Barcelona

[robert k]

4 hours ago, Dave Hounddriver said:

That is also strange to me as the bombing blitzes of WWII targeted civilians and yet were never given the title "terrorism", were they?

Dave, I believe Germany would have loved to have been able to precisely hit targets of political, military and industrial significance but they just didn't have the technology for pinpoint accuracy so they just lobbed the rockets and bombs in.

Britain targeted population centers in retaliation. I would have too even though in retrospect, it appears that bombing fuel storage and distribution was the most damaging to Germany's ability to wage war.

 

[scott h]

23 minutes ago, robert k said:

I believe Germany

History and the study of it is all well and good, who did what first and when is really immaterial IMHO. The lesson that I take from history is that ALMOST every time a society in the past was threatened in whatever shape, form or manner they reached deep down with in themselves, grabbed a double handful of cojonies  and just opened up a big can on WOOP ASS on who ever was causing them grief. Until terrorists know that they, their families, their culture and all they hold dear will cease to exist as they know it this wont stop.

 

[Benington]

13 minutes ago, Dave Hounddriver said:

OK, I will refrain from commenting.  Were you a teacher at some point?  They also prefer to lecture rather than discuss.

Although facts from Wikipaedia are of interest I agree it is better to discuss the issues. So,  I contend that suicide bombing as seen nowadays is fundamentally different from what happened during a state of war in the London Blitz.

And I don't agree the media are "repackaging" homicide, as you put it. They sometimes overdo the coverage, but the channels I watch are careful not to call an incident terrorism, until that is the judgement of the authorities. Maybe some with limited news segments don't conform.

Advertising revenue on a TV channel  increases if there's a terrorist incident? Do the channels you watch put in ads? The ones I watch tend, if anything, to reduce them when there's "breaking news".

Lectures, by their nature don't leave much room for discussion, In Universities that's normally done in seminars. Lectures don't occur on this forum. We were having a discussion, but it seems to have ended.

 

[Benington]

41 minutes ago, robert k said:

Dave, I believe Germany would have loved to have been able to precisely hit targets of political, military and industrial significance but they just didn't have the technology for pinpoint accuracy so they just lobbed the rockets and bombs in.

 

They were forced to do it at night as the RAF were good at shooting down their bombers on daylight raids.

[robert k]

1 minute ago, scott h said:

History and the study of it is all well and good, who did what first and when is really immaterial IMHO. The lesson that I take from history is that ALMOST every time a society in the past was threatened in whatever shape, form or manner they reached deep down with in themselves, grabbed a double handful of cojonies  and just opened up a big can on WOOP ASS on who ever was causing them grief. Until terrorists know that they, their families, their culture and all they hold dear will cease to exist as they know it this wont stop.

 

Sure Scott. I was trying to be polite and not mention my plan to destroy every water source, every well, every pipeline, every water treatment plant in a terrorists from the ME home country. Collective responsibility. Make the terrorists home country police their terrorists because the alternative is unacceptable.

I was refraining from mentioning this because some have delicate sensibilities. Most wouldn't realize that this would turn cities into ghost towns with a mass exodus to a river or something of the sort which would be difficult to destroy, and even more wouldn't carry the thought to the next level of millions of people living in close proximity under primitive conditions. I wouldn't have to drop bombs on People. The end result would be biblical. If that didn't work....I would get nasty, not gentle like before. OK?

[robert k]

4 minutes ago, Benington said:

They were forced to do it at night as the RAF were good at shooting down their bombers on daylight raids.

AND? 

Everyone was good at shooting down everyone else's bombers in daylight raids, bombers that usually didn't even have fuel to maneuver if they were to reach their targets and return home. Do you think only the Germans bombed at night? Or that the reason for doing so only applied to the Germans?

[Benington]

1 minute ago, robert k said:

AND? 

Everyone was good at shooting down everyone else's bombers in daylight raids, bombers that usually didn't even have fuel to maneuver if they were to reach their targets and return home. Do you think only the Germans bombed at night? Or that the reason for doing so only applied to the Germans?

Point is the Germans changed strategy after failing to knock out the RAF, as you say daytime raids ware inherently costly. They moved to nightime raids to reduce losses....AND....they lost accuracy. Hit a lot of civilians..jury is out on whether they also wanted to reduce morale by killing civilians. Assumption that they did want to do that served as a justification for the controversial retaliatory raids on Germany.

Also targets were moved by the authorities and fake factories etc.

[Benington]

28 minutes ago, robert k said:

Sure Scott. I was trying to be polite and not mention my plan to destroy every water source, every well, every pipeline, every water treatment plant in a terrorists from the ME home country. Collective responsibility. Make the terrorists home country police their terrorists because the alternative is unacceptable.

Would you include Saudi Arabia? Willing to accept the consequences of that? The country is a major source of terrorists, their funding and a promoter of a form of Islam many of them use to justify their actions.

[Jack Peterson]

 For me, I find it all interesting BUT I have many friends in Barcelona and it is there we should be Directing the issue at this time, Sorry if this sounds abrupt but..... 2 wrongs will never make a right and two wrongs lead to off topic things. Just saying.

Sorry Mods and the Gov but again we digress

[robert k]

Just now, Benington said:

Would you include Saudi Arabia? Willing to accept the consequences of that? The country is a major source of terrorists, their funding and a promoter of a form of Islam many of them use to justify their actions.

They wouldn't be my first choice but they very well could be second or third. Why would you think I wouldn't? I would accept the consequences of that...it would make me wealthy.

Saudi could develop the capability to police their people. You seem to have missed the point. Destruction is not the desired result but that ME governments and even families police their people. A demonstration may be necessary but it would be a means to an end, not an end. All else fails, screw them, go for the grand tour. Refugee would take on a whole new meaning. Those who are called refugees today would be looked upon as people who were inordinately blessed.