Posted on 07/20/2006 6:07:56 PM PDT by JewishRighter
The whole question of the extent of Israel's response and the mantra of the appeasement monkeys is stupid. During a debate between David Horowitz and Josh Rabner on Hannity today, Rabner exemplified what you hear from the left every day: Israel is ing civilians or Israel is targeting civilians or some variant of this theme.
In order to add perspective, let's compare what is happening in Lebanon graphically to a well-known event of WWII: the allied ing of Dresden. Now, bear with me, because I will conclude that they were both totally justified, even if there was a toll of great human suffering.
On the 13th February 1945, 773 Avro Lancasters ed Dresden. During the next two days the USAAF sent over 527 heavy ers to follow up the RAF attack. Dresden was nearly totally destroyed. As a result of the firestorm it was afterwards impossible to count the number of victims. Recent research suggest that 35,000 were killed but some German sources have argued that it was over 100,000.
Here are some photos showing what a city looks like when the attacking forces intend to cause absolute destruction:
Now, let's take a look at a few of Beirut in the current situation and remember, this is after 9 days and nights of ing, not one night and one day.
A couple of observations. The pictures from Beirut do not have any wide angle view showing wholesale destruction of an entire city. In fact, in the worst pictures I posted, you see some buildings that appear to be standing, and only slightly damaged. You could argue that they might have sustained unseen structural damage, but the photos show very selective targeting. Remember also, that the AP and AFP (Agencie Presse Froggy) are obviously trying their best to show you the most shocking possible scenes. Moreover, a couple of the shots show whole areas of the city that are untouched.
The Dresden pictures show widespread total devastation. The casualty figures alone tell you the story.
Now, for the proportionality garbage. There is NO such thing as proportionality in total War. By total war, I am distinguishing the kind of war where your enemy is not simply trying to accomplish a strategic advantage, to gain territory or to change a political system. Total war means your opponent is trying to annihilate you. They want nothing less than your total destruction. You have a moral obligation to yourself, your military comrades and to your citizens to do WHATEVER it takes to win. In the case of wars against n@zis, German or Islamic, the total war definitely applies and it applies in spades as to the Jews, because the n@zis, then and now, mean genocide. If they were, Heaven forbid, to win, they would k1ll every single Jew they could get their hands on and not with lethal injection.
The concept of restraint is stupid. "Restraint" in war means using less than your full capacity to defeat your enemy, as quickly as possible, with the lowest human and material cost possible. There is absolutely no reason you can or should allow one soldier or citizen die or be wounded if you can possibly prevent it. You don't owe that duty to your enemy or their people. As awful and tragic as their loss and suffering may be, the enemy civilian population has only one party to blame the tragedy on and that is the aggressor. If your country starts a conflict or allows armed conflict to be launched from within their borders, they have chosen the path: either win or be prepared for the consequences.
When it came to Dresden, as when it came to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, this correct and moral philosophy of war were applied. No decent American rejoices over the suffering inflicted. But they have every right to rejoice over each and every American life that was saved. So when Kofi and the frogs and the MSM and the libtard blogosphere and all the usual suspects start bleating this stupid proportionality nonsense, I say, Israel is exercising amazing restraint--just look at Dresden.
Go Israel! Go America!
It's not germane to your post but I was in Dresden last week and it's beautifully restored.
Actually, in research, I saw a lot of photos showing that. However, the articles said that an enourmous amount of the ancient architecture was destroyed and not rebuilt. Many of the more famous buildings, such as cathedrals were.
Why is the word "bomb" deleted everywhere in the article? Some strange spell check?
Yeah, I've got some kind of filtering software that blocks certain words. It doesn't like b@omb k!ll terr@orist stuff like that, not to mention the unmentionables.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.