Admiral Kelly and Captain Card when they stumbled across it that morning!
Now what is your evidence for claiming that the sign was "homemade" as you assert? -
Message 33
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Saturday, 3rd January 2009
"He is having a go at the RAF for bombing Dresden. . ."
There is no "having a go at the RAF . . ." at all--I make no criticism of Britain's use of urban bombing. The "go at" is for the hypocrisy of all the moralizing about others defending themselves using vaguely similar but far less destructive methods.
POW camps do not equal civilian concentration camps. If you want to go off on that silliness, I might point out that the death rate of Americans on the British prison hulks of the War of Independence 80 years before that were worse than the worst of the POW camps.
When the countervailing arguments are down to ad hominem attacks and sophistic nonsense, I consider my point proven. -
Message 34
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Saturday, 3rd January 2009
U5183841 (25)
Long post, U 51... lots of words there, just four of your own, alas.
Now what were they?
Oh yes..
That nails it Kurt.
The only thing that Kurt has 'nailed' so far is his grubby anti-Arab racism to his bigoted masthead.
But I'm sure he will respond when he wakes from his slumbers... -
Message 35
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Saturday, 3rd January 2009
I consider my point proven
I consider your arrogance limitless.
Now where were we?
There is no "having a go at the RAF .
So exactly whose 'firebombing were you 'having a go at' then? Why even mention it if your gripe was not about British conduct of the war?
POW camps do not equal civilian concentration camps
So its fair game for one lot of Americans to starve another lot of American POW's and make them drink their own urine, as at Andersonville, but you draw the line at hurting civilians? I see. -
Message 36
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Saturday, 3rd January 2009
You're misrepresenting Kurt's post.
There's nothing in the post to suggest 'anti-Arab racism'. He's simply given a reasoned analysis of the situation and has put it in a historical context. There's nothing 'bigoted' about it at all. -
Message 37
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Saturday, 3rd January 2009
"鶹Լmade! Oh, really?
Google: 'Mission Accomplished, picture' and look at that impressive 'homemade sign' 8 feet high, complete with dazzling tromp d'oeil 'stars and stripes' graphics, which stretches for 50 feet, high across the tower of the USS Abraham Lincoln."
Have to say I've heard same thing and you'd be impressed with what you can do - after all a USN air craft carrier is a small town afloat with a runway on top! -
Message 38
Posted by Scarboro (U2806863) on Saturday, 3rd January 2009
Re: Fire bombing cities, concentration camps etc.
Gentlemen and ladies:
The reminders of our own nations' behaviours in the past are appropriate, and should not become any type of competition, such as "Your country was worse than my country, therefore you have no right to speak.... and so on"
If you are looking at the morality of the behaviour of the IDF and Hamas, you must acknowledge that people have a right to attempt to survive, and that they will take horrifying actions when threatened. The points about Dresden, Andersonville, Boer War concentration camps, etc serve to highlight that war is barbaric, and that barbaric methods will come into play. Nations that we view as civilized have taken barbaric steps out of what they perceived as necessity at the time.
The Arab / Israeli mess is barbaric in nature. Making historical comparisons is understandable. Hopefully it can be done without giving offense to present participants. -
Message 39
Posted by MB (U177470) on Saturday, 3rd January 2009
So exactly whose 'firebombing were you 'having a go at' then? Why even mention it if your gripe was not about British conduct of the war?
I thought he was referring to the bombing of Guernica, Warsaw, Rotterdam, Coventry etc by the Luftwaffe. -
Message 40
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Saturday, 3rd January 2009
Not that I'm the world's biggest "Israel Fan" if you had the choice between pi$$ing off 204 world nations and leaving your country and Jewish homeland vunerable to attack from Hamas and another holocaust then you'd not care how many Hamas people cop a bullet.
In that we all have some blame - we didn't realise and didn't act to prevent the Holocaust by stopping anti-semtism in Europe and on our doorstep....and no complain about radicalisation of certain groups because of the same treatment meted out to Muslims across the world. -
Message 41
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Saturday, 3rd January 2009
Alan D (re 29)
I share your dislike of Hamas but I feel that your analysis is one-sided.
If we are to take-up any serious moral position should we not be consistent in our condemnations of terrorism?
Jewish Zionists, later to become Israeli ministers (Begin and others), did most of the things you dislike in Hamas, when they started out as terrorists. Surely, the very existence of Israel shows that terrorism often works (as it did in Algeria, Ireland, Cyprus, Kenya, and America; to name but a few). Today’s terrorist is tomorrow’s Head of State, a cliché but often true.
Maybe that's why Hamas, like the Nazis in Holland in 1944, deliberately choose to launch their rockets from civilian areas
The Irgun Zionist chief, Gidi Paglin designed mortars with a range of four miles, to fire on both military and civilian targets in 1945. He had a passionate desire to kill Britons.
when Hamas took over Gaza by force and removed all opposition and are careless of the lives of the people they claim to represent.
The Irgun had a nasty internecine spat with Hagganah in 1945/6. When Menachim Begin (a Jew, obviously) blew-up the King David Hotel in 1946 he killed Jews as well as Arabs and British Army personnel.
In the 1948 war against the Palestinians, Zionists used a combination of bribery, legitimate land purchases and brutal ethnic cleansing to secure their goal of a ‘Jewish State’. Pretty much the same devices used by Radavan Karadic who is now facing trial in the Hague. Most of the Jews that came to make up that new state were settlers escaping German oppression, they had no link to the land of Palestine, but took it over because America over-ruled British objections.
So, my point is this: by what right can Israel rail against Muslim/Arab terrorism when the state of Israel came into being, and is still being enlarged (West Bank settlements) by the use of Zionist terrorism, which included the execution by hanging of British troops and bombings which killed friendly civilians?
Is a Hamas rocket evil, while a Zionist rocket is excusable?
(For source material see:
1) “The Palestine Triangle” by Nicholas Bethell (1979) Andre Deutsch
2) Ned Parker and Stephen Farrell,"British anger at terror celebration", The Times, July 20, 2006
3) Yehuda Lapidot, Besieged - Jerusalem 1948 - Memories of an Irgun fighter) -
Message 42
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Saturday, 3rd January 2009
Scarboro (38)
A sound and balanced post.
Perhaps I have misunderstood Kurt but my reading of his piece on 'proportionality' lead me to believe that he was saying that it is worth killing 100,001 Gazan civilians to stop a single rocket hitting Israel. (That strikes me as grossly disproprtionate, accepting that no one wishes to be hit by a rocket, in a conflict in which very few Israelis have been hurt or killed cf Muslim civilian deaths)
He could not have meant 100,000 members of Hamas because Hamas in Gaza is not that large a force.
This apparently casual dismissal of the significance of Muslim/Arab lives, when set against a puported and implied 'higher valuation of Jewish life' struck me as racist.
Am I alone in reading his post in that way? -
Message 43
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Saturday, 3rd January 2009
what right can Israel rail
The same right as any other state has.
Muslim/Arab terrorism
It's significant that you use this conflation device - 'Arab = Muslim = Terrorist'.
It's similar to how the UK media used to say - 'Irish = Republican = Terrorist'.
Just as not all Irish people are republicans and not all republicans are terrorists so it may come as a surprise for you to learn that not all Arabic people are Muslims and not all Muslims are terrorists.
the use of Zionist terrorism
The UK was unable to hold onto Palestine because of the UK's own internal weaknesses (economic, political etc).
It's a bit rich, therefore, for the UK - now more than 60 years later - to call Israel 'a terrorist state' when the UK has still not prosecuted anyone for the massacre by UK troops of UK civilians on the streets of the UK in 1972. -
Message 44
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Saturday, 3rd January 2009
I am not saying that Jewish life is worth more or less than Arab life. I make no such comparison. In war, it is up to each side to decide what their blood is worth, and how much of it they are willing to spill for victory. The side that can exceed the others sides price first, wins.
This would be the case were the antagonists Americans, British, German, or any other nationality.
If Hamas thinks killing the occasional Israeli is worth 10 or 100 or 1000 or whatever number of Arab lives, then it is Hamas that is devaluing Arab life--not to be so much less valuable than Jewish life but to be less valuable than the gratification of their hatred of Jews.
No one else can control how a people deal with defeat, at what point they accept it, or even if they do accept it rather than fight on to their own greater destruction.
1/3 of the American nation was faced with a choice of whether to accept defeat, or fight on in an asymetrical war that they still thought might yield their eventual objective of autonomy. The decision of the leaders was that even if victory eventually ensued, the destruction of civilized values and resulting barbarism from years of guerilla warfare would be a worse fate than accepting the defeat---they fully accepted the moral responsibility of their choice and explicitly recognized that if they choose to continue to fight in that fashion, unable to defend their people from the depredations of the enemy, the moral responsibility for the resulting suffering was theirs and was disproportionate to the goal. Taking responsibility for the choice meant, upon choosing full capitulation, working to make peace a success.
Israel cannot decide if the suffering of the Gazan's is disproportionate to the Gazan's goals. Neither can you or I. Only the Gazan's have the power of that choice. The IDF's job is to stop the rocket attacks.
I will not be intimidated by accusations of racism, which in my experience is the refuge of incompetents, scoundrels, and bullies. -
Message 45
Posted by Frank Parker (U7843825) on Saturday, 3rd January 2009
If you are looking at the morality of the behaviour of the IDF and Hamas, you must acknowledge that people have a right to attempt to survive, and that they will take horrifying actions when threatened.
Thanks for pointing out the obvious - both have the right to do whatever it takes to overcome a perceived and/or real threat. This war has been going on for getting on for a century now and there's no end in sight so far as I can see. -
Message 46
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Saturday, 3rd January 2009
Viz.
It's a bit rich, therefore, for the UK - now more than 60 years later - to call Israel 'a terrorist state' when the UK has still not prosecuted anyone for the massacre by UK troops of UK civilians on the streets of the UK in 1972.
Four "UK's" in one post Viz.
Well done. You are now coming to terms with the state in which you live. The United Kingdom!
To which of our many 1972 'massacres' do you refer? Arsenal vs Bolton?
You are not going through that nasty British-self-hating phase again?
Let me be your therapist... -
Message 47
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Saturday, 3rd January 2009
To Kurt.
I will not be intimidated by accusations of racism, which in my experience is the refuge of incompetents, scoundrels, and bullies.
So, in your world the racists are 'good 'ol boys' and the anti-racists are undermining solid American society? Is that it?
Strange how your constitution declared as "self-evident" the fact that "all men are created equal" but could not include 'black folks' in that stirring sentiment for another 180 years.
Don't lecture me about racism, your hypocrisy is 'self-evident'. -
Message 48
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Saturday, 3rd January 2009
Viz.
Muslim/Arab terrorism
Quoted from this message
It's significant that you use this conflation device - 'Arab = Muslim = Terrorist'.
Any presumption of a necessary association between Arabs and terrorism is in your imagination, not mine.
I used the Muslim '/' notation to point out that not all Muslim Palestinians are Arab.
Have you actually read my post to Alan D about double standards in the application of the term "terrorist"?
Thought not. -
Message 49
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Sunday, 4th January 2009
It's a bit rich, therefore, for the UK - now more than 60 years later - to call Israel 'a terrorist state' when the UK has still not prosecuted anyone for the massacre by UK troops of UK civilians on the streets of the UK in 1972. Four "UK's" in one post
I count 5.
You are now coming to terms with the state in which you live. The United Kingdom!
I've been well aware of that for years - which is precisely why I'm an English nationalist.
To which of our many 1972 'massacres' do you refer?
I said the one involving UK troops.
You are not going through that nasty British-self-hating phase again?
If you feel that someone criticizing your UK indicates 'self-hatred' then that's just an issue for you.
I'm not 'British' - I'm English. I reserve the right to critize the UK whenever necessary - which is quite often.
not all Muslim Palestinians are Arab.
An interesting statement. What nationality are the non-Arab Muslim Palestineans? -
Message 50
Posted by JBsidetheseaside (U13725236) on Sunday, 4th January 2009
All Palestinians are Arabs, but about one-fifth of them are Christian.
The Saville Enquiry into Bloody Sunday is still proceeding at vast expense to the UK taxpayer.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
鶹Լ iD
鶹Լ navigation
鶹Լ links
鶹Լ © 2014 The 鶹Լ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.