I must have overlooked that or I got so used to "unleashing" being done by the defending side that I didn't notice.

More correct would be "War of Terror unleashed by Muslim extremists".

 

 

My understanding, he was turned over to local jewish authorities, who then turned him over to the Romans. Judas hung himself, and the jewish temple was destroyed. Never heard of any of Gods wrath against the Romans in this case. Anyone that witnessed the event, feel free to jump in with the right answers on a new thread. I'm not a religious historian, even casually, and do not profess to be. It was just a comparison example to illustrate how personal beliefs can influence decisions, militarily or otherwise. I apparently stuck a nerve, which is exactly what I wanted to do to make a point. I have no desire to engage in a theological debate, just show how easy it is to hold all accountable for a few.

You're right, but apparently that is what lies below the surface of most all conflicts, and indirectly injected into this discussion. I'm not casting judgment on whether that is right or wrong, I don't really care. I'm assessing the military value of what happened in Dresden in relation to what is occurring in Afghanistan/Pakistan. I'm not bothered if someone doesn't care for my opinion, this is still the US last I looked, and I will write accordingly.

Daiwa, kudos for at least attempting to put the topic back on track. I saw that too and it never fails to give me a chuckle.

It would have been better to have used another verb, I commented on that in the very first post I made in this thread as well. President Bush did declare the war on terror officially, the US started actively/officially fighting terrorism in his presidency (I'm having trouble to come up with the right adverb here myself). Before that it was not a politicum the way it is now. I mean fighting terrorism was always something that was actively pursued - there were enough attacks before 2001, the USS Cole comes to mind, also the embassy in Nairobi, and it had been attempted in the early 90ies to blow up the WTC.

Unleash suggests some form of unlawfulness or that the war on terror is unjustified and those that war is unleashed upon are innocent victims. Very ungeschickt.

president bush "declared war on terror"... but terrorists were already at war with america, he just admitted it and committed to fighting back. Kinda like how the US "declared war" after pearl harbor.

They should really call it "recognition of war" rather then "declaration of war"

as for "it was the jewish authorities that turned jesus to the romans"...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judas_Iscariot

Taltamir,

From the fact it appears obvious that the Christians betrayed Jesus.

So what do we do know? Persecute those god murderers?

 

 

100% of agreement here. Clinton lobbed some missiles at the terrorists (half-heartedly), but otherwise ignored the growing problem, perhaps a time that could have avoided the place we are in now.

Sorry, your right. Their role was to advise and finance. I'll let each reader decided for themselves the right or wrong of it, it's not my concern. As I said it's not my subject area, but then again I never mentioned Judas in my original comment (funny how these things evolve).

"And Satan entered into Judas, who was surnamed Iscariot, one of the twelve. And he went, and discoursed with the chief priests and the magistrates, how he might betray him to them. And they were glad, and convenanted to give him money. And he promised. And he sought opportunity to betray him in the absence of the multitude." (Luke 22:3-6)

I'm sure we can each find refrences to express opposing views, so this is over for me as I have little interest in doing such. The original example I mentioned was entirely to make a point (don't believe me, go to the religious section and count the number of my comments there). If anything this sideshow gives even more credence to the example given supporting personal beliefs/feelings/emotions influencing what should be rational military decisions.

 

How unnecessarily dramatic can one get.

 

I decided to look the military decision up in this huge 1200 overview I have to see what it said there about the military decision.

from Gerhard L. Weinberg, A world at arms, a global history of world war 2, 2nd edition 2005, Cambridge UP, p 812. This chapter is called "The final assault on Germany - offensive in the West

This is out of context of the rest of the chapter which describes in detail how which army moved and which battles were fought etc.

It is a good book, very detailed, about the european and also pacific theatre in WW2.

I don't have military experience or any knowledge of battle strategy. According to Weinberg, there seems to have been an overall strategy, which unluckily overlapped with maybe an overzealousness to bomb Germany to damnation by Churchill. The evaluation if that strategy was successful or not isn't included  in this paragraph though. In the grand scheme of things, Dresden was but one small part.

RW, I will disagree with you here.  I do not think Bahu hates America.  In some ways I think he loves and admires it.  But he is an idealist.  As such he wants it to be an ideal, and campaigns against any flaw, perceived or real, that he sees. But as an idealist he is also a tool for those who hate America.  He writes many anti-american posts because he sees a flaw (in this case perceived and wrong), and tries to bring attention to it to have it dealt with and changed.

But as a tool, he is only destroying that which he admires so much.  Nothing created by man is perfect, but evil men can use the idealist who strive for it to destroy that which is closest to it.

I do.  I am sure that of the 150k people who died, many were as you describe.  But not all were.  But that is war, bombs cannot differentiate the innocent from the guilty.  I was not trying to portray my description of Dresden as an attack on a bunch of lambs, but only on an incident that did not have a strictly military justification.  it WAS a war, and millions of innocents died, in Dresden, Tokyo, London, Paris and Honolulu.  That is why I object so strenuosly to Bahu's characterization of it.  Today a lot fewer die than when we dropped thousands of bombs trying to wipe out a ball bearing factory.  But they still do die, regardless of how "smart" the weapons are.

I declined to comment after a couple of posts seeing this was a debate between Leauki and Utemia.  A very interesting one, but as Bahu noted, far afield.

Daiwa, as usual, then cut back to the meat, but did not really add more than I already commented on as far as the fallacy of the thesis. I guess I got this whole mess started by stating Dresden was less military than it was propanda.  I don't think any of us disagree that innocents were killed in the raid, but as Leauki pointed out, the "city" was not innocent and a legitimate target.

Since then, the civilization of war by the victors has tended to try to stay away from such demonstrations (with perhaps the exception of the old USSR - but then the only difference between Stalin and Hitler was their victims nationality).  That in itself is a solid refutation of bahu.  His post is an attempt to vilify those defending against an agressor as equally as guilty as the agressor for all acts conducted by both sides.

And the final refutation of him is the simple fact that in this war, most muslims are not dead or dying, even though most do not condemn the agressors.  Had this war been started 70 years ago, that would not be the case.  Then war was all out war, and make no mistake, Nato and its allies have the capacity to wage such a war with the almost equal outcome of WWII - the total annhilation of the agressor.

The US and Nato and its allies have chosen not to take that path.  Some may argue to its detriment, but only a tool of the agressor would argue that it is just an oversight.  As Bahu seems to be doing.

Sorry for the lenghty debate,  know that it's quite the turnoff. As it is, I read the same debates (mostly about religious themes or a mix of politics and morals like the gay marriage thing or abortion etc) between the same people on many different threads. It can get a little tiring as often, nothing new is contributed. And I have the vague feeling that I already argued similarly about this topics regarding the nazis somewhere on JU as well. 

Nobody can be asked to read lenghty tracts on history or philosophy in posts but to really make an argument on complicated issues that involve both it is sort of a necessity. And german traditions in humanities almost require that you talk veeeeeery lengthy, use complicated language with very very long words and sentences and generally appear as dusty and dry as the sahara. To my slight horror I discovered that I can write like that as well when properly motivated as it happened in this thread.

Anyway, back on topic.

That is fine.  More often than not, these posts take on a life of their own.  If the OP does not mind, I see no reason to curtail it or apologize for it.  I did find it interesting.  But I did feel that you and Leauki started repeating yourself after a while.

Leauki has a habit of getting deep on some subjects with the right instigation.  And most of the time I enjoy his perspective and often learn from both parties.

I got miffed and wanted to explain/prove my arguments after they had been rejected as either evil or too easy and also to refute the claim that history is straightforward or simple. A debate like that can quickly turn into a roundabout affair though, you're right. It's quite a challenge to keep it interesting.

I only have so much sympathy going around. And in World War II there were so many victims, I find it odd to have the victims in Dresden stand out in any way.

 

Millions died in China. Tens of thousands died in Dresden.

The Chinese never had a choice.

 

I believe the usual way is to protest against deliveries of smart bombs and then complain when instead cluster bombs are used. This is called "peace activism" and it can't be blamed for anything, regardless of how many deaths it causes.

 

 

You are right on both counts.  Yet what grabs our hearts strings and what does not?  To each it is different.  In my case, my sympathy was long ago grabbed by the Tribes of North America and what the european descendants did to them (it is not as massive as china or Dresden, but no less horrorific).  Dresden got me because of the purpose of the bombing, not the magnitude or the guilt or innocence of them.  Of course we all mourn for the chinese during the long war (that one started in the 20s, which most do  not remember or know).

yes, it is easy to get immune from all the suffering in all parts of the world, especially when today's media has to make every death an indication of some genocide attempt (when it more than likely is not).  I think Bahu is trying the latter tactic on the conflict in Afghanistan.  I am sure he is probably sincere (I have come to respect, if almost always disagree with him), but it is just the sensationalism that they try to invoke in todays news cycles to get people to care.  It is not that people are callous, just that after being bombarded with it constantly, they do build up a tolerance to it.

It is the cognizant's duty to weed out the hysteria from the facts.  There are needs all over the world, and all are competing for attention and action.  But we have to discern where we are doing the most good with our money and mouths, and not let the propagandists dictate what and where we should be hanging people.

I don't remember reading about very frequent drone attacks. But I do know what they write about Operation Moshtarak in Afghanistan right now. After all, embedded reporters might not be objective and slightly sensationalize their reporting, but they probably get an accurate pulse of what soldiers are feeling and thinking. The rules of engagement are very strict  (I can only cite what I read about that in german newssources though - I didn't look them up): Soldiers are not allowed to shoot back if they can't see the shooter and his weapon. They're not allowed to shoot if the shooter throws away his weapon. Avoiding civilian casualties is one of the top priorities of ISAF and US forces. I am sure that these considerations also apply to the use of drones, but that's only a guess.

From everything I read about the way Nato procedes, it reminds me more of police action. Even with those strict rules mistakes happen and I find it inherently unfair to accuse the US and Nato troops of being careless or disregarding the conventions they signed. They do everything they can to prevent unneccessary losses, something that was never an issue in earlier wars. The bigger picture was certainly more important in WW2 than avoiding collateral damage. It is the luck of the people in Afghanistan that the bigger picture there involves a stable and secure talebanfree Afghanistan where the people trust their government (highly unlikely - I think they're wise not to trust them) or at least the NATO and ISAF troops.

 

The media tend to convert real genocides (or such attempts) into non-stories and individual deaths into genocide.

We hear little about the (real) genocide in Darfur (apparently a first peace agreement was signed a last week), but discuss every single death in Afghanistan (unless there is no way not to blame the Taliban for it).

In World War II (which started earlier in China, as you said) Dresden keeps coming up as does Nagasaki and Hiroshima. But the huge number of Chinese victims, which totally dwarves the deaths on the German and Japanese sides is rarely mentioned.

 

Rarely.

Dang! Thanks.

That's what happens when I write as quickly as I think the words.

 

At least your typos are understandable.  I can't say the same for mine.

Dr Guy and Rightwinger have had some kind things to say about me from vastly different perspectives. First, I do not come from an anti-American point of view. I have had the opportunity of studying in a very good US graduate school in my field of medieval history which I now teach along with Historiography. In fact I am anti liberal and anti socialist. I would call my self a civil libertarian without being an appologist for sundry violent terrorists. I felt this clarification was necessary as I have been mistaken to be a Liberal which I most certainly am not. I am anti abortion and am against same sex union, though I am against percecuting those with different sexual orientation.

Now the purpose of my BLOG was to show that the uncontrolled use of drones is provoking a backlash and in the long run may prove counterproductive and hence my caution.

If that was your intent, you failed to make that point.  I could actually agree with the statement above to a degree.  But then see the alternatives as being far worse since they would either:

A ) Fail to address the objective (ridding the area of taliban insurgents) - or -

B ) cause greater colateral damage and thus be worse from a "PR" perspective.

I agree, drones have their place and are a valuable asset, however there is nothing better (yet) then having boots on the ground. Whether NATO or Pakistan does it, this must be accomplished. Killing civilians have almost always pushed them into the arms of who isn't killing them. These civilians will never understand the terrorists disregard for their safety until the fighting gets down to a personal level.