More mud on the already tarnished reputation of Israels Army

[Ratty Sr.]

I was waiting for somebody to make that comment.

Surely if we were in the middle east and somebody cited BBC we would get the same kind of response? I don't think its wise to disregard the source as unreliable simply because it tends to present its news from a non-western perspective.

Im sure if we look deepder we will find the incident in more 'reputable' news outlets.

You mean outlets like Reuters?

But seriously, I won't dispute that even reputable media are often guilty of bias in their coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (though ironically it tends to be pro-Palestinian bias, especially in the case of "liberal" media). However, Al Jazeera goes waaay beyond having a casual bias. Often that station seems to function less as a news outlet and more as a mouthpiece for various terrorist networks. They have *no* credibility.

Yeah, the Romans also had a shit load of experience, and they were still Brutal as could be. Experience alone does not make an army ''professional'', even though it may be one of the pre-requisites.

But that's my point. Handling civilian populations with cotton gloves has only recently become a principal criterion for an army to be considered "professional". Meanwhile, in the real world, some armies have real battles to fight.

And yet you are the one drawing paralles between what has been going on now and what happened in Berlin in 1945.

Apples and oranges. When I brought up the fall of Berlin, I was talking about urban warfare and how it is normally fought. You, on the other hand, tried to draw parallels between British management of their colony Palestine and Israel's handling of their conflict with the Palestinian Arabs, which is fallacious due to incomparable geopolitical, social and military circumstances.

But fine, let's scratch the Berlin example. I have about a dozen more in store, if you like.

The truth of the matter is, the British had tact and knew better than to alienate their 'subjects' with indiscriminate brutality (A lesson the French didn't learn till Algeria - and I still have my doubts)

The Palestinians aren't Israeli "subjects". And Israelis don't deal with them with "indiscriminate brutality". That's something you're trying to prove, without much success.

I'm not going to sit here and say the Palestinians have always been innocent, but Israel has definitely gone from being the victim, having being invaded almost three times, to being the bully. For countless decades they have been playing the same tit for tat game that is getting nobody anywhere. In the meanwhile it is not making anybody any favours with these constant 'invasions'.

Ironic how the rocket attacks still haven't stopped. The only things that work are the truces, and after then efforts to turn these truces into long lasting peace accords. If both sides spent less time rearming, scheming and attacking, and more time on peace efforts perhaps we would have something concrete in that region now rather than the senseless violence we see now.

It's kind of hard to make concessions to an enemy that consistently employs terror tactics against your civilians and considers your genocide the most desirable outcome of the conflict. Even under these circumstances Israel has on various occasions been forthcoming in resolving the conflict and more often than not it was Palestinian political leadership that failed to grasp opportunities for a lasting solution. Their worst failure by far is the wretched Palestinian Authority, whose gross corruption and incompetence caused great suffering to the Palestinian people and ultimately paved the way for a terrorist organization to gain legitimacy as Palestine's political representatives. Given Palestinians' weak position in the conflict and the generally miserable state of their society and economy, their failure to compromise at various opportunities (starting with their rejection of a two-state in 1947, a cardinal mistake if I have ever seen one) can only be described as criminal short-sightedness, and I find it difficult to sympathize with a nation whose leaders are so terminally stupid.

With all that mind, I'm frankly surprised that Israel has been as restrained as it was in dealing with the Palestinian problem. If it was someone like, say, Russia running things in the Middle East, the "problem" would be long gone, along with the very memory of the Palestinian name.

I know what it means. Israel doesn't really have the means to carpet bomb an area.

Uh, yes, they do. And even if they don't, there's still the nukes.

But I hardly call their 'strikes' surgical. Surgical strikes are perhaps those the U.S is conducting in Pakistan, and even then I still have my doubts.

Strikes against urban targets don't get any more surgical than blowing up an apartment block with a smart bomb. Some collateral damage is inevitable, especially when your target deliberately hides out among the civilians. Even the US frequently inflicts considerable collateral damage in Pakistan, and their targets are generally in rural areas.

Thats funny, because what they are asking for is exactly what the International Community is also demanding of Israel for a long term peace solution. Is that also funny?

Pretty much, seeing as Israel is negotiating from a position of strength. If anything, cessation of terrorist activity and unconditional recognition of Israel should be conditio sine qua non for any compromise with the Palestinian leadership to be possible, while withdrawal to the borders from 1967 should only be one of the ultimate outcomes of the peace process. Those territories were taken for a reason, after all, and they should be vacated only after it's been ensured that Palestinian paramilitaries and their Lebanese compadres won't take the withdrawal as a sign that it's now okay to prod Israel with more of the old terrorist shenanigans.

 

[The Guardian]

Professionalism in the 21st century.

 

[Bal-Sagoth]

Oh yes, its pretty obvious the invasion was being planned long in advance, no doubt predicting that the ceasefire would not be renewed, and to coincide with the elections to make the current party look 'strong'.

I think I already know the answer to this, but Bal-Sagoth, do you support Israel's continued occupation of the 1967 territories?

Under the current circumstances? Yes.

The Six-Day War resulted in a decisive Israeli victory. More needs to happen other than "promises of peace" before the idea of land being returned is even entertained.

Freeing Gilad Shalit, destruction of weapons and bases used in launching terrorist attacks against Israel, and making sure not so much as a bottle rocket goes over the border would be a nice start.

 

[Chancellor Kremlin]

You mean outlets like Reuters?

But seriously, I won't dispute that even reputable media are often guilty of bias in their coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (though ironically it tends to be pro-Palestinian bias, especially in the case of "liberal" media). However, Al Jazeera goes waaay beyond having a casual bias. Often that station seems to function less as a news outlet and more as a mouthpiece for various terrorist networks. They have *no* credibility.

That aside, im still betting the story they are reporting to be true. But as Bal-Sagoth was wisely said, lets give it time, perhaps there will be an investigation (or more likely not) as the news is still fresh and there is plenty of room for twisting at both sides.

But that's my point. Handling civilian populations with cotton gloves has only recently become a principal criterion for an army to be considered "professional". Meanwhile, in the real world, some armies have real battles to fight.

You seem to have this idea that being engaged in conflicts makes an army professional. Then I guess all the guerrilas, militias and terrorist factions in Africa fulfil your criteria for a professional army, with 'real battles to fight', while the parading armies of the west are too busy with training, discipline and other 'lesser issues'?

Apples and oranges. When I brought up the fall of Berlin, I was talking about urban warfare and how it is normally fought. You, on the other hand, tried to draw parallels between British management of their colony Palestine and Israel's handling of their conflict with the Palestinian Arabs, which is fallacious due to incomparable geopolitical, social and military circumstances.

But fine, let's scratch the Berlin example. I have about a dozen more in store, if you like.

Really? This is a point I will expand on below, but I am surprised people don't see the parallels. The fact is Israelis don't know how to manage conquered territories.

The Palestinians aren't Israeli "subjects". And Israelis don't deal with them with "indiscriminate brutality". That's something you're trying to prove, without much success.

In everything but name they are not Israeli subjects. Their land has been occupied, they live under the wim of the Israeli army, their food, energy and medical supplies are all controlled by Israel. To me it sounds a lot like a conquered people.

Without much sucess perhaps to you, but I think its fair to say most of the world would share my view Israel can be, and is, just as brutal as Hamas is. The fact Israel has bigger guns only makes this all the more evident.

What I can't understand with people is that many say Hamas doesn't care about civilians, and targets them, and hides ammong them, but are ready to believe Israel who apprently cares for civilian lives, when clearly their actions prove otherwise.

They will never admit they have no disregard for civilian life, but I doubt it takes much priority in Israeli strategic planning. But somehow people still believe Israel with these claims.

It's kind of hard to make concessions to an enemy that consistently employs terror tactics against your civilians and considers your genocide the most desirable outcome of the conflict. Even under these circumstances Israel has on various occasions been forthcoming in resolving the conflict and more often than not it was Palestinian political leadership that failed to grasp opportunities for a lasting solution. Their worst failure by far is the wretched Palestinian Authority, whose gross corruption and incompetence caused great suffering to the Palestinian people and ultimately paved the way for a terrorist organization to gain legitimacy as Palestine's political representatives. Given Palestinians' weak position in the conflict and the generally miserable state of their society and economy, their failure to compromise at various opportunities (starting with their rejection of a two-state in 1947, a cardinal mistake if I have ever seen one) can only be described as criminal short-sightedness, and I find it difficult to sympathize with a nation whose leaders are so terminally stupid.

With all that mind, I'm frankly surprised that Israel has been as restrained as it was in dealing with the Palestinian problem. If it was someone like, say, Russia running things in the Middle East, the "problem" would be long gone, along with the very memory of the Palestinian name.

While I agree with you the Palestinian Authority's corruption has only made things worse, whats in the past is in the past. We are in the now, and I feel the only way to resolve this conflict is to take things from here and move on.

On a sidenote, while in the long run the rejection of a two state solution back in 1947 may habe been the wrong choice, would you, having had a large part of your land carved out for an alien state to be made, submit to that demand? Especially when you are surrounded by allies that share your ideology? Off course not. I don't blame the Palestinians for having done that, even if in the long run and three wars later they ended up in this miserable position.

The whole creation of Israel was a big mistake anyway.

Having said that, the genocidal, terrorist organisation that is Hamas has said they are willing to have a peace with Israel so long as it retreats to its 1967 borders. What comes after that only God knows, but its a start. At this moment in time, its all about Israel.

Uh, yes, they do. And even if they don't, there's still the nukes.

I wasn't referring to nukes when I said that, I meant conventional capability.

Strikes against urban targets don't get any more surgical than blowing up an apartment block with a smart bomb. Some collateral damage is inevitable, especially when your target deliberately hides out among the civilians. Even the US frequently inflicts considerable collateral damage in Pakistan, and their targets are generally in rural areas.

Surgical was the systematic elimination of the planners of the Munich massacre by Mossad. If they can track these people half way around the world, I don't see a problem with covert/black ops, something that is Mossad's specialty, in tracking Hamas leaders in a tiny territory which is controlled by Israel anyway.

The killing of civilians will simply result in a wave of new recruits towards fundamentalism and a new batch of fanatics to replace the fallen Hamas leaders. Like I have said before, Israel has been playing this game for how long now, and yet, they have achieved nothing.

Pretty much, seeing as Israel is negotiating from a position of strength. If anything, cessation of terrorist activity and unconditional recognition of Israel should be conditio sine qua non for any compromise with the Palestinian leadership to be possible, while withdrawal to the borders from 1967 should only be one of the ultimate outcomes of the peace process. Those territories were taken for a reason, after all, and they should be vacated only after it's been ensured that Palestinian paramilitaries and their Lebanese compadres won't take the withdrawal as a sign that it's now okay to prod Israel with more of the old terrorist shenanigans.

As it stands, Israel is not even willing to negotiate. The whole Western idea of 'non-negotiation with a terrorist group' does not help either. Whether they like it or not, Hamas is the legitimate government in the area, and a big player which cannot be ignored.

Only when all the parties involved are interested in negotiating and cease this useless 'pre conditions to negotiation' rubbish may we see something worthwhile come from that region.

I agree with you that a return to those borders is not the only condition, but at the moment most parties are not even entertaining the idea of a negotiation.

Under the current circumstances? Yes.

The Six-Day War resulted in a decisive Israeli victory. More needs to happen other than "promises of peace" before the idea of land being returned is even entertained.

Freeing Gilad Shalit, destruction of weapons and bases used in launching terrorist attacks against Israel, and making sure not so much as a bottle rocket goes over the border would be a nice start.

Thats interesting, but most of what you have suggedted applies only to Israel. Can you think of any conditions that might be favourable to the Palestinians aswell?

 

[Roflcore]

There were 2000 cases of rape reported in the German army in World War 2.

Untrue, in case you didn't know (I hate to state the obvious, but if he posts such lies it has do be done I think)

 

[Ratty Sr.]

You seem to have this idea that being engaged in conflicts makes an army professional. Then I guess all the guerrilas, militias and terrorist factions in Africa fulfil your criteria for a professional army, with 'real battles to fight', while the parading armies of the west are too busy with training, discipline and other 'lesser issues'?

Certainly not, I consider an army professional if it's composed primarily of career soldiers who have formal combat training and receive salary for their service. All the armies I mentioned fit that description. The point of contention was specifically an army's treatment of civilians in urban operations. You implied that a "professional" army wouldn't allow high civilian death tolls in such operations, which is nonsense. In fact, in some instances military units operated under explicit orders to inflict high casualties among civilian populace; for example, Pakistani commandos in Dhaka who were tasked with exterminating the city's intellectuals.

In everything but name they are not Israeli subjects. Their land has been occupied, they live under the wim of the Israeli army, their food, energy and medical supplies are all controlled by Israel. To me it sounds a lot like a conquered people.

Fair enough, though their status as a "conquered" people is more due to their incompetence in establishing and running an effective country and less due to Israel's expansionist aspirations. Remember that pretty much all of Israel's territorial expansion occured as a result of wars initiated by its Arab neighbors.

Without much sucess perhaps to you, but I think its fair to say most of the world would share my view Israel can be, and is, just as brutal as Hamas is. The fact Israel has bigger guns only makes this all the more evident.

Most of the world is stupid, misinformed and carries an anti-Semitic bias. It's safe to say that if Israel was one tenth as brutal as Hamas is, there wouldn't be a single Arab left in the Palestine right now. *Not a single one.*

What I can't understand with people is that many say Hamas doesn't care about civilians, and targets them, and hides ammong them, but are ready to believe Israel who apprently cares for civilian lives, when clearly their actions prove otherwise.

Judging by the reasonably low civilian death tolls, I'd say they either care about civilian life or intensely care about their international reputation. Remember, if Israel truly had no scruples, the Palestinian problem could be solved within a month. I doubt any of their Arab "friends" would lift a finger to save them, though I'm sure Egyptian border guards would be unnerved by the screams.

On a sidenote, while in the long run the rejection of a two state solution back in 1947 may habe been the wrong choice, would you, having had a large part of your land carved out for an alien state to be made, submit to that demand? Especially when you are surrounded by allies that share your ideology?

Yeah, probably, seeing as these "allies" were - and mostly still are - a bunch of insignificant third-world shitholes whose word counted for nothing in international politics and who had no military capacity to assert themselves against a state whose founding was supported by more or less every major power in the world.

The whole creation of Israel was a big mistake anyway.

I'm sure the Jews would disagree.

Having said that, the genocidal, terrorist organisation that is Hamas has said they are willing to have a peace with Israel so long as it retreats to its 1967 borders. What comes after that only God knows, but its a start. At this moment in time, its all about Israel.

Their offer of peace was phrased more like "If Israel unconditionally withdraws from territories it occupied in a war that ended in their clear and decisive victory, we might at some unspecified point in the future entertain the notion of entering peace negotiations with them." While it certainly provided major lulz for anyone following the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, it's hardly a realistic proposal that can be taken seriously. It rather lends credence to my claim about terminally idiotic Palestinian leadership whose short-sightedness and irresponsibility continues to condemn the Palestinian people to many more years of suffering and misery.

Surgical was the systematic elimination of the planners of the Munich massacre by Mossad. If they can track these people half way around the world, I don't see a problem with covert/black ops, something that is Mossad's specialty, in tracking Hamas leaders in a tiny territory which is controlled by Israel anyway.

The killing of civilians will simply result in a wave of new recruits towards fundamentalism and a new batch of fanatics to replace the fallen Hamas leaders. Like I have said before, Israel has been playing this game for how long now, and yet, they have achieved nothing.

Israel still does sometimes employ its commandos for such purposes, but surely you can see the advantages of airstrikes for such operations. Commandos can't just automagically teleport to their target's location, neutralize the target and teleport away, Star Trek-style. No, they must first be deployed behind enemy lines. Then they must make their way to the location, neutralize the target as well as any henchmen that may be protecting it, then escape to the extraction point and safely make it back to friendly territory. If they are compromised at any point, they will be forced to fight their way out of enemy territory, which could potentially result in far greater casualties than a simple smart bomb strike would inflict. The Battle of Mogadishu is a perfect example of what happens when such an operation is botched. Probably over a thousand civilians killed, and why? Because Rangers and Delta operators tried to capture the aide of a pissant Somali warlord. After that kind of bloodbath, only someone naive would advocate risky ground operations where a simple, elegant aerial strike is suitable.

Thats interesting, but most of what you have suggedted applies only to Israel. Can you think of any conditions that might be favourable to the Palestinians aswell?

Israel could probably be persuaded to loosen the economic blockade of the Gaza Strip. It's not like it's doing much good, anyway, as Hamas still manages to get weapons into the Strip, and will continue to do so until Egypt does a better job patching up its border. But that's about as far as Israel should go in concessions, in my opinion, as anything more than that would make Hamas appear victorious and strengthen their position.

EDIT: Gotcha, Guardian, you sneaky scumbag. As I checked the URL of that picture you just posted, I couldn't help but wonder why you have been linking to images from the Photobucket album belonging to a guy named ComradeDTA. Especially when I know for fact that this ComradeDTA fellow is a registered member of NMA who made about 60 posts some years back and disappeared shortly after being threatened with a third strike by my man Wooz here. The IP check I did on you further confirms my suspicions, as you appear to be posting from Canada, just like ComradeDTA. Coincidence? I think not. The hilarious thing is that you seem to be a neo-Nazi, while your alter-ego was expounding communist ideology. That leads to me conclude that you're either a troll or a clueless kid who wanders aimlessly from one extremist ideology to another, a typical victim of shitty parenting and subpar public education. Either way, double-registering is a bannable offense, and I'm now going to bring up this matter with the admins and other mods. Stay tuned.

 

[Chancellor Kremlin]

Certainly not, I consider an army professional if it's composed primarily of career soldiers who have formal combat training and receive salary for their service. All the armies I mentioned fit that description. The point of contention was specifically an army's treatment of civilians in urban operations. You implied that a "professional" army wouldn't allow high civilian death tolls in such operations, which is nonsense. In fact, in some instances military units operated under explicit orders to inflict high casualties among civilian populace; for example, Pakistani commandos in Dhaka who were tasked with exterminating the city's intellectuals.

I think you misunderstood me, by professional I meant well trained, well paid, well disciplined, experienced, and 'career' soldiers in the sense the majority are not conscripts. The armies you listed meet only one or two of those requirements. While a professional army would try and reduce civilian casualties as much as possible, its not the only qualification.

Fair enough, though their status as a "conquered" people is more due to their incompetence in establishing and running an effective country and less due to Israel's expansionist aspirations. Remember that pretty much all of Israel's territorial expansion occured as a result of wars initiated by its Arab neighbors.

Be that as it may, it still gives Israel certain responsabilities towards those people. Collective punishment, a deprivation of basic comodities and the barring of international journalists (one wonders why) doesn't bode very well with the occupying army.

Most of the world is stupid, misinformed and carries an anti-Semitic bias. It's safe to say that if Israel was one tenth as brutal as Hamas is, there wouldn't be a single Arab left in the Palestine right now. *Not a single one.*

While I agree with you on some of that, I doubt they all carry an anti-semitic bias. I am willing to bet the majority of those that do, do so because of Israel's conduct and reputation, rather than a pre-established hatred of semitism.

Judging by the reasonably low civilian death tolls, I'd say they either care about civilian life or intensely care about their international reputation. Remember, if Israel truly had no scruples, the Palestinian problem could be solved within a month. I doubt any of their Arab "friends" would lift a finger to save them, though I'm sure Egyptian border guards would be unnerved by the screams.

Im not saying they have no scruples at all, all im trying to point out is that they have a lot less than they claim to have. I see in Israel a nation that says one thing and does another, much like the U.S, many western countries, and even Hamas.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think Hamas is a saint either. What I don't like are people who claim either side is the saint, but who can't see the other side of the coin. To claim, for example, Israel is all loving, caring for civillians, simply defending itself, while Hamas is the evil genocidal organisation bent on destruction. That is naive in my opinion.

Yeah, probably, seeing as these "allies" were - and mostly still are - a bunch of insignificant third-world shitholes whose word counted for nothing in international politics and who had no military capacity to assert themselves against a state whose founding was supported by more or less every major power in the world.

Well, back then there wasn't even a notion of third world countries, and I doubt they were as poor as they are today. Not to mention, poor or not, Israel was surrounded by enemies, and enemied armed by the also powerful USSR. Im surprised Israel actually survived at all.

I'm sure the Jews would disagree.

Im sure they would, but I bet the Gypsies, homosexuals and other victims of the holocaust are also angry they did not get their own countries.

Their offer of peace was phrased more like "If Israel unconditionally withdraws from territories it occupied in a war that ended in their clear and decisive victory, we might at some unspecified point in the future entertain the notion of entering peace negotiations with them." While it certainly provided major lulz for anyone following the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, it's hardly a realistic proposal that can be taken seriously. It rather lends credence to my claim about terminally idiotic Palestinian leadership whose short-sightedness and irresponsibility continues to condemn the Palestinian people to many more years of suffering and misery.

Its not exactly short-sightedness, its a credible demand that even the Western authorities recognise. Granted, it would be foolish to be the only condition of an agreement. Any agreement would likely have to benefit both parties and guarantee their security, and I agree a lot would have to be done to satisfy Israeli concerns, but the return of the occupied areas is a must.

Israel still does sometimes employ its commandos for such purposes, but surely you can see the advantages of airstrikes for such operations. Commandos can't just automagically teleport to their target's location, neutralize the target and teleport away, Star Trek-style. No, they must first be deployed behind enemy lines. Then they must make their way to the location, neutralize the target as well as any henchmen that may be protecting it, then escape to the extraction point and safely make it back to friendly territory. If they are compromised at any point, they will be forced to fight their way out of enemy territory, which could potentially result in far greater casualties than a simple smart bomb strike would inflict. The Battle of Mogadishu is a perfect example of what happens when such an operation is botched. Probably over a thousand civilians killed, and why? Because Rangers and Delta operators tried to capture the aide of a pissant Somali warlord. After that kind of bloodbath, only someone naive would advocate risky ground operations where a simple, elegant aerial strike is suitable.

Its hardly elegant. The high number of civilian casualties says otherwise. I have agree with already it is the proper way to wage war, but its hardly perfect and does little for winning the hearts and minds of the enemy, and to be fair, probably causes more damage in the long run than is worth the effort.

Israel could probably be persuaded to loosen the economic blockade of the Gaza Strip. It's not like it's doing much good, anyway, as Hamas still manages to get weapons into the Strip, and will continue to do so until Egypt does a better job patching up its border. But that's about as far as Israel should go in concessions, in my opinion, as anything more than that would make Hamas appear victorious and strengthen their position.

I think its fair to say they should simply cease the economic blockade full stop. It simply annoys and hinders the majority of palestinians, while Hamas continues to acquire its weapons. I have no doubt Egypt and even Syaria would have to play big roles in a peace process, but I don't see how conceding too much is appearing to be weak. As you have already put it, it is Israel that is in a position of strength.

 

[mulaalia]

Homosexual country......... they would have a problem with natality, not to mention getting DOW by every Jamahiria out there.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

I think you misunderstood me, by professional I meant well trained, well paid, well disciplined, experienced, and 'career' soldiers in the sense the majority are not conscripts. The armies you listed meet only one or two of those requirements. While a professional army would try and reduce civilian casualties as much as possible, its not the only qualification.

Most of these armies *are* well-trained, well-paid, well-disciplined and experienced. More specifically, their training, equipment and salary is proportionate to the wealth of their respective nations. They may not be on the same level as the United States or maybe United Kingdom, but to call them unprofessional is to sell them short.

Be that as it may, it still gives Israel certain responsabilities towards those people. Collective punishment, a deprivation of basic comodities and the barring of international journalists (one wonders why) doesn't bode very well with the occupying army.

I believe it was a bad call on Israel's part to impose the strict economic blockade and keep international journalists out, though as I said before, I find it difficult to sympathize with the Palestinian people after they elected as their political representatives an organization that plainly works to their detriment. A bit of collective punishment just might teach them that democratic freedoms also carry a degree of responsibility, though it seems unlikely at this time.

While I agree with you on some of that, I doubt they all carry an anti-semitic bias. I am willing to bet the majority of those that do, do so because of Israel's conduct and reputation, rather than a pre-established hatred of semitism.

Given the long history of anti-Semitism in the West, I would be surprised if they *didn't* carry a bias resulting from preconceived anti-Semitic sentiments. This also ties into my point about Israeli military being held to a higher standard than most any other military on the globe, which I don't think is coincidental.

Then again, strong anti-Semitism is deeply rooted in the society of my country, so I'm *hoping* my perception of the issue is a bit skewed.

Im not saying they have no scruples at all, all im trying to point out is that they have a lot less than they claim to have. I see in Israel a nation that says one thing and does another, much like the U.S, many western countries, and even Hamas.

That's politics for you. A state that's completely honest is a state without problems. But on a relative scale, I find that Israel is indeed more honest and scrupulous than majority of world's countries experiencing similar problems. This, I believe, is a result of the fact that, contrary to what most people seem to believe, Israeli public is generally sympathetic to plights of the Palestinians and desirous of a permanent peace. And since Israel is a democratic country, its electorate has on many occasions rewarded political platforms with a peacemaking agenda, as well as responded with fury to perceived cruel and amoral acts perpetrated by the Israeli military (e.g. the "400,000 protest" in the aftermath of the Sabra and Shatila massacre).

Well, back then there wasn't even a notion of third world countries, and I doubt they were as poor as they are today. Not to mention, poor or not, Israel was surrounded by enemies, and enemied armed by the also powerful USSR. Im surprised Israel actually survived at all.

Those countries were for the most part indeed far less developed then than they are now (Lebanon *might* be the sole exception, but I doubt it). Also, what? Establishment of Israel was strongly supported by the USSR, only after the mid-50's did the Soviet block countries start supplying arms to Israel's enemies.

Im sure they would, but I bet the Gypsies, homosexuals and other victims of the holocaust are also angry they did not get their own countries.

Gypsies and homosexuals do have their own countries. They are called India and San Francisco, respectively.

Its hardly elegant. The high number of civilian casualties says otherwise. I have agree with already it is the proper way to wage war, but its hardly perfect and does little for winning the hearts and minds of the enemy, and to be fair, probably causes more damage in the long run than is worth the effort.

When a superior alternative to current surgical strike tactics is invented, I will be the first to support it.

I think its fair to say they should simply cease the economic blockade full stop. It simply annoys and hinders the majority of palestinians, while Hamas continues to acquire its weapons. I have no doubt Egypt and even Syaria would have to play big roles in a peace process, but I don't see how conceding too much is appearing to be weak. As you have already put it, it is Israel that is in a position of strength.

Even an appearance of victory could strengthen Hamas. You need look no further than Hezbollah for an example. That organization experienced an immense surge in popularity after inflicting some losses to IDF in the 2007 Israeli-Lebanese conflict. One might even get the impression that they won the war, if one overlooks the conspicuous absence of soldier abductions and rocket fire originating from Lebanon in the past year and a half.

 

[Chancellor Kremlin]

Most of these armies *are* well-trained, well-paid, well-disciplined and experienced. More specifically, their training, equipment and salary is proportionate to the wealth of their respective nations. They may not be on the same level as the United States or maybe United Kingdom, but to call them unprofessional is to sell them short.

Not really. I don't think you can call the Russian army for example, well paid and well-disciplined. There is a chronic lack of NCO's and officers, morale is generally accepted to be low, desertion is high, the benefits (such as pay and so on) are known to not be particularly worth it. In some places training is postponed completely due to lack of ammo or even fuel!

They may have experience but that is about it. I can only imagine how other armies such as those of Syria and Pakistan fair out. Obviously it is dependent on their countries wealth, but I think its fair to say the richer a country is, the more professional, well equipped and trained their army is.

I believe it was a bad call on Israel's part to impose the strict economic blockade and keep international journalists out, though as I said before, I find it difficult to sympathize with the Palestinian people after they elected as their political representatives an organization that plainly works to their detriment. A bit of collective punishment just might teach them that democratic freedoms also carry a degree of responsibility, though it seems unlikely at this time.

Well, we have all seen what desperation does. Just look at Germany in World War II. Hitler was also democratically elected.

In light of the blatant corruption and inefficiency of the Palestinian Authority, its not like they had many other choices. Extremism is often the solution to desperate people, that tends to be a trend world wide. Perhaps if the Israeli's knew how to distinguish between enemy and the general populance they would not have turned to such extremists in the first place. Why are they consistently denying humanitarian aid? Why are they consistently blocking any form of economic progress in Gaza, leaving it in a state of permanent poverty? Why are they themselves not embarking on a humanitarian mission, providing medicine, aid, food, water and so on, something they can clearly do?

Acts like these, while fiercely punishing Hamas, would do much to better their image in the area and abroad. At the moment, all they are doing is bombing Hamas, doing collateral damage, and to hell with the rest. War can not only be waged with arms these days, now that wholesale exterminations are no longer an option. Israel would do well to learn that.

Given the long history of anti-Semitism in the West, I would be surprised if they *didn't* carry a bias resulting from preconceived anti-Semitic sentiments. This also ties into my point about Israeli military being held to a higher standard than most any other military on the globe, which I don't think is coincidental. Then again, strong anti-Semitism is deeply rooted in the society of my country, so I'm *hoping* my perception of the issue is a bit skewed.

I don't understand your point about preconceived anti-Semitic sentiments and Israels army being held in high regard.

As for anti-Semitism in your country, I cannot say anything as I know nothing of it, but I think its fair to say in all the countries I have been and lived in, I haven't seen a lot of anti-Semitism, at least not openly anyway. I do believe Israel isn't doing itself any favours by acting the way it is. Also, we must be careful to distinguish between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, two different things which tend to overlap, but can also be mutually exclusive.

That's politics for you. A state that's completely honest is a state without problems. But on a relative scale, I find that Israel is indeed more honest and scrupulous than majority of world's countries experiencing similar problems. This, I believe, is a result of the fact that, contrary to what most people seem to believe, Israeli public is generally sympathetic to plights of the Palestinians and desirous of a permanent peace. And since Israel is a democratic country, its electorate has on many occasions rewarded political platforms with a peacemaking agenda, as well as responded with fury to perceived cruel and amoral acts perpetrated by the Israeli military (e.g. the "400,000 protest" in the aftermath of the Sabra and Shatila massacre).

In such cases, its better to remain quiet rather than making outlandish claims of having the most moral army in the world. I believe even if they did have the most moral army, they should still let others pass judgement rather than do it themselves, as they are in an ill position to do so.

I haven't been to Israel so I don't know how the majority of people there think, but I am basing my opinions in that nearly all my Jewish friends, including some Israeli's, tend to be very biased in favour of Israel (not surprisingly) and don't seem to care much how many Palestinians die in their operations (a sentiment I think is echoed in the military)

Those countries were for the most part indeed far less developed then than they are now (Lebanon *might* be the sole exception, but I doubt it). Also, what? Establishment of Israel was strongly supported by the USSR, only after the mid-50's did the Soviet block countries start supplying arms to Israel's enemies.

I bet it was, but the future years would indeed show us where their actual ideological priorities lied. The USSR itself was a major persecutor of Jews for its part.

Gypsies and homosexuals do have their own countries. They are called India and San Francisco, respectively.

Hahaha... if only.

When a superior alternative to current surgical strike tactics is invented, I will be the first to support it.

Well, one of the reasons, and a lot of people forget this, that Hamas is popular, is because on top of terrorism, they also provided schools, hospitals, aid, food, and the necessary infrastructure to make life possible, perhaps even enjoyable, in Palestine. By blockading Gaza, Israel is making sure Hamas has a monopoly of these activities in the area.

Would it not be more desirable to let other foreign bodies in to 'compete' with Hamas? Or even better, why not provide all this stuff yourself? The conflict in the holy land isn't all about the military, and both sides seem to forget that.

Even an appearance of victory could strengthen Hamas. You need look no further than Hezbollah for an example. That organization experienced an immense surge in popularity after inflicting some losses to IDF in the 2007 Israeli-Lebanese conflict. One might even get the impression that they won the war, if one overlooks the conspicuous absence of soldier abductions and rocket fire originating from Lebanon in the past year and a half.

Yes, and ironically, Israel actually achieved their objectives in that area, something they are yet to achieve with their new incursion into Gaza. Whats better, a 'loss of face' and actualy results on the ground, or the appearence of being the boss and all powerful and victorius and having no concrete achievements?

On a related note:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7960071.stm

I don't mind combat slogans, demonisation of the enemy and allsorts, but there gets a point where its jut not funny. You really need to be sick to enjoy any of that.

Its like writing notes on shells and bombs. Im perfectly fine with it, but when you get little children to write the stuff for you then there is something seriously wrong. I bet even World War II bomber pilots would feel something is out of place with that.

Again, the sheer ammount of negative publicity they are getting from the army is amazing. Either Israel needs to keep a tigher lid on its troops, or just re-educate them. You don't even see so much shit coming out of Iraq, and the American army there is vastly superior in number, you would think it would be more common.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

In light of the blatant corruption and inefficiency of the Palestinian Authority, its not like they had many other choices. Extremism is often the solution to desperate people, that tends to be a trend world wide. Perhaps if the Israeli's knew how to distinguish between enemy and the general populance they would not have turned to such extremists in the first place. Why are they consistently denying humanitarian aid? Why are they consistently blocking any form of economic progress in Gaza, leaving it in a state of permanent poverty? Why are they themselves not embarking on a humanitarian mission, providing medicine, aid, food, water and so on, something they can clearly do?

The Israel does provide aid to Palestine, in proportion to its economic strength. Far more importantly, Israel used to provide employment to thousands of Palestinians, and the income earned by these blue-collar workers was practically the only thing that kept the frail Palestinian economy afloat. Only after the mid '90s did the increasing frequency of suicide bombings and, later, the intifada of 2000, force Israel to restrict the movement of Palestinians across the border, thus sending their economy into a downward spiral. So once again, Palestinians fucked themselves over. What else is new?

Good news is that Israeli leadership increasingly realizes that rapid economic development in Palestine is the key to a lasting peace. How they plan to achieve that goal under the circumstances of a global recession is another matter.

War can not only be waged with arms these days, now that wholesale exterminations are no longer an option. Israel would do well to learn that.

Oh, but they are. There are quite a few fairly recent instances of wars being won through mass murder and genocide. However, Israel is a civilized country and as such they don't really have the stomach for such practices. Palestinians ought to thank Allah for that, at least.

I don't understand your point about preconceived anti-Semitic sentiments and Israels army being held in high regard.

Not high regard, high standard. As in, it is demanded that Israeli military adhere to norms which aren't expected of any other military in the world. I believe that this is a manifestation of anti-Semitism ingrained in the western culture.

Also, we must be careful to distinguish between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, two different things which tend to overlap, but can also be mutually exclusive.

Unfortunately, too many people are unable to distinguish between the two. Whenever something bad happens in Palestine, everybody in my country is immediately all like "Jews this, Jews that, all Jews must hang, also death to Jewmerica." The average person lacks the ability to distinguish between actions of one government and actions of the ethnic group that government partially represents.

In such cases, its better to remain quiet rather than making outlandish claims of having the most moral army in the world. I believe even if they did have the most moral army, they should still let others pass judgement rather than do it themselves, as they are in an ill position to do so.

Like I said, it's PR. It should be taken about as seriously as slogans written on shampoo bottles.

I haven't been to Israel so I don't know how the majority of people there think, but I am basing my opinions in that nearly all my Jewish friends, including some Israeli's, tend to be very biased in favour of Israel (not surprisingly) and don't seem to care much how many Palestinians die in their operations (a sentiment I think is echoed in the military)

In my experience, a nation's diaspora on average tends to hold more nationalistic and pro-government views than people still residing in the country. I think it's safe to say that Israeli citizens are more critical of their government than Jews and Israelis living abroad.

I bet it was, but the future years would indeed show us where their actual ideological priorities lied. The USSR itself was a major persecutor of Jews for its part.

The point is, in 1947-1948 Israel's Arab neighbors didn't have the political or military support of any major powers, so their rejection of the two-state selection and attempt to crush the fledgling Jewish state by force wasn't exactly the smartest thing to do under the circumstances.

Well, one of the reasons, and a lot of people forget this, that Hamas is popular, is because on top of terrorism, they also provided schools, hospitals, aid, food, and the necessary infrastructure to make life possible, perhaps even enjoyable, in Palestine. By blockading Gaza, Israel is making sure Hamas has a monopoly of these activities in the area.

Would it not be more desirable to let other foreign bodies in to 'compete' with Hamas? Or even better, why not provide all this stuff yourself? The conflict in the holy land isn't all about the military, and both sides seem to forget that.

I'd say neither Israel nor the international community are sure what the best way is to deal with Hamas. I mean, here we have a violent and fanatical terrorist organization with a mandate to act as legitimate political representatives of the Palestinian people. Israel and its western allies reacted reflexively - by imposing sanctions on the now Hamas-dominated Palestinian authority. Then, after Fatah failed to oust Hamas by force and Hamas successfully acquired a monopoly on power in Gaza, Israel again reacted on reflex and imposed a blockade on the Gaza Strip. All of these decisions may turn out to have been incorrect in hindsight, but given the novelty of the situation, I find it hard to blame Israel and the international community for choosing to act the way they did.

 

[fedaykin]

United Nations investigators said on Monday Israel violated a range of human rights during its invasion of Gaza, including targeting civilians and using a child as a human shield.

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE52M6G220090323?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0

Enough said.

 

[Bal-Sagoth]

Thats interesting, but most of what you have suggedted applies only to Israel. Can you think of any conditions that might be favourable to the Palestinians aswell?

I will leave that one up to you or someone else who has a more sincere care for the plight of the Palestinian people.
What ever you come up with I will comment on and let you know why I consider it reasonable or not reasonable

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7960071.stm

I don't mind combat slogans, demonisation of the enemy and allsorts, but there gets a point where its jut not funny. You really need to be sick to enjoy any of that.

Its like writing notes on shells and bombs. Im perfectly fine with it, but when you get little children to write the stuff for you then there is something seriously wrong. I bet even World War II bomber pilots would feel something is out of place with that.

Again, the sheer ammount of negative publicity they are getting from the army is amazing. Either Israel needs to keep a tigher lid on its troops, or just re-educate them. You don't even see so much shit coming out of Iraq, and the American army there is vastly superior in number, you would think it would be more common.

That would go along nicely with my "Mohammed Was a Terrorist" t-shirt.

Stuff like that does not really bother me. Of course I am not a great judge because regardless of political leanings I already have a thing for offensive t-shirts and dark humor.

Bomb signing is not a real big issue with me as well, we actually had a thread about this on TXB not to long ago.
To be honest if there was a place I could go stateside to sign a bomb that was headed to Iraq/Afghanistan I would be up right now thinking of some awesome one liners.

With that being said I suppose I can see why some people would be disturbed at a child doing the message writing.

United Nations investigators said on Monday Israel violated a range of human rights during its invasion of Gaza, including targeting civilians and using a child as a human shield.

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE52M6G220090323?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0

Enough said.

An Israeli commander in the 22-day Gaza invasion said on Monday Israel's efforts to protect troops from Palestinian fire may have contributed to unwarranted killing of civilians.

Cannot fault them for this one.

If an Israeli commander was faced with a decision to accomplish an objective that one solution resulted in one of the soldiers under his command dying or another solution that resulted in three Palestinian civilians dying, I would expect him to take the latter solution.


Also lol@this

Israel had subjected civilians in Gaza to "an inhuman form of warfare that kills, maims and inflicts mental harm."

Is there any other type of warfare that does not "kill,maim, and inflict mental harm"?

 

[Ratty Sr.]

Is there any other type of warfare that does not "kill,maim, and inflict mental harm"?

Tabletop gaming?

EDIT: Scratch that, I missed the "mental harm" bit.

 

[Bal-Sagoth]

Is there any other type of warfare that does not "kill,maim, and inflict mental harm"?

Tabletop gaming?

EDIT: Scratch that, I missed the "mental harm" bit.

Mentally harmful indeed.

 

[Carib FMJ]

War ain't pretty and conflicts and the methods all get blurred.

I believe it was said Hindsight is 20/20.

 

[DexterMorgan]

I've had this discussion a zillion times. I'm just gonna say I trust Al-Jazeera infinitely more than any of Rupert Murdoch's "reputable" news outlets, and if you feel they are falsifying a statement from a Human Rights Watch representative who is being directly quoted in the story I posted, please feel free to prove it. Otherwise, STFU.

If you're really interested in this conflict and wish to inform yourself, you can always visit www.btselem.org , an Israeli organization documenting numerous human rights violations commited by the IDF and other factors/factions. The patterns are easy to discern for any but the most naive and Fox News brainwashed.

I'd just like to conclude that for someone who's from Croatia and is presumably well informed of the events which took place there and in Bosnia, you display a remarkable level of naivete Ratty.

You justify sniping a woman and her children dead in broad daylight because they "turned in the wrong direction", as if any imaginable rule of engagement could ever justify such a thing.

In my view there is no difference between what IDF is doing now and what Chetniks did in my native Sarajevo. Israel simply has better PR.

Peace, I'm outta here.

EDIT:

One final thing, before I really GTFO.

I'm sure the Jews would disagree.

A close friend of mine who's a British Jew AND an IDF veteran of 1967 war disagrees with you. Zionists would disagree. Judaism and Zionism are not the same thing.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

I've had this discussion a zillion times. I'm just gonna say I trust Al-Jazeera infinitely more than any of Rupert Murdoch's "reputable" news outlets, and if you feel they are falsifying a statement from a Human Rights Watch representative who is being directly quoted in the story I posted, please feel free to prove it. Otherwise, STFU.

I don't watch any television, let alone the stations owned by Rupert Murdoch, nor do I read any of Murdoch's publications, so you're kinda preaching to the choir here. As for Al Jazeera, I don't have to prove anything, as the burden of proof is with them.

If you're really interested in this conflict and wish to inform yourself, you can always visit www.btselem.org , an Israeli organization documenting numerous human rights violations commited by the IDF and other factors/factions. The patterns are easy to discern for any but the most naive and Fox News brainwashed.

Thanks for the link, will check that site out. I doubt it will radically change my views regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, though.

I'd just like to conclude that for someone who's from Croatia and is presumably well informed of the events which took place there and in Bosnia, you display a remarkable level of naivete Ratty.

Naivette about what, exactly?

You justify sniping a woman and her children dead in broad daylight because they "turned in the wrong direction", as if any imaginable rule of engagement could ever justify such a thing.

I don't recall "justifying" that particular incident. I do recall calling it what it is - an incident, an ugly and unfortunate one. The soldier(s) responsible for it should be punished, naturally, but to construe it as part of some systematic mass murder policy is at best foolish and at worst tendentious and malevolent.

In my view there is no difference between what IDF is doing now and what Chetniks did in my native Sarajevo. Israel simply has better PR.

In my view these kind of sentiments are disrespectful towards both the Israelis and the people of Sarajevo. Serbian military was conducting a campaign of ethnic cleansing and genocide in Bosnia and may have killed as many as 100,000 people in the span of three years. IDF has the capacity to wipe the Palestinian "nation" off the face of the map in a matter of months, so if they were genuinely interested in "pulling a Bosnia", so to speak, rest assured they would be more than able to do so.

A close friend of mine who's a British Jew AND an IDF veteran of 1967 war disagrees with you. Zionists would disagree. Judaism and Zionism are not the same thing.

Right, then let's conduct a poll among the Israeli citizens and ask them how they feel about the existence of the state of Israel. If you're right and I'm wrong, then I'm guessing majority will be opposed to it and in favor of its dissolution.

 

[Chancellor Kremlin]

The Israel does provide aid to Palestine, in proportion to its economic strength. Far more importantly, Israel used to provide employment to thousands of Palestinians, and the income earned by these blue-collar workers was practically the only thing that kept the frail Palestinian economy afloat. Only after the mid '90s did the increasing frequency of suicide bombings and, later, the intifada of 2000, force Israel to restrict the movement of Palestinians across the border, thus sending their economy into a downward spiral. So once again, Palestinians fucked themselves over. What else is new?

Its not as simple as 'Yeah Palestine fucked themselves over - Israel is innocent' - that is the point i've been trying to make for like 2 pages now. Whenever somebody stands up for Palestine they are instantly labelled anti-semitic, anti-zionist and so on... simply because I am aware both sides are in the wrong?

If the Palestinians fucked themselves over we must look at the reasons that drove them to do that. Germany fucked itself over World War II, but what drove them to do that? Placing blame isn't really that easy.

As for economic aid, given that Gaza and the West Bank are likely Israel's biggest foreign concern, the ammount of aid and support is simply not enough full stop. I can understand with the economic recession and all its kind of hard, but its not like Israel made this a big priority even before the recession.

Oh, but they are. There are quite a few fairly recent instances of wars being won through mass murder and genocide. However, Israel is a civilized country and as such they don't really have the stomach for such practices. Palestinians ought to thank Allah for that, at least.

Yes, in places like Africa. These days Africa tends to be the exception to the rule. And we are talking about fully fledged states making war here, not militias, guerrillas and the armies of failed states. Obviously Israel cannot simply opt for a cleansing of the area. I doubt even the U.S would have the stomach to support that.

Not high regard, high standard. As in, it is demanded that Israeli military adhere to norms which aren't expected of any other military in the world. I believe that this is a manifestation of anti-Semitism ingrained in the western culture.

Thats not really true. All armies in the world should in theory be held to such regards, but especially ''professional'' armies, at least these days. I don't think its too much to ask not to shoot unarmed women and children, then print somic t-shirts about it, shell groups of people that have been ordered out of their houses, proceed to loot said houses, or get children to sign your bombs.

Unfortunately, too many people are unable to distinguish between the two. Whenever something bad happens in Palestine, everybody in my country is immediately all like "Jews this, Jews that, all Jews must hang, also death to Jewmerica." The average person lacks the ability to distinguish between actions of one government and actions of the ethnic group that government partially represents.

I agree with you, that just represents the close-mindedness and general intolerance of most people. But Israel is not doing itself any favours by either intentionally engaging in war crimes or allowing them to happen, its simply perpetuating the image that they are 'evil'. Sadly for Israel, its easy to say they are losing the PR battle everywhere but in Israel itself.

Like I said, it's PR. It should be taken about as seriously as slogans written on shampoo bottles.

Agreed. But where do we draw the line as to what we can consider as serious talk from Israel?

In my experience, a nation's diaspora on average tends to hold more nationalistic and pro-government views than people still residing in the country. I think it's safe to say that Israeli citizens are more critical of their government than Jews and Israelis living abroad.

Until I happen to go to Israel I have no way of confirming this, but it does tend to make sense.

The point is, in 1947-1948 Israel's Arab neighbors didn't have the political or military support of any major powers, so their rejection of the two-state selection and attempt to crush the fledgling Jewish state by force wasn't exactly the smartest thing to do under the circumstances.

Still, its understandable why they would have wanted to do so.

I'd say neither Israel nor the international community are sure what the best way is to deal with Hamas. I mean, here we have a violent and fanatical terrorist organization with a mandate to act as legitimate political representatives of the Palestinian people. Israel and its western allies reacted reflexively - by imposing sanctions on the now Hamas-dominated Palestinian authority. Then, after Fatah failed to oust Hamas by force and Hamas successfully acquired a monopoly on power in Gaza, Israel again reacted on reflex and imposed a blockade on the Gaza Strip. All of these decisions may turn out to have been incorrect in hindsight, but given the novelty of the situation, I find it hard to blame Israel and the international community for choosing to act the way they did.

Sanctions rarely ever function the way they should. They are most often cited as failures in the field of international relations than sucesses. What they mostly end up doing is sanctioning the majority of people, perpetuating the hatred of foreigners (especially the ones doing the sanctions) while the elites, the targets of such sanctions, continue to move freely and acquire their goods (be it luxury items or weapons) without restraint.

Its not even hindsight, I think from the begging one could see it was not the way to go. Foreign policy tends to be very conservative, with countries often sticking to old norms which are not necessarily successful, rathen than trying something novel.

Say instead of the reflex action, Israel and international authorities tried rather to talk to Hamas? Im not saying it would have been sucessful, but its better to first try and talk, and it resulting in failure, moving on from there, than to simply jump the gun.

I will leave that one up to you or someone else who has a more sincere care for the plight of the Palestinian people.
What ever you come up with I will comment on and let you know why I consider it reasonable or not reasonable.

I don't know. Lets see:

Israel:

- Lifting the economic blockade. Completely.
- Allowing Gaza free use of its ports to the outside world.
- Removing illegal settlements dotting the 'border' between Israel and Gaza. All the way back to 1967.
- Together with international authorities, aiding in the economic revival/reconstruction of Gaza.

Gaza:

- Renunciation of a one state solution (which means no 'Death to Israel'
- Allowing U.N and Israeli authorities to inspect border crossings, ports, depots, and so on to ensure armaments are not allowed to cross the newly opened borders. (Big emphasiz on the inspect and not restrict - which is what Israel is doing now)
- Complete demilitarisation (destruction of arms stashes, training camps, etc)

Can't think of much else at the moment.

That would go along nicely with my "Mohammed Was a Terrorist" t-shirt.

Stuff like that does not really bother me. Of course I am not a great judge because regardless of political leanings I already have a thing for offensive t-shirts and dark humor.

I would be up right now thinking of some awesome one liners.

I don't mind a dark humour, im a big fan of it. I also have many politically incorrect and ofensive T-shirt. I just didin't find those specific ones funny. Take this for example, there is an Ak-47 t-shirt that says ''AK-47 - when you absolutely need to kill everymother fucker in the room'' - right beside it I saw this one ''Jumbo 747 - when you absolutely need to kill every motherfucker in the building'' - with an image of a 747 flying into the twin towers.

You could find one funny and not the other. Speaking of which, what one liners did you have in mind? I could do with a laugh.

 

[analord]

Doesn't change the fact that compared to your god-awful criminal scum armies the Wehrmacht were saints.

They were both bad, they both did bad things. But the Germans were way more genocidal.

Secondly, what the Red Army did to Germany was a reaction to what Hitler's army did in Russia.

As for the moron Red army, they seemed to have killed the Wehrmacht army, so much for the utter Saints eh?

Utter saints.

Auschwitz?

Utter saints.

They spilt blood to stop Stalin from conquering Europe, anything that they allegedly did along the way is utterly justifiable in these circumstances, and more moral than any masturbatory "police action" the West has committed in the last 70 or so years. The Reich died in a glorious maelstrom of conflict, while our nations will die coughing up black coagulated shit we've been swallowing for years.

Sounds like a common apologetic German argument with their usual cognitive dissonance. Even though Germany attacked and started raping Russia first... The Soviet Union was looked as the aggressor. Even though they were slaughtering Jews en masse they perceived the Jews as the victimizers.

You know why the Russians were so immoral? Because in world war 2 they were an army of vengeance. Germany did not treat anybody like they did Russians, save for the Jews perhaps. The reason Germans lost is because they got their asses handed to them by subhuman Bolshevik scum. Your super German army all died in the territory of the Soviet Union because they were attacking everyone turning the whole country into partisans.

You're going to have to try harder then just saying "Russian barbarian Asiatic Hordes were bound to invade Europe due to their savage nature." There's not much evidence the Soviet Union was preparing for invasion. Germany attacked the Soviet Union when the soldiers were sleeping...

In any case the German army was not that superior as they tended to reenact the same tactics that would suffer against an actually prepared enemy.

Documents from Operation Sealion, the planned invasion of Britain, note this strategy would have been applied to the whole of Britain, in an effort to appease the British people to their new 'conquerors', and win the 'hearts and minds' (so to speak)

One wonders if that strategy would have worked better than the brutal ones employed in Eastern Europe.

You have to understand, Germany considered France, Britain, and America to be "one of them." France was pretty tranquil initially after the Nazis invaded because they did not conduct war in the same manner there. The French resistance came later. As apposed to when Germany invaded Poland and Eastern Europe, where countries were used to fighting with centuries old underground resistance methods.

Germans were more likely to let themselves be taken prisoner on the western front rather then the east.

Not wanting to bring the second world war into this, but since people have already opened the door there, the German soldiers who invaded the British isles of Guernsey were ordered to be as polite and courteous as possible, with explicitly no rape, pillage, maltreatmeant, and ordered to pay damages and services needed.

Talking about "Moral Army."

There is a difference between policy and its execution, because I'm pretty sure the disciplinary policy of "no rape, no pillaging" was on the Eastern front too except it was not enforced at all, rather the opposite was rewarded because the German Army at the time was indoctrinated with antisemitism antibolshevism. But this sort of contradictory ideology is pretty much the root of Nazism. They have to have an eternal enemy\alien or Nazism would collapse in on itself.

I'm pretty sure the policy of "no rape, no pillage" would be well enforced if the Nazis invaded Britain or America.