Japan's Emperor Marks 20th Year With History Lecture
J
animals committed against Allied POWs. The Japs earned those A-bombs.
http://www.newsmaxworld.com/global_talk/japan_royal_anniversary/2009/11/11/285105.html
Japan's Emperor Marks 20th Year With History Lecture
Wednesday, November 11, 2009 7:40 PM
TOKYO -- Japan's Emperor Akihito, marking the 20th anniversary of his
coronation Thursday, says he is concerned young people are forgetting their
history.
Akihito said Japan must not forget its past _ and especially the
turbulent years his father, the late Emperor Hirohito, was on the throne _
if it is to learn from its mistakes.
"What worries me most is that the history of the past will gradually
be forgotten," the 75-year-old monarch said at a brief news conference
before Thursday's anniversary. He said it was regrettable Hirohito will be
remembered by history for World War II and Japan's military advances into
Asia prior to its defeat in 1945.
"The reign of my father began at a very difficult time," he said,
noting that Japan invaded Manchuria six years after Hirohito ascended the
Chrysanthemum Throne. "There are many lessons that we can learn from the
60-some years of his reign."
--
J Young
Jvis...@live.com
Chom Noamsky
> One history lesson they had better never forget is the atrocities these
> animals committed against Allied POWs. The Japs earned those A-bombs.
How do babies and children earn A-bombs?
Seon Ferguson
"Chom Noamsky" <d...@bark.grrrr> wrote in message
news:gENKm.51570$Db2.28206@edtnps83...
Especially since they didn't do anything.
Chom Noamsky
That and the fact the vast majority of the victims were non-combatants
and the other fact that the Japanese were ready to surrender anyway.
The war was over... it wasn't necessary to vaporize civilians.
Syd M.
> One history lesson they had better never forget is the atrocities these
> animals committed against Allied POWs. The Japs earned those A-bombs.
>
Yeah, we know, Junkie Young; The Japanese should continue to pay for
the war, while the Nazi's are old men who should be let off.
Go blow it out your racist ass.
Syd M.
Really. He wants the current population to continue to pay for the
atrocities of their grandfathers, and yet he whines like a baby when
an aging Nazi is brought to justice.
PDW
Seon Ferguson
"Chom Noamsky" <d...@bark.grrrr> wrote in message
news:46PKm.51581$Db2.4832@edtnps83...
I have heard about that. That is true but on the other hand was it a
unconditional surrender? I know one thing is for sure I will not blame the
civilians for what the savage Japanese soldiers did to our tropps.
Seon Ferguson
"Syd M." <pdwri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3a4f03c2-6407-4042...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
Do you really whine when a Nazi is brought to justice Chom?
> PDW
Seon Ferguson
"Syd M." <pdwri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c74e5dc7-ca66-449c...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
Oh you meant J.
LC
One trick pony "J" <Jvis...@live.com> a/k/a "Auric Hellman"
<adhe...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:39cu6o....@news.alt.net...
> One history lesson they had better never forget is the atrocities these
> animals committed against Allied POWs. The Japs earned those A-bombs.
Obsess much, "Dr. Hellman"?:
"Those filthy bastards! Their crimes were much worse than any other
participant in WWII and now they want to deny it. Maybe another A-bomb, this
time over Tokyo, would refresh their stinking memories."
From: "Auric Hellman" <adhe...@volcanomail.com>
Newsgroups:
soc.culture.jewish,soc.veterans,aus.politics,soc.culture.japanese
Subject: Japan 'rewriting' wartime past in school textbooks
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 02:15:03 -0400
Organization: Dead Sister Society
Message-ID: 2olmic....@news.alt.net
That's not in keeping with the statement you just made about your "code of
morality", Dr. Hellman....I mean "J":
"people who live by a code of morality do not wish any harm or approve of
discrimination against those who don't. Every person deserves to live their
life in peace and be judged soley upon their individual character."
From: "J" <Jvis...@live.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 00:57:39 -0500
Organization: ...and justice for all
Message-ID: <39ctlm....@news.alt.net>
LC~ Judges "J" solely on the basis of his many 'characters'...
J
Eric F Berg <LC_...@hotmail.com> aka Eric&Marcia <ericand...@gmail.com>
> news:hdh83...@enews6.newsguy.com...
>
> http://tiny.cc/KXtyS
Obsess much, Eric?
--
J Young
Jvis...@live.com
Alan Ford
>>> That and the fact the vast majority of the victims were non-combatants and
>>> the other fact that the Japanese were ready to surrender anyway. The war
>>> was over... it wasn't necessary to vaporize civilians.
>> I have heard about that. That is true but on the other hand was it a
>> unconditional surrender? I know one thing is for sure I will not blame the
>> civilians for what the savage Japanese soldiers did to our tropps.
>
>
> There is absolutely no evidence that the Japanese were ready to
> surrender.
You war crime apologists are an especially disgusting breed of turds.
Needless to say you'd be crying biggest war crime in the history of
civilization had the Japanese dropped atomic bombs on the US, but when
it's your own country/politicians/military committing what is obviously
not one, but two huge war crime acts, then it's off to rationalization:
1. massacring the civilian population was necessary in order to save
lives of American soldiers because invasion of Japan would have been
required otherwise, i.e. it hastened the end of the war
2. the Japanese also committed war crimes, so they got what they deserved
3. there were some military targets in both bombed cities
4. Japan started the war
Now, considering that you live in the trigger-happy wanna-be empire in
decline and consequently are witness to dozens of wars this country has
started without provocation, you might want to rethink all four
rationalizations because the number of nuclear weaponry and countries
wielding them is increasing.
According to all four rationalizations above, Iraq, Afghanistan,
Somalia, Grenada, Panama, Serbia and many others had a full moral
justification to drop nuclear bombs on US cities.
--
If you don't beat your meat
You can't have any pudding
How can you have any pudding
If you don't beat your meat?
LC
Schizophrenic nutjob "J" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote in message
news:39e42r....@news.alt.net...
> Eric F Berg <LC_...@hotmail.com> aka Eric&Marcia
Ooops!
Another "J" lie to expose:
From: "J" <Jvis...@live.com>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,aus.politics,can.politics,soc.veterans
Subject: Re: Japan's Emperor Marks 20th Year With History Lecture
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 11:53:09 -0500
Organization: ...and justice for all
Message-ID: <39e42r....@news.alt.net>
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579
From: "eric&marcia" <rubbe...@xxx.net>
Newsgroups:
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic,alt.philosophy,soc.culture.jewish,alt.religion.islam
Subject: Pope Benedict says his guardian angel allowed accident to teach him
humility
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 15:50:05 -0400
Organization: PETA
Message-ID: <30mumf....@news.alt.net>
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579
Now, you were saying?
<crickets>
> Obsess much, Eric?
Not at all.
I _am_ curious, however, why it is that you feel the need to post identical
sentiments under several nyms, "Dr. Hellman".
Do tell?
<Junkie's cowardly snip reinstated>
"Those filthy bastards! Their crimes were much worse than any other
participant in WWII and now they want to deny it. Maybe another A-bomb, this
time over Tokyo, would refresh their stinking memories."
From: "Auric Hellman" <adhe...@volcanomail.com>
Newsgroups:
soc.culture.jewish,soc.veterans,aus.politics,soc.culture.japanese
Subject: Japan 'rewriting' wartime past in school textbooks
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 02:15:03 -0400
Organization: Dead Sister Society
Message-ID: 2olmic....@news.alt.net
"One history lesson they had better never forget is the atrocities these
animals committed against Allied POWs. The Japs earned those A-bombs."
From: "J" <Jvis...@live.com>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,aus.politics,can.politics,soc.veterans
Subject: Japan's Emperor Marks 20th Year With History Lecture
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 01:06:45 -0500
Organization: ...and justice for all
Message-ID: <39cu6o....@news.alt.net>
What say you?
<crickets>
Again, those sentiments aren't in keeping with the statement you just made
Alan Ford
> You'd better get back on the Prozac so you can stop being apologists
> for both the Nazis and the Japanese. The Japanese killed more people
> in Nanking than were killed at Hiroshima and you can just start from
> there.
OK, so it's the apology # 2. Got it.
Clearly Geneva conventions and moral codes allow for a large scale war
crime if the other party has committed war crimes as well.
> Psychopathic hate for the Americans is no substitute for
> intelligent debate in this medium, especially when you start off your
> post with personal insults.
Psychopathic hate for disgusting breed of apologist turds who think
their own cavemen group is always justified in mass murder simply due to
the fact that they seem to interbreed.
Shit, I forgot, you are more than likely one of them "real Americans",
aren't you?
Well, you can suck on my unreal American dick, you degenerate apologist
for mass murder of women and children. Oh, hell, here I go again
forgetting how those women and children committed worse crimes in
Nanking, so they clearly deserved it.
Syd M.
> "Syd M." <pdwrigh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Of course.
The Nazi Turd himself.
PDW
Syd M.
> Eric F Berg <LC__...@hotmail.com> aka Eric&Marcia <ericandmarc...@gmail.com>
> a/k/a "Auric Hellman"
>
> > <adhell...@volcanomail.com>wrote in message
Yes, you do, Junkie Young.
PDW
Chom Noamsky
> Psychopathic hate for disgusting breed of apologist turds who think
> their own cavemen group is always justified in mass murder simply due to
> the fact that they seem to interbreed.
>
> Shit, I forgot, you are more than likely one of them "real Americans",
> aren't you?
> Well, you can suck on my unreal American dick, you degenerate apologist
> for mass murder of women and children. Oh, hell, here I go again
> forgetting how those women and children committed worse crimes in
> Nanking, so they clearly deserved it.
You didn't mention the real reason for Hiroshima and Nagasaki: to
demonstrate technological superiority to the Soviets. Japanese
non-combatants were vaporized just to say "Hello, Moscow, we got da bomb."
David Johnston
>Seon Ferguson wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Chom Noamsky" <d...@bark.grrrr> wrote in message
>> news:gENKm.51570$Db2.28206@edtnps83...
>>> J wrote:
>>>> One history lesson they had better never forget is the atrocities
>>>> these animals committed against Allied POWs. The Japs earned those
>>>> A-bombs.
>>>
>>> How do babies and children earn A-bombs?
>>
>> Especially since they didn't do anything.
>
>That and the fact the vast majority of the victims were non-combatants
>and the other fact that the Japanese were ready to surrender anyway.
They were ready to negotiate peace. There's a difference.
Alan Ford
Well, be that as it may, I only addressed the apologists' usual drivel
as to why mass murder of civilians was necessary, required and even
something to be proud of.
Seon Ferguson
"E. Barry Bruyea" <terml...@democracy.com> wrote in message
news:tdqnf59ll4pna2bb4...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 20:06:38 +1100, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Chom Noamsky" <d...@bark.grrrr> wrote in message
>>news:46PKm.51581$Db2.4832@edtnps83...
>>> Seon Ferguson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Chom Noamsky" <d...@bark.grrrr> wrote in message
>>>> news:gENKm.51570$Db2.28206@edtnps83...
>>>>> J wrote:
>>>>>> One history lesson they had better never forget is the atrocities
>>>>>> these
>>>>>> animals committed against Allied POWs. The Japs earned those A-bombs.
>>>>>
>>>>> How do babies and children earn A-bombs?
>>>>
>>>> Especially since they didn't do anything.
>>>
>>> That and the fact the vast majority of the victims were non-combatants
>>> and
>>> the other fact that the Japanese were ready to surrender anyway. The war
>>> was over... it wasn't necessary to vaporize civilians.
>>
>>I have heard about that. That is true but on the other hand was it a
>>unconditional surrender? I know one thing is for sure I will not blame the
>>civilians for what the savage Japanese soldiers did to our tropps.
>
>
> There is absolutely no evidence that the Japanese were ready to
> surrender.
>
There is but you would probably say it is a "kook site"
Seon Ferguson
"E. Barry Bruyea" <terml...@democracy.com> wrote in message
news:7llof51vqlst2mh0g...@4ax.com...
> You'd better get back on the Prozac so you can stop being apologists
> for both the Nazis and the Japanese. The Japanese killed more people
> in Nanking than were killed at Hiroshima and you can just start from
> there. Psychopathic hate for the Americans is no substitute for
> intelligent debate in this medium, especially when you start off your
> post with personal insults.
>
So it's ok to hate the Japanese but not Americans?
Seon Ferguson
"Syd M." <pdwri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:36d74853-8ee9-4aae...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
The Nazi gay bashing turd.
> PDW
Seon Ferguson
"David Johnston" <da...@block.net> wrote in message
news:o51pf5139fje9p5k5...@4ax.com...
Very good point.
Dave Smith
It would not have been necessary to vapourize them if they had already
surrendered, but the fact is that they had not surrendered and were not
about to. Let us not forget that the Japanese were a culture who were
very brutal in war and brutal as occupiers. I have to give the Germans
credit for having accepted their responsibility for the war and
acknowledging the atrocities committed by their people. You can't say
that for the Japanese because they will not acknowledge that they
started the war and committed atrocities.
Dave Smith
> for both the Nazis and the Japanese. The Japanese killed more people
> in Nanking than were killed at Hiroshima and you can just start from
> there. Psychopathic hate for the Americans is no substitute for
> intelligent debate in this medium, especially when you start off your
> post with personal insults.
They didn't just kill the people in Nanking. They systematically
brutalized and murdered them. Almost every female between the age of 7
and 70 was raped and then usually murdered and had some object shoved up
their vaginas. Men were bound together with barbed wire, doused with
gasoline and set on fire. Some of them were used for bayonet practice.
Sorry, but I have very little sympathy for the members of a culture who
committed atrocities like that. They were losing. They were starving.
They could have surrendered, but they refused. It took the A bombs to
end what they had started.
>
Chom Noamsky
The first bomb could be rationalized this way, but the second? I'd like
to hear an explanation of why two cities needed to be obliterated.
Alan Ford
> First, little man, I'm not an American, but I am literate, which sets
> me apart from trailer trash like you.
The thing that sets us apart is primarily the fact that I don't applaud
mass murder of civilians based on the fact that their countrymen killed
even more civilians, i.e. unlike you, I am not a disgusting immoral turd.
Alan Ford
OK, then 1, 2 and 4.
By the way, if a member of your family commits a murder or rape, then
it's our duty to move in with baseball bats and clobber all of the
extended family's children to death, correct?
After all, why should we have any sympathy for the members of a family
who can commit a crime like that. All of you fuckers have to choke on
your own blood.
LC
"LC" <LC_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hdhlb...@enews2.newsguy.com...
> Now, you were saying?
> <crickets>
Well, J<u nkie>?
>> Obsess much, Eric?
> What say you?
> <crickets>
Can I call 'em or what?
> Again, those sentiments aren't in keeping with the statement you just made
> about your "code of morality", Dr. Hellman....I mean "J":
> "people who live by a code of morality do not wish any harm or approve of
> discrimination against those who don't. Every person deserves to live
> their life in peace and be judged soley upon their individual character."
> From: "J" <Jvis...@live.com>
> Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 00:57:39 -0500
> Organization: ...and justice for all
> Message-ID: <39ctlm....@news.alt.net>
> LC~ Judges "J" solely on the basis of his many 'characters'...
Run Away J lies and runs off, part 4,576.
Dave Smith
>>>
>>> You'd better get back on the Prozac so you can stop being apologists
>>> for both the Nazis and the Japanese. The Japanese killed more people
>>> in Nanking than were killed at Hiroshima and you can just start from
>>> there. Psychopathic hate for the Americans is no substitute for
>>> intelligent debate in this medium, especially when you start off your
>>> post with personal insults.
>>
>> They didn't just kill the people in Nanking. They systematically
>> brutalized and murdered them. Almost every female between the age of 7
>> and 70 was raped and then usually murdered and had some object shoved
>> up their vaginas. Men were bound together with barbed wire, doused
>> with gasoline and set on fire. Some of them were used for bayonet
>> practice.
>>
>> Sorry, but I have very little sympathy for the members of a culture
>> who committed atrocities like that. They were losing. They were
>> starving. They could have surrendered, but they refused. It took the A
>> bombs to end what they had started.
>
> OK, then 1, 2 and 4.
>
> By the way, if a member of your family commits a murder or rape, then
> it's our duty to move in with baseball bats and clobber all of the
> extended family's children to death, correct?
> After all, why should we have any sympathy for the members of a family
> who can commit a crime like that. All of you fuckers have to choke on
> your own blood.
>
I am willing to bet that when you wrote that you actually thought that
it made sense.
Alan Ford
Just like I am willing to bet when you wrote your shit above you
actually thought you were a moral person.
Dave Smith
>>>
>>> By the way, if a member of your family commits a murder or rape, then
>>> it's our duty to move in with baseball bats and clobber all of the
>>> extended family's children to death, correct?
>>> After all, why should we have any sympathy for the members of a
>>> family who can commit a crime like that. All of you fuckers have to
>>> choke on your own blood.
>>>
>>
>> I am willing to bet that when you wrote that you actually thought that
>> it made sense.
>
>
> Just like I am willing to bet when you wrote your shit above you
> actually thought you were a moral person.
>
Actually, I claimed no moral high ground. I had already said that I had
no sympathy for the Japanese "victims" because they were part of a
culture that was committing atrocities and that they were not
surrendering even though they were obviously beaten.
Seon Ferguson
"E. Barry Bruyea" <terml...@democracy.com> wrote in message
news:ke4pf5h61vgffrtq5...@4ax.com...
> Are you reading tea leaves? Just where have I indicated any hate for
> the Japanese in any of my posts? The thread was about the war years
> and the actions that were taken. But, if hating floats your boat,
> feel free.
>
Well according to your logic you hate America if you disagree with the
decision to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. So doesn't that mean if you
support it you must hate Japan? And I don't wish to hate anyone. The
Japanese did barbaric things to American soldiers but I don't hate them all.
Smiler
>> On Nov 12, 2:49 am, Chom Noamsky <d...@bark.grrrr> wrote:
>>> Seon Ferguson wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Chom Noamsky" <d...@bark.grrrr> wrote in message
>>>> news:gENKm.51570$Db2.28206@edtnps83...
>>>>> J wrote:
>>>>>> these animals committed against Allied POWs. The Japs earned
>>>>>> those A-bombs.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Especially since they didn't do anything.
>>>
>>> non-combatants and the other fact that the Japanese were ready to
>>> surrender anyway. The war was over... it wasn't necessary to
>>> vaporize civilians.
>>
>> atrocities of their grandfathers, and yet he whines like a baby when
>> an aging Nazi is brought to justice.
>>
> Do you really whine when a Nazi is brought to justice Chom?
>
Syd was referring to the nazi turd "J".
--
Smiler
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
All gods are bespoke. They're all made to
perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer
Seon Ferguson
"Smiler" <Smi...@joe.king.com> wrote in message
news:8j6Lm.9$35...@newsfe24.ams2...
> Seon Ferguson wrote:
>> "Syd M." <pdwri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:3a4f03c2-6407-4042...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Nov 12, 2:49 am, Chom Noamsky <d...@bark.grrrr> wrote:
>>>> Seon Ferguson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Chom Noamsky" <d...@bark.grrrr> wrote in message
>>>>> news:gENKm.51570$Db2.28206@edtnps83...
>>>>>> J wrote:
>>>>>>> One history lesson they had better never forget is the atrocities
>>>>>>> these animals committed against Allied POWs. The Japs earned
>>>>>>> those A-bombs.
>>>>
>>>>>> How do babies and children earn A-bombs?
>>>>
>>>>> Especially since they didn't do anything.
>>>>
>>>> That and the fact the vast majority of the victims were
>>>> non-combatants and the other fact that the Japanese were ready to
>>>> surrender anyway. The war was over... it wasn't necessary to
>>>> vaporize civilians.
>>>
>>> Really. He wants the current population to continue to pay for the
>>> atrocities of their grandfathers, and yet he whines like a baby when
>>> an aging Nazi is brought to justice.
>>>
>> Do you really whine when a Nazi is brought to justice Chom?
>>
>
> Syd was referring to the nazi turd "J".
>
Yeah I figured that out. Is there anyone J doesn't hate? Fellow Nazi's
perhaps?
Alan Ford
OK then, we can all agree that a person who feels no sympathy for
innocent women, children and civilians being mass murdered simply
because they are "a part of a culture [and so on]" is an immoral turd.
Thanks for agreeing.
Seon Ferguson
"E. Barry Bruyea" <terml...@democracy.com> wrote in message
news:s3cqf5hqnqg59sj35...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:46:35 +1100, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com>
> If you don't hate 'them all', just how many do you 'hate'?
>
The one's who marched our troops to death, the one's who beat up defenseless
soldiers in prison camps. They are cowardly but as I said I don't hate
Japanese people. In fact I think Asian chicks are hot.
a425couple
> E. Barry Bruyea wrote:
> - Seon Ferguson
---Chom Noamsky
>>>> That and the fact the vast majority of the victims were non-combatants
>>>> and the other fact that the Japanese were ready to surrender anyway.
>>>> The war was over... it wasn't necessary to vaporize civilians.
>>> I have heard about that. That is true but on the other hand was it a
>> surrender.
>
> You war crime apologists are an especially disgusting breed of turds.
> Needless to say you'd be crying biggest war crime in the history of
> civilization had the Japanese dropped atomic bombs on the US, but when
> it's your own country/politicians/military committing what is obviously
> not one, but two huge war crime acts, then it's off to rationalization:
Alan Ford obviously writes (and seemingly Chom also agrees)
that a "war crime" is defined by whatever he wants it to be
(or have been).
I am very thankful, that in the real world, "crimes" and
"war crimes" are clearly defined by words,
not the whim of one person's opinion.
(I'd imagine most of us are happy at that!)
The two bombings by 'A-bomb' on Japan were clearly
not by any treaty or law existing then (or now) under the
definition of "war crime".
It was during a war still being waged, and they were
military targets still being defended.
Alan Ford
What a fucking twit! Do you honestly expect anyone to swallow your
pathetic technicality rationalization?
Just because the atomic bombs and their destruction potential had been
an unknown concept before they were used to exterminate hundreds of
thousands of civilians, doesn't mean that the acts were not a war crime.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not military targets by any stretch of
imagination and the only reason these two war crimes are not being
treated as war crimes is because the US was the victorious party in the
conflict.
You actually think there has to be a piece of paper beforehand in order
to establish what's a war crime and what's not? Or is wholesale
slaughter of civilians justified only when they don't share your
language, borders and culture?
I feel a combination of contempt, sadness and nausea when dealing with
people like you. It is still hard for me to believe that there are
people who can so nonchalantly wave off horrible deaths of several
hundred thousand of innocent civillians. I've seen human garabage like
you in more countries than one, hiding behind phony patriotism.
Seon Ferguson
"E. Barry Bruyea" <terml...@democracy.com> wrote in message
news:43oqf5hhuv9cv9gv1...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 22:08:21 +1100, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com>
> Thinking with your groin; that explains everything.
>
Hey it unites us all in a common goal.
Dave Smith
>>>
>>> You war crime apologists are an especially disgusting breed of turds.
>>> Needless to say you'd be crying biggest war crime in the history of
>>> civilization had the Japanese dropped atomic bombs on the US, but
>>> when it's your own country/politicians/military committing what is
>>> obviously not one, but two huge war crime acts, then it's off to
>>> rationalization:
>>
>> Alan Ford obviously writes (and seemingly Chom also agrees)
>> that a "war crime" is defined by whatever he wants it to be
>> (or have been).
>>
>> I am very thankful, that in the real world, "crimes" and
>> "war crimes" are clearly defined by words,
>> not the whim of one person's opinion.
>> (I'd imagine most of us are happy at that!)
>>
>> The two bombings by 'A-bomb' on Japan were clearly
>> not by any treaty or law existing then (or now) under the
>> definition of "war crime".
>> It was during a war still being waged, and they were
>> military targets still being defended.
>
> What a fucking twit! Do you honestly expect anyone to swallow your
> pathetic technicality rationalization?
If you are whining about war crimes, then you are being technical. In
order for something to be a war crime, it has to contravene some
international agreement on what constitutes a war crime. That would
include a lot of the atrocities that were committed by the Japanese,
because the contravened the Geneva Convention. I suppose that if you
really want to get really technical, Japan could not be accused of war
crimes because they did not recognize the Geneva Convention. Having
refused to adopt and abide by the Geneva Convention, they don't get to
complain if it was violated against them.
> Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not military targets by any stretch of
> imagination and the only reason these two war crimes are not being
> treated as war crimes is because the US was the victorious party in the
> conflict.
Actually, they were military targets, despite what revisionists would
have you believe.
> You actually think there has to be a piece of paper beforehand in order
> to establish what's a war crime and what's not? Or is wholesale
> slaughter of civilians justified only when they don't share your
> language, borders and culture?
Of course there is. In order for anything to be a war crime, there has
to be a law that specifically prohibits the action. If there is no law
banning something, it is not illegal. Otherwise, every action could be
illegal unless there was a law that allowed it.
> I feel a combination of contempt, sadness and nausea when dealing with
> people like you. It is still hard for me to believe that there are
> people who can so nonchalantly wave off horrible deaths of several
> hundred thousand of innocent civillians. I've seen human garabage like
> you in more countries than one, hiding behind phony patriotism.
I have similar feelings about people like yourself who would limit our
ability to take whatever measures are necessary to stop countries like
Japan of that era from committing the atrocities that they were carrying
out in the name of their nation and emperor. Perhaps you would have
been happier if we all sat back and let them slaughter and enslave people.
Alan Ford
So now what is your argument? First you said it wasn't a war crime
because there was no treaty, now you say that [the Japanese] have no
right to complain if it was.
Which is it? It is difficult to hold a rational conversation with the
Pop-the-Weasel game.
>> Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not military targets by any stretch of
>> imagination and the only reason these two war crimes are not being
>> treated as war crimes is because the US was the victorious party in
>> the conflict.
>
>
> Actually, they were military targets, despite what revisionists would
> have you believe.
Yes, sure they were. There is such a thing as a disproportionate use of
force, especially since the end result is instant death of hundreds of
thousands.
This is the same logic McVeigh used when he bombed the Oklahoma City
building - after all, it was a government building.
>> You actually think there has to be a piece of paper beforehand in
>> order to establish what's a war crime and what's not? Or is wholesale
>> slaughter of civilians justified only when they don't share your
>> language, borders and culture?
>
> Of course there is. In order for anything to be a war crime, there has
> to be a law that specifically prohibits the action. If there is no law
> banning something, it is not illegal. Otherwise, every action could be
> illegal unless there was a law that allowed it.
You are an idiot.
1. Indiscriminate wholesale murder of civilians is a war crime no matter
whether there is a "law" or not. Btw, there are no "laws" covering
international conflict, only conventions which countries may or may not
sign.
2. Many war crimes committed by the the Axis hadn't even been covered by
the existing conventions which, according to you, perfectly absolves them.
3. Look up the legal definition of war crime before talking nonsense.
>> I feel a combination of contempt, sadness and nausea when dealing with
>> people like you. It is still hard for me to believe that there are
>> people who can so nonchalantly wave off horrible deaths of several
>> hundred thousand of innocent civillians. I've seen human garabage like
>> you in more countries than one, hiding behind phony patriotism.
>
> I have similar feelings about people like yourself who would limit our
> ability to take whatever measures are necessary to stop countries like
> Japan of that era from committing the atrocities that they were carrying
> out in the name of their nation and emperor. Perhaps you would have
> been happier if we all sat back and let them slaughter and enslave people.
Limit what ability? To instantly murder hundreds of thousands of
civilians by vaporizing entire cities? Yes, you are right, I would like
not only to limit that ability but to eliminate it completely.
Besides, asshole, the war was over. Germany surrendered. Japan was
defeated and it was just the matter of time before they surrendered,
too. The bombs were a nice military experiment and a warning to
Russians. Any military targets in those two cities could have been taken
out by conventional methods even if they meant anything at that point in
the war, which they didn't. But of course, you know all this. You are
simply subscribing to the phony patriotic notion that "your country" can
never be wrong. Well, it can. More than twice. Deal with it.
J
Call it what you will. The fact remains that if it saved even one American
life, it was justified.
--
J Young
Jvis...@live.com
Pete
>
> So now what is your argument? First you said it wasn't a war crime
> because there was no treaty, now you say that [the Japanese] have no
> right to complain if it was.
>
> Which is it? It is difficult to hold a rational conversation with the
> Pop-the-Weasel game.
>
I speak relatively decent Japanese. Most Japanese in North America and Europe
don't live in their own little areas. In Toronto, we have 3 China towns, the
biggest little Italy outside of Italy and lots of other ethnic areas.
But no "Little Japans".
Why?
It goes back to trust. The "Japs" were forced to embrace our culture after
WW2. And unlike the German folks lived in Berlin, Ontario (now known as
Kitchener) and the Italians, felt that their best interests were served by
integrating.
Dr. David Suzuki. You have heard of him. His folks were 2nd generation
Japanese Canadians who saw their property confiscated and were put into camps.
That is why there are no "Little Japans" in North America.
Mario Andretti, one of the world's greatest race car drivers, was born in
Croatia when it was under Italy.
When his dad moved to Pennsylvania in 1950, they were referred to as "WOPS".
WOPs were illegal immigrants from Italy. With Out Papers.
Alan Ford
>>>> I feel a combination of contempt, sadness and nausea when dealing with
>>>> people like you. It is still hard for me to believe that there are
>>>> people who can so nonchalantly wave off horrible deaths of several
>>>> hundred thousand of innocent civillians. I've seen human garabage like
>>>> you in more countries than one, hiding behind phony patriotism.
>>> I have similar feelings about people like yourself who would limit our
>>> ability to take whatever measures are necessary to stop countries like
>>> Japan of that era from committing the atrocities that they were carrying
>>> out in the name of their nation and emperor. Perhaps you would have been
>>> happier if we all sat back and let them slaughter and enslave people.
>> Limit what ability? To instantly murder hundreds of thousands of civilians
>> by vaporizing entire cities? Yes, you are right, I would like not only to
>> limit that ability but to eliminate it completely.
>> Besides, asshole, the war was over. Germany surrendered. Japan was
>> defeated and it was just the matter of time before they surrendered, too.
>> The bombs were a nice military experiment and a warning to Russians. Any
>> military targets in those two cities could have been taken out by
>> conventional methods even if they meant anything at that point in the war,
>> which they didn't. But of course, you know all this. You are simply
>> subscribing to the phony patriotic notion that "your country" can never be
>> wrong. Well, it can. More than twice. Deal with it.
>
> Call it what you will. The fact remains that if it saved even one American
> life, it was justified.
Shut the fuck up, you Christian fascist cunt. I didn't ask you anything.
Pete
>
> Shut the fuck up, you Christian fascist cunt. I didn't ask you anything.
>
>
You know that what you are saying is what he wants. He's a troll.
There is a newsgroup where people think like him, and it's kind of like
alt.global-warming, where most of them are just wacky.
But, he trancends his boundaries and tries to get under your skin.
Nobody agrees with that idiot.
He's a troll. If anything, he makes what he's about a laugh.
Would you want him teaching your kids Sunday School?
Dave Smith
>>>> The two bombings by 'A-bomb' on Japan were clearly
>>>> not by any treaty or law existing then (or now) under the
>>>> definition of "war crime".
>>>> It was during a war still being waged, and they were
>>>> military targets still being defended.
>>>
>>> What a fucking twit! Do you honestly expect anyone to swallow your
>>> pathetic technicality rationalization?
>>
>> If you are whining about war crimes, then you are being technical. In
>> order for something to be a war crime, it has to contravene some
>> international agreement on what constitutes a war crime. That would
>> include a lot of the atrocities that were committed by the Japanese,
>> because the contravened the Geneva Convention. I suppose that if you
>> really want to get really technical, Japan could not be accused of war
>> crimes because they did not recognize the Geneva Convention. Having
>> refused to adopt and abide by the Geneva Convention, they don't get to
>> complain if it was violated against them.
>
> So now what is your argument? First you said it wasn't a war crime
> because there was no treaty, now you say that [the Japanese] have no
> right to complain if it was.
What is my argument? I thought that it was pretty obvious..... if there
is a war crime, it has to be a contravention of an existing law. it's
not that complicated.
>
>>> Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not military targets by any stretch of
>>> imagination and the only reason these two war crimes are not being
>>> treated as war crimes is because the US was the victorious party in
>>> the conflict.
>>
>>
>> Actually, they were military targets, despite what revisionists would
>> have you believe.
>
> Yes, sure they were. There is such a thing as a disproportionate use of
> force, especially since the end result is instant death of hundreds of
> thousands.
> This is the same logic McVeigh used when he bombed the Oklahoma City
> building - after all, it was a government building.
Not exactly. There was a war going on at the time. The thing that makes
the atomic bombs exceptional is that they were so powerful Rather than
dropping a million tons of TNT on a city they dropped a single bomb with
the equivalent about of explosive power. Since the Japanese had done
their share of aerial bombing when they invaded countries they can't
really complain when they are bombed.
>
>>> You actually think there has to be a piece of paper beforehand in
>>> order to establish what's a war crime and what's not? Or is wholesale
>>> slaughter of civilians justified only when they don't share your
>>> language, borders and culture?
>>
>> Of course there is. In order for anything to be a war crime, there has
>> to be a law that specifically prohibits the action. If there is no law
>> banning something, it is not illegal. Otherwise, every action could be
>> illegal unless there was a law that allowed it.
>
> You are an idiot.
Ah. I see that you are stuck for a rational argument. In order for
someone to commit a crime, there has to be a recognized and accepted law
to break.
> 1. Indiscriminate wholesale murder of civilians is a war crime no matter
> whether there is a "law" or not. Btw, there are no "laws" covering
> international conflict, only conventions which countries may or may not
> sign.
Thanks for the chuckle. First you say that there was a war crime and
then you say that there are no laws covering international conflict.
Actually, there are international laws concerning war. They become laws
when agreed upon and ratified by international parties. For instance,
there was Geneva Convention, which BTW, Japan did not sign.
> 2. Many war crimes committed by the the Axis hadn't even been covered by
> the existing conventions which, according to you, perfectly absolves them.
You should check your facts. It was Japan that did not sign the Geneva
Convention, but if I am not mistaken, Germany, and Axis power, did.
> 3. Look up the legal definition of war crime before talking nonsense.
Trust me, I have done some reading on war crimes, the various
international agreements and the changes that have been made to them.
Hell, if you want to see gross violations of war crimes agreements, look
at what Japan did in its invasions of Manchuria, China and numerous
other countries that it invaded, and its treatment of people int he
occupied countries and POWs.
>> I have similar feelings about people like yourself who would limit our
>> ability to take whatever measures are necessary to stop countries like
>> Japan of that era from committing the atrocities that they were
>> carrying out in the name of their nation and emperor. Perhaps you
>> would have been happier if we all sat back and let them slaughter and
>> enslave people.
>
> Limit what ability? To instantly murder hundreds of thousands of
> civilians by vaporizing entire cities? Yes, you are right, I would like
> not only to limit that ability but to eliminate it completely.
Whether the killing of thousands of people in a flash or if it is the
result of constant and sustained aerial bombardment, the results are
basically the same. Never the less, I have to wonder which is worse,
80,000 or so people killed in the blink of an eye or the systematic
murder of 300,000 non combatants by cruel and painful means, as was
done by the Japanese army in Nanking. Sorry, but when a country's armed
forces amuse themselves with the cruel and bloodthirsty systematic
slaughter, I just can't get too excited about steps taken to curtauil
their blood lust.
> Besides, asshole, the war was over. Germany surrendered. Japan was
> defeated and it was just the matter of time before they surrendered,
> too.
Well, asshole, you are right. Germany had surrendered. Japan had not.
> The bombs were a nice military experiment and a warning to
> Russians. Any military targets in those two cities could have been taken
> out by conventional methods even if they meant anything at that point in
> the war, which they didn't.
Yes. They may have been taken out by conventional bombs. The USAF had
been pounding Japanese cities for months. They had been able to bomb
Japanese cities after losing more than 90,000 American soldiers as they
fought their way across the Pacific in order to establish air bases from
which to operate their bombers. Then they started a bombing campaign
that levelled one city after another that caused similar numbers of
casualties. The main difference was one big bomb compared to a hell of a
lot of small bombs.
> But of course, you know all this. You are
> simply subscribing to the phony patriotic notion that "your country" can
> never be wrong. Well, it can. More than twice. Deal with it.
My country? My country didn't drop any atomic bombs. I did know a man
who spent spent 4 years in a Japanese POW camp. He could have told you a
lot about war crimes.
J
"Pete" <pete...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.2567d812b...@News.Individual.NET...
>
> < yawn >
Says the 'man' with 7 posts to his history.
--
J Young
Jvis...@live.com
Dave Smith
> Alan Ford wrote
>> So now what is your argument? First you said it wasn't a war crime
>> because there was no treaty, now you say that [the Japanese] have no
>> right to complain if it was.
>>
>> Which is it? It is difficult to hold a rational conversation with the
>> Pop-the-Weasel game.
>>
>
> I speak relatively decent Japanese. Most Japanese in North America and Europe
> don't live in their own little areas. In Toronto, we have 3 China towns, the
> biggest little Italy outside of Italy and lots of other ethnic areas.
>
> But no "Little Japans".
>
> Why?
Why?> Likely because there are not the large numbers of Japanese
streaming out of their homeland like there have been with other
cultures. The people of Japan don't find conditions for horrible back in
Japan that they are leaving en masse for a new life here.
> It goes back to trust. The "Japs" were forced to embrace our culture after
> WW2. And unlike the German folks lived in Berlin, Ontario (now known as
> Kitchener) and the Italians, felt that their best interests were served by
> integrating.
That might explain the ue of the word "little" which I seem to recall
was first coined in "Little Italy". There are lots of Italians living in
enclaves in several cities in Ontario where there are so many of their
old countrymen that they can live and work in an Italian culture and the
older generation did not bother to learn much English. My neighbours
speak with such a heavy Italian accent that I have a hard time
understanding them, and they came to Canada in 1951. They aren't poor
peasants by any means. In fact, they own at least five homes and only
spent a month or two here each year.
There were Japanese communities on the west coast, but they were more
Japanese than Canadian. They worked hard and raised money to send their
kids to school in Japan. While North American society was certainly
quite racist at the time, they were equally racist and not particularly
interested in integrating with Canadian society.
> Dr. David Suzuki. You have heard of him. His folks were 2nd generation
> Japanese Canadians who saw their property confiscated and were put into camps.
>
> That is why there are no "Little Japans" in North America.
Then there is Kanao Inouye, a Japanese Canadian who was born and raised
in Kamloops and went to Japan in 1938 to continue his education, got
drafted into the army and served as a guard and interpreter in a
Japanese POW camp in Hong Kong where we was notoriously brutal towards
the prisoners.
> Mario Andretti, one of the world's greatest race car drivers, was born in
> Croatia when it was under Italy.
>
> When his dad moved to Pennsylvania in 1950, they were referred to as "WOPS".
>
> WOPs were illegal immigrants from Italy. With Out Papers.
Yes. And??? It was an ethnic slur, possibly derived from the acronym
without papers, or possibly derived from the the Italian guappo. There
are lots of ethnic slurs and they are used by all sorts of different
races. Blacks call whites "cracker" "whitey" or "honkey". Italians
refer to anglos as "mangiacakes".
Don Martin
wrote:
>> This is the same logic McVeigh used when he bombed the Oklahoma City
>> building - after all, it was a government building.
>
>Not exactly. There was a war going on at the time. The thing that makes
>the atomic bombs exceptional is that they were so powerful Rather than
>dropping a million tons of TNT on a city they dropped a single bomb with
>the equivalent about of explosive power. Since the Japanese had done
>their share of aerial bombing when they invaded countries they can't
>really complain when they are bombed.
I remember the Mayor of Nagasaki observing back (I think) in the 60s that had
Japan developed the atom bomb first, they would have had no hesitation taking
out San Francisco. It is interesting that of the two target cities, his was the
one that concentrated on putting the pieces back together and getting on with
life, while Hiroshima spent a lot of time bemoaning its victimhood, sending the
"Hiroshima Maidens" on world tours, etc.
Much of our conventional bombing concentrated on the residential areas under the
rationale that Japanese manufacture was distributed, with parts and sub
assemblies being made in family shops in homes. Plausible, but one suspects
that many more homes lacked shops than had them. The real benefit to us was that
the residential areas were constructed mostly of wood and paper while city
centers and military installations were mostly stone and concrete. The former
respond very well to small HE bombs followed by tiny incendiary bomblets: the
same tonnage of payload inflicted a much greater payoff in the 'burbs.
-
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
Greatest Mining Pioneer of Australia of all Times
NEVER IN THE WORLD YOU COULD GET THOSE PLANES SLAMMING INTO BUILDINGS
WITHOUT RECOVERING PIECES OF FUSELAGE & JET TURBINES either from the
NY Holocaust site, the Pentagon Holocaust site or from the 15 years
old quarry where another jet alleged crashed itself
As a Commercial Pilot myself & further with crop dusting rating I can
assure any of you the 2nd plane hitting the WTC had such centrifugal
forces loading attitude that on impact it would have broken in two !
An abominable psy op operation ALL THE MORE SINCE WHEN YOU SEE THE
VIDEOS, the first part to sink in the WTC tower with the Antenna is
the Antena itself, while it should have been the side hit by the
alleged plane !!!
Those Political Criminals, as well as those pulling the strings of
those puppets & leading the world, are really taking us all, the
Superior & Outstanding Race of the Celts for Goys ... don't they ?
All is the fault of that fucking Christian surrendering Shit with its
alleged loving Spook & those castrating misleading gutless preests,
meansisterz blathering days on end over fabricated literature aiming
at putting the proud Celts on their knees ...bleating to idols,
images & other superstitions .... Cut the line of slavery to those
abominable JIC sects, you all who read me, they can be put all in the
same bag indeed !
LET'S PRAY NOW !
Great Celtic God, The Unique, The Unnamed, The Blessed One and Creator
of all !
Teach us to love our friends as best as we can with honour,
and hate our enemies and pursue them with our revenge until they pay
or ask
for mercy !
Please curse them just as we do, and support our just anger !
Give us strength to uphold at all time the Blessed Sword of Justice,
and never falter in the Respect of our Duty & Obedience to the Sacred
Cosmic Laws !!!!
LET IT BE
HAIL TO THE CELTS !!!!
(17 th Century Holy Scottish Druid of Inverness 's moving prayer)
*******************************
brought to you courtesy of :
Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud
Australia Mining Pioneer
Discoverer & Legal Owner of Telfer Mine (Australia largest Copper &
Gold Mine)
Nifty (Cu) & Kintyre (U, Th) Mines, all in the Great Sandy Desert
Exploration Geologist & Offshore Consultant
Founder of the True Geology
~ Ignorance is the Cosmic Sin, the One Never Forgiven ~
for background info.
http://www.tnet.com.au/~warrigal/grule.html
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/tel/index.html
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/tel/nac.html
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/turcaud.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s28534.htm
"True Geology" Foundation Document
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/69327
"Turcaud Bath" as a free gift to Suffering Humanity
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/107947
Roy
BDK
@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, australia.mi...@neuf.fr says...
BWHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA! Batshit crazy you are...
--
BDK..
Leader of the nonexistent paid shills.
Non Jew Jew Club founding member.
Former number one Kook Magnet, title passed to Iarnrod.
Alan Ford
>> Shut the fuck up, you Christian fascist cunt. I didn't ask you anything.
>>
>>
>
> You know that what you are saying is what he wants. He's a troll.
I don't think J is a troll. His level of pathological dedication goes
way beyond simple trollery. He seems to be a genuine loon who imagines
himself a crusader for his causes, however retarded they are.
Pete
> I don't think J is a troll. His level of pathological dedication goes
> way beyond simple trollery. He seems to be a genuine loon who imagines
> himself a crusader for his causes, however retarded they are.
>
>
He believes that cameras in the bedrooms of the nation are a clear way to
enforce morality.
Alan Ford
>>>>> The two bombings by 'A-bomb' on Japan were clearly
>>>>> not by any treaty or law existing then (or now) under the
>>>>> definition of "war crime".
>>>>> It was during a war still being waged, and they were
>>>>> military targets still being defended.
>>>>
>>>> What a fucking twit! Do you honestly expect anyone to swallow your
>>>> pathetic technicality rationalization?
>>>
>>> If you are whining about war crimes, then you are being technical. In
>>> order for something to be a war crime, it has to contravene some
>>> international agreement on what constitutes a war crime. That would
>>> include a lot of the atrocities that were committed by the Japanese,
>>> because the contravened the Geneva Convention. I suppose that if you
>>> really want to get really technical, Japan could not be accused of
>>> war crimes because they did not recognize the Geneva Convention.
>>> Having refused to adopt and abide by the Geneva Convention, they
>>> don't get to complain if it was violated against them.
>>
>> So now what is your argument? First you said it wasn't a war crime
>> because there was no treaty, now you say that [the Japanese] have no
>> right to complain if it was.
>
> What is my argument? I thought that it was pretty obvious..... if there
> is a war crime, it has to be a contravention of an existing law. it's
> not that complicated.
But you said "Having refused to adopt and abide by the Geneva
convention, they don't get to complain if it was violated against them".
Which is it? Was the atomic bombing not a war crime or had the Japanese
refused to ratify the Geneva convention?
>>
>>>> Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not military targets by any stretch of
>>>> imagination and the only reason these two war crimes are not being
>>>> treated as war crimes is because the US was the victorious party in
>>>> the conflict.
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, they were military targets, despite what revisionists would
>>> have you believe.
>>
>> Yes, sure they were. There is such a thing as a disproportionate use
>> of force, especially since the end result is instant death of hundreds
>> of thousands.
>> This is the same logic McVeigh used when he bombed the Oklahoma City
>> building - after all, it was a government building.
>
> Not exactly. There was a war going on at the time. The thing that makes
> the atomic bombs exceptional is that they were so powerful Rather than
> dropping a million tons of TNT on a city they dropped a single bomb with
> the equivalent about of explosive power. Since the Japanese had done
> their share of aerial bombing when they invaded countries they can't
> really complain when they are bombed.
So your argument after all is that the American war crimes are perfectly
justified by the fact that the Japanese also committed war crimes. I got
it. That was one of the four points I originally posted. You denied them
all and yet now we come back to them.
>>>> You actually think there has to be a piece of paper beforehand in
>>>> order to establish what's a war crime and what's not? Or is
>>>> wholesale slaughter of civilians justified only when they don't
>>>> share your language, borders and culture?
>>>
>>> Of course there is. In order for anything to be a war crime, there
>>> has to be a law that specifically prohibits the action. If there is
>>> no law banning something, it is not illegal. Otherwise, every action
>>> could be illegal unless there was a law that allowed it.
>>
>> You are an idiot.
>
> Ah. I see that you are stuck for a rational argument. In order for
> someone to commit a crime, there has to be a recognized and accepted law
> to break.
Care to browse through the pre-1949 Geneva conventions? I am pretty sure
somewhere in there you'll find something pertaining to indiscriminate
murder of civilians.
>
>> 1. Indiscriminate wholesale murder of civilians is a war crime no
>> matter whether there is a "law" or not. Btw, there are no "laws"
>> covering international conflict, only conventions which countries may
>> or may not sign.
>
> Thanks for the chuckle. First you say that there was a war crime and
> then you say that there are no laws covering international conflict.
Yes, moron, there are no "international laws", only conventions. What
toothless and impotent "laws" were enacted along with the Hague tribunal
much later, serve little purpose when some countries, the US included,
refuse to abide by them. Conventions, not laws. When the war is over,
the side that prevails puts the conquered side on trial. Had the
Japanese won, a shitload of American generals would have been executed
for war crimes and some Japanese asshole would now be arguing that their
war crimes weren't really war crimes after all, based on technicalities
and on putting fingers in one's ears and shouting
"LA-LA-LA-I-can't-hear-you", only in Japanese, of course.
> Actually, there are international laws concerning war. They become laws
> when agreed upon and ratified by international parties. For instance,
> there was Geneva Convention, which BTW, Japan did not sign.
>
>
>> 2. Many war crimes committed by the the Axis hadn't even been covered
>> by the existing conventions which, according to you, perfectly
>> absolves them.
>
> You should check your facts. It was Japan that did not sign the Geneva
> Convention, but if I am not mistaken, Germany, and Axis power, did.
Egad, you are either dense as a black hole or faking stupidity because
you know you're full of it.
>
>
>
>> 3. Look up the legal definition of war crime before talking nonsense.
>
> Trust me, I have done some reading on war crimes, the various
> international agreements and the changes that have been made to them.
> Hell, if you want to see gross violations of war crimes agreements, look
> at what Japan did in its invasions of Manchuria, China and numerous
> other countries that it invaded, and its treatment of people int he
> occupied countries and POWs.
Jesus Fucking Ass Christ. Again with this flimsiest of rationalizations?
How many times does it have to be pointed out to you that the fact that
the other side in the war committed war crimes does not give your side
permission, either legal or moral, to commit them themselves?
You know what, fuck it... I am not even reading anymore. Enjoy your
delusions of supreme morality. It is amazing how no one ever commits war
crimes. It is always the other side.
Dave Smith
\
>>>
>>> So now what is your argument? First you said it wasn't a war crime
>>> because there was no treaty, now you say that [the Japanese] have no
>>> right to complain if it was.
>>
>> What is my argument? I thought that it was pretty obvious..... if
>> there is a war crime, it has to be a contravention of an existing law.
>> it's not that complicated.
>
> But you said "Having refused to adopt and abide by the Geneva
> convention, they don't get to complain if it was violated against them".
>
> Which is it? Was the atomic bombing not a war crime or had the Japanese
> refused to ratify the Geneva convention?
Do you try to convince yourself that you are brighter than you really
are by asking the same question over and over. Follow the threat back to
keep the players straight. Another poster had commented that there was
no specific law banning the use of nuclear weapons, therefore it was not
a violation of any existing law.
Japan, having refused to be a party to the international agreement on
war crimes is another issue. As I said, their refusal to sign and abide
by the GC doesn't put them in a position to complain even if there are
violations committed against them.
>>>> Actually, they were military targets, despite what revisionists
>>>> would have you believe.
>>>
>>> Yes, sure they were. There is such a thing as a disproportionate use
>>> of force, especially since the end result is instant death of
>>> hundreds of thousands.
>>> This is the same logic McVeigh used when he bombed the Oklahoma City
>>> building - after all, it was a government building.
>>
>> Not exactly. There was a war going on at the time. The thing that
>> makes the atomic bombs exceptional is that they were so powerful
>> Rather than dropping a million tons of TNT on a city they dropped a
>> single bomb with the equivalent about of explosive power. Since the
>> Japanese had done their share of aerial bombing when they invaded
>> countries they can't really complain when they are bombed.
>
> So your argument after all is that the American war crimes are perfectly
> justified by the fact that the Japanese also committed war crimes.
Take a moment to go back and read what I said. I said that rather than
dropping a million tons of TNT on a city, they dropped on single bomb
with the equivalent amount of explosive power. It's like hitting a
person over the head with a drumstick a thousand times or whacking them
with once really hard with a 4x4. The result is about the same.
> I got it. That was one of the four points I originally posted.
> You denied them all and yet now we come back to them.
The fact is that Japan did start the war and that it was carrying out
atrocities on a massive scale is a good reason to put an end to their
aggression, and that the Allies were justified in using whatever force
was necessary to put an end to it.
Don Martin
Or at least get him something to watch on Saturday nights.
a425couple
>>>a425couple:
>>>>Alan Ford:
>>>>> You war crime apologists are an especially disgusting breed of
>>>>> turds. Needless to say you'd be crying biggest war crime in the
>>>>> history of civilization had the Japanese dropped atomic bombs on the
>>>>> US, but when it's your own country/politicians/military committing
>>>>> what is obviously not one, but two huge war crime acts, then it's
>>>>> off to rationalization:
>>>>
>>>> Alan Ford obviously writes (and seemingly Chom also agrees)
>>>> that a "war crime" is defined by whatever he wants it to be
>>>> (or have been).
>>>> I am very thankful, that in the real world, "crimes" and
>>>> "war crimes" are clearly defined by words,
>>>> not the whim of one person's opinion.
>>>> (I'd imagine most of us are happy at that!)
>>>> The two bombings by 'A-bomb' on Japan were clearly
>>>> not by any treaty or law existing then (or now) under the
>>>> definition of "war crime".
>>>> It was during a war still being waged, and they were
>>>> military targets still being defended.
>>>
>>> What a fucking twit! Do you honestly expect anyone to swallow your
>>> pathetic technicality rationalization?
>>> Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not military targets by any stretch of
>>> imagination and the only reason these two war crimes are not being
>>> treated as war crimes is because the US was the victorious party in
>>> the conflict.
>>
>> Actually, they were military targets, despite what revisionists would
>> have you believe.
>
>>> I feel a combination of contempt, sadness and nausea when dealing with
>>> people like you. It is still hard for me to believe that there are
>>> people who can so nonchalantly wave off horrible deaths of several
>>> hundred thousand of innocent civillians. I've seen human garabage like
>>> you in more countries than one, hiding behind phony patriotism.
Please explain then, why the three 'pro-peace' members of
Japan's ruling cabinet considered the atomic bombings
a "godsend"?
(Answer was = because they felt it was the quickest way
to bring peace, surrender, and thus save millions more
Japanese from dying in a prolonged war & from starvation!)
> Besides, asshole, the war was over. Germany surrendered. Japan was
> defeated and it was just the matter of time before they surrendered,
> too.
Well, Alan Ford's posting persona certaintly does not
suffer from lack of ego!
1. He believes a "war crime" is whatever he says it is!
(never mind what elected leaders, their delegates & jurists
have decided beforehand)
2. He believes a "military target" is only what he approves of!
(never mind how many troops and headquarters are there)
and (drumroll please) 3. He is the one to decide when
"the war was over" and never mind what all combatants say!
So, as to "the war was over", please tell that to:
A. The 100,000 Chinese who were being killed each
month by the still very active Japanese Army in China.
B. The still living 100,000 US, Brit., Aus., & Dutch POWs
of the Japanese who were now all facing imminent death
("If the war had lasted another year, not a one would have lived.")
(About 50,000 of these POWs had already been killed.)
C. The 12,000,000 (yes, 12 Million) American's who were
in the military and had to have their lives on hold until
the war was really over (+ Australians + Brits).
D. The multi-million Japanese who were lacking food.
E. The many millions of Koreans and Chinese living
under Japan's brutal rule.
If anyone wishes to read a more informed discussion
of this topic, I suggest Google Groups
soc.history.war.world.war.ii
subject = "POWs held by Japan: Enola Gay"
from late 2003, early 2004.
Or read the book "Downfall" by Richard Frank
(good deal, used delivered to your door about $8.50!)
J
"a425couple" <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hdt5p...@news5.newsguy.com...
If you hadn't figured it out already, Alan Ford is an idiot troll with
<zero> credibility.
> So, as to "the war was over", please tell that to:
> A. The 100,000 Chinese who were being killed each month by the still very
> active Japanese Army in China.
> B. The still living 100,000 US, Brit., Aus., & Dutch POWs of the Japanese
> who were now all facing imminent death ("If the war had lasted another
> year, not a one would have lived.")
> (About 50,000 of these POWs had already been killed.)
> C. The 12,000,000 (yes, 12 Million) American's who were in the military
> and had to have their lives on hold until the war was really over (+
> Australians + Brits).
> D. The multi-million Japanese who were lacking food. E. The many
> millions of Koreans and Chinese living under Japan's brutal rule.
>
> If anyone wishes to read a more informed discussion of this topic, I
> suggest Google Groups soc.history.war.world.war.ii
> subject = "POWs held by Japan: Enola Gay"
> from late 2003, early 2004.
>
> Or read the book "Downfall" by Richard Frank (good deal, used delivered to
> your door about $8.50!)
>
--
J Young
Jvis...@live.com
Alan Ford
> So, as to "the war was over", please tell that to:
> A. The 100,000 Chinese who were being killed each month by the still
> very active Japanese Army in China.
> B. The still living 100,000 US, Brit., Aus., & Dutch POWs of the
> Japanese who were now all facing imminent death ("If the war had lasted
> another year, not a one would have lived.")
> (About 50,000 of these POWs had already been killed.)
> C. The 12,000,000 (yes, 12 Million) American's who were in the military
> and had to have their lives on hold until the war was really over (+
> Australians + Brits).
> D. The multi-million Japanese who were lacking food. E. The many
> millions of Koreans and Chinese living under Japan's brutal rule.
Got it. Two atomic bombs dropped on cities that killed several hundred
thousand were in reality a great humanitarian act because really, the
war that had been almost over totally inconvenienced millions of people
by putting their lives on hold. Can't have that. And also, the US
military really gave a fuck about the Chinese, so that's also a valid
rationalization, pardon me, reason for the war crime, pardon me, mass
murder of the civilian population.
Dave Smith
> a425couple wrote:
>
>> So, as to "the war was over", please tell that to:
>> A. The 100,000 Chinese who were being killed each month by the still
>> very active Japanese Army in China.
>> B. The still living 100,000 US, Brit., Aus., & Dutch POWs of the
>> Japanese who were now all facing imminent death ("If the war had
>> lasted another year, not a one would have lived.")
>> (About 50,000 of these POWs had already been killed.)
>> C. The 12,000,000 (yes, 12 Million) American's who were in the
>> military and had to have their lives on hold until the war was really
>> over (+ Australians + Brits).
>> D. The multi-million Japanese who were lacking food. E. The many
>> millions of Koreans and Chinese living under Japan's brutal rule.
>
>
> Got it. Two atomic bombs dropped on cities that killed several hundred
> thousand were in reality a great humanitarian act because really,
No. You don't get it. People were starting to starve because of the
embargo. Millions would have died in an invasion. Call is a sacrifice if
you want, but the threat of more nuclear strikes forced them to surrender.
> war that had been almost over totally inconvenienced millions of people
> by putting their lives on hold. Can't have that. And also, the US
> military really gave a fuck about the Chinese, so that's also a valid
> rationalization, pardon me, reason for the war crime, pardon me, mass
> murder of the civilian population.
Concern for the Chinese got them into it in the first place. The US had
imposed sanctions on Japan to try to force them to stop the aggression
in China. When negotiations and embargoes failed to force an end to
their aggression and atrocities Japan decided on a sneak attack in the
hopes of knocking the US out of the picture so that it was free to carry
out its invasions across the south Pacific and Asia.
a425couple
>> So, as to (Alan's quote) "the war was over", please tell that to:
>> A. The 100,000 Chinese who were being killed each month by the still
>> very active Japanese Army in China.
>> B. The still living 100,000 US, Brit., Aus., & Dutch POWs of the
>> Japanese who were now all facing imminent death ("If the war had lasted
>> another year, not a one would have lived.")
>> (About 50,000 of these POWs had already been killed.)
>> C. The 12,000,000 (yes, 12 Million) American's who were in the military
>> and had to have their lives on hold until the war was really over (+
>> Australians + Brits).
>> D. The multi-million Japanese who were lacking food. E. The many
>> millions of Koreans and Chinese living under Japan's brutal rule.
>
> Got it. Two atomic bombs dropped on cities that killed several hundred
Yes, pretty much.
Can you outline a way to get Japan to surrender and finally
end WWII (that cost about 50,000,000 deaths)
that involved less loss of Japanese lives?
Again, what you sniped out,
-Please explain then, why the three 'pro-peace' members of
-Japan's ruling cabinet considered the atomic bombings
-a "godsend"?
-(Answer was = because they felt it was the quickest way
-to bring peace, surrender, and thus save millions more
-Japanese from dying in a prolonged war & from starvation!)
> And also, the US military really gave a fuck about the Chinese, so that's
> also a valid rationalization, pardon me, reason for the war crime, pardon
> me, mass murder of the civilian population.
If not US concern for China, What do you think led
to the US/Japan confrontation, that led to the war?
(Recall "Flying Tigers" & Oil embargo.)
> If you don't beat your meat
> You can't have any pudding
> How can you have any pudding
> If you don't beat your meat?
Alan's sig line seems fitting.
Australia Mining Pioneer & Founder of the True Geology
TRADE WARS
Chile's gold output set to triple by 2015
by Staff Writers
Santiago, Chile (UPI) Nov 12, 2009
Quote
Gold prices rose more than $15 an ounce Wednesday as investors out to
make quick profits ditched the dollar in favor of gold and other
commodities, including oil futures. In trading Wednesday gold prices
reached $1,117, and the metal's 2010 futures rose above $1,120
for full story see
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Chiles_gold_output_set_to_triple_by_2015_999.html
Unquote
Of course in light of all the major Subsea gold deposits freely
available in concentrated sedimentation the mindless race to achieve
security in Gold is really infantile, and indeed based on the dogmas
of a Fraudulent science of Geology !
Parting all Gold mines around the world have no future whatsoever all
the more since new technology brewing will make Gold available by the
Trillions of tons in most of the blasted planet remains known as the
Belt of Aerolithes, orbiting beyond Mars. Of course in light of the
retarded rocket technology such vision is not feasible, but some
quantum laps have occurred before and the jump ahead from the steam
engines to the jets is one which should warn would be investors in the
YELLOW SHIT that things turn very easily against the estimates of the
infantile fat mouthed sci000ntists who attempt to project on the
future !
I WOULD NOT PUT A CENT MYSELF IN ANY GOLD VENTURE AT ALL & INDEED I
HAVE NOT PUT A CENT IN BUYING ANY OF THAT YELLOW SHIT INDEED ....As a
True Geologist I know as a fact that the core of the Earth itself is
gold, and why in such circumstances trust the rarity of a commodity
available in far away planets further still than the Belt of
Aerolithes in Quintillions of tons !
Hey ?
Alan Ford
>>> So, as to "the war was over", please tell that to:
>>> A. The 100,000 Chinese who were being killed each month by the still
>>> very active Japanese Army in China.
>>> B. The still living 100,000 US, Brit., Aus., & Dutch POWs of the
>>> Japanese who were now all facing imminent death ("If the war had
>>> lasted another year, not a one would have lived.")
>>> (About 50,000 of these POWs had already been killed.)
>>> C. The 12,000,000 (yes, 12 Million) American's who were in the
>>> military and had to have their lives on hold until the war was really
>>> over (+ Australians + Brits).
>>> D. The multi-million Japanese who were lacking food. E. The many
>>> millions of Koreans and Chinese living under Japan's brutal rule.
>>
>>
>> Got it. Two atomic bombs dropped on cities that killed several hundred
>> thousand were in reality a great humanitarian act because really,
>
>
> No. You don't get it. People were starting to starve because of the
> embargo. Millions would have died in an invasion. Call is a sacrifice if
> you want, but the threat of more nuclear strikes forced them to surrender.
But of course, you're right as ever.
After all, war crimes are defined as violations of the laws or customs
of war, including murder, the ill-treatment or deportation of civilian
residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps, the murder or
ill-treatment of prisoners of war, the killing of hostages, the wanton
destruction of cities, towns and villages.
Shit, somehow I don't see an escape clause in this article that says
"except when people are starting to starve or millions would die in
invasion, then anything goes in order to demoralize the enemy into
capitulating".
Where are those damn technicalities when you need them, huh?
Then, of course, strictly following your logic, mind you, had the atomic
bombs not worked, the US Army soldiers would have been perfectly
justified in organized rape of Japanese women, maybe torturing their
children or something...
Also, to address your "atomic bombs were not defined as war crime",
Section II, Article 23 of the Hague Convention addresses it, while
Section II, Articles 25 and 27 address "bombardments of towns".
And, finally, still strictly following your logic, mind you, the
Japanese would have been perfectly justified in using atomic bombs on
American cities like Seattle and San Francisco.
Greatest Mining Pioneer of Australia of all Times
**************************************************
With the sea pushing 270 Km inland & the Murray Darling defunct river
becoming a sea arm !
Before asserting your views & publishing your estimates, Mr Bonzo,
please get acquainted with the True Geology, or at least that
introduction to it available on line
The basis of your erroneous approach is founded on the stupid &
fraudulent Geology as the one taught at Curtin, Monash & the ANU, and
whose underlying dogmas are mainly the Stability of Earth on present
orbit since its beginning ( whatever accretion & creation being both
false) and as well the illusion that we are living within an ISOBARIC
& ISOTROPIC UNIVERSE !
With kind regards
Alan Ford
>>> So, as to (Alan's quote) "the war was over", please tell that to:
>>> A. The 100,000 Chinese who were being killed each month by the still
>>> very active Japanese Army in China.
>>> B. The still living 100,000 US, Brit., Aus., & Dutch POWs of the
>>> Japanese who were now all facing imminent death ("If the war had
>>> lasted another year, not a one would have lived.")
>>> (About 50,000 of these POWs had already been killed.)
>>> C. The 12,000,000 (yes, 12 Million) American's who were in the
>>> military and had to have their lives on hold until the war was really
>>> over (+ Australians + Brits).
>>> D. The multi-million Japanese who were lacking food. E. The many
>>> millions of Koreans and Chinese living under Japan's brutal rule.
>>
>> Got it. Two atomic bombs dropped on cities that killed several hundred
>> thousand were in reality a great humanitarian act because really ---,
>
> Yes, pretty much.
> Can you outline a way to get Japan to surrender and finally
> end WWII (that cost about 50,000,000 deaths)
> that involved less loss of Japanese lives?
Yes, generally the "outline" of any war is to engage in combat the
enemy's military, not to shell, carpet-bomb and annihilate the strictly
civilian population in order to intimidate the enemy's command into
accepting a truce or surrender.
A potential loss of lives on both sides that you post-rationalize as an
excuse is irrelevant. Rules of war, as well as war crimes, are clearly
defined. One of the rules is not to indiscriminately and purposely
target civilians in order to gain military and strategic advantage. This
is what Japanese generals and leaders were put on trial after the war,
and the only reason this was not done to the Allies' side is because
they won the war. It's as simple as that.
For whatever reason, you need to believe that Americans are incapable of
committing war crimes and when they do, it is always justified by some
uber-humanitarian goal. Well, you're wrong.
> Again, what you sniped out,
> -Please explain then, why the three 'pro-peace' members of
> -Japan's ruling cabinet considered the atomic bombings
> -a "godsend"?
> -(Answer was = because they felt it was the quickest way
> -to bring peace, surrender, and thus save millions more
> -Japanese from dying in a prolonged war & from starvation!)
Oh, so let's see: war crimes are defined as violations of the laws or
customs of war, including murder, the ill-treatment or deportation of
civilian residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps, the
murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war, the killing of hostages,
the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages.
Again, somehow I don't see an escape clause that says "all war crimes
shall be justified provided the prevailing party in the conflict can
produce three persons from the defeated side who shall consider the said
war crimes 'a godsend'." Funny, you'd think this would be mentioned
somewhere in the Hague Convention.
>> And also, the US military really gave a fuck about the Chinese, so
>> that's also a valid rationalization, pardon me, reason for the war
>> crime, pardon me, mass murder of the civilian population.
>
> If not US concern for China, What do you think led
> to the US/Japan confrontation, that led to the war?
??? Uhm, the imperial ambitions of both Japan and the US in Asia and
Pacific? Jesus Ass Christ, you really believe that the US is a fucking
tooth-fairy of the World, do you?
One last time, before I write both of you war crime apologist douchebags
once and for all: indiscriminate mass murder of civilians is not allowed
as an excuse to expedite the war's end or any other strategic or
tactical goals.
--
hypa...@comcast.net
> "Chom Noamsky" <d...@bark.grrrr> wrote in message
>
> news:gENKm.51570$Db2.28206@edtnps83...
>
> > J wrote:
> >> One history lesson they had better never forget is the atrocities these
> >> animals committed against Allied POWs. The Japs earned those A-bombs.
>
> > How do babies and children earn A-bombs?
>
> Especially since they didn't do anything.
You have to remember that the guy who wrote that
is a Nazi and a waste of a skin suit.
J
<hypa...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:67dddef8-8a2e-4c43...@e31g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
Typical response from a liberal loon blinded by her ignorance and hatred.
--
J Young
Jvis...@live.com
Dave Smith
>> No. You don't get it. People were starting to starve because of the
>> embargo. Millions would have died in an invasion. Call is a sacrifice
>> if you want, but the threat of more nuclear strikes forced them to
>> surrender.
>
> But of course, you're right as ever.
>
> After all, war crimes are defined as violations of the laws or customs
> of war, including murder, the ill-treatment or deportation of civilian
> residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps, the murder or
> ill-treatment of prisoners of war, the killing of hostages, the wanton
> destruction of cities, towns and villages.
>
> Shit, somehow I don't see an escape clause in this article that says
> "except when people are starting to starve or millions would die in
> invasion, then anything goes in order to demoralize the enemy into
> capitulating".
>
> Where are those damn technicalities when you need them, huh?
>
> Then, of course, strictly following your logic, mind you, had the atomic
> bombs not worked, the US Army soldiers would have been perfectly
> justified in organized rape of Japanese women, maybe torturing their
> children or something...
That is strictly following my logic? Looks to me more like a drastic
leap of logic. I pointed out that behaviour like that by Japanese
occupying forces as a justification to use whatever force was necessary
to defeat them. They were treated humanely after they surrendered.
>
> Also, to address your "atomic bombs were not defined as war crime",
> Section II, Article 23 of the Hague Convention addresses it, while
> Section II, Articles 25 and 27 address "bombardments of towns".
>
Article 25 forbids the attack or bombardment of undefended towns.
Article 27 is strangely worded, saying that they have to take all
necessary steps to spare , as far as possible..... Well, I guess it
just wasn't possible.
> And, finally, still strictly following your logic, mind you, the
> Japanese would have been perfectly justified in using atomic bombs on
> American cities like Seattle and San Francisco.
I am sure that they would have tried it if they had them.
Mike Jones
Like an an E'grrr suit. (Twitch!)
--
*=( http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
*=( For all your UK news needs.