RE: no prisoners

RE: no prisoners (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

Sakai007 -> RE: no prisoners (5/8/2014 5:42:28 AM)
My grandfather told me of a Japanese pilot they were trying to pull out of the water after an attack on their ship (He was on a Fletcher class, USS Ingersoll DD-652) and when they got him close he blew himself up with a hidden hand grenade. After this they would only pull in dead air crew, and if they were alive in the water they weren't for long I imagine.

frank1970 -> RE: no prisoners (5/8/2014 1:30:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink Geoff, if he was part of Patton's 3rd Army, then I'd guess 4th, 6th or 9th Armoured Division during the counter-offensive right after x-mas 1944. http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-E-Ardennes/USA-E-Ardennes-24.html And the 'no-prisoner policy', if one can call it that way, probably after the Americans got word of the Malmady massacre. http://www.historynet.com/massacre-at-malmedy-during-the-battle-of-the-bulge.htm Regards, Klink, Oberst As a matte rof fact, there was no malmedy massacre. US interrogation Teams tortoured captured SS-men for getting their massacre confessed. About 100 POW got their testivcles damaged beyond repair. A shame for the US Army about the same league as Abu Grahib. Your Boys weren´t angels.

KenchiSulla -> RE: no prisoners (5/8/2014 2:09:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Frank quote: ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink Geoff, if he was part of Patton's 3rd Army, then I'd guess 4th, 6th or 9th Armoured Division during the counter-offensive right after x-mas 1944. http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-E-Ardennes/USA-E-Ardennes-24.html And the 'no-prisoner policy', if one can call it that way, probably after the Americans got word of the Malmady massacre. http://www.historynet.com/massacre-at-malmedy-during-the-battle-of-the-bulge.htm Regards, Klink, Oberst As a matte rof fact, there was no malmedy massacre. US interrogation Teams tortoured captured SS-men for getting their massacre confessed. About 100 POW got their testivcles damaged beyond repair. A shame for the US Army about the same league as Abu Grahib. Your Boys weren´t angels. What are your sources?

AW1Steve -> RE: no prisoners (5/8/2014 2:21:19 PM)
ENOUGH! Let's lock this thread! NOW!!!!![:@]

warspite1 -> RE: no prisoners (5/8/2014 2:26:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve ENOUGH! Let's lock this thread! NOW!!!!![:@] warspite1 Why? Its an interesting thread. Someone just HAD to go and mention Abu Grahib and bringing political %^&* into it [8\|] but this can be ignored. That aside its been an interesting topic of conversation and sharing of historical experiences.

Lecivius -> RE: no prisoners (5/8/2014 2:26:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve ENOUGH! Let's lock this thread! NOW!!!!![:@] Agreed.

AW1Steve -> RE: no prisoners (5/8/2014 2:28:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve ENOUGH! Let's lock this thread! NOW!!!!![:@] warspite1 Why? Its an interesting thread. Someone just HAD to go and mention Abu Grahib and bringing political %^&* into it [8\|] but this can be ignored. That aside its been an interesting topic of conversation and sharing of historical experiences. Because someone pulled out his political axe to grind. This thread has jumped the track and taken a road that no responsible contributor would take it. Because of him, this thread must die. It started out innocent , but......[:@]

LoBaron -> RE: no prisoners (5/8/2014 2:30:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Frank quote: ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink Geoff, if he was part of Patton's 3rd Army, then I'd guess 4th, 6th or 9th Armoured Division during the counter-offensive right after x-mas 1944. http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-E-Ardennes/USA-E-Ardennes-24.html And the 'no-prisoner policy', if one can call it that way, probably after the Americans got word of the Malmady massacre. http://www.historynet.com/massacre-at-malmedy-during-the-battle-of-the-bulge.htm Regards, Klink, Oberst As a matte rof fact, there was no malmedy massacre. US interrogation Teams tortoured captured SS-men for getting their massacre confessed. About 100 POW got their testivcles damaged beyond repair. A shame for the US Army about the same league as Abu Grahib. Your Boys weren´t angels. That´s faulty logic. The treatment of SS POW is NO indication on whether the Malmedy massacre did happen, or not. There were surviving eyewitnesses of the POW executions, there were dead bodies shot in the head at close range. Call it Malmedy massacre or something else, but it was a war crime.

castor troy -> RE: no prisoners (5/8/2014 3:31:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve ENOUGH! Let's lock this thread! NOW!!!!![:@] warspite1 Why? Its an interesting thread. Someone just HAD to go and mention Abu Grahib and bringing political %^&* into it [8\|] but this can be ignored. That aside its been an interesting topic of conversation and sharing of historical experiences. Because someone pulled out his political axe to grind. This thread has jumped the track and taken a road that no responsible contributor would take it. Because of him, this thread must die. It started out innocent , but......[:@] while I wonder about someone saying there wasn't this massacre I also wonder why it is political as soon as the US is involved? It's perfectly fine to speak about massacres, torture or whatever war crime when commited by the Nazis, the Japanese, the Russian, the North Korean, the Chinese, the Iraqis but it's political when it is about the US? One can stand up and say something against the claim that Malmedy is just a myth. Haven't you been defending free speech just recently when German/Austrian forum members stood up against using SS runes on the forum? The SS massacred a hundred captured US prisoners there. Period. Is that political? I don't think so. Denying it is worth standing up against it.But instead you cry foul because he mentions Abu Ghraib? Why? What if he would have mentioned My Lai? [&:] Would that have made it non political or better? War crimes should be treated the same on all sides but they aren't. I know more about the holocaust, what the SS and Gestapo did and about Wehrmacht war crimes than I know about Japanese war crimes. But I guess in both countries the responsible have been treated like they deserve = they were mostly hanged if they didn't commit suizide before or after capture. I also do know that US soldiers have not been treated for war crimes in the last 70 years like they would deserve due to other layout of what is right and what is wrong. I am sure you see that as a political statement but I'd say it's just reflecting the fact that the United States are defending their soldiers no matter what. This may not be a bad thing for US citizens but for the rest of the world (quite a couple of human beings outside the US) it is hard to understand that every non US soldier would be treated different for the same criminal acts. This is one of the things I never understood, especially when one thinks about what would happen if it wouldn't be a soldier but a US civilian. Everybody on the planet should be treated for what he did, period. And it is disgusting - independent of side - when war crimes are denied. The problem is, EVERY side has it's war criminals because that is what war brings up, the worst. The holocaust is probably the worst that ever happened and a whole nation was involved. But killing 100 prisoners/civilians by side A is just as worse as 100 prisoners/civilians killed by side B. There is no good or bad in these examples. Both involve war criminals.

Chickenboy -> RE: no prisoners (5/8/2014 3:44:16 PM)
AW1Steve, To try to get this back on track, a legalese question? Perhaps something for a certain JAG to weigh in on? [;)] It seems to me that 'surrender' is like a contract of sorts. "I'll stop fighting you and surrender to you, if you treat me humanely" is the basic crux of the 'surrender contract' as I see it. Both parties need to understand their roles in the contract and have a meeting of the minds. The contract needs to be accepted by both parties in order for it to be held by both parties. For oral contracts (it would be easier if it was written out, obviously), there must come a meeting of the minds. Does that happen when one party throws up hands and yells "Camerade" or "I surrender, don't shoot!" or is it something else? What does military jurisprudence tell us about the transition between enemy combatant and EPW?

AW1Steve -> RE: no prisoners (5/8/2014 3:47:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve ENOUGH! Let's lock this thread! NOW!!!!![:@] warspite1 Why? Its an interesting thread. Someone just HAD to go and mention Abu Grahib and bringing political %^&* into it [8\|] but this can be ignored. That aside its been an interesting topic of conversation and sharing of historical experiences. Because someone pulled out his political axe to grind. This thread has jumped the track and taken a road that no responsible contributor would take it. Because of him, this thread must die. It started out innocent , but......[:@] while I wonder about someone saying there wasn't this massacre I also wonder why it is political as soon as the US is involved? It's perfectly fine to speak about massacres, torture or whatever war crime when commited by the Nazis, the Japanese, the Russian, the North Korean, the Chinese, the Iraqis but it's political when it is about the US? One can stand up and say something against the claim that Malmedy is just a myth. Haven't you been defending free speech just recently when German/Austrian forum members stood up against using SS runes on the forum? The SS massacred a hundred captured US prisoners there. Period. Is that political? I don't think so. Denying it is worth standing up against it.But instead you cry foul because he mentions Abu Ghraib? Why? What if he would have mentioned My Lai? [&:] Would that have made it non political or better? War crimes should be treated the same on all sides but they aren't. I know more about the holocaust, what the SS and Gestapo did and about Wehrmacht war crimes than I know about Japanese war crimes. But I guess in both countries the responsible have been treated like they deserve = they were mostly hanged if they didn't commit suizide before or after capture. I also do know that US soldiers have not been treated for war crimes in the last 70 years like they would deserve due to other layout of what is right and what is wrong. I am sure you see that as a political statement but I'd say it's just reflecting the fact that the United States are defending their soldiers no matter what. This may not be a bad thing for US citizens but for the rest of the world (quite a couple of human beings outside the US) it is hard to understand that every non US soldier would be treated different for the same criminal acts. This is one of the things I never understood, especially when one thinks about what would happen if it wouldn't be a soldier but a US civilian. Everybody on the planet should be treated for what he did, period. And it is disgusting - independent of side - when war crimes are denied. The problem is, EVERY side has it's war criminals because that is what war brings up, the worst. The holocaust is probably the worst that ever happened and a whole nation was involved. But killing 100 prisoners/civilians by side A is just as worse as 100 prisoners/civilians killed by side B. There is no good or bad in these examples. Both involve war criminals. War crimes ARE war crimes. That's about the only thing here you and I agree on. It wasn't that he mentioned the US. Others had already done that. It was HOW he mentioned it. He attempted to make it personal. If you REALLY want to do the responsible thing , either try and have this thread locked, or try and steer it back to being non personal. If you don't want to do that , then go ahead and introduce Me Lai. Or Ft. Pillow. Or anyone of another 1000 shameful acts. So it comes down to this. Do you want to act responsibly , or simply throw fuel on the fire? [&:]

warspite1 -> RE: no prisoners (5/8/2014 3:57:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve ENOUGH! Let's lock this thread! NOW!!!!![:@] warspite1 Why? Its an interesting thread. Someone just HAD to go and mention Abu Grahib and bringing political %^&* into it [8\|] but this can be ignored. That aside its been an interesting topic of conversation and sharing of historical experiences. Because someone pulled out his political axe to grind. This thread has jumped the track and taken a road that no responsible contributor would take it. Because of him, this thread must die. It started out innocent , but......[:@] while I wonder about someone saying there wasn't this massacre I also wonder why it is political as soon as the US is involved? It's perfectly fine to speak about massacres, torture or whatever war crime when commited by the Nazis, the Japanese, the Russian, the North Korean, the Chinese, the Iraqis but it's political when it is about the US? One can stand up and say something against the claim that Malmedy is just a myth. Haven't you been defending free speech just recently when German/Austrian forum members stood up against using SS runes on the forum? The SS massacred a hundred captured US prisoners there. Period. Is that political? I don't think so. Denying it is worth standing up against it.But instead you cry foul because he mentions Abu Ghraib? Why? What if he would have mentioned My Lai? [&:] Would that have made it non political or better? War crimes should be treated the same on all sides but they aren't. I know more about the holocaust, what the SS and Gestapo did and about Wehrmacht war crimes than I know about Japanese war crimes. But I guess in both countries the responsible have been treated like they deserve = they were mostly hanged if they didn't commit suizide before or after capture. I also do know that US soldiers have not been treated for war crimes in the last 70 years like they would deserve due to other layout of what is right and what is wrong. I am sure you see that as a political statement but I'd say it's just reflecting the fact that the United States are defending their soldiers no matter what. This may not be a bad thing for US citizens but for the rest of the world (quite a couple of human beings outside the US) it is hard to understand that every non US soldier would be treated different for the same criminal acts. This is one of the things I never understood, especially when one thinks about what would happen if it wouldn't be a soldier but a US civilian. Everybody on the planet should be treated for what he did, period. And it is disgusting - independent of side - when war crimes are denied. The problem is, EVERY side has it's war criminals because that is what war brings up, the worst. The holocaust is probably the worst that ever happened and a whole nation was involved. But killing 100 prisoners/civilians by side A is just as worse as 100 prisoners/civilians killed by side B. There is no good or bad in these examples. Both involve war criminals. warspite1 I cannot speak for anyone else here - and I am not American - but for me, the problem with that post was not that it was targeted at the US (and I would have felt the same if it was targeted at the UK) it was the mention of Abu Ghraib that was wrong. The latter brings modern day politics into play (which is forbidden) whereas the discussion was originally around WWII experiences (which is not).

AW1Steve -> RE: no prisoners (5/8/2014 4:40:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve ENOUGH! Let's lock this thread! NOW!!!!![:@] warspite1 Why? Its an interesting thread. Someone just HAD to go and mention Abu Grahib and bringing political %^&* into it [8\|] but this can be ignored. That aside its been an interesting topic of conversation and sharing of historical experiences. Because someone pulled out his political axe to grind. This thread has jumped the track and taken a road that no responsible contributor would take it. Because of him, this thread must die. It started out innocent , but......[:@] while I wonder about someone saying there wasn't this massacre I also wonder why it is political as soon as the US is involved? It's perfectly fine to speak about massacres, torture or whatever war crime when commited by the Nazis, the Japanese, the Russian, the North Korean, the Chinese, the Iraqis but it's political when it is about the US? One can stand up and say something against the claim that Malmedy is just a myth. Haven't you been defending free speech just recently when German/Austrian forum members stood up against using SS runes on the forum? The SS massacred a hundred captured US prisoners there. Period. Is that political? I don't think so. Denying it is worth standing up against it.But instead you cry foul because he mentions Abu Ghraib? Why? What if he would have mentioned My Lai? [&:] Would that have made it non political or better? War crimes should be treated the same on all sides but they aren't. I know more about the holocaust, what the SS and Gestapo did and about Wehrmacht war crimes than I know about Japanese war crimes. But I guess in both countries the responsible have been treated like they deserve = they were mostly hanged if they didn't commit suizide before or after capture. I also do know that US soldiers have not been treated for war crimes in the last 70 years like they would deserve due to other layout of what is right and what is wrong. I am sure you see that as a political statement but I'd say it's just reflecting the fact that the United States are defending their soldiers no matter what. This may not be a bad thing for US citizens but for the rest of the world (quite a couple of human beings outside the US) it is hard to understand that every non US soldier would be treated different for the same criminal acts. This is one of the things I never understood, especially when one thinks about what would happen if it wouldn't be a soldier but a US civilian. Everybody on the planet should be treated for what he did, period. And it is disgusting - independent of side - when war crimes are denied. The problem is, EVERY side has it's war criminals because that is what war brings up, the worst. The holocaust is probably the worst that ever happened and a whole nation was involved. But killing 100 prisoners/civilians by side A is just as worse as 100 prisoners/civilians killed by side B. There is no good or bad in these examples. Both involve war criminals. warspite1 I cannot speak for anyone else here - and I am not American - but for me, the problem with that post was not that it was targeted at the US (and I would have felt the same if it was targeted at the UK) it was the mention of Abu Ghraib that was wrong. The latter brings modern day politics into play (which is forbidden) whereas the discussion was originally around WWII experiences (which is not). Yes. But even more important is why it was brought up. To gain "gotcha points". To be personal. To be offensive. [:@]

Chickenboy -> RE: no prisoners (5/8/2014 4:45:58 PM)
AW1Steve, Can you address my post #40?

warspite1 -> RE: no prisoners (5/8/2014 4:59:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve ENOUGH! Let's lock this thread! NOW!!!!![:@] warspite1 Why? Its an interesting thread. Someone just HAD to go and mention Abu Grahib and bringing political %^&* into it [8\|] but this can be ignored. That aside its been an interesting topic of conversation and sharing of historical experiences. Because someone pulled out his political axe to grind. This thread has jumped the track and taken a road that no responsible contributor would take it. Because of him, this thread must die. It started out innocent , but......[:@] while I wonder about someone saying there wasn't this massacre I also wonder why it is political as soon as the US is involved? It's perfectly fine to speak about massacres, torture or whatever war crime when commited by the Nazis, the Japanese, the Russian, the North Korean, the Chinese, the Iraqis but it's political when it is about the US? One can stand up and say something against the claim that Malmedy is just a myth. Haven't you been defending free speech just recently when German/Austrian forum members stood up against using SS runes on the forum? The SS massacred a hundred captured US prisoners there. Period. Is that political? I don't think so. Denying it is worth standing up against it.But instead you cry foul because he mentions Abu Ghraib? Why? What if he would have mentioned My Lai? [&:] Would that have made it non political or better? War crimes should be treated the same on all sides but they aren't. I know more about the holocaust, what the SS and Gestapo did and about Wehrmacht war crimes than I know about Japanese war crimes. But I guess in both countries the responsible have been treated like they deserve = they were mostly hanged if they didn't commit suizide before or after capture. I also do know that US soldiers have not been treated for war crimes in the last 70 years like they would deserve due to other layout of what is right and what is wrong. I am sure you see that as a political statement but I'd say it's just reflecting the fact that the United States are defending their soldiers no matter what. This may not be a bad thing for US citizens but for the rest of the world (quite a couple of human beings outside the US) it is hard to understand that every non US soldier would be treated different for the same criminal acts. This is one of the things I never understood, especially when one thinks about what would happen if it wouldn't be a soldier but a US civilian. Everybody on the planet should be treated for what he did, period. And it is disgusting - independent of side - when war crimes are denied. The problem is, EVERY side has it's war criminals because that is what war brings up, the worst. The holocaust is probably the worst that ever happened and a whole nation was involved. But killing 100 prisoners/civilians by side A is just as worse as 100 prisoners/civilians killed by side B. There is no good or bad in these examples. Both involve war criminals. warspite1 I cannot speak for anyone else here - and I am not American - but for me, the problem with that post was not that it was targeted at the US (and I would have felt the same if it was targeted at the UK) it was the mention of Abu Ghraib that was wrong. The latter brings modern day politics into play (which is forbidden) whereas the discussion was originally around WWII experiences (which is not). Yes. But even more important is why it was brought up. To gain "gotcha points". To be personal. To be offensive. [:@] warspite1 Well I don't know his reasoning - only Frank can tell you that. I do find it strange though. He seemed to be defending Nazi war crimes by pointing to the fact that the Americans did/do it too. I think this strange as I would not seek to defend certain of my country's actions e.g. Amritsar Massacre for example, by claiming its okay cos you lot did it too.

mind_messing -> RE: no prisoners (5/8/2014 6:20:53 PM)
War crimes are bad. All nations have commited them. They're still happening today. Let's leave it at that, shall we? quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve ENOUGH! Let's lock this thread! NOW!!!!![:@] If you can't bear to hear your own nation's crimes brought up, refrain from bringing up other nation's crimes.

mind_messing -> RE: no prisoners (5/8/2014 6:23:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve ENOUGH! Let's lock this thread! NOW!!!!![:@] warspite1 Why? Its an interesting thread. Someone just HAD to go and mention Abu Grahib and bringing political %^&* into it [8\|] but this can be ignored. That aside its been an interesting topic of conversation and sharing of historical experiences. Because someone pulled out his political axe to grind. This thread has jumped the track and taken a road that no responsible contributor would take it. Because of him, this thread must die. It started out innocent , but......[:@] while I wonder about someone saying there wasn't this massacre I also wonder why it is political as soon as the US is involved? It's perfectly fine to speak about massacres, torture or whatever war crime when commited by the Nazis, the Japanese, the Russian, the North Korean, the Chinese, the Iraqis but it's political when it is about the US? One can stand up and say something against the claim that Malmedy is just a myth. Haven't you been defending free speech just recently when German/Austrian forum members stood up against using SS runes on the forum? The SS massacred a hundred captured US prisoners there. Period. Is that political? I don't think so. Denying it is worth standing up against it.But instead you cry foul because he mentions Abu Ghraib? Why? What if he would have mentioned My Lai? [&:] Would that have made it non political or better? War crimes should be treated the same on all sides but they aren't. I know more about the holocaust, what the SS and Gestapo did and about Wehrmacht war crimes than I know about Japanese war crimes. But I guess in both countries the responsible have been treated like they deserve = they were mostly hanged if they didn't commit suizide before or after capture. I also do know that US soldiers have not been treated for war crimes in the last 70 years like they would deserve due to other layout of what is right and what is wrong. I am sure you see that as a political statement but I'd say it's just reflecting the fact that the United States are defending their soldiers no matter what. This may not be a bad thing for US citizens but for the rest of the world (quite a couple of human beings outside the US) it is hard to understand that every non US soldier would be treated different for the same criminal acts. This is one of the things I never understood, especially when one thinks about what would happen if it wouldn't be a soldier but a US civilian. Everybody on the planet should be treated for what he did, period. And it is disgusting - independent of side - when war crimes are denied. The problem is, EVERY side has it's war criminals because that is what war brings up, the worst. The holocaust is probably the worst that ever happened and a whole nation was involved. But killing 100 prisoners/civilians by side A is just as worse as 100 prisoners/civilians killed by side B. There is no good or bad in these examples. Both involve war criminals. warspite1 I cannot speak for anyone else here - and I am not American - but for me, the problem with that post was not that it was targeted at the US (and I would have felt the same if it was targeted at the UK) it was the mention of Abu Ghraib that was wrong. The latter brings modern day politics into play (which is forbidden) whereas the discussion was originally around WWII experiences (which is not). Yes. But even more important is why it was brought up. To gain "gotcha points". To be personal. To be offensive. [:@] warspite1 Well I don't know his reasoning - only Frank can tell you that. I do find it strange though. He seemed to be defending Nazi war crimes by pointing to the fact that the Americans did/do it too. I think this strange as I would not seek to defend certain of my country's actions e.g. Amritsar Massacre for example, by claiming its okay cos you lot did it too. I think (and hope) that his point wasn't "you did it too", but more of a case of "we all did it, so let's consider the whole picture".

warspite1 -> RE: no prisoners (5/8/2014 6:50:49 PM)
Well no, his main point seemed to be that it (Malmedy) never happened.... Now I'm no expert, so I don't know if that is true - although I find it strange that every book and article I've ever read covering The Bulge, states the massacre as fact. First time I've ever heard anything to suggest not only did it not happen, but US forces extracted false confessions.....

AW1Steve -> RE: no prisoners (5/8/2014 7:00:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mind_messing War crimes are bad. All nations have commited them. They're still happening today. Let's leave it at that, shall we? quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve ENOUGH! Let's lock this thread! NOW!!!!![:@] If you can't bear to hear your own nation's crimes brought up, refrain from bringing up other nation's crimes. Oh I can discuss war crimes all day long......but just once when I bring up Matrix rules I'd like to see someone NOT make a personal attack. [:@] But since personal attacks seem to be the order of the day , I'm not surprised that someone with a handle like "mind messing" is delighted to feed the trolls and see personal attacks. I'd probably respect your opinion more if your handle was "Peacemaker". [:D]

Lecivius -> RE: no prisoners (5/8/2014 7:08:13 PM)
I can discuss crap all day long, and I have. But this thread is WAY off topic, and inflammatory to say the least. And most(read ALL)of the smart assed comments are from trolls or back room wannabes. I'll take my ban for my language in good order. But some of this ticks me off so much it makes my hands shake. I won't be back in this thread.

geofflambert -> RE: no prisoners (5/8/2014 7:28:28 PM)
Bill, not that you need my permission but I think the subject has been covered sufficiently.

castor troy -> RE: no prisoners (5/8/2014 7:41:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve ENOUGH! Let's lock this thread! NOW!!!!![:@] warspite1 Why? Its an interesting thread. Someone just HAD to go and mention Abu Grahib and bringing political %^&* into it [8\|] but this can be ignored. That aside its been an interesting topic of conversation and sharing of historical experiences. Because someone pulled out his political axe to grind. This thread has jumped the track and taken a road that no responsible contributor would take it. Because of him, this thread must die. It started out innocent , but......[:@] while I wonder about someone saying there wasn't this massacre I also wonder why it is political as soon as the US is involved? It's perfectly fine to speak about massacres, torture or whatever war crime when commited by the Nazis, the Japanese, the Russian, the North Korean, the Chinese, the Iraqis but it's political when it is about the US? One can stand up and say something against the claim that Malmedy is just a myth. Haven't you been defending free speech just recently when German/Austrian forum members stood up against using SS runes on the forum? The SS massacred a hundred captured US prisoners there. Period. Is that political? I don't think so. Denying it is worth standing up against it.But instead you cry foul because he mentions Abu Ghraib? Why? What if he would have mentioned My Lai? [&:] Would that have made it non political or better? War crimes should be treated the same on all sides but they aren't. I know more about the holocaust, what the SS and Gestapo did and about Wehrmacht war crimes than I know about Japanese war crimes. But I guess in both countries the responsible have been treated like they deserve = they were mostly hanged if they didn't commit suizide before or after capture. I also do know that US soldiers have not been treated for war crimes in the last 70 years like they would deserve due to other layout of what is right and what is wrong. I am sure you see that as a political statement but I'd say it's just reflecting the fact that the United States are defending their soldiers no matter what. This may not be a bad thing for US citizens but for the rest of the world (quite a couple of human beings outside the US) it is hard to understand that every non US soldier would be treated different for the same criminal acts. This is one of the things I never understood, especially when one thinks about what would happen if it wouldn't be a soldier but a US civilian. Everybody on the planet should be treated for what he did, period. And it is disgusting - independent of side - when war crimes are denied. The problem is, EVERY side has it's war criminals because that is what war brings up, the worst. The holocaust is probably the worst that ever happened and a whole nation was involved. But killing 100 prisoners/civilians by side A is just as worse as 100 prisoners/civilians killed by side B. There is no good or bad in these examples. Both involve war criminals. War crimes ARE war crimes. That's about the only thing here you and I agree on. It wasn't that he mentioned the US. Others had already done that. It was HOW he mentioned it. He attempted to make it personal. If you REALLY want to do the responsible thing , either try and have this thread locked, or try and steer it back to being non personal. If you don't want to do that , then go ahead and introduce Me Lai. Or Ft. Pillow. Or anyone of another 1000 shameful acts. So it comes down to this. Do you want to act responsibly , or simply throw fuel on the fire? [&:] why is what I have posted personal? You feel offended by what I said? That would be the same me being offended each and every week on this forum when someone mentiones anything about Nazi Germany. Sorry to say, heck I wasn't even born at that time and no matter what people all around the world may think about it, I never thought and never will think that I have any responsibility for what has happened back then. Just like I wouldn't make you or anyone else being responsible for what soldiers or civilians have done that didn't involve you. Perhaps I am not reading something right or am missing a point. You may want to point out what was so personal. You got upset about the guy breaking a forum rule as to not giving a WWII example. Really? Shouldn't you get upset because he denies a proven SS massacre? And if he would have brought up a WWII example in return it would have been ok? Or is it about something else I don't get? Or is it wrong what I have posted and you may well also point that out because I am not a US lawyer so else than reading about what happened with the involved people I have not studied the laws about it. I do know they were not hanged or the like.

castor troy -> RE: no prisoners (5/8/2014 7:47:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve ENOUGH! Let's lock this thread! NOW!!!!![:@] warspite1 Why? Its an interesting thread. Someone just HAD to go and mention Abu Grahib and bringing political %^&* into it [8\|] but this can be ignored. That aside its been an interesting topic of conversation and sharing of historical experiences. Because someone pulled out his political axe to grind. This thread has jumped the track and taken a road that no responsible contributor would take it. Because of him, this thread must die. It started out innocent , but......[:@] while I wonder about someone saying there wasn't this massacre I also wonder why it is political as soon as the US is involved? It's perfectly fine to speak about massacres, torture or whatever war crime when commited by the Nazis, the Japanese, the Russian, the North Korean, the Chinese, the Iraqis but it's political when it is about the US? One can stand up and say something against the claim that Malmedy is just a myth. Haven't you been defending free speech just recently when German/Austrian forum members stood up against using SS runes on the forum? The SS massacred a hundred captured US prisoners there. Period. Is that political? I don't think so. Denying it is worth standing up against it.But instead you cry foul because he mentions Abu Ghraib? Why? What if he would have mentioned My Lai? [&:] Would that have made it non political or better? War crimes should be treated the same on all sides but they aren't. I know more about the holocaust, what the SS and Gestapo did and about Wehrmacht war crimes than I know about Japanese war crimes. But I guess in both countries the responsible have been treated like they deserve = they were mostly hanged if they didn't commit suizide before or after capture. I also do know that US soldiers have not been treated for war crimes in the last 70 years like they would deserve due to other layout of what is right and what is wrong. I am sure you see that as a political statement but I'd say it's just reflecting the fact that the United States are defending their soldiers no matter what. This may not be a bad thing for US citizens but for the rest of the world (quite a couple of human beings outside the US) it is hard to understand that every non US soldier would be treated different for the same criminal acts. This is one of the things I never understood, especially when one thinks about what would happen if it wouldn't be a soldier but a US civilian. Everybody on the planet should be treated for what he did, period. And it is disgusting - independent of side - when war crimes are denied. The problem is, EVERY side has it's war criminals because that is what war brings up, the worst. The holocaust is probably the worst that ever happened and a whole nation was involved. But killing 100 prisoners/civilians by side A is just as worse as 100 prisoners/civilians killed by side B. There is no good or bad in these examples. Both involve war criminals. warspite1 I cannot speak for anyone else here - and I am not American - but for me, the problem with that post was not that it was targeted at the US (and I would have felt the same if it was targeted at the UK) it was the mention of Abu Ghraib that was wrong. The latter brings modern day politics into play (which is forbidden) whereas the discussion was originally around WWII experiences (which is not). so if it wouldn't have been Abu Ghraib but an incident involving the US in WWII it would not have stirred up the crowd? [&:] Heck, instead of shouting out because the SS massacre is denied we go wild because he mentions Abu Ghraib? Really? [X(] That is quite shocking to me to be honest as it feels like there is now one side denying what happened at Malmedy and the other side going wild because of another proven happening.

warspite1 -> RE: no prisoners (5/8/2014 8:26:31 PM)
Please read what I wrote before responding. Re your first point I said I can only speak for myself - how others would have reacted had a US WWII incident have been mentioned - I don't know [&:] That said of course there were a number of localised events - US, Canadian and British - that have been mentioned in this thread without anyone going off the deep end. Re the second point - bringing up Abu Ghraib makes it political. Please see my later post. I have never heard that the Malmedy Massacre was contentious (as to whether it happened or not) but I do not know enough about it to know with certainty so didn't call out the poster. Cannonfodder had already asked him for his sources by the time I read the post.

mind_messing -> RE: no prisoners (5/8/2014 8:27:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve quote: ORIGINAL: mind_messing War crimes are bad. All nations have commited them. They're still happening today. Let's leave it at that, shall we? quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve ENOUGH! Let's lock this thread! NOW!!!!![:@] If you can't bear to hear your own nation's crimes brought up, refrain from bringing up other nation's crimes. Oh I can discuss war crimes all day long......but just once when I bring up Matrix rules I'd like to see someone NOT make a personal attack. [:@] But since personal attacks seem to be the order of the day , I'm not surprised that someone with a handle like "mind messing" is delighted to feed the trolls and see personal attacks. I'd probably respect your opinion more if your handle was "Peacemaker". [:D] Frank may be talking some trash, but he was right in that no national body can claim to be innocent. If you can "discuss war crimes all day long", then why are you demanding the thread being closed at the mention of American violations of international law? I find this odd. This is a classic example of why these types of threads always end up locked. "A side did X, which was terrible." "But B side did Y, which was just as bad!" Cue both sides arguing the extent to which X and Y were bad deeds.

AW1Steve -> RE: no prisoners (5/8/2014 9:10:38 PM)
I've told you my reasons. Matrix says "no politics". Matrix says "no personal attacks". Exactly what part of that DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND? My politics, my country , my opinions do not matter. By this point , I've reached the conclusion , your not trying to have an intelligent conversation. Your someone that belongs under a bridge waiting for a billy goat. [:D]

mind_messing -> RE: no prisoners (5/8/2014 9:17:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve I've told you my reasons. Matrix says "no politics". Matrix says "no personal attacks". Exactly what part of that DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND? My politics, my country , my opinions do not matter. By this point , I've reached the conclusion , your not trying to have an intelligent conversation. Your someone that belongs under a bridge waiting for a billy goat. [:D] What "politics" are there in this thread? I'm serious, where's the political discussion?

Dixie -> RE: no prisoners (5/8/2014 9:29:21 PM)
It's safe to say that all sides in WW2 carried out similar acts, some more than others. We'll never know how many combatants were killed whilst trying to surrender, but that's by the by. IMO there's a clear distinction between those killed in the heat of the moment and those killed hours or days after capture. I think I'm correct in saying that events involving the Western Allies (Brits/Americans/Canadians/ANZAC) and regular Wehrmacht (at least in the west) were, for the majority of occasions, carried out in accordance with the Geneva Convention. When the SS/Russians/Japanese are involved then not so much, it's not right but it is understandable given the state of affairs. No side is whiter than white, but generally the Western Allies were a less dingy shade of grey. Orders to kill PoWs didn't come from on high and were the actions of individual units in response to local circumstances. At least we have a definition of what a war crime is, which is at least an indication that we recognise what a bad thing war is and that we need to curtail its effects.

wdolson -> RE: no prisoners (5/8/2014 9:34:35 PM)
Two threads in one day. That's a record. Locking this one too. Bill

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.014648