I must have overlooked that or I got so used to "unleashing" being done by the defending side that I didn't notice.

More correct would be "War of Terror unleashed by Muslim extremists".

It would have been better to have used another verb, I commented on that in the very first post I made in this thread as well. President Bush did declare the war on terror officially, the US started actively/officially fighting terrorism in his presidency (I'm having trouble to come up with the right adverb here myself). Before that it was not a politicum the way it is now. I mean fighting terrorism was always something that was actively pursued - there were enough attacks before 2001, the USS Cole comes to mind, also the embassy in Nairobi, and it had been attempted in the early 90ies to blow up the WTC.

Unleash suggests some form of unlawfulness or that the war on terror is unjustified and those that war is unleashed upon are innocent victims. Very ungeschickt.

as for "it was the jewish authorities that turned jesus to the romans"...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judas_Iscariot

100% of agreement here. Clinton lobbed some missiles at the terrorists (half-heartedly), but otherwise ignored the growing problem, perhaps a time that could have avoided the place we are in now.

Sorry, your right. Their role was to advise and finance. I'll let each reader decided for themselves the right or wrong of it, it's not my concern. As I said it's not my subject area, but then again I never mentioned Judas in my original comment (funny how these things evolve).

"And Satan entered into Judas, who was surnamed Iscariot, one of the twelve. And he went, and discoursed with the chief priests and the magistrates, how he might betray him to them. And they were glad, and convenanted to give him money. And he promised. And he sought opportunity to betray him in the absence of the multitude." (Luke 22:3-6)

I'm sure we can each find refrences to express opposing views, so this is over for me as I have little interest in doing such. The original example I mentioned was entirely to make a point (don't believe me, go to the religious section and count the number of my comments there). If anything this sideshow gives even more credence to the example given supporting personal beliefs/feelings/emotions influencing what should be rational military decisions.

I decided to look the military decision up in this huge 1200 overview I have to see what it said there about the military decision.

from Gerhard L. Weinberg, A world at arms, a global history of world war 2, 2nd edition 2005, Cambridge UP, p 812. This chapter is called "The final assault on Germany - offensive in the West

This is out of context of the rest of the chapter which describes in detail how which army moved and which battles were fought etc.

It is a good book, very detailed, about the european and also pacific theatre in WW2.

I don't have military experience or any knowledge of battle strategy. According to Weinberg, there seems to have been an overall strategy, which unluckily overlapped with maybe an overzealousness to bomb Germany to damnation by Churchill. The evaluation if that strategy was successful or not isn't included  in this paragraph though. In the grand scheme of things, Dresden was but one small part.

I do.  I am sure that of the 150k people who died, many were as you describe.  But not all were.  But that is war, bombs cannot differentiate the innocent from the guilty.  I was not trying to portray my description of Dresden as an attack on a bunch of lambs, but only on an incident that did not have a strictly military justification.  it WAS a war, and millions of innocents died, in Dresden, Tokyo, London, Paris and Honolulu.  That is why I object so strenuosly to Bahu's characterization of it.  Today a lot fewer die than when we dropped thousands of bombs trying to wipe out a ball bearing factory.  But they still do die, regardless of how "smart" the weapons are.

Sorry for the lenghty debate,  know that it's quite the turnoff. As it is, I read the same debates (mostly about religious themes or a mix of politics and morals like the gay marriage thing or abortion etc) between the same people on many different threads. It can get a little tiring as often, nothing new is contributed. And I have the vague feeling that I already argued similarly about this topics regarding the nazis somewhere on JU as well. 

Nobody can be asked to read lenghty tracts on history or philosophy in posts but to really make an argument on complicated issues that involve both it is sort of a necessity. And german traditions in humanities almost require that you talk veeeeeery lengthy, use complicated language with very very long words and sentences and generally appear as dusty and dry as the sahara. To my slight horror I discovered that I can write like that as well when properly motivated as it happened in this thread.

Anyway, back on topic.

I got miffed and wanted to explain/prove my arguments after they had been rejected as either evil or too easy and also to refute the claim that history is straightforward or simple. A debate like that can quickly turn into a roundabout affair though, you're right. It's quite a challenge to keep it interesting.

You are right on both counts.  Yet what grabs our hearts strings and what does not?  To each it is different.  In my case, my sympathy was long ago grabbed by the Tribes of North America and what the european descendants did to them (it is not as massive as china or Dresden, but no less horrorific).  Dresden got me because of the purpose of the bombing, not the magnitude or the guilt or innocence of them.  Of course we all mourn for the chinese during the long war (that one started in the 20s, which most do  not remember or know).

yes, it is easy to get immune from all the suffering in all parts of the world, especially when today's media has to make every death an indication of some genocide attempt (when it more than likely is not).  I think Bahu is trying the latter tactic on the conflict in Afghanistan.  I am sure he is probably sincere (I have come to respect, if almost always disagree with him), but it is just the sensationalism that they try to invoke in todays news cycles to get people to care.  It is not that people are callous, just that after being bombarded with it constantly, they do build up a tolerance to it.

It is the cognizant's duty to weed out the hysteria from the facts.  There are needs all over the world, and all are competing for attention and action.  But we have to discern where we are doing the most good with our money and mouths, and not let the propagandists dictate what and where we should be hanging people.

The media tend to convert real genocides (or such attempts) into non-stories and individual deaths into genocide.

We hear little about the (real) genocide in Darfur (apparently a first peace agreement was signed a last week), but discuss every single death in Afghanistan (unless there is no way not to blame the Taliban for it).

In World War II (which started earlier in China, as you said) Dresden keeps coming up as does Nagasaki and Hiroshima. But the huge number of Chinese victims, which totally dwarves the deaths on the German and Japanese sides is rarely mentioned.

Dang! Thanks.

That's what happens when I write as quickly as I think the words.

Dr Guy and Rightwinger have had some kind things to say about me from vastly different perspectives. First, I do not come from an anti-American point of view. I have had the opportunity of studying in a very good US graduate school in my field of medieval history which I now teach along with Historiography. In fact I am anti liberal and anti socialist. I would call my self a civil libertarian without being an appologist for sundry violent terrorists. I felt this clarification was necessary as I have been mistaken to be a Liberal which I most certainly am not. I am anti abortion and am against same sex union, though I am against percecuting those with different sexual orientation.

Now the purpose of my BLOG was to show that the uncontrolled use of drones is provoking a backlash and in the long run may prove counterproductive and hence my caution.

I agree, drones have their place and are a valuable asset, however there is nothing better (yet) then having boots on the ground. Whether NATO or Pakistan does it, this must be accomplished. Killing civilians have almost always pushed them into the arms of who isn't killing them. These civilians will never understand the terrorists disregard for their safety until the fighting gets down to a personal level.