Destroy an egg to make an omlette and all that.
Yeah, I get it.
wiki has compiled so many accounts of victory and unimaginable defeat; it may be yet another victim of the Information Age. Not that I have much to add. I should let wiki do the talking.
..."the firebombing campaign was to have begun with a USAAF Eighth Air Force raid on Dresden on February 13, but bad weather over Europe prevented any American operations. During the evening of February 13, 796 Avro Lancasters and 9 De Havilland Mosquitoes were dispatched in two separate waves and dropped 1,478 tons of high explosive and 1,182 tons of incendiary bombs by the early hours of February 14.
The second attack, 3 hours later, was by Lancaster aircraft of 1,3,6 and 8 Groups. The weather had by then cleared and 529 Lancasters dropped more than 1800 tons more. The Americans continued the bombing on February 15, dropping 466 tons of bombs. During these four raids a total of about 3,900 tons were dropped.
The firebombing consisted of the by-then standard methods of dropping large amounts of high explosive to blow off the roofs to expose the timbers within buildings, followed by incendiary devices (fire sticks) to ignite them and then more high explosives to hamper the efforts of the fire services. The consequences of these standard methods were particularly effective in Dresden: the bombings eventually created a self-sustaining firestorm with temperatures peaking at over 1500 deg. C (2700 deg. F). After a wide area caught fire, the air above the bombed area became extremely hot and rose rapidly. Cold air then rushed in at ground level from the outside, and people were sucked into the fire.
Personal reminiscences:
Lothar Metzger recalled: 'We saw the burning street, the falling ruins and the terrible firestorm. My mother covered us with wet blankets and coats she found in a water tub. We saw terrible things'".
Utter Destruction, Leading to Eventual Victory.
Pardon the inherent cliches, but there's such a fine line between oppressing and suffering. Now that Paris (and the world...and even we USAmericans) is proclaiming the truth and doom and fear of global warming and global climate change, it's still a shame we see it all in a future tense and on universalized/normalized scales. Why don't we lamet and repent the climate change over Dresden in the days of the death of WWII? Why don't the governments of the world and all their spin-off NGOs fight against the firebombs?
"Every genuinely religious person is a heretic, and therefore a revolutionary" -- GBShaw
I don't know, joel. Why does virtually anything, fill in the blank, prefaced by the word "allies" get such a free pass? Because it's never quite as bad as what the Axis is up to... we'll see to that.
It always gets down to numbers. Crunching big, fucked-up numbers.
Shit. No need to write poetry; it's written for you, one way or another...
like wikipoesia...
It always gets down to numbers. Crunching big, fucked-up numbers.
Shit. No need to write poetry; it's written for you, one way or another...
like wikipoesia...
(excuse the long reply, mnaz. it just went there... 
)
why put two opposing forces together and call it 'battle' when both sides kill each other so they themselves won't be killed? during the actual stress of battles the one who is called 'victor' out-gunned the opponent thru more guns, bigger bombs, faster planes, quicker information bringing a halt to the killing and destruction until the next battle occurs... and historically they've always occurred. battles are what happens upon the field of war - each person, each regiment, each battalion fighting for it's survival. is the reason for the battle heard while the guns are shooting and the bombs exploding or is the only thing heard each person's whisper within - 'survive.... survive for the loved-ones at home'?
the dali lama says war is obsolete, but we are victims of the past... a past that all wars are fought to maintain and prevent from changing. why fight wars over resistance to change. we do not trust the winds of change. we are skeptical of it's inevitability. not knowing what change will bring should bring excitement but we see change as terrifying. we are ill-equipped for change other than changing our instruments of war - bigger and more destructive as if change would hear the cries of death and resist its force.
war may be obsolete. so too our leaders and philosophies become obsolete, as do our religions and governments. this obsoleteness is built in with change, but change we must. the question becomes : 'can we accept change without war?'
The answer may be found in nature - did vesusivias erupt without burying pompeii? does rain cease to fall without trees and animals dying? do tsunamis happen without a shift in the earth below the waters? nature itself becomes violent when change is necessary. why should we be any different? we see our governments, our philosophies, our religions as being strong enough to resist change but we still have our revolutions - changes of ideas, changes of ideals... we are not unlike nature in not only our ability to change, but our necessity for change. the question then becomes : 'whose change do we accept?'
the battles in iraq ask that question. do the sunnis become the victors over the shiia? do the shiia destroy the sunnis? does the u.s. become the victor over the resistance? will islam win over their enemy? will our interpretation of freedom win over their interpretation of allah the victorious? whose change will win? whose resistance will loose? 'ours' or 'theirs' becomes war on any level. dualities - attracting resistance / resisting attraction.
i think i'll have a drink...
)why put two opposing forces together and call it 'battle' when both sides kill each other so they themselves won't be killed? during the actual stress of battles the one who is called 'victor' out-gunned the opponent thru more guns, bigger bombs, faster planes, quicker information bringing a halt to the killing and destruction until the next battle occurs... and historically they've always occurred. battles are what happens upon the field of war - each person, each regiment, each battalion fighting for it's survival. is the reason for the battle heard while the guns are shooting and the bombs exploding or is the only thing heard each person's whisper within - 'survive.... survive for the loved-ones at home'?
the dali lama says war is obsolete, but we are victims of the past... a past that all wars are fought to maintain and prevent from changing. why fight wars over resistance to change. we do not trust the winds of change. we are skeptical of it's inevitability. not knowing what change will bring should bring excitement but we see change as terrifying. we are ill-equipped for change other than changing our instruments of war - bigger and more destructive as if change would hear the cries of death and resist its force.
war may be obsolete. so too our leaders and philosophies become obsolete, as do our religions and governments. this obsoleteness is built in with change, but change we must. the question becomes : 'can we accept change without war?'
The answer may be found in nature - did vesusivias erupt without burying pompeii? does rain cease to fall without trees and animals dying? do tsunamis happen without a shift in the earth below the waters? nature itself becomes violent when change is necessary. why should we be any different? we see our governments, our philosophies, our religions as being strong enough to resist change but we still have our revolutions - changes of ideas, changes of ideals... we are not unlike nature in not only our ability to change, but our necessity for change. the question then becomes : 'whose change do we accept?'
the battles in iraq ask that question. do the sunnis become the victors over the shiia? do the shiia destroy the sunnis? does the u.s. become the victor over the resistance? will islam win over their enemy? will our interpretation of freedom win over their interpretation of allah the victorious? whose change will win? whose resistance will loose? 'ours' or 'theirs' becomes war on any level. dualities - attracting resistance / resisting attraction.
i think i'll have a drink...
mnaz - "It seems like nothing I write, or might record, could possibly replace what has already been written."
c - yr right. but why would you want any of yr writings replace another's..? yr writing is could enough to accompany... and that, amigo, is good.
mnaz - "this wiki piece sickens me in its honesty..."
c - sickens you..? that's powerful. words that are written to stir another to the point that they become sickened has to be powerful writing.
mnaz - "...to a point where I imagine I could never write that kind of poetry and its embedded math in the same way."
c - it's only imagination talking here. yr own voice, yr own words, yr own 'vocabularic' construction of thought and feelings reflecting yr individuality... that should inspire, not sickness, but a healthy and positive step in de-mystifying this imagining.
(.... i now i submit....)
c - yr right. but why would you want any of yr writings replace another's..? yr writing is could enough to accompany... and that, amigo, is good.
mnaz - "this wiki piece sickens me in its honesty..."
c - sickens you..? that's powerful. words that are written to stir another to the point that they become sickened has to be powerful writing.
mnaz - "...to a point where I imagine I could never write that kind of poetry and its embedded math in the same way."
c - it's only imagination talking here. yr own voice, yr own words, yr own 'vocabularic' construction of thought and feelings reflecting yr individuality... that should inspire, not sickness, but a healthy and positive step in de-mystifying this imagining.
(.... i now i submit....)
-
Dave The Dov
- Posts: 2257
- Joined: September 3rd, 2004, 7:22 pm
- Location: Madison Wisconsin which is right here
- Contact:
Last edited by Dave The Dov on March 21st, 2009, 11:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Cecil: You're probably thinking I lost my mind with this post, and given my tired and drunken state when I posted (both times), you're not far off.
It's just that I had one of those "moments".... esthetic arrest, as J. Campbell might have put it.... reading paragraph after paragraph of the sheer tonnage dropped on what was once one of Europe's brightest jewels, and the account so unflinching and detailed and workmanlike, dictated by some stiff-necked guy with a name like Sir Archibald, I'm guessing. It was a horrible moment, but it passed.... (and eclipsed any notions I may have had about writing, at the time).
I hesitate to lump war in with "nature", despite it's frequency, despite the fact it seems merely the flip side of sex to us. After all, war as "natural" is how war is sold by those who forever choose to wage it to those who forever must suffer its execution. We are bestowed with free will, are we not? Can the earthquakes and tsunamis and shiftings of earth's crust say the same?
It's just that I had one of those "moments".... esthetic arrest, as J. Campbell might have put it.... reading paragraph after paragraph of the sheer tonnage dropped on what was once one of Europe's brightest jewels, and the account so unflinching and detailed and workmanlike, dictated by some stiff-necked guy with a name like Sir Archibald, I'm guessing. It was a horrible moment, but it passed.... (and eclipsed any notions I may have had about writing, at the time).
I hesitate to lump war in with "nature", despite it's frequency, despite the fact it seems merely the flip side of sex to us. After all, war as "natural" is how war is sold by those who forever choose to wage it to those who forever must suffer its execution. We are bestowed with free will, are we not? Can the earthquakes and tsunamis and shiftings of earth's crust say the same?
hi, mnaz -
you ask "We are bestowed with free will, are we not? "
to which i say yes... but free will is incumbent upon choice. we cannot use 'free will' if there is no choice to make.
as far as the 'nature of war', i'm at the point where war is never stopping. i.e. as an act, but only ceases when each of us reaches the conclusion that it's unnecessary. but since it is the 'us,' (which really means 'me and whoever else' reaches this 'no war' level), and not the each, this collectiveness is always in a warring stage. In other words, if war was brought to your city, your city (it's people) would be part of the war which may not include you due to your attitude about war.
it's not nature's way to have all of us humans agreeing simultaneously. we are a collective, social hive, but don't agree in toto.
you ask "We are bestowed with free will, are we not? "
to which i say yes... but free will is incumbent upon choice. we cannot use 'free will' if there is no choice to make.
as far as the 'nature of war', i'm at the point where war is never stopping. i.e. as an act, but only ceases when each of us reaches the conclusion that it's unnecessary. but since it is the 'us,' (which really means 'me and whoever else' reaches this 'no war' level), and not the each, this collectiveness is always in a warring stage. In other words, if war was brought to your city, your city (it's people) would be part of the war which may not include you due to your attitude about war.
it's not nature's way to have all of us humans agreeing simultaneously. we are a collective, social hive, but don't agree in toto.
The only peace is internal, individual. Collective human consciousness will always be in a warring stage because it shall always be a "work in progress".... Okay fine. So be it. The ideal Roddenberry/Star Trek future (war on earth eliminated) must then be a logical impossibility by this reckoning.
Yeah, the unfinished "work in progress" model works well enough to explain humanity's uninterrupted suicidal tendencies I suppose.... The weakest link(s) kill it for everyone else; one bad apple spoils the whole bunch, etc, etc. Still though, it's the self-fulfilling prophecy angle that really drives it; that subtle, profound shift from conscious choice to "genetics" via platitude... What's the first thing you always hear when someone tries to jam a new war down our throats? Words to the effect that war is a (cyclic) part of human nature, period, as if it were encoded irreversibly into our DNA. Yeah.... just call it genetics and go kick some ass.... We never really have a choice; the devil in my genes makes me do it....
Yeah, the unfinished "work in progress" model works well enough to explain humanity's uninterrupted suicidal tendencies I suppose.... The weakest link(s) kill it for everyone else; one bad apple spoils the whole bunch, etc, etc. Still though, it's the self-fulfilling prophecy angle that really drives it; that subtle, profound shift from conscious choice to "genetics" via platitude... What's the first thing you always hear when someone tries to jam a new war down our throats? Words to the effect that war is a (cyclic) part of human nature, period, as if it were encoded irreversibly into our DNA. Yeah.... just call it genetics and go kick some ass.... We never really have a choice; the devil in my genes makes me do it....
do i detect some sarcasm here...?
the roddenberry/star trek model (btw; gene was from phar lepht), of no more war on earth only shifted war to the klingons and beyond. there was still war, eh?
war for defense or war for greed - i see those 2 choices as relevant to the purpose of war. one may begin a war for greed thereby causing the opposing side to defend the attack. understandable. but if we, (that dratted collective 'we'), somehow continue our evolution, (a long way to go, imho), we just may see an end to our need for greed, thereby vastly curtailing the foolishness of war... perhaps taking it to a less violent competitive level where both sides learn vs. destroy.
you, me, her and they may certainly feel that war is not the answer, but until enough of you, me, her and they accept that war is not the answer, war will continue. is not war the mind at play? harness the mind, put it in its place, and i see more stability and less war. again, evolutionary, my dear watson... the 'work in progress' you speak of....
the roddenberry/star trek model (btw; gene was from phar lepht), of no more war on earth only shifted war to the klingons and beyond. there was still war, eh?
war for defense or war for greed - i see those 2 choices as relevant to the purpose of war. one may begin a war for greed thereby causing the opposing side to defend the attack. understandable. but if we, (that dratted collective 'we'), somehow continue our evolution, (a long way to go, imho), we just may see an end to our need for greed, thereby vastly curtailing the foolishness of war... perhaps taking it to a less violent competitive level where both sides learn vs. destroy.
you, me, her and they may certainly feel that war is not the answer, but until enough of you, me, her and they accept that war is not the answer, war will continue. is not war the mind at play? harness the mind, put it in its place, and i see more stability and less war. again, evolutionary, my dear watson... the 'work in progress' you speak of....
-
Zlatko Waterman
- Posts: 1631
- Joined: August 19th, 2004, 8:30 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
- Contact:
You are both speaking good language . . .
"I grok your mouth music", as THE TICK says in his wonderful satirical superhero sf show.
http://www.thetick.ws/live.html
Relying on governments to solve our problems just deepens the problems.
I've enjoyed this whole colloquy, and the Ginsberg-like poem too . . .
Thanks, mnaz, mtmynd--
One of the best books ( a short one) on the Allied bombing of German cities is ON THE NATURAL HISTORY OF DESTRUCTION by W.G. Sebald ( non-fiction):
http://www.thetick.ws/live.html
--Z
"I grok your mouth music", as THE TICK says in his wonderful satirical superhero sf show.
http://www.thetick.ws/live.html
Relying on governments to solve our problems just deepens the problems.
I've enjoyed this whole colloquy, and the Ginsberg-like poem too . . .
Thanks, mnaz, mtmynd--
One of the best books ( a short one) on the Allied bombing of German cities is ON THE NATURAL HISTORY OF DESTRUCTION by W.G. Sebald ( non-fiction):
http://www.thetick.ws/live.html
--Z
-
Totenkopf
War is kind, or war is ~kind.
When do US peaceniks discuss the atrocity of Darfur, not to say dozens of other 20th century bloodbaths brought about by marxists and muslims. You want Thanatopolis start with Chairman Lardass and the Red Army in South Asia from late 40s until 70s; then move south to the Khymer Rouge. Ethics at the bingo parlor doesn't make it.
(Ossifer Roddenberry, by the way, was an LAPD sergeant who wrote for Highway Patrol and Twilight Zone before he got his big break with Star Dreck. The Starship Enterprise: ol' squad car in space. Highway Patrol preferable in some ways to Ossifer Roddenberry's pop-socialist NeverNeverLand.)
When do US peaceniks discuss the atrocity of Darfur, not to say dozens of other 20th century bloodbaths brought about by marxists and muslims. You want Thanatopolis start with Chairman Lardass and the Red Army in South Asia from late 40s until 70s; then move south to the Khymer Rouge. Ethics at the bingo parlor doesn't make it.
(Ossifer Roddenberry, by the way, was an LAPD sergeant who wrote for Highway Patrol and Twilight Zone before he got his big break with Star Dreck. The Starship Enterprise: ol' squad car in space. Highway Patrol preferable in some ways to Ossifer Roddenberry's pop-socialist NeverNeverLand.)
Hey man, atrocity is atrocity; marxist, muslim, allied or otherwise. Sorry if I chose the wrong mass murder to write about, according to your tastes.
As for "Star Dreck".... the Enterprise as a "squad car"? I thought their gig was more about exploration, not playing Star Cops. (You know, the "prime directive" and all that).
As for "Star Dreck".... the Enterprise as a "squad car"? I thought their gig was more about exploration, not playing Star Cops. (You know, the "prime directive" and all that).
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests