Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Alan Watts on modern warfare

Page 8 of 10 [ 147 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age:29
Posts: 25,257
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

27 Oct 2010, 9:14 am

Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Did the government of Israel do nothing to repay for their mistake of attacking the US vessel near El Arish during the Six Day War?


Israel paid indemnity to the U.S. for damages flowing from that mistake.

It were better if the U.S. did not send their ships into a war zone for a war in which the U.S. was not one of the belligerents. In a war all sorts of nasty things happen.

ruveyn


Exactly, especially when an ally is fighting half a dozen enemies all at once it is wise to either be there specifically to assist or to not be there at all.


My reference See http://www.ussliberty.org/supporters.htm indicates the Israelis clearly understood what they were doing and mercilessly machine gunned US Navy sailors swimming in the water. There is no excuse for that.


Perhaps you'd like me to find some opposing links and then we could have a battle of the links and then argue about how it was actually the CIA and not Lee Harvey Oswald who killed JFK and how this or that or the other, emphasizing the actions which have the worst connotations irregardless of reference to similar incidences throughout the history of warfare in which similar issues of inaccurate I.F.F. have occurred and then blaming Israel for a singular instance 50 years ago.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age:89
Posts: 11,876
Location: Finland

27 Oct 2010, 9:19 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Did the government of Israel do nothing to repay for their mistake of attacking the US vessel near El Arish during the Six Day War?


Israel paid indemnity to the U.S. for damages flowing from that mistake.

It were better if the U.S. did not send their ships into a war zone for a war in which the U.S. was not one of the belligerents. In a war all sorts of nasty things happen.

ruveyn


Exactly, especially when an ally is fighting half a dozen enemies all at once it is wise to either be there specifically to assist or to not be there at all.


My reference See http://www.ussliberty.org/supporters.htm indicates the Israelis clearly understood what they were doing and mercilessly machine gunned US Navy sailors swimming in the water. There is no excuse for that.


Perhaps you'd like me to find some opposing links and then we could have a battle of the links and then argue about how it was actually the CIA and not Lee Harvey Oswald who killed JFK and how this or that or the other, emphasizing the actions which have the worst connotations irregardless of reference to similar incidences throughout the history of warfare in which similar issues of inaccurate I.F.F. have occurred and then blaming Israel for a singular instance 50 years ago.



I'd rather not get personal. Forget it. You're not worthy of my interest.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age:29
Posts: 25,257
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

27 Oct 2010, 9:21 am

Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Did the government of Israel do nothing to repay for their mistake of attacking the US vessel near El Arish during the Six Day War?


Israel paid indemnity to the U.S. for damages flowing from that mistake.

It were better if the U.S. did not send their ships into a war zone for a war in which the U.S. was not one of the belligerents. In a war all sorts of nasty things happen.

ruveyn


Exactly, especially when an ally is fighting half a dozen enemies all at once it is wise to either be there specifically to assist or to not be there at all.


My reference See http://www.ussliberty.org/supporters.htm indicates the Israelis clearly understood what they were doing and mercilessly machine gunned US Navy sailors swimming in the water. There is no excuse for that.


Perhaps you'd like me to find some opposing links and then we could have a battle of the links and then argue about how it was actually the CIA and not Lee Harvey Oswald who killed JFK and how this or that or the other, emphasizing the actions which have the worst connotations irregardless of reference to similar incidences throughout the history of warfare in which similar issues of inaccurate I.F.F. have occurred and then blaming Israel for a singular instance 50 years ago.



I'd rather not get personal. Forget it. You're not worthy of my interest.


Oh so sad, I am undone, so unworthy am I. Unworthy, unworthy! Poor pity me! :roll: Now who's guilty of arrogance after accusing me of the same?



Macbeth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age:37
Posts: 3,481
Location: UK Doncaster

27 Oct 2010, 2:41 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Did the government of Israel do nothing to repay for their mistake of attacking the US vessel near El Arish during the Six Day War?


Israel paid indemnity to the U.S. for damages flowing from that mistake.

It were better if the U.S. did not send their ships into a war zone for a war in which the U.S. was not one of the belligerents. In a war all sorts of nasty things happen.

ruveyn


Exactly, especially when an ally is fighting half a dozen enemies all at once it is wise to either be there specifically to assist or to not be there at all.


My reference See http://www.ussliberty.org/supporters.htm indicates the Israelis clearly understood what they were doing and mercilessly machine gunned US Navy sailors swimming in the water. There is no excuse for that.


Perhaps you'd like me to find some opposing links and then we could have a battle of the links and then argue about how it was actually the CIA and not Lee Harvey Oswald who killed JFK and how this or that or the other, emphasizing the actions which have the worst connotations irregardless of reference to similar incidences throughout the history of warfare in which similar issues of inaccurate I.F.F. have occurred and then blaming Israel for a singular instance 50 years ago.



I'd rather not get personal. Forget it. You're not worthy of my interest.


Oh so sad, I am undone, so unworthy am I. Unworthy, unworthy! Poor pity me! :roll: Now who's guilty of arrogance after accusing me of the same?


Arrogant? Maybe? Right? Almost definitely. IN this very thread you have already demonstrated a distinct lack of knowledge about military history. So, going with the concept that Israel is not afraid to kill people for its own gain (as is the case with most nations, sooner or later), I believe the suggestion was that Israel might be tempted to try an arrange a false-flag operation to "frame" another state for a nuclear terror attack.

Instigating a false-flag operation against the states is not unlikely. Using the nuclear option would be an extreme concept, and surely would be withheld until the most dire of situations? If Israel were THAT threatened, is it not more likely that they would simply resort to a straight-forward nuclear attack against their enemy?


_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age:29
Posts: 25,257
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

27 Oct 2010, 3:55 pm

If it is against Israel, then you're for it. If it is for Israel, then you are against it.



Macbeth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age:37
Posts: 3,481
Location: UK Doncaster

27 Oct 2010, 4:32 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
If it is against Israel, then you're for it. If it is for Israel, then you are against it.


Nice bit of guesswork and assumption there. Utterly irrelevant, and inaccurate too. Also completely off-topic You should trademark that.

Israel has done questionable things politically and militarily. What nation hasn't at some point engaged in questionable activities for the furtherance of their cause? The question that stands is "Would Israel go to the extreme and attack the US with nuclear weapons to provoke the US into retaliating against the perceived attacker, or is that a bridge too far?" I contend that it would be an incredibly risky last ditch manouevere, if it happened at all, and that Israel would be more likely to merely start a war with the "perceived attacker" if they were THAT desperate.


_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age:29
Posts: 25,257
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

27 Oct 2010, 5:35 pm

Macbeth wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
If it is against Israel, then you're for it. If it is for Israel, then you are against it.


Nice bit of guesswork and assumption there. Utterly relevant, and accurate too. Also completely on-topic You should trademark that.

The question that stands is "Would Israel go to the extreme and attack the US with nuclear weapons to provoke the US into retaliating against the perceived attacker, or is that a bridge too far?"


The answer to your question is, no. Israel would not attack the US intentionally - certainly not with nuclear weapons, nor, with malice aforethought, with conventional either.



Macbeth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age:37
Posts: 3,481
Location: UK Doncaster

27 Oct 2010, 5:52 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
If it is against Israel, then you're for it. If it is for Israel, then you are against it.


Nice bit of guesswork and assumption there. Utterly relevant, and accurate too. Also completely on-topic You should trademark that.

The question that stands is "Would Israel go to the extreme and attack the US with nuclear weapons to provoke the US into retaliating against the perceived attacker, or is that a bridge too far?"


The answer to your question is, no. Israel would not attack the US intentionally - certainly not with nuclear weapons, nor, with malice aforethought, with conventional either.


As previously established, Israel can and will attack whosoever she sees fit. I too doubt she would use the nuclear option, it being just a bit extreme if she gets caught. The potential retaliation would too final for such a small nation.

Hideous hack-job butchering my post by the way. Nuclear-level fail. Changing the word "off" to "on" doesn't make your digression any less irrelevant.


_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age:29
Posts: 25,257
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

27 Oct 2010, 6:02 pm

Macbeth wrote:
As previously established, Israel can and will attack whosoever she sees fit. I too doubt she would use the nuclear option, it being just a bit extreme if she gets caught. The potential retaliation would too final for such a small nation.


I doubt that Israel would even consider doing that to allies intentionally, however if you were to live in a nation surrounded by enemies, many of whom consider it a religious mandate to slaughter your people based upon your creed or genealogy, I'd think you'd probably be a bit more paranoid about who your friends actually are. Given the state of being under continual attack from one nation or militia or another since its modern re-inception, I think Israel has shown a lot more patience and restraint than most nations around them would at the very least and even more than the nations of the West would also if under similar attack on a constant basis.



Macbeth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age:37
Posts: 3,481
Location: UK Doncaster

27 Oct 2010, 6:08 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
As previously established, Israel can and will attack whosoever she sees fit. I too doubt she would use the nuclear option, it being just a bit extreme if she gets caught. The potential retaliation would too final for such a small nation.


I doubt that Israel would even consider doing that to allies intentionally, however if you were to live in a nation surrounded by enemies, many of whom consider it a religious mandate to slaughter your people based upon your creed or genealogy, I'd think you'd probably be a bit more paranoid about who your friends actually are. Given the state of being under continual attack from one nation or militia or another since its modern re-inception, I think Israel has shown a lot more patience and restraint than most nations around them would at the very least and even more than the nations of the West would also if under similar attack on a constant basis.


Israel already HAS done such things precisely BECAUSE of their position.


_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age:29
Posts: 25,257
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

27 Oct 2010, 6:22 pm

Macbeth wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
As previously established, Israel can and will attack whosoever she sees fit. I too doubt she would use the nuclear option, it being just a bit extreme if she gets caught. The potential retaliation would too final for such a small nation.


I doubt that Israel would even consider doing that to allies intentionally, however if you were to live in a nation surrounded by enemies, many of whom consider it a religious mandate to slaughter your people based upon your creed or genealogy, I'd think you'd probably be a bit more paranoid about who your friends actually are. Given the state of being under continual attack from one nation or militia or another since its modern re-inception, I think Israel has shown a lot more patience and restraint than most nations around them would at the very least and even more than the nations of the West would also if under similar attack on a constant basis.


Israel already HAS done such things precisely BECAUSE of their position.


Would you care to properly qualify your statement?



Macbeth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age:37
Posts: 3,481
Location: UK Doncaster

27 Oct 2010, 6:32 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
As previously established, Israel can and will attack whosoever she sees fit. I too doubt she would use the nuclear option, it being just a bit extreme if she gets caught. The potential retaliation would too final for such a small nation.


I doubt that Israel would even consider doing that to allies intentionally, however if you were to live in a nation surrounded by enemies, many of whom consider it a religious mandate to slaughter your people based upon your creed or genealogy, I'd think you'd probably be a bit more paranoid about who your friends actually are. Given the state of being under continual attack from one nation or militia or another since its modern re-inception, I think Israel has shown a lot more patience and restraint than most nations around them would at the very least and even more than the nations of the West would also if under similar attack on a constant basis.


Israel already HAS done such things precisely BECAUSE of their position.


Would you care to properly qualify your statement?


Say it slowly. Israel has already engaged its allies in combat quite intentionally for its own ends. It has done this in the belief that it must, in order to maintain its own existence. Quite understandable really.


_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age:29
Posts: 25,257
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

27 Oct 2010, 7:16 pm

Macbeth wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
As previously established, Israel can and will attack whosoever she sees fit. I too doubt she would use the nuclear option, it being just a bit extreme if she gets caught. The potential retaliation would too final for such a small nation.


I doubt that Israel would even consider doing that to allies intentionally, however if you were to live in a nation surrounded by enemies, many of whom consider it a religious mandate to slaughter your people based upon your creed or genealogy, I'd think you'd probably be a bit more paranoid about who your friends actually are. Given the state of being under continual attack from one nation or militia or another since its modern re-inception, I think Israel has shown a lot more patience and restraint than most nations around them would at the very least and even more than the nations of the West would also if under similar attack on a constant basis.


Israel already HAS done such things precisely BECAUSE of their position.


Would you care to properly qualify your statement?


Say it slowly. Israel has already engaged its allies in combat quite intentionally for its own ends. It has done this in the belief that it must, in order to maintain its own existence. Quite understandable really.


Aside from the USS Liberty accident during the 6-Day War back in 1967, how many times has Israel "quite intentionally" "engaged its allies in combat"?



Macbeth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age:37
Posts: 3,481
Location: UK Doncaster

27 Oct 2010, 8:31 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
As previously established, Israel can and will attack whosoever she sees fit. I too doubt she would use the nuclear option, it being just a bit extreme if she gets caught. The potential retaliation would too final for such a small nation.


I doubt that Israel would even consider doing that to allies intentionally, however if you were to live in a nation surrounded by enemies, many of whom consider it a religious mandate to slaughter your people based upon your creed or genealogy, I'd think you'd probably be a bit more paranoid about who your friends actually are. Given the state of being under continual attack from one nation or militia or another since its modern re-inception, I think Israel has shown a lot more patience and restraint than most nations around them would at the very least and even more than the nations of the West would also if under similar attack on a constant basis.



Israel already HAS done such things precisely BECAUSE of their position.


Would you care to properly qualify your statement?


Say it slowly. Israel has already engaged its allies in combat quite intentionally for its own ends. It has done this in the belief that it must, in order to maintain its own existence. Quite understandable really.


Aside from the USS Liberty accident during the 6-Day War back in 1967, how many times has Israel "quite intentionally" "engaged its allies in combat"?


Lavon affair? Could also be argued that the behaviour of the Irgun attacking the British might come under "attacking allies". Certainly it fits under "attacking people sympathetic to their plight." Likewise Mossad have been "borrowing" nationalities for decades then misbehaving on foreign shores. Lets also not forget we are talking about covert operations here. Its not unlikely that other events may come to light given time.

I think you might be taking the term "in combat" too literally. In this context it means "firing on or attacking or in some manner molesting". It could also be extended to cover all forms of false flag behaviour. Face it, the Israelis do bad things sometimes. They pretty much invented rendition. Not really surprising. They aren't angels. They are people, like everybody else on this planet, and subsequently vulnerable to all human failings.


_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age:29
Posts: 25,257
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

28 Oct 2010, 7:48 am

Say, during WWII, didn't England perform saturation bombardment of civilians in retaliation for the attacks upon London? I think I remember the planes used were called "mosquitos" and were made out of balsa.