Chinahand Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 I've dared to say that I respect Sharon for being an inspiring general and especially for his political acumen in forming Kadima and pushing for a peace plan, but he wasn't Churchill. If he'd watched his weight he might not have had his stroke and become something far closer to a world statesman if he'd had the strength to push the Israeli right into facing reality, but as it is he was a forceful warrior with a flawed record and an ambiguous legacy. Mojo - Sharon wasn't a field commander during the Lebanon campaign - he was a politician giving orders to soldiers which contradicted his duty to protect civilians when he personally knew the likely consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 People seem to take a special delight in having a go at Israel. Some of it's legitimate but it's the double standard I don't like. It's okay for Churchill to have the blood of civilians on his hands and he's to be put on the new £5 note and adored by everyone but how dare anyone say anything positive about Sharon's acumen as a military tactician. What Sharon did is no different to Churchill. I wasn't aware that Churchill was a field commander during WW2. Who ordered the bombing of Dresden? 'Bomber' Harris. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jefferson Posted January 21, 2014 Author Share Posted January 21, 2014 The reason to raise it is the fact he continuously on these forums throws out accusations of anti-semitism. Using the edit function doesn't invalidate the fact it keeps happening. Nor does editing it out change the fact that there really are antisemites on here and everywhere. I'm not going to take that back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jefferson Posted January 21, 2014 Author Share Posted January 21, 2014 People seem to take a special delight in having a go at Israel. Some of it's legitimate but it's the double standard I don't like. It's okay for Churchill to have the blood of civilians on his hands and he's to be put on the new £5 note and adored by everyone but how dare anyone say anything positive about Sharon's acumen as a military tactician. What Sharon did is no different to Churchill. I wasn't aware that Churchill was a field commander during WW2. Who ordered the bombing of Dresden? 'Bomber' Harris. Without Churchill giving the go ahead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 Oh if only things were simple. LINK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 Churchill allegedly asked for justification of the proposal to bomb Dresden and between Harris and Dolittle (USAAF) was given to believe the attack would aid the Russian effort and seriously deplete the German ability to distribute fuel supplies. After it happened Winston made various attempts to distance himself from the action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jefferson Posted January 21, 2014 Author Share Posted January 21, 2014 In other words, he was responsible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 TJ - As I'm sure you'll be aware there has been loads of debate over the bombing of Dresden, with people arguing it was a necessary evil and people arguing it was totally uncalled for. Personally I wouldn't like to say which is the right answer, you have to put yourself in that time in history and consider the desperate need to finally end the war. Sharon is a different issue. You often quote The Huffington Post so you may like to read this one - http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mehdi-hasan/ariel-sharon-war-crimes_b_4584178.html Of course when you look at his military achievements none of that belittles what you originally state, that he was one of the greatest military minds of the 20th century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jefferson Posted January 21, 2014 Author Share Posted January 21, 2014 What Sharon did could be called a "necessary evil" too. Israel is in an existential war with hostile enemies all around her. How many Israelis have been brutally murdered by the Arabs over the years? Do you expect them to keep turning the other cheek or to fight back? Also, their enemy are without honour and deliberately position themselves in locations with large numbers of civilians and are on record using them as human shields and their so-called civilians deliberately get in the way as wannabe martyrs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 In other words, he was responsible. Churchill wasn't briefed on every raid and actions taken during WW2 didn't rest just on his say-so. The Yanks also considered Dresden, and other major population centres, a legitimate target and Allied Air Command were being pressurised by Stalin also. What about Truman with regards to Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Did this action not shorten the war in the Pacific theatre? In the same way that Dresden, Berlin et al did in Europe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 What Sharon did could be called a "necessary evil" too. Israel is in an existential war with hostile enemies all around her. How many Israelis have been brutally murdered by the Arabs over the years? Do you expect them to keep turning the other cheek or to fight back? Also, their enemy are without honour and deliberately position themselves in locations with large numbers of civilians and are on record using them as human shields and their so-called civilians deliberately get in the way as wannabe martyrs. Would you consider them a necessary evil? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jefferson Posted January 21, 2014 Author Share Posted January 21, 2014 Best way to deal with bullies is punch them back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 I accept that my knowlege of Israel is not great, however, am I correct in believing that the State of Israel was created out of Palestine at the end of the second world war? I am sure the intention was good, however, I am not surprised if this rather annoyed the local population. Why not create Israel in Wales for instance? (Yes, I am well aware of the religious connections and the location of Israel). On the subject of Dresden the actual consequences of that raid were not expected. The bombing may have been intentional but the following firestorm was completely unpredicted and was a combination of things including the weather and construction materials in the city. I am not aware of any other location which was subjected to area bombing experiencing a similar firestorm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 Best way to deal with bullies is punch them back. Is that a yes to the question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jefferson Posted January 21, 2014 Author Share Posted January 21, 2014 "Palestine" was just the name of the british colony and included Jordan as well. There never was a people called "the Palestinians"; the inhabitants of the region included JEWS and Arabs. In spite of repeated massacres and forced expulsions, Jews have ALWAYS for 4000+ years dwelled in the land of Israel. Jews have been returning from exile as well during that entire time. Why should Jews have a nation anywhere else? It's their land. Switch off Saville's BBC and open up an archaeology or history book FFS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.