FuckWit says: "Dachau Was a Recreation Area" [sic]
Honest Nev
> ><snip>
> >
> >> > >Then, of course, there was the 'Nazi Gaffe', which I posted sperately
> >> > >to avoid it getting lost in the super-SPAM that is FuckWit's canon:
> >> > >
> >> > >http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=f85d58f0.0304211701.3279f5d3%40posting.google.com
> >> > >
> >> > Quite right... In America that is true. the state CANNOT murder.
> >>
> >> So, if a gas-camber is installed at 'Gitmo' (assuming there is not one
> >> already), the prisoners 'CANNOT [sic] be murdered in it by the US
> >> state'?
> >
> >... still waiting...
> >
> No.. they cannot...
You heard it here first kids.
<snip>
> >Yes, FW, I do disagree: states can (and do) sanction murders, and get
> >their operatives to carry out these orders. The US sanctions murders,
> >just as the Soviets did, and just as the Nazis did. This is not a new
> >thing.
> >
> No... sorry about that.. In the U.S. the state does not murder.
FuckWit, 'Manifest Destiny' (aka Uncle Sam's Final Solution) was
state-sponsored murder on a grand scale.
> You have us confused with that backward Continental Europe.
It always make me wince when FuckWit makes out that the slave-trade et
el was better than Nazi Germany, I mean what the Nazis did was bad
enough, but to actually extract a population from their homeland, drag
them kicking and screaming half way across the world and work them to
death... and all in the name of a 'quick buck' is IMHO actually worse
(if possible).
<snip FW's further apologist stance on the slave-trade and 'Manifest
Destiny')
> Haven't you ever seen a James Bond movies, and his "license to kill"?
ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!
<snip more excuses for the US's many murder sprees around the globe>
> >BTW tell us, who is in charge of the US military, FuckWit? And the
> >CIA
>
> The government. So what? Who was in charge in those states
> in the former Yugoslavia where so many mass graves exist?
Er, the government, FW.
In other words those civilians bombed in Iraq with the _express
permission_ of yr semi-elected government are _murdered by the US
state_, unless you think TV stations are viable military targets? And
the Jap civilians who died horrible deaths when the US dropped atomic
bombs on two _non-military_ targets in 1945, who were they murdered
by?
<snip>
> >In fact it means I am able (and willing) to oppose states ordering
> >killings. You, in contrast, cannot oppose it because you do not admit
> >that it takes place.
> >
> >_FuckWit does not oppose state sanctioned murders._
> >_FuckWit does not oppose state sanctioned murders._
> >_FuckWit does not oppose state sanctioned murders._
> >
>
> I certainly oppose the state sanctioned murders committed in
> Continental Europe
<snip>
> >Oh, hang on, you've changed yr position haven't you...
> >
> >_FuckWit does not oppose state sanctioned murders committed by the
> >USA._
> >_FuckWit does not oppose state sanctioned murders committed by the
> >USA._
> >_FuckWit does not oppose state sanctioned murders committed by the
> >USA._
>
> Since there is nothing to oppose... the point is moot.
Hey 'John Rennie', is PV a fascist?
JIGSAW1695
From: honest_...@yahoo.co.uk (Honest Nev)
Date: 6/3/2003 9:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <a5ec705.03060...@posting.google.com>
<<Snipped>>
.......And the Jap civilians who died horrible deaths when the US dropped
atomic bombs on two _non-military_ targets in 1945, who were they murdered
by?
===============================
Neville, are you saying that the poor innocent Japanese civilians were set upon
by that mean old United States for no reason?
I guess the "Rape of Nanking" was all made up. The execution of Phillipean
civilians by the Japanese Imperial Army was just a lie made up by the media?
And the Pearl Habor attack was just a simple misunderstanding that could have
been prevented had the diplomats only had more time.
And the Bataan Death March was just a little walk in the sun?
Jigsaw
Honest Nev
> <<Snipped>>
>
> .......And the Jap civilians who died horrible deaths when the US dropped
> atomic bombs on two _non-military_ targets in 1945, who were they murdered
> by?
>
> ===============================
>
> Neville, are you saying that the poor innocent Japanese civilians were set upon
> by that mean old United States for no reason?
Yes: they were _civilians_, Jiggy.
Do you not understand the distinction? Unarmed, women, children, OAPs,
disabled, _innocent_.
Honestly, Jiggy, it's at times such as this that I think Desi's got
you sussed.
<snip Jiggy trying to justify US atrocities by countering with
atrocities committed by the Japs, and a desperate allusion to the
attack on Pearl Harbour (which was targeted for being a military
installation, I believe?)>
> Jigsaw
Nev
JIGSAW1695
From: honest_...@yahoo.co.uk (Honest Nev)
Date: 6/3/2003 4:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <a5ec705.03060...@posting.google.com>
jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) wrote in message
news:<20030603095747...@mb-m04.aol.com>...
Nev
===============================
Nev, let me put it to you in clear and concise terms that leave no doubt to my
meaning: They were our enemies. They declared war on us. They tried to kill
us. We killed them. It is called war. There is a moral: Dont fuck with us
because, according to the European DP supporters, we are barbaric and
uncivilized.... And they may be right.
Now what is your point?
Jigsaw
Honest Nev
Jiggy, civilians are not yr 'enemy'; when you target civilians (as the
USA did when it dropped it's atomic bombs), you cross the line. Why
did you not use the atom bombs against military installations?
And BTW if you do cross that line where do you draw a new one?
> Jigsaw
Nev.
JIGSAW1695
From: honest_...@yahoo.co.uk (Honest Nev)
Message-id: <a5ec705.03060...@posting.google.com>
jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) wrote in message
news:<20030603185651...@mb-m03.aol.com>...
===============================
mmmmm...let me see....what was that Brits name......Oh yea....Bomber Harris.
About two years before we dropped the Big Boom on the Nips.
Jigsaw
PS: You wanna troll, yer gonna get trolled back.
Peter Morris
"JIGSAW1695" <jigsa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030603185651...@mb-m03.aol.com...
> Nev, let me put it to you in clear and concise terms that leave no doubt
to my
> meaning: They were our enemies. They declared war on us. They tried to
kill
> us. We killed them. It is called war. There is a moral: Dont fuck with us
> because, according to the European DP supporters, we are barbaric and
> uncivilized.... And they may be right.
>
> Now what is your point?
>
> Jigsaw
Okay, Jiggy, America declared war on Iraq, if Iraq responded by
unleashing their WMDs* on New York, would you say thats all
fair in war? Would you say the moral is don't fuck with Iraq?
Or maybe you can explain why your logic doesn't apply to yourself.
*Lucky the WMDs don't exist, really.
JIGSAW1695
Date: 6/4/2003 12:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <bbl60v$8kr$1...@titan.btinternet.com>
===============================
Sorry Pete, but I cant answer your question. It is based on the false
assumption that the invasion and subsequent destruction of Saddam Hussains
government was due to the existence of WMD.
Jigsaw
Honest Nev
<snip>
> Jiggy, civilians are not yr 'enemy'; when you target civilians (as the
> USA did when it dropped it's atomic bombs), you cross the line. Why
> did you not use the atom bombs against military installations?
>
> And BTW if you do cross that line where do you draw a new one?
>
> > Jigsaw
>
> ===============================
>
> mmmmm...let me see....what was that Brits name......Oh yea....Bomber Harris.
>
> About two years before we dropped the Big Boom on the Nips.
Jiggy, the thing is I think that when the RAF bombed civilians in such
cities as Dresden and Cologne, that was wrong too; as was the
Luftwaffe bombing civilians in Coventry and London et el. In that
sense you are very lucky that the Japs didn't have nukes, else chances
are Los Angeles and San Francisco would no longer exist.
> Jigsaw
>
>
> PS: You wanna troll, yer gonna get trolled back.
For once, Jigbob, I'm not 'trolling': I really do disagree with
targeting civilians.
Yrs,
Neville FitzHerbert, esq.
p.s. thankfully, remarkably few civilians perished in the Luftwaffe or
RAF area bombings, it did, however, destroy many homes/lives.
Peter Morris
No it isn't. I never said anything about the reason why America initiated
the attack. My point was about a country using WMDs against the civilian
population of another country that initiated a war against them. I want to
know whether you would consider this legitimate.
Well?
JIGSAW1695
Date: 6/4/2003 1:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <a5ec705.03060...@posting.google.com>
jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) wrote in message
news:<20030603211748...@mb-m18.aol.com>...
<snip>
> Jiggy, civilians are not yr 'enemy'; when you target civilians (as the
> USA did when it dropped it's atomic bombs), you cross the line. Why
> did you not use the atom bombs against military installations?
>
> And BTW if you do cross that line where do you draw a new one?
>
> > Jigsaw
>
> ===============================
>
> mmmmm...let me see....what was that Brits name......Oh yea....Bomber Harris.
>
> About two years before we dropped the Big Boom on the Nips.
Jiggy, the thing is I think that when the RAF bombed civilians in such
cities as Dresden and Cologne, that was wrong too; as was the
Luftwaffe bombing civilians in Coventry and London et el. In that
sense you are very lucky that the Japs didn't have nukes, else chances
are Los Angeles and San Francisco would no longer exist.
> Jigsaw
>
>
> PS: You wanna troll, yer gonna get trolled back.
For once, Jigbob, I'm not 'trolling': I really do disagree with
targeting civilians.
Yrs,
Neville FitzHerbert, esq.
===============================
Nev, I respect your opinion but I must tell you; You have a very naive opinion
about war, and how wars are fault.
And in this particular case, you must look at the actions, or in this case, the
inaction of the Japanesse government.
They were told to sue for peace and what lay ahead for them. They ignored the
message.
So we dropped a bomb on the home island of Hiroshima and the Nakasaki.
The purpose wasnt to kill Japanesse civilians. It was to save the American
lives that would be lost in an invasion of mainland Japan.
And if that invasion occured, do you think that Japanesse civilians would just
sit by and watch the Americans attack their god-king?
You keep forgetting the fact that the mid-eastern terorists who blew up the
Twin Towers (twice), the pentegon, as well as otherearlier targets were
civilians.
Do you think we should ignore their actions because they were non-military?
If you want to argue about killing civilians during war time.....well that is
just fine with me. But dont forget the facts.
Jigsaw
Peter Morris
Not true, they had already offered their surrender, the Americans rejected
it.
> So we dropped a bomb on the home island of Hiroshima and the Nakasaki.
>
> The purpose wasnt to kill Japanesse civilians. It was to save the American
> lives that would be lost in an invasion of mainland Japan.
>
> And if that invasion occured, do you think that Japanesse civilians would
just
> sit by and watch the Americans attack their god-king?
If you think that, how do you explain the fact that they surrendered -again-
after Hiroshima. Why did they tolerate that particular attack on their
god-king?
> You keep forgetting the fact that the mid-eastern terorists who blew up
the
> Twin Towers (twice), the pentegon, as well as otherearlier targets were
> civilians.
So, you think Saddam had something to do with that, do you?
JIGSAW1695
From: "Peter Morris" no...@m.please
Message-id: <bbla3f$hoq$1...@hercules.btinternet.com>
Well?
===============================
I beleive that are you confusing intentionally attacks on civilians with
civilian casualties during an armed conflict.
Saddam Hussain intentionally targeted his own people for death. The US tried to
avoid civilian casualties.
You must also accept the acknowledged fact that there were civilian casualties
because Hussain intentionally place military targets in civilian areas.
No matter how you try...no matter what you say...no matter how you say it...
Hussian must bear the brunt, if not all, of the blame.
You cannot, in good faith, deny this fact.
Jigsaw
JIGSAW1695
Date: 6/4/2003 2:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <bblc6m$mv8$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>
==============================
re-read you history Pete. The Japanesse did not surrender until after the
Nakasaki went atomic.
They did try to negotiate a pre-Hiroshima peace settlement that gave Japan and
its military many concessions. When their terms were not met, they refused to
give up and kept the war going until Hirahito finally agreed to surrender.
Hirohito did not surrended to save the lives of his countrymen. As an Imperial
leader he had been trained to hold them in contempt and view them as mere
subjects not people.
Australia, New Zealand, the Dutch and Chinese all wanted Hitohito hung as a war
criminal. However, General Doughlas McArthur disagreed, as much as he hated the
Emperor*.
Hirohito surrendered because McCarthur guarenteed him his life and control of
the thrown. He understood that he would have to obey McArthur in order to do
so.
He surreneder for his own gain...nothing more..nothing less.
Jigsaw
*McArthur felt that the Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor was a treacherous
attack on America.
He also saw the actions of the Japanese army in the Phillipeans as totally
oppressive and brutal. He had always consider the Phillipeans as his second
home, and had many many friends there. He was also strongly admired by most of
the citizens for his treatment.
The Phillipeano Army, particular the Phillipeano Scouts held him in high
regard.
McArthur intended (and did) use Hirohito as an instrument of Japans
rehabilitation, and he needed its own leader to that. So he let Hirohito stay.
Some historians have concluded that this was a mistake, others feel it was a
wise decision because they claim Hirohito was used by the Military.
There are several excellent books on this matter. They include books that
allege Hirohito was not a pawn of the military, but a leader in the initiation
of the war. There are also many books on Japans research and application of
germ warefare in China and its possible use against America.
Honest Nev
> > Nev, let me put it to you in clear and concise terms that leave no doubt
> to my
> > meaning: They were our enemies. They declared war on us. They tried to
> kill
> > us. We killed them. It is called war. There is a moral: Dont fuck with us
> > because, according to the European DP supporters, we are barbaric and
> > uncivilized.... And they may be right.
> >
> > Now what is your point?
> >
> > Jigsaw
>
> Okay, Jiggy, America declared war on Iraq, if Iraq responded by
> unleashing their WMDs* on New York, would you say thats all
> fair in war? Would you say the moral is don't fuck with Iraq?
> Or maybe you can explain why your logic doesn't apply to yourself.
>
>
> *Lucky the WMDs don't exist, really.
>
> ===============================
>
> Sorry Pete, but I cant answer your question. It is based on the false
> assumption that the invasion and subsequent destruction of Saddam Hussains
> government was due to the existence of WMD.
>
> Jigsaw
LOL! Nice dodge, Jiggy!
There's a thin line between tax-avoidance and tax-evasion. The same, I
fear, applies to question-avoidance and question-evasion.
Honest Nev
<snip>
> Jiggy, the thing is I think that when the RAF bombed civilians in such
> cities as Dresden and Cologne, that was wrong too; as was the
> Luftwaffe bombing civilians in Coventry and London et el. In that
> sense you are very lucky that the Japs didn't have nukes, else chances
> are Los Angeles and San Francisco would no longer exist.
>
> > Jigsaw
> >
> >
> > PS: You wanna troll, yer gonna get trolled back.
>
> For once, Jigbob, I'm not 'trolling': I really do disagree with
> targeting civilians.
>
> Yrs,
> Neville FitzHerbert, esq.
>
> ===============================
>
> Nev, I respect your opinion but I must tell you; You have a very naive opinion
> about war, and how wars are fault.
I assure you this is not the case.
Civilians die in wars, this is obvious and unavoidable. But you do not
_target_ civilians, or ignore possible civilian casualties when
planning yr ops.
<snip>
> The purpose wasnt to kill Japanesse civilians. It was to save the American
> lives that would be lost in an invasion of mainland Japan.
In that case, why did you not drop them on military targets?
> And if that invasion occured, do you think that Japanesse civilians would just
> sit by and watch the Americans attack their god-king?
Hang on... did the US want to kill civilians or not?
<snip Jiggy confusing civilian non-combatants (inc. women, children,
pensioners etc.) with terrorists brandishing weapons of one kind or
another>
Yrs,
Neville FitzHerbert, esq.
dirtdog
It really does underline the poverty of your argument that you purport
to defend your warmongering, pariah nation for its illegal invasion of
a sovereign state on the basis that you are _slightly better_ than
Saddam Hussein.
Still, credit where credit's due, Jiggy. Other than the fact that the
content of your post is inevitably flawed (given the intrinsic fallacy
of your indefensible 'patriotic' position) this was a reasonably
cogent article. Minimal spelling errors. Readable grammar. Half decent
punctuation. All, of course, relative to their being produced by a
defective window licker such as yourself.
Now to work on making your paragraphs more than a sentence long...
<snip>
w00f
FitzHerbert
<snip>
> > Sorry Pete, but I cant answer your question. It is based on the false
> > assumption that the invasion and subsequent destruction of Saddam Hussains
> > government was due to the existence of WMD.
> >
> > Jigsaw
>
> LOL! Nice dodge, Jiggy!
>
> There's a thin line between tax-avoidance and tax-evasion. The same, I
> fear, applies to question-avoidance and question-evasion.
Whoooops!
'Tax-avoidance' and 'tax-evasion' or two distinct things:
Tax-avoidance is legal.
Tax-evasion is illegal.
I dunt know what I woz finking...
Ho ho ho!
John Rennie
"FitzHerbert" <FitzHerb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f85d58f0.03060...@posting.google.com...
There is STILL a thin line between both activities.