RE: Letters from Iwo Jima (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message


Hortlund -> RE: Letters from Iwo Jima (11/23/2007 11:32:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Immaterial. They were still internment camps (not refugee camps) in which people were imprisoned solely because of their ethnicity.


No, there wasnt. Now if you're going to continue claiming that there were, then by all means, go ahead and post your evidence. I will not take your word for it, nor will I take a wikipedia entry.

There were no concentration camps in Sweden, nor did we incarcerate Swedish citizens because they were of a certain ethnicity. We interned foreign soldiers, and we had refugee camps for refugees who came into our nation, but thats it, and that is a completely different thing.

quote:

Correct.

Yes, I know Im correct.




Hortlund -> RE: Letters from Iwo Jima (11/23/2007 11:36:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Reiryc
If he meant it differently than the context and meant all japanese then I think he went too far.


Well, there you go, you are in agreement with us. Since he used "they" in the context of not only japanese soldiers guilty of warcrimes, not even only in the context of japanese soldiers, but also japanese soldiers and civilians, clearly he is a racist. Case closed.




mdiehl -> RE: Letters from Iwo Jima (11/23/2007 11:38:13 PM)

quote:

No, there wasnt. Now if you're going to continue claiming that there were, then by all means, go ahead and post your evidence. I will not take your word for it, nor will I take a wikipedia entry.


Actually, I already have provided some evidence. Moreover, simply because you won't take a wikipedia entry as evidence does not mean that the wikipedia entry is incorrect. Past experience (and present conversation) suggests that any evidence presented to you will simply be rejected as "invalid," "misinformed," "in error" etc.

quote:

There were no concentration camps in Sweden,


Sure. And Pres. Ahmedenajad says there are no gay people in Iran, Hesbollah says there were no Jewish people in Gaza prior to 1948, Turkey never pursued a pogrom against Armenians, etc etc.

quote:

nor did we incarcerate Swedish citizens because they were of a certain ethnicity.


Immaterial. Of course, Sweden did incarcerate people for being suspected of communism, pacifism, radicalism, etc. Not a huge number (300 or so by the accounts, all held together in one internment camp) and these were Swedish citizens deemed to be too politically off the beaten path from the Swedish gov't's policy of collaborating with Nazi Germany through resource exports.

quote:

We interned foreign soldiers, and we had refugee camps for refugees who came into our nation, but thats it, and that is a completely different thing.


So far, there is evidence that refutes your claim, and your rebuttal has been simply denial.




Reiryc -> RE: Letters from Iwo Jima (11/23/2007 11:51:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund


quote:

ORIGINAL: Reiryc
If he meant it differently than the context and meant all japanese then I think he went too far.


Well, there you go, you are in agreement with us. Since he used "they" in the context of not only japanese soldiers guilty of warcrimes, not even only in the context of japanese soldiers, but also japanese soldiers and civilians, clearly he is a racist. Case closed.



The only thing closed seems to be your mind and your willingness to have a rational discussion without resorting to childish antics as you have just done.

I am clearly not in agreement with 'you' about the context of his words and his meaning, but for some reason, that doesn't stop you from making this ridiculous assertion to the contrary of my already stated view.





Sarge -> RE: Letters from Iwo Jima (11/24/2007 1:00:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

Sarge. Straight question. Was GW1 combat or not? If you answer this question with "no", then you need to tell us what sort of definition of "combat" you are using.



I did answer that [;)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarge

In the context of the PTO indeed the first gulf has no comparison.



Personally I never was fired upon or spent a round in the what ? about 100 hrs the war lasted.I spent most of the time guarding the mass of RG troops that surrendered.










martxyz -> RE: Letters from Iwo Jima (11/24/2007 1:20:54 AM)

You don't need a monumental mind or a monumental encyclopaedia to know what racism is, or to know that it's perfectly possible to be a racist, even if you don't express your views in public. In general, the people least likely to think they are racists, are themselves racist. They believe their views are logical, whereas the truth is that there views are illogical, ignorant, stupid, hateful and dangerous. It doesn't need a great debate, as the meaning of the word is, these days, clearly understood by most literate people. You know one when hear one. It's not rocket science.




Reiryc -> RE: Letters from Iwo Jima (11/24/2007 1:24:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mart

You don't need a monumental mind or a monumental encyclopaedia to know what racism is, or to know that it's perfectly possible to be a racist, even if you don't express your views in public. In general, the people least likely to think they are racists, are themselves racist. They believe their views are logical, whereas the truth is that there views are illogical, ignorant, stupid, hateful and dangerous. It doesn't need a great debate, as the meaning of the word is, these days, clearly understood by most literate people. You know one when hear one. It's not rocket science.



Are you a racist then?


What I often find is there are those who throw the term racist around but really don't understand what the word means. More often than not what word they really mean to use is bigot or prejudiced.




martxyz -> RE: Letters from Iwo Jima (11/24/2007 1:36:13 AM)


[/quote]

Personally I never was fired upon or spent a round in the what ? about 100 hrs the war lasted.I spent most of the time guarding the mass of RG troops that surrendered.

[/quote]

I think perhaps you are simply saying that YOU didn't see combat, which is not the same as saying combat did not take place, as it clearly did. Whether you think you saw it isn't really the issue. I know people who saw combat. A lot of military personnel died. They didn't all die of heart attacks when they saw the allies coming. There were also war crimes committed. I didn't read it in some paper. I spoke to a perpetrator. To say there was no combat is to just plain wrong. You may wish to call it a massacre if you prefer not to use the word combat. Whether the side that get slaughtered were right or wrong is a completely separate issue. I don't dispute they were in the wrong.




Sarge -> RE: Letters from Iwo Jima (11/24/2007 1:55:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mart

I think perhaps you are simply saying that YOU didn't see combat, which is not the same as saying combat did not take place,


Here is the question I was asked .

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

And you do personally know what it's like? You're a combat veteran?



Maybe I should have came up with some sob story about how I am on public aid because of my hardship related to my killing farmers and raping goats .

Safe bet KG and Judge would be leading the group -hug [sm=love0059.gif]








Hortlund -> RE: Letters from Iwo Jima (11/24/2007 9:46:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
Actually, I already have provided some evidence. Moreover, simply because you won't take a wikipedia entry as evidence does not mean that the wikipedia entry is incorrect. Past experience (and present conversation) suggests that any evidence presented to you will simply be rejected as "invalid," "misinformed," "in error" etc.

No, you havent. What you have presented is some sort of quote from a German refugee. Said refugee was apparently put in a refugee camp. Which is all fine and well, that is what nations do with refugees.

Your problem, is that you are trying to take this refugee and his story of the refugee camp as evidence of something else. That Sweden also had camps where we put swedish citizens because of their ethnicity. A lie. A tall lie at that. And if you want to continue to claim that there were such camps, you will have to put up some sort of evidence.

quote:

Sure. blah blah


State your evidence then.

quote:


Immaterial. Of course, Sweden did incarcerate people for being suspected of communism, pacifism, radicalism, etc. Not a huge number (300 or so by the accounts, all held together in one internment camp) and these were Swedish citizens deemed to be too politically off the beaten path from the Swedish gov't's policy of collaborating with Nazi Germany through resource exports.

LOL This is priceless. In a discussion about whether sweden had concentration camps for their own citizens of certain ethnicitys or not, I say we never put anyone in any sort of camp because of their ethnicity...to this you reply immaterial. Are you actually capable of normal conversation? Is this somehow too complicated for you?

quote:


So far, there is evidence that refutes your claim, and your rebuttal has been simply denial.


No, the "evidence" consists of a quote regarding something completely different, and a wikipedia-entry with no basis in reality. There is not even a city, town or hamlet in Sweden named "Storsien".

So, your "evidence" consists of a quote about something else, and a wikipedia-entry containing a made-up city. And yet you sit here parading your ignorance and claiming that there is evidence. You should be ashamed of yourself.




Doggie -> RE: Letters from Iwo Jima (11/24/2007 10:03:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund




No, there wasnt. Now if you're going to continue claiming that there were, then by all means, go ahead and post your evidence. I will not take your word for it, nor will I take a wikipedia entry.


But everyone else is to take your anecdotes about Japanese compassion towards some anyonomous American prisoner rescued from a mine field based on your impeccable reputation as an expert on miltary history.[8|] I guess it would be "racist" of me to point out you have yet to put forth so much as one word of docmentation to support your ridiculous fantasies.

quote:

There were no concentration camps in Sweden


Nonsense. The fact that you would even attempt to perpetrater this outrageous pretense reveals you as either a fool or simply just stupid.

Anybody who bothers to take the time to actually research the history of world war II internment camps in the United States knows you know nothing about them as well. People of Austrian, German, and Italian ancestory were interned. The same thing happened in every other nation during that period, with the exception that only the Japanese tortured, raped and murdered prisoners for entertainment.

quote:

Have you noticed, btw, what has happened when you ran out of arguments to defend your outrageous position on japan in ww2? Have you noticed that you havent even tried to counter the arguments I put forth. Instead we get this rubbish? Its funny, in a sad and pathetic way.


You mean my "outrageous position" on documented historical facts? And what "argumements" are those? You have made no arguments aside from mudslinging and outragous lies. You simply do not know what you are talking about. The ignorance on display here is just staggering. Try making an argument and somebody might respond to it. This idea that you're a graduate of a law school is also starting to sound unbelievable, unless being a complete idiot is the standard for the Swedish bar.

quote:

Can I ust add a touch of cynicism. While the Japanese were raping Nanking, and half the rest of the east, the brave American soldiers and airmen were in their bases, and enjoying the same peaceful, wealthy lifestyles that the average US citizen carried on having throughout the war, which, incidentally, the US did not bother to join,


Aw, gee, sorry we couldn't get saving the world from fascism to ya sooner. I guess you don't remember the bit about how Sweden didn't bother to join in at all, except to provide first class railway transport through Sweden to nazi troops on their way to kill British soldiers in Norway. Glad to see you know who your friends are.

quote:

A good deal of cant is trotted out about all this. Is someone a savage if they stand by, quite comfortably, watching other people butcher each other


Uh, that would be your pals in Sweden. The evil American racists are singlehandedly repsponsible for seeing to it that tens of thousands of commonwealth prisoners of war that were to be executed to the last man, woman, and child lived to see Briitsh soil again.
Same for hundreds, if not thousands of British troops in both Gulf Wars who were not killed because stupid yank cowboys provided them with close air support. You're welcome, asswipe.[8|]




Doggie -> RE: Letters from Iwo Jima (11/24/2007 10:36:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mart


I know people who saw combat. A lot of military personnel died. They didn't all die of heart attacks when they saw the allies coming. There were also war crimes committed. I didn't read it in some paper. I spoke to a perpetrator.


You're full of crap.[8|] Fifteen British soldiers were killed by enemy action in the first Gulf War. 99 percent of British troops never fired a shot, like more than eighty percent of the racist yanks.

The chances of you knowing some of the few British soldiers who actually fired a weapon are just about nil.




Hortlund -> RE: Letters from Iwo Jima (11/24/2007 10:36:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Doggie
You mean my "outrageous position" on documented historical facts?


No, I mean the outrageous position that all japanese should be shot when captured or strafed in their lifeboats, or firebombed in their homes.

quote:


And what "argumements" are those?


1. Stereotyping is wrong, because it will lead to all sorts of false conclusions depending on what action you stereotype from. As example of this I asked you how we would view the US army if we stereotyped the entire US army from the actions of the My Lai-gang. As another example of this I asked you how we would view the US if we stereotyped the entire nation from the atrocities committed against the Native Americans, and the internment camps for US citizens in ww2.

To this you have not replied...apart from some peculiar outburst against swedish neutrality (or lack thereof) in ww2, accusations of mudslinging and various attempts at ad homs.

2. It is wrong to call for the murder of individuals just because they happen to be of a certain ethnicity.
To this your reply has basically been "oh yes it is...as long as we call for the murder of japanese...because they did lots of horrible things themselves."

3. Guilt is always individual, never collective. I have gone to greath lengths to try to explain this to you (and others) in this thread. Basically the concept of individual guilt is at the very heart of Christianity, western morals and western legal tradition. As examples on why guilt must be tried on an individual level, I have given you the examples of the Japanese soldier who saved the US soldiers life in the minefield. With your perverted line of reasoning, that Japanese soldier would be just as guilty as the Nanking rapists. And incidentally..according to your views, he should also have been shot on capture by the US soldiers. I have also given the example of the sailor on the Yamato. With your line of reasoning, he should have been strafed in his lifeboat. For what crime? What did he do to deserve such a fate? He was japanese.

4. Racism is not acceptable.
To this you have replied "yes it is, when its about japanese".

quote:


You have made no arguments aside from mudslinging and outragous lies. You simply do not know what you are talking about. The ignorance on display here is just staggering. Try making an argument and somebody might respond to it. This idea that you're a graduate of a law school is also starting to sound unbelievable, unless being a complete idiot is the standard for the Swedish bar.

Actually, the mudslinging comes from your direction, and I have not posted a single lie. You on the other hand, has been caught repeatedly both lying and slinging mud.




Doggie -> RE: Letters from Iwo Jima (11/24/2007 11:32:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

No, I mean the outrageous position that all japanese should be shot when captured or strafed in their lifeboats, or firebombed in their homes.


That would be your outrageous position. Typical of you to attribute things to me I never said, like the lie about shooting Japanese Prisoners. There was a reason for strafing soldiers in life boats. It kept them from reaching shore alive and killing American soldiers. I haven't said a word about firebombing anybody in their homes, either.

How about you document one of your outrageous lies just this once and show us where I've said anything about murdering the thousands of Japanese who survived U.S. captivity, or anything about exterminating Japanese in general based on their race.

What I have said is the truth, that Japanese soldiers were sadistic savages and deserve no sympathy.



quote:

1. Stereotyping is wrong, because it will lead to all sorts of false conclusions depending on what action you stereotype from. As example of this I asked you how we would view the US army if we stereotyped the entire US army from the actions of the My Lai-gang.


No, you engage in stereotyping when you judge all American soldiers on one isolated incident, which you have. The actions of the Nanking Gang, and the Okinawa gang, and the Battan gang, and the Singapore gang, and the Guam gang, and every other gang of murderous thugs in the Japanese army were typical of their behavior, not exceptional.

quote]As another example of this I asked you how we would view the US if we stereotyped the entire nation from the atrocities committed against the Native Americans, and the internment camps for US citizens in ww2.

The native Americans committed quite a few atrocities of their own. But you wouldn't know that as it's obvious you know nothing of the American Indian wars. No atrocities were committed against the Germans, Italians, and Japanese interned in the United States during world war II. And not all Germans, Italians, and Japanese were interned. You'd know that too if you knew anything at all about the subject.

quote:

To this you have not replied...apart from some peculiar outburst against swedish neutrality (or lack thereof) in ww2, accusations of mudslinging and various attempts at ad homs.


Swedish "neutrality" was a joke. Who are you kidding? Your mudslinging starts with your first comment which escalated to how myself and americans who actually fought world war II were liars, racists, and morons as well as murderers and rapists. This was followed up by an anecdote about the kindness shown to an American soldier named Joseph Dorcas Allen, who apparently does not exist, as compared to the millions of people murdered by Japanese troops, who do.

quote:

2. It is wrong to call for the murder of individuals just because they happen to be of a certain ethnicity.


Nobody has done any such thing. You're simply a liar.

quote:

To this your reply has basically been "oh yes it is...as long as we call for the murder of japanese...because they did lots of horrible things themselves."


Your reply to the simple truth about the barbaric conduct of the Japanese armed forces is to invent mythical examples of their benevolence and call anyone who doesn't agree with your superior intellect a racist.

quote:

I have given you the examples of the Japanese soldier who saved the US soldiers life in the minefield.


You have given us yet another example of nothing. And then you have the nerve to claim that historical facts like the existence of Swedish concentration camps are not relevant because you say so. How about a source for even one of your fantasies?


quote:

With your perverted line of reasoning, that Japanese soldier would be just as guilty as the Nanking rapists.


For all I know, that Japanese soldier actually was one of the Nanking rapists. Providing he existed at all. You present one mythical Japanese soldier as an example of conduct we all know was atypical, with no substantionion what so ever, then characterize the documented, routine, historically accurate descriptions of Japanese atrocities as example of "racism" on my part.[8|]


quote:

And incidentally..according to your views, he should also have been shot on capture by the US soldiers.


And incidently, you're lying again. Kindly show us where any of us racists has said Japanese should have been executed on sight. I have given you the reasons why Allied soldiers were reluctant to take prisoners. One very good reason was the Japanese practice of "surrendering" then opening fire on soldiers trying to capture them.

quote:

I have also given the example of the sailor on the Yamato. With your line of reasoning, he should have been strafed in his lifeboat. For what crime? What did he do to deserve such a fate? He was japanese.


Another "example" with no documentation. His "crime" was being a member of the Emporer's Imperial navy. Had he reached land, he would then continued to be a member of the Japanese armed forces, and a direct threat to the lives of allied soldiers.
By your perverted line of reasoning, the Marines should have called for an ambulance everytime they shot a Japanese infantryman on Guadalcanal. That's not "reasoning"; that's stupidity.

quote:

4. Racism is not acceptable.
To this you have replied "yes it is, when its about japanese".


"Racism; the first refuge of the scoundrel" Copyright Doggie, 2000. Racism is what you deal when you have no coherent arguments.


quote:

Actually, the mudslinging comes from your direction, and I have not posted a single lie. You on the other hand, has been caught repeatedly both lying and slinging mud.


You've posted nothing but lies and mudsinging[8|] You've not backed up a single ridiculous lie with so much as a single shred of documentation. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

Even your new signature is a lie, as it's a single phrase cut out of a sentence out of context. You're simply a pathological liar.




Hortlund -> RE: Letters from Iwo Jima (11/24/2007 11:47:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Doggie
They were stinking savages, and that's why Dutch, Australians, British, and American soldiers seldom took prisoners, and allied airmen happily strafed the miserable bastards in their lifeboats after sinking their ships. And they had every bit of it coming to them.






martxyz -> RE: Letters from Iwo Jima (11/24/2007 11:47:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarge

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mart

I think perhaps you are simply saying that YOU didn't see combat, which is not the same as saying combat did not take place,


Here is the question I was asked .

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

And you do personally know what it's like? You're a combat veteran?



Maybe I should have came up with some sob story about how I am on public aid because of my hardship related to my killing farmers and raping goats .

Safe bet KG and Judge would be leading the group -hug [sm=love0059.gif]



Sorry Sarge,

I got carried away, as so often happens with me, in the middle of a forum free-for-all. No disrespect intended.

I think I'll try and keep out of this thread from now on. It doesn't exactly bring out the best in me.

Cheers, Martin





*Lava* -> RE: Letters from Iwo Jima (11/24/2007 12:02:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

No, I mean the outrageous position that all japanese should be shot when captured or strafed in their lifeboats, or firebombed in their homes.


They deserved it, just like the Germans.

The whole basis of your argument lies in your belief that:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund
Guilt is always individual, never collective.


Now while that may be true in civil matters, in TOTAL WAR that is complete foolishness.

By that standard, an SS guard who herded thousands of Jews into the Gas chambers but never actually hurt anybody, is an innocent man.

By that standard, a Japanese cook on board an aircraft carrier didn't actually participate in the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Utter nonsense.

The Japanese and German SOCIETIES, as a whole, fully, willingly and knowingly ENABLED their regimes to commit crimes against humanity, making them collective responsible for the acts of barbarism for which there troops committed.

They started it, we obliterated them for it, and that is what happens when your arrogance and racism leads folks to believe they are a supreme race that can treat everyone else like animals.

Ray (alias Lava)




Doggie -> RE: Letters from Iwo Jima (11/24/2007 12:18:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund


quote:

ORIGINAL: Doggie
They were stinking savages, and that's why Dutch, Australians, British, and American soldiers seldom took prisoners, and allied airmen happily strafed the miserable bastards in their lifeboats after sinking their ships. And they had every bit of it coming to them.



So you have some evidence any of this is not true? You got some documentation that shows Japanese troops were not savages? Or even that they smelled nice? So Allied soldiers went out of their way to take Japanese prisoners? When? Phycological warfare units with Japanese speaking officers actually did try to convince Japanese civilians on Okinawa to surrender, but their own Japanese soldiers butchered them.

On Saipan, Marine PFC Guy Gabaldon was an exception to the rule. He won the Navy Cross for personally capturing 1500 Japanese soldier. He personally shot scores more to death. I guess he was a racist.

Allied airmen did strafe countless Japanese soldiers in the water and in their lifeboats off the coast of Gualdalcanal. They did this to prevent them from reaching shore alive and joining the fight on that island. This action saved hundreds of American lives.

No one was charged with a "war crime".

So what part of the above is not true, and how does it make me a "racist"?

And we're still waiting for some documentation about your claims to Japanese humanitarism, and where it was practiced.




Hortlund -> RE: Letters from Iwo Jima (11/24/2007 12:19:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava

They deserved it, just like the Germans.



*sigh*

quote:


Now while that may be true in civil matters, in TOTAL WAR that is complete foolishness.


Actually, there is no difference between "war" and "total war". "Total war" is something Göbbles made up to try to explain away why things were going so bad. "Oh, you have crossed the line now, wicked allies, we have only been at war, but now its TOTAL WAR".

quote:


By that standard, an SS guard who herded thousands of Jews into the Gas chambers but never actually hurt anybody, is an innocent man.

I dont know how it is even possible to reach such an argument. It strikes me as beyond stupid to try to argue like that. By "that standard" guilt is determined on an individual basis. That means this SS guard is guilty as hell.

quote:


By that standard, a Japanese cook on board an aircraft carrier didn't actually participate in the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Utter nonsense.


Yes, I agree. Utter nonsense. Your strawman that is.

quote:


The Japanese and German SOCIETIES, as a whole, fully, willingly and knowingly ENABLED their regimes to commit crimes against humanity, making them collective responsible for the acts of barbarism for which there troops committed.


LOL this is so stupid.

Ok, first, you need to prove that "the societies" in Germany and Japan as a whole (and already here you will fail, since Japan was a dictatorship at the time, and the Nazi party only got something like 34% of the votes in Germany) [fully, willingly and] knowingly enabled their regimes to commit crimes against humanity.

Ok, so you need to show that the German people, in a magnificient display of clairvoyance, were able to peer into the future, and in 1934 determine that five years in the future, the German government would declare war on pretty much everyone. They would also have the uncanny ability to peer even further into the future and see that in 1941, the government would start to exterminate jews and communists. Then all of the German people, decided that 34% of them would vote for the Nazis. That the Nazis then changed the law and did away with voting alltogether is also something they must have forseen during that clairvoyance-period in late 1933.

The Japanese on the other hand, had no choise in the matter whatsoever, since they were already living in a dictatorship.

Then, you need to show that people who vote for a certain government becomes personally responsible for the actions of that government. Here you might want to halt for a second and ponder the consequences this would have for the US public today.




*Lava* -> RE: Letters from Iwo Jima (11/24/2007 12:57:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

Ok, first, you need to prove...


I don't need to prove sh-it.

You're the apologist, not me... PANZERJAEGER [8|]

The Japanese and German people started wars that killed 50 million people. That seems like a lot of "individual" guilt to me.

Ray (alias Lava)




Hortlund -> RE: Letters from Iwo Jima (11/24/2007 1:03:30 PM)

quote:


You're the apologist, not me.


Actually no. Im the guy telling you that it is wrong to kill civilians just because they happen to be born in the wrong country. Im the guy saying that its not ok to butcher POWs or commit all sorts of warcrimes just because "the other side did it first". At no time and in no form have I ever defended a warcrime or a crime against humanity committed by anyone.

You reply to that has been "yes it is, because it was TOTAL WAR, and besides, the civilians are to blame for their governments actions. When I asked you how on earth you arrived at that conclusion, and that your arguments had more holes in them than a swiss cheese, all I got was

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava
I don't need to prove sh@t.


Well, no, you dont. But you should not expect to be taken seriously then.




freder -> RE: Letters from Iwo Jima (11/24/2007 1:10:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava



The Japanese and German people started wars that killed 50 million people. Ray (alias Lava)


Are the Germans smelly too, that's something I wonder about. I've been in Germany several times and I, personally, didn't had that impression. Their bratwurst smells a lot though, I can tell you!




*Lava* -> RE: Letters from Iwo Jima (11/24/2007 2:26:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

Im the guy telling you that it is wrong to kill civilians just because they happen to be born in the wrong country.


Then you shouldn't be defending the Germans and Japanese who did... and with arrogant, self-rightous, racial inspired pride I might add... these folks thought they were Superhumans who could treat people like vermin... until they got their asses kicked for doing so.

And don't give me this baloney their people didn't know or disapprove. They believed. And that is why they fought to the bitter end. Their people believed. And that does not only make them individually guilty, but collectively as well.

Ray (alias Lava)




Erik Rutins -> RE: Letters from Iwo Jima (11/24/2007 2:43:23 PM)

Everyone,

Please ratchet down the personal attacks. This can be a heated discussion without being a heated _personal_ discussion. This issue in general is fine for discussion on our boards and it's a very passionate one for some, but let's keep to debating the issue rather than each other.

Regards,

- Erik




Reiryc -> RE: Letters from Iwo Jima (11/24/2007 7:00:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund


I dont know how it is even possible to reach such an argument. It strikes me as beyond stupid to try to argue like that. By "that standard" guilt is determined on an individual basis. That means this SS guard is guilty as hell.



As I have already taught you and you have even agreed to, guilt is not always determined on an individual basis. So why continue with this misnomer when you've already agreed that it isn't true?





Dino -> RE: Letters from Iwo Jima (11/24/2007 7:27:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Doggie

I haven't said a word about firebombing anybody in their homes, either.



You haven't??? Let's look at this post once again...CAREFULLY!


quote:

ORIGINAL: Doggie

Yes, we're telling you the Japanese were bloodthirsty baby killers. It's a historical fact witnessed by tens of thousands of people who experienced their compassion first hand. Now a days they wouldn't hurt a fly. Curtiss Lemay did a lot toward gentling them down and making them downright reasonable.


Now, what was it exactly that Curtis LeMay did to make this filthy race acceptable? I don't remember him being famous for bombing the IJA troops in the field... Truth is that you don't say much, but you sure do imply a lot.


quote:

What I have said is the truth, that Japanese soldiers were sadistic savages and deserve no sympathy.


ALL of them???

Sorry...I see that you already answered that:

quote:

PH: Wow, such stereotyping. No Japanese soldier ever did anything nice for anyone, is that what you are saying? All Japanese soldiers were incarnations of pure evil?

Doggie: Yes. I would say that just about sums it up.


Hang on a second...were they ALL incarnations of pure evil or not??? [8|]


quote:

Kindly show us where any of us racists has said Japanese should have been executed on sight.


...and what should one do with "pure evil"?

It would also be nice of YOU to stop hiding behind a plural.


quote:

"Racism; the first refuge of the scoundrel" Copyright Doggie, 2000. Racism is what you deal when you have no coherent arguments.


Finally something coherent...[&o] [&o] [&o]

But you can call it bigotry or prejudice if it makes you feel better.





morvwilson -> RE: Letters from Iwo Jima (11/24/2007 8:02:50 PM)

I think that at this point there should be a few points made I think have fallen through the cracks.
The argument of collective or individual guilt in the context of a war I find a little silly.

As Gen. Sherman said, "War is all hell". War in and of itself is an evil but from time to time a necissary one because sometimes some people just don't play nice. (Adolf Hitler or The Japanese Emperor, for instance)

As for who is guilty of "War Crimes", that is usually for the winner to decide.

As to civilian casualties, while it is regretible, again it is sometimes unavoidable. And remember, a modern army can not function with out a civillian population to back it up. Remember what Sadam did when he had some anti war visitors from the west? He herded them around his oil and ammunition supplies because he thought that would keep us from attacking them.

We hear copious amounts of complaints about civillian casualties now, but not then. Could it be there was a better understanding in the past?

As to the legal ramifications of collective or individual guilt, it is realy irrelevant untill the argument that started the war is settled in battle.

Now, as to the legal profession, I think it is something like 90-95% of the politicians in the western countries are lawyers. The things that these politicians are supposed to be good at are: negotiation and compromise. The wars happen when this system breaks down. (between repulbics or democrocies this if verrry rare). That is why I think that the legal types should stay out of fighting wars, their mind set is typically not up to the task.

As to the racism arguments, I view them as complete foolishness. This is normally the word thrown out when all other arguments fail.
Does racism exist? Yes! But it exists from ALL angles. You don't have to be a white anglosaxon protestant (wasp) to be a racist.

My personal view, race is irrelevant. What matters is a person's deeds and capabilities! NOTHING ELSE!

My 2 cents, (but wife keeps saying I don't have any! lol) [sm=00000436.gif]




morvwilson -> RE: Letters from Iwo Jima (11/24/2007 8:12:59 PM)

New thought,

A lot of credit is given to Japanese prowess in battle because of the 800 year civil war that was fought there.
But, it seems to me that thier actions during WW2 displayed a lack of experience. For instance I have read veteran's accounts of Japanese soldiers refusing to take cover during artillery bombardments, they prefered to trust to carma. Their method of attack and blindly following orders (ie their first counter attack at Henderson Field, one regiment attacking a Marine div.?) Even their method of treating prisoners and internees?

I think that maybe there is too much credit given to Japan for that 800 year civil war and maybe not enough credit given to the west for their 3000 year civil war. (earliest formal war I can think of being Troy around 1200 BC).

Where am I wrong?




mikul82 -> RE: Letters from Iwo Jima (11/24/2007 9:28:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvwilson


We hear copious amounts of complaints about civillian casualties now, but not then. Could it be there was a better understanding in the past?





On this point, I would think it more likely that in the past, one couldn't just hop on the internet and see a video posted of the civilians being slaughtered as one can now if so inclined. I would guess that this just wasn't widely shown/discussed outside of the militaries involved in WWII (or the people being bombed), plus at the time it wouldn't have been possible to skim over 6+ years of it in a history book. I would say there was actually LESS understanding, or at least no way for many to actually see what was happening to civilians.

Also, IMO the older style of propanganda just doesn't work anymore either. I'm thinking of WWII era posters from all sides depicting everyone from the opposing countries as savages, evil, etc. In the day and age in which I can log onto the internet and talk to people in almost any country, this sort of thing doesn't cut it anymore. You can't convince me that a whole nation of people are "bad" (although it isn't hard for me to believe that their leader(s) are charlatans using their people only for their own interests- and I feel the same about our supposed "leaders" here in the US as well) when I can log on and talk to some of them about playing computer games, bodybuilding, or whatever else hobbies that I share with them.




morvwilson -> RE: Letters from Iwo Jima (11/24/2007 10:07:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mlc82

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvwilson


We hear copious amounts of complaints about civillian casualties now, but not then. Could it be there was a better understanding in the past?





On this point, I would think it more likely that in the past, one couldn't just hop on the internet and see a video posted of the civilians being slaughtered as one can now if so inclined. I would guess that this just wasn't widely shown/discussed outside of the militaries involved in WWII (or the people being bombed), plus at the time it wouldn't have been possible to skim over 6+ years of it in a history book. I would say there was actually LESS understanding, or at least no way for many to actually see what was happening to civilians.

Also, IMO the older style of propanganda just doesn't work anymore either. I'm thinking of WWII era posters from all sides depicting everyone from the opposing countries as savages, evil, etc. In the day and age in which I can log onto the internet and talk to people in almost any country, this sort of thing doesn't cut it anymore. You can't convince me that a whole nation of people are "bad" (although it isn't hard for me to believe that their leader(s) are charlatans using their people only for their own interests- and I feel the same about our supposed "leaders" here in the US as well) when I can log on and talk to some of them about playing computer games, bodybuilding, or whatever else hobbies that I share with them.


What about the American experience during the Civil War? Gen. Sherman's march to the sea for instance.
There were still some living vets of that war during WW2. I am sure others can present examples of other unpleasant things happening in prior conflicts that would be in LIVING memory during WW2.

It appears to me that while communications tech. has vastly improved since WW2, understanding has slipped.
Understanding of what war is and why they need to be fought I think has slipped.

"All it takes for the forced of evil to rule this world is for good people to do nothing."






Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.469238