Strategic Bombing as a War Crime

[witness]

Scott Smoth wrote :

Anyway, I really don't care what Shuckmeister-E has to say about Irving because I have already read Irving's books, most of them. I don't need some assh*** to tell me how to read. Evans is just a nut-job who was hired to restore the credibility in the Holocaust™ Industry that Lipstadt lost for it when Irving called attention to her stupid little book, which I have read

Ta-Ta-Ta ..Go and get em !!!
"Shuckmeister-E" ..,"assh***".., "nut-job" ..,
How convincing ! You really must be a keeper of some supreme knowledge to call all these names without even having read the Evans book which would have given you at least some pretense of objectivity.
But what for ..? When you can just carry on bragging how well read you are . Are we supposed to be impressed ?
Maybe let's set up a competition who read more books here on TRF ?

I am reading other books every day, sometimes more than one at a time

So what ?
I am doing the same (In two languages btw ). Can this fact make up for the lack of convincing arguments.?
P.S."Shuckmeister-E" ..,"assh***".., "nut-job" ..,
So Evans really got to your guts ,didn't he ?

[Marcus]

Scott,

The constant childish name-calling you've been enganging in recently is getting really tiresome, so drop it.

/Marcus

[Maple 01]

Maybe let's set up a competition who read more books here on TRF ?

I'll start,

I've read the 'National Enquirer' and Rippley's' 'Believe it or not'

On top of that I've nearly finished colouring in two other books

Regards


-nick

[witness]

Yeah and maybe we should not get Scott distracted from colouring in "Germar Rudolf's new journal " ?

Best Regards

[David Thompson]

For the second time, the topic of this thread is strategic bombing as a war crime. Please stay on the subject.

[Scott Smith]

Scott,

The constant childish name-calling you've been enganging in recently is getting really tiresome, so drop it.

/Marcus

Okay, I get testy sometimes and the discussion is just down to Is-Too/Is-Not anyway.

[Maple 01]

well anytime you want to produce evidence that supports your views....
Or you could try answering some of the questions you've left unanswered
so far.......

Regards


Nick

[Scott Smith]

well anytime you want to produce evidence that supports your views....

My views aren't the ones left unsupported--unless Evans is your support.

Or you could try answering some of the questions you've left unanswered so far...

I didn't call you names, btw, in case that isn't clear. Besides, I don't have all the answers. Never claimed to.

[Scott Smith]

So Evans really got to your guts, didn't he ?

Witness, do you have any ideas of your own? It's a serious question. Oh, nevermind...
:roll:

[witness]

Right. Before you bragged how well read you are.
Now you claim to be an original thinker. Pretty consistant I would say.
However so far all your originality has revolved around repeating the same "Zionists", "two wrongs don't make a right " , "gruelpropaganda" primitive mantras..
Repeating yourself from post to post does not make your ramblings anymore convincing and trust me not at all original.
And it is of course pretty transparent that all "your" arguments are taken directly from Codoh and IHR sites. So your claim to be an independent thinker is quite ludicrous at the very least.
But it does not matter to you , does it ?
Is not it because you are carried away by your powerful love to AH somewhat ?
So I quess this love of yours just can not be cured. But it is not gonna be my concern.

[Scott Smith]

Well, witness, mantras are useful illustrations for people that don't get it and they make it difficult for obfuscators to blur issues with verbiage.

Professor Richard Holmes says that 40 thousand were killed in the Hamburg attack and that probably more were killed in Dresden.

Strategic bombing doctrine had been developed by the RAF since 1918. Holmes defends the tactic because it took the fight to the enemy, made the British feel good about themselves, and is something to be proud of today (despite most of Germany's losses actually being inflicted by Bolshevik cannon-fodder).

Some of the other weapons used to contain Germany were naval blockades and arming proxies on Germany's borders--and they in turn often engaged in ethnic-cleansing of Germans to claim disputed territories.

Terror was a weapon employed by Germany's enemies from the start. It is not too surprising that Germany tried to meet terror with terror when the wheel came full-circle. Not surprising at all. If you still don't get it I can't help you.

Now, I'm off to the library but I shant be checking-out Evans' book today.

Dosvedanya.

[David Thompson]

For the third time, the topic is strategic bombing as a war crime. The topic has yet to be thoroughly explored or discussed, and the posts have descended into a series of taunt-exchanges.

Let me suggest some possible subtopics:

What is "strategic" bombing, and how does it differ from tactical bombing?

Is a strategy which targets civilians for killing, as opposed to enemy troops, industry, etc., permissible? Why or why not?

Is there a difference between targeting civilians from the air, as opposed to on the ground? What is the difference?

What about strategies which are calculated to produce refugees in large numbers? Is that a war crime?

Are there strategies which are immoral, yet legal? What are they?

[witness]

Well, witness, mantras are useful illustrations for people that don't get it and they make it difficult for obfuscators to blur issues with verbiage.

Yeah I can understand the usefulness of mantras for those who want
the world around them to be as they want it to be, no matter what..
Mantras are used in religious practices for the followers not to deviate from once chosen path.
Apparently you chose your path quite a while ago and the mantras
mentioned above help you to concentrate on the once chosen by you vision.
Kind of helping to maintain the state of ideal tunnel vision..
One more thing- mantras are not used for illustrating or buttressing one's arguments but rather for reinforcing one's beliefs..

Dosvidanya i spokoynoi nochi.
P.S.
I didn't mean to be testy either. Simply I could not understand how one can resort to name-calling ( assh**, nut-job etc ) without even getting
familiar with the book mentioning of which evokes the usage of such strong vocabulary .

[David Thompson]

I'm starting to see a padlock in this thread's future.

[witness]

Is there a difference between targeting civilians from the air, as opposed to on the ground? What is the difference?

What about strategies which are calculated to produce refugees in large numbers? Is that a war crime?

Are there strategies which are immoral, yet legal? What are they?

IMO targeting civilian population should always be considered as a War crime. I don't think that there is some substantial differnce between targeting civilians on the ground and from the air.
If the main objective of any military operation -; ground ,involving air force or navy is civilian population , then I am convinced it should be called Crime .No excuses (such as Americans use trying to justify Hiroshima and Nagasaki A-bombing -" More American soldiers would have been killed if not for the bombing " etc )
My understanding of strategic bombing is when the main objective are not civilians but the varios industries purveying to the armament and munitions productions not civilians. And as such strategic bombing can not be considered as crime even if it can inflict some civilian casualties.
Any bombing for the sole purpose of deterrance is certainly immoral and therefore criminal.
Regards