Putin kills Muslim children and women; Muslim guy kills Russian ambassador

[EvilCat Breath]

The killing of children and women in Aleppo resulted in the assassination of the Russian ambassador in Turkey by an angry Muslim.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/19/world/europe/russia-ambassador-shot-ankara-turkey.html?_r=0

Please discuss.

You guys have nothing to say about Assad killing over 400,000 of his own people, thanks to Hussien Obama's incompetence.

Why not? But.... Emm... Could I see the graves of this over 400.000 people first?

According to estimates, Assad has so far slaugtered over 400,000 of his own people.

That's obama's fault. If he had not supported isis, Assad would have put that little rebellion down in a week.

All those people, dead, because of the obama vanity.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The killing of children and women in Aleppo resulted in the assassination of the Russian ambassador in Turkey by an angry Muslim.

No, the deaths in Aleppo were war casualties and morally justified as part of waging just war.

The Russian ambassador was assassinated which is morally bankrupt.

I don't know what kind of insane morality you're talking about, but killing innocent civilians is never morally justified.

Yes it is. I don't know about Syria but carpet bombing Dresden and nuking Japan was the right thing to do.

The theory being that Hitler loved people so much he might give up his power if we kill them? Give me a break. And nuking Japan was completely unnecessary as Japan was trying to reach out to end the war already.

But there's one small difference- you're discussing it, having 2016, not 1945 at calendar. And don't having WWII, still continued...

Except the U.S. had been intercepting Japanese cables for a while at that point, and many prominent Americans pointed out how unnecessary it was to vaporize innocent Japanese civilians.

"It is my opinion that 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 because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons." - Admiral William D. Leahy, Harry Truman's Chief of Staff

"Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act...

“During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face’. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude...” - Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander of Europe

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing." - Eisenhower

"He [Douglas MacArthur, Commander in Chief U.S. Army Forces Pacific] replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor." - Norman Cousins, consultant to General MacArthur

"...the Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945...up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; ...if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs." - President Herbert Hoover

So no, it's not just the perspective of being several decades away from the event that makes it clear that nuking Japan was unnecessary from any military standpoint.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No, the deaths in Aleppo were war casualties and morally justified as part of waging just war.

The Russian ambassador was assassinated which is morally bankrupt.

I don't know what kind of insane morality you're talking about, but killing innocent civilians is never morally justified.

Yes it is. I don't know about Syria but carpet bombing Dresden and nuking Japan was the right thing to do.

The theory being that Hitler loved people so much he might give up his power if we kill them? Give me a break. And nuking Japan was completely unnecessary as Japan was trying to reach out to end the war already.

But there's one small difference- you're discussing it, having 2016, not 1945 at calendar. And don't having WWII, still continued...

Kevin is a snow flake, so dont bother yourself explaining to him.

The use of drastic military action may cause spikes in civilian deaths in the short run but the cause lower numbers killed by long term by bringing the war to an earlier conclusion.

Except the war was already effectively over.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Dresden was not an industrial city.

In a modern economy there is no such thing as an entire urban area that does not contribute tot he war effort, dude, which made Dresden a legit target for massive carpet bombing,.

I only regret that we didnt hit them again just for emphasis.

Of course, if Hitler had decimated Detroit, Bowie here would surely be defending his right to do so as it was a legitimate military target.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I don't know what kind of insane morality you're talking about, but killing innocent civilians is never morally justified.

Yes it is. I don't know about Syria but carpet bombing Dresden and nuking Japan was the right thing to do.

The theory being that Hitler loved people so much he might give up his power if we kill them? Give me a break. And nuking Japan was completely unnecessary as Japan was trying to reach out to end the war already.

The factories were the primary targets, don't know what your Hitler babble was all about. But no, Japan was not surrendering. They vowed to fight to the death and would have cost the allies many thousands of lives rooting them out.

Dresden was not an industrial city.

And millions jews, burned in a furnaces of Holocaust weren't combatants anyhow...

No, but that's also not why the U.S. entered the war, is it?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Of course, if Hitler had decimated Detroit, Bowie here would surely be defending his right to do so as it was a legitimate military target.

We produced most of our tanks in Detroit, so yes, of course I would defend the Germans on the fact that it would not be a violation of warfare norms.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Except the war was already effectively over.

While people are fighting, dying, bleeding and getting maimed, there is no such thing as 'almost over'.

Whether one is at war is totally a toggle YES/NO situation, dude.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Except the U.S. had been intercepting Japanese cables for a while at that point, and many prominent Americans pointed out how unnecessary it was to vaporize innocent Japanese civilians.
"It is my opinion that 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 because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons." - Admiral William D. Leahy, Harry Truman's Chief of Staff
....
So no, it's not just the perspective of being several decades away from the event that makes it clear that nuking Japan was unnecessary from any military standpoint.

So says the libtard perched behind his computer and not facing an invasion of the Japanese home islands nor a child of his own who was.

The opinions of fat ass generals and admirals does not negate the FACTS of what happened at Okinawa which was undoubtedly a more accurate forecast of what an invasion of Japan would have been like as compared to some random over-promoted sack of shit with scrambled eggs on his visor.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Of course, if Hitler had decimated Detroit, Bowie here would surely be defending his right to do so as it was a legitimate military target.

We produced most of our tanks in Detroit, so yes, of course I would defend the Germans on the fact that it would not be a violation of warfare norms.

Yeah, right. If Germany had bombed Detroit we'd still be hearing about the terrible warcrime of the Nazis targeting a civilian population. Nobody exactly defends Japan's right to attack Pearl Harbor, a military base.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Except the war was already effectively over.

While people are fighting, dying, bleeding and getting maimed, there is no such thing as 'almost over'.

Whether one is at war is totally a toggle YES/NO situation, dude.

If that were true then at no point could anybody begin to discuss ending a war.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Except the U.S. had been intercepting Japanese cables for a while at that point, and many prominent Americans pointed out how unnecessary it was to vaporize innocent Japanese civilians.
"It is my opinion that 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 because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons." - Admiral William D. Leahy, Harry Truman's Chief of Staff
....
So no, it's not just the perspective of being several decades away from the event that makes it clear that nuking Japan was unnecessary from any military standpoint.

So says the libtard perched behind his computer and not facing an invasion of the Japanese home islands nor a child of his own who was.

The opinions of fat ass generals and admirals does not negate the FACTS of what happened at Okinawa which was undoubtedly a more accurate forecast of what an invasion of Japan would have been like as compared to some random over-promoted sack of shit with scrambled eggs on his visor.

Support the troops, unless they disagree with the fairy tale my third grade teacher taught me.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

I don't know what kind of insane morality you're talking about, but killing innocent civilians is never morally justified.

Yes it is. I don't know about Syria but carpet bombing Dresden and nuking Japan was the right thing to do.

The theory being that Hitler loved people so much he might give up his power if we kill them? Give me a break. And nuking Japan was completely unnecessary as Japan was trying to reach out to end the war already.

But there's one small difference- you're discussing it, having 2016, not 1945 at calendar. And don't having WWII, still continued...

Kevin is a snow flake, so dont bother yourself explaining to him.

The use of drastic military action may cause spikes in civilian deaths in the short run but the cause lower numbers killed by long term by bringing the war to an earlier conclusion.

Except the war was already effectively over.

By 1945 Japan had no offensive capability, they lacked fuel for warships and pilots for aircraft. Kamikaze don't win wars, they just stave off defeat for a little while. In July and August 1945 US carrier aircraft bombed and strafed everywhere in Japan at will with almost no opposition. The end was coming soon one way or another.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

Except the U.S. had been intercepting Japanese cables for a while at that point, and many prominent Americans pointed out how unnecessary it was to vaporize innocent Japanese civilians.
"It is my opinion that 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 because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons." - Admiral William D. Leahy, Harry Truman's Chief of Staff
....
So no, it's not just the perspective of being several decades away from the event that makes it clear that nuking Japan was unnecessary from any military standpoint.

So says the libtard perched behind his computer and not facing an invasion of the Japanese home islands nor a child of his own who was.

The opinions of fat ass generals and admirals does not negate the FACTS of what happened at Okinawa which was undoubtedly a more accurate forecast of what an invasion of Japan would have been like as compared to some random over-promoted sack of shit with scrambled eggs on his visor.

That would be the movie version.

 

[Iceweasel]

By 1945 Japan had no offensive capability, they lacked fuel for warships and pilots for aircraft. Kamikaze don't win wars, they just stave off defeat for a little while. In July and August 1945 US carrier aircraft bombed and strafed everywhere in Japan at will with almost no opposition. The end was coming soon one way or another.

The problem was 'the other' with them vowing to fight to the death. Each man, rooted out one by one. Lots of our soldiers would have died.

 

[Iceweasel]

Except the U.S. had been intercepting Japanese cables for a while at that point, and many prominent Americans pointed out how unnecessary it was to vaporize innocent Japanese civilians.
"It is my opinion that 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 because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons." - Admiral William D. Leahy, Harry Truman's Chief of Staff
....
So no, it's not just the perspective of being several decades away from the event that makes it clear that nuking Japan was unnecessary from any military standpoint.

So says the libtard perched behind his computer and not facing an invasion of the Japanese home islands nor a child of his own who was.

The opinions of fat ass generals and admirals does not negate the FACTS of what happened at Okinawa which was undoubtedly a more accurate forecast of what an invasion of Japan would have been like as compared to some random over-promoted sack of shit with scrambled eggs on his visor.

That would be the movie version.

Do you have anything besides platitudes?

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

Except the U.S. had been intercepting Japanese cables for a while at that point, and many prominent Americans pointed out how unnecessary it was to vaporize innocent Japanese civilians.
"It is my opinion that 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 because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons." - Admiral William D. Leahy, Harry Truman's Chief of Staff
....
So no, it's not just the perspective of being several decades away from the event that makes it clear that nuking Japan was unnecessary from any military standpoint.

So says the libtard perched behind his computer and not facing an invasion of the Japanese home islands nor a child of his own who was.

The opinions of fat ass generals and admirals does not negate the FACTS of what happened at Okinawa which was undoubtedly a more accurate forecast of what an invasion of Japan would have been like as compared to some random over-promoted sack of shit with scrambled eggs on his visor.

That would be the movie version.

Do you have anything besides platitudes?

Evidently I'm in possession of plenty of facts, which you seem to lack.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

By 1945 Japan had no offensive capability, they lacked fuel for warships and pilots for aircraft. Kamikaze don't win wars, they just stave off defeat for a little while. In July and August 1945 US carrier aircraft bombed and strafed everywhere in Japan at will with almost no opposition. The end was coming soon one way or another.

The problem was 'the other' with them vowing to fight to the death. Each man, rooted out one by one. Lots of our soldiers would have died.

Japanese leaders made the decisions, not individuals vowing to die.

 

[Iceweasel]

Except the U.S. had been intercepting Japanese cables for a while at that point, and many prominent Americans pointed out how unnecessary it was to vaporize innocent Japanese civilians.
"It is my opinion that 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 because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons." - Admiral William D. Leahy, Harry Truman's Chief of Staff
....
So no, it's not just the perspective of being several decades away from the event that makes it clear that nuking Japan was unnecessary from any military standpoint.

So says the libtard perched behind his computer and not facing an invasion of the Japanese home islands nor a child of his own who was.

The opinions of fat ass generals and admirals does not negate the FACTS of what happened at Okinawa which was undoubtedly a more accurate forecast of what an invasion of Japan would have been like as compared to some random over-promoted sack of shit with scrambled eggs on his visor.

That would be the movie version.

Do you have anything besides platitudes?

Evidently I'm in possession of plenty of facts, which you seem to lack.

So the answer is no. You have nothing but platitudes.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

Except the U.S. had been intercepting Japanese cables for a while at that point, and many prominent Americans pointed out how unnecessary it was to vaporize innocent Japanese civilians.
"It is my opinion that 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 because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons." - Admiral William D. Leahy, Harry Truman's Chief of Staff
....
So no, it's not just the perspective of being several decades away from the event that makes it clear that nuking Japan was unnecessary from any military standpoint.

So says the libtard perched behind his computer and not facing an invasion of the Japanese home islands nor a child of his own who was.

The opinions of fat ass generals and admirals does not negate the FACTS of what happened at Okinawa which was undoubtedly a more accurate forecast of what an invasion of Japan would have been like as compared to some random over-promoted sack of shit with scrambled eggs on his visor.

That would be the movie version.

Do you have anything besides platitudes?

Evidently I'm in possession of plenty of facts, which you seem to lack.

So the answer is no. You have nothing but platitudes.

You are evidently confused about the meaning of the word. I would suggest you consult a dictionary.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

Except the U.S. had been intercepting Japanese cables for a while at that point, and many prominent Americans pointed out how unnecessary it was to vaporize innocent Japanese civilians.
"It is my opinion that 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 because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons." - Admiral William D. Leahy, Harry Truman's Chief of Staff
....
So no, it's not just the perspective of being several decades away from the event that makes it clear that nuking Japan was unnecessary from any military standpoint.

So says the libtard perched behind his computer and not facing an invasion of the Japanese home islands nor a child of his own who was.

The opinions of fat ass generals and admirals does not negate the FACTS of what happened at Okinawa which was undoubtedly a more accurate forecast of what an invasion of Japan would have been like as compared to some random over-promoted sack of shit with scrambled eggs on his visor.

Support the troops, unless they disagree with the fairy tale my third grade teacher taught me.

It's amazing how so many Americans know so little about their own history.