A Question

[mememe]

Hmmmm, destroy two cities and end the war or fight for another two years and have millions in collateral damage. Is it really that hard of an option?

Your "millions in collateral damage" is no more then a speculation after a fact!

For starters, the Soviet Union beat Japan twice in 1930-s without any "millions in collateral damage".

For afters: DELIBERATE TARGETING OF CIVILIANS IS A CRIME!!!!! That's what terrorists and mass murderers do. Is terrorism a crime? Is mass murder a crime?

I would go so far as to say that war is a crime. Does that change reality? No. Speculation? Study the Battle of Okinawa!

War of aggression is a crime. War of defence is not.

 

[Publius1787]

And in that world of reality US became world's number one terrorist state and mass murderer...

Btw, in Iraq you were shooting not "insurgents", but people who defended their country against an aggressor. Like people of all countries attacked by Nazis did during WW2...

Oh if only you could have seen the tortured and decapitated heads of innocent families who's father sought employment as a janitor on a US military base. If only you could have been there with me as they wore civilian attire, shot at us from mosques/schools/hospitals, and blew up bombs as polling stations and crowded market places. If only you could have seen them force the population to use their back yards, grave yards, and homes as weapons cache's. If only you could have picked up the bodies of the people they executed before a mass audience or seen the torture rooms. But no, according to you, these are just people attempting to repel their illegal occupiers. Tell that to the people of Anbar who, with our help, overthrew the insurgent presence.

You lamenting a fate of civilians in Iraq sounds like a joke after your justification of mass murders of civilians at the hands of US.

WHAT WERE YOU DOING IN IRAQ IN THE FIRST PLACE?! Can't you understand that to Iraqis you are INVADERS and ENEMIES? And those who are forced to look for work on your military bases because YOU destroyed their places of work automatically become "collaborators", "traitors" and "enemies" regardless of what they do on your bases?

What was going on in Iraq prior to your invasion was THEIR business (like it is your business what rights and wrongs are taking place in your country). You did not go there to "save civilians" or to "spread democracy"...

And what were their ends? By "their" I'm referring to the Muj, AQI, among many others single person named groups. Sure both the Muj and AQI, the two dominant groups in Iraq, wanted us out of there. However, I can assure you that their leadership were mainly from out of country, the population hated them, and they did not care about the manner of which their ends were achieved. Though, something tells me you know nothing about either of these groups.

 

[MikeK]

Armed combat is organized insanity and that is not just rhetoric. Because fear is the precursor of hatred the more one fears his enemy the more virulent and compelling his hatred will become.

I lived through the War years and although I was a pre-teen boy I have recollection of the atmosphere of prevailing fear and the ubiquitous anti-Jap (and anti-Nazi) propaganda. It was on the radio and in movies in reports of cruelty by Japanese to their prisoners. There were stories of the Rape of Nanking and there were very arresting posters in stores, subways, and on buses. Here are just a few examples:

Those are relatively mild examples. As the War progressed the images became more brutally graphic. The effect of the propaganda was such that by the time the "A Bomb" was developed it was impossible to harbor the slightest reluctance to use it. In fact, while it is not commonly known the main reason for interning Japanese Americans was their own protection.

Understandably, the initial reaction of Americans to the bomb, which ended the War, was euphoric relief. The effect of the bomb on the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn't evoke any regret for some time. Four years of gradually intensifying hatred doesn't dissipate quickly.

 

[mememe]

The US did not start WWII. They ended it.

... by committing the same crime Nazis committed...

Hardly. The Nazis exterminated millions of their own countrymen without provocation. The US responded to an attack that killed 3,500 members of its Pacific fleet and destroyed a significant part of its Navy.
You can't equate the Holocaust and Hiroshima and retain any semblance of integrity. Sorry.

Nazis were tried for deliberate targeting civilians for mass extermination, and not for the number of those they murdered. Unless, you think that if instead of "...................." millions they killed "....." millions no one would've said a bad word to them.

In Japan US did what Nazis were doing: they deliberately targeted civilians for mass extermination.

 

[Publius1787]

Your "millions in collateral damage" is no more then a speculation after a fact!

For starters, the Soviet Union beat Japan twice in 1930-s without any "millions in collateral damage".

For afters: DELIBERATE TARGETING OF CIVILIANS IS A CRIME!!!!! That's what terrorists and mass murderers do. Is terrorism a crime? Is mass murder a crime?

I would go so far as to say that war is a crime. Does that change reality? No. Speculation? Study the Battle of Okinawa!

War of aggression is a crime. War of defence is not.

I don't suppose you would dare say that the Japanese in WWII were defending?

 

[Unkotare]

In fact, while it is not commonly known the main reason for interning Japanese Americans was their own protection.
.

No it wasn't.

 

[Publius1787]

Armed combat is organized insanity and that is not just rhetoric. Because fear is the precursor of hatred the more one fears his enemy the more virulent and compelling his hatred will become.

I lived through the War years and although I was a pre-teen boy I have recollection of the atmosphere of prevailing fear and the ubiquitous anti-Jap (and anti-Nazi) propaganda. It was on the radio and in movies in reports of cruelty by Japanese to their prisoners. There were stories of the Rape of Nanking and there were very arresting posters in stores, subways, and on buses. Here are just a few examples:

Those are relatively mild examples. As the War progressed the images became more brutally graphic. The effect of the propaganda was such that by the time the "A Bomb" was developed it was impossible to harbor the slightest reluctance to use it. In fact, while it is not commonly known the main reason for interning Japanese Americans was their own protection.

Understandably, the initial reaction of Americans to the bomb, which ended the War, was euphoric relief. The effect of the bomb on the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn't evoke any regret for some time. Four years of gradually intensifying hatred doesn't dissipate quickly.

Dehumanizing your enemy makes it easeyer to kill them.

 

[mememe]

And what were their ends? By "their" I'm referring to the Muj, AQI, among many others single person named groups. Sure both the Muj and AQI, the two dominant groups in Iraq, wanted us out of there. However, I can assure you that their leadership were mainly from out of country, the population hated them, and they did not care about the manner of which their ends were achieved. Though, something tells me you know nothing about either of these groups.

And that was NONE OF US BUSINESS!!! Like it is no one else's (apart from Americans) business what is going on inside of US.
You did NOT go into Iraq to "liberate" or to "spread democracy"!

Are you aware that US finances, arms and supports terrorist and religious extremist groups around the world?!

 

[mememe]

I would go so far as to say that war is a crime. Does that change reality? No. Speculation? Study the Battle of Okinawa!

War of aggression is a crime. War of defence is not.

I don't suppose you would dare say that the Japanese in WWII were defending?

No.

It was a general observation.

 

[Publius1787]

And what were their ends? By "their" I'm referring to the Muj, AQI, among many others single person named groups. Sure both the Muj and AQI, the two dominant groups in Iraq, wanted us out of there. However, I can assure you that their leadership were mainly from out of country, the population hated them, and they did not care about the manner of which their ends were achieved. Though, something tells me you know nothing about either of these groups.

And that was NONE OF US BUSINESS!!! Like it is no one else's (apart from Americans) business what is going on inside of US.
You did NOT go into Iraq to "liberate" or to "spread democracy"!

Are you aware that US finances, arms and supports terrorist and religious extremist groups around the world?!

Sure! The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

And .... So .... You brush it off as its non of my business? Funny, I thought you knew why they were fighting us. I thought you knew why they fought both us and the civilian population. I thought you said that they were defending themselves. You inability to answer the question showes me that you are aware that defense is absolutly not the ends of their mission. Their ends is the purge the middle east from western influence and kill infidels. Their ends is violently achieved Sharia law. Their ends is to "kill the infidel wherever he may be/hide." want to have some fun? Try to open girls college in Afghanistan. I promise you an amateur fireworks display!

 

[mememe]

And what were their ends? By "their" I'm referring to the Muj, AQI, among many others single person named groups. Sure both the Muj and AQI, the two dominant groups in Iraq, wanted us out of there. However, I can assure you that their leadership were mainly from out of country, the population hated them, and they did not care about the manner of which their ends were achieved. Though, something tells me you know nothing about either of these groups.

And that was NONE OF US BUSINESS!!! Like it is no one else's (apart from Americans) business what is going on inside of US.
You did NOT go into Iraq to "liberate" or to "spread democracy"!

Are you aware that US finances, arms and supports terrorist and religious extremist groups around the world?!

Sure! The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

And .... So .... You brush it off as its non of my business? Funny, I thought you knew why they were fighting us. I thought you knew why they fought both us and the civilian population. I thought you said that they were defending themselves. You inability to answer the question showes me that you are aware that defense is absolutly not the ends of their mission. Their ends is the purge the middle east from western influence and kill infidels. Their ends is violently achieved Sharia law. Their ends is to "kill the infidel wherever he may be/hide." want to have some fun? Try to open girls college in Afghanistan. I promise you an amateur fireworks display!

These "Muj" and "AQI" enjoyed full US support in Afghanistan in 1980-s, in Serbia, in Russia, in all the "stans" of Central Asia, in Libya and in Syria. And yet you are trying to convince me that in Iraq (btw, Al-Q didn't get there until US "liberated" the country!) US was fighting militant Islamists on behalf of Iraqi population!

Can you explain to me, because I really do not get it, what (in your opinion) business was that of US who and how lived in Iraq?!

As for Afghanistan, then I have a surprise for you: until US start stirring shit there supporting Islamic fundamentalists against Soviet influence, the life there was quite different from what it is now, after first US assisted Taliban into power, and then invaded it all together.

 

[Unkotare]

Dehumanizing your enemy makes it easeyer to kill them.

The problem is that some people have trouble stopping that after the war is over.

 

[Publius1787]

Dehumanizing your enemy makes it easeyer to kill them.

The problem is that some people have trouble stopping that after the war is over.

A limited few I would say.

 

[Unkotare]

And what were their ends? By "their" I'm referring to the Muj, AQI, among many others single person named groups. Sure both the Muj and AQI, the two dominant groups in Iraq, wanted us out of there. However, I can assure you that their leadership were mainly from out of country, the population hated them, and they did not care about the manner of which their ends were achieved. Though, something tells me you know nothing about either of these groups.

And that was NONE OF US BUSINESS!!! Like it is no one else's (apart from Americans) business what is going on inside of US.
You did NOT go into Iraq to "liberate" or to "spread democracy"!

Are you aware that US finances, arms and supports terrorist and religious extremist groups around the world?!

Conspiracy Forum thataway, pengyou.

<<<<

 

[Unkotare]

Dehumanizing your enemy makes it easeyer to kill them.

The problem is that some people have trouble stopping that after the war is over.

A limited few I would say.

There are still some people today - people born after the war - who sound like those propaganda posters.

 

[regent]

In fact, while it is not commonly known the main reason for interning Japanese Americans was their own protection.
.

No it wasn't.

I wouldn't say it was the main reason but it was a factor. There was a lot of hostility physical and otherwise toward those of Japanese and Chinese appearance. People couldn't tell the difference betweem the two. But they were not the only minorities that were in trouble, check out the military's conflict with the zoot-suiters.
But perhaps the primary reason the Japanese on the west coast were removed was the political power of the Daughters of the Golden West and the California fruit and vegetable growers. I would also question General DeWitt's objectivity and his decision to remove the Japanese from the coast.

 

[Unkotare]

In fact, while it is not commonly known the main reason for interning Japanese Americans was their own protection.
.

No it wasn't.

I wouldn't say it was the main reason but it was a factor.

It was one justification, and a weak one at that.

 

[Publius1787]

And that was NONE OF US BUSINESS!!! Like it is no one else's (apart from Americans) business what is going on inside of US.
You did NOT go into Iraq to "liberate" or to "spread democracy"!

Are you aware that US finances, arms and supports terrorist and religious extremist groups around the world?!

Sure! The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

And .... So .... You brush it off as its non of my business? Funny, I thought you knew why they were fighting us. I thought you knew why they fought both us and the civilian population. I thought you said that they were defending themselves. You inability to answer the question showes me that you are aware that defense is absolutly not the ends of their mission. Their ends is the purge the middle east from western influence and kill infidels. Their ends is violently achieved Sharia law. Their ends is to "kill the infidel wherever he may be/hide." want to have some fun? Try to open girls college in Afghanistan. I promise you an amateur fireworks display!

These "Muj" and "AQI" enjoyed full US support in Afghanistan in 1980-s, in Serbia, in Russia, in all the "stans" of Central Asia, in Libya and in Syria. And yet you are trying to convince me that in Iraq (btw, Al-Q didn't get there until US "liberated" the country!) US was fighting militant Islamists on behalf of Iraqi population!

Can you explain to me, because I really do not get it, what (in your opinion) business was that of US who and how lived in Iraq?!

As for Afghanistan, then I have a surprise for you: until US start stirring shit there supporting Islamic fundamentalists against Soviet influence, the life there was quite different from what it is now, after first US assisted Taliban into power, and then invaded it all together.

Sure. I would be happy to explain it to you. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Any questions? And we weren't fighting any terrorists on behalf the Iraqi people. We fought them to prevent a terrorist safe haven after we left. Did it work? That is partially on Obamas hands now.

Funny how socialist praise and defend the countries under the influence of the USSR during the Arab cold war, but demonize the US for doing the same. Look at the staff of all those leaders in Palistine, Egypt, Tunisia, Saddams Iraq, and Iran, etc and you will find a mess of Soviet trained dictatores. Some of which you can see below who attended Soviet universities (just one university for this group) with the intent of sparking socialist revolutions across the middle east, Africa, and south America, expanding soviet influence by arming the Arab, African, and south American revolutionaries. Look! Its Chavez, educated in the USSR. Go figure huh?

Ali Khamenei, Supreme Leader of Iran (wrote his thesis on holocaust denial)
Fatima Abdel Mahmoud, Sudanese politician, leader of the Sudanese Socialist Democratic Union
Hugo Chávez, 61st and current President of Venezuela
Abed Elrahim Abu Zakrra, Sudanese writer and poet
Bharrat Jagdeo, Former President of Guyana from 1999 to 2011
Irina Khakamada, Russian politician, a member of The Other Russia coalition
Porfirio Lobo Sosa, President of Honduras, a politician and agricultural landowner
Ilich Ramírez Sánchez, Venezuelan terrorist and assassin (expelled)
Lucy Seki, Brazilian linguist
Ganesh Shah, Nepalese politician and member of Communist Party of Nepal (United)
Rohana Wijeweera, Sri Lankan Marxist politician


Look up "the caspian report" on YouTube. That kid is good! You will perhaps have some of your views vindicated there. It's fascinating to say the least!

http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=plpp&v=TEC9uM1h4i0

 

[Publius1787]

The problem is that some people have trouble stopping that after the war is over.

A limited few I would say.

There are still some people today - people born after the war - who sound like those propaganda posters.

Sure.

 

[regent]

No it wasn't.

I wouldn't say it was the main reason but it was a factor.

It was one justification, and a weak one at that.

FDR had turned the removal decision over to the nine corps commanders, only DeWitt of the ninth corps area ordered the removal of the Japanse. Of Course the responsiblity was FDR's but should FDR have approved DeWitt's decision or not. Now in the safety of years we can say he should not have.