Posted on 03/16/2018 5:25:16 AM PDT by Eleutheria5
I was referring primarily to the King David Hotel bombing. Innocent shed blood is innocent shed blood, whether it’s shed by the SS, Irgun, IRA, Hamas, Hezbollah or the RAF and USAAF. Unfortunately there is “collateral damage” in the fog of war, my initial point was that innocent Germans suffered as well. Regarding the Lativan Legion, those men were honoring their fallen comrades, wearing the uniform they died in. I’d be willing to give them a pass there.
The bombing of central London, occurred because of a Bombadier’s error. The bombs that struck that area, were meant for the docks along the Thames.
The King David Hotel was being used by the Mandate for administrative purposes, and had all the intelligence files on Etzel, Tzahal and Lehi. It was a legitimate military target, and its destruction caused the Mandate to fold up its tent and punt to the United Nations, ultimately leading to our independence.
As for the Latvians, emotional gobledegook to obfuscate the fact that they were forced to wear their master’s collar in order to hunt. The hunt is over. Both the German and Soviet overlords are just a memory, and that uniform that they were forced to wear into battle is drenched in innocent blood, and not just collateral damage. You’d give them a pass? I wash my hands of them. You say they did not participate in the mass slaughter? Bully for them, but an SS uniform is still drenched in infamy.
And what of it. The targeting of civilian vehicles on the roads in Poland was designed to slow down the Polish forces and inflict logistical pandemonium, as if mounted cavalrymen had any chance against machine guns and tanks in the first place. The targeting of St. Paul’s Cathedral in London was designed to demoralize the British into surrendering, who fought doggedly to extinguish the blaze and at length saved the church. The V-6 rocket was designed to terrorize civilians and it did a great job. You want to excuse the Latvians, you have at least an argument and we can agree to disagree. But let’s end it right there. I don’t want to broaden the discussion to the entire history of the German Anschlusse.
So the folks walking down the street and the guests in the hotel that were killed, were legitimate targets? This is where you lose credibility. It’s much like Peter King, who rails against Islamic terrorism, while openly supporting the IRA.
We can agree to disagree on the Latvians.
That assertion needs Rogaine with Monoxidil. The Germans were pretty condescending to and demanding of their vassals. Ask the Ukrainians (see Babi Yar for details). The Germans occupied Latvia, conscripted Latvians, and made them wear German uniforms. Did the Latvians have their own commissioned officers, or German officers? Who commissioned them? Were the battle plans made by Latvian generals in consultation with their German allies, or dictated by the Germans and obeyed. Did the Latvians have to give the Nazi salute and exclaim “Heil Hitler!” or a traditional Latvian Salute? How many Latvians were conscripted to work in factories and farms in Germany? Under what conditions? Care to do some homework, or is the onus on me?
The pedestrians walking down the street and the guests killed were not targeted altogether. And when the bombs were placed against weight-bearing pillars and the timers were set, the Irgun sent warnings in plenty of time that the hotel would be bombed, but those warnings were ignored.
This is the core distinction between collateral damage and deliberately inflicted civilian casualties. The question is whether precautions were taken to avoid civilian casualties, and were those precautions reasonable under the circumstances. Or were civilian targets deliberately aimed at, and maximized.
You’re turning into a pretzel with all the ethical gymnastics that you are performing. You’re willing to condemn a bunch of old war veterans for wearing a uniform, but justifying acts of murder.
I’m not condemning anyone. I don’t work for the UN. I don’t work for any government. I’m posting my opinion here that these “old war veterans,” by wearing THAT uniform are degrading themselves. Make what you want of it.
As for justifying “acts of murder,” that’s a crock. What Etzel did at the King David Hotel was blow up the administrative HQ of the British. Since they were at war with the British, any British soldier of whatever rank was fair game in this guerrilla combat, provided the purpose of the action taken was legitimate, which the bombing of the King David Hotel most certainly was.
That there was collateral damage was unfortunate, but was no different than any other collateral damage in any other war; i.e., not an act of “murder”. As an underground rebel army that was being severely pressed by the British at that point, they took what precautions they could to minimize civilian casualties by warning of the coming explosion. The building was not evacuated, but the British were informed (see Ben Hecht, Perfidy, for details).
You have a funny concept of the term “murder”. A German Luftwaffe bomber, sent to England by a powerful war machine, mistakenly hits the heart of London instead of the docks, killing and maiming hundreds, and that’s OK. A tiny nation, the nascent state of Israel, struggles against a major world power, England, which is blockading the coast against Jewish refugees, conducting a campaign of unlimited searches and seizures against Jewish residents, and the rebels take the step calculated to end the conflict with the least possible bloodshed, going straight for the administrative center of the Mandate, and it works. The British threw in the towel and referred the administration of the Mandate to the UN.
But there was some collateral damage, 91 killed and 46 injured, so despite taking all precautions possible to avoid collateral damage, it’s an act of “murder”.
Tell me, then. Were Hiroshima and Nagasaki “acts of murder” in your book? Like the King David Hotel, those bombings ended a prolonged and bitter war, but the “collateral damage” numbered in the thousands.
Tell me also. The British “arranged” for the sinking of the Struma in the by a probably Soviet submarine, towing out an un-seaworthy ship full of desperate refugees, leaving it in the middle of the Black Sea. A torpedo scuttled it and it went down with 800 civilians on board, including the crew.
This was in 1942. I wasn’t born then. Neither were you. That was an act of murder, plain and simple. Had I lived then, I would have joined the Irgun, and cheerfully killed as many Tommies Atkinses as I could line up in my sights, trying in good faith to avoid civilian casualties, as the Irgun did at the King David Hotel, which should have been evacuated pursuant to the warning.
#1. The only criminals who committed heinous crimes and got away with it either escaped to Latin America or were in the Soviet union. Can you name and others who committed heinous crimes and got away with just 1 year?
In Forged In Fury by Michael Elkin, there is an appendix listing the German war criminals who received little to no punishment. I mention that in response to, I think your, naive assertion that any war criminals in the Latvian ranks were punished after the war. There were those of the Aajr and other auxiliaries that participated in massacres, and 600 of them were subsequently conscripted into the Latvian Legion. It would be unfair to paint the entire legion with the color red on their account, but irresponsible to exonerate these 600 just because they served in the Legion.
As for your repetition of already addressed points, I refer you to my previous posts and wish you good night. I’m done repeating myself.
Here, for your possible edification, is the Latvian Legion’s song. If any of you speak Latvian or can find a translation, keep me posted.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Zu3M-bkL8w
So if a Terrorist is a Zions5, than any murder they xommit is justified. Got it. Does the same logic apply to Palestinians who are “at war” with the Israelis?
Sorry. Responding on my phone.
My assertion was that the Latvian legions did not participate in those heinous acts. Now it is a fact that some from teh Aajr kommando later joined the LL, but IN the LL they did not commit any of those murders, so you cannot blame the Latvian legions for this.
If you had even bothered to read my posts, I’ve repeatedly said that my objection to the uniform was not predicated on any supposed crime committed by the LL, but on the uniform itself. It is a fact that the Aajrs who were conscripted into the LL were participants in the mass slaughter, but that does NOT incriminate the entire LL. I am getting frustrated, because you are apparently impervious to my assurances along this line, and keep posting rebuttals to an argument I’m not even making.
The uniform itself is the problem. To the world, it’s symbolic of the defunct Nazis’ program of world conquest. To the LL who were forced to wear it, it should be symbolic of the pact they made with one devil to free themselves from another. The price was Nazi occupation of Latvia, rationing, conscription, and the conscripts wearing that G-ddamned uniform! along with suppression of all dissent, conscripted workers taken into Germany and enslaved, torture and murdeer of dissidents, etc., etc. In other words, the basic Nazi occupation package, along with their very own SS-wearing Latvian League. So if I were Latvian and had my druthers, the SS Uniform that the LL was forced to wear back then would be taken out and burnt in the streets, not worn on parades. But that’s just me. Forgive me if the act of wearing the uniform inspires in me disdain for Latvia and Latvians. This is a display of “patriotism” now?
I am not interested in repeating myself ad infinitem. So there you are. Take it or leave it.
Stupid argument. False equivalence. Read some history that isn’t fake. Learn the distinction between legitimate warfare and terrorism. It isn’t all that complicated. Stop trying to change the subject.
Bovine scat. You are justifying acts of terror in which innocents died, because you believe in the cause. The same way many NYC Cops and Firefighters justified atrocities committed by the IRA, in the 70’s and 80’s, but that tune was changed after 11 Sept. 2001.
And show me what words in #109 lead you to that conclusion. You did read it, didn’t you? Here’s the link. https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3640096/posts?page=109#109
Have fun trying to stick to your standard robo-response. I’m not repeating and rephrasing any more.
You justified the attack on the King David Hotel where innocent civilians were killed. Whether you believed the Irgun were at war with the British, it does not matter. Hamas and Hezbollah believe they are at war with Israel. If they blow up a bar or cafe popular with Soldiers, is that a legitmate target? You seem to be fine with terrorist acts, as long as you support the cause.
You’re clueless. Targeting a militarily important target, while taking reasonable precautions to avoid civilian casualties is in accordance with the rules of war, even if civilians are in fact harmed. That was what occurred at the King David Hotel. The target, Mandate administrative HQ, was important to winning the war against the Mandate. The warnings were ignored. Just as in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, both militarily important, the allies dropped leaflets warning civilians to leave because a new and fearsome bomb would be dropped on their cities, and the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ignored the warnings.
Now for the bombing of the cafe popular with soldiers. If only military casualties from Palestinian bombs were a larger portion of total casualties, you might have a valid point. But in fact 83% of the casualties are non-combatants, and they take no precautions whatever to warn civilians away from a planned strike. On the contrary, the suicide bombing at the Sbarro Pizza was designed to kill as many Orthodox Jewish victims as possible. The more civilians they kill, the better in their eyes.
NO such designs on civilians were ever contemplated by the Irgun. They hit a police station twice. They attacked a prison to liberate the Irgunists kept there. They took non-commissioned officers out and had them whipped publicly. They bombed the British administrative HQ at the King David Hotel.
Each of these actions were against legitimate military targets. And in every one of their actions, wherever the possibility of civilian casualties was present, they posted warnings, either by phone, radio, or posted notices in four languages. It happened that civilians sometimes died, as it does in every war. But that was a result that the Irgun made good faith efforts to avoid.
In the case of Pali terrorists, civilian casualties are the main objective. If they happen to also snag a soldier or two, that’s icing on the cake.
Paraphrasing Menachem Begin, the Irgun sought to humiliate the British soldiers by demonstrating repeatedly that though they are the strong arm of a mighty empire, they could not defend themselves against a bunch of mere Jews. The Palestinians want to humiliate the IDF by demonstrating repeatedly that they cannot defend civilians from murderous attacks aimed at civilians that can occur any place, any time, and with any method. That is their raison d’etre.
And that is the distinction between lawful warfare and terrorism. And that should be obvious to any intellectually honest person. Since you have twisted yourself into a pretzel to avoid understand it, I’ve spelled it out for you. And let your stupid argument and fake comparisons be damned.
So you are considering an unarmed and unrecognized terrorist organization the same as the British Army? That’s laughable. Again, because you agree with the cause, you’re willing to justify those attacks.
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.