Will Trump be a war criminal like Truman?

[gipper]

Ok, name a Japanese, Italian, or German Officer or politician who was prosecuted for a war crime over bombing. No one was prosecuted, and no one was convicted. So apparently even the fire bombing of London was not a war crime. But I'm sure Ralph and you have a long list of people prosecuted for it. I'll just hold my breath over here and wait.

Can you explain in detail how mass murder of innocents from the air, is different from mass murder of innocents on the ground?

Well, I covered that to some extent on page five of this thread.

Will Trump be a war criminal like Truman?

Either you missed it, or you just skipped it, or you forgot.

The problem with your I even mentioned how in another response, you have to go about changing an understanding of history. You can't just cherry pick the quotes, you have to account for all the information. Ralph doesn't do that. He doesn't address the lack of prosecutions at the various war crimes trials for bombing. London was firebombed. But no one was prosecuted for it. Coventry was destroyed. No prosecutions. Churches, hospitals, and other targets you were supposed to avoid were hit.

Ralph does not address the wide availability of information and evidence. He cherry picks the quote and stops. He does not put the quotes into context of the era, and he does not address the lack of prohibitions in any policy manual or war plans.

Everyone wanted to precision bomb. They couldn't do it. The technology just did not exist. It didn't exist twenty years later during Vietnam. So the best we could do was drop some bombs at the target, and as long as we were aiming for the target, we would be covered.

Let's take it back a step. Lose the mass murder hang up for a minute. Let's say someone is shooting at you. You are armed, and returning fire. You are shooting at the guy who is shooting at you. It is obviously self defense. One of your bullets misses the guy and travels down the road striking a child who is in her front yard playing on a tricycle. It kills her. Have you murdered her? Have you committed manslaughter.

Our laws say no. Your intent was to hit the baddie who was trying to kill you. If he had not tried to kill you, you would not have fired your weapon. Your action was a result of his action. His instigation of the incident is what led to the death of that little girl.

This is why police snipers are not charged when they shoot the hostage. This is why cops are not prosecuted when they shoot the hostage. The law says that any deaths are the responsibility of the baddie who started it. If a hostage dies, even if it's at the hands of the police, it's the fault of the baddie. So long as you can say you were shooting at the baddie you're covered.

The example that was given to me as a child was let's say you are cleaning out a stable. Some kid throws a lit firecracker into the stable. You see this firecracker come in the window, and you grab it and turn and throw it out another window. It strikes another person and detonates and injures that person. You are not responsible for that harm, because you were acting to prevent the firework for startling the animals, and potentially harming one of them, or starting a fire. You would not have thrown the firecracker out the window if someone else had not thrown it in. Your reaction was intended to save, not harm.

The same is true of bombing. The intent was to harm the enemy ability to conduct war. Road junctions were valid military targets for every military. Those road junctions were in the middle of cities. So you have to bomb the cities to try and slow or stop the flow of war materials to the enemy. Railroads were similarly targeted.

Tell you what, let's fast forward to today. The M-16 replaced the M-14 rifle. The .30 caliber bullet was a killing round. It was intended to kill the enemy with a single shot. The round that replaced it was the .223 caliber, or 5.56 MM. This was intended to wound the enemy. The round created what is called a Militarily Significant Wound. That means that the guy who gets shot, is now hurt, and screaming, and needs medical attention. Do you think that was done because we are humane and don't want to kill the enemy?

It was done because of the cold calculation that one wounded takes at least three, probably four enemy out of the battle. A screaming comrade that is in agony is horrible for morale. You have to get him out of there. That means two people to put him on a stretcher and carry him to the medics. Well there is the medic who goes along and possibly someone to carry the weapons and equipment of the guys carrying the stretcher. So one wounded soldier takes more off the battlefield than a dead soldier. The dead guy doesn't scream in pain, but the wounded guy does.

We use the smaller cartridge not because we are merciful, but because we are cruel. We know that untreated that wound will become infected, and then the enemy gets to watch their friend die slowly with the stench of gangrene filling the air. The smell of death. The stench of rotting flesh. If the enemy does not have access to adequate medical facilities, then their wounded friend will probably die from the wound, slowly, agonizingly.

This is the 21st Century, a hundred years after the First World War, and we still do things like that, and not only is it perfectly legal under the laws of war, it's encouraged. We are supposed to use metal jacketed bullets to make it easier for doctors to heal the wounded. What it means is that without hollowpoint or expanding or exploding bullets that the enemies moral is affected as the guy screams in agony calling for his mother desperate for a little succor.

Answer me this question. How is the Atomic Bomb significantly worse than the firebombing of the cites which both sides did many times. At what point do you reach the maximum amount of suffering? At what point does the needle get pegged? Is it the Soviets in Leningrad who turned to cannibalism to survive? Is it the little German girl who asks her mother "are we getting dead now" as the bombs and fires raged closer to the shelter? Is it the wife who buried the buttock of her husband, identifiable as his because of his watch that was melted to the skin?

How much suffering is the limit? What is worse? Running out of the shelter because the air is being sucked out and finding yourself stuck to the streets that have been liquified by the heat and screaming as you are burned to death? Is it the concussion that destroyed your lungs and allow you to slowly choke to death as you drown on dry land? Is it the heat and blast of an atomic bomb? Of people throwing themselves into a river desperate for some relief from the agony?

That's the problem with Ralph's ideals. It utterly ignores the entire war, and the horrors that were experienced by so many. A German Soldier on the eastern front wrote "Pain is universal" as he came to understand exactly what was happening. He saw the enemy suffering, and he saw himself, and his friends suffering.

At some point, the suffering is maxed out. There just isn't any way to suffer any more. One of the Generals who was quoted after the war said that the best thing about the Atomic Bomb was it stopped the firebombing. For him, that was the worse. He has a point. The bombers would come back and the skins of the bombers would be stinking like the roasted flesh of people. You could smell the death according to reports.

Show me the policy that prohibited bombing of the cities. Show me the convention agreement that prohibited it. Show me something other than a handful of asinine quotes taken out of context. Show me how it fits into the larger picture. Show me how we have been viewing the incident wrong. You can't just ignore everything else. You have to address it. You have to show where the information was incorrect, or just not considered correctly.

This is where Ralph drops the ball. He ignores the tons of evidence, and the sheer incredible volume of information.

WAITING>>>>

Can you PLEASE explain in detail how mass murder of innocents from the air, is different from mass murder of innocents on the ground?

Okay...since apparently you are unwilling to answer my question, I will endeavor to answer it for you.

You believe the following as an answer to my question....it is okay for America to murder innocents to win a war, but it is not okay for any other nation to do the same.

Does that sound hypocritical to you?

Name who was prosecuted on the Axis side for bombing. Waiting. Remember we held the war trials and prosecuted. Who did we prosecute for bombing civilians?

Is it your position that since no Axis leader was prosecuted for bombing civilians, bombing civilians is perfectly okay?

 

[gipper]

Can you explain in detail how mass murder of innocents from the air, is different from mass murder of innocents on the ground?

Well, I covered that to some extent on page five of this thread.

Will Trump be a war criminal like Truman?

Either you missed it, or you just skipped it, or you forgot.

The problem with your I even mentioned how in another response, you have to go about changing an understanding of history. You can't just cherry pick the quotes, you have to account for all the information. Ralph doesn't do that. He doesn't address the lack of prosecutions at the various war crimes trials for bombing. London was firebombed. But no one was prosecuted for it. Coventry was destroyed. No prosecutions. Churches, hospitals, and other targets you were supposed to avoid were hit.

Ralph does not address the wide availability of information and evidence. He cherry picks the quote and stops. He does not put the quotes into context of the era, and he does not address the lack of prohibitions in any policy manual or war plans.

Everyone wanted to precision bomb. They couldn't do it. The technology just did not exist. It didn't exist twenty years later during Vietnam. So the best we could do was drop some bombs at the target, and as long as we were aiming for the target, we would be covered.

Let's take it back a step. Lose the mass murder hang up for a minute. Let's say someone is shooting at you. You are armed, and returning fire. You are shooting at the guy who is shooting at you. It is obviously self defense. One of your bullets misses the guy and travels down the road striking a child who is in her front yard playing on a tricycle. It kills her. Have you murdered her? Have you committed manslaughter.

Our laws say no. Your intent was to hit the baddie who was trying to kill you. If he had not tried to kill you, you would not have fired your weapon. Your action was a result of his action. His instigation of the incident is what led to the death of that little girl.

This is why police snipers are not charged when they shoot the hostage. This is why cops are not prosecuted when they shoot the hostage. The law says that any deaths are the responsibility of the baddie who started it. If a hostage dies, even if it's at the hands of the police, it's the fault of the baddie. So long as you can say you were shooting at the baddie you're covered.

The example that was given to me as a child was let's say you are cleaning out a stable. Some kid throws a lit firecracker into the stable. You see this firecracker come in the window, and you grab it and turn and throw it out another window. It strikes another person and detonates and injures that person. You are not responsible for that harm, because you were acting to prevent the firework for startling the animals, and potentially harming one of them, or starting a fire. You would not have thrown the firecracker out the window if someone else had not thrown it in. Your reaction was intended to save, not harm.

The same is true of bombing. The intent was to harm the enemy ability to conduct war. Road junctions were valid military targets for every military. Those road junctions were in the middle of cities. So you have to bomb the cities to try and slow or stop the flow of war materials to the enemy. Railroads were similarly targeted.

Tell you what, let's fast forward to today. The M-16 replaced the M-14 rifle. The .30 caliber bullet was a killing round. It was intended to kill the enemy with a single shot. The round that replaced it was the .223 caliber, or 5.56 MM. This was intended to wound the enemy. The round created what is called a Militarily Significant Wound. That means that the guy who gets shot, is now hurt, and screaming, and needs medical attention. Do you think that was done because we are humane and don't want to kill the enemy?

It was done because of the cold calculation that one wounded takes at least three, probably four enemy out of the battle. A screaming comrade that is in agony is horrible for morale. You have to get him out of there. That means two people to put him on a stretcher and carry him to the medics. Well there is the medic who goes along and possibly someone to carry the weapons and equipment of the guys carrying the stretcher. So one wounded soldier takes more off the battlefield than a dead soldier. The dead guy doesn't scream in pain, but the wounded guy does.

We use the smaller cartridge not because we are merciful, but because we are cruel. We know that untreated that wound will become infected, and then the enemy gets to watch their friend die slowly with the stench of gangrene filling the air. The smell of death. The stench of rotting flesh. If the enemy does not have access to adequate medical facilities, then their wounded friend will probably die from the wound, slowly, agonizingly.

This is the 21st Century, a hundred years after the First World War, and we still do things like that, and not only is it perfectly legal under the laws of war, it's encouraged. We are supposed to use metal jacketed bullets to make it easier for doctors to heal the wounded. What it means is that without hollowpoint or expanding or exploding bullets that the enemies moral is affected as the guy screams in agony calling for his mother desperate for a little succor.

Answer me this question. How is the Atomic Bomb significantly worse than the firebombing of the cites which both sides did many times. At what point do you reach the maximum amount of suffering? At what point does the needle get pegged? Is it the Soviets in Leningrad who turned to cannibalism to survive? Is it the little German girl who asks her mother "are we getting dead now" as the bombs and fires raged closer to the shelter? Is it the wife who buried the buttock of her husband, identifiable as his because of his watch that was melted to the skin?

How much suffering is the limit? What is worse? Running out of the shelter because the air is being sucked out and finding yourself stuck to the streets that have been liquified by the heat and screaming as you are burned to death? Is it the concussion that destroyed your lungs and allow you to slowly choke to death as you drown on dry land? Is it the heat and blast of an atomic bomb? Of people throwing themselves into a river desperate for some relief from the agony?

That's the problem with Ralph's ideals. It utterly ignores the entire war, and the horrors that were experienced by so many. A German Soldier on the eastern front wrote "Pain is universal" as he came to understand exactly what was happening. He saw the enemy suffering, and he saw himself, and his friends suffering.

At some point, the suffering is maxed out. There just isn't any way to suffer any more. One of the Generals who was quoted after the war said that the best thing about the Atomic Bomb was it stopped the firebombing. For him, that was the worse. He has a point. The bombers would come back and the skins of the bombers would be stinking like the roasted flesh of people. You could smell the death according to reports.

Show me the policy that prohibited bombing of the cities. Show me the convention agreement that prohibited it. Show me something other than a handful of asinine quotes taken out of context. Show me how it fits into the larger picture. Show me how we have been viewing the incident wrong. You can't just ignore everything else. You have to address it. You have to show where the information was incorrect, or just not considered correctly.

This is where Ralph drops the ball. He ignores the tons of evidence, and the sheer incredible volume of information.

WAITING>>>>

Can you PLEASE explain in detail how mass murder of innocents from the air, is different from mass murder of innocents on the ground?

Okay...since apparently you are unwilling to answer my question, I will endeavor to answer it for you.

You believe the following as an answer to my question....it is okay for America to murder innocents to win a war, but it is not okay for any other nation to do the same.

Does that sound hypocritical to you?

Name who was prosecuted on the Axis side for bombing. Waiting. Remember we held the war trials and prosecuted. Who did we prosecute for bombing civilians?

Is it your position that since no Axis leader was prosecuted for bombing civilians, bombing civilians is perfectly okay?

Did I stump you again, with yet another logical question?

 

[SavannahMann]

Well, I covered that to some extent on page five of this thread.

Will Trump be a war criminal like Truman?

Either you missed it, or you just skipped it, or you forgot.

The problem with your I even mentioned how in another response, you have to go about changing an understanding of history. You can't just cherry pick the quotes, you have to account for all the information. Ralph doesn't do that. He doesn't address the lack of prosecutions at the various war crimes trials for bombing. London was firebombed. But no one was prosecuted for it. Coventry was destroyed. No prosecutions. Churches, hospitals, and other targets you were supposed to avoid were hit.

Ralph does not address the wide availability of information and evidence. He cherry picks the quote and stops. He does not put the quotes into context of the era, and he does not address the lack of prohibitions in any policy manual or war plans.

Everyone wanted to precision bomb. They couldn't do it. The technology just did not exist. It didn't exist twenty years later during Vietnam. So the best we could do was drop some bombs at the target, and as long as we were aiming for the target, we would be covered.

Let's take it back a step. Lose the mass murder hang up for a minute. Let's say someone is shooting at you. You are armed, and returning fire. You are shooting at the guy who is shooting at you. It is obviously self defense. One of your bullets misses the guy and travels down the road striking a child who is in her front yard playing on a tricycle. It kills her. Have you murdered her? Have you committed manslaughter.

Our laws say no. Your intent was to hit the baddie who was trying to kill you. If he had not tried to kill you, you would not have fired your weapon. Your action was a result of his action. His instigation of the incident is what led to the death of that little girl.

This is why police snipers are not charged when they shoot the hostage. This is why cops are not prosecuted when they shoot the hostage. The law says that any deaths are the responsibility of the baddie who started it. If a hostage dies, even if it's at the hands of the police, it's the fault of the baddie. So long as you can say you were shooting at the baddie you're covered.

The example that was given to me as a child was let's say you are cleaning out a stable. Some kid throws a lit firecracker into the stable. You see this firecracker come in the window, and you grab it and turn and throw it out another window. It strikes another person and detonates and injures that person. You are not responsible for that harm, because you were acting to prevent the firework for startling the animals, and potentially harming one of them, or starting a fire. You would not have thrown the firecracker out the window if someone else had not thrown it in. Your reaction was intended to save, not harm.

The same is true of bombing. The intent was to harm the enemy ability to conduct war. Road junctions were valid military targets for every military. Those road junctions were in the middle of cities. So you have to bomb the cities to try and slow or stop the flow of war materials to the enemy. Railroads were similarly targeted.

Tell you what, let's fast forward to today. The M-16 replaced the M-14 rifle. The .30 caliber bullet was a killing round. It was intended to kill the enemy with a single shot. The round that replaced it was the .223 caliber, or 5.56 MM. This was intended to wound the enemy. The round created what is called a Militarily Significant Wound. That means that the guy who gets shot, is now hurt, and screaming, and needs medical attention. Do you think that was done because we are humane and don't want to kill the enemy?

It was done because of the cold calculation that one wounded takes at least three, probably four enemy out of the battle. A screaming comrade that is in agony is horrible for morale. You have to get him out of there. That means two people to put him on a stretcher and carry him to the medics. Well there is the medic who goes along and possibly someone to carry the weapons and equipment of the guys carrying the stretcher. So one wounded soldier takes more off the battlefield than a dead soldier. The dead guy doesn't scream in pain, but the wounded guy does.

We use the smaller cartridge not because we are merciful, but because we are cruel. We know that untreated that wound will become infected, and then the enemy gets to watch their friend die slowly with the stench of gangrene filling the air. The smell of death. The stench of rotting flesh. If the enemy does not have access to adequate medical facilities, then their wounded friend will probably die from the wound, slowly, agonizingly.

This is the 21st Century, a hundred years after the First World War, and we still do things like that, and not only is it perfectly legal under the laws of war, it's encouraged. We are supposed to use metal jacketed bullets to make it easier for doctors to heal the wounded. What it means is that without hollowpoint or expanding or exploding bullets that the enemies moral is affected as the guy screams in agony calling for his mother desperate for a little succor.

Answer me this question. How is the Atomic Bomb significantly worse than the firebombing of the cites which both sides did many times. At what point do you reach the maximum amount of suffering? At what point does the needle get pegged? Is it the Soviets in Leningrad who turned to cannibalism to survive? Is it the little German girl who asks her mother "are we getting dead now" as the bombs and fires raged closer to the shelter? Is it the wife who buried the buttock of her husband, identifiable as his because of his watch that was melted to the skin?

How much suffering is the limit? What is worse? Running out of the shelter because the air is being sucked out and finding yourself stuck to the streets that have been liquified by the heat and screaming as you are burned to death? Is it the concussion that destroyed your lungs and allow you to slowly choke to death as you drown on dry land? Is it the heat and blast of an atomic bomb? Of people throwing themselves into a river desperate for some relief from the agony?

That's the problem with Ralph's ideals. It utterly ignores the entire war, and the horrors that were experienced by so many. A German Soldier on the eastern front wrote "Pain is universal" as he came to understand exactly what was happening. He saw the enemy suffering, and he saw himself, and his friends suffering.

At some point, the suffering is maxed out. There just isn't any way to suffer any more. One of the Generals who was quoted after the war said that the best thing about the Atomic Bomb was it stopped the firebombing. For him, that was the worse. He has a point. The bombers would come back and the skins of the bombers would be stinking like the roasted flesh of people. You could smell the death according to reports.

Show me the policy that prohibited bombing of the cities. Show me the convention agreement that prohibited it. Show me something other than a handful of asinine quotes taken out of context. Show me how it fits into the larger picture. Show me how we have been viewing the incident wrong. You can't just ignore everything else. You have to address it. You have to show where the information was incorrect, or just not considered correctly.

This is where Ralph drops the ball. He ignores the tons of evidence, and the sheer incredible volume of information.

WAITING>>>>

Can you PLEASE explain in detail how mass murder of innocents from the air, is different from mass murder of innocents on the ground?

Okay...since apparently you are unwilling to answer my question, I will endeavor to answer it for you.

You believe the following as an answer to my question....it is okay for America to murder innocents to win a war, but it is not okay for any other nation to do the same.

Does that sound hypocritical to you?

Name who was prosecuted on the Axis side for bombing. Waiting. Remember we held the war trials and prosecuted. Who did we prosecute for bombing civilians?

Is it your position that since no Axis leader was prosecuted for bombing civilians, bombing civilians is perfectly okay?

Did I stump you again, with yet another logical question?

Don't you have to give me a second to finish feeding the cats away from the computer to answer?

Now you are catching on. There was no international agreement. The only policy was that they would try to avoid civilian casualties. That's what those long winded answers were about. Now if you are too impatient to read, that is not my fault.

In other words. Asked and answered.

 

[SavannahMann]

WAITING>>>>

Can you PLEASE explain in detail how mass murder of innocents from the air, is different from mass murder of innocents on the ground?

Okay...since apparently you are unwilling to answer my question, I will endeavor to answer it for you.

You believe the following as an answer to my question....it is okay for America to murder innocents to win a war, but it is not okay for any other nation to do the same.

Does that sound hypocritical to you?

Name who was prosecuted on the Axis side for bombing. Waiting. Remember we held the war trials and prosecuted. Who did we prosecute for bombing civilians?

Is it your position that since no Axis leader was prosecuted for bombing civilians, bombing civilians is perfectly okay?

Did I stump you again, with yet another logical question?

Don't you have to give me a second to finish feeding the cats away from the computer to answer?

Now you are catching on. There was no international agreement. The only policy was that they would try to avoid civilian casualties. That's what those long winded answers were about. Now if you are too impatient to read, that is not my fault.

In other words. Asked and answered.

Since you are too impatient to wait for my answer. Answer this. Are roads and rail systems that carry military personnel and supplies valid targets in war?

 

[gipper]

Okay...since apparently you are unwilling to answer my question, I will endeavor to answer it for you.

You believe the following as an answer to my question....it is okay for America to murder innocents to win a war, but it is not okay for any other nation to do the same.

Does that sound hypocritical to you?

Name who was prosecuted on the Axis side for bombing. Waiting. Remember we held the war trials and prosecuted. Who did we prosecute for bombing civilians?

Is it your position that since no Axis leader was prosecuted for bombing civilians, bombing civilians is perfectly okay?

Did I stump you again, with yet another logical question?

Don't you have to give me a second to finish feeding the cats away from the computer to answer?

Now you are catching on. There was no international agreement. The only policy was that they would try to avoid civilian casualties. That's what those long winded answers were about. Now if you are too impatient to read, that is not my fault.

In other words. Asked and answered.

Since you are too impatient to wait for my answer. Answer this. Are roads and rail systems that carry military personnel and supplies valid targets in war?

I am patiently waiting. Please go for it.

 

[SavannahMann]

Name who was prosecuted on the Axis side for bombing. Waiting. Remember we held the war trials and prosecuted. Who did we prosecute for bombing civilians?

Is it your position that since no Axis leader was prosecuted for bombing civilians, bombing civilians is perfectly okay?

Did I stump you again, with yet another logical question?

Don't you have to give me a second to finish feeding the cats away from the computer to answer?

Now you are catching on. There was no international agreement. The only policy was that they would try to avoid civilian casualties. That's what those long winded answers were about. Now if you are too impatient to read, that is not my fault.

In other words. Asked and answered.

Since you are too impatient to wait for my answer. Answer this. Are roads and rail systems that carry military personnel and supplies valid targets in war?

I am patiently waiting. Please go for it.

The answer is yes. It always has been. It was a valid target on land, and sea. That's why their submarines, and our submarines focused on transports. First, they were softer targets, easier to sink, and second you took out a lot more enemy by destroying personnel and supplies show were gathered at one point.

Yes. Roads and Rail were and are valid targets today, and through history. Gettysburg happened because the roads happened to converge there and Robert E. Lee wanted to capture shoes for his people.

So roads and rails are valid targets. They have been through history. Destroying the rail and roads is a longstanding way to interrupt enemy supplies.

From the Civil War, destruction of Railroad tracks.

World War One strategic bombing. Strategic bombing during World War I - Wikipedia

So where do the rails and roads all converge. Hint, the answer is above.

 

[gipper]

Is it your position that since no Axis leader was prosecuted for bombing civilians, bombing civilians is perfectly okay?

Did I stump you again, with yet another logical question?

Don't you have to give me a second to finish feeding the cats away from the computer to answer?

Now you are catching on. There was no international agreement. The only policy was that they would try to avoid civilian casualties. That's what those long winded answers were about. Now if you are too impatient to read, that is not my fault.

In other words. Asked and answered.

Since you are too impatient to wait for my answer. Answer this. Are roads and rail systems that carry military personnel and supplies valid targets in war?

I am patiently waiting. Please go for it.

The answer is yes. It always has been. It was a valid target on land, and sea. That's why their submarines, and our submarines focused on transports. First, they were softer targets, easier to sink, and second you took out a lot more enemy by destroying personnel and supplies show were gathered at one point.

Yes. Roads and Rail were and are valid targets today, and through history. Gettysburg happened because the roads happened to converge there and Robert E. Lee wanted to capture shoes for his people.

So roads and rails are valid targets. They have been through history. Destroying the rail and roads is a longstanding way to interrupt enemy supplies.

From the Civil War, destruction of Railroad tracks.

View attachment 143596

World War One strategic bombing. Strategic bombing during World War I - Wikipedia

So where do the rails and roads all converge. Hint, the answer is above.

Bombing resulting in mass death of innocents is fine by you, as long as it is done by Americans to the American elite's enemies.

Bet you LOVE Obama and W. They bombed lots of people for the Oligarchy.

Are you a member of the Oligarchy or just a dupe?

 

[SavannahMann]

Did I stump you again, with yet another logical question?

Don't you have to give me a second to finish feeding the cats away from the computer to answer?

Now you are catching on. There was no international agreement. The only policy was that they would try to avoid civilian casualties. That's what those long winded answers were about. Now if you are too impatient to read, that is not my fault.

In other words. Asked and answered.

Since you are too impatient to wait for my answer. Answer this. Are roads and rail systems that carry military personnel and supplies valid targets in war?

I am patiently waiting. Please go for it.

The answer is yes. It always has been. It was a valid target on land, and sea. That's why their submarines, and our submarines focused on transports. First, they were softer targets, easier to sink, and second you took out a lot more enemy by destroying personnel and supplies show were gathered at one point.

Yes. Roads and Rail were and are valid targets today, and through history. Gettysburg happened because the roads happened to converge there and Robert E. Lee wanted to capture shoes for his people.

So roads and rails are valid targets. They have been through history. Destroying the rail and roads is a longstanding way to interrupt enemy supplies.

From the Civil War, destruction of Railroad tracks.

View attachment 143596

World War One strategic bombing. Strategic bombing during World War I - Wikipedia

So where do the rails and roads all converge. Hint, the answer is above.

Bombing resulting in mass death of innocents is fine by you, as long as it is done by Americans to the American elite's enemies.

Bet you LOVE Obama and W. They bombed lots of people for the Oligarchy.

Are you a member of the Oligarchy or just a dupe?

Why haven't you answered the question? Do you know anything but pathetic rhetoric?

 

[SavannahMann]

Did I stump you again, with yet another logical question?

Don't you have to give me a second to finish feeding the cats away from the computer to answer?

Now you are catching on. There was no international agreement. The only policy was that they would try to avoid civilian casualties. That's what those long winded answers were about. Now if you are too impatient to read, that is not my fault.

In other words. Asked and answered.

Since you are too impatient to wait for my answer. Answer this. Are roads and rail systems that carry military personnel and supplies valid targets in war?

I am patiently waiting. Please go for it.

The answer is yes. It always has been. It was a valid target on land, and sea. That's why their submarines, and our submarines focused on transports. First, they were softer targets, easier to sink, and second you took out a lot more enemy by destroying personnel and supplies show were gathered at one point.

Yes. Roads and Rail were and are valid targets today, and through history. Gettysburg happened because the roads happened to converge there and Robert E. Lee wanted to capture shoes for his people.

So roads and rails are valid targets. They have been through history. Destroying the rail and roads is a longstanding way to interrupt enemy supplies.

From the Civil War, destruction of Railroad tracks.

View attachment 143596

World War One strategic bombing. Strategic bombing during World War I - Wikipedia

So where do the rails and roads all converge. Hint, the answer is above.

Bombing resulting in mass death of innocents is fine by you, as long as it is done by Americans to the American elite's enemies.

Bet you LOVE Obama and W. They bombed lots of people for the Oligarchy.

Are you a member of the Oligarchy or just a dupe?

I answered that in one of those "long winded" replies you ignored. Why demand information that has already been explained in depth?

 

[gipper]

Don't you have to give me a second to finish feeding the cats away from the computer to answer?

Now you are catching on. There was no international agreement. The only policy was that they would try to avoid civilian casualties. That's what those long winded answers were about. Now if you are too impatient to read, that is not my fault.

In other words. Asked and answered.

Since you are too impatient to wait for my answer. Answer this. Are roads and rail systems that carry military personnel and supplies valid targets in war?

I am patiently waiting. Please go for it.

The answer is yes. It always has been. It was a valid target on land, and sea. That's why their submarines, and our submarines focused on transports. First, they were softer targets, easier to sink, and second you took out a lot more enemy by destroying personnel and supplies show were gathered at one point.

Yes. Roads and Rail were and are valid targets today, and through history. Gettysburg happened because the roads happened to converge there and Robert E. Lee wanted to capture shoes for his people.

So roads and rails are valid targets. They have been through history. Destroying the rail and roads is a longstanding way to interrupt enemy supplies.

From the Civil War, destruction of Railroad tracks.

View attachment 143596

World War One strategic bombing. Strategic bombing during World War I - Wikipedia

So where do the rails and roads all converge. Hint, the answer is above.

Bombing resulting in mass death of innocents is fine by you, as long as it is done by Americans to the American elite's enemies.

Bet you LOVE Obama and W. They bombed lots of people for the Oligarchy.

Are you a member of the Oligarchy or just a dupe?

I answered that in one of those "long winded" replies you ignored. Why demand information that has already been explained in depth?

Sorry but I don't care for long winded replies, from someone who is uninformed.

 

[SavannahMann]

Since you are too impatient to wait for my answer. Answer this. Are roads and rail systems that carry military personnel and supplies valid targets in war?

I am patiently waiting. Please go for it.

The answer is yes. It always has been. It was a valid target on land, and sea. That's why their submarines, and our submarines focused on transports. First, they were softer targets, easier to sink, and second you took out a lot more enemy by destroying personnel and supplies show were gathered at one point.

Yes. Roads and Rail were and are valid targets today, and through history. Gettysburg happened because the roads happened to converge there and Robert E. Lee wanted to capture shoes for his people.

So roads and rails are valid targets. They have been through history. Destroying the rail and roads is a longstanding way to interrupt enemy supplies.

From the Civil War, destruction of Railroad tracks.

View attachment 143596

World War One strategic bombing. Strategic bombing during World War I - Wikipedia

So where do the rails and roads all converge. Hint, the answer is above.

Bombing resulting in mass death of innocents is fine by you, as long as it is done by Americans to the American elite's enemies.

Bet you LOVE Obama and W. They bombed lots of people for the Oligarchy.

Are you a member of the Oligarchy or just a dupe?

I answered that in one of those "long winded" replies you ignored. Why demand information that has already been explained in depth?

Sorry but I don't care for long winded replies, from someone who is uninformed.

How do you know how uninformed I am if you don't read the reply? This conversation had devolved to the state of two year olds arguing in a sand box. In the case let me close in something that suits the status. My dad can beat up your dad.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Harry Truman was the last democrat worth a damn. He didn't know FDR had the Manhattan Project underway for almost 2 years and didn't find out before Roosevelt died and he became president. When the bombs (we only had two) were ready he was told we would lose hundreds of thousands of Troops in the invasion of Japan. Claiming an invasion wasn't necessary is idiocy...the Japs were trying for a cessation of hostilities and Truman answered with Hiroshima. They didn't quit so a couple days later we hit Nagasaki. We were out of A-bombs and if the Japs had known that, they still wouldn't have quit. Here's Harry:

The Japanese were out of oil and other war essentials, and had been sending messages of wilingness to surrender. Truman must have been aware of this. The best guess is that USA wanted to send a message to a future enemy, Russia, of it's capabilities.

Was Hiroshima Necessary?

gip, If they were willing to surrender, UNDER OUR TERMS and not their own, there would not have been a second bomb.
The Japanese citizenry was in full support of their country. And their country was so resistant to surrender that 1. knowing the devastation caused by the first bomb, and 2. having no bombs to retaliate with, it STILL took two bombs to convince them it would be prudent to concede defeat.
That war could have gone on for years and cost an untold thousands of American deaths had Truman not made that difficult decision. Husbands came home. Sons and daughters came home because he did. My Daddy was one. Truman was right.
They declared war on us. We ended it. Japan didn't have the right to dictate how we stopped them from killing us.
Truman and the rest of our country were war victims. We were sleeping. They came a killing. Hirohito and the Empire of Japan that passed a lawful Declaration of War against the United States were the criminals. you dumbass..

No. All the Japanese asked for is for the Emperor not be charged as a criminal and hung. Truman said fuck you. We will kill you and he dropped those two bombs incinerating 200k innocent women and children. Then he said okay the emperor can stay.

Nice guy old Harry.

The Emperor was in no position to make demands after killing thousands and thousands of American men and women in and after an UNPROVOKED attack on our country. Yes we could have continued to let the Japanese kill us while we hugged them and tried to understand why they wanted to seize our country. They didn't want hugged.
Innocents die in war. The Japanese knew that. Not everyone that died at Pearl Harbor were soldiers, and none had any issue with Hirohito. Hirohito knew the risk he was taking. He didn't give a shit about his innocent. But it's so pc of you to care more about the aggressors than the real victims.
So tell me how many more Americans would YOU have been willing to sacrifice in the name of diplomacy? My Dad? FU. How dare you.
You tell Mrs. Sullivan how unfair to the Japanese we were, you little son of a bitch. When the preacher showed up in her driveway, she ask him, "Which one?" He said, "ALL 5". The last one was eaten by sharks.
Tell me some more about the innocent losing their lives. Those boys were farmers until the Japanese killed them all.

Nice guy old Hirohito. He would appreciate an American that cared so much about his welfare. And his Kamikaze respect for American life.

You only see the American position, while ignoring what American forces did. Japan's cities were bombed incessantly. Killing untold numbers of innocent civilians. You and sadly too many Americans, somehow think this justified because the Japanese military committed atrocities.

Why to you fail to see how ignorant that is?

All Truman had to do to end the war, prior to his war crimes of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was to tell the Japanese the emperor would not be prosecuted...which is exactly what he did AFTER he incinerated 200,000 innocent women and children.

You can't see there is no difference between Truman and Hirohito. Both were murdering fools.

How would you have ended that war? And how many American lives are you willing to sacrifice to be a kinder gentler victim of Japan's?
Give me your strategy. I'm anxious to see if I would have been conceived under your plan, or if my Dad would have died so you could soften our approach.

 

[Syriusly]

...and Truman was most certainly a war criminal and a liar. Let's hope Trump does not follow in his footsteps.

Truman of course was not a war criminal- since he was never convicted of any crimes.

Was Truman a liar? Sure- all Presidents are liars. Was Truman a liar on the scale of President Snowflake? Not a chance- President Snowflake lies as often as he tweets.

Silly and stupid.

One is only a war criminal, if one is convicted. Come now...you can't be this stupid. Right?

Oh I forgot- you see here in America we have this concept we believe in- innocent until proven guilty.

Probably a foreign concept to you.

 

[Syriusly]

10 Most Devastating Bombing Campaigns of WWII

Considering that Nagasaki is estimated somewhere near 40,000 initially and Hiroshima at about 10,000 that puts both not quite on top of the list for bombing deaths.

Until WW2 the practice of civilian targets was pretty much banned. Armies would assemble in fields and fight it out. England actually changed that when the Germans accidentally bombed part of London, or some civilian target, which lead to the allies bombing of German cities. This was done to distract the Germans from bombing military targets which were determined to be more valuable. Quite the sacrifice.

That said, the use of the atom bombs was hardly less barbaric then the fire bombing of Tokyo or Dresden which resulted in as many or even more horrific casualties.

There was an enemy and the barbaric enemy was defeated with the means provided to the President. He really has nothing to apologize for considering places like Dresden, London and Tokyo. War is hell, and a good thing it is or we would repeat it. (William Tecumseh Sherman)

Does that somehow justify what American forces did to Japan? Does that justify what Truman did in incinerating 200K innocent Japanese women and children?

Why do Americans think Total War acceptable?

First of all- both sides 'incinerated innocent women and children'- no one had clean hands.

Nor were the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki even the worst bombings on Japan- the fire bombings of Tokyo killed more.

Is it ever legitimate to kill 'innocent' civilians in pursuit of military targets?

If yes- then this is not a war crime. There were legitimate military targets in both Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

If no- then every countries leader who has ever ordered strikes against their enemies are probably equally 'guilty of war crimes'.

 

[Syriusly]

Shrug. Better their kids than ours. The casualties resulting from an invasion of Japan would have been ridiculous.

That is just another lie. And besides, the US did not need to invade the home islands. Just more bull shit...
.

Not a lie- just look at what happened in Saipan to see what would have happened in Japan.

Did the allies need to invade Japan? Yes.

Japan had an active nuclear weapons development program- and a military philosophy that until Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have willingly sacrificed its population- and planned to.

No the allies did not need to invade. By summer August 1945, Japan had nothing left. The nation was starving and in ruins. Accept their surrender and move on. .

And leave a future "North Korea" to continue its military madness- with ongoing plans to develop its own nuclear bombs

New evidence of Japan's effort to build atom bomb at the end of WWII

 

[gipper]

10 Most Devastating Bombing Campaigns of WWII

Considering that Nagasaki is estimated somewhere near 40,000 initially and Hiroshima at about 10,000 that puts both not quite on top of the list for bombing deaths.

Until WW2 the practice of civilian targets was pretty much banned. Armies would assemble in fields and fight it out. England actually changed that when the Germans accidentally bombed part of London, or some civilian target, which lead to the allies bombing of German cities. This was done to distract the Germans from bombing military targets which were determined to be more valuable. Quite the sacrifice.

That said, the use of the atom bombs was hardly less barbaric then the fire bombing of Tokyo or Dresden which resulted in as many or even more horrific casualties.

There was an enemy and the barbaric enemy was defeated with the means provided to the President. He really has nothing to apologize for considering places like Dresden, London and Tokyo. War is hell, and a good thing it is or we would repeat it. (William Tecumseh Sherman)

Does that somehow justify what American forces did to Japan? Does that justify what Truman did in incinerating 200K innocent Japanese women and children?

Why do Americans think Total War acceptable?

First of all- both sides 'incinerated innocent women and children'- no one had clean hands.

Nor were the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki even the worst bombings on Japan- the fire bombings of Tokyo killed more.

Is it ever legitimate to kill 'innocent' civilians in pursuit of military targets?

If yes- then this is not a war crime. There were legitimate military targets in both Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

If no- then every countries leader who has ever ordered strikes against their enemies are probably equally 'guilty of war crimes'.

So much wrong with that post...do you even read what you write?

Yes both sides committed atrocities. So? Does that mean that Truman's incineration of 200,000 innocent women and children, is justified? We Americans like to think we are not like those nasty Nazis, Commies, Imperial Japanese, etc....but unfortunately, our leadership is just as bad. Man up! Accept it as fact.

Those two Japanese cities were NOT military bases. Stop believing the lies to justify the war crime. Get informed before posting.

I never said those two bombings were the worst bombings of Japan. Why do you bring this up? So what of it? Does this also somehow legitimatize Truman's mass murder, since conventional bombings were worse?

 

[gipper]

The Japanese were out of oil and other war essentials, and had been sending messages of wilingness to surrender. Truman must have been aware of this. The best guess is that USA wanted to send a message to a future enemy, Russia, of it's capabilities.

Was Hiroshima Necessary?

gip, If they were willing to surrender, UNDER OUR TERMS and not their own, there would not have been a second bomb.
The Japanese citizenry was in full support of their country. And their country was so resistant to surrender that 1. knowing the devastation caused by the first bomb, and 2. having no bombs to retaliate with, it STILL took two bombs to convince them it would be prudent to concede defeat.
That war could have gone on for years and cost an untold thousands of American deaths had Truman not made that difficult decision. Husbands came home. Sons and daughters came home because he did. My Daddy was one. Truman was right.
They declared war on us. We ended it. Japan didn't have the right to dictate how we stopped them from killing us.
Truman and the rest of our country were war victims. We were sleeping. They came a killing. Hirohito and the Empire of Japan that passed a lawful Declaration of War against the United States were the criminals. you dumbass..

No. All the Japanese asked for is for the Emperor not be charged as a criminal and hung. Truman said fuck you. We will kill you and he dropped those two bombs incinerating 200k innocent women and children. Then he said okay the emperor can stay.

Nice guy old Harry.

The Emperor was in no position to make demands after killing thousands and thousands of American men and women in and after an UNPROVOKED attack on our country. Yes we could have continued to let the Japanese kill us while we hugged them and tried to understand why they wanted to seize our country. They didn't want hugged.
Innocents die in war. The Japanese knew that. Not everyone that died at Pearl Harbor were soldiers, and none had any issue with Hirohito. Hirohito knew the risk he was taking. He didn't give a shit about his innocent. But it's so pc of you to care more about the aggressors than the real victims.
So tell me how many more Americans would YOU have been willing to sacrifice in the name of diplomacy? My Dad? FU. How dare you.
You tell Mrs. Sullivan how unfair to the Japanese we were, you little son of a bitch. When the preacher showed up in her driveway, she ask him, "Which one?" He said, "ALL 5". The last one was eaten by sharks.
Tell me some more about the innocent losing their lives. Those boys were farmers until the Japanese killed them all.

Nice guy old Hirohito. He would appreciate an American that cared so much about his welfare. And his Kamikaze respect for American life.

You only see the American position, while ignoring what American forces did. Japan's cities were bombed incessantly. Killing untold numbers of innocent civilians. You and sadly too many Americans, somehow think this justified because the Japanese military committed atrocities.

Why to you fail to see how ignorant that is?

All Truman had to do to end the war, prior to his war crimes of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was to tell the Japanese the emperor would not be prosecuted...which is exactly what he did AFTER he incinerated 200,000 innocent women and children.

You can't see there is no difference between Truman and Hirohito. Both were murdering fools.

How would you have ended that war? And how many American lives are you willing to sacrifice to be a kinder gentler victim of Japan's?
Give me your strategy. I'm anxious to see if I would have been conceived under your plan, or if my Dad would have died so you could soften our approach.

Jesus...WTF is wrong with you? Are you so duped by the State, you can't think for yourself?

The war should have ended well before the two a-bombings. Japan had been trying to surrender, but FDR's stupid unconditional surrender requirement, made it impossible. Just allow the Emperor to stay unmolested, war over. No need to occupy or invade or incinerated 200,000 women and children.

 

[Bush92]

...and Truman was most certainly a war criminal and a liar. Let's hope Trump does not follow in his footsteps.

From the great Ralph Raico....the truth...you might not like it.

Harry Truman and the Atomic Bomb
Great controversy has always surrounded the bombings. One thing Truman insisted on from the start was that the decision to use the bombs, and the responsibility it entailed, was his. Over the years, he gave different, and contradictory, grounds for his decision. Sometimes he implied that he had acted simply out of revenge. To a clergyman who criticized him, Truman responded testily,

Nobody is more disturbed over the use of Atomic bombs than I am but I was greatly disturbed over the unwarranted attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor and their murder of our prisoners of war. The only language they seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them.2

Such reasoning will not impress anyone who fails to see how the brutality of the Japanese military could justify deadly retaliation against innocent men, women, and children. Truman doubtless was aware of this, so from time to time he advanced other pretexts. On August 9, 1945, he stated, “The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians.

This, however, is absurd. Pearl Harbor was a military base. Hiroshima was a city, inhabited by some three hundred thousand people, which contained military elements. In any case, since the harbor was mined and the US Navy and Air Force were in control of the waters around Japan, whatever troops were stationed in Hiroshima had been effectively neutralized.

On other occasions, Truman claimed that Hiroshima was bombed because it was an industrial center. But, as noted in the US Strategic Bombing Survey, “all major factories in Hiroshima were on the periphery of the city — and escaped serious damage.”4 The target was the center of the city. That Truman realized the kind of victims the bombs consumed is evident from his comment to his cabinet on August 10, explaining his reluctance to drop a third bomb: “The thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible,” he said; he didn’t like the idea of killing “all those kids.”5 Wiping out another one hundred thousand people … all those kids.

Harry Truman’s Atomic Bombs - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com

If there was no Pearl Harbor sneak arrack...there would have been no Nagasaki or Hiroshima. Don't start some if you don't want none. Should of dropped 10 A-bombs on their fucking asses.

 

[gipper]

...and Truman was most certainly a war criminal and a liar. Let's hope Trump does not follow in his footsteps.

From the great Ralph Raico....the truth...you might not like it.

Harry Truman and the Atomic Bomb
Great controversy has always surrounded the bombings. One thing Truman insisted on from the start was that the decision to use the bombs, and the responsibility it entailed, was his. Over the years, he gave different, and contradictory, grounds for his decision. Sometimes he implied that he had acted simply out of revenge. To a clergyman who criticized him, Truman responded testily,

Nobody is more disturbed over the use of Atomic bombs than I am but I was greatly disturbed over the unwarranted attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor and their murder of our prisoners of war. The only language they seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them.2

Such reasoning will not impress anyone who fails to see how the brutality of the Japanese military could justify deadly retaliation against innocent men, women, and children. Truman doubtless was aware of this, so from time to time he advanced other pretexts. On August 9, 1945, he stated, “The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians.

This, however, is absurd. Pearl Harbor was a military base. Hiroshima was a city, inhabited by some three hundred thousand people, which contained military elements. In any case, since the harbor was mined and the US Navy and Air Force were in control of the waters around Japan, whatever troops were stationed in Hiroshima had been effectively neutralized.

On other occasions, Truman claimed that Hiroshima was bombed because it was an industrial center. But, as noted in the US Strategic Bombing Survey, “all major factories in Hiroshima were on the periphery of the city — and escaped serious damage.”4 The target was the center of the city. That Truman realized the kind of victims the bombs consumed is evident from his comment to his cabinet on August 10, explaining his reluctance to drop a third bomb: “The thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible,” he said; he didn’t like the idea of killing “all those kids.”5 Wiping out another one hundred thousand people … all those kids.

Harry Truman’s Atomic Bombs - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com

If there was no Pearl Harbor sneak arrack...there would have been no Nagasaki or Hiroshima. Don't start some if you don't want none. Should of dropped 10 A-bombs on their fucking asses.

Illogical, but many Americans think this way.

Pearl Harbor was a military base. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were cities occupied by civilians, mostly women, children, and old men. Truman mass murdered 200k innocent Japanese. The Japanese killed 2,335 mostly American military personnel, at Pearl Harbor. I guess if you are nuts, you might think those actions are comparable.

 

[Syriusly]

10 Most Devastating Bombing Campaigns of WWII

Considering that Nagasaki is estimated somewhere near 40,000 initially and Hiroshima at about 10,000 that puts both not quite on top of the list for bombing deaths.

Until WW2 the practice of civilian targets was pretty much banned. Armies would assemble in fields and fight it out. England actually changed that when the Germans accidentally bombed part of London, or some civilian target, which lead to the allies bombing of German cities. This was done to distract the Germans from bombing military targets which were determined to be more valuable. Quite the sacrifice.

That said, the use of the atom bombs was hardly less barbaric then the fire bombing of Tokyo or Dresden which resulted in as many or even more horrific casualties.

There was an enemy and the barbaric enemy was defeated with the means provided to the President. He really has nothing to apologize for considering places like Dresden, London and Tokyo. War is hell, and a good thing it is or we would repeat it. (William Tecumseh Sherman)

Does that somehow justify what American forces did to Japan? Does that justify what Truman did in incinerating 200K innocent Japanese women and children?

Why do Americans think Total War acceptable?

First of all- both sides 'incinerated innocent women and children'- no one had clean hands.

Nor were the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki even the worst bombings on Japan- the fire bombings of Tokyo killed more.

Is it ever legitimate to kill 'innocent' civilians in pursuit of military targets?

If yes- then this is not a war crime. There were legitimate military targets in both Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

If no- then every countries leader who has ever ordered strikes against their enemies are probably equally 'guilty of war crimes'.

I never said those two bombings were the worst bombings of Japan. Why do you bring this up? So what of it? Does this also somehow legitimatize Truman's mass murder, since conventional bombings were worse?

Why do i bring this up?

Because you are hell bent on calling Truman a war criminal. The fire bombings of Tokyo caused 75,000–200,000 civilian deaths- approved of by FDR. And of course there was also Dresden.

So why are you comparing Trump to Truman- not FDR?