Hiroshima Marks Atomic Bomb Anniversary

[gilld1]

Yeah, Izzy, the Germans sure were decent when they randomly bombed London and when they killed GI POWs execution style during the Battle of the Bulge. 

[Vicious Wishes]

This thread has turned ridiculous. Remind me again who attacked who first?

[C0ma]

your some idiot seriously.... so i guess you would shoot every pow you had if it meant getting one to talk so you could in teh future save 2 lives?

I wouldn't Shoot them, but I also wouldn't treat them with the same rights as I treat prisoners in my own country.... but thats niether here nor there (this is why I laugh at the complaints of Guantanamo Bay and Abu Grab, they have info we need, and American Citizens that are being made safe by the men gathering this info are acting like we are gassing these people with no provocation)

you may belong there but not to the human race. sorry.
by no means I would like to belong to the criminal against the civil with no arm and no harm.
Your statement tells there is no other excuse for the bombs than the chauvinism.
No? Then Answer me. What If the little girl was your daughter?
It's like defending a wrestler who hit a girl in the cheering section for his opponent wrestler to piss off the latter.
The solders are there to fight. They are agreed to risk their lives. While The girl is obviously not.

The simile of the torture someone's entire life is spot on for the A bomb disease or any radioactive illness. Unlike other wound or burn, the radioactive damage never heals up.  the radiation harms your genes fatally, which stops your new cells from regenerating the injuries. the damaged parts just keep shrinking. That never be cured with all today's medical science. You got to live with the forever pains. It's nothing but a torture.

Can't you see this issue is not really about America vs japan or the country A vs the rest, on the whole.
It deals with the subjects like the rulers vs the ruled, the strong and the weak, or politicians vs civilians.

More importantly, It's a matter of humanity.

I'm not saying I'd walk up to a random girl in the street and off her....... What i mean is:

picture the urban combat of Iraq...... a team of 5 Marines is recieving fire. They get seperated and a group of two Marines are now recieving the majority of the fire and have no cover. The three remaining Marines have a shot on the gunman but suddenly an 8 yearold girl wanders out of a house and is now obsructing the shot. if you don't take down the gunman he is going to kill the two seperated Marines........ I fire threw the girl and take them both out....... The two Marines live, the gunman and the girl die.......

If you arent prepaired to make that kind of a decision you don't belong on a battlefield because you will probably get someone in your team killed, and they are more important than anyone (ANYONE) on the otherside.

[Prometheus]

your some idiot seriously.... so i guess you would shoot every pow you had if it meant getting one to talk so you could in teh future save 2 lives?

I wouldn't Shoot them, but I also wouldn't treat them with the same rights as I treat prisoners in my own country.... but thats niether here nor there (this is why I laugh at the complaints of Guantanamo Bay and Abu Grab, they have info we need, and American Citizens that are being made safe by the men gathering this info are acting like we are gassing these people with no provocation)

you may belong there but not to the human race. sorry.
by no means I would like to belong to the criminal against the civil with no arm and no harm.
Your statement tells there is no other excuse for the bombs than the chauvinism.
No? Then Answer me. What If the little girl was your daughter?
It's like defending a wrestler who hit a girl in the cheering section for his opponent wrestler to piss off the latter.
The solders are there to fight. They are agreed to risk their lives. While The girl is obviously not.

The simile of the torture someone's entire life is spot on for the A bomb disease or any radioactive illness. Unlike other wound or burn, the radioactive damage never heals up.  the radiation harms your genes fatally, which stops your new cells from regenerating the injuries. the damaged parts just keep shrinking. That never be cured with all today's medical science. You got to live with the forever pains. It's nothing but a torture.

Can't you see this issue is not really about America vs japan or the country A vs the rest, on the whole.
It deals with the subjects like the rulers vs the ruled, the strong and the weak, or politicians vs civilians.

More importantly, It's a matter of humanity.

I'm not saying I'd walk up to a random girl in the street and off her....... What i mean is:

picture the urban combat of Iraq...... a team of 5 Marines is recieving fire. They get seperated and a group of two Marines are now recieving the majority of the fire and have no cover. The three remaining Marines have a shot on the gunman but suddenly an 8 yearold girl wanders out of a house and is now obsructing the shot. if you don't take down the gunman he is going to kill the two seperated Marines........ I fire threw the girl and take them both out....... The two Marines live, the gunman and the girl die.......

If you arent prepaired to make that kind of a decision you don't belong on a battlefield because you will probably get someone in your team killed, and they are more important than anyone (ANYONE) on the otherside.

my point is this if you do this style of "warfare" and you kill civi's or torture POW's you violate the treaties that you have signed..... geniva.... and in the eyes of everyone.. are not your actions no better then that of terroists?

dont twist that into me saying the US are nothing but terroists.....

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

yup, Coma, there are laws, even during war, even IN the action.

but man, you're talking, but the thing is, that you wouldnt do it. you wouldnt kill anybody.
and that's a good thing.

[gilld1]

Any one of us on here would have no problem pulling the trigger on someone in a WAR situation.  You sit and so the opposite but it comes down to self-preservation and to thinkthat you wouldn't save yourself is pure nonsense.  Luckily, we don't all have to go through a war....

[C0ma]

my point is this if you do this style of "warfare" and you kill civi's or torture POW's you violate the treaties that you have signed..... geniva.... and in the eyes of everyone.. are not your actions no better then that of terroists?

The Geneva Convention only applies to Uniformed members of a recognized armed force. So for instance what ever is done to the prisoners in Abu Grab and Guantanamo Bay is not covered by Geneva. So If they have info that will save US or Coalition troops, you do anything within reason to garner that info.

But I'm not saying torture all prisoners or just randomly kill civilians, what I am saying is if put in the right situation you have to do everything possible to keep your fellow troops safe. Sometimes that action could get ugly, but needs to be done.

[Prometheus]

Any one of us on here would have no problem pulling the trigger on someone in a WAR situation.  You sit and so the opposite but it comes down to self-preservation and to thinkthat you wouldn't save yourself is pure nonsense.  Luckily, we don't all have to go through a war....

 well i have to ask you why during WW2 it was found that a rather high % of pte. would just hide in their hole and not even shoot.... and whn shot at they would most times leave their weapon behind...... saw that on a documentry talking about training doctrines and how they have changed since the 1800's through to modren day


for the most part everyone has the ability to kill another human, however even today you will find people that will freese up in high stress situations, as much as militarty personal and hopefuls hate to admit we are brainwashed into a state where we do not hink about our actions, it is pure reaction. this reaction ability has slowly been taken out of the general population of humanity over the years, that why there are morals to which we should adhere ourseleves to. that is why laws exists so we know the moral boundries to which we are to guide ourseleves.

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

ye p !

and cOma, you are a living proof of that.

years ago, when you were twelve, or less ... innocent and good, you wouldnt even think about that. you wouldnt even have to think before crying and being horrified by your a coutry that nukes 70 THOUSANDS people  ....

but now, you've changed.
just think about when you were a kid, and killing people WAS OUT OF THE QUESTION. now you consider things like that ....
when you were a kid, loving your country meant loving the basketball team
now it's finding reasons for people to die.

[Prometheus]

my point is this if you do this style of "warfare" and you kill civi's or torture POW's you violate the treaties that you have signed..... geniva.... and in the eyes of everyone.. are not your actions no better then that of terroists?

The Geneva Convention only applies to Uniformed members of a recognized armed force. So for instance what ever is done to the prisoners in Abu Grab and Guantanamo Bay is not covered by Geneva. So If they have info that will save US or Coalition troops, you do anything within reason to garner that info.

But I'm not saying torture all prisoners or just randomly kill civilians, what I am saying is if put in the right situation you have to do everything possible to keep your fellow troops safe. Sometimes that action could get ugly, but needs to be done.

funny then how come taliban fighters are termed as BF detainee's?

and since you have no idea of anything about the convention lets go to school

apartheid

Practices of apartheid and other inhuman and degrading practices involving outrages upon personal dignity, based on racial discrimination are prohibited and are considered grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. ( Protocol I, Art. 85, Sec. 4)

hmmm but wait not military right and this convention dont cover civis.....

attorneys

Prisoners of war must have the right to legal advice, particularly in the case of preparing powers of attorney and wills. ( Convention III, Art. 77)

The same applies to civilian internees. ( Convention IV, Art. 113 )

Military commanders must have access to legal advisers to instruct them on the application of the Geneva Conventions. ( Protocol I, Art. 82)

hmmm thought that you can be held without legal council........ hey and look it covers off civi's...... intresting wait im getting to the good stuff

you know that kid killing bit..... illegal.... can yo say that with me..... illegal...... you can be charged by your own nation for it...... intresting isnt it?

children

Parties to a conflict must respect children, provide them with any care or aid they require, and protect them from any form of indecent assault (Protocol I, Art. 77, Sec. 1).

Children under 15 must not participate in hostilities and must not be recruited into the armed forces. (Protocol I, Art. 77, Sec. 2; Protocol II, Art. 4, Sec. 3C)

Those children who do participate in hostilities do not lose their protections under the Geneva Conventions, including the right to an education. (Protocol II, Art. 4, Sec. 3d)

Children who have committed an offense related to the armed conflict before their 18th birthday cannot be subject to the death penalty. (Protocol I, Art. 77, Sec. 5)

If arrested, detained or interned, children must be held in separate quarters from adults, unless they are with their families. (Protocol I, Art. 77, Sec. 4)

Warring parties must try to make local agreements to allow the removal of children from besieged or encircled areas. (Convention IV, Art. 17)

Warring parties must allow the free passage of medicine, food and clothing intended for children under 15. (Convention IV, Art. 23)

Warring parties must ensure that orphans or lost children are not left alone, and that they are taken care of and allowed to practice their religion and pursue their education in their cultural tradition if possible. (Convention IV, Art. 24)

Mothers with dependent infants should not be, if at all possible, sentenced to the death penalty for an offense related to the armed conflict, and such sentences must not be carried out. (Protocol I, Art. 76, Sec. 3)

not only illegal but you have to protect them at all cost... hahahahahaha... thats funny

civilian immunity

Civilians have special protections under Convention IV, Protocol I, and Protocol II.

They must be treated humanely, without discrimination based on race, color, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or other similar criteria.

Violence to life and person including murder, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture are prohibited.

The taking of hostages is prohibited.

Outrages upon personal dignity, including humiliating and degrading treatment are prohibited.

Sentences and executions without a judgment from a regularly constituted court and without benefit of the standard judicial guarantees are prohibited. (Convention IV, Art. 3)

See civilian population, women, murder, rape, torture, discrimination, civilian property, places of worship, cultural objects, grave breaches, and indiscriminate bombing to start with.

ok now to give you some rope to hang me with...... but wait.. no i think ill hold onto that cause heres the defn of a civi

civilian

A civilian is any person who does not belong to any of the following categories: members of the armed forces, militias or volunteer corps, organized resistance movements, and residents of an occupied territory who spontaneously take up arms. If there is any doubt whether a person is civilian, then he or she is to be considered a civilian. (Protocol I, Art. 50, Sec. 1)

i guess you can use teh  weel he looked like a civi... wait then hes still protected... err i mena he looked like he would be an insurgent... erri dont know... lol he is still protected by the convention......


christ would ya actually look stuff up first b4 you make blanket statements

[Prometheus]

ye p !

and cOma, you are a living proof of that.

years ago, when you were twelve, or less ... innocent and good, you wouldnt even think about that. you wouldnt even have to think before crying and being horrified by your a coutry that nukes 70 THOUSANDS people  ....

but now, you've changed.
just think about when you were a kid, and killing people WAS OUT OF THE QUESTION. now you consider things like that ....
when you were a kid, loving your country meant loving the basketball team
now it's finding reasons for people to die.

now thats a little bit harsh.........ok its alot harsh...... its not like they or he actually sits down and plans out howmany people that they want to kill today that are innocent... they accidental, they are a part of war that we must accept............. god......... defending  the right wing....... .. well i guess that shows how much of a lefty i actually am......

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

no i know ... i didnt say it to be harsh ... it's just that people can lose some of their "normal" reactions (like "killing a lot of people is bad no matter what" ) when they get older and start thinking in terms of politics, patriotism ....

its not that coma is liek that, cause he is just on his computer. but ... i dunno ...i'm sleepy

[C0ma]

I'll end with this............

If I was in a team of 5 soldiers (WAT-EVER, "Prom" (i know where not going steady), SLC, Gilld1, and my self) I wouldn't let a 50 yearold treaty lead to any of your deaths because an old woman, child, or cripple might get killed saving you. My only goal in that situation would be keeping you safe, not saving a civi from the country we are at war with. Anyone who isn't prepared to do anything to protect their squad has no business being in a war zone.

I guess if you don't agree with that, we will never agree, so why debate it........

[gilld1]

Any one of us on here would have no problem pulling the trigger on someone in a WAR situation.? You sit and so the opposite but it comes down to self-preservation and to thinkthat you wouldn't save yourself is pure nonsense.? Luckily, we don't all have to go through a war....

 well i have to ask you why during WW2 it was found that a rather high % of pte. would just hide in their hole and not even shoot.... and whn shot at they would most times leave their weapon behind...... saw that on a documentry talking about training doctrines and how they have changed since the 1800's through to modren day


for the most part everyone has the ability to kill another human, however even today you will find people that will freese up in high stress situations, as much as militarty personal and hopefuls hate to admit we are brainwashed into a state where we do not hink about our actions, it is pure reaction. this reaction ability has slowly been taken out of the general population of humanity over the years, that why there are morals to which we should adhere ourseleves to. that is why laws exists so we know the moral boundries to which we are to guide ourseleves.


Yes, MacMaul, I've heard of the freeze ups too but I recently read in Newsweek that as a result of new training the % is very low now.  They have so many simulations now that , as you said, it becomes a reaction or reflex of sorts.  I've also seen Vets on TV talk about how scared shitless they were (I would be too) but they reach a point where they get sick of being scared and start fighting for their brothers.  I'm not saying I would be Rambo or anything but I would shott any man women or child if came down to saving a fellow soldier who I had ate, slept, and shit with for 1-3 years.

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

Any one of us on here would have no problem pulling the trigger on someone in a WAR situation.? You sit and so the opposite but it comes down to self-preservation and to thinkthat you wouldn't save yourself is pure nonsense.? Luckily, we don't all have to go through a war....

 well i have to ask you why during WW2 it was found that a rather high % of pte. would just hide in their hole and not even shoot.... and whn shot at they would most times leave their weapon behind...... saw that on a documentry talking about training doctrines and how they have changed since the 1800's through to modren day


for the most part everyone has the ability to kill another human, however even today you will find people that will freese up in high stress situations, as much as militarty personal and hopefuls hate to admit we are brainwashed into a state where we do not hink about our actions, it is pure reaction. this reaction ability has slowly been taken out of the general population of humanity over the years, that why there are morals to which we should adhere ourseleves to. that is why laws exists so we know the moral boundries to which we are to guide ourseleves.


Yes, MacMaul, I've heard of the freeze ups too but I recently read in Newsweek that as a result of new training the % is very low now.? They have so many simulations now that , as you said, it becomes a reaction or reflex of sorts.? I've also seen Vets on TV talk about how scared shitless they were (I would be too) but they reach a point where they get sick of being scared and start fighting for their brothers.? I'm not saying I would be Rambo or anything but I would shott any man women or child if came down to saving a fellow soldier who I had ate, slept, and shit with for 1-3 years.

good ! we're robots
this world is already too full of love and feelings, let's all base our reactions on reflex ! yay !

[Izzy]

The only thing is that there were only two bombs that were made.?

Careful there - apparently there was a third - Truman upon hearing what he had done alledgedly ordered the third to be recalled.

[Izzy]

Yeah, Izzy, the Germans sure were decent when they randomly bombed London

 

Who bombed who first?

We bombed their cities first!

They bombed London by ACCIDENT (that's fact), we retaliated and then they retaliated again

But even BEFORE all that we were bombing them!

Comapre the 60,000 they bombed to death to the 593,000 we got of theirs!

and when they killed GI POWs execution style during the Battle of the Bulge. 

Lol - quote a lone example!

A generalisation is a statement that applies to the majority of the cases - not all humans have 2 eyes, 2 legs etc but as a generalisation it works

The German's treated British troops captured in battle surprisingly well, and they fought against us with much restraint

Against Russian they starved to death every man woman and child they didn't shot or work to death. They shot ever Red Army officer they found on the spot and all the politcal officers too, and wiped out the entire Polish officer class

They sent in troops with flamethrowers to kill everything in Russian villages

Against us they fought with some decency. There are relatively few war crimes committed against Allied troops.

Their cause was horrific but its fair to say they treated our forces surprisingly well - or as well as u can in a situation where both sides are trying to kill each other

I'm not even sure we are talking about this - sounds like an attempt to drag this thread off topic!

[gilld1]

Some version of things you hhave there, Izzy.  Launching V2s was an accident?  The Battle of London was an accident?  That must have been some Liberal college you went too!

[Izzy]

Some version of things you hhave there, Izzy.

Well if the truth is a version....

Launching V2s was an accident?

Nope, not sure where i said other wise

Hell i even gave the figure for the numbers of us they bombed overall - 20,000 were killed in V-1 and V-2 attacks

The Battle of London was an accident? 

Its called 'The Blitz'

Again - if u can't read 5 lines of text accurately i really wonder - didn't u go to a world renown University

The Blitz was started by the accidently bombing of London by planes involved in bombing airfields - Hitler was apparently furious over the incident. It began in earnest in revenge for a British raid on Berlin

That must have been some Liberal college you went too!

I love the way thats used as an insult, and that regardless of the fact all the things i have said (other than things clearly marked) have been FACTS delivered by a person who has spent 2 years researching the topic, and yet u try to argue! If i'm making this stuff up then i must have a rather large number of academics on my pay roll!

I am beating u so hard i'm just feeling sorry now - i feel like a bully - u have absoluetly no clue at all, c'mon, give me a challenge!

But please keep trying

[Prometheus]

Some version of things you hhave there, Izzy.  Launching V2s was an accident?  The Battle of London was an accident?  That must have been some Liberal college you went too!

to actual give ya an example of how the bombing of london was an accident... due to th black out several german bombers were off course and thought they were farther north west.... and dropped teh bombs on london....  the pilots didnt even know till a few days later when they got remmed for bombing it.... Hitler wanted london intact when he would ride down teh streets..... or somethign to that effect....IIRC the v-1 and 2 attacks came after this mistaken bomber attack. but as izzy said we were bombing their cities well b4 this mistaken bombing raid