The Wall

[bilby]

That's called Collateral Damage. During WW2, millions of German's were killed in order to defeat the Nazis. ISIS is no better, in fact even more barbaric than the Nazis ever were!

Except ISIS is an occupying power. The equivalent would be obliterating French cities, not German cities.

That happened.

Between the time of the German victory in the Battle of France and the liberation of the country, the Western Allies bombed many locations in France. In all 1,570 French cities and towns were bombed by Anglo-American forces between June 1940 and May 1945. The total number of civilians killed was 68,778 men, women and children.

Wikipedia

Whether it was acceptable, or even necessary, is a matter for debate though.

Civilian deaths in pursuit of military objectives - however noble - are always of questionable morality. Far more so if alternative routes to the same military objective exist; and more so again if those military objectives are of questionable moral value.

Defeating Hitler was, I think most people agree, a highly moral military objective. Bombing German cities was almost certainly not necessary to achieve victory, however. Certainly there were some raids that were of no value at all in defeating Hitler - the bombing of Dresden stands out here (its major 'value' was in showing Stalin what Western bombers could do to a city, as part of a not so subtle hint that he should stop moving his armies westwards once Germany surrendered). Bombing of French cities was also unnecessary to defeat Hitler - but it was probably also necessary to prevent Stalin's USSR from dominating all of Germany and a far larger part of Europe on VE day than he ended up with - in the case of the bombing raids in France, as a means to prevent Anglo-american armies from becoming bogged down. So that's a secondary objective, of questionable but (perhaps) sufficient moral worth.

Defeating ISIS is likewise a morally sound objective; But, given the overall threat they posed, and (we see with hindsight) the fact that they could be defeated without direct and massive US intervention, likely indicates that civilian deaths in pursuit of that objective would not have been justifiable on moral grounds. However, if you take the view that the entire population of the Middle East are just an insignificant bunch of sub-humans who stand in the way of US strategic and resource control objectives, no amount of "collateral damage" is a problem.

So really the question comes down to whether you give a flying fuck about the lives of the people in the region, or whether you are happy for them to be slaughtered and maimed so you can get 20c off the price of a litre of unleaded.

Angelo has the attitude of a person who doesn't recognize anyone outside his small circle as being truly human; Their suffering or death is a mere statistic, and doesn't actually count as 'human suffering', so he simply cannot imagine why it could be allowed to stand in the way of important and desirable objectives, like defeating ISIS.

If you told him that the only way to defeat ISIS was to blow up his house, kill a couple of his family members, and amputate the limbs of a couple more, then he would likely change his tune. But it's very easy to give away stuff that belongs to other people, as long as you get to keep your own - and that applies just as much to life and health as it does to material stuff.

 

[Patooka]

I think America could have destroyed ISIS in less than 30 days if they so wished. But political correctness was in the way. Most of the advisers would have told the Trumpet, to try to not offend the Arab states.

Only if we were willing to kill vast numbers of innocents in the process.

That's called Collateral Damage. During WW2, millions of German's were killed in order to defeat the Nazis. ISIS is no better, in fact even more barbaric than the Nazis ever were!

This is without a doubt this best recruitment slogan for ISIS. Keep it up.

 

[angelo]

That's called Collateral Damage. During WW2, millions of German's were killed in order to defeat the Nazis. ISIS is no better, in fact even more barbaric than the Nazis ever were!

A couple things, the Nazis were slightly better organized.

Second, only around half a million (still a big number) of German civilians were killed by the Allies, not millions.

Also, Germany tried to take over Europe... ISIS... Syria.

Here are the WW2 dead per country. As can be seen in this video, only China and the Soviet Union dwarf Gern deaths.

 

[angelo]

That's called Collateral Damage. During WW2, millions of German's were killed in order to defeat the Nazis. ISIS is no better, in fact even more barbaric than the Nazis ever were!

This is without a doubt this best recruitment slogan for ISIS. Keep it up.

The best and in reality, the only recruitment ISIS needs is islam itself. To become a martyr of allah is the ultimate goal of up to 85% all good little muzzies!

 

[angelo]

That happened.

Between the time of the German victory in the Battle of France and the liberation of the country, the Western Allies bombed many locations in France. In all 1,570 French cities and towns were bombed by Anglo-American forces between June 1940 and May 1945. The total number of civilians killed was 68,778 men, women and children.

Wikipedia

Whether it was acceptable, or even necessary, is a matter for debate though.

Civilian deaths in pursuit of military objectives - however noble - are always of questionable morality. Far more so if alternative routes to the same military objective exist; and more so again if those military objectives are of questionable moral value.

Defeating Hitler was, I think most people agree, a highly moral military objective. Bombing German cities was almost certainly not necessary to achieve victory, however. Certainly there were some raids that were of no value at all in defeating Hitler - the bombing of Dresden stands out here (its major 'value' was in showing Stalin what Western bombers could do to a city, as part of a not so subtle hint that he should stop moving his armies westwards once Germany surrendered). Bombing of French cities was also unnecessary to defeat Hitler - but it was probably also necessary to prevent Stalin's USSR from dominating all of Germany and a far larger part of Europe on VE day than he ended up with - in the case of the bombing raids in France, as a means to prevent Anglo-american armies from becoming bogged down. So that's a secondary objective, of questionable but (perhaps) sufficient moral worth.

Defeating ISIS is likewise a morally sound objective; But, given the overall threat they posed, and (we see with hindsight) the fact that they could be defeated without direct and massive US intervention, likely indicates that civilian deaths in pursuit of that objective would not have been justifiable on moral grounds. However, if you take the view that the entire population of the Middle East are just an insignificant bunch of sub-humans who stand in the way of US strategic and resource control objectives, no amount of "collateral damage" is a problem.

So really the question comes down to whether you give a flying fuck about the lives of the people in the region, or whether you are happy for them to be slaughtered and maimed so you can get 20c off the price of a litre of unleaded.

Angelo has the attitude of a person who doesn't recognize anyone outside his small circle as being truly human; Their suffering or death is a mere statistic, and doesn't actually count as 'human suffering', so he simply cannot imagine why it could be allowed to stand in the way of important and desirable objectives, like defeating ISIS.

If you told him that the only way to defeat ISIS was to blow up his house, kill a couple of his family members, and amputate the limbs of a couple more, then he would likely change his tune. But it's very easy to give away stuff that belongs to other people, as long as you get to keep your own - and that applies just as much to life and health as it does to material stuff.

Has there ever been a war anywhere [ including crusades] on Earth, in history that has not led to civilian deaths?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That's called Collateral Damage. During WW2, millions of German's were killed in order to defeat the Nazis. ISIS is no better, in fact even more barbaric than the Nazis ever were!

A couple things, the Nazis were slightly better organized.

Second, only around half a million (still a big number) of German civilians were killed by the Allies, not millions.

Also, Germany tried to take over Europe... ISIS... Syria.

Here are the WW2 dead per country. As can be seen in this video, only China and the Soviet Union dwarf Gern deaths.

You said millions of civilians, I corrected that. Your response was deflection to... I'm not really certain what. Yes, lots of Germans died in WWII. Many of them soldiers, generally we were aiming at them, other than the bombings.

 

[angelo]

From Wiki............................World War II fatality statistics vary, with estimates of total deaths ranging from 70 million to 85 million. Deaths directly caused by the war, military and civilians killed are estimated at 50-56 million people There were an additional estimated 19 to 28 million deaths from war-related disease and famine.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

From Wiki............................World War II fatality statistics vary, with estimates of total deaths ranging from 70 million to 85 million. Deaths directly caused by the war, military and civilians killed are estimated at 50-56 million people There were an additional estimated 19 to 28 million deaths from war-related disease and famine.

link

That’s because part of the reason for the incredible success of the Beanie Babies — which had sales of $1.4 billion in 1998, making Warner a billionaire in the process — is that Warner would retire specific animals at whim, creating scarcity in the market and inspiring collectors to pay up to $5,000 for a plush toy that originally retailed for $5.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Has there ever been a war anywhere [ including crusades] on Earth, in history that has not led to civilian deaths?

There's been a war with nobody dead, period.

 

[bilby]

Has there ever been a war anywhere [ including crusades] on Earth, in history that has not led to civilian deaths?

There's been a war with nobody dead, period.

There's been several. The Pig War between the US and Canada. The First Cod War between the UK and Iceland (one person was killed in the Second Cod War; It's debatable whether he qualifies as a combatant). The Great Emu War between Australia and a load of emus. The Montenegro Japan war (1904-2006). The Three Hundred and Thirty Five Years War, between The Netherlands and the Isles of Scilly (1651-1986).

Doubtless there are many more.

 

[angelo]

Has there ever been a war anywhere [ including crusades] on Earth, in history that has not led to civilian deaths?

There's been a war with nobody dead, period.

There's been several. The Pig War between the US and Canada. The First Cod War between the UK and Iceland (one person was killed in the Second Cod War; It's debatable whether he qualifies as a combatant). The Great Emu War between Australia and a load of emus. The Montenegro Japan war (1904-2006). The Three Hundred and Thirty Five Years War, between The Netherlands and the Isles of Scilly (1651-1986).

Doubtless there are many more.

None of those were shooting wars now were they? Iv'e been at war for close on 30 years with my wife's family, but there's never been any casualties of any kind either.

 

[ZiprHead]

There's been several. The Pig War between the US and Canada. The First Cod War between the UK and Iceland (one person was killed in the Second Cod War; It's debatable whether he qualifies as a combatant). The Great Emu War between Australia and a load of emus. The Montenegro Japan war (1904-2006). The Three Hundred and Thirty Five Years War, between The Netherlands and the Isles of Scilly (1651-1986).

Doubtless there are many more.

None of those were shooting wars now were they? Iv'e been at war for close on 30 years with my wife's family, but there's never been any casualties of any kind either.

Another goal post move. Your getting really good at that.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There's been several. The Pig War between the US and Canada. The First Cod War between the UK and Iceland (one person was killed in the Second Cod War; It's debatable whether he qualifies as a combatant). The Great Emu War between Australia and a load of emus. The Montenegro Japan war (1904-2006). The Three Hundred and Thirty Five Years War, between The Netherlands and the Isles of Scilly (1651-1986).

Doubtless there are many more.

None of those were shooting wars now were they? Iv'e been at war for close on 30 years with my wife's family, but there's never been any casualties of any kind either.

Another goal post move. Your getting really good at that.

Let's remember, the original statement indicated that we killed millions of civilians in Germany and because ISIS is worse, we should have plowed the East half of Syria, civilians and all. It was then noted that estimates of civilians killed in Germany by the military was about 500,000 and angelo has been shifting targets ever since, instead of simply admitting error.

 

[bilby]

There's been several. The Pig War between the US and Canada. The First Cod War between the UK and Iceland (one person was killed in the Second Cod War; It's debatable whether he qualifies as a combatant). The Great Emu War between Australia and a load of emus. The Montenegro Japan war (1904-2006). The Three Hundred and Thirty Five Years War, between The Netherlands and the Isles of Scilly (1651-1986).

Doubtless there are many more.

None of those were shooting wars now were they? Iv'e been at war for close on 30 years with my wife's family, but there's never been any casualties of any kind either.

Another goal post move. Your getting really good at that.

He's still wrong anyway.

In his final report on the Emu War, Major Meredith claimed that his teams had expended 9,860 rounds of ammunition.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Another goal post move. Your getting really good at that.

He's still wrong anyway.

In his final report on the Emu War, Major Meredith claimed that his teams had expended 9,860 rounds of ammunition.

making me suspect someone on his staff was born 1960, August 9th.

 

[bilby]

Another goal post move. Your getting really good at that.

He's still wrong anyway.

In his final report on the Emu War, Major Meredith claimed that his teams had expended 9,860 rounds of ammunition.

making me suspect someone on his staff was born 1960, August 9th.

He was issued 10,000 rounds by the defence department. Presumably he had 140 rounds left.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There's been several. The Pig War between the US and Canada. The First Cod War between the UK and Iceland (one person was killed in the Second Cod War; It's debatable whether he qualifies as a combatant). The Great Emu War between Australia and a load of emus. The Montenegro Japan war (1904-2006). The Three Hundred and Thirty Five Years War, between The Netherlands and the Isles of Scilly (1651-1986).

Doubtless there are many more.

None of those were shooting wars now were they? Iv'e been at war for close on 30 years with my wife's family, but there's never been any casualties of any kind either.

I'm not aware of the other wars he mentioned but the last one on the list is what I had in mind when I posted that. It was a declared war.

 

[angelo]

Another goal post move. Your getting really good at that.

He's still wrong anyway.

In his final report on the Emu War, Major Meredith claimed that his teams had expended 9,860 rounds of ammunition.

Khrist, what they were all wearing blindfolds and shooting s up at the sky hoping that the bullets falling back to earth would hit their enemies!