The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - January 7, 2009

Dunnigan's and Bay's Latest
Advertisement
New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

Online Giving

Utah SEO Firm

Xango

Smiley Gifts for Babies
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
Murphy's Law in Action Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: What!!!!!!
Vark    5/23/2002 6:45:14 PM
" Britain has never faced an enemy who (sic) goals were the destruction of Britain" Of course not bsl, Hitler only wanted to send his bombers over Britain to show off their clever camo schemes. The Blitz, an unfortunate accident, all those ships torpedoed and mined whoops mein kamerad a most unfortunate missunderstanding. Oh and most of occupied Europe refused to cooperate with that nice Austrian housepainter, offering him no sanctuary! Jeez louise no wonder the 'special relationship' is under strain with people like you around. Oh no! How stupid of me sorry bsl, Hitler only wanted to come over here to show us how to run our railways, silly me..................Swede
 
Quote    Reply
 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Phoenix Rising    RE:What!!!!!!   5/23/2002 7:21:50 PM
True, Vark, but I think bsl was referring to a domestic rebel faction. Even when we (in America) rebelled, we didn't come hunt down the motherland, hell-bent on revenge. --Phoenix Rising
 
Quote    Reply

bsl    RE:What!!!!!!   5/23/2002 8:12:04 PM
Vark, "How stupid of me" Exactly, swifty. I was answering an attempt to argue that the situation of Israel with relation to the Palestinians is the equivalent of the situation of the British, in relation to the Irish. Didn't you notice? In fact, when faced with the NAZIs, who WERE the sort of absolutists the Arabs are, Britain adopted the unlimited bombing policy which led to the obliteration of a large part of urban Germany, at a loss of literally hundreds of thousands of German CIVILIAN lives. For that matter, has anyone bothered to try to find the figures for FRENCH civilian casualties, in the landings and the fighting to breakout of Normandy?
 
Quote    Reply

pws    RE:What!!!!!! - bsl   5/24/2002 6:00:40 AM
I previously posted as "disgusted" Thanks for your reply. I'm curious why you say I make a major mistake in focusing on matyrdom instead of jihad. I'd be interested in your thoughts on this point. Secondly I take your point re comparison between Britain v IRA and Israel/Palestine. I agree that a more accurate analogy is Brtain/Nazis. However, I think my original point still stands. I work from the premises that Palestinian extremists who want to blow themselves up are a minority amongst Palestinians, although gaining support because of the success they are/were having against Israel. In the same way diehard Nazis were a minority in Germany who the majority went along with because of their success. Once the tide turned the Germnans were stuck with the Nazis. However, at the end of the war the Allies only got rid of the diehard Nazis and acted with compassion towards general population. Analogy breaks down at this point because Israel/Palestine conflict probably at 1944 point ie writings on the wall if Palestinians can read it. However miltary mismatch is at May 1945 level - ie Israel completely outguns Palestinians. Because of this I think Israel can and should treat general population of Palestinians different from extremists. In effect I think Holsinger's solution is equivalent to the Allies in May 1945 sticking the whole German population in a concentration camp. I'd be interested in your thoughts. Cheers
 
Quote    Reply

bsl    RE:What!!!!!! - bsl   5/24/2002 7:34:17 PM
pws, Re: martydom versus jihad My point is that to become overly focussed on suicide operations is to risk losing the forest for the trees. The general catagory, the one which ought to be the center of discussion, is the war which has been directed against Israel for more than 50 years, now. The precise nature of the most recent attacks is a tactical question. The basic issue is the overall war and not how it's being conducted at any given moment. I wrote "jihad", rather than "war" because I have always put things in the general context of Islamic civilization, even during the periods when the Arab leaders of the moment represented a more secular p.o.v.. (This is another issue for another day.) This is not to say that the present campaign is unimportant. It is certainly not unimportant. But, it exists in a larger context, and to ignore that larger context is to preclude either understanding what is going on, or how it might or might not be changed. Re: IRA vs Nazis Here, too, I put things in a larger context, and I think that has something to do with the apparent differences in how we see events in the region. (I presume from what I read in your last note. If I misread you, please correct my impressions.) First, my argument was that there is an essential difference between a country faced with serious violence directed at making it change a policy, and a country faced with violence directed at destroying it. In the former case, the party under attack has a much greater effective freedom of action, because even a gravely mistaken policy has limited risks. In the latter case, a mistake can be the last ever made. And, this brings us to the matter of context. Britain has faced, faces, and, for as far out as anyone can reasonably foresee, faces no more direct threat than a limited group of Irish and some sympathisers who, all together, represent a small force. For all the real carnage which has been inflicted, in every direction, in norther Ireland and on England, the survival of the UK has never, ever been at risk, in any sense. That is not, was not, and will not be true with regard to Israel. At every period since 1948, the literal survival of Israel has been at issue. Sometimes overtly; sometimes implicity. But, always. It's a grave error to see the present crisis as a purely **Palestinian**-Israeli affair. It is not. The present engagement is more limited than some, but not all, of those of the past. But, the threat of escalation is as present as it ever is. Given the strategic environment, this would be so EVEN if the Palestinians were not saying that meeting their present demands is only the next step along the road to the ultimate destruction of Israel. (And, they ARE saying it. That's why Arafat, for instance, even AFTER his recent conversion to responsible peacemaker has told his people to think in terms of the peace Mohammed made with some local tribes, which turned out only to be a pause while Mohammed gathered enough force to wipe those tribes out. Indeed, there can hardly be a clearer, less ambiguous threat made, in context of an Islamic culture. And, of course, Hamas still maintains that there is no peace to be made, while organizations directly tied to Arafat, himself, still carry out operations, today.) I think you refute your own effort to distinguish between bad and good Palestinians with your reference to the Nazis. I won't quarrel about what most Germans "really" thought. I merely point out that, in fact, Germany, as a country fought WW2 about as hard and long as it could. The existence of hypothetically benign Germans was completely besides the point. If they existed, they had no effect on the course of German actions. AND, this reasoning is the one which drove British policy quite as much as it drove American policy. I find it surpassing odd that Israel is singled out as the country whose right to self defense, to literal survival is continually called into question. More so when some of the countries doing so have never followed the kinds of policies they seek to impose on Israel. Regards, BSL
 
Quote    Reply

FreeTaiwan    RE:What!!!!!!   6/10/2003 12:59:54 AM
Is this debate still alive? If it is: Radical religious belief, just like communism, is an intesified expression of nationalism born in incompetent regimes that does not satify the nationalistic aspirations of their people. I am a staunch "fundementalist" in democracy , and that is closely associated with Taiwan's undesirable situation with China. If a whole people's nationalist aspirations are oppressed, they naturally assume the opposite ideology of their enemy. In Israel's case, the Palestinians turned against the Western Civilization as a whole. While Israel has a right to fend for herself, it is only pragmatic that some concessions must necessarily be made--the Palestinians are not going to stop unlast some part of their lost self-esteem (and bucks in their wallet)restored. The Palestinian uprising is NOT a unpopular movement. The terrorists are NOT minorities to a degree like the Nazis are, especially one must take into account that non-Nazi Germans know that Germany still exists if the Nazi is destroyed, but the Palestinian know, correctly, that without terrorism they will be assimulated by Israel. It is arguable whether if the PLO and other terrorist organizations alike belive in violence as a means of political strategy, but if Palestians are rewarded with a stable nation that can sustain the basic need of the Palestinian people, they will turn away from terrorism.
 
Quote    Reply

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy