Israel

[WinterHold]

Yeah, I'd call the bombings at Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden (as mentioned before - and there are some other notable examples from WW2 as well - might add the Blitz to this one as well- not so much the start, as theres some contention that the initial civilian casualties were unintentional - though it rapidly declined to intentional strikes on civilians.) acts of terrorism.

[/quote]
Okay, I'm really happy that you said this

Baghdad wasn't a soft target, just wow (though granted - we turned it into one awfully quick). Care to fact check yourself or do I need to do it for you? The shock and awe campaign targeted strategic buildings, not apartments, though we can expect that there was a significant amount of damage done to civilian structures both by mislayed munitions,bad intel, the general force of explosions and their tendency to throw alot of shit around, etc. A very large amount of consideration must have been given to civilians - it would be miraculous that any civilians were left alive after weeks of continuous bombing if no thought had been given, wouldn't you say? Case in point, airstrikes, by confirmed casualties, have been the least lethal operations in the entirety of that campaign. Consider the two scenarios side by side, a sustained shock and awe campaign - which did not target civilians, can be maintained for long periods of time with surprisingly low numbers of civilian (or otherwise) casualties - an act of terrorism -explicitly targeting civilians- is generally starts and ends very quickly and amounts to surprising high number of civilian casualties. You are either forgetting or intentionally excluding a very important part of what is required to call an act an act of terrorism.

I might agree with you on this, it didn't leave a lot of civilian casualties. I was wrong about this. But I still think that hitting a city full of people to spread fear between so they don't volunteer with saddam is a foolish & irresponsible act.

So, as above, I guess that answer would be a no, huh? Perhaps if we had attempted to do the same thing with b-17's and carpet bombing I'd be inclined to give the notion credence, but due to the fact that we did not, and the amount of ords that landed relative to civilian casualties, I'm more inclined to conclude that you're grasping at straws on this one.

Saddam wasn't worth it, his army was already dead before the invasion. But let a real war comes, & we'll see how america would act.

No, Atlass, there really isn't. There's us and them, winners and losers, heros and villians - but better, nah, takes too many backflips to make that work out. If the first step in laying a case in against Israel is to make them the bad guys and excuse their adversaries for what have you (for example), I'm afraid it's DOA.

Sadly, it's the case. I have Palestinian friends, they live like bugs in here. Thrown away without any kind of land just because they were in the jew's way, and now, the people who kicked them out are using their land, water, recourses & kill the fuck out of the rest of them by the end of the day..

Do you want to convince me, that hitler & the jews -during WW2- were equivalent ? he had a war going against the jews, so who's right & who's wrong ?
Us & them would mean corruption. There is no us & them, there is always "why"..
According to this, Rythem, all the casualties of war are dead for nothing ! I can't imagine that or even accept it..