Very true, Galway. And I am sure you would agree that the Axis powers did the same. I think Germany actually went after civilians first in the BoB to demoralize the Brits.

Splitter

You must not be from the south side of town. Dont worry about it and go have some ice cream. Hugs and kisses, I think your new name should be cuddlefish. Just kidding dont get all upset.

Not cool. There is no sportsmanship in dropping a nuclear bomb.:evil:

Not so much in BoB as Hitler was convinced England would not want another 5 years of war so soon after WWI and would make peace.

Definitely the Germans in the SCW, Poland, Belgium Holland and France before the BoB had shown no qualms about bombing and strafing civilians though mainly for short or medium term tactical advantage.

Ironically the German's never really planned for strategic 'terror' bombing and had no real aircraft suitable for it early in the war. Nazi terror campaigns seemed to feature a lot more hangings and concentration camps than bombings.

Whilst this failure to plan is often cited as a reason for failure of the "blitz" history has shown time and again that "shock and awe" style campaigns, whilst giving the side attacking a warm fuzzy glow, tend to stiffen rather then weaken resistance. Even with 4 engined bombers and longer range fighters it seems unlikely the "blitz" would have forced Britain to capitulate.


Note Churchill however was a proponent of long range bombing of Germany right from the start of hostilities.

Considering that the only known "manual" in "brainwashing" (Brain-Washing: A Synthesis of the Russian Textbook of Psychopolitics) was written by L.R. Hubbard (who tried to pass it off as a summary of something written by Beria, the the then head of KGB), I'd say the word refers to Hubbard's little group.

About the book and some interesting thoughs on "brainwashing":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain-Washing_(book)

I just thought I had to respond to this:

Curiously, the top recipient of aid from the US is a nation with BNP per capita well ahead of other nations who are rich enough to give foreign aid themselves. They receive almost a quarter of all US aid, and (again curiously) most of it is in the form of weapons.

The US give about 13 billion dollars a year in aid, 1/3 of which goes Israel and Egypt (who mostly use it on weapons). My own country give a measly 1,8 billion (all 5 million of us...). So sorry mate, your notion that the US dispense carrots is not entirely correct, neither is the notion that Israel is somehow abandoned by the US. Should Israel go on and bomb in Iran, you can rest assure that the planes ad bombs are your tax-money at work.

That would be about the best use my tax dollars have been put to in years lol. There is no curiosity on why so much aid goes there. It makes sense that we would back Israel so much financially because if they were not strong militarily they would have been over run in one of the past attacks.

One of the aggressors, not all that long ago in the grand scheme of things, was Egypt. I guess we are still paying for that peace.

Also, Israel DOES do much of our dirty work. They took out Iraq's nuclear plant in 1980 I believe. They sat and took SCUD missile attacks in the early 90's and did not retaliate at our request.

When the time comes to take out Iran's nuclear power attempt, it will not be US planes. It should be, but it won't because we do not have the backbone for it. We will publicly give a lukewarm condemnation, but behind the scenes we will be happy that it was done.

(Just for the record, I am not Jewish. I know people are wondering because I support Israel, but that is not why).

BTW, it appear that the next thing the Iranians want from Russia is anti-aircraft missiles.

Galway, it is my understanding that the Germans shifted their bombing focus in the BoB from military to civilian targets in the hope that doing so would weaken the will of the Brits. When that didn't work, for the reasons you spelled out and the backbone of the British people, they then set about developing the V2 and V1. These were to be "terror" weapons.

Splitter

Splitter, do you also know WHY is Israel is so afraid of Iranian nuke?


Hint: They don't expect one thrown at all.

Are you kidding me, I would hate to have you in a fox hole next me crying this is not fair or stop i need a time out. War has nothing to do with sports. LMAO :-)

I would suspect that a terrorist type attack is more likely than a missile attack. Get one into the country secretly and set it off.

Or, also likely, a dirty bomb of some sort. Such destructive power would be very dangerous if it fell into the wrong hands, like Hamas. Since the Iranian regime supports anyone who opposes Israel, it is quite possible that they would try to employ such weapons through a third party.

If there is another theory I would like to hear it :).

EDIT: I guess the hope would be that any effective attack would set the Middle East aflame and lead other countries to join in wiping out Israel. That probably would not happen, rhetoric aside.

Splitter