I think Bill is smart enough but not as smart as he thinks he is….and all you need to be in life is smart enough.

Bill is a hypocrite with regard to the Gaza invasion. Bill never addresses the issue of proportionality of response with regard to 55,000+ Palestinians killed and 100,000+ wounded in response to 1700 Israelis murdered by Hamas. No guest on his show ever raises the issue. One can only assume Bill believes, like some on this board have stated, that Israel is justified to keep killing until Hamas is eliminated (whatever that looks like).

I find it amusing that Trump supporters love it when Maher piles on regarding how horribly Muslims treat their women…..and they do and that is just criticism…..BUT…you never hear a peep out of Trumpers on this issue when it comes to Trump's close business relationship with Arab countries that do not have stellar records regarding women's rights. Trump gets a pass.

When I watch the skits on SNL these days, it makes me pine for the days of the skit comedy on In Living Color, Mad TV and The Dave Chapelle Show.

This is funny:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9203078/?ref_=ext_shr_lnk

dajo9 said:

---

I don't think Bill Maher is funny but when I've watched my favorite part of his show is when his audience doesn't laugh at his jokes and he gets mad at them.

John Oliver and Stephen Colbert are hilarious. Different Strokes.

---

Colbert is the least funny person on television. It is not a sin to be political. But it is horrible when you're not funny.

bearister said:

---

I think Bill is smart enough but not as smart as he thinks he is….and all you need to be in life is smart enough.

Bill is a hypocrite with regard to the Gaza invasion. Bill never addresses the issue of proportionality of response with regard to 55,000+ Palestinians killed and 100,000+ wounded in response to 1700 Israelis murdered by Hamas. No guest on his show ever raises the issue. One can only assume Bill believes, like some on this board have stated, that Israel is justified to keep killing until Hamas is eliminated (whatever that looks like).

I find it amusing that Trump supporters love it when Maher piles on regarding how horribly Muslims treat their women…..and they do and that is just criticism…..BUT…you never hear a peep out of Trumpers on this issue when it comes to Trump's close business relationship with Arab countries that do not have stellar records regarding women's rights. Trump gets a pass.

---

It is funny that you're evaluating another person's intelligence in the same post where you display a complete misunderstand of the the issue/definition of proportionality in a war context.

Proportionality in war is not measured by comparative casualty numbers. If that was the standard, then the US committed war crimes when defeating the Germans.

And yes, as a matter of international war, Israel is entitled to keep killing until Hamas is defeated. That is how war works.

So I have intellectual limitations because I don't buy your analysis of what Israel is doing in Gaza.

I don't buy your take on the Proportionality of Response as it applies to WWII and Gaza.

The Germans lost a total of about 8M in WWII. The Russians were our allies. The Nazis slaughtered millions and millions of Russians (8.7 million military personnel and 19 million civilians). The Nazis killed 6 million Jewish people in the Holocaust.

Trump administration working on plan to move 1 million Palestinians to Libya


https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/trump-administration-working-plan-move-1-million-palestinians-libya-rcna207224


"Trump and Bibi, you are very bad men. Very bad men!"

bearister said:

---

So I have intellectual limitations because I don't buy your analysis of what Israel is doing in Gaza.

I don't buy your take on the Proportionality of Response as it applies to WWII and Gaza.

The Germans lost a total of about 8M in WWII. The Russians were our allies. The Nazis slaughtered millions and millions of Russians (8.7 million military personnel and 19 million civilians). The Nazis killed 6 million Jewish people in the Holocaust.

Trump administration working on plan to move 1 million Palestinians to Libya


https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/trump-administration-working-plan-move-1-million-palestinians-libya-rcna207224


"Trump and Bibi, you are very bad men. Very bad men!"

---

There is no such thing as Proportionality of Response in the Laws of War. Proportionality, which governs offensive actions is 1 of the 4 Laws. Civilian causalities are allowed if they are not excessive to valid military targets and objectives. Civilian targets become valid targets if militarized (by, for example, firing from a school, hiding under a hospital, storing weapons or keeping hostages in a civilian home).

This is different from the similar sounding concept called "proportionate response," a principle relevant to self-defense, not mission accomplishment. It require the use of the minimum amount of force necessary to adequately defend oneself - a measure of force proportionate to the threat. In self defense force used must be reasonable in intensity, duration, and magnitude to the perceived or demonstrated threat.

Given your simple body count analysis it is apparent that you are not just combing the name of two separate concepts, you are relying on the wrong one to reach the wrong conclusion.

bearister said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

"Just War Theory" isn't the same thing as the "Laws of War." The former involves ethical and moral judgments which are necessarily subjective individual assessments. One can comply with the latter but violate a person's sense of the former (eg conscientious objectors).

---

So the Israeli Invasion of Gaza is more properly analyzed utilizing the Laws of War rather than the Just War Theory?

Same for the Invasion of Ukraine?

---

To the losers in war, all wars look unjust. All this intellectual masturbation seems rather unrealistic. No one is suggesting that Hamas really thought about any of this theory or ethical crap when planning their terrorist strikes, and they should have known that no one really would stop Israeli from taking revenge. Trying then to somehow analyze any wars from a moral perspective seems pointless, whether Ukraine or Gaza. We just try to hypocritically blame Israel for doing what the US and others due all the time if it fits our politician narrative. We dropped to atomic bombs and firebombed Japanese population centers killing hundreds of thousands of people (maybe up to a million people), mostly civilians, and yet none of our intellectual elites whine about just war theory, proportionality, rules of war or whatever other justification is out there in ivory tower land. We did what our political leaders deemed to be necessary. Same for Israel.

A lot of this stuff is semantics. Here's what the world saw...

October 7th attacks were horrific and a strong response was reasonable and expected.

In the ensuing few weeks, okay there were going to be some civilian casualties in Gaza, as everybody knew that Hamas used civilians to shield their operations. Okay fine but try and limit it.

By November, the Oct. 7 attacks had receded a bit in people's memories and every night we saw carnage in Gaza. Day after day after day, which overshadowed the 10/7 attacks. That accompanied by harsh, "no regrets" rhetoric from Netanyahu and his cronies. Limited humanitarian aid, often blocked. Children starving. That has been going on for close to 500 days.

So call it what you will: proportionate / proportional / rules of war / laws of war / art of war, whatever. But observers throughout the world see a response that appears too blunt and ham-handed, with seemingly limited effort to be surgical (as hard as that might be).

Israel needed to win some hearts and minds... and they could have. But they didn't, at least for the most part.


Note that I am very anti-Hamas and also pro-state-of-Israel (though not pro-current-Israeli-government).

bearister said:

---

"We dropped to atomic bombs and firebombed Japanese population centers killing hundreds of thousands of people (maybe up to a million people), mostly civilians, and yet none of our intellectual elites whine about just war theory,"

My Dad was a line officer on a destroyer in the Pacific Theater during WWII. Pursuant to the Bushido code, the Japanese intended to make a last stand rather than surrender.

My Dad's ship got its orders that it would participate in Operation Olympic, the invasion of Kyushu. He was told that he most likely would not be coming home in light of the fact the combined casualty projections for the entire conventional invasion of Japan were in the millions.

When viewed from that perspective, one can argue the dropping of the atomic bomb saved many lives.

I do have some reservations however:

1. Despite the arguments put forth to the contrary, I would have dropped a demonstration bomb on an uninhabited island to convince the Japanese to surrender; and

2. The United States should have waited more than 3 days before dropping the bomb on Nagasaki.


*In other news, I think the Invasion of Iraq was pretextual and immoral

*Finally, can someone please describe what a defeat of Hamas looks like that would justify stopping the slaughter. At this point, it looks like a concept that has a lot of elastic in it.

---

Japan was ready to surrender unconditionally before they got nuked, that is a stone cold fact, corroborated by several top WW2 US military leaders. The bushido stuff is folklore.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were partly motivated by revenge against the Japanese, partly to experiment these new weapons and see their full military potential, and perhaps more importantly, dropped as a demonstration of force to Stalin and the Soviets, who were about to move in on Japan from the north and who had conquered eastern Europe.

I don't know what the ultimate truth is because I'm not going to spend endless hours researching to find the credible sources contradicting what Baby Boomers were fed, set forth in this AI Overview:

"While there is evidence of Japanese leadership exploring potential surrender terms before the atomic bombings, it's inaccurate to say they were outright willing to surrender. Japanese leaders were divided on the matter, with hardliners advocating for continued resistance, even in the face of devastation. The atomic bombs, coupled with the Soviet Union's declaration of war, ultimately pushed the Japanese government towards accepting the Allied terms of surrender.

Here's a more detailed breakdown:

Evidence of "Peace Feelers":

The US was aware of Japanese efforts to explore peace negotiations, as they had cracked Japanese diplomatic codes (MAGIC).
These intercepts suggested Japan might be moving towards surrender, but not necessarily unconditional surrender.

Historians have noted instances of Japanese leaders attempting to find a way out of the war, often seeking terms that would preserve the emperor's position.

Factors Preventing Surrender:

Division within the Japanese government:

The hardline factions within the Japanese War Council consistently rejected unconditional surrender and advocated for continued fighting.

Unacceptable terms:

The Japanese demanded significant concessions, such as no foreign occupation, Japan's control of disarmament, and the retention of the emperor, which were not acceptable to the Allies.

Fear of total defeat:

The Japanese leadership feared a complete collapse of their society and a humiliating occupation.

The Potsdam Declaration:

The Allied ultimatum for unconditional surrender was met with "mokusatsu" ("no comment"), effectively rejecting the offer.

The Soviet Union's entry into the war:

The Soviet Union's invasion of Manchuria further destabilized the Japanese government and made it more likely they would accept surrender.

The Role of the Atomic Bombs:

The atomic bombings, particularly after the second bomb, significantly shook Japanese leadership and contributed to the shift towards surrender.

The bombs demonstrated the devastating power of the new weapon and reinforced the idea that continued war was not a viable option.

The Emperor Hirohito ultimately intervened to accept the Allied terms, ending the war.

In conclusion, while there were indications of Japanese leaders exploring peace, the country was not genuinely willing to surrender before the atomic bombings. The bombs, combined with the Soviet Union's declaration of war, were decisive factors in forcing Japan's surrender."

Your sources?

If Japan was chomping at the bit to surrender, any theories why it didn't surrender on Hiroshima +1 or +2?

I found this in an AI Overview:

"A U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that Japan would have surrendered by November 1945, even without the atomic bombings. "

…..so I suppose the possibility exits that like Rick in Casablanca, I was "misinformed."

Big C said:

---

A lot of this stuff is semantics. Here's what the world saw...

October 7th attacks were horrific and a strong response was reasonable and expected.

In the ensuing few weeks, okay there were going to be some civilian casualties in Gaza, as everybody knew that Hamas used civilians to shield their operations. Okay fine but try and limit it.

By November, the Oct. 7 attacks had receded a bit in people's memories and every night we saw carnage in Gaza. Day after day after day, which overshadowed the 10/7 attacks. That accompanied by harsh, "no regrets" rhetoric from Netanyahu and his cronies. Limited humanitarian aid, often blocked. Children starving. That has been going on for close to 200 days.

So call it what you will: proportionate / proportional / rules of war / laws of war / art of war, whatever. But observers throughout the world see a response that appears too blunt and ham-handed, with seemingly limited effort to be surgical (as hard as that might be).

Israel needed to win some hearts and minds... and they could have. But they didn't, at least for the most part.


Note that I am very anti-Hamas and also pro-state-of-Israel (though not pro-current-Israeli-government).

---

October 7 was a reaction to years of Israeli displacement, murder, starvation and persecution. .As such it was a proportional response in an ongoing war.

Anarchistbear said:

---

October 7 was a reaction to years of Israeli displacement, murder, starvation and persecution. .As such it was a proportional response in an ongoing war.

---

Please. Israel was subjected to rocket attacks within days of fully leaving Gaza in 2005. Israel is attacked for the sin of existing. Hamas' "constitution" calls for the murder of all Jews and elimination of Israel for exactly this reason and this reason alone.

One person's "terrorism" is another's "proportionalism"

These terms are meaningless in a conflict as long as this one with examples on both sides. Destruction of Israel is also akin to Destruction of Hamas.

tequila4kapp said:

---

It is a not uncommon refrain that the only thing that determined who was tried for war crimes was who won/lost WW2

---

There were no war criminals in Japan despite their atrocities because it was in our interest to keep the Emperor in a figure head role.

bearister said:

---

I don't know what the ultimate truth is because I'm not going to spend endless hours researching to find the credible sources contradicting what Baby Boomers were fed, set forth in this AI Overview:

"While there is evidence of Japanese leadership exploring potential surrender terms before the atomic bombings, it's inaccurate to say they were outright willing to surrender. Japanese leaders were divided on the matter, with hardliners advocating for continued resistance, even in the face of devastation. The atomic bombs, coupled with the Soviet Union's declaration of war, ultimately pushed the Japanese government towards accepting the Allied terms of surrender.

Here's a more detailed breakdown:

Evidence of "Peace Feelers":

The US was aware of Japanese efforts to explore peace negotiations, as they had cracked Japanese diplomatic codes (MAGIC).
These intercepts suggested Japan might be moving towards surrender, but not necessarily unconditional surrender.

Historians have noted instances of Japanese leaders attempting to find a way out of the war, often seeking terms that would preserve the emperor's position.

Factors Preventing Surrender:

Division within the Japanese government:

The hardline factions within the Japanese War Council consistently rejected unconditional surrender and advocated for continued fighting.

Unacceptable terms:

The Japanese demanded significant concessions, such as no foreign occupation, Japan's control of disarmament, and the retention of the emperor, which were not acceptable to the Allies.

Fear of total defeat:

The Japanese leadership feared a complete collapse of their society and a humiliating occupation.

The Potsdam Declaration:

The Allied ultimatum for unconditional surrender was met with "mokusatsu" ("no comment"), effectively rejecting the offer.

The Soviet Union's entry into the war:

The Soviet Union's invasion of Manchuria further destabilized the Japanese government and made it more likely they would accept surrender.

The Role of the Atomic Bombs:

The atomic bombings, particularly after the second bomb, significantly shook Japanese leadership and contributed to the shift towards surrender.

The bombs demonstrated the devastating power of the new weapon and reinforced the idea that continued war was not a viable option.

The Emperor Hirohito ultimately intervened to accept the Allied terms, ending the war.

In conclusion, while there were indications of Japanese leaders exploring peace, the country was not genuinely willing to surrender before the atomic bombings. The bombs, combined with the Soviet Union's declaration of war, were decisive factors in forcing Japan's surrender."

Your sources?

If Japan was chomping at the bit to surrender, any theories why it didn't surrender on Hiroshima +1 or +2?

I found this in an AI Overview:

"A U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that Japan would have surrendered by November 1945, even without the atomic bombings. "

…..so I suppose the possibility exits that like Rick in Casablanca, I was "misinformed."

---

Japan was already defeated before Hiroshima, and their leadership had already signaled that they were ready to surrender. As I've mentioned above, this is a well-known fact, supported by the testimonies of most top US military leaders. Exhibits A through E:

[url=https://www.espn.com/soccer/team/_/id/384/crystal-palace][/url]General Eisenhower: "my grave misgivings, first on the basis that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking the world opinion by the use of a weapon ,….no longer necessary to save American Lives."

Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet stated in a public address given at the Washington Monument on October 5, 1945:

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war. (See p. 329, Chapter 26) . . . [Nimitz also stated: "The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan. . . ."]

In a private 1946 letter to Walter Michels of the Association of Philadelphia Scientists, Nimitz observed that "the decision to employ the atomic bomb on Japanese cities was made on a level higher than that of the Joint Chiefs of Staff."

In his memoirs Admiral William D. Leahy, the President's Chief of Staff--and the top official who presided over meetings of both the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Combined U.S.-U.K. Chiefs of Staff--minced few words:

"The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. . . ."

Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., Commander U.S. Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946:

The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment. . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it. . . . [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. . . . It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before.

Rear Admiral L. Lewis Strauss, special assistant to the Secretary of the Navy from 1944 to 1945 (and later chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission), replaced Bard on the Interim Committee after he left government on July 1. Subsequently, Strauss repeatedly stated his belief that the use of the atomic bomb "was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion. . . ." Strauss recalled:

I proposed to Secretary Forrestal at that time that the weapon should be demonstrated. . . . Primarily, it was because it was clear to a number of people, myself among them, that the war was very nearly over. The Japanese were nearly ready to capitulate. . . . My proposal to the Secretary was that the weapon should be demonstrated over some area accessible to the Japanese observers, and where its effects would be dramatic. I remember suggesting that a good place--satisfactory place for such a demonstration would be a large forest of cryptomeria trees not far from Tokyo. The cryptomeria tree is the Japanese version of our redwood. . . . I anticipated that a bomb detonated at a suitable height above such a forest . . . would [have] laid the trees out in windrows from the center of the explosion in all directions as though they had been matchsticks, and of course set them afire in the center. It seemed to me that a demonstration of this sort would prove to the Japanese that we could destroy any of their cities, their fortifications at will. . . .

On September 20, 1945 the famous "hawk" who commanded the Twenty-First Bomber Command, Major General Curtis E. LeMay (as reported in The New York Herald Tribune) publicly:

said flatly at one press conference that the atomic bomb "had nothing to do with the end of the war." He said the war would have been over in two weeks without the use of the atomic bomb or the Russian entry into the war. (See p. 336, Chapter 27)
The text of the press conference provides these details:

LeMay: The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb.
The Press: You mean that, sir? Without the Russians and the atomic bomb?
. . .
LeMay: The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.