• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Israel has a right to self defense

Status
Not open for further replies.
You are not the voice of Islam.

Just respect the State of Israel and all will be well.
 
Ah yes, another case or “reactionaries” whining about international law. Let me guess— you think the Nazis were unjustly prosecuted at Nuremberg and war shouldn’t have laws :roll:

I think telling only one side that the law applies to them is the one consistency of the entire Arab efforts to undo Israel. Every single thing about that effort, from the goals to the means, has been an illegal contravention of international law.

And we never hear anything from you guys about that, do we? So spare us the moral preening.
 
International law provides no obligation to protect war criminals....and nuking Mecca would be a war crime.

So would attacking Israel to destroy it, brainiac.
 
You are not the voice of Islam.

Just respect the State of Israel and all will be well.

I asked who is you? I never claimed to be. I dont respect pithy threats from some rando on the net.
 
I think telling only one side that the law applies to them is the one consistency of the entire Arab efforts to undo Israel. Every single thing about that effort, from the goals to the means, has been an illegal contravention of international law.

And we never hear anything from you guys about that, do we? So spare us the moral preening.

America is the one which coaxed Egypt into finally agreeing to peace after they very nearly kicked your asses in 1973.

Hell, in 1973 America came to the rescue for you, providing tens of thousands of tons of military equipment....and badly hurting our own economy as a result.

It’s funny how you lot’s reaction to international law is “but....but....the other side doesn’t follow it, so why should we have to?”

Especially considering that was basically the argument the Nazis used to justify their atrocities on the Eastern Front.
 
Ah yes, another case or “reactionaries” whining about international law. Let me guess— you think the Nazis were unjustly prosecuted at Nuremberg and war shouldn’t have laws :roll:

I have not whined about anything, I just commented on your childlike faith in your deity. It's really a commendable thing, or would be if it weren't all baloney.

As for the German leadership killed after the war, their conquerors had a right, under classical jus in bello, to slay enemy combatants, including leadership. I think it would have been better had the norm of European society for the last millennia or two, whereby slaughter ends after the enemy surrenders, not been derogated from. But then again I also think it would've been better had Roosevelt and Stalin not taken over the world at all. YMMV, as always.
 
So would attacking Israel to destroy it, brainiac.

So in other words both sides would be as bad as each other, and therefore the US shouldn’t provide any aid whatsoever. Sounds about right.
 
I have not whined about anything, I just commented on your childlike faith in your deity. It's really a commendable thing, or would be if it weren't all baloney.

As for the German leadership killed after the war, their conquerors had a right, under classical jus in bello, to slay enemy combatants, including leadership. I think it would have been better had the norm of European society for the last millennia or two, whereby slaughter ends after the enemy surrenders, not been derogated from. But then again I also think it would've been better had Roosevelt and Stalin not taken over the world at all. YMMV, as always.

The German leadership was responsible for the deliberate, systematic mass murder of millions of non-combatants as well as POWs. There are consequences to that, and the idea that it was “victor’s justice” is laughable.

Ah yes, the typical “reactionary” line of crying about how much better things would have been if the Nazis had won.
 
The German leadership was responsible for the deliberate, systematic mass murder of millions of non-combatants as well as POWs. There are consequences to that, and the idea that it was “victor’s justice” is laughable.

Every warring nation commits crimes. By right of conquest, the victorious nation can punish its defeated enemies for any crimes it judges them guilty of (including the crime of having fought against the victors, which was the main point of Allied propaganda at the time). Still, I think it would have been better had mercy been shown to the vanquished, following Europe's longstanding custom.

Ah yes, the typical “reactionary” line of crying about how much better things would have been if the Nazis had won.

I do think it would have been better had the world remained multipolar. Of course, I'm not a progressive, so I'm okay with different peoples building different societies. Roosevelt and Stalin, both being progressives, did not agree.
 
Every warring nation commits crimes. By right of conquest, the victorious nation can punish its defeated enemies for any crimes it judges them guilty of (including the crime of having fought against the victors, which was the main point of Allied propaganda at the time). Still, I think it would have been better had mercy been shown to the vanquished, following Europe's longstanding custom.



I do think it would have been better had the world remained multipolar. Of course, I'm not a progressive, so I'm okay with different peoples building different societies. Roosevelt and Stalin, both being progressives, did not agree.

The Nazis didn’t show any mercy to the millions of innocent people they murdered. Why should any be shown to them? It’s not like they regretted the mass murders; many of the leadership were totally unrepentant.

Fighting to conquer and subjugate their neighbors, and committing genocide in the process, is what the Nazis actually did. Again, that has consequences.

Given how the Nazis repeatedly attacked the folks “building a different society” they certainly didn’t agree with your fairy tale.

No one is obligated to allow psychotic thugs to mass murder others.
 
The Nazis didn’t show any mercy to the millions of innocent people they murdered. Why should any be shown to them? It’s not like they regretted the mass murders; many of the leadership were totally unrepentant.

Fighting to conquer and subjugate their neighbors, and committing genocide in the process, is what the Nazis actually did. Again, that has consequences.

The Nazis are gone. Their regime no longer exists. What they did or did not do, what they should or should not have done, etc., does not matter, and it has not mattered since May of 1945. The Allies, OTOH, are still with us, so understanding their behavior is much more important.

The reason why mercy should be shown to the vanquished is ultimately one of precedent. When reprisals are launched against a defeated enemy, it increases the likelihood that such reprisals will occur after future wars, which increases the desperation with which the weaker side will resist. And the history of the last 75 years, in which defeated rulers have been routinely slaughtered everywhere from Tokyo to Tripoli, and large portions of the world exist in a state of permanent conflict, bears this out.

Given how the Nazis repeatedly attacked the folks “building a different society” they certainly didn’t agree with your fairy tale.

Well they did try to destroy the Soviet Union, I'll give you that. Given that taking over the world was the explicit goal of the Soviet Union, that's at least understandable (even ignoring the evidence that Stalin was actively planning to invade Europe). There is no evidence that Hitler had any territorial designs on Britain or America.

No one is obligated to allow psychotic thugs to mass murder others.

None of the Allied powers claimed to be fighting to stop mass murder. "The Allies are fighting for the Jews" was a talking point in Berlin, not in Washington or London.
 
“ Dresden was Germany's seventh-largest city and, according to the RAF at the time, the largest remaining unbombed built-up area.[36] Taylor writes that an official 1942 guide to the city described it as "one of the foremost industrial locations of the Reich" and in 1944 the German Army High Command's Weapons Office listed 127 medium-to-large factories and workshops that were supplying the army with materiel.[37] Nonetheless, according to some historians, the contribution of Dresden to the German war effort may not have been as significant as the planners thought.[38]
The US Air Force Historical Division wrote a report in response to the international concern about the bombing that remained classified until December 1978.[39] It said that there were 110 factories and 50,000 workers in the city supporting the German war effort at the time of the raid.[40] According to the report, there were aircraft components factories; a poison gas factory (Chemische Fabrik Goye and Company); an anti-aircraft and field gun factory (Lehman); an optical goods factory (Zeiss Ikon AG); and factories producing electrical and X-ray apparatus (Koch & Sterzel [de] AG); gears and differentials (Saxoniswerke); and electric gauges (Gebrüder Bassler). It also said there were barracks, hutted camps, and a munitions storage depot.[41]

The USAF report also states that two of Dresden's traffic routes were of military importance: north-south from Germany to Czechoslovakia, and east–west along the central European uplands.[42] The city was at the junction of the Berlin-Prague-Vienna railway line, as well as the Munich-Breslau, and Hamburg-Leipzig lines.[42] Colonel Harold E. Cook, a US POW held in the Friedrichstadt marshaling yard the night before the attacks, later said that "I saw with my own eyes that Dresden was an armed camp: thousands of German troops, tanks and artillery and miles of freight cars loaded with supplies supporting and transporting German logistics towards the east to meet the Russians".[43]

An RAF memo issued to airmen on the night of the attack gave some reasoning for the raid:
Dresden, the seventh largest city in Germany and not much smaller than Manchester is also the largest unbombed builtup area the enemy has got. In the midst of winter with refugees pouring westward and troops to be rested, roofs are at a premium, not only to give shelter to workers, refugees, and troops alike, but to house the administrative services displaced from other areas. At one time well known for its china, Dresden has developed into an industrial city of first-class importance ... The intentions of the attack are to hit the enemy where he will feel it most, behind an already partially collapsed front, to prevent the use of the city in the way of further advance, and incidentally to show the Russians when they arrive what Bomber Command can do.[36][44]”

Dresden absolutely was important to German war and transport production by 1945. Stop mindlessly believing the propaganda spewed by both the far left and the far right in order to justify hatred against the West.

Bombing of Dresden in World War II - Wikipedia

RAF and US Air Force memos written during WWII have been discredited by historians as crude propaganda by the people who committed the war crime.
 
RAF and US Air Force memos written during WWII have been discredited by historians as crude propaganda by the people who committed the war crime.

The idea that bombing Dresden was a war crime because “it didn’t have war industries“ has been discarded as crude Nazi propaganda by everyone....except for those on the far left and far right.
 
I have not whined about anything, I just commented on your childlike faith in your deity. It's really a commendable thing, or would be if it weren't all baloney.

As for the German leadership killed after the war, their conquerors had a right, under classical jus in bello, to slay enemy combatants, including leadership. I think it would have been better had the norm of European society for the last millennia or two, whereby slaughter ends after the enemy surrenders, not been derogated from. But then again I also think it would've been better had Roosevelt and Stalin not taken over the world at all. YMMV, as always.

Lol some American nationalist. Actually Germany was in it for total destruction of their targets they sought to conquer. The only reason you get to whatabout the soviets is your fuhrer was stopped.
 
RAF and US Air Force memos written during WWII have been discredited by historians as crude propaganda by the people who committed the war crime.

By whom?
 
Every warring nation commits crimes. By right of conquest, the victorious nation can punish its defeated enemies for any crimes it judges them guilty of (including the crime of having fought against the victors, which was the main point of Allied propaganda at the time). Still, I think it would have been better had mercy been shown to the vanquished, following Europe's longstanding custom.



I do think it would have been better had the world remained multipolar. Of course, I'm not a progressive, so I'm okay with different peoples building different societies. Roosevelt and Stalin, both being progressives, did not agree.

That same standard will be applied to you and i will laugh when it does. I think you only want mercy to be shown to the nazis.
 
The Nazis are gone. Their regime no longer exists. What they did or did not do, what they should or should not have done, etc., does not matter, and it has not mattered since May of 1945. The Allies, OTOH, are still with us, so understanding their behavior is much more important.

The reason why mercy should be shown to the vanquished is ultimately one of precedent. When reprisals are launched against a defeated enemy, it increases the likelihood that such reprisals will occur after future wars, which increases the desperation with which the weaker side will resist. And the history of the last 75 years, in which defeated rulers have been routinely slaughtered everywhere from Tokyo to Tripoli, and large portions of the world exist in a state of permanent conflict, bears this out.



Well they did try to destroy the Soviet Union, I'll give you that. Given that taking over the world was the explicit goal of the Soviet Union, that's at least understandable (even ignoring the evidence that Stalin was actively planning to invade Europe). There is no evidence that Hitler had any territorial designs on Britain or America.


None of the Allied powers claimed to be fighting to stop mass murder. "The Allies are fighting for the Jews" was a talking point in Berlin, not in Washington or London.

The Nazis’ followers are still very much around, conducting terrorist attacks and murdering people every so often. Pointing out the atrocities they committed and keeping the memory of what they did alive, therefore, is quite is relevant.

The Germans disagreed. Brest-Litvosk was an insanely harsh treaty— far harsher than Versailles, actually. The idea that there wouldn’t be conflicts going on if only the Nazis had gotten off scot free is also ludicrous.

The Red Army was in no shape to “invade Europe” when Hitler invaded. The idea that his invasion was a “preemptive strike” of some sort is just ignorant.

The Allies knew all about the mass murder by Nuremberg though.
 
America is the one which coaxed Egypt into finally agreeing to peace after they very nearly kicked your asses in 1973.

Hell, in 1973 America came to the rescue for you, providing tens of thousands of tons of military equipment....and badly hurting our own economy as a result.

It’s funny how you lot’s reaction to international law is “but....but....the other side doesn’t follow it, so why should we have to?”

Especially considering that was basically the argument the Nazis used to justify their atrocities on the Eastern Front.

Nice (wrong) non-sequiter.

Assume that you know you are wrong and so have given up
 
Nice (wrong) non-sequiter.

Assume that you know you are wrong and so have given up

Your wailing about how everyone hates Israel because it’s actions are criticized is always rather amusing.
 
So in other words both sides would be as bad as each other, and therefore the US shouldn’t provide any aid whatsoever. Sounds about right.

Huh?

I like how you are drawing equivalence between actual Arab conduct and a random internet poster’s position on what israel should do if it is overrun and basing real life conclusions on that.

Sort of like you have a biased view completely removed from facts and will grasp at whatever straws you need to justify it...
 
The German leadership was responsible for the deliberate, systematic mass murder of millions of non-combatants as well as POWs. There are consequences to that, and the idea that it was “victor’s justice” is laughable.

Ah yes, the typical “reactionary” line of crying about how much better things would have been if the Nazis had won.

How many POWs did the Soviets kill? How many civilians did they systematically murder, say, in Poland in 1940?

Now square that circle.

I’m of course not one to have wanted the germans to win, but I’m also realistic enough to know that victor’s justice, as much as we like to pretend otherwise, underpins “international law”. Sure, it is dressed up and there are efforts to normalize and constrain victor conduct, but the germans lost while the soviets won, so identical conduct by the soviets did not attract the same proceedings as conduct by the germans.

So the Serbs can get tried for their appalling behaviour in kosovo but the Chinese can inter a million people while systematically occupying and oppressing other peoples in other territories without any consequence.

We live in the real world. At some point you guys need to recognize that.
 
Last edited:
Huh?

I like how you are drawing equivalence between actual Arab conduct and a random internet poster’s position on what israel should do if it is overrun and basing real life conclusions on that.

Sort of like you have a biased view completely removed from facts and will grasp at whatever straws you need to justify it...

Israel has nuclear weapons. That’s been presented as a fact. They also worked with apartheid South Africa on nuclear weapons, but that’s another story.

Israel does violate international law. Arguing that said violations, as well as hypothetical ones, are a-okay “because the Arabs do it” is the equivalent of the Nazi justification for committing atrocities on the Eastern Front
 
RAF and US Air Force memos written during WWII have been discredited by historians as crude propaganda by the people who committed the war crime.

That’s convenient for you.

A bald assertion that “some people say” with no citations or actual argument.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom