• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Does anyone find it interesting...

O

Orsorum

Lifer
the sharp contrast in the attitudes of the US administration towards the last months and after WWII and the attitude of the administration now towards War Crimes suspects.

Our attitude, then (towards Japanese and German criminals) : "the very punishment of these men in a dignified manner consistent with the advance of civilization will have a greater effect on posterity."

Now: "Yesterday, in the city of Mosul, the careers of two of the regime's chief henchmen came to an end."
 
They gave these chief henchmen every chance to come out with their hands up to surrender. They chose to fight ..... In WW2 most Japanese and German criminals DID surrender. How many of the current Iraq regime that where captured or surrendered have been killed by the US forces ? .... Thought so .......
rolleye.gif
:disgust:
 
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
We had better Presidents back then and a less bloodthirsty populace
Click to expand...

You sure? I seem to recall many American, British, and French soldiers who desperately wanted to kill those leaders on the spot, but were given specific orders by the way higher ups to desist.

Well, not me personally, of course, but the attitudes that have prevailed in the reading and research in which I have partaken.
 
Originally posted by: RDWYTruckDriver
They gave these chief henchmen every chance to come out with their hands up to surrender. They chose to fight ..... In WW2 most Japanese and German criminals DID surrender. How many of the current Iraq regime that where captured or surrendered have been killed by the US forces ? .... Thought so .......
rolleye.gif
:disgust:
Click to expand...

... do you have any idea of the tenacity of German and Japanese soldiers? Do you honestly think that Japanese kamikazes were any different than Palestinian suicide bombers?

Which begs the question, what efforts were taken to ensure that these leaders were taken alive?
 
A good many of the ones from WWII chose suicide before capture, and a few afterward. A good many who were tried, were immediately executed. Since then, how many war crimes trials have occurred, and then immediate execution?
 
Originally posted by: Orsorum
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
We had better Presidents back then and a less bloodthirsty populace
Click to expand...

You sure? I seem to recall many American, British, and French soldiers who desperately wanted to kill those leaders on the spot, but were given specific orders by the way higher ups to desist.

Well, not me personally, of course, but the attitudes that have prevailed in the reading and research in which I have partaken.
Click to expand...

On reflection, you may be right. Ok we had better Presidents 😀
 
Which begs the question, what efforts were taken to ensure that these leaders were taken alive?
Click to expand...

1.) They were givin a chance to surender. They didn't.

do you have any idea of the tenacity of German and Japanese soldiers?
Click to expand...

What does that statement have to do with this thread ? These brothers ( henchmen ) chose to fight it out period end of story. They were killed as a result.

Do you honestly think that Japanese kamikazes were any different than Palestinian suicide bombers?
Click to expand...

You mean Palestinian homicide bombers ? If you can't see the diffrence then I can't explain it to your one sided closed mindset.
 
Originally posted by: RDWYTruckDriver
Which begs the question, what efforts were taken to ensure that these leaders were taken alive?
Click to expand...

1.) They were givin a chance to surender. They didn't.

do you have any idea of the tenacity of German and Japanese soldiers?
Click to expand...

What does that statement have to do with this thread ? These brothers ( henchmen ) chose to fight it out period end of story. They were killed as a result.

Do you honestly think that Japanese kamikazes were any different than Palestinian suicide bombers?
Click to expand...

You mean Palestinian homicide bombers ? If you can't see the diffrence then I can't explain it to your one sided closed mindset.
Click to expand...

Technically, they are Suicide Bombers, similar to Kamikazes which were also tring to kill. The big difference comes with those targeted.
 
the distinct difference between then and now?

then: we went to war for a cause...the obvious good against the obvious bad; because we HAD to

now: we go to war for media and marketing, and winning elections; a propoganda tool; because we WANT to
 
Technically, they are Suicide Bombers, similar to Kamikazes which were also tring to kill. The big difference comes with those targeted.
Click to expand...

Technically, they are homicide bombers ! !. kamikazes targeted military targets. Homicide bombers, target innocent men/women and children. Show me a link where kamikazes dive bombed a shopping market full of innocent men/women and children or where the kamikazes dive bombed a bus load of civilians going to work or a field trip. Again, thought so.....

 
Originally posted by: Orsorum
the sharp contrast in the attitudes of the US administration towards the last months and after WWII and the attitude of the administration now towards War Crimes suspects.

Our attitude, then (towards Japanese and German criminals) : "the very punishment of these men in a dignified manner consistent with the advance of civilization will have a greater effect on posterity."

Now: "Yesterday, in the city of Mosul, the careers of two of the regime's chief henchmen came to an end."
Click to expand...

We also had a more patient public too. No one complained about the 10th ID staying in germany for 10 years.
 
Any intentional bombing that kills civilians is a "homicide bombing". "Suicide bombing" describes the method of bomb delivery and isn't stupidly redundant like "homicide bombing"--"bombing", in most contexts, implies homicide.
 
Any intentional bombing that kills civilians is a "homicide bombing".
Click to expand...

And that's what these Palestinian terrorist are and have done, they " delivered " the bombs ( bombing ) using themselfs killing many innocent people. Thus the " stupidly redundant " " homicide bombing " tag.


"bombing", in most contexts, implies homicide
Click to expand...

It is what it is. People with " a political agenda " will spin anything anyway they want to justify the way they view the world. Thank GOD for at least a few people in this world that don't use rose colored glasses.
 
The point is that only an idiot needs the word "homicide" tacked on to figure out that the intent of the bombing is to murder. "Suicide bombing" is a more accurate term, since it both describes the act and clearly implies the intent to kill others. "Homicide bombing" is redundant, politicized nonsense that could be used to describe mailbox bombing, the OKC bombing, or any other explosion that kills people.
 
Originally posted by: Venix
The point is that only an idiot needs the word "homicide" tacked on to figure out that the intent of the bombing is to murder. "Suicide bombing" is a more accurate term, since it both describes the act and clearly implies the intent to kill others. "Homicide bombing" is redundant, politicized nonsense that could be used to describe mailbox bombing, the OKC bombing, or any other explosion that kills people.
Click to expand...

Well, thank you, you just summed up my thoughts.

RDWY, if you have more to contribute, please do, otherwise, stopped insulting the intelligence of the people here and step out of the thread.
 
Originally posted by: Venix
The point is that only an idiot needs the word "homicide" tacked on to figure out that the intent of the bombing is to murder. "Suicide bombing" is a more accurate term, since it both describes the act and clearly implies the intent to kill others. "Homicide bombing" is redundant, politicized nonsense that could be used to describe mailbox bombing, the OKC bombing, or any other explosion that kills people.
Click to expand...

ditto
 
Originally posted by: Orsorum
Originally posted by: Venix
The point is that only an idiot needs the word "homicide" tacked on to figure out that the intent of the bombing is to murder. "Suicide bombing" is a more accurate term, since it both describes the act and clearly implies the intent to kill others. "Homicide bombing" is redundant, politicized nonsense that could be used to describe mailbox bombing, the OKC bombing, or any other explosion that kills people.
Click to expand...

Well, thank you, you just summed up my thoughts.

RDWY, if you have more to contribute, please do, otherwise, stopped insulting the intelligence of the people here and step out of the thread.
Click to expand...

Actually, the orginal argument was the difference/similarities between Japanese Kamikazies and Palestinian suicide bombers. First of all, suicide bombers are generally referred to terrorism. Japanese Kamikazies were used SPECIFICALLY in wartime, which is not related to terrorism. AND NO, I DO NOT CONSIDER THE SITUATION WITH ISRAEL/PALISTINE WARTIME. Those Palistinian bombers are specifically advocating terrorism. Second of all, bombs/bombing/bombers are not inherently related to homicide or death, as bombs are really aimed at blowing up specific targets, such as airports, buildings, and such, NOT PEOPLE. Therefore, bombs aimed at killing people should have an alternate name, such as "homicide" bombs/bombing.

Suicide bombing DOES NOT imply bombing to kill people, as one could easily strap a bomb to himself and blow himself up in the desert. Sure, its not practical, buts its LOGICAL. That would be the TRUE definition of suicide bombing.

So, in the context in which we use the term "suicide bombing", we should really refer to it as "terrorist suicide bombing", as the term, IMHO, is more correct.
 
Suicide bombing DOES NOT imply bombing to kill people, as one could easily strap a bomb to himself and blow himself up in the desert. Sure, its not practical, buts its LOGICAL. That would be the TRUE definition of suicide bombing.
Click to expand...

On the flipside, homocide bombing doesn't imply the death of the bomber either.
 
Americans hate themselves. Look around next time you're out shopping. Downer faces everywhere, rude and full of contempt for the law and common decentcy. We need someone to hate rather than looking in the mirror. Give us anyone we'll take it. It's quick and easier that way I don't want to think.
 
shuan24,
Israelis consider it wartime since hardly any Palestinian death gets investigate because according to Israel there is no need to because of war time.
 
Oh- and you forgot Uday was head of all WMD programs...I would have got him alive, if indeed my mission was to reveal and capture WMDs as stated. Seems stupid no to try that first, unless you had aready known there no WMDs so why bother.
 
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Suicide bombing DOES NOT imply bombing to kill people, as one could easily strap a bomb to himself and blow himself up in the desert. Sure, its not practical, buts its LOGICAL. That would be the TRUE definition of suicide bombing.
Click to expand...

On the flipside, homocide bombing doesn't imply the death of the bomber either.
Click to expand...

yes, excellent point. Notice I didnt imply that.

 
Originally posted by: Czar
shuan24,
Israelis consider it wartime since hardly any Palestinian death gets investigate because according to Israel there is no need to because of war time.
Click to expand...

The same way we are having a "war" against terrorism. However, the fact is, they (Israel) are not in wartime, and neither are we, in regards with terrorism.

IMO, its difficult to understand how a country can have a "war" with something other than another country. "Wars" on drugs and terrorism is just propoganda that, IMO, is unjustified.

I believe its unjustified in respect that it does not give us the right to go to other countries, overthrow their leaders and plant people who we favor as their new leaders.
(Please note, this reply is not referring to Iraq what-so-ever. We have done this to many countries besides Iraq.)

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top