BF2S Forums Hitler was 'Doing God's Work'

Ratzinger wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Think they're loony if you like, but thinking all religious folks are dangerous is also loony.

I repeat myself, but....

They're dangerous because they're irrelevant and distract from reality. They're dangerous because they retard progress in the name of ignorance.

NO EXCEPTIONS.

While I agree humans are the byproduct (Or anything for that matter) of energy always moving and transforming I don't think you should be so harsh and close minded about religion.

Dilbert_X wrote:

If you've got a beef with the existence of Israel and the consequences of its creation, take it up with the world body that created the country: the UN.

The world has tried repeatedly, through the UN to bring Israel into line with international norms on how a nation should behave.
Each time it gets squashed by the US veto.

UN vetoes don't keep other countries from providing aid to the Palestinians or from attempting to get Israel and the Palestinians to negotiate...so why aren't other countries doing something about it instead of wringing their hands and finding reasons (albeit poor reasons) NOT to do something.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Hagee isn't McCain's pastor.

Didn't say he was.

I know you didn't, I didn't say you did. You asked a couple of questions and that was PART of the answer.

Dilbert_X wrote:

The only stable democracy in the region, maybe.

Barely, but still why fund them?

For the same reason we provide funding to a lot of countries. It's called diplomacy.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Counter to other major players in the area (Iran, Syria) maybe.

And what is the point exactly, other than creating instability?
Why do they need to be countered?

Their interests are counter to our interests in the region. Keeping Iran and Syria in check doesn't create instability--it keeps the regimes of those countries from creating even more instability.

Dilbert_X wrote:

UN vetoes don't keep other countries from providing aid to the Palestinians or from attempting to get Israel and the Palestinians to negotiate...so why aren't other countries doing something about it instead of wringing their hands and finding reasons (albeit poor reasons) NOT to do something.

It would be whole lot simpler to have done it through the UN. Why not just stop with the childish vetoes?
As Israel knows it has US financial and military backing no matter what trying to get them to unilaterally negotiate is a complete waste of time.`

Because the peace agreements that have been signed to date had anything to do with the UN?

Dilbert_X wrote:

Their interests are counter to our interests in the region. Keeping Iran and Syria in check doesn't create instability--it keeps the regimes of those countries from creating even more instability.

And what are 'our interests' ?
All the Arabs are happy pumping oil for the highest bidder.
Saddam was, Iran is, the Saudi Taleban are.
Whovever owns the oilfielfd will keep pumping so why do you need Israel in there causing trouble?

Interests in the ME involve more than just oil, but it is a big player.

Syria and Iran both support terrorist organizations, both in the ME and elsewhere. Iran constantly messes with the Straits of Hormuz. Just a couple of issues in the ME involving those countries.

Another interest is the continuation of a stable, democratic state in the ME. Israel is one, Lebanon is another.

Lebanon is another.

Which is why the US supported the Israeli attack on Lebanon?

Syria and Iran both support terrorist organizations, both in the ME and elsewhere.

And why do you suppose that is? Your argument is circular and self-defeating.
The US supports Israel, as a counter to Iranian and Syrian terrorism, which is directed solely at Israel and its supporter the US?

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-05-31 21:15:46)

Which is why the US supported the Israeli attack on Hizbollah?

Right, Hezbollah owned the airport, tower blocks, the 1,000 civilians killed were all Hezbollah, the farmland the IDF sowed unexploded cluster bombs over was all Hezbollah?
Funny that Hezbollah -  a terrorist organisation - has a better military/civilian kill ratio the the IDF.

They supported terrorist organizations long before now.

For example? And who were these terrorist organisations directed at?
Were they directed at US interests inside or outside the ME?
Seriously, I'm not aware of this

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-05-31 21:20:52)

The civilians killed were because Hezbollah hides in civilian populations, just like Hamas. Do you expect Israel not to shoot back at those who are trying to kill them? Get real.

They ARE the population, you might as well say Republicans hide amongst the population. If the US were invaded would all the 2nd amendment folks pick up their rifles, put on their uniforms and go camp a few miles out of town with a big flag 'Militia Here'?
The US invented asymmetric warfare with their backwoodsmen during the War of Independence (theres an insurgency for you lol), you should stop griping when other people practice it.
I expect Israel not to drop bunker busters on civilian tower blocks in response to a very minor cross border skirmish.
I don't remember the British bombing Dublin every time one of our soldiers was killed by the IRA.

The airport was being used by Syria and Iran to resupply Hezbollah.

Oh really? Got a source? All I remember was civilian aircraft trying to get refugees out.
And what did bombing the fuel depot achieve? Taking out all the bridges and roads? The power stations?
Civilian infrastructure is not to be gratuitously targeted, thats also a war crime.

The majority were working against US interests inside the ME, but occassionally went after US interests/people outside the ME.

I read the sources, I don't see anything predating the foundation of Israel, thus reinforcing my point that your argument is circular.
US interests in the ME and belligerence towards Iran and Syria are solely related to support for Israel, the US doesn't support Israel to counter some non-existent threat against America or protect 'interests' besides Israel.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-06-01 07:03:22)

Here's one: http://dailynightly.msnbc.com/2006/07/w … rael_.html

I read it, wow one plane a quarter, U$1bn over 25 years.
Is it in any way similar to this? http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/22/world … ry.html?hp
And you wonder why they hate you.

Was the IRA doing a lot of launching rockets into British neighborhoods or specifically targeting British civilians? Seems like the IRA primarily targeted the British military.

The IRA was specifically targetting British civilians as well as military.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Manch … re_bombing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_bombings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remembrance_Day_Bombing
For reasons know only to themselves they targeted Irish civilians too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omagh_bombing
I can't think of a reason why we shouldn't have bombed Dublin and assassinated the T-Shirt, if we are using Israeli measures as the yardstick.

Since Israel was the first democracy in the region, any discussion of supporting democratic reform in the region will be tied to Israel's foundation by default.

Thats a bizarre argument, like saying apartheid South Africa was the first African democracy so we should have supported them.
Israel is not a democracy, with indigenous Arab-Israelis having fewer rights than immigrant jews.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-06-02 04:21:49)

Hageelarity:

On March 16, 2003, on the eve of the United States' invasion of Iraq, Pastor John Hagee took to the pulpit to warn of the coming Antichrist. In his sermon, "The Final Dictator," Hagee described the Antichrist as a seductive figure with "fierce features." He will be "a blasphemer and a homosexual," the pastor announced. Then, Hagee boomed, "There's a phrase in Scripture used solely to identify the Jewish people. It suggests that this man [the Antichrist] is at least going to be partially Jewish, as was Adolph Hitler, as was Karl Marx."

This "fierce" gay Jew, according to Hagee, would "slaughter one-third of the Earth's population" and "make Adolph Hitler look like a choirboy."

Spidery_Yoda wrote:

Braddock wrote:

There are some real fucking nutjobs in America when it comes to religion...and seemingly in some very influential positions too.

Thats what I was thinking. I find some religious americans quite scary sometimes.

Why the fuck cant religious people just say and do things that reflect what most Catholic and Christian people believe. The preists I have always listened to always talk about things that relate to mine and other peoples lives. For instance, a formere marine chaplain who was now a priest talked about pride the othere day and mentioned something about the differnece between thingking you are the best for a reason and thinking that just because you re egotistical. At the end he added a "oh and Marines ARE the best". Just wanted to say that in case some thought that these 'nutjobs' spoke for all of us. Some of you do.

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Sure about that?
Get one of your analysts to take a look at this.
Haret_Hreik_Before_After_22_July_2006

This was done with precision laser guided bombs supplied by the US, not carpet bombing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/22/world … ry.html?hp
See any military targets there? How would you exactly?
Given the area, close density of housing, it can't have been used for launching rocket attacks, so why was it obliterated?
The headquarters of Hezbollah were not it in all those buildings.

Yes, I'm sure.

You said "bunker buster". That is a specific type of munition with a specific function. I'll assume you were just being hyperbolic again and trying to use what you deem to be inflammatory language with regard to IDF weapon usage. Since neither of us knows exactly what type of warhead (or nose/tail assembly or fuse) was used in the Haret Hreik strikes, you can't say definitively whether they were LGBs, JDAM, or dumb bombs, whether they were of Israeli manufacture (they do make their own) or US manufacture...or any other country's manufacture.

If you read about the rationale for targeting the Haret Hreik neighborhood, you'll see that it was the HQ of Hezbollah. And unless you have access to Israel's targeting data or Hezbollah's order of battle, you have no idea where the various Hezbollah offices were in that neighborhood, or where they moved once the strikes began.

Did you overlook that fact that Hezbollah put its HQ in a densely populated civilian neighborhood? Do you think that was happenstance?

Could you fix the nytimes link? Can't answer your question otherwise. Not that it would really matter, anyway.

Well, multiple entire appartement complexes seem to be missing so unless Hezbollah owns complete flats as offices, there IS a lot of collateral damage.

However, I'm pretty sure it weren't bunker buster that were used.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Since neither of us knows exactly what type of warhead (or nose/tail assembly or fuse) was used in the Haret Hreik strikes, you can't say definitively whether they were LGBs, JDAM, or dumb bombs, whether they were of Israeli manufacture (they do make their own) or US manufacture...or any other country's manufacture.

Yup it was just hyperbole, I don't know for sure, but
Israel ordered them.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4493443.stm
They were delivered around the time.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1524875 … srael.html
And the Jerusalem post says the IAF used them.
'A senior IAF officer revealed to the Post on Sunday afternoon that the IDF was using bunker-buster bombs to strike at senior Hizbullah officials in hiding throughout Beirut and Lebanon. According to the officer, several of the bunker hideouts were hidden under civilian parking lots.'
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite? … e/ShowFull

But then the BBC, the Telegraph and the Jerusalem Post are all tin foil hat conspiracy theorists with an agenda so no point in paying attention to them? Obviously you know better.

Hezbollah don't have a military equal to the IDF, they have no option but to adopt guerrilla tactics, its not as if they are all full-time regulars either.

Dropping DU weapons on civilian areas is not lawful IMO.
Taking out multiple civilian tower blocks because you think there could be someone in the basement is not lawful either IMO.

However you look at it its totally disproportionate and ultimately self-defeating.

Try reading your own links:

Jerusalem Post wrote:

A senior IAF officer revealed to the Post on Sunday afternoon that the IDF was using bunker-buster bombs to strike at senior Hizbullah officials in hiding throughout Beirut and Lebanon. According to the officer, several of the bunker hideouts were hidden under civilian parking lots.

The only way to get at a bunker hidden under a parking lot is with a penetrator warhead or "bunker buster".

That doesn't mean that they were used against those buildings. In fact, using a penetrator like that against buildings wouldn't produce that kind of damage unless they mated it with a fuze inappropriate for a penetrator. In other words, if they used "bunker busters" in that strike, it would have had the same effect as standard bombs, which would have been wrong from a resource management perspective, as penetrator warheads are not something they have in high numbers. You use them against the target they are intended for: hardened or deeply buried bunkers.

I never said they weren't used during the 2006 conflict, just that there is no proof or evidence (and there still isn't) that they were used in the Haret Hreik strikes as you claimed. They clearly were used in the 2006 conflict at some point, but it appears (from the sources you provided and normal use of the weapons) that they were NOT used against apartment buildings unless the target was underneath the building.

So maybe not hyperbole (this time), since you bothered to provide a source for your information. Just a misunderstanding of how those types of munitions work and are employed.

DU use is lawful in all cases. It isn't an illegal weapon and it isn't an area-denial weapon. And according to the WHO, it "will make a negligible contribution to the overall natural background levels of uranium."

I don't know how wrong or disproportionate it was, since I don't know which Hizbollah targets were where. And neither do you. Considering that Israel warned the civilians that those areas were going to be targeted specifically because of Hizbollah operations in/from them, it's fairly hard to argue either case.

Hizbollah could easily identify themselves in accordance with Geneva Conventions, but they choose not to--for a very specific reason. So that the adversary (Israel in this case) will be less likely to strike back at them when they are surrounded by civilians. That's also known as using human shields and is clearly illegal under international law.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Look at the pic - how many tower blocks have been taken out?

Quite a few. It doesn't mean it was done with BLU-109s or other penetrator warheads.

Dilbert_X wrote:

I'm going to go with the preponderance of evidence here.

Why would you start now?

Regardless, there is no "evidence" in anything you provided that 1) Israel hit apartment buildings with bunker busters or 2) Israel targeted strictly civilian buildings/infrastructure (ie, in absence of evidence of Hezbollah use). So...not real sure where this "preponderance" is.

Dilbert_X wrote:

And wiping out an entire neighbourhood to hit a few rooms with telephones in them is completely disproportionate.

You have no idea what the extent of Hezbollah activity was in those neighborhoods. Where do you get off saying it was just "a few rooms with telephones"? It could just as easily have been multiple floors of multiple buildings, relocating after being struck...resulting in a domino effect. Any opinion you have regarding Hezbollah use (or lack thereof) of a given building or area is nothing more than conjecture/speculation on your part.

Perhaps you overlooked this tidbit:

HRW wrote:

Hezbollah occasionally did store weapons in or near civilian homes and fighters placed rocket launchers within populated areas or near U.N. observers, which are serious violations of the laws of war because they violate the duty to take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian casualties. ... In addition, Human Rights Watch continues to investigate allegations that Hezbollah is shielding its military personnel and materiel by locating them in civilian homes or areas, and it is deeply concerned by Hezbollah’s placement of certain troops and materiel near civilians, which endangers them and violates the duty to take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian casualties. Human Rights Watch uses the occasion of this report to reiterate Hezbollah’s legal duty never to deliberately use civilians to shield military objects and never to needlessly endanger civilians by conducting military operations, maintaining troops, or storing weapons in their vicinity.

Or this:

wiki (sourced from ytnews and washingtontimes.com) wrote:

Vice Premier Shimon Peres said Israel had no intention to harm Lebanese civilians, but warned that civilians who live near Hezbollah weapon caches were in danger: "Because we know that some of their rocket caches, which are fired at Israel, are hidden in private apartments, I call on these residents to leave their homes. He who lives near a rocket is likely to get hurt." Hezbollah had placed large amounts of weaponry into sealed rooms in private home prior to the outbreak of the conflict, placing the Lebanese citizenry at risk of attack.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Israel could not purposely target civilian areas, and do gross damage to civilian infrastructure, in accordance with the Geneva conventions.

They can, however, target infrastructure that is being used by Hezbollah for command and control, resupply, or other military functions. That is known as "dual-use" and is legally targetable under international law.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Not that the Geneva conventions have been a hindrance to Israel or the US up to now.

Didn't realize the US was involved in the 2006 Lebanon war...must've missed the memo on that. Perhaps you meant Hezbollah instead?

No, it hasn't. But it has veered off topic.