Bringing Back the Good War

dfDuring WW2 our understanding of a moral war was not a war in which we did not kill any civilians (we killed a lot of civilians), it wasn’t even a war in which we did not kill any civilians on purpose (we killed a lot of civilians on purpose), it was a war in which we did not kill civilians without having a good reason.

We might carry out mass bombings of entire cities to destroy the enemy’s wartime production capabilities and demoralize his population.

Until recently, those were considered good reasons for killing civilians.

The moral context for these actions, snipped away from anti-war works such as Slaughterhouse-Five or Grave of the Fireflies which reduce the American bombings of Dresden or Kobe to the senseless acts of brutal monsters, is that we were fighting Germany and Japan using their own tactics against them.

It was Germany which introduced the bombing of cities to Europe during WW1 and WW2. In 1917, after German bombings, Premier Lloyd George shouted to a working class London crowd, “We will give all back to them and we will give it to them soon. We shall bomb Germany with compound interest.”

WW2’s Blitz was repaid with compound interest over Germany. Japan’s firebombing of Chinese cities was repaid with compound interest with the firebombing of Tokyo. This wasn’t mere vengeance.  The rules of war are set by mutual consent. The humanitarian protections that we have come to take for granted as if they were natural laws are really mutual agreements between two sides.

On September 14, 2001, George W. Bush stood at Ground Zero and offered the working class New Yorkers amid the rubble an echo of Lloyd George. “I can hear you, the rest of the world hears you, and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon.”

Since then we have been mired in an extended debate which presumes wrongly that any laws of war ever applied to those men. The entire existence of terrorism is eloquent evidence that treating fighters who have placed themselves outside the social contract as if they were within it is foolishly destructive.

Mutuality makes morality and immorality in war self-regulating. If you firebomb someone else’s cities, someone else will firebomb your cities. If you want your prisoners of war to be treated well, you have to treat the prisoners you take equally well.

Such mutuality is the only international agreement that truly matters. It takes humanitarian behavior out of the realm of idealism and into the realm of rational self-interest. It creates a direct and working program for rewards and punishments that does not rely on a League of Nations or United Nations.

During the Cold War, mutuality saved the world. The only thing that restrained the USSR from pushing through into Western Europe with tanks and nukes was the knowledge that what it did would be done to it. MAD meant that there would be no more free lunches. It was scary and dangerous, but it forced everyone to be moral in a way that all the whiny disarmament marches against nukes never could.

Unilateral nuclear disarmament would have made WWIII inevitable by offering the USSR a free lunch.

But the era of the free lunch arrived with terrorism. We unilaterally extend protections to terrorists that they do not reciprocate. Terrorists are excused from the laws of war, while everyone else has to abide by them. This only incentivizes terrorism and makes fighting terrorists a grim and impossible business.

Israel’s fight against Hamas shows how unilateral humanitarianism decontextualizes warfare creating a completely impossible standard for a good war. With no context derived from what the other side is doing all that is left is the necessity of meeting a completely impossible standard in which no civilians on the other side ever die, even while the enemy uses them as human shields.

The Londoners who heard Lloyd George, the New Yorkers who heard George W. Bush and the Israelis who heard Benjamin Netanyahu understood the context in which the next phase of the conflict would be taking place. It was a context created by the tactics of their enemies.

But context is no longer acceptable in warfare. All wars must be fought to the same impossible standard.

The civilian combatant casualty ratio for modern wars has almost always been higher for civilians than soldiers. Israel is desperately scrambling for a 1:1 civilian combatant ratio even though this ratio is usually achieved by modern countries only in their own propaganda. But a 1:1 ratio is also technical context and war is now contextualized by the latest atrocity photo rather than by anything else.

“The suspicion that militants are operating nearby does not justify strikes that put at risk the lives of so many innocent civilians,” State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said.

Psaki is demanding that Israel’s strikes on terrorists abide by a higher standard than her own country’s strikes on terrorists. That’s absurd and irrational because the only reason the drone program wasn’t scrapped by Obama is that it’s the only part of the War on Terror that still works.

But when wars are stripped of context, then countries are obligated to endlessly chase an impossible standard that can always be improved on.

Every time Israel demonstrates that it has set an even higher standard, the goal posts are moved toward another standard. Now it’s being condemned for taking out terrorists outside UNRWA schools as if the attack had happened inside the school; even though UNRWA schools are demonstrably terror bases.

Israel obviously cannot fight terrorists who operate around civilians without killing civilians. But it also cannot be allowed to kill civilians because in a decontextualized conflict, killing any civilian is wrong.

These rules would have made it impossible to defeat Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Had Churchill and FDR been bound by the belief that bombing enemy cities is genocide, Hitler and Tojo would have been free to implement real genocide in Europe and Asia. If the United States had not dropped 635,000 tons of bombs on North Korea, all of Korea would be living under the Kim Dynasty.

And yet our wars now exist in a twilight zone in which context no longer matters. Instead of fighting genocidal enemies, we wrestle with ourselves, debating the ratio that we need to achieve to be moral.

With each war, from Korea to Vietnam to the War on Terror, the United States became more hesitant to finish it quickly with the use of overwhelming force leading instead to prolonged and bloodier conflicts.

General Curtis LeMay’s initial proposal for quickly breaking North Korea was considered immoral. Instead the more “moral” approach led to far more casualties on both sides and a divided Korea. The “moral” approach in Vietnam led to more casualties and a lost war. The War on Terror has become an indefinite war whose mangled version of morality means that it can never actually end.

Israel is trapped in that same moral twilight. Its attempt to make war moral has only stretched it out indefinitely while increasing civilian casualties on both sides. Its unilateral humanitarianism inflicts all the responsibility on it while leaving the terrorists free to pursue any tactics they please. That isn’t a recipe for limiting civilian casualties, but for infinitely expanding them.

The good war is not a war in which no civilians die. It is a war that ends quickly and decisively with the side that is contextually more humane in peacetime triumphing. Wars are not ideal. They are exercises of lesser evils. The only way to fight a moral war is to remember that a war is only as moral as its eventual peacetime outcome.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • Yehuda Levi

    “Once we have a war there is only one thing to do. It must be won. For defeat brings worse things than any that can ever happen in war.”

    Ernest Hemingway

    The most important moral goal for war is to win it. There is no other moral consideration more important. Civilian casualties are guaranteed – there has been no war without them – but they are not the most important measurement.

    Unconditional surrender is the goal.

    • mollysdad

      If you wage it as “milkhemet amalek” complete destruction – save for those who change their religion – is the goal.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      Unconditional Surrender as national SOCIALIST Germany and Imperial Japan were compelled to do.

    • Damaris Tighe

      Very well put. I find it extraordinary that anti-Israel posters don’t see this.
      But it’s common sense & liberals & leftists are a bit challenged in that department.

    • hiernonymous

      Unconditional surrender is a pretty unusual goal in warfare, historically speaking. Wars are usually fought for more limited objectives, to impose one state’s political will on another in a specific matter.

      In the case of WWII, there are a couple of things worth considering. First, that the demand for unconditional surrender needlessly prolonged the wars in both theaters by stiffening the resolve of the Axis to resist – after all, they had nothing to lose by holding out. Perhaps more significantly, Japan did not surrender unconditionally.. For all our talk of unconditional surrender, we ended up granting them the one condition they really cared about: the safety and position of the Emperor.

      • Webb

        Wow Hernio, you’re pulling out all the stops of absurdity to avoid fishwife today. That time of the month again? That’s pretty frequent IMHO. Maybe it is something deeper Hernio. Why don’t you approach her and ask her? Maybe Hernie will be rewarded with fishwife love. And Hernio wouldn’t need to troll his Jew hatred so hard. Plus since you have so much extra time on your hands to troll, you could surely get another job to afford a little cosmetic surgery for old Fishy. Then maybe your ardor would be excited and not converted into trolling.

        • hiernonymous

          I seem to have gotten under your skin. Interesting.

          Just out of curiosity, how old are you?

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            At what age did your mental illness take over your ability to think clearly?

          • hiernonymous

            Ah – another rapier wit.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            And accurate.

          • hiernonymous

            One of the differences between a good writer and a hack is that the former shows what the latter simply tells. Once you figure out that the simple fact of your ill will means exactly nothing, you might start making posts worth reading.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Content over your wordiness.

          • Habbgun

            Are you being a nasty hiero again? Just pretend you’re making gay slurs….I’m sure you’ll desist. Funny how you are sooooo selective….

          • hiernonymous

            I suppose so, if you consider it ‘nasty’ to make an observation about the role of ‘unconditional surrender’ in historical warfare. That would be an odd use of the term, but whatever.

          • Habbgun

            Yeah….that’s right hiero just pretend your forte isn’t one line snark. Maybe if you had avoided that tendency you might not be associated with the professional trolls. You chose…poorly.

          • hiernonymous

            So you think my problem is ‘one line snark.’ Screw Socialism thinks my problem is wordiness. I’ll go out on a limb and suggest that neither is the actual issue. Cheers.

          • Habbgun

            HEHEHEHEHE…..you do have a history of one line snark and its got you a reputation as a troll. The rest is fallout. Cheers.

          • hiernonymous

            Oh, dear. I’ll cope somehow.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            You need an editor to eliminate your wordiness.

            Or do you get paid by the word?

          • hiernonymous

            That post: 16 words.

            Actual message? “I don’t like you.”

            Editing, indeed.

            (BTW: My response: “So?”)

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Now apply your skills to your wordy posts
            .
            You write like you get paid by the word.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Your post.

            43 words. EDITOR!

          • IslamDownpressesHumanity

            A veritable storm in a teacup.

          • hiernonymous

            A perfect tempest?

          • Webb

            Pissoff.

          • hiernonymous

            See? Your previous post? 97 words. This one? Two words. Content? Identical. Much better.

          • Webb

            No Fishy love? Try some of that spray stuff and a clothespin. Oh, that’s right, you are a mouth breather. Then you should have no problem. Start by putting your hand on her knee and see what comes up.

          • truebearing

            You get under everyone’s skin, and you do it intentionally, like a pre-pubescent boy who craves attention, even if it is negative. Can’t you find a more useful, positive way to use your abilities?

          • hiernonymous

            You should consider the implications of this instinctive resort to the personal.

            If you mean that my objective is to irritate you, that’s true, but not in the sense that you mean. It’s not the emotional reaction I’m seeking, it’s the re-evaluation of complacently-offered opinions. I’m trying to irritate you in the way a grain of sand irritates an oyster, in hopes of producing a pearl.

            You won’t get there, though, if you continue to function in an adolescent’s zone of wounded pride and point-scoring.

          • truebearing

            Isn’t it a bit presumptuous of you to decide what I need, or that you have the answer? You aren’t perfect, and irritating people as a method of teaching is a faulty strategy. When you irritate people intentionally, they retaliate, much like you do. They cease to be receptive, as is only natural when someone telegraphs a complete lack of respect.

            The other thing you should know as a teacher is that people have different ways of learning. They have different strengths and talents. They may see flaws in your approach and reject it. A wise teacher knows the difference between forcing a lesson and teaching it, and the wise teacher knows that not all students need the same lesson. The wise person knows that he doesn’t know everything.

            You have to choose between being an adversary and a teacher. If you always choose to be an adversary, you will only teach people how to eventually defeat you.

      • IslamDownpressesHumanity

        Wow, technically you’re right about Imperial Japan, but the emperor was also eventually stripped of all power.

      • Drakken

        Total war with islam is coming, one way or another they will make it so. It will come down to a very simple equation, no more muslims, no more problems. Tank the economy a little bit more, throw in more invaders from 3rd world countries, a few more bombings and whala, instant Balkans on steroids which will spread rapidly everywhere.

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        112 words.

        You still need an editor.

      • nobullhere

        Unconditional surrender didn’t prolong the war by a single minute. The German fear of Soviet retribution saw to that. With every step they advanced, the Soviets were discovering atrocities, and that drove them on, and engendered fear amongst Germans of what the soviets would do if they reached Germany. And in the case of the japanese, the samurai code was enough. The atom bomb brought the war to an immediate end. Thousands of POW’s survived and owe their lives to those bombs, who would otherwise have died had the war lasted even another week.

        • hiernonymous

          The Samurai Code was enough? You might want to do a bit more reading on the final weeks of the Japanese Empire.

          “Thousands of POW’s survived and owe their lives to those bombs, who would otherwise have died had the war lasted even another week.”

          Could be. I haven’t suggested that there were no valid reasons for using the bombs.

      • yoelk

        Total nonsense, and not at all true.(Their god-king was demoted to a figure head. Lost his divinity- sounds similar to what your camel lost)

        • hiernonymous

          Yes, he was ‘demoted.’ It was, in fact, that ‘demotion’ that was used to communicate to the Japanese American acceptance of their request for that condition – that the Emperor retain his position. The American response stated “the authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied powers….”

          The question isn’t whether the Emperor’s powers were limited – they were – but whether the U.S. ended up accepting a condition to the surrender.

          “sounds similar to what your camel lost”

          You seem to have confused me with someone else. I’ve never owned a camel.

          • IslamDownpressesHumanity

            An irrelevant condition isn’t much of a condition is it? Maybe they could have made conditions on the color of the ink on the surrender document.

          • hiernonymous

            Preserving the life and dignity of the emperor was hardly irrelevant to the Japanese, and that’s rather the point. Declaring “no conditions!” is a pretty good way of preventing a war from coming to an earlier conclusion through making a concession unimportant to the victor but potentially vital to the loser.

          • IslamDownpressesHumanity

            Jeepers, it would seem the charter of Hamas calls for the extermination of Jews and the destruction of the state of Israel. How would you propose Israel negotiate from that starting point? Meet them half way? Maybe they could call in some djinns?

          • hiernonymous

            Jeepers, that doesn’t sound like a point that would be irrelevant to the victor but important to the vanquished, does it?

          • IslamDownpressesHumanity

            But who is whom? I can’t help but notice Gaza is judenrein Heine, but that’s probably just the way you like it.

          • hiernonymous

            Es ist gar nicht Judenrein jetzt, oder? Sind alle die IDF-Soldaten darin Arabisch Israelis? Und haben die Juden Gaza nicht verlassen als Entscheidung Sharons? Sharon war kein Paelestinenser.

      • TienBing

        Don’t conflate the end political goal with strategy for achieving that goal. Unconditional surrender is not rare or new – as a matter of fact it is demanded by Islam of infidels – or else.

        Unconditional surrender has been demanded as an alternative to death throughout history. Check out Genghis Kahn, Attila the Hun, Hannibal, Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, Charlemagne, and any number of conquerers in India and Asia. Don’t even bother to check out Africa or the New World aborigines. You might however, consider the US “Civil War”.

        As far as the currently popular supposition that demands for unconditional surrender prolonged WWII, there is no proof of any such thing. There is the claim, convenient for some narratives, that if the US had cut a deal with the German high command to stop the Russians from invading Germany – Germany would have killed Hitler and surrendered. Maybe – in the last month of the war; maybe, but very unlikely.

        • hiernonymous

          Nobody said that it has never happened, just that it’s comparatively unusual. Most wars in history have not been titanic struggles to conquer the known world.

          Let’s look at Caesar. When he invaded England, he put Cassivellaunus under siege; after an attempt at relief failed, the latter surrendered – but not unconditionally. He agreed to pay tribute, there was an exchange of hostages, and Cassivellaunus was set free on the promise not to wage war against Caesar’s favored native king, Mandubratius.

          As Hannibal didn’t win the war, it’s hard to say what his position on unconditional surrender was – but it’s notable that he came to terms with several enemies, notably welcoming Capua into his fold after Cannae.

          “You might however, consider the US “Civil War”.”

          Okay, let’s look at American wars. Off the top of my head, the U.S. approached the Civil War and WWII from a perspective of unconditional surrender; one might add WWI to that, though the U.S. wasn’t really driving that train. On the other hand, more limited U.S. wars that were fought to negotiation included the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the first Gulf War.

          Napoleon didn’t pursue unconditional surrender in his conquests, nor did the Allies in their prosecution of the wars against him. The Seven Years’ War, titanic as it was, was fought to negotiation. Even the savage Thirty Years’ War ended at the diplomatic table. The Crusades against the Muslims were most often limited affairs, and once the Crusader Kingdoms were established, most of the Crusader wars were limited affairs that found Christians and Muslims on both sides of the battles. Saladin negotiated with those he defeated. The Middle Ages and Renaissance in Europe were dominated by dynastic fights that generally came to negotiated ends – particularly in Italy, where the mercenary forces involved rarely were interested in standing to the last man.

          • TienBing

            My point was that it is not that unusual – not that no-one ever negotiated.

      • IslamDownpressesHumanity

        “unconditional surrender needlessly prolonged the wars in both theaters”. Yeah the allies should of just made peace with Hitler, left him in power and allowed the Final Solution to continue it’s bloody course — and the islamic world would’ve agreed with that.

        • hiernonymous

          Nobody suggested that the Allies “should of [sic] just made peace with Hitler.” It was an excellent observation that the Nazis deepest in the counsels of the Final Solution would probably have fought to the death anyway – the question is whether their less fanatical countrymen would have stood by them had they seen an alternative.

          • IslamDownpressesHumanity

            Hypothetical history is nothing but an academic circle jerk.

          • hiernonymous

            Any attempt to draw lessons from history involves “hypothetical history.” If you think it a waste if time, nobody is forcing you to participate.

      • Lightbringer

        The safety and position of the Emperor was granted only after he publicly gave up most of his power and repudiated his divinity.

    • IslamDownpressesHumanity

      What do you want to bet Hemingway would’ve been supporting the islamic-fascists in Gaza?

    • MburuChege

      Your view of war is a true reflection of zionist barbarism…..in Islam, the lives of non-combatants in war is sacrosanct…..but zionists fight with hate and illwill…hearts darkened by disbelief!

      • Habbgun

        Yeah that’s why you Islamists run to radical feminists, gay marriage advocates and everything else leftist for support. You really don’t believe in Allah do you ???

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        Yeah, FIGHTING Islamofascism is Zionist.

        9/11 is Islamist, as was the 7/7/05 London transport bombing, bombing of Pan Am 103…

        • MburuChege

          Those killers are farthest from Islam……barbaric killers, just as evil as zionist killers in Gaza!

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Islamists killers wage Jihad all over the World

            and YOU blame zionists for muhammeds savage followers?

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            ISIS needs your head to complete a row on their Jihad card.

            A full card gets ISIS a new set of dishes.

          • Drakken

            They reflect islam at its finest, there is no equivalency between us of western civilization and you savages of islam.

          • Dallasyaherd

            This guy is unbelievably brainwashed, have you ever seen the little wire mesh prisons in Muslim countries? Have you ever seen the stonings? The public beheadings in Sausi Arabia? That’s exactly why to prove your genius point, Israel has by very far the lowest infant mortality in the Middle East because of their Islam. Israel is the only country in the Middle East without a death penalty because of their Islam. Israel has the largest non socialized middle class in the middle east, because of their Islam.

          • Drakken

            I am here as we speak in a muslim country, I see this sh*t day in and day out, I have lost any type of empathy or sympathy for these goddamn savages. The more the Israeli’s kill them, the better off they are going to be, wipe them out to the last goodamn muslim.

          • truebearing

            Can I send you some bratwursts, black pepper bacon, or ham?

          • Drakken

            Being a MN boy I loves me some peeper bacon, and good brats, but alas my friend it is not a good idea, I do appreciate the sentiment though, I feed my guys good northern fare so nobody starves here, besides all my bases have booze, it is a prerequisite which drives the military completely bonkers when I tell Generals to get bent and to shove there general orders about booze up their azz.

          • bigjulie

            My sentiments exactly, except that I would add “post haste”! In a terror war there are NO civilians. Everyone on the other side is a fighter-in-reserve! If one intends to win the conflict, as many of them need to be eliminated as possible, hopefully every one! This is particularly true of Islamists, where hate is taught from the earliest age, and by puberty can only be totally eliminated by death! The kindest and most moral action is to kill so many of them that their will to continue is destroyed, and as quickly as possible! All this sanctimonious hand-wringing over civilian deaths is idiotic and is used only as another “tool” in the Terrorist bag of tricks. In New York I believe the word is “fuggedabowdit”!!
            Fighting Islamists pits one against brutal savages with a morality from the 6th century. The simplest and most humane strategy is to kill every one of them as quickly as possible and let Allah sort them out!

          • Drakken

            Amen sister!

          • bigjulie

            Actually, it’s “brother”, not “sister”. The moniker comes from the Big Julie character in Guys and Dolls who loved shooting craps. He was a mob boss and had his own set of dice, whose spots were unobservable except to him. When he rolled, he also called the numbers his “dice” landed on. Even though the spots were unobservable to anyone except Big Julie,,,,, no one ever dared to question his calls.

          • MD

            A prerequisite of being brainwashed is having a brain

          • Dallasyaherd

            I realized when rereading my comment, when I said small wire mesh prisons, which may be misunderstood, because searching it doesn’t come up in a picture search. What I mean are tiny wire mesh prisons which keep the falsely accused prisoner in a squating position without a trial for years, usually outdoors and incapable of even moving their hands, found secretly in every Muslim country. Even according to the insane Amnesty International, Tadmor Prison in Syria (the lefties today love that Syrian Government) has topped or come in second as the worst prison in the world every year since 1980, North Korea and Venuzuealen prisons round out the top 5 all 3 deeply destructive toward Israel, and bigoted toward Jews.

            And according to that same Amnesty International idiots Iran has more stonings by far than any other country, If your biggest fan boys Amnesty International are forced to admit this, imagine how bad it must really be.

          • yoelk

            They are the true voice and face of Islam, you liar. Just read the Koran. Now learn to differentiate between good and evil, (Its mightily lacking in that book)troll.

      • Webb

        Oh yeah, sacrosanct like the lives of the young girls whose genitals you mutilate. We believe you O Marlburu mon. Go rub dirt hole with right hand for a while.

        • Contemptuous Maximus

          Churchill couldn’t have improved on that comment

      • Drakken

        You muslims are bringing about your own demise by your Islamic doctrine, it is a day that cannot come soon enough. I hope Israel wipes you savages off the map, once and for all time.

      • Rebecca

        You are kidding, right? Either that, or you haven’t seen what has been going on in the Middle East since the Arab Spring got started. There has been not much else besides the killing of civilians. Except maybe the raping of them.

        • SCR EW SOCIALISM

          Beheading is a favorite pastime of ISIS.

          WHERE is the UN or the UNHRC?

          It’s summertime, and the UN may be on vacation, but ISIS keeps on killing.

          • Dallasyaherd

            Was the Islamic Barbary peaceful too? It’s amazing how much hypocrisy Islamic defenders can live with. All Islam has ever done was kill innocents who were not Muslim and that continues in this time period. They are so lost in their argument. Also half the words this guy uses he took from us and uses them against us. Like his whole education is from being brainwashed in comments sections by antisemites.

          • Rebecca

            I guess the U.N. is waiting for orders from the W.H., from the B. Hussein guy.

      • wileyvet

        How about other people’s belief systems? How about the freedom to decide to live your life as one sees fit? How about the right to reject Islam, Allah and Muhammad? Are those sacrosanct? How about the right to not be harassed and vilified as dirty and vile Kafr? How about the right for a Muslim to apostacize? How about the freedom of a Christian to proselytize to Muslims? How about the right of Christians and Jews to openly practice their faith in Muslim countries? Are those sacrosanct? Here are varying yet conflicting sayings of your prophet from Sahih Bukhari.

        Volume 4, Book 52, Number 257 :Narrated by ‘AbdullahDuring some of the Ghazawat of the Prophet a woman was found killed. Allah’s Apostle disapproved the killing of women and children.
        Volume 4, Book 52, Number 256 :Narrated by As-Sab bin JaththamaThe Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, “They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans).” I also heard the Prophet saying, “The institution of Hima is invalid except for Allah and His Apostle.”
        This hadith shows Muhammad having no compunction about killing women and children because they are related to those he wishes to attack and kill.
        In both the history by al-Tabari and Sira by Ibn Ishaq Muhammad is shown to support the killing of women and children and non combatants of the unbelievers including People of the Book if they are deemed to be providing materiel support for the enemies of Islam. Hamas and PLO feel exactly the same way.Muhammad and by extension Islam was at war with everyone who was not yet a Muslim. All non-Muslims are an impediment to Allah’s will. Therefore they must be fought until they are subdued and brought low. Islam fights with what they believe to be the truth, and that it is universal, for all mankind for all times and places whether we, the infidel, like it or not. Warfare in Allah’s cause is the meat and potatoes of Islam. That is what is sacrosanct to Muslims and Islam. Muslims believe that killing unbelievers gets them favours with Allah. Slaying and being slain in Jihad are the highest aspirations of Muslims. That is the heart and soul of Islam. Not peace with others, not live and let live, not you do your thing and I do mine. But Submit, no matter what else you might want to do with your life. Submit, to Allah and his Prophet. Submit, and check your reason, logic, sanity, morality, ethics and conscience outside the mosque with your shoes. No thanks, Mo lover.

        • bigjulie

          The only way to look at this conflict and the main reason they must all be eliminated, ASAP. Any other solution only prolongs the conflict. Kindness and compassion are taken as signs of weakness by them so they deserve neither.

      • kertitor

        Yeah, Zionist barbarism chopped heads off in Syria (and elsewhere), Zionist barbarism uses schools, hospitals and mosqs to stockpile arms , Zionist barbarism invaded every developed country for handout, … Wake up, you delusional moron.

      • kasandra

        Yeah, you just define everyone (e.g., all Israelis, all of those in the twin towers, the population of Mosul, etc.) as combatants and kill them with abandon.

      • yoelk

        BS, and you know it. You lie through your teeth, troll. Collect your virgins and beat it.

      • Debbie G

        Yeah, Israel is famous for using children as suicide bombers and civilians as human shields. Oh wait…that would be your kind.

      • Trend prophet

        What rubbish is this? Muslims murdered the Armenians, they blow up pizza shops and fire rockets into Israeli towns. The gazans are lucky they don’t have a Patton or Montgomery facing them or worse a Joachim Pieper.

      • Commissar Kirov

        Yes its obvious from the beheadings, crucifixtions, random aimless killings of other Muslims, the use of schools, hospitals, and civilian centers to mask headquarters, supply centers, and assembly points. Islam is a cancer. It must be destroyed.

      • Lightbringer

        Did you read a single word of the article? It sounds as if you didn’t.

    • PATRIOT.WW48

      very well said

    • Commissar Kirov

      While a nation must win any nation that seeks unconditional surrender deserves what it gets. WW2 would have ended far sooner had America not adopted such a ridiculous policy. No nation will surrender while it can fight if confronted with such a policy.

  • Anamah

    We have not other way.
    We must prevail we must win.
    Terrorists must be killed!
    Any doubt?

  • sonny2dap .

    Israel, unlike many nations in the world understands an important fact, it is not enough to simply win this fight, you must prevent your enemy from being able to start the next one.

    sounds harsh but ultimately it leads to a more lasting peace.

  • truebearing

    The greatest actors in the world don’t work in Hollywood. They work at the UN, in Gaza, and in Obama’s administration. Moral outrage, desperate pleas for the children, crocodile tears, and the rending of garments…and the media is somehow always there to capture the most heartrending scenes — yet the New York Times can’t manage to find a photo of Hamas terrorists.

    Political correctness has been imposed on war. The terms “humane/inhumane” are being used as a false moral weapon to smear nations, much like “racist” or “Islamophobe” is used to shame and smear people. “Humane” has been hijacked by the humanists…yes, the same ones who promote abortion, deny health care to vets, or installed death panels in ObamaDoesn’tCare.

    The UN, thanks to the Left, has set itself up as the arbiter of what is humane, with the definition nuanced according to the political objective. The political objective is invariably counter to the benefit of Israel or the US. As in “racism,” where whites are automatically racist, but no member of the racial grievance club can be, Israel or the US is always “inhumane” if either use superior military power. The companion term to “inhumane” is “disproportionate,” which is by design an attempt to prevent a clear victory. The game is the same: use PC false morality to paralyze the survival instinct in people and nations.

    Why would this be? Could it simply be a way to neutralize the military powers who don’t subscribe to the underlying, underhanded ideologies that dominate the UN? Wars fought according to the rules of political correctness transfer power to the UN. In this scheme, there is no incentive for the UN to resolve a conflict as each new chapter gives the UN the opportunity to re-set the stage and direct the actors. Each time, the media dutifully shows the approved footage and each time the UN gains more control. In any conflict, the UN can use this dialectical power transfer scheme until eventually it governs the world… or touches off WWIII. Good wars, as Greenfield put it, could prevent such an evil outcome.

    • Damaris Tighe

      I’ve been puzzled why so many anti-Israel posters remind us that the Palestinians are human beings. We take that as a given. It doesn’t have to be said. Any ideas on what that’s about?

      • Headed4TheHills

        One could theorize that by stating repeatedly that the “Palestinians” are people, we are to draw the conclusion that the Israelis are not people.

        • Damaris Tighe

          That’s a very good point & supported by the demonisation of Israelis.

      • truebearing

        They want Israel seen as inhuman. It is really quite simple. They hate Jews, so they want them all dead. When Muslims try to kill them, but end up getting killed themselves, they immediately play the poor, little helpless victim, trying to obscure the fact that they are the genocidal nutjobs that started it. They want to dehumanize Israel for killing their fellow scum so that they will get more aid, sympathy, and weapons for the next attack. If they succeed in dehumanizing Israelis, they figure that they won’t be condemned if they succeed in wiping out Israel.

    • hiernonymous

      ” The companion term to “inhumane” is “disproportionate,” which is by design an attempt to neutralize a superior military and prevent a clear victory.”

      So it might seem, if one were utterly ignorant of millenia of military history.

      Proportionality as a principle in war is addressed in Sanskrit holy writings several centuries B.C. Just War theory, quite well fleshed out by the 16th century, explicitly addressed proportionality, both in the context of jus ad bellum and in the context if jus in bello.

      The purpose of proportionality in both was to prevent unnecessary suffering, not to equalize power — or to permit international organizations that were still centuries from conception to take over the world.

      Proportionality in the context of jus ad bellum demands that the state initiating hostilities evaluate whether the war in question is an appropriate means to achieve the expected benefit. In the context of jus in bello, proportionality evaluates the conduct of war by calling on armed forces to use the minimum amount if force necessary to achieving the military objective. It is intended to reduce death and suffering among the civilian population around and amongst whom the war is fought. It is similar to the legal principle in which we do not permit a man who has been slapped to gun down his attacker and his attacker’s family, then burn their house and salt the land where it stood.

      It would have been a much more defensible proposition to argue that Hamas exploits the well-established principle of proportionality to gain advantage.

      • Webb

        Pathetic fool.

        • hiernonymous

          Perhaps, but I would still welcome your thoughts, should you ever have any.

          • Webb

            Pissoff.

          • hiernonymous

            That was good. It’s all you ever say anyway, and you didn’t embarrass yourself by trying to make it clever. Well done.

          • IslamDownpressesHumanity

            But brevity is the soul of wit heine.

          • hiernonymous

            That thought that wit, eh? You don’t have the highest standards.

          • IslamDownpressesHumanity

            He said everything he needed to say and he didn’t employ long-winded, supercilious, 5 syllable words to do so.

          • hiernonymous

            An odd definition of wit.

            “Supercilious” has 5 syllables, btw. Just saying.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Happy Eternal Nakba!

      • Pete

        “It would have been a much more defensible proposition to argue that Hamas exploits the well-established principle of proportionality to gain advantage.”

        It would have been a much more defensible proposition for you to submit an essay saying as much to FPM, PJ Media or some other site.

        Looks like nitpicking to me and bordering on sniping.

        • hiernonymous

          Your critique of my critique is duly noted.

          • Pete

            I was serious about you submitting an essay to PJMedia on “Hamas exploits the well-established principle of proportionality to gain advantage”.

            You could try Reason magazine as well.

            You have very good skills in writing and logic. I would disagree with some of your axioms.

          • hiernonymous

            I’ve written similar analyses professionally. I appreciate the thought.

          • Pete

            Have you considered a 2nd alias to be used to link such analyses in a post on another discussion thread, when the alias hiernonymous is not used or not suspected of being related to hiernonymous? You could maintain your anonymity, if you were careful.

            You obviously what to change the tenor or tone of the discussion here and a few other places. Or maybe it is a course correction of “so many ” degrees”. I only see make these attempts at conservative sites both mainstream (large sites) and smaller sites. It makes people wonder.

            It might be more effective than sniping.

          • hiernonymous

            Perhaps so. It’s worth considering, though as of tomorrow, my time for any online commenting will be severely limited – it’s the start of both school and season, so I’ve got to go earn my keep.

          • truebearing

            ” I’ve got to go earn my keep.”

            Oh dear. That is an immense amount of money. Hardly achievable on a teacher’s salary.

          • hiernonymous

            “Hardly achievable on a teacher’s salary.”

            That really depends on what one has done earlier in life and what sorts of skills and assets one brings to the table. That you think it impossible suggests that you’re projecting your own limitations inappropriately.

          • IslamDownpressesHumanity

            But it’s all proportional in the end isn’t it?

      • IslamDownpressesHumanity

        As someone else has written, Israel uses missiles to protect its people from terrorism, Hamas uses its people to protect its rockets.

        • hiernonymous

          Sure, that’s pretty typical of all asymmetric warfare. The side with the wealth and sophisticated weapons complains about the savages’ unwillingness to play by the rules and lack of respect for civilized considerations. Surely you don’t think this unique to the Palestinian-Israeli confrontation? Here’s what Joseph Gregory said in the NYT’s obituary of Vo Nguyen Giap last year:

          To historians, [Giap’s] willingness to sustain staggering losses against superior American firepower was a large reason the war dragged on as long as it did, costing more than 2.5 million lives—58,000 of them American—sapping the United States Treasury and Washington’s political will to fight….

          • reader

            Perhaps, you should demand the Police Department patrolling your neighborhood to disarm, and make sure that you disable security at your house, while at it.

          • hiernonymous

            Did you mean to address this to a proponent of disarmament? Else it makes no sense.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            EDITOR!

            hiero needs help organizing his thoughts.

          • hiernonymous

            No better.

          • truebearing

            Sure it does. It makes exactly as much sense as the idiocy of “disproportionate” response to genocidal psychopaths in Gaza. One UN moron thinks Israel should provide the Iron Dome for Gaza — the genocidal aggressor. Are you defending that abject stupidity? Don’t worry, I won’t be surprised.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            That UN moron is from South Africa.

            Hamass protects its leaders and weapons with their High Tech “Human Shield Dome”.

          • hiernonymous

            “It makes exactly as much sense as the idiocy of “disproportionate” response to genocidal psychopaths in Gaza. ”

            Nonsense. The concept of proportionality deals, to a great extent, with limiting the harm to noncombatants. Use of language such as “genocidal psychopaths” to imply that there are no noncombatants is the language of rationalization.

            No, I think it’s silly to expect Israel to supply any sort of weapons technology to an entity that attacks it with rockets.

            “I won’t be surprised.”

            Whether you express surprise or not is of no account.

          • reader

            “The concept of proportionality deals, to a great extent, with limiting the harm to noncombatants.”

            Nonsense. Using human shields is war crimes. Particularly cowardly and heinous ones. That’s how the harm to noncombatants is maximized. The apologist for barbarians is out to blame the Jews for everything. Contrary to even the Saudi King, who put the blame entirely on HAMAS.

          • hiernonymous

            “Nonsense. Using human shields is war crimes. ”

            Agreed that using human shields is a war crime. It’s not clear how that renders my characterization of the principle of proportionality “nonsense.” Your argument is not that ‘proportionality’ is a bogus concept, but that Israel is being unjustly accused of violating the principle of proportionality.

          • reader

            There’s no such principle, and there’s certainly no criteria that could possibly applied to uphold it. Tell me when any international body ever brought it up. You’re cherry picking obscure theories to make up non-existing standards. I can myself offer you a few – much better ones too.

          • hiernonymous

            http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2012/06/25/artillery-on-appeal-proportionality-and-the-international-criminal-tribunal-for-the-former-yugoslavia/

            That took about a minute to find, a few more to read. An extensive excerpt discusses this non-existent principle:

            Not surprisingly, Operation Storm bore the mark of NATO military doctrine. Some observers have suggested that Operation Storm was conceived and planned with the help of former military officers from NATO member states. The Croatian forces were well-trained, and their execution synchronized, massing effects against enemy weaknesses. What’s more, the evidence suggests that targeting decisions were carefully vetted by those involved to insure they complied with international law. Distinction and proportionality were considered prior to engaging each target.

            The critical aspect of the judgment was the trial chamber’s application of the principle of Proportionality in armed conflict. Proportionality in the Law of Targeting is often mistaken for the concept of “proportionate response” from domestic self-defense provisions in criminal law, or a type of fairness requirement between opponents where force is matched with counter-force. But the principle of proportionality in International Humanitarian Law is something else entirely.

            Proportionality, as properly understood, is a longstanding principle of the law of armed conflict which balances military necessity and humanity. It calls on commanders, prior to an attack, to weigh the military advantage to be gained against the risk of excessive collateral damage. The International Committee of the Red Cross restated the customary rule that, “[l]aunching an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, is prohibited.” (Rule 14, Customary International Humanitarian Law, ICRC).

            Although a well-established principle of customary law, proportionality was codified in treaty law as the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks. Article 51(5) of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions provision that an attack is indiscriminate if it is “an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.” (emphasis added). Moreover, the Elements of Crimes for the International Criminal Court (ICC) set forth the criminal law standard for applying the principle of proportionality under the Rome Statute. In Article 8(2)(b)(iv), the ICC Elements of Crime provide five elements to be proved in a prosecution for the “War crime of excessive incidental death, injury, or damage.”

            (1) The perpetrator launched an attack.

            (2) The attack was such that it would cause incidental death or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment and that such death, injury or damage would be of such an extent as to be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated.

            (3) The perpetrator knew that the attack would cause incidental death or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment and that such death, injury or damage would be of such an extent as to be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated.

            (4) The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.

            (5) The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.

            The Elements of Crime continue, adding special points of clarification:

            The expression “concrete and direct overall military advantage” refers to a military advantage that is foreseeable by the perpetrator at the relevant time. Such advantage may or may not be temporally or geographically related to the object of the attack. The fact that this crime admits the possibility of lawful incidental injury and collateral damage does not in any way justify any violation of the law applicable in armed conflict. It does not address justifications for war or other rules related to jus ad bellum. It reflects the proportionality requirement inherent in determining the legality of any military activity undertaken in the context of an armed conflict.

            Notably, the “knowledge element [the third element] requires that the perpetrator make the value judgment as described therein. An evaluation of that value judgment must be based on the requisite information available to the perpetrator at the time.” This type of value judgment, calling for command discretion, is not uncommon and is firmly rooted in international criminal law.

          • reader

            This line of reasoning is perfectly applicable to HAMAS actions. I don’t see what is possibly stopping you from raising your voice against HAMAS exactly. Is it your hate toward the Jews, by any chance?

          • hiernonymous

            “This line of reasoning is perfectly applicable to HAMAS actions.”

            Yes.

            “I don’t see what is possibly stopping you from raising your voice against HAMAS exactly. ”

            Nothing is “stopping” me. Nobody asked my opinion of the matter, and you’ll note that my post didn’t ‘raise my voice’ against anyone – I’ve observed the existence of the principle of proportionality as it applies to warfare.

            I disapprove strongly of many of Hamas’s actions and positions.

            “Is it your hate toward the Jews, by any chance?”

            What a bizarre comment. I don’t hate any of the actors in this tragedy. I do cordially dislike zealots of any stripe. They have a tendency to justify their own atrocities by screaming about the other side’s.

          • reader

            I find you are zealot in many ways. One of those ways is Jew hate, for example. The other one is a firm but delusional belief on own intellectual prowess. You’re but a trivial Jew hating troll – and – wait for this – pretty transparent at this.

          • hiernonymous

            R: There is no such principle as proportionality.
            H: (Links to extensive discussion of ‘nonexistent’ principle and its applicability to a war crimes trial.)
            R: Hamas! And do you hate Jews?
            H: Yes, Hamas. And no.
            R: Jew hater!

            Transparent, indeed. Have fun with the ranting.

          • reader

            I can only surmise that you’re now using your teaching syllabus format. Whatever you’re making for teaching anything, it’s too much. Unfortunately, that’s norm nowadays.

          • hiernonymous

            Here is a primer on your non-existent principle.

            http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/proportionality-principle-of/

          • reader

            Basically, what I’m getting out of this is the protocol you’re referring to is neither clearly defined, nor it is largely accepted, nor ratified, nor applied. Otherwise, good find!

          • hiernonymous

            Notice that you are now complaining about how the defects in a principle that, a post ago, didn’t even exist. That’s progress. Regards.

          • reader

            I could just as easily say that you’re whining about something that for all practical purposes does not exist, even though you’d like it to. Btw, forgot to ask: are you a member of a suicide cult that believes that cutting off own balls is the path to salvation, by any chance? That’s also a sound principle, as argued by some.

          • Drakken

            There are no non combatants in a combat zone, it is this thinking that permeates in the officer class of our military today that makes us lose wars and lose men unnecessarily.

          • IslamDownpressesHumanity

            So more dead Israelis constitutes a more just war in your warped mind?

          • hiernonymous

            That would be a bizarre conclusion. You are neither reading nor thinking clearly.

          • reader

            I meant to show how absurd your notion of the international or any other law is. Not that I appeal to your senses. I realize that you’re a circular logic artist full of pretend condescension but not able to hide own thin skin on occasion.

          • hiernonymous

            So your logic is that the occurrence of nearly 15,000 murders a year (an example I use above in similar context) in the U.S. demonstrates that the ideas of murder as a moral wrong, and of law itself, are thereby demonstrated to be absurd?

            You’ll forgive me for not indulging you in your latest bout of pop psychology. Knock yourself out.

          • reader

            Err… actually, it’s exactly the opposite. May be not in your world of circular logic, but in the world of Aristotle logic it is.

          • hiernonymous

            If you wish to make your logic explicit, by all means, lay out the syllogism in question so that we are on the same sheet of music.

          • reader

            It’s explicit enough: no rational community will demand that its police department arms itself down to proportionally match the local gangs firepower. It’s the opposite: rational community will make sure that its police department will be capable of overwhelming local gangs in fire power and any other means for that matter. Exactly the same applies to Israel – as in police department – and HAMAS – as in gangs. I think everybody here understands that. You just don’t want to. You’d be delighted if HAMAS could slaughter the Jews at will.

          • hiernonymous

            Actually, many people do want their police department to be armed no more heavily than necessary to deal with ordinary crime. I’ve noticed many of my former and current colleagues sharing a photo on Facebook recently that compared an old police cruiser with a modern SWAT armored vehicle with a caption asking when did THIS (cruiser) become THIS (APC)? When I travel in the developing world, my travel companions new to the region almost always react in surprise when they first encounter policemen standing on street corners with automatic weapons, often in teams, and sometimes in helmets and/or armor. The consistent message is that we are not comfortable with police being armed and behaving in a paramilitary fashion.

            But I’m not sure where you got the idea that anyone was demanding disarmament. That’s not the basis of the principle of proportionality. It’s not a question of reducing capability, it’s a question of assessing the level of force appropriate to the military goal to be achieved without causing unnecessary suffering to noncombatants. You seem to be mixing apples and pineapples.

          • reader

            I find it weird, when you talk about achieving military goal in this context. It’s obvious to me that you don’t want the IDF to achieve its military goal at all. And if you do, how would you do it exactly? Perhaps, they lack your expertise in this regard.

          • hiernonymous

            “It’s obvious to me that you don’t want the IDF to achieve its military goal at all. ”

            As I’ve noted before, you find many things obvious that aren’t necessarily so.

            As for the conflict with the Palestinians, I don’t think the solution is a military one.

          • reader

            Oh… I see. So, when HAMAS openly pursues its goal of completely cleansing the Jews out of Israel – and Earth for that matter – the solution must be for the Jews just to let themselves be slaughtered. But you’re not a Jew hater – did I get it about right?

          • hiernonymous

            “…did I get it about right?”

            No.

          • reader

            Indeed. You are a Jew hater by any conceivable logic.

          • hiernonymous

            That speaks more to your limited conception of logic than anything else. Since you seem to be sputtering into your usual spiral of personal attacks, I’ll let you rant to your heart’s content.

          • reader

            Right. Having avoided answering a direct and simple question, one must whine a victim of a personal attack. Very logical.

          • Habbgun

            He conveniently forgets Giap knew that he couldn’t sell Communism to the Vietnamese so he happily lied to them what they sacrificed themselves for.

            Usually an ingredient in asymmetrical warfare is that the leadership is sacrosanct and the dumb pathetic peasants do the dying which is why it is harder to do among educated advanced populations.

          • Drakken

            The reason we lost in Vietnam was, we were not willing to do what was necessary to ensure we won. We could have bombed Hanoi and Haiphong to bamboo sticks and they would have surrendered.

          • truebearing

            My point as well, but he won’t acknowledge it because it bombs his argument to bamboo sticks.

            Ho Chi Minh admitted that the B-52s had driven them nearly to surrender, but naturally, we stopped in time to lose, courtesy of the Left and its desperate defense of any communist enemy.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Now Giap is a good commie.

          • truebearing

            Who but you give’s a rat’s a*s what the NY Times wrote about Giap? We lost in Vietnam because of domestic politicians and the incessant political upheaval caused by the Left. Ho Chi Minh admitted that our bombing of Hanoi had North Vietnam on the brink of surrender, but we stoppped the bombing just in time to lose the war. Why did we stop? Pressure from the traitorous Left…the same Left that has wanted us to lose every war we have been in after the Civil War.

          • hiernonymous

            “We lost in Vietnam because of domestic politicians…”

            It’s interesting how often that theme springs up among the losers of wars. Note the similarity between your diatribe and the dolchstosslegende.

            “Pressure from the traitorous Left…the same Left that has wanted us to lose every war we have been in since the Civil War.”

            You might want to review America’s entry into WWII again.

          • truebearing

            “It’s interesting how often that theme springs up among the losers of wars.”

            That didn’t prove me wrong. You ignored what I pointed out about the effect the B-52′s were having on North Vietnam because it didn’t fit your argument. Not much integrity to your argument, just a desire to appear to win.

          • hiernonymous

            “That didn’t prove me wrong. You ignored what I pointed out about the effect the B-52′s were having on North Vietnam because it didn’t fit your argument. ”

            No, I ignored it because it’s a simpleton’s approach to an involved subject. Understanding the loss in Vietnam involves understanding the fundamental illegitimacy of the South Vietnamese governments; the strategic error of drawing from Ia Drang the lesson that attrition would be a suitable substitute for a strategy; the very real implications of the Domino Theory, to wit, that if Soviet and Chinese power were sufficient to make us afraid of the fall of Southeast Asia, then policies aimed at preventing escalation into direct conflict with them were not foolish on their face; that American air power aimed at limiting military production and supply, such as the Linebacker operations, had inherent limits in a situation in which external suppliers were committed to making good PAVN material losses. Nothing about your comment suggests you’ve considered the implications of Summers’ criticism of the excessive focus on insurgency, or Krepinivich’s criticism of excessive focus on conventional warfare, which taken together, suggest that a massive air and ground campaign into North Vietnam might have had some effect in 1969 or later, but would have done almost nothing to help in the pre-Tet phase – because, of course, the nature of the war evolved considerably.

            Here’s one of Giap’s observations about the limits of air power:

            During the attacks of B-52s, we shot down a few B-52s and captured documents. One of them was a order by the [U.S.] air command about the targets to be bombed in and around Hanoi and the positions of [our] forces. Some [of the figures] were correct, [but] some were wrong because of our
            deception [measures]. And our conclusion was that with such anti-air-power measures, the B-52 is not an effective way to fight. …We had to resort to different measures, some of which are quite simple, like hiding in man-holes and evacuating to the countryside.

            So, yes, scapegoating political leaders and claiming that the military was ‘stabbed in the back’ is the cheap and easy way to avoid confronting failures across the board. Von Seeckt noted during the Versailles negotiations that the Allies had committed a grave error by dictating the terms of peace in Versailles, because that allowed the German military to conceal from its people the “true extent of its military defeat.” The surviving field marshals of National Socialist Germany built a self-serving myth that it was Hitler’s interference in their otherwise competent strategic direction that led to failure – which was utter nonsense. Similarly, the American military made significant errors of its own in Vietnam. There were political decisions that limited our effectiveness as well, some of which made sense – those aimed at avoiding escalation – and some that did not, such as the insistence on limiting tours of duty to one year (which you seem to have overlooked in your search for an easily grasped panacea).

            “Not much integrity to your argument…”

            Nonsense. Not much substance to yours. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

            What a surprise.

      • Drakken

        There is a reason why everyone remembers Carthage and Sherman’s March to the Sea, because it works. The only way you deal with Hamas is do what the Russians do, is mass artillery and rockets and level the goddamn place and call it a day. This bloody nonsense of disaportionate response squealed by the left is a sure recipe of disaster and a repeat in less than a year, and I blame the Israeli’s and their pizz poor tactics in losing so many men needlessly. Get the goddamn lawyers out of the command and control centers and get what must be done, done.

        • hiernonymous

          Maybe, though Sherman’s March to the Sea was a symptom of, not the cause of, the Confederate military collapse in the southern theater.

          As for Carthage as a symbol of the power of complete victory, it’s ironic that Carthage became the capitol of Genseric’s Vandal kingdom in Africa, from which he sacked Rome in AD455, and 13 years later destroyed the massive Byzantine fleet sent to crush him and hastened the collapse of the Western Empire. So much for permanent solutions…

          • Drakken

            Carthage you remember was completely utter destroyed, so Genseric’s Capitol city was nearby, not at Carthage itself. The permanent solution which I stand by is, No more effing around with these bloody savages, time to take off the kid gloves and get rid of the lawyers running things and do what must be done and get it over with. It will be a lesson to the West Bank, which since they are muslim, will completely ignore anyway.

          • IslamDownpressesHumanity

            By 455 CE the Roman Empire had ceased to be, as it was the Byzantine Empire at that point.

          • hiernonymous

            Not so much. There’s no universally agreed point at which the Eastern Empire stopped being Roman, and, in fact, it referred to itself as such. I tend to look at the adoption of Greek as the language of government by Heraclius as the defining break, but you could make a case for the creation of the Eastern capital under Constantine. To this day, one Arabic adjective for “Greek” is “Rumi,” or “Roman.” The conventional date for the fall of the Western Empire is AD 476, some 21 years after this battle. At any rate, in the context of this conversation, it really makes no difference.

          • American Patriot

            Actually, it was 476 AD/CE that the Roman Empire collapsed in the west.

          • IslamDownpressesHumanity

            In 324 CE Constantine officially move the Roman capital to Byzantium. If abandoning the capital of not only your nation but your civilisation isn’t a harbinger of the collapse of an empire what is?

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        Wow hiero, 256 words.

        EDITOR!

        • hiernonymous

          Or Ritalin for you, if 256 words taxes your attention span.

      • truebearing

        You are ignoring the role of the UN in modern conflicts, as opposed to ancient wars, or even wars up until the mid 20th Century, where there was no international third party mediator… with it’s own political agenda interfering with extreme prejudice. Rather sloppy analysis on your part, or was it just another of your intentionally discursive attempts to draw attention away from the insidious role of the UN? Either way, your omission of the greater context of war being mediated by an entity that thrives on political correctness renders your grandiloquent reply irrelevant and spectacularly inadequate.

        Maybe you’d like to regale us with the proportionality of Ghengis Khan, Attila the Hun, or countless battles in Europe where thirty thousand men were cleaved to death. Or perhaps you’d prefer the Roman era, where the Bar Kokhba revolt was put down so ruthlessly that Jews were driven out of Israel, their temple destroyed, and Israel was renamed “Palestinia” as yet another way to annhilate the Jewish people. Your legal principles for “Just War” seem curiously absent.

        Or maybe you would like to elaborate on slaughter of 100 million Hindus during the Muslim conquests of India. Or since you claim that these legal principles are operant in modern conflict, I’m sure you can show us how well they worked in Bahgladesh in 1971.

        http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/2010/10/the_muslim_slaughter_of_the_hindus_of_bangladesh.html

        Since this conflict is between Israel and Hamas — supported by most of the Muslim countries in the Middle East — it is yet another instance of Muslims intending to commit genocide. Maybe you can define specifically what is “humane” and “proportionate” when dealing with genocidal psychopaths, but I doubt you can. We used atomic weapons on Japan, not because they were genocidal, but to save the lives of OUR troops. Go ahead and include your criticism of that disproportionality…there is plenty of room to go farther out on your limb…

        It would have been a more intelligent response on your part to have read my comment well enough to understand it, then address all of it instead of trying to isolate one line and critique only that.

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          350 words, and worth the time to read.

          truebearing AKBAR!

        • hiernonymous

          “You are ignoring the role of the UN in modern conflicts, as opposed to ancient wars, or even wars up until the mid 20th Century, where there was no international third party mediator.”

          You can’t be serious. You’ve completely overlooked the role of the Roman Catholic Church, which served as precisely an international third party mediator in centuries of warfare involving Europe – complete with “its own political agenda interfering with extreme prejudice,” if I understand your odd use of that last phrase correctly. Not coincidentally, it was the Catholic Church that advanced Just War theory.

          “Maybe you’d like to regale us with the proportionality of Ghengis[sic] Khan, Attila the Hun…”

          Why would I do that? At issue was the origin and nature of the idea of proportionality in warfare. That this idea is not universally – or even widely – respected has exactly no bearing on the matter.

          “Or maybe you would like to elaborate on slaughter of 100 million Hindus during the Muslim conquests of India. ”

          It would be hard to elaborate on something that probably didn’t happen. The Muslim conquest occurred, of course, and it involved widespread violence – but your claim of “slaughter of 100 million Hindus” is as good an example of the uncritical manner in which you parrot nuggets of ‘information’ that you run across without running them to ground. The high-end estimate of the deaths from the conquests was offered by K.S. Lal at 80 million, and that was using a much-criticized approach of comparing a dubious population estimate from about the year 1000 with one in the early 16th century and noting that one was 80 million less than the other. Critics such as Digby took him to task for the highly speculative nature of the population estimates themselves, but there are other obvious problems with the methodology. The most glaring becomes apparent when you note what happens to the population of Europe over the same timeframe. That’s right – the period included by Lal encompasses the Black Death, which spread from China through the subcontinent to the Middle East and eventually Europe. So you have mindlessly and triumphantly flourished a nonsensical number with no clear idea of how it was arrived at or what it actually means. In terms of the actual rhetorical point you were addressing, the number doesn’t matter, but that you so credulously repeat such blog fodder is indicative of your broader understanding – or lack thereof.

          “Or since you claim that these legal principles are operant in modern conflict, I’m sure you can show us how well they worked in Bahgladesh in 1971.”

          Murder is against the law in the United States. Does the fact that there were nearly 15,000 people murdered in the U.S. last year demonstrate that murder is not, in fact, illegal in the U.S.?

          “We used atomic weapons on Japan, not because they were genocidal, but to save the lives of OUR troops. Go ahead and include your criticism of that disproportionality…”

          That you bring it up indicates that you are aware that there is controversy concerning that decision. Your statement relies on selective presentation of facts to achieve a particular bias. Was the bomb dropped to save the lives of troops? Probably, in part. But we also know that there were two probable motivations linked to the Soviets. One was that the bombs were intended to serve as a warning to the Soviets that they should not be tempted by their preponderance of land power in Germany to try to unite Europe under their control. The second was that the Soviets had been asked to launch an offensive against the Kwantung Army during the Yalta Conference, in order to tie up the considerable Japanese forces in Manchuria and China. In short, we thought we needed Soviet assistance in the final attack on Japan. Once we realized that we could take the Japanese down on our own, it was too late to forestall the Soviet attack, and the bombs could bring the war to a close before the Soviets could, in effect, earn the right to partial occupation of Japan. Once such motives are brought into the discussion, it becomes much less cut and dry than you imply in your formulation.

          “It would have been a more intelligent response on your part to have read my comment well enough to understand it…”

          By now you should understand that this is exactly what I did. I don’t know if your reading of history is incomplete or simply blinkered, but the idea of third party interference is hardly new to international conflict. There are aspects to the UN that are new and unique – particularly if one considers it to be a continuation of sorts of the League of Nations – but the issues you raise are not among those.

          • truebearing

            “You can’t be serious. You’ve completely overlooked the role of the Roman Catholic Church,”

            Ah, yes, another corrupt, biased entity that posed as an impartial mediator but was anything but. In some ways you support my original comment with this attempt to rebut my reply to yours, but the differences between the Catholic Church and the UN are considerable. Most obvious is the fact that the UN is global. The Catholic Church of that period wasn’t. Both are examples of how mediation of conflict by third parties hasn’t worked.

            You correctly point out that the Catholic Church did have some of the same effect as the UN, but what about all of those wars before the sad advent of the UN, or the political corruption of the Catholic Church? Your “Just War” argument is in tatters.

            You insist that the Muslims killed ONLY 80 million in their invasion of India, and hint it was even less, but you have no more reliable information than I do. But even if it was ONLY 80 million, that number strives against your ridiculous “just war” nonsense. There was nothing just about anything the Muslims did in India.

            You entirely avoided answering me with regard to the 3 million Hindus the Muslims slaughtered in Bangladesh. I guess you couldn’t find someone to refute that fact, which necessarily means your assertions about “Just War” in this era are refuted.

            There may have been additional benefits for the atomic attack on Japan, but as stand alone justifications, they never would have compelled the use of the atomic bomb. We did it because the nation was wearying of war and we knew we could end it quickly and save massive amounts of blood and treasure. You are an incredibly stingy, egotistical debater. You never acknowledge when you are wrong or when someone else is right. It shows a small, brittle spirit.

            Your last paragraph is pure “twaddle” as you like to say. Everyone knows that the UN was basically a League of Nations redo. It started with lofty goals and has generally failed every one of them. Now it is a corrupt, biased, bigoted impediment to human progress. It drags conflicts out, when they can’t be won by the UN’s preferred victor. It enables terrorists and rogue regimes, while punishing those who are the most moral. It is run by crooks, fools, and mentally ill despots. It is a waste of money and a growing threat to representative governance.

          • hiernonymous

            “Your “Just War” argument is in tatters.”

            You plainly don’t grasp what my ‘Just War argument’ was, if you think you’ve even addressed it. At issue is not whether it works, or is widely respected, or has the force of law, or any such nonsense. You contended that proportionality was created to advance the political ambitions of the UN, and I’ve shown you that the concept predates the UN by millenia.

            “You insist that the Muslims killed ONLY 80 million in their invasion of India…”

            Why, no, you are reading poorly again. I said that the highest estimate given had been 80 million, and that this high estimate was based on flawed methodologies and assumptions, and utterly failed to take into account the black death. Lal in essence speculated a number of people populating India about AD1000, speculated a second figure for a bit over 5 centuries later, noted that the difference was 80 million, and attributed that alleged decline to the Muslim conquest. I pointed out that, quite apart from the suspect assumptions in the two population figures, the conclusions ignored significant events such as the Black Death. I leave it to you to review what is known about the effects of the 14th century plague on affected populations. Hint: it’s not something you’d want to leave out.

            “You entirely avoided answering me with regard to the 3 million Hindus the Muslims slaughtered in Bangladesh. I guess you couldn’t find someone to refute that fact, which necessarily means your assertions about “Just War” in this era are refuted.”

            Again, it’s not clear what you imagine my “Just War” assertions to have been, such that the occurrence of brutal wars that did not reflect respect for the principle of proportionality to have ‘refuted’ it. You are once again letting your emotions cloud your reason. In fact, it’s not necessary that any war in the history of mankind have ever been fought in accord with the principles of proportionality (of which Just War Theory is only one, albeit probably the best-developed and best-known, example). When you offer a series of examples that demonstrate only your incomprehension of the argument, it’s not necessary to address each one. I’m not sure how to make it any plainer that the argument facing you is that the principle of proportionality is an old one that involves aims other than those you asserted in your original post. Demonstrating such does not involve finding wars that have been fought in accordance with such principles, though it’s not hard to find examples of such principles at work in various wars.

            “Everyone knows…”

            Ah, it’s amazing what “everyone knows.”

    • roadrunner

      This is my first time on this site and the posts are great. Thank you for such well written commentary.

  • Johnnnyboy

    Way back in yea olden days Europe was run by kings and queens. They ran what amounted to a professional armies, some home grown and some purchased from abroad. The great majority of the people were the serfs or peasants, with a few guild members, clergy, and merchants thrown into the mix. This group, the non ennobled majority, could expect to be taxed or regulated by custom regardless of who won, but was otherwise likely to be left alone. Hence they were disinterested in war and commonly disinterested who won. It was none of there business.

    This disinterested population is the source of the general premise that civilians should not be killed in war. If the public is not engaged in war, then killing them is nothing but needless cruelty. Well, all that went away with the American and French revolutions. When the idea that the population should be actively engaged in supporting its own government is successfully sold, the population is no longer disinterested and becomes a part of the war effort, supporters if not combatants, and as such becomes legitimate targets for the enemy.

    Naturally the public likes the idea that it should not be attacked and so the concept of a disinterested public lingers, but on a functional level it has become unsound. When the public actively supports the other side they become legitimate targets for oppression and the failure to take what measures are necessary courts defeat.

    As this plays out with the United States, when the war is far away and a loss is unlikely to do great damage, we run the war by our moral rules, which prohibit civilian causalities and are cool on oppressive measures. In our fantasy life we imagine we can win by killing only a active killers, the few who are engaged in combat. But if it happens also that the general public supports the the war effort, leaving the general public alone leaves the majority of the enemy undamaged, and that in turn produces a new crop of killers and the war protracts.

    Now as this applies to Israel, for reasons of a shared culture and political pressure, the country has often fought using our rules of war and has gotten the predictable outcome, which is an indecisive conclusion.

    This may not be fixable because the politics of a situation does not simply go away because we would want it to. But knowing what the problem is, is also the first step toward a cure. If Israel is to ever win, it will be by being ruthless to the point where the other side gives up, not merely because of a transitory lack of military means, but also because the alternative of continued aggression is to terrible to contemplate. And of course, an effort to be humane merely lessens the blow and makes a continuation of the conflict unavoidable.

    • roadrunner

      Isn’t it harder for this particular side to give up when its political ideology is tired to their religion? Great post.

  • Bamaguje

    Mr Greenfield,
    I totally agree with you that Israel has boxed herself into a corner by holding back and not finishing off her enemies when she had the chance.
    Back in 1948 when Arabs invaded the newly independent Jewish nation, there was less concern about civilian casualties. And Israel had much more moral support then.
    But the Jewish nation held back and heeded international calls for ceasefire, leaving Gaza, Judeo & Samaria in the hands of the Arab invaders (Egypt, Jordan).
    Jordan then expelled all the Jews who had lived there continuously for over 3000 years.
    Two decades later (1967) when Israel reclaimed her territories in another war initiated by Jihadist Arabs, and Jews returned to the area, they were now denounced as “occupation.”

    Ridiculously Israel offered to return West bank & Gaza in exchange for peace… which the Arabs rejected in the 1967 Arab league meeting in Khartoum:
    It was a defeatist gesture of weakness by Israel to have made such an offer that emboldened her Arab aggressors to boast in the 1967 Arab league meeting in Khartoum

    “no peace, no negotiation, no recognition. We (Arabs) have lost
    round 3 (1967 war) and can lose 40 rounds but Israel can lose only one”.

    War is not won by merely defeating your enemies in battle, but in also crushing their will to fight.
    When Israel goes begging for peace in exchange for territory, she not only feeds the false narrative that the conflict is a territorial one, she emboldens and encourages intransigence among her Muslim and Arab aggressors.
    They should be crushed totally and unreservedly regardless of the busy-body so-called.”International community”, will would have eventually been compelled to accept the new reality… if Israel had remained resolute and stayed the course.

    With the benefit of hindsight, Israel should have expelled Palestinians after regaining her territories in 1967. The same way, Jordan expelled Jews in 1948, and the same way Arabs expelled Jews who had lived in Arabia and North Africa hundreds of years before Islam.

    You do not try to reason with savages, you crush them. Human Rights are human beings, not the subhuman savages called Muslims.

    • roadrunner

      Great post. Especially outlining many of the difficulties that Israel has had on many occasions through the years. In Israel’s history it shows the many times they were attacked by Arabs as they developed the land, but no one seems to care about the aggressor. Not only do they not care, but they support the aggressor. The aggressor has managed to become the victim.

    • IslamDownpressesHumanity

      Your analysis is almost as applicable to India as Israel.

    • MburuChege

      You sound more of a savage yourself with your nihilist venom-filled thoughts! No humanity therein!

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        Go to Gaza. Hamass needs to repair the holes it’s

        Human Shield Dome.

      • Drakken

        Islam is anti-humanity and should be dealt with in its own bloody coin.

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        Humpty Dumpty was Muslim?

        Who knew?

      • Habbgun

        Yeah….Islam equals pacifism. Pacify the local population through terror, pacify the government through terror. Pacify Sunni through terror. Pacify Shia through terror. Let’s all hope the pacifists get a gun.

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          Any opposition to Islamofascism is “Islamophobia”.

          Thanks CAIR,

    • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

      You make many good points … and did fine up until that last line. Muslims are human beings. Their species isn’t in doubt, their moral character (in the case of jihadi) is certainly as low as humanly possible.

      If you deny them the status of human being they are no longer moral beings capable of being praise of blamed. Devout Muslims who wage jihad are evil, something that only a human being can be. Savagery is when humans behave viciously like a wild animal but who are to blamed for descending into such evil.

  • SCREW SOCIALISM

    The coming war is another one with clear Good guys and Bad guys.

    The Bad guys,
    - 9/11
    - 1993 truck bombing of the WTC
    - Assassinate US Senator Robert F. Kennedy
    - Shoot and kill American soldiers in Fort Hood
    - Beltway sniper
    - 2005 London transport bombing
    - Sneaker bomber
    - Underwear bomber
    - Use poison gas, (that’s a WMD) on the Kurds of Halabja Iraq
    - ISIS beheads captives
    - Stone women to death over “family honor”
    - Hang gay teens in Fascist Iran
    - Shoot girls in the head for wanting an education – Taliban
    - Bomb a school in Beslan
    - Behead British soldier Lee Rigby in London
    - Behead journalist Daniel Pearl
    - Murder filmmaker Theo Van Gogh
    - Issue death fatwa on writer Salman Rushdie for writing a book
    - Drive a bomb laden SUV into Times Square
    - Openly threaten the UK and Eurabia with 9/11 scale massacres
    - Bomb churches in Pakistan and Nigeria
    - Massacre people at a shopping mall in Nairobi
    - Massacre people in Mumbai India
    - Bomb Pan Am 103

    What is “progressive” with siding with Islamofascists?

    • IslamDownpressesHumanity

      Remember the Achille Lauro and the wheelchair bound Holocaust survivor pushed into the Med by one of the muslimes who hijacked the ship — all in front of dozens of witnesses.

      Meir Kahane — assassinated in a NYC hotel by a mohammedan

      El Al terminal shooting at LAX (committed by a muslim)

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        - Empire State Building observation deck shooting
        - Brooklyn Bridge shooting.
        - Bali bombing.
        - Madrid train bombing.
        - Calls for Death for “the great satan” and “the little satan” by Satanic Fascist Iran
        - Bombing of USS Cole
        - Bombing of Khobar Towers
        - Bombing of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania (killing hundreds of Africans)
        - Current Day Slavery in Sudan and Mauritania

        • IslamDownpressesHumanity

          I almost forgot about the USS Stark — nailed by an Iraqi exocet missile while cruising in the Persian Gulf. An act of war.

          • No Surrender

            Genocide of the Coptic Christians and the occupation of their homeland, Egypt.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Not only were Coptic Christiains in Egypt BEFORE Islam, Jews were in the Land of Israel BEFORE Islam.

            Islam seems to hate EVERYBODY.

          • IslamDownpressesHumanity

            The Copts had their own language, the teaching of which was outlawed by the muslim arabs.

          • Lightbringer

            Amazing thread! And that’s only the past century. Islam has been one long atrocity against humankind since its invention.

        • nobullhere

          Bombing at the Boston Marathon.
          Attempting to murder thousands in London’s West End theatreland with gas cylinder bombs.
          Attempting to kill passengers and those returning home at Glasgow Airport with a minibus bomb.

  • DaCoachK

    We can blame the entirety of the Left for America’s not being able to win a war in the last 60 years. If they are not more concerned with the civilians who are helping the enemy, then they are more concerned with the actual enemy. I will paraphrase Ann Coulter: Liberals would like to help in the war on terror, but that would put them on the side of America, and they simply won’t stand for that. Anything the Left can do to damage this country, it has proven it will do. From putting unbelievable obstacles and rules in place for our fighting men to tearing apart out nation with immoral social policies, the Left will do it. It is who these bastards are.

  • wildjew

    This is a good piece. Israel’s critics need to be reminded how the United States fought won the second world war, the last war she actually did win. Perennial complainers need to study Churchill. Critics of Jewish history point to how Joshua, David and others fought wars in antiquity; how they killed enemy civilians, the Canaanites, the Philistines, forerunners of savage Palestinians in Gaza.

    “Thus Joshua struck all the land, the hill country and the Negev and the lowland and the slopes and all their kings. He left no survivor, but he utterly destroyed all who breathed, just as the LORD, the God of Israel, had commanded.”

    Sounds harsh to our “civilized” ears today. Back then, wars were fought to a conclusion.

    • The Gimlet Eye

      ” Wars are not won by dying for one’s country; wars are won by making the other poor s.o.b. die for his” – Gen. George Patton

      • chelmer

        True, that.

    • chelmer

      To those of us who believe that these narratives are accurate, it should be pointed out that G-d Almighty ordered these genocidal wars. It’s an important distinction. It raises theological debate, but it’s an important distinction.
      The Philistines were Greeks. Palestinians are Arabs.

      • wildjew

        Which is one the reasons I am hesitant to get on the United Nations anti-genocide bandwagon as a crime under international law even though there are terrible and unconscionable genocides. But the United Nations General Assembly would without hesitation (I suspect) charge Israel with genocide in Gaza.

        If the Almighty commanded genocide in the land of Canaan, what can I say? Maybe we need to think our worldview.

        I used “forerunner” in the sense of “a sign of something that is going to happen,” not that today’s Palestinians are descendants of Israel’s ancient foe or the Canaanites as they claim.

        • IslamDownpressesHumanity

          The UN is nothing but hypocrisy, they point the finger of accusation at Israel while ignoring the ethnic cleansing of Christians going on throughout the Mid-East.

  • Damaris Tighe

    “whiney disarmament marches”: here in the UK some towns were actually declared “nuclear free zones” by their leftist councils, as if wishing would make it so!

  • Damaris Tighe

    The liberals who in most other areas are moral relativists, become moral absolutists when it comes to a just war where one of the sides is a liberal democracy. All civilian casualties wrong. No civilian casualties right. Period. As this does more harm to the western side because they’re the ones who take it seriously, it means that no liberal democracy is now allowed to defend itself.

  • chelmer

    You can’t establish context through pictures. Context is established via words and logic. People that feed on photographs and video have no method for placing what they see in any context whatsoever. They just see dead bodies and experience their emotional reaction. The written and spoken word is still a better tool for reporting on events than audio and video. The advance of the latter at the expense of the former (television over newspapers, for example) is one of the principal reasons why the world is in such trouble. Just because a report is vivid and visceral doesn’t mean that it sheds light on reality.

    • Americana

      The best journalism today is ALWAYS a blend of the visual and the written word. Journalism has been designed to be a system of duality and mutuality, WORDS depend on PHOTOGRAPHS for their final patina of reality and PHOTOGRAPHS depend on WORDS for their final interpretation. Reading about such a complex conflict to arrive at one’s perspective isn’t a one-story wonder however. That’s not the fault of journalism, which ALWAYS encourages the inquisitive mind to delve deeper into the subject by reading other stories, conducting other research, etc. Think of individual news stories on this conflict as being the beginning of a far longer written piece; a written piece that is up to you, as the interested party, to construct a longer narrative piece through your own research and insistence on knowing as much about the subject as possible.

      • Webb

        Thanks for your urine.

        • Habbgun

          I miss Americana gray. Would just say journalism is leftist. Deal with it redneck. Letting us know how lefts think in a single sentence. Instead of all that urine. Or is it puke?

          • Webb

            My comment about her u-rine was deleted. Vile old skank anyway.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Maybe she went to Gaza to personally close the holes in Hamass’ Human Shield Dome.

          • Habbgun

            Nah more likely she’s standing around telling them the right way to martyr themselves. They’ll go from suicide bombers to just plain suicides.

      • Zorg

        The rain in Spain stays mainly on the plain.

      • roadrunner

        I agree that we should delve deeper and I do. It would be, however, great journalism to have more in depth, meaningful, analysis as opposed to short sound bites, stories, and pictures. We should not just focus on Palestinians running with children in their arms. I would like to see more in depth stories as to the history of the conflict with Israel which goes back to the 1920′s. Just because journalism constantly shows me Palestinians running with injured children does not explain the conflict and the responsibility of all parties in the conflict.

        • Americana

          You’re more than welcome to write letters to those news organizations who actively operate in the Palestinian and Israeli spheres and alert them to different aspects of the story you feel should be covered. That’s a very good story idea to ask a news org to trace the roots back to the earliest stages of the conflict. (I’ll tell you right now, that’s liable to be ending up as a series of articles rather than a single article and that may narrow down the news organizations which might be interested in such a series. If you’d like me to compile a list of news orbs that might consider doing such a story, let me know.) I may be more inclined to read very wide-ranging news sources than most, but the very same news sources are available to all. Some are by subscription only, which is a shame. Others are professional sources and aren’t available to the general public. What we need to understand though is that the DAILY STORIES about the carnage are and will be forever different in content and thrust than stories such as the one you’re suggesting. That’s not WRONG or BAD JOURNALISM, that’s the reality of daily journalism vs long-term analytical journalism. They’re two entirely different animals.

      • chelmer

        Roadrunner just commented well on this. Is it true that journalism “ALWAYS encourages the inquisitive mind to delve deeper into the
        subject by reading other stories, conducting other research, etc.”? Really? It seems to me that MSM often encourage intellectual complacency. They serve up pictures pictures pictures (dead babies, sad-faced Arabs, emotionally powerful but misleading content) but they don’t connect the dots. They show poverty, but they don’t explain why certain people are poor (unwed mothers, for example, or people who don’t respect the rule of law). It’s fascinating to follow and entertaining and emotionally engaging, but pictures can leave a readership clueless, ignorant, and smugly self-confident that they “understand” what they’re seeing. But if you ask those watching an event, “who elected Hamas?” and don’t mention that Hamas was elected by Gazans based on a platform of “Death to the Jews”, it’s like showing a bombed-out Dresden without showing the population of Dresden in the days when they ecstatically supported a violent, irrational, vengeful, hateful Hitler who promised cruelty and violence.

        • Americana

          Ah, but here’s the rub. Hamas was likely voted in on the basis of Palestine **gaining statehood recognition** within the U.N. Hamas definitely wasn’t simply voted in just for saying “Death to the Jews!” Because, let’s face it, Hamas has been saying that since the group was formed and Hamas has been in and out of favor w/Palestinian voters since then. But ask Palestinians why they voted for Hamas this time around and you’ll discover that it’s because the move toward official statehood gave Palestinians hope that Hamas would find a way forward toward finalizing statehood in ALL RESPECTS, not just in the technical statehood status granted by the U.N.

          Of course, if your prejudice is that Hamas is the bloodthirsty Palestinian group intent on eliminating Israel via a national massacre then you’re going to concentrate on the fact that their charter has two significant aims in it: one is the “regaining of Muslim control of all of Palestine” and the second is the “elimination of the Zionist invaders.” So you’ll make the claim that Hamas was voted in because it’s been more aggressive w/its terrorism. But contradicting the second of those aims is that Hamas has also stated they wish to establish a state where “under the wing of Islam followers of all religions can coexist in security and safety where their lives, possessions and rights are concerned.” Since we know that the current ISIS modus operandi is to eliminate all other religions from their areas of control, there is a conflict between the aims of the two groups.
          _____________________________________________________

          Hamas charter

          Article 1 describes Hamas as an Islamic Resistance Movement with an ideological programme of Islam.[20]

          Article 2 of Hamas’ Charter defines Hamas as a “universal movement” and “one of the branches of the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine”.[16][20][21][22]

          Article 3 the Movement consists of “Muslims who have given their allegiance to Allah”.[20]

          Article 5 Demonstrates its Salafist roots and connections to the Muslim brotherhood. [20]

          Article 6 Hamas is uniquely Palestinian,[23] and “strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine, for under the wing of Islam followers of all religions can coexist in security and safety where their lives, possessions and rights are concerned.”[16][20]

          Article 7 describes Hamas as “one of the links in the chain of the struggle against the Zionist invaders” and links the movement to the followers of the religious and nationalist hero Izz ad-Din al-Qassam.[20][22]

          Article 8 The Hamas document reiterates the Muslim Brotherhood’s slogan of “Allah is its goal, the Prophet is the model, the Qur’an its constitution, jihad its path, and death for the sake of Allah its most sublime belief.”[16][20]

          Article 9 adapts Muslim Brotherhood’s vision to connect the Palestinian crisis with the Islamic solution and advocates “fighting against the false, defeating it and vanquishing it so that justice could prevail”.[20]

          Article 11 Palestine is sacred (waqf) for all Muslims for all time, and it cannot be relinquished by anyone.[20]

          Article 12 affirms that “Nationalism, from the point of view of the Islamic Resistance Movement, is part of the religious creed” .[20]

          Article 13 There is no negotiated settlement possible. Jihad is the only answer.[20]

          Article 14 The liberation of Palestine is the personal duty of every Palestinian.[20]

          Article 15 “The day that enemies usurp part of Muslim land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Muslim”. It states the history of crusades into Muslim lands and says the “Palestinian problem is a religious problem”.[20]

          Article 20 Calls for action “by the people as a single body” against “a vicious enemy which acts in a way similar to Nazism, making no differentiation between man and woman, between children and old people”.

          Article 22 Makes sweeping claims about Jewish influence and power. [20][24]

          Article 28 Conspiracy indictment against “Israel, Judaism and Jews”.[20][24]

          Article 31 Describes Hamas as “a humanistic movement”, which “takes care of human rights and is guided by Islamic tolerance when dealing with the followers of other religions”. “Under the wing of Islam”, it is possible for Islam, Christianity and Judaism “to coexist in peace and quiet with each other”.[20]

          Article 32 Hamas condemns as co-plotters the “imperialistic powers”.[24] References The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.[20][25]

          Statements about Israel
          [edit]

          The Preamble to the Charter states: ″Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it″.

    • IslamDownpressesHumanity

      You especially can’t establish context through photographs that are deliberately faked — as the paleswine have done again and again and again.

  • Amerikztan

    I can’t hear you, the rest of the world is yelling louder than you, and the people who knocked these buildings down will invade all of us soon through our southern border. Today, I signed the World Invaders Amnesty bill to protect the rest of the world from American colonialism.

    ~ Barack Obama – September 11, 2014, 9/11 anniversary

    • IslamDownpressesHumanity

      Too bad he can’t protect the world from islamic imperialism.

  • Doc

    Israel must be doing fine or Barry wouldn’t be screaming cease fire . This are his true people getting there butts kicked. May Israel be victorious in every way

  • ObamaYoMoma

    The entire existence of terrorism is eloquent evidence that treating fighters who have placed themselves outside the social contract as if they were within it is foolishly destructive.

    And this is where your analogy fails, Muslims are not terrorists, which is the province of radicals and extremists that constitutes just a minute minority of any society. Instead, they are jihadists, i.e., mujahideen (holy warriors), as waging jihad, which is a holy war waged by ALL MUSLIMS against ALL INFIDELS in the cause of Allah to ultimately make Islam and Islamic totalitarian society supreme throughout the world, is a fundamental holy obligation incumbent upon all Muslims either through violence or via non-violence.

    As a matter of fact, Muslims don’t target and murder innocent civilian infidels because they are terrorists, as this is a very false analogy. Instead, they target and murder innocent civilian infidels because they employ only “total war” tactics per the dictates of Sharia and because murdering innocent civilian infidels in cold blood is the weak underbelly of infidel society.

    Your analogy reduces the actual threat down to terrorism perpetrated by a few radicals and extremists. However, the problem is exponentially far more substantial than that, as it is a grand civilizational conflict that involves the entirety of the Islamic totalitarian world waging war against the entirety of the infidel world in the cause of Allah to ultimately make Islam and Islamic totalitarian society supreme throughout the world.

    We unilaterally extend protections to terrorists that they do not reciprocate. Terrorists are excused from the laws of war, while everyone else has to abide by them. This only incentivizes terrorism and makes fighting terrorists a grim and impossible business.

    Actually, jihadists are not terrorists. Instead, they are mujahideen (holy warriors) fighting a civilizational war (jihad) in the cause of Allah to ultimately make Islam and Islamic totalitarian society supreme throughout the world, and as such it involves the entirety of the Islamic totalitarian community as opposed to just a few radicals and extremists here and there that perpetrate terrorism.

    With no context derived from what the other side is doing all that is left is the necessity of meeting a completely impossible standard in which no civilians on the other side ever die, even while the enemy uses them as human shields.

    Your analogy fails again because waging jihad in Islamic totalitarian society is a fundamental holy obligation incumbent upon all Muslims, including women and children, and one of the primary ways in which women and children wage jihad is via serving as human shields. They are not being used as human shields against their own free will by terrorists for their own ends, but instead fulfilling their holy obligation to wage jihad to the extent that they can.

    Indeed, women and children in Islamic totalitarian society are also jihadists, i.e., combatants, as opposed to civilians, as jihad involves any and all means of fighting at their disposal. Again, you are assuming Islamic totalitarian civilization is the same as our own infidel civilization and you are very wrong. Indeed, that’s the same silly assumption GWB made when he foolishly tried and miserably failed to democratize the Islamic totalitarian world.

  • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

    Thank God someone is addressing this issue. Here’s a comment of mine that was deleted by the censors on ABCnews 2 days ago:

    No war was won by being “better than the enemy.” Wars are won only when one is willing to be as bad as the enemy. (1) During the Revolution, Washington responded to the Indian massacres at Wyoming Valley by ordering a scorched earth attack on the Iroquois nation. (2) When the Confederates killed captured black union soldiers, Lincoln order his troops to kill a captured Confederate for every black that was killed. (3) When our allies, England and France, were gassed by the Germans in World War I, they decided that they had to use chemical weapons in response.

    The original “just war” doctrine of Cicero clearly shows that the rules are (1) depended on mutual behavior between warring states (2) don’t apply to stateless actors such as pirates or terrorists (3) depend on the enemy and the prospects for peace with that enemy. I review Cicero’s seminal work here: http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/2006/12/cicero-on-just-war.html

    • http://geoffreybritain.wordpress.com/ Geoffrey_Britain

      Thank you for the information. Until I read of Cicero, I had thought that Just War Theory originated with the later St. Augustine. Now I realize that the West has abandoned Cicero’s reasoned prescriptions for Just War and exchanged it for St. Augustine’s impractical and unrealistic idealism.

      • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

        My pleasure. It comes from Cicero’s Ethical Treatise,
        De Officiis
        . It’s influence was huge. Look up the book on Wikipedia and see the “Legacy” section (I wrote part of it.) Of course, the high regard this work had ended in the early 19th century.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Even international law depends on mutualism. We just decided to pretend that everyone gets to benefit from it.

      • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

        A very important point that I didn’t mean to overlook (as with several others in your article.) But now that you mention it, the opposite is a categorical imperative.

        A categorical imperative is a moral commandment or duty independent of the actions of others. It is an “end itself” ethnically speaking. The quintessential example is pacifism. A pacifist says “no matter what you do I won’t hit you.” A conditional imperative (known by the awkward phrase “hypothetical imperative”) is dependent on agreement and mutual practice. There is reciprocity between the parties. “I won’t hit you if you don’t hit me.” As we know pacifism enables and even encourages violence, assuming there are no non-pacifists around to protect the pacifist.

        I’d argue there is such a thing as “partial pacifism.” Someone says “even if you hit me that way I won’t hit you that way.” This gives an asymmetrical advantage to those who would resort to the most vicious of practices. And insures that they will be used. People confuse a categorical imperative for a conditional imperative. This is clear when they state a utilitarian rationale for the imperative. Only if one makes it clear that it is conditional, will one encourage compliance.

        Immanuel Kant is the father of the “categorical imperative.” He introduced it in his “Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals.” Lying, for example, was absolutely forbidden no matter what. It was a categorical imperative. When a critic objected that one should lie when hiding a friend from a would-be murderer, Kant wrote “On a Supposed Right to Lie Because of Philanthropic Concerns” where he reiterated his categorical imperative to tell the predator the truth. Thus, a good dutiful Kantian would tell the Nazis that the Jews are in the attic. (To be fair to Kant he was neither a pacifist nor antisemitic.)

        Kant influence on philosophers in the last 200 years can not be over estimated. He specifically rejected Cicero’s notion that ethics has an ultimate purpose: self-preservation and a just social order. Kant’s ethics has many problems–generally not a rewarding read. But I can’t help but see his influence when an imperative is put forth categorically, i.e in a deontological manner.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          That is a very important point.

          “I’d argue there is such a thing as “partial pacifism.” Someone says “even if you hit me that way
          I won’t hit you that way.” This gives an asymmetrical advantage to
          those who would resort to the most vicious of practices. And insures
          that they will be used.”

          one might even PP as a gateway drug to the real thing, which is how it is being used to undermine warfighting

        • Yehuda Levi

          It seems to me that “partial pacifism” would be a contradiction in terms. How does one ‘partially’ hit another person?

          The categorical imperative is a duty obligation which is to be applied only if it may exist universally. “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction.”

          A “universal” moral code is still subject to some interpretation. Where does the authority come from to establish such a standard? There are also absolute value deontologists and non-absolute ones.

          Ethical codes can be very difficult to establish.

          • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

            Partial here means that some ways of fighting are ruled out categorically even if these way are employed by one’s enemy. Indeed, it may be the only means your enemy uses. Perhaps you can think of a better phrase to express that for us.

            As you know, after Arab nations lost several conventional wars against Israel they supported unconventional means exclusively. Thus, targeting civilians became the only means.

            About a decade ago during the “Second Intifada”, the journalist Thomas Friedman (if I remember correctly) was talking to an Egyptian journalist who gloated “the Arabs have found a way of fighting that your side can’t use and you’re helpless.” This was before the wall, of course.

            By the way, your other comments on Kant and the categorical imperative are right and it’s a big topic. I only refer to the idea that one unilaterally and unconditionally rules out actions that one’s enemy systematically employs in a sustained manner.

          • Yehuda Levi

            Moral philosophy is a fascinating subject, particularly if one is trying to apply it universally. Rather than targeting civilians to be “unconventional” warfare maybe it should be “immoral” warfare which is more accurate from an ethical perspective.

            Also, rather than “partial pacifism” instead, to use a term you brought up, “asymmetrical reciprocity.” It doesn’t roll off the tongue, but may be more accurate. Just a thought, nothing more serious than that.

            Thank you for your informative response and insights.

  • Gee

    It seems that the ending of wars before victory is the problem. Unless enough of the enemy is killed they simply wait, rearm, reorganize and do it again knowing that the UN will protect them from the results of their own actions.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    it’s the only part of the War on Terror that still works.

    The so-called War on Terror is a misnomer. We are at war with Islamic totalitarian society as a whole because of their ideology, which is Islam, and in which compels them to wage jihad, which is a holy war waged by ALL MUSLIMS against ALL INFIDELS in the cause of Allah to ultimately make Islam and Islamic totalitarian society supreme throughout the world. We are not at war with just radicals, extremists, fundamentalists, and Islamists that comprise only a small minority of Muslims that are terrorists.

    • http://geoffreybritain.wordpress.com/ Geoffrey_Britain

      I am in full agreement that we are at war with Islam. Islam’s tenets demand that all Muslims conduct jihad upon the infidel. There are two broad categories of Muslim. The ‘radicals’ are devout Muslims faithfully following Allah’s (Muhammad’s) commands. The ‘moderate’ Muslims are Islam’s ‘cafeteria’ Muslims, picking and choosing what Islamic precepts to follow, as the larger society within which they live allows. The more Islamic a society, the less freedom to depart from Islamic orthodoxy.

      This said, all Muslims are not devout fundamentalists. Moderate Muslims are silent and condone Islam’s violence and repression only secondarily because of the violence they would face in speaking out. Another secondary reason why ‘moderate’ Muslims do not speak out is because they know that the fundamentalists hold the theological ‘high-ground’…

      But the main reason why moderate Muslims do not speak out against the fundamentalists is because to do so requires rejecting Islam and the faith that they embrace. They literally refuse to face the fact that by remaining Muslim they are supporting a totalitarian ideology.

      • ObamaYoMoma

        There are no such things as radical Muslims and moderate Muslims, as those are both western created myths. The first and foremost prerequisite of Islam is the total, complete, and unconditional submission of all Muslims to the ‘will of Allah’ under the penalties of death for apostasy and death for blasphemy. Hence, there are no populations of Muslims picking and choosing what Islamic precepts to follow, as that is blasphemous and blasphemy in Islamic totalitarian society is a capital offense.

        You see Islam is far more an extremely draconian form of totalitarianism that seeks to dominate the world than it is a so-called religion. Thus, all Muslim are jihadists in one form or another, either violent or non-violent, because they don’t have any other choice in the matter. It’s either wage jihad or die.

        Moreover, the western definition of a moderate Muslim in Islam is the definition of a blasphemous apostate that must be executed. In Islam there are no moderates since everyone is either a Muslim or an ex-Muslim apostate, i.e., an infidel that must be executed. Indeed, if Islam is going to wage jihad against all infidels for world supremacy, then it can’t at the same time tolerate infidels within its own midst. That would be ludicrous.

        • IslamDownpressesHumanity

          I might have asked you this already, but could it be possible that “moderate” mohammedans are just using different tactics to achieve the same ends as their more violent brethren?

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Then why would you deem them moderates? There are violent jihadists and non-violent jihadists and non-violent jihad is astronomically far more prevalent relative to violent jihad and also represents an exponentially far greater threat for the infidel world at large as well.

        • http://geoffreybritain.wordpress.com/ Geoffrey_Britain

          Your position is factually untrue and defies logic and experience. France has 6.9 million Muslims. Thousands just demonstrated in the streets. The contrast between a small number of participants and the infinitely greater number who did not choose to participate cannot be ignored by an objective observer.

          It’s true that there is no ‘moderate’ or ‘radical’ Islam. But a majority of Muslims are NOT fundamentalists, no more than any other major ‘religion’ consists solely of fundamentalists. And while I agree that Islam is a false religion and actually a totalitarian ideology wrapped within the facade of a religion, for the great majority of Muslims it is their religion indeed.

          All Muslims are NOT jihadists because the majority don’t practice jihad and never will. By remaining Muslim they do condone jihad and many will covertly support jihad, making them culpable in jihad but that does not support the view that ALL Muslims are jihadists.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Your position is factually untrue and defies logic and experience. France has 6.9 million Muslims. Thousands demonstrated in the streets. The contrast between a small number of participants and the infinitely greater number who did not choose to participate cannot be ignored by an objective observer.

            You said my position wasn’t true, defied logic, and went against experience. Your contention is that because only thousands of Muslims in France protested in the streets, I guess against Israel and Jews since you didn’t say, as opposed to the nearly 7 million Muslim immigrants living in France, that that is proof that a few Muslims are fundamentalists while the overwhelming majority of them are moderates. You also said that my contention defies all logic and goes against past experience.

            Well, I hate to rain on your parade, but you’re wrong again, as mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage to the infidel world is really non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad for the nefarious purposes of mass Muslim infiltration of our societies and for eventual demographic conquest, and the proof is you or anyone else, for that matter, can’t point to a single group of Muslim immigrants anywhere in the infidel world out of all those millions that have actually assimilated and integrated into infidel society. Of course, for Muslim immigrants to assimilate and integrate into infidel societies, they would be required to morph into infidels, and morphing into infidels for Muslims is a capital offense.

            Thus, Muslim immigrants form Muslim enclaves first that in time morph into Muslim no-go zones ruled by Sharia and that in effect are tiny Islamic statelets existing within the host infidel states. Their long term strategic goals are mass Muslim infiltration of our infidel societies and eventual demographic conquest. As a matter of fact, unless something very drastic happens in the near term, several Euroloon countries in Europe will inevitably become Muslim majority countries in the second half of this century.

            Thus, these millions of Muslim immigrants are in reality actually jihadists waging jihad non-violently and via stealth and deception. Why? Because if they all of a sudden elected to wage jihad violently as opposed to non-violently and as is currently occurring in Israel today, it would inevitably backfire on them. Indeed, they would quickly be ousted from the infidel world and their global jihad via stealth and deception would quickly go down the drain.

            Hence, the reason only a few thousand Muslim immigrants as opposed to the nearly 7 million Muslim immigrants currently living in France protested is because of the same reason. While a few thousand Muslims will certainly raise a few eye brows, a much larger protest involving the entire polity of Muslims in France would be far more alarming and could actually backfire on them. Indeed, had the entire Muslim polity protested in France as opposed to a few thousand it would have defied all logic and gone against past experience? Muslims are a lot of things, but being stupid isn’t one of them.

            It’s true that there is no ‘moderate’ or ‘radical’ Islam. But a majority of Muslims are NOT fundamentalists, no more than any other major ‘religion’ consists solely of fundamentalists.

            You must be a Euroloon, as you think and act like a Euroloon. In any event, I wasn’t talking about moderate and radical Islam. Instead, I was talking about mainstream orthodox Muslims, which are the only kind. Your problem is you are morally equating adherents of Islam with adherents of actual faith-based religions, when the reality is Islam is not even religion to begin with but instead a very draconian form of totalitarianism.

            Of course, it is a religion for Muslims, but for people with logical minds like me, for instance, any so-called religion that executes all apostates and all blasphemers isn’t a religion at all, but a cult instead, and it certainly isn’t a religion in the same vein as actual faith-based religions. Indeed, what faith-based religions strictly control the freedom of conscience via the penalties of death for apostasy and death for blasphemy the same way only Islam does? The answer obviously is none of them.

            Again, the first and foremost requirement of Islam is the total, complete and unconditional submission to the “will of Allah” under the penalties of death for apostasy and death for blasphemy. Do you know what death for apostasy and death for blasphemy means? Indeed, if a Muslim subsequently decides that he or she doesn’t want to be a Muslim anymore, that Muslim is summarily executed per the dictates of Islam for apostasy. Furthermore, if a Muslim subsequently decides that he or she doesn’t want to wage jihad per his or her fundamental holy obligation to wage jihad in one form or another, that Muslim is also summarily executed per the dictates of Islam for blasphemy.

            Not to mention that the “will of Allah” that all Muslims totally, completely, and unconditionally submit to under the penalty of death for apostasy and death for blasphemy is Sharia, which is Islamic totalitarian law.

            As a matter of fact, more than anything else, Islam is an extremely draconian form of totalitarianism that seeks to make itself supreme, as opposed to being just a so-called religion, and just like all non-conformers in the old Communist Soviet Union were sent to the Soviet gulags, all non-conformers in Islamic totalitarian society are summarily executed per the dictates of Islam for apostasy, blasphemy, or both.

            Hence, your contention that most Muslims pick and choose which tenets they adhere to if any is ridiculous and utterly absurd. Indeed, why would a draconian totalitarian ideology like Islam that intends to subjugate all infidels and all religions into Islamic totalitarianism, i.e., harsh and degrading dhimmitude, via violent and non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad and the eventual imposition of Sharia, which is Islamic totalitarian law, to ultimately make Islam and Islamic totalitarian society supreme throughout the world tolerate infidels within its own society? It wouldn’t because, again, that would be ludicrous.

            Islam is not a religion. So stop morally equating it and its adherents with true faith-based religions and their adherents. No actual religions strictly control the freedom of conscience while also executing all apostates and all blasphemers. Islam is totally alone in that regard.

            All Muslims are NOT jihadists because the majority don’t practice jihad and never will.

            Very apparently, you obviously don’t understand what jihad is. Indeed, you think it is terrorism, because you have been misled and inculcated to believe it is terrorism. However, Muslims are not terrorists. They don’t specifically target and murder innocent civilian infidels because they are terrorists. They do it instead because they only practice “total warfare” per the dictates of Sharia and because murdering innocent civilian infidels in cold-blood is the weak underbelly of infidel society.

            Indeed, waging jihad, which is a holy war waged by ALL MUSLIMS against ALL INFIDELS in the cause of Allah to ultimately make Islam and Islamic totalitarian society supreme throughout the world, is a fundamental holy obligation incumbent upon all mainstream orthodox Muslims in the world in one form or another, either via violence or through non-violence. Otherwise, they are summarily executed per the dictates of Islam for either apostasy, blasphemy, or both.

            As a matter of fact, the prevalence of non-violent forms of jihad, such as mass Muslim immigration to the infidel world with all of its excess baggage, that is really non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad for the strategic purposes of mass Muslim infiltration of our societies and for eventual demographic conquest, for instance, are astronomically far more prevalent relative to violent forms of jihad and also represents an exponentially far greater threat for the infidel world at large relative to violent jihad. Indeed, Islam’s non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad is roughly equivalent to the old Cold War waged between the free world led by the USA and the Communist totalitarian world led by the old Communist Soviet Union and its many Soviet Satellites.

            Unfortunately, most infidels are just like you in that they have been misled and inculcated to believe that terrorism, which is the province of only a small number of radicals and extremists, constitutes the extent of the problem. However, that notion is entirely incorrect, as the entire Islamic totalitarian world is waging jihad (holy war) both violently and non-violently and via any and all means at their disposal against the entirety of the infidel world to ultimately make Islam and Islamic totalitarian society supreme throughout the world. Hence, we are talking about a clash of civilizations between the Islamic totalitarian world, on the one hand, and the infidel world, on the other, as opposed to just a problem involving a few radical and extremist Muslims here and there perpetrating terrorism.

            Indeed, whether infidels realize it or not, all infidels are in the same exact boat as Israel, as they are also on Islam’s target list.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Now this isn’t to say that there are no Muslims in name only as there were Nazis in name only, because obviously there are. But because they can’t speak out publicly without being killed, these Muslims in name only, for all intents and purposes, are irrelevant.

      • IslamDownpressesHumanity

        As Brigitte Gabriel has pointed out, why haven’t “moderate” muslims renounced all the intolerant, Jew hating, totalitarian aspects of islam in the various western style democracies in which they now reside?

        • http://geoffreybritain.wordpress.com/ Geoffrey_Britain

          For the reasons mentioned above.

          • IslamDownpressesHumanity

            I’m sorry, but that lie doesn’t fly. Are you telling me all your
            “moderate” muslimes in whatever western democracy they reside in are all too afraid to speak out?

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        It’s also DANGEROUS to challenge Islamists. Islamists have justification to slaughter opponents in the Koran.

        Fight Islamofascism NOW while it is still weak.

        An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

  • Habbgun

    The Arabs always use proportionality as a weapon. They are very good propagandists. When they invoke their racism that all Arabs should stand together with the Jews it is not considered disproportionate force. When multiple countries, multiple terrorist groups, multiple sources of funding including communist and fascist tyrannies all contribute money, etc. it is not disproportionate.

    When Israel is in a position militarily to deal with one aspect of the forces arrayed against it (meaning the Pali terrorists) it is considered disproportionate. That is despite the fact they are in that position by miraculously fighting against disproportionate forces.

    This is inherently immoral!!!!

    We have seen the doctrine of disproportionality be spread to Christians and stranger still Moslems. Christians in the ME every day face disproportional aggression. Moslems in Egypt overthrew the Muslim Brotherhood which sought to have disproportionate control of their lives.

    Disproportionality is the methods by which our enemies both Islamist and socialist seek to destroy us. Yet we let THEM say when proportion is an issue.

    • http://geoffreybritain.wordpress.com/ Geoffrey_Britain

      It’s not that we “let them say” when proportionality is an issue. It’s that they control the MSM and therefore can ‘shout’ the loudest.

      • Habbgun

        I disagree. We let them off the hook time and again. When the Berlin Wall fell there were plenty of leftist professors in academia that were at the time writing that the Soviet Union was a workers paradise. At that point it wasn’t even ideological. They had to go because they didn’t have a clue about what they were supposed to be experts at. Instead we let them have tenure.

        Conservatives always let socialists operate below the radar until it is too late. Time to start squashing the small bugs and we’ll be able to then get to the big bugs. The same goes for the insects in the Democratic urban machines. So many get out of going to jail through maneuvers etc. but we pay that no mind. Think globally convict locally.

        • http://geoffreybritain.wordpress.com/ Geoffrey_Britain

          US colleges and universities had already become majority leftist in the 60′s. By the time the Berlin Wall fell leftist academia’s conquest of higher education was essentially complete. Conservatives had no chance whatsoever to prevent tenure from being granted through leftist litmus tests.

          Please explain exactly how conservatives legally “start squashing the small bugs” much less “the Democratic urban machines”. Exactly how do we legally throw them in jail? How do we legally convict “locally”?

          Or is legality an inconvenient obstacle you’d rather ignore?

          • Habbgun

            I gave you an example. We know that they write propaganda when they pose as true academics. If they write false papers they should be disposed of the same way you would dispose of a chemistry professor who couldn’t handle chemistry. Remember academia is supposed to live up to an objective standard. Very hard to believe that is being done. My personal belief is to remove required courses as an illegal monopolistic tie-in and just have major only curricula. That would get rid of the hangers on.

            As for the Democratic urban machines maybe you aren’t very familiar with them. I am in NYC and I certainly am. New York State is so bad it has a law that says just because you are convicted of a crime while in office you don’t lose your pension. Why? Because criminality is built into the system.

            Local Democratic party clubs are notorious for who goes to jail. Its like steroid deaths in wrestling. You have to believe it is part of the system. Rather than look away from illegal behavior it must be clear that the clubs are over and done with. Yes it would be legal. They are that criminal. Maybe you have heard the idea of using RICO on Democrats? There is a reason they aren’t kidding.

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          Eliminate Tenure for professors.

          They should NOT be a protected class – exempt from Review and Market forces.

  • Wolfthatknowsall

    War is never good. War is sometimes necessary. When necessary, war should be waged so as to defeat a nation’s enemy entirely.

    Much has been said of the loss of civilian lives, on the side of Hamas. It is my opinion that defeating Hamas entirely will, in the long run, save many more civilian lives than are lost in the regularly-spaced “little wars”.

    Would more lives have been saved or lost, had the Allies offered Germany, Italy, and Japan regular “ceasefires”?

    Hamas must be defeated, in its entirety. When they are, many civilians who are alive, or not yet born, will have the chance to live normal, productive lives (whatever those are in Muslim countries) …

  • http://geoffreybritain.wordpress.com/ Geoffrey_Britain

    It is the Left that promotes unrealistic proportionality in war. Cloward-Piven; insist that your opponent meet an impossible standard taken to an extreme.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      exactly

    • William

      Most people on the Left have never heard of Cloward or Piven. Those who have consider the idea to be crackpot.
      That’s just more nonsense spewed by Glenn Beck and other whackdoos.

      • CosmotKat

        Either you are saying most people on the left are just angry and ignorant leftists or you lie which is exactly what C-P is about….lies and deceit.

        • William

          what does it have to do with today? C-P was a crackpot idea dismissed in the last century. am guessing you listen to Glenn Beck a lot.

          • Habbgun

            Yeah….sayest the at least third generation Marxist. You

          • William

            My grandfather was a Marxist, the only Marxist that ever was part of my family.

          • Habbgun

            You’re a hardcore leftist. Don’t quibble.

          • William

            Nope. Social Democrat. Marxists are seen as a joke these days. Marxism fell out of fashion in America by 1945.

          • Habbgun

            Fell out of fashion meaning the rubes caught on. You’re still selling the same garbage. You even look like you have that leftist smell. I live in NYC so I do know how leftists smell like. Nasty.

          • William

            It means that people eventually realized how Communism was simply impossible to achieve, in the real world.

          • Habbgun

            Nah, you’ll push it you can. Communism doesn’t fail in the real world. Socialism does whether internationalist or nationalist (ie fascism).

          • William

            Socialism is the road to Communism. Ask a Russian how it worked out for them.

          • Habbgun

            What do you mean by that? Are you telling me a dissident
            wouldn’t see your ideology as pro-socialist. You can find them online.
            They’ll tear your little mind it two. They’ve lived it. You only got
            petted on the head by grandpa.

          • William

            I’ve never advocated socialism in my life. For one thing, more than a dozen of my relatives were killed by Stalin.

          • Habbgun

            Hard core communists that got purged? So they’re slow learners. So are you.

          • William

            No, they were liberal Christian property owners who refused to comply with the collectivization of the farms. So Stalin’s thugs shot them.

          • reader

            It’s really sad that the victims of Stalin couldn’t educate you any better than a two-bit soviet school somewhere in a village of central Russia could. What a waste.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            USSR case in point.

          • Habbgun

            Yeah but you can be sure his family preferred we see things from the “soviet perspective”…same crap, different day.

          • William

            North Korea case in present.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            North Korea is another Socialist family dictatorship the Castro family dictatorship of Cuba.

          • IslamDownpressesHumanity

            “Communism was simply impossible to acheive..” You’re still blinkered by conventional morality and your narrow vision. An ever expanding genocide of unbelievers makes either a worldwide islamic caliphate or Communist state possible.

          • CosmotKat

            Social democrat is neo-communist.

          • William

            Nope, it’s social democrat.

          • Habbgun

            Austrian school called it all destructionism because it all means forced movement of capital from one unwilling sector to another by force. Sorry they’ve been on to you guys for decades.

          • William

            Hasn’t that been the case since 1912?
            By your definition, GW Bush was a social democrat.

          • Habbgun

            Yes and it failed didn’t it. We should have had vouchers for education etc.

            And yes it has been the case since 1912. You don’t know your socialism very well do you. There have been plenty of socialist disasters since. Sorry what grandpa told you is crap. So is the garbage you bucket crappers pass around as intellectualism.

          • William

            My grandfather had pretty much renounced Marxism by the time I knew him. He was an anti-government radical in his youth.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Socialism and Communism and mental illness are in your DNA.

            Nice to know.

          • Habbgun

            Yeah…but you all stayed believers….whats a few million deaths mean? You just changed tactics….. Ask a real dissident what people like you were. They would say without equivocation you are collaborators and fellow travels. I know. I’ve met them.

          • William

            No, the ideas were rejected by the end of the first half of the last century. There used to be millions of Communists in America, now there’s fewer than 2,000 card-carrying members of the Communist Party. Most Communists are college commie club kids who soon grow out of it.

          • Habbgun

            Yeah….they turn to the greens or the socalled libertarians. They are just turning from international socialism to national socialism. So from commie to fascist. What I nice turn of mind.

          • William

            Equating libertarians and social democrats with the Nazis is pretty dumb. Seriously dude.

          • Habbgun

            No that dodge doesn’t fly. Nazism was simply National Socialism with anti-semitism and Euro suprermacism thrown in. It fitted quite nicely with Islamosupremacism in the middle east. Just because the Nazis are an extreme form of your belief system doesn’t mean they aren’t a form of your belief system. Years and years of socialism primed Germany for Nazism. Years and years of socialist rhetoric has made you an Islamo apologist. See how this works.

          • William

            Let me try to explain this in another way,
            Social democrats and Libertarians are liberals. Pro-liberty.
            The Nazis were authoritarian fascists.

          • Habbgun

            The Nazis were socialists. Read Road to Serfdom. A complete historical account of how ideologically and historically Nazism grew out of Socialist practice. It was written before the Nazis came to complete power.

            You haven’t read jack about socialism till you read the Austrian school. Funny how leftists always say you need to read the other side and always somehow repress the very best anti-leftist writings.

          • William

            I’ve read countless books written about the Nazis. Yes, they agreed to a non-aggression pact with socialist Russia at one point, but in the minds of the Nazis all socialists were working with the Jews and all Jews were socialists.

          • Habbgun

            Douche……Douche….I gave you a book to read that explains all this in detail. You are running away from it. Typical. Typical. Typical. Closed minded leftist.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Na zis did call themselves National SOCIALISTS and did have a non-aggression pact with fellow SOCIALIST Stalin in 1939.

          • William

            And later killed millions of socialists.

          • Habbgun

            Infighting….that happens….. its like when Occupiers fight over the heroin…..bleep happens.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            WW2 was a Socialist War that spread across the planet.

          • reader

            Lenin and Stalin combined killed more socialists than anyone else on the planet. That does not make them capitalists.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Communism and Socialism has too much negative baggage, so it had to rebrand itself.

            “Progressive”.

            Like siding with Fascist Iran, Imperialist Russia, Socialist Venezuela are hallmarks of a “progressive” ideolgy.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Socialist Democrat? BHO and his administration.

          • William

            Obama is more of a neo-conservative, in his foreign policy and wars. Social democrats make up the protest movements that attack him.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Sure. Next to Stalin, Lenin, Marx, Pol Pot, Mao, Socialist SHlTler, Obama is a “neo-conservative”.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            What’s more conservative than a sheik/imam/ayatollah?

            Dress codes for women, executing gay teens, stoning women to death over “family honor”, no education for girls.

          • IslamDownpressesHumanity

            The “conservative” label being applied to islamic-fascists is what the left does. As if people like Pat Robertson or Huckabee are cut from the same cloth as inane imams, asinine ayatollahs and mad mullahs.

          • CosmotKat

            social democrats are socialists which is just a subset of Marxism. Social democrats are defined in the U.S. as progressives and we all know progressives are nothing more than neo-communists. Try again, rube.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Socialist Democrat?

            LOL!

            Like an “anti-war” militarist fascist.

          • William

            No, SOCIAL democrat.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            SOCIALIST democrat.

            Like National SOCIALIST and Soviet SOCIALIST.

          • William

            There are no socialist Democrats.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Obama – SOCIALIST Democrat.

          • William

            If Obama were a socialist the wouldn’t have pushed for the Republican individual mandate health reform idea.

          • CosmotKat

            I would say your ideology is along the lines of neo-communist.

          • William

            You don’t even know what Communism is.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            No Leftard seems to know what Communism is.

          • William

            Of course we do.. we read stuff.

          • Habbgun

            Yeah Mother Jones mag. Great stuff!!!

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Read books like Das Kapital, Maos little red book, Socialist SHlTler Mein Kampf.

          • William

            I read Mein Kampf for a paper I wrote. Never had a reason to read the Communist manifesto or the Little Red Book, nor do I care to if it’s anything like Engels other writings.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Socialist SHlTler struck a cord with you.

          • reader

            You haven’t even read Marx’s Manifesto. Chances of you reading somebody like John Locke are about as high as those of you getting the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Keep reading your comics books.

          • Habbgun

            Apparently not Road to Serfdom. You won’t ever read it. What a joke….

          • William

            I am familiar with Hayek, von Mises etc, i just haven’t read his books. I’d probably agree with him more than not. I am a liberal on economic matters.

          • Habbgun

            Yeah….convenient….he tears apart the Nazis weren’t socialists idea. More importantly he tears apart the idea they were capitalist or the outgrowth of capitalism. Yeah just pick and choose and call it intellectual. Douche.

          • William

            I never claimed Hitler was a pure capitalist. He improved Germany’s ‘socialized’ health care system, which led to euthanasia without consent and eventually to genocide. He was a fascist.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Na zis called themselves National SOCIALISTS.

            Socialist SHlTler and Socialist Stalin went as far as to have a Non-Aggression pact between them.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Have you read the Hamass Charte rof 1988 – the same year that Pan Am 103 was bombed?

            http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp

          • Habbgun

            Best answer all day.

          • CosmotKat

            You really are stupid. Do you think obfuscation and lies deter those who know who and what you represent? Progressivism=neo-communism.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Socialist and Communist have too much negative baggage.

            Hence the rebranding to “Progressive”.

            And what’s more “Progressive” than siding with people who stone women to death over “family honor”?

          • CosmotKat

            Yes, progressives find the Islamic jihadi’s kindred spirits. They share a hate for the west.

          • Drakken

            Your living proof of it and it always without exception leads to a stack of dead bodies.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Better a neo-con than a neo-commie.

          • CosmotKat

            I never listen to Glen Beck, but I am well informed. Your denial is further proof that validates the tenet’s of the left. Deny…deny…deflect…….obfuscate. Once a community, always a community organizer and he is well versed on Cloward-Piven and your denials are amusing.

          • William

            You’ve been well propagandized.
            Show one piece of REAL evidence that Obama has even mentioned Cloward-Piven.

            Of course, you cannot.

          • CosmotKat

            I am impervious to your lies. I’ve done my research and neo-communists are masters of obfuscation and they do not announce that which they elect to do by deceit in a most stealthy manner.

        • Habbgun

          In his own comments he says his grandfather was a communist party member so this is a family that can watch mass death like a spectator sport.

          He himself is a bucket crapper though somehow he insists Occupier is the correct term and something we should all respect.

      • reader

        “Most people on the Left have never heard of Cloward or Piven”

        Good point. Most people on the left are just like you are – mere Pavlovian dogs enthusiastically following one-line slogans. Lenin had figured it out a hundred years ago.

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          They’re called Useful Idiots.

          And todays Left is full of ‘em.

          See the “Hands Off Iran” leftards who inexplicably ignore Fascist Irans hanging of gay teens and dress codes for women and men.

          • William

            Today’s useful idiots are Tea Party Republicans. Most of them don’t even know what position Michele Bachman holds in the Republican Tea Party or who the Koch Brothers are. They are useful idiots for the party and corporations that support it.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Today’s Useful Idiots, are Regressive “Progressives” who never found a Fascist they won’t embrace.

            “Hands Off Iran”. “Heads Off Iran”.

            Hamass, “We are All Hezbullah”.

            KGB Putins annexation of Crimea and involvement in the shot dwon of MH17.

          • William

            Confused much bro?

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Confused? Ex;plain what is “Progressive” about siding with Fascist Iran, Hezbullah, Hamass, Taliban, Fascist Syria.

          • William

            Progressives oppose Islamic theocracy. And not just because they want us dead or in prison.

          • reader
          • William

            ..brought to you by noted whackadoo conspiracy theorist David Horowitz.

          • reader

            Try to address facts on substance. The days of yelling you’re stuuuupid to another child on the playground are over, dude.

          • William

            Horowitz is notorious for making up wild conspiracy theories. He’s been doing this for decades.

          • reader

            Ad hominem is not an argument, dude.

          • Americana

            If that were true, why would you lot constantly bring up someone’s nether regions? You all specialize in personal insults as your first and, basically only, line of defense.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            What’s “Progressive” about siding with Islamofascists and Fascists like Iran and Syria or KGB Putin?

          • Habbgun

            That’s funny. The byline says Daniel Greenstein. Sure you can read?

          • William

            Look who’s behind that site

          • Habbgun

            Let me guess. You went to a psychic and she told that you were a moron in a past life.

            I don’t come here to read David Horowitz. I started reading DG’s blog and came here next. If you have to engage in personal attacks at least reading the bleeping byline. Schmuck.

          • Webb

            Before coming to FPM, I thought the really dumb people kept to themselves, but no, they come here to troll. They’re frustrated amateur political scientists who waste the day away trying to refute what DG and other FPM authors write. Hernio, Americana, William here, they raise abject stupidity to an art form. They’re nothing but punching bags who cry when they’re hit. It’s addictive to hit them because they’re defenseless. They’re powered by championing the cause of an underdog they’ve created in their little minds — an underdog who would rape them and behead them the slow way, and they don’t even know. If only the lot of them could watch what their underdogs would do to any one of them, that would be the last anyone would ever hear of the rest of them. All of this would not make sense without the understanding that they seek to be martyred by the underdogs they champion, only they don’t quite have the guts to walk into Gaza, or the IS, or Libya, proclaiming that they are there to help because they understand the plight of the underdogs and have refuted DG in writing on FPM. Can you see William handing Nasrallah a printout of his FPM comments in order to prove his bona fides? William as head of a delegation consisting of Hernio, Americana, and others of their stripe. And then the look on his face when they start sawing his head off? Anyway, good job of bitch slapping William all the way down the pages.

          • Americana

            Talk about amateur political scientists, some of you are amateur political Scientologists and that’s the way you like it. If FPM writers can refute what opposing writers produce for FPM comments, more power to them. When they fail to engage or, worse, they engage w/ludicrous comparison then they definitely fail to deliver the strong rebuttals they’re attempting to sell to the public. When they do this, it’s obvious they’re at a loss for a substantive rebuttal.

            I’m well aware of what fundamentalist Islam is willing to do to me under sharia law, but that doesn’t change the fact that the Palestinian jihad is a separate jihad from all the other jihads. The Palestinian jihad **might be considered** part of the ISIS jihad but if the Palestinian leadership appreciated the ISIS stance on Palestine, I think we would have heard the cheering by now for the ISIS advancing on Iraqi territory.

          • IslamDownpressesHumanity

            GreenFIELD.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            “We Are All Hezbullah” – NOT very Progressive.

            http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4399/1929/1600/hezbmarch.jpg

          • Drakken

            Oh look! A target rich environment!

          • Habbgun

            Yeah but the people who fight it you call war criminals. Strange that. The issue with Obama is that he actually sides with the Muslim Brotherhood an actual terrorist organization hated by the country it started in. Defeat Islamosupremacism you defeat so called Islamophobia but that doesn’t sit with the needs of the left so out it goes.

          • IslamDownpressesHumanity

            Has it been proven that Russia had anything to do w/the destruction of the MH17? Because all I’ve heard is accusations from the enemedia and the US federal government, sources I trust about as much as Iran’s Press TV.

          • reader

            Dude, you’re spewing huff-po talking points and the most primitive cliches, having admitted to be ignorant of the most basic materials. Granted, you must have a very thick skin to be immune to embarrassment of having such a thick skull.

          • Habbgun

            He’s starting to break into OccupySpeak. What a douche.

          • Drakken

            So says the guy that takes money hand over fist and three times as much from a Soro’s organization. Hypocrisy thy name is Bill. You lefty scrunts really don’t know what is coming do you? And you won’t, right up until the day comes where someone kicks the stool out from under you.

          • Erudite Mavin

            You need to find a better defense.
            first, the tea party has a large per cent of libertarians who are more close with the left on many social issues and national security than the Republicans.
            Also, Koch Bros, are for amnesty and gay marriage to start with.
            Te above sound like your people

      • http://geoffreybritain.wordpress.com/ Geoffrey_Britain

        You are either an abysmally ignorant kool-aid drinking ivory tower liberal or you are a liar. BOTH Obama and Hillary Clinton are Saul Alinsky disciples and Cloward-Piven is an intrinsic part of Alinskyites methodologies.

        • William

          Actually, Hillary is a conservative. She supported Obamacare. She supports the death penalty. She supports the was on terror and prohibition. When she was a Senator she tried to ban flag burning as a form of protest.

          Saul Alinsky was fighting people like her. He wrote up a set of rules for radicals to defeat them.

          • reader

            “Actually, Hillary is a conservative. She supported Obamacare.”

            Wow, what a germ. So, Obamacare is a conservative program? Case closed. Try not to OD whatever you’re on, dude.

          • William

            Obamacare was sold as ‘free market/consumer-based’ reform.

          • reader

            And do you really believe that? Boy, I’m afraid to ask what your IQ is – or was long time ago before you had started sniffing stuff.

          • William

            Well, that’s how Republicans were selling it. Even Obama called it ‘market based reform’.,

          • reader

            Republicans were selling Obamacare? Who exactly? Is Obama Republican?

          • William

            Hatch, Gingrich, Grassley, Romney and others supported the individual mandate idea long before Obama agreed to it. Grassley and Romney urged Obama to consider it in 2009.

          • reader

            First of all, every single one Republican voted against it. I have no idea what you mean by “individual mandate” support in every case mentioned. Show me.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Deer in the Headlights Nancy Pelosi saying…

            “we have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it”.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QV7dDSgbaQ0

            Bass Ackwards Pelosi.

          • http://geoffreybritain.wordpress.com/ Geoffrey_Britain

            Hillary is a conservative? Right. You are either delusional or a liar. ObamaCare is the prelude to single payer gov. run healthcare and the nationalization of healthcare. That is NOT by any measure, a conservative position. Her support of the death penalty is insincere. At the first political advantage she will ‘evolve’ out of that support just as Obama did with same-sex marriage. She has done all she can to hinder the war on terror.

            Hillary Clinton’s 1969 Thesis on Saul Alinsky
            “An Analysis of the Alinsky Model
            A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Bachelor of Arts degree under the Special Honors Program, Wellesley College, Wellesley, Massachusetts.
            Hillary D. Rodham – Political Science – 2 May, 1969″

            ” If you had asked me then what my profession was, I would have told you I was a professional antifascist.”

            “What does the Radical want? He wants a world in which the worth of the individual is recognized…a world
            based on the morality of mankind…The Radical believes that all peoples should have a high standard of food, housing, and health…The Radical places human rights far above property rights. He is for universal, free public education and recognizes this as fundamental to the democratic way of life…Democracy to him is working from the bottom up…The Radical
            believes completely in real equality of opportunity for all peoples regardless of race, color, or creed.”

            “The essential difference between Alinsky and his enemies is that Alinsky really believes in democracy; he
            really believes that the helpless, the poor, the badly-educated can solve their own problems if given the chance and the means; he really believes that the poor and uneducated, no less that the rich and educated, have the right to decide how their lives should be run and what services should be offered to them instead of being ministered to like children.”

            http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/04/hillary-clintons-1969-thesis-on-saul.html

            Those are NOT the words of an opponent. They are the words of an advocate and supporter.

            Please stop lying both to yourself and others. Any position that rests upon deceit rather than its own merits is a position that supports evil.

          • William

            Go on believing that Hillary is a radical who wants to fundamentally transform America. It’s only going to help her. That same type of thinking got Obama elected in 2008.

          • SCR EW SOCIALISM

            This November will be a referendum on Obamas policies.

            I expect Republicans to trounce any Democrat who embraces Obama.

          • William

            Republicans aren’t going to bring change either.. sorry.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            If Republicans won’t bring change then you wouldn’t care whether a democrat or a republican is elected

            You just set off my BS alarm.

          • William

            I really don’t care. I vote Green Party. Sometimes I wish the Tea Party would take over and try to institute a theocracy. Then maybe people would rise up and fight back.

          • truebearing

            But the Tea Party isn’t interested in a theocracy, and neither were the Christians who founded this nation. Despite the overwhelming majority being Christian, they assiduously avoided creating a nation that would become a theocracy. If you understood anything about this nation’s origins, you would know that.

          • IslamDownpressesHumanity

            Yeah, it’s the tea party that’s the problem, not the democraptic party that trenchantly opposes voter ID and supports the use of the IRS to persecute US citizens opposed to the zero’s will. BTW, doesn’t the zero’s statement that “there must be no future for those who slander the prophet of islam” remind you of the various islamic states of the world that go out of their way to make sure the zero’s statement is a reality?

          • http://geoffreybritain.wordpress.com/ Geoffrey_Britain

            It’s not a case of belief but of fact. Your refusal to accept facts changes them not a bit.

            “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” John Adams

            As for Hillary’s possible election in 2016, “Elections
            belong to the people. It’s their decision. If they decide to turn their back on the fire and burn their behinds, then they will just have to sit on their blisters.”
            Abraham
            Lincoln

          • American Patriot

            Do you support abortion, fool?

  • CosmotKat

    “With each war, from Korea to Vietnam to the War on Terror, the United States became more hesitant to finish it quickly with the use of overwhelming force leading instead to prolonged and bloodier conflicts.”
    Therein lies the real point here……………..unfinished wars that cater to limiting civilian casualties means we are caught in a never ending circle of war. War should never be waged carelessly, but when waged you need to crush your foe and obtain surrender.

  • William

    What amazes me is that Obama gets away with killing Americans with drones, simply because they were Muslim. He blew up an American child too. If the government were sane, Obama would be in prison.

    • Habbgun

      Yeah….the left wing white trash speaks…all hail the left wing white trash!!!

      • William

        Let’s just say there’s a special place in HeII for people who blow up innocent Muslim children.

        • Habbgun

          Yeah…there is a special place for Marxists who kill millions and pretend that their love is for Islamists. The only reason you socialists love Islam is that they specifically signed on with Germans being the master race. Scratch a socialist and find a Eurosupremacist.

          • William

            I am a social democrat, not a socialist. My party is the Greens. I doubt you even know what socialism is., Anyways I am talking about Obama.

          • Habbgun

            Same crap different day. Same family line. Same scam. Please save this for the rubes bucket crapper.

          • William

            My family didn’t agree with my Grandfather’s political beliefs. My grandmother also thought it was foolish. But, he was a smart and well intentioned man so people tolerated it. The only thing that turned him away from Marxism was seeing how many people Stalin was killing, which was something my grandmother made sure he was aware of.

          • Habbgun

            Let’s get out the violins. The people who were anti-communists were right then. The anti-leftists are right now. Of course it only Marxism had been done right you’ll say…but you’re not a leftist.

          • William

            Two words: Joseph McCarthy.

          • Habbgun

            Yup….as things go I am getting very pro McCarthy. After all the people he attacked suffered very mildly compared to what religious dissidents suffered in Communist countries and still do. They suffer far less than Christians in Moslem dominated countries. If by applying a dose of McCarthyism to America we can be stronger against the very real threats we face I’ll take it.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Two words. Joseph Stalin.

        • Drakken

          There are no innocent Islamic children.

          • Webb

            Isn’t that the truth.

        • IslamDownpressesHumanity

          What about for people who kill Jewish children mullah boy?
          Say in France, or the W. Bank?

  • mightymark

    One of the best things I’ve read so far on this war – and good to see the words that have been on my mind for weeks “incentivises terrorim” – because very few of Israel’s critics seem to worry that that is exactly what their actions and voices do.

  • emptorpreempted

    “The rules of war are set by mutual consent.”

    Yes. I’d also emphasize the importance of precedent. If things had long been done in one way, then there is a strong presumption that that’s how they ought to be done, or at least that there’s nothing wrong with doing them that way. The West’s criticism of Israel’s military operations, which has nothing to do with either consent or precedent, is sheer lawfare — the same as the West’s criticism of the “settlements.” And since lawfare is always destructive of *real* international law, it shows you how much Ashton and co. really give a damn.

  • William

    What a lot of Democrats do not know about Hillary is that she was a Goldwater Girl in 1964. She credits his book Conscience of a Conservative for shaping her political views.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      Billy Ayers was a Stalin/Marx/Lenin/Che Boy.

    • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

      She rejected Goldwater and Ayn Rand in college, long long ago. Why do you keep spewing this nonsense? David Horowitz was a Marxist … long time ago. Bill, baby, the Berlin Wall has fallen. Heard the news?

      • William

        Nah she’s still a nut. Recently she warned about Soviet-style Communism returning to Russia.

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          KGB Putin insists that Imperialist Communism returns.

  • Try Harder

    This is a test. All my posts in the story “Bringing Back the Good War” are being marked as spam.

    ***

    I didn’t recall Chinese cities being firebombed but DG was correct.

    “A conservative estimate places the number of bombing runs at more than 5,000, with more than 11,500 bombs dropped, mainly incendiary bombs.

    The targets were usually residential areas, business areas, schools, hospitals (non-military targets).”

    Bombing of Shanghai, Chongqing, and other Cities

    “Japanese aircraft attacked a vehicle carrying the ambassador of United Kingdom during an air raid on Shanghai, China.”

    http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=281

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Chongqing

  • MburuChege

    Sickening that the writer justifies killing non-jewish non-combatants….if the civilians killed were people of Jewish origin, I am sure he would be screaming hoarse about holocaust!
    What israeli ziobists did in Gaza deliberately targetting non-combatants in a war of extermination has really exposed the dark and devilish nature of their hearts….
    Those who justify those killings are also killers themselves and will pay a heavy price when they eventually stand before God on the day of judgment!

    • Webb

      Yeah, all of the girls whose genitals you mutilated will be there too, and justice will be that they tear yours off with their bare hands. I can’t wait to see what those you used as human shields will do to you, but it won’t be pretty I guarantee!

    • IslamDownpressesHumanity

      Please prove Israel was deliberately targeting non-combatants or are engaged in a “war of extermination”.
      What’s really disgusting is that muslim-nazis like you have nothing to say
      about the fact the charter of Hamas calls for extermination of Jews (in keeping w/islamic dogma).

  • DanTriplett

    ” The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind. ”

    ” the aim of the Combined Bomber Offensive…should be unambiguously stated [as] the destruction of German cities, the killing of German workers, and the disruption of civilised life throughout Germany.
    … the destruction of houses, public utilities, transport and lives, the creation of a refugee problem on an unprecedented scale, and the breakdown of morale both at home and at the battle fronts by fear of extended and intensified bombing, are accepted and intended aims of our bombing policy. They are not by-products of attempts to hit factories. ”

    –Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sir Arthur Travers Harris, Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief RAF Bomber Command during the latter half of the Second World War

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      Similarly Fascist Hamass thought it could bomb Israel without consequences.

      Live and Learn.

  • MburuChege

    Interesting that with all the deadly weapons milked from the US, zionist Israel’s many extermination wars have failed to break the will of palestinians to resist!
    That must be very frustrating to zionists I imagine!

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      Frustration? LOL!

      1.4 billion Muslims can’t defeat 6 million Jews.

      Now THAT’s funny.

      If you think that 1.4 billion Muslims will defeat 6 billion Infidels, you are in for a rude Nakba.

    • Webb

      Hey, they’re not about to give up on getting their 72 virgin he-goats old Allahole has promised. No, they’re gonna make that stupid sonofabitch perform. You don’t want to miss out on that, do you Marlburu mon?

  • wileyvet

    Another home run from Mr. Greenfield, and lighting up the message board to boot.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      thank you

  • Dallasyaherd

    Israel’s army since Carter and now into the stratosphere, is the first army in human history and the only one to be a litigious army LIDF Israel’s army should be renamed. Israel’s army is not run by generals at all, but by lawyers, and they will since antisemites are always allowed to lie by the whole world, get accused of the worst thing ever anyway. Israel’s police is also run by lawyers, I think that this is the worst threat to Israel, and in 50 years when China is much stronger than the US and supplying the Muslims (Saudi Arabia is the 4th highest military spender on earth) with tons of weapons, the US will follow Israel’s suicidal lead and be the second army in human history to be controlled by lawyers and not strategic geniuses.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      Odd that Hamass, Hezbullah, ISIS, Boko Haram, Taliban, Al Qada, Fascist Iran don’t have to field their own lawyers.

      Socialists help out in that arena.

      What’s more “Progressive” than siding with Ultra Conservative Islamists?

    • DanTriplett

      ” the US will follow Israel’s suicidal lead and be the second army in human history to be controlled by lawyers and not strategic geniuses. ”

      Sadly, It already is.

      All three and four star Generals are hand picked by the POTUS.

      Obama has surrounded himself with “yes” men more interested in saving their careers than saving their country.

  • Erudite Mavin

    Excellent commentary.
    Hamas and other radicals, play to the TV cameras and the internet,
    those weapons are as lethal as any bomb and add to it the uninformed publc

  • Drakken

    The best missive I have seen so far. Congrats, your another one who gets it.

  • meanpeoplesuck

    There is no such thing as a good war, but a better war would be one where one country that has advanced weaponry that is bought and paid for by their patron, the US, wouldn’t use this on people with stones and bottle rockets. Obama should cancel the $3 billion in aid by executive order, we need the money here at home, or for reparations to the Palestinians for funding their oppression for so long.

    • wildjew

      “In Gaza, there is no such thing as ‘innocent civilians’

      Op-ed: Fighting an enemy state with one hand while supplying food and energy to its residents with the other hand is absurd.

      http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4554583,00.html

    • Webb

      Not to worry sucker, Obama is printing more money as we speak. Money is never a problem for him. Plus, he hates scurvy money pit Palestinians and loves Jews, so Obama will be giving even more money and weapons to Israel. O sez the worthless Pallies just waste all the cement he sends to them digging tunnels. He wants Israel to kill every last one of them. Go O!

    • UCSPanther

      back again, are we?

      Still trying to advocate wasting even more tax dollars on what is already a tin-pot dictatorship.

      Reality is a concrete wall that you will run right into. Don’t you worry…

  • liz

    Great piece. Too bad the Left has hijacked “morality” and distorted it to mean abject weakness and appeasement toward foreign aggressors, and being the aggressive dictator toward it’s own citizens at home.

  • Blake Derby

    It’s a good summary of war among civilized countries. But the PA and Gaza are not countries, so asymmetrical war, meaning terrorism, will be their method. It’s also worth questioning whether the concept of “peace” is even relevant to them. The Hamas Charter, as the guiding principles for the government of Gaza, has holy war its only goal. There is nothing in it implying a goal of peace or the welfare of the population. The entire Palestinian population is laser-beam focused on not simply destroying Israel, but in expanding the Islamic landscape in all directions, from all Islamic places. Israel is in the eye of the storm.

    As the conflict winds down, there is only be one single entity, namely, Israel, that will have the hard evidence and global respect to prove war crimes against those responsible. The UN and its UNRWA, along with Hamas and its willing arms providers, should now be placed in the eye of the storm, as their credibility is shot.

    A complete written documentation, with evidence, of their complicity should be made and published: Knowingly aiding and abetting, or giving tacit approval of, acts of planned and intended genocide, sacrificing women and children as shields and for the media circus, acts of aggression, perfidy, misuse of hospitals, schools or places of worship, and many other crimes. It’s not critical that even a large minority of the public accept the facts, just that the hard facts be presented for the record. Those who decide to dispute the evidence should be welcome to do so.

    Only the court system of Israel can do this. If this was not a “good war,” and the “rules of war” were violated, a clear summary of the violations will be the best vaccine to prevent another such war.

  • Andrew

    It’s a real crass and sleazy movie, but in Swordfish, Travolta’s character have some valid points on how terrorists should be dealt at an appropriate exchange rate.

  • arno

    Bombing cities as the Western Allies did in WW2 did support the military war effort. In the case of Germany it put brakes on arms production. In the case of Japan it tied skilled pilots to Japan who were unavailable to fight the US Navy in the Pacific. I argue this reasoning does not apply to Irael-Gaza today.

    Israel’s war against Gaza can hardly claim those two benefits. Gaza imports its missiles from Iran and is funded, among others by the UN. Apply the WW2 arguments to this situation, Israel would need to bomb Iran’s missile production and all UN faclities in Gaza.

    Given that Israel demands long military service from its citizens, Israel is obliged to defend these citizens. If Israel were to accept an unfavourable kill-ratio it would risk active support within its population during the next Gaza war. That Israeli generation is perfectly free take a flight to Ibiza or Berlin and sit out the next war outside of Israel. That would be the end of Israel.

    Here in Germany we regularly dig up a WW2 bomb. Was bombing the German cities worth it? Digging up that answer is more difficult. Judging the actions of the Allied military cannot provide that answer. No codes of morality or even cool body counting applies to warfare. What really matters is on which side one fights. In the case of Germany and Japan, those two were the side of evil. An evil that was not an incidental result of warfare but rather a deliberate and defining part of it. The West even redeemed itself in 1948. The exact same pilots who bombed Berlin supplied the city during the blockade.

    Which is the side of evil in the Israel-Gaza war, if any? As a German the Palestinian side gave me an answer. The killing of the Israeli olympic team 1972 in München identifies Gaza as the evil side. The US should recognize Hamas as part of the Islamist movement that killed thousands on 9-11 in New York. Again, question answered. France should identify Palestine as deeply anti-semitic and link it to the killers of Jewish children in Toulouse.

    I rather not use terms such as “good war”. What makes sense to me is good outcome. The Western Allies’ victory in WW2 does represent a good outcome, a better future. Israel’s promise lives up to those standards.

  • Texas Patriot

    There are no “good wars” in the moral sense, and the only “just wars” are those conducted as a matter of self-defense and national survival. On the other hand, in the context of a just war, it may readily be seen that some wars are well-executed as opposed to poorly-executed. The singular characteristic of a well-executed just war is that it is quick and decisive, and results in a minimum loss of “blood and treasure” on both sides. Fortunately, with ever-improving surveillance and interdiction technologies, it will be increasingly possible to identify and target responsible political and military command and control centers which are responsible for the initial aggression, thereby keeping unnecessary injury and damage to innocent civilians and economic infrastructure necessary to sustain human life to an absolute minimum.

  • Texas Patriot

    One thing we can all be sure of is that it’s going to take a lot more than superior military technology and extreme ruthlessness to stop the Islamic State. Unlike Hitler’s storm troopers, Stalin’s cossacks, and Patton’s soldiers, the followers of Khalifa Ibrahim are more than happy to die for their cause, which ultimately is nothing less than the worldwide supremacy of Islam, beginning in Iraq, Syria, and the Levant.

  • Debbie G

    Even God commanded Saul to wipe out the Amalekites by slaughtering men, women, children and their animals. What’s even more amazing is they did it with a sword (personal) as opposed to dropping a bomb (impersonal).

    • UCSPanther

      I read of that too. Saul violated God’s command however, by bringing back their king as a prisoner and the best animals.

      • Debbie G

        You are correct.

  • mtnhikerdude

    America ,wimped out on War post WW II . We lost in Korea , Vietnam ,Afghanistan and gave Iraq back to the Terrorists . People are making War rules who have never fired a weapon , been in a fight , or in the Military . War means War . You are either out to destroy your Enemy before he destroys you or you are campaigning in Hollywood . May Israel wipe Hamas off the face of the Planet as a lesson to ISiS ,Hezbollah .CAIR and the Demoncrats .

  • IslamDownpressesHumanity

    Curtis LeMay had input into the Korean “Conflict”? He wasn’t a senior officer back then was he? I do remember MacArthur wanting to go nuclear on the PRC though.
    I don’t think the US ever engaged in strategic bombing of N. Korea — because there really wasn’t that much to bomb in terms of infrastructure.

    • DaveGinOly

      LeMay was promoted to full general (4 stars) in 1951.

      • IslamDownpressesHumanity

        When was LeMay ever posted to a command in the Korean Conflict?

  • Drakken

    Deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrr which way did he go George! You just gotta luv Islamic inbreeding at its best, either that or a product of our current re-education system.

  • celador2

    Key point–unilateral humanitarianism is not the way to win a war.

  • DaveGinOly

    All outlaws place themselves, by definition, outside the law, even if only temporarily. To be outside the law means not only to be in violation of it, but it also means to be beyond its protection.

    A government engaged in hostilities with an aggressor has only two obligations – stop the aggression and do so with with the fewest of its own casualties as possible, because its primary obligation is the safety of its own people, soldiers and civilians alike. It has no obligation whatsoever to keep the soldiers and citizens of the aggressor safe. Any efforts to do so are merely humanitarian, and should generally not be undertaken at the expense of the two above-mentioned obligations. Civilian populations are ultimately responsible for the actions of their governments, and should suffer equally for them; they are either responsible for emplacing the government, or responsible for not taking action to displace it. Did the people allow themselves to be stripped of their ability to resist their government? It was their responsibility to resist and prevent falling into such a condition. Any way you look at it, the people own their government, through action or inaction, as we own ours. Every population, collectively, gets the government it deserves.

  • DaveGinOly

    Part of this problem was created by the development of smart/guided weapons and their use for “surgical” strikes that are intended to mitigate collateral damage. Their development and use has led to the expectation that 1.) smart weapons make all other weapons obsolete and their deployment unnecessary, and 2.) that perfect intelligence, infallibly assessed, will be used to deploy the smart weapons inerrantly. Both of these expectations are wrong, but both form the basis of many (uneducated) citizens’ expectations of modern war-fighting. Based on these faulty expectations, many people simply don’t understand why Israel has to launch artillery strikes into a neighborhood, or why sometimes civilians are killed by mistake. When these things happen (and they will), it raises in their minds the questions, “Why did Israel do that? Don’t they care about the Palestinian people?” These people don’t understand that war is still about killing people and breaking things, and that its execution, even under the best circumstances, can never be perfect. It is this “perfection” of warfare that many people expected of smart weapons, but smart weapons were never meant to “perfect” war, only to make its fighting more effective.

  • truebearing

    You mean a bitter, terrified death, cowering in a bunker while the utter failure of one’s own evil becomes unbearable ? No, that sounds more like what will happen to the Muslims, or you. Most likely both.

  • yoelk

    Yep, they are developing cheaper wind ( and solar) electricity generating turbines. scares you doesn’t it? And they are sustainable and non- polluting. Now get on your camel and beat it, Achmad.

  • Drakken

    In the ME dumbazz, why don’t you come where I am, I am not hard to find, just look for the Big Prussian Flag and extremely loud music at noon prayer time when the caterwauling begins. I promise to take close personal care of you.

  • American Patriot

    England is not a country, dumbass. The United Kingdom (or Britain) is a country. England (along with Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) is an internal division of the UK. Call the country by its proper name, not the name of one of its constituent parts.

  • IslamDownpressesHumanity

    Make sure to watch out for low flying zionist squirrels — they have deadly aim.

  • http://www.windsofchange.net/ Joe Katzman

    He beat you, though, “uncle adolf.”

  • IslamDownpressesHumanity

    Your wudu is showing.

  • Webb

    Longer dead Ottoman empire where Jews now rule the skies. Put a Hellfire up your azz in 2 seconds flat, addie.

  • yoelk

    A rotten apple doesn’t fall far from Adolf’s tree

  • Obama’s Gerbil Master

    The UK will exis long after Allah and his thugs are thrown on the rubbish heap of history.

  • Drakken

    God what I wouldn’t give to fly a drone up your azz.

  • Obama’s Gerbil Master

    There is always you uncle. You sound pretty horrifying to me, at least your IQ does.