63
   

Can you look at this map and say Israel does not systemically appropriate land?

 
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Thu 17 Jul, 2014 05:41 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
Conveniently, Pogrund separates the West Bank as if it was an entity unto itself which is disingenuous because the state of Israel controls it, only allowing the Palestinians a certain amount of autonomous rule, and steadily circumscribes the areas to which it restricts the Palestinians as it arrogates more and more land to annex for itself.

Let's get our facts straight.

Israel does not control the Palestinian areas of the West Bank.

Israel has repeatedly offered, over and over and over and over, to let the Palestinians have nearly all of the West Bank as part of their own state.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Thu 17 Jul, 2014 05:48 pm
@oralloy,
oral boy, Where did you learn about Israel? It's evidently from your own teeny weeny brain that has no facts or evidence to support it; only your sick imagination.

http://www.juancole.com/2014/03/squatter-settlements-collapsing.html

Quote:
Massive increase in Israeli Squatter settlements in West Bank blamed for Collapsing Peace Talks
By Juan Cole | Mar. 21, 2014 |


You're a brainless sicko, and need to be in a mental institution.

Facts only get in your way. Quit posting bull shyt.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Fri 18 Jul, 2014 05:41 am

Israel prepared to step up Gaza ground sweep significantly

JERUSALEM, July 18 (Reuters) - Israel is preparing to step up its Gaza offensive, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Friday after ground troops were sent into the Palestinian enclave.

"My instructions ... are to prepare for the possibility of significantly widening the ground operation, and the military is preparing accordingly," he told reporters before convening a meeting of cabinet ministers to discuss the operation.

http://af.reuters.com/article/egyptNews/idAFL6N0PT2AF20140718
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Fri 18 Jul, 2014 08:59 am
@oralloy,
Israel has been doing this, and they have accomplished nothing! Do you understand the fundamental reasons why this will never work?

Israel only kills more innocent Palestinian men, women and children without showing any progress. That's not progress. The only way they're going to show progress is to return stolen lands to the Palestinians and provide them equal rights under ALL LAWS OF THE COUNTRY.

Hamas is a small band of extremists that only exacerbates the problems of the country. Israel is trying to fight this small band with modern weapons; airplanes and missiles that only kills more innocent people.

That's what they fail to realize and act upon. Getting mad at the whole Palestinian people is no solution.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Fri 18 Jul, 2014 09:12 am
@cicerone imposter,
More of the same; no progress, only more killing of civilians.

Quote:
Israel steps up Gaza ground offensive, civilian casualties grow
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Fri 18 Jul, 2014 10:45 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Conveniently, Pogrund separates the West Bank as if it was an entity unto itself which is disingenuous because the state of Israel controls it, only allowing the Palestinians a certain amount of autonomous rule, and steadily circumscribes the areas to which it restricts the Palestinians as it arrogates more and more land to annex for itself.

Let's get our facts straight.

Israel does not control the Palestinian areas of the West Bank.

Israel has repeatedly offered, over and over and over and over, to let the Palestinians have nearly all of the West Bank as part of their own state.

None of this negates what I wrote.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Fri 18 Jul, 2014 11:12 am
@InfraBlue,
oral boy wrote,
Quote:
Israel does not control the Palestinian areas of the West Bank.


I wonder why there are all those barbed wire fences, and restrictions of movement by the Palestinians - based on the color of their license plates?

Maybe, they're just for 'show.'
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  1  
Fri 18 Jul, 2014 02:48 pm
@cicerone imposter,
One way to acquire land is to kill its inhabitants. Israel seems to very good at this. They must have been studying U.S. history of the Indian wars, woops, I mean the U S western expansion.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Fri 18 Jul, 2014 02:59 pm
@RABEL222,
That's the only evidence available to the world; that the Zionists are stealing Palestinian lands and killing them in great numbers. What else can there be?

Their quest to stop Hamas, a small band of terrorists, does not give anyone the permission or authority to kill innocent people in their quest to stop one small terrorist organization.

That would make the 4 million Jews killed during the holocaust would mean Germany for all it's evil had the authority to kill others in their path in their goal to purify their race. Is that what the Zionists are doing now?

Foofie
 
  1  
Sat 19 Jul, 2014 05:08 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Their quest to stop Hamas, a small band of terrorists, does not give anyone the permission or authority to kill innocent people in their quest to stop one small terrorist organization.




"Terrorist organization"? No. Now part of the Unified Palestinian Government.

Israel is attacking the military arm of the Palestinian government. Hard to do when that military arm sets their missiles up in the middle of civilians. This causes collateral damage. Some people might not like those results? Nor, do the Israelis, in my opinion. But, since the job of Israel's military is to protect Israelis, the decision is to accept minimal collateral damage.

Less collateral damage than Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but that did save millions of American lives in not having to storm the Japanese islands.

Can we digress and discuss the "sneaky" Japs in WWII? What made that war so understandable, in my opinion, everything was so black and white. Japs bad. Americans good. Germans bad. Allies good. Don't you just love that black and white logic.
JTT
 
  0  
Sat 19 Jul, 2014 05:17 pm
@Foofie,
Logic doesn't match up well with Foofie. Together they are oxymoronic.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Sat 19 Jul, 2014 05:43 pm
@Foofie,
Quote:
Less collateral damage than Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but that did save millions of American lives in not having to storm the Japanese islands.


Ignorant Foofie mouths USA propaganda.


Quote:
Can we digress and discuss the "sneaky" Japs in WWII? What made that war so understandable, in my opinion, everything was so black and white. Japs bad. Americans good. Germans bad. Allies good.


The Americans were the sneaky, underhanded ones. One only has to look at how the USA took advantage of the situation surrounding WWII to position itself to take over European colonial interests.

The Japanese attacked the military at Pearl Harbour. They didn't firebomb civilians like the USA did in Japan.



Quote:
Don't you just love that black and white logic.


That's illustrative of a swamp like mind, Foofie, one that has been flooded with years of stultifying propaganda.
vikorr
 
  1  
Sat 19 Jul, 2014 08:26 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
They didn't firebomb civilians like the USA did in Japan.
Although doing so almost undoubtedly saved lives (if you compared that loss to the total losses on both sides should the war have continued to a mainland invasion)
JTT
 
  1  
Sat 19 Jul, 2014 09:05 pm
@vikorr,
No one is allowed to commit war crimes/crimes against humanity on such specious reasoning.

----------------------

The Real Reason America Used Nuclear Weapons Against Japan. It Was Not To End the War Or Save Lives.



Atomic Weapons Were Not Needed to End the War or Save Lives

Like all Americans, I was taught that the U.S. dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to end WWII and save both American and Japanese lives.

But most of the top American military officials at the time said otherwise.

The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey group, assigned by President Truman to study the air attacks on Japan, produced a report in July of 1946 that concluded (52-56):

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

General (and later president) Dwight Eisenhower – then Supreme Commander of all Allied Forces, and the officer who created most of America’s WWII military plans for Europe and Japan – said:

The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.

Newsweek, 11/11/63, Ike on Ike

Eisenhower also noted (pg. 380):

In [July] 1945… Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. …the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face’. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude….

Admiral William Leahy – the highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949, who was the first de facto Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who was at the center of all major American military decisions in World War II – wrote (pg. 441):

It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.

General Douglas MacArthur agreed (pg. 65, 70-71):

MacArthur’s views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed …. When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.

Moreover (pg. 512):

The Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face ‘prompt and utter destruction.’ MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General’s advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary.

Similarly, Assistant Secretary of War John McLoy noted (pg. 500):

I have always felt that if, in our ultimatum to the Japanese government issued from Potsdam [in July 1945], we had referred to the retention of the emperor as a constitutional monarch and had made some reference to the reasonable accessibility of raw materials to the future Japanese government, it would have been accepted. Indeed, I believe that even in the form it was delivered, there was some disposition on the part of the Japanese to give it favorable consideration. When the war was over I arrived at this conclusion after talking with a number of Japanese officials who had been closely associated with the decision of the then Japanese government, to reject the ultimatum, as it was presented. I believe we missed the opportunity of effecting a Japanese surrender, completely satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping the bombs.

Under Secretary of the Navy Ralph Bird said:

I think that the Japanese were ready for peace, and they already had approached the Russians and, I think, the Swiss. And that suggestion of [giving] a warning [of the atomic bomb] was a face-saving proposition for them, and one that they could have readily accepted.

***

In my opinion, the Japanese war was really won before we ever used the atom bomb. Thus, it wouldn’t have been necessary for us to disclose our nuclear position and stimulate the Russians to develop the same thing much more rapidly than they would have if we had not dropped the bomb.



http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-real-reason-america-used-nuclear-weapons-against-japan-it-was-not-to-end-the-war-or-save-lives/5308192
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Sat 19 Jul, 2014 09:13 pm
@vikorr,
Many experts agree with you, and I also agreed with Truman's use of the A-bomb on Japan. They started the war with a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor with the mistaken belief that they could destroy our navy, but three aircraft carriers were out to sea. The Enterprise, Lexington and Saratoga of the Pacific Fleet were not at Pearl when Japan attacked.

Towards the end of the war, Japan refused unconditional surrender, and that was their mistake.

BTW, about ten years after WWII, I enlisted into the USAF and worked with nuclear weapons. I was stationed in Morocco for one year and had the opportunity to visit Madrid, Paris and London. The travel bug bit me early in my life. In 2008, on a cruise to the Mexican Riviera, I met the scientist, Bob Brodsky, who designed the aerodynamics of the nuclear weapons I worked with during my four years in the USAF. We have kept in touch these many years, and we still exchange emails a few times every year.

JTT
 
  2  
Sat 19 Jul, 2014 09:42 pm
@cicerone imposter,
What an ignorant little muddled headed putz you are, CI!
vikorr
 
  1  
Sat 19 Jul, 2014 11:05 pm
@JTT,
JTT, I'm more than happy to call out governments for behaviour that are self serving and cause needless deaths. The US has a long history of economic abuse, that has contributed to the deaths of millions, and contributed to the impoverishment many more millions.

However, the article you reference, is self serving, leaving out the other side of the story. It makes use of the benefit of hindsight (two hindsights:oh, if only X & Y were known/didn't exist/were certain/etc, we could have had another way to stop the war without dropping the bombs...vs...how could the morons not have known). And it makes use only of dissenters...but it gives no credence to those who thought it was necessary, and why they thought it was necessary, nor to the wider surrounding circumstances, nor the lack of cultural understanding, nor to the confusion, nor to the fears, nor to the ongoing trauma, nor to the fatigue.

Considering everything, I come to the conclusion that it was a tragedy, and also find it to be understandable.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Sun 20 Jul, 2014 01:04 am
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
The Japanese attacked the military at Pearl Harbour. They didn't firebomb civilians

You never fail to cover up for genocidal war criminals.

Japan did in fact wantonly fire on civilians in their attack on Pearl Harbor.

Further, as Japan attacked before war was declared, even their attack on our soldiers and sailors was a war crime.

And throughout the war Japan brutally massacred our soldiers after they surrendered, another horrific war crime.

And Japan inflicted atrocities and genocide on the civilians of their neighboring Asian countries, to such an extent that Japan's actual crimes are greater even than the false accusations that you make against the US.


JTT wrote:
firebomb civilians like the USA did in Japan.

The US bombing campaign against Japan was directed solely at military targets.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Sun 20 Jul, 2014 01:06 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
Israel prepared to step up Gaza ground sweep significantly

JERUSALEM, July 18 (Reuters) - Israel is preparing to step up its Gaza offensive, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Friday after ground troops were sent into the Palestinian enclave.

"My instructions ... are to prepare for the possibility of significantly widening the ground operation, and the military is preparing accordingly," he told reporters before convening a meeting of cabinet ministers to discuss the operation.

http://af.reuters.com/article/egyptNews/idAFL6N0PT2AF20140718

Saturday July 19, 2014, 10:13 PM eastern daylight time

"We are currently expanding our ground operation against Hamas in Gaza."

http://twitter.com/IDFSpokesperson/status/490680897545318400

(official IDF twitter feed)

Godspeed.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Sun 20 Jul, 2014 01:06 am
@JTT,
Quote:
The Real Reason America Used Nuclear Weapons Against Japan. It Was Not To End the War Or Save Lives.

The reason we attack enemies in wartime is to end the war.


Quote:
Atomic Weapons Were Not Needed to End the War or Save Lives

You don't win wars by sitting at home and not attacking the enemy.


Quote:
Like all Americans, I was taught that the U.S. dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to end WWII and save both American and Japanese lives.
But most of the top American military officials at the time said otherwise.

No they didn't.


Quote:
The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey group, assigned by President Truman to study the air attacks on Japan, produced a report in July of 1946 that concluded (52-56):
Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

Japan was the one who chose to wait until they were nuked twice before surrendering. We'd have been glad to take their surrender before the bombs.


Quote:
General (and later president) Dwight Eisenhower – then Supreme Commander of all Allied Forces, and the officer who created most of America’s WWII military plans for Europe and Japan

Let's get our facts straight. Ike had nothing to do with the war against Japan.


Quote:
The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.
Newsweek, 11/11/63, Ike on Ike

Eisenhower also noted (pg. 380):
In [July] 1945… Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. …the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.
During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face’. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude….

Context is important. Ike was the only person who felt that the bombs were unnecessary. He voiced his dissent to only one person (Stimson). And when Stimson called him an idiot, Ike let the matter drop and didn't tell another soul.

Even if Ike had actually been persuasive, it was shortly before the bombs were to be dropped and there would have been no way to stop the bombing at that point.


Quote:
Admiral William Leahy – the highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949, who was the first de facto Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who was at the center of all major American military decisions in World War II – wrote (pg. 441):
It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

That was not his view of the bombs during the war. That was his opinion years after the war, when he was trying to spare the Navy from post-war budget cuts by claiming that sea power won the entire war all by itself.

Leahy's only opinion of the bombs during the war was to declare that, as an expert in explosives, he could guarantee that they would never work.


Quote:
General Douglas MacArthur agreed (pg. 65, 70-71):
MacArthur’s views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed …. When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb.

It is true that MacArthur was never consulted about the use of the bombs. However he did offer his opinion on the matter. His opinion was that the bombs would help, but they wouldn't make Japan surrender and we'd still have to go ahead with a large invasion.


Quote:
The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.

Japan's request here was that Hirohito retain unlimited dictatorial power as Japan's living deity.

Since Japan did not offer to surrender with this condition until after we had dropped both A-bombs on them, it is rather silly to talk about the war ending any earlier.

And for the record, we did not agree to let Hirohito retain unlimited dictatorial power.


Quote:
Moreover (pg. 512):
The Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face ‘prompt and utter destruction.’ MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General’s advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary.

Japan did try offering a conditional surrender. However, that offer did not come until after both A-bombs had been dropped on them.

Further, the offer was kind of superfluous, as our only response was to flatly reject it.

Had Japan decided to keep asking for that condition after we rejected it, we would have kept nuking them.


Quote:
Similarly, Assistant Secretary of War John McLoy noted (pg. 500):
I have always felt that if, in our ultimatum to the Japanese government issued from Potsdam [in July 1945], we had referred to the retention of the emperor as a constitutional monarch and had made some reference to the reasonable accessibility of raw materials to the future Japanese government, it would have been accepted. Indeed, I believe that even in the form it was delivered, there was some disposition on the part of the Japanese to give it favorable consideration. When the war was over I arrived at this conclusion after talking with a number of Japanese officials who had been closely associated with the decision of the then Japanese government, to reject the ultimatum, as it was presented. I believe we missed the opportunity of effecting a Japanese surrender, completely satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping the bombs.

He refers to Mr. Grew's proposal that we promise that Hirohito's line could continue as constitutional monarch.

It seems unlikely that something that hinted strongly at "Hirohito's demise and his son taking his place" would have been very acceptable to Japan.

It was only after both A-bombs that Japan was even willing to contemplate surrender with a guarantee that Hirohito would retain unlimited dictatorial power.


Quote:
Under Secretary of the Navy Ralph Bird said:
I think that the Japanese were ready for peace, and they already had approached the Russians and, I think, the Swiss. And that suggestion of [giving] a warning [of the atomic bomb] was a face-saving proposition for them, and one that they could have readily accepted.

Was Hiroshima enough of a warning that we were in possession of A-bombs? How come Japan didn't surrender before Nagasaki?


Quote:
In my opinion, the Japanese war was really won before we ever used the atom bomb.

Japan was free to surrender before the bombs were dropped.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Eye On Israel/Palestine - Discussion by IronLionZion
"Progressives(TM)" and Israel - Discussion by gungasnake
Israel's Reality - Discussion by Miller
Israel's Shame - Discussion by BigEgo
Abbas Embraces the Islamists - Discussion by Advocate
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 11/19/2024 at 02:24:35