Kilkrazy wrote:I think there were some Purple Hearts earned at Pearl Harbour in late 1941.
Were Japanese kamikaze pilots terrorists, or regular members of their country's armed forces?
The human rights issue in the Swiss case is that the constitution has been amended so that members of one specific religion now have fewer civil rights than any other.
That is against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the former constitution of the Swiss Confederation.
If you cannot see what is disturbing about that, imagine that atheists, muslims and non-denominationals, being the majority in a country, win a referendum that Roman Catholics should not be allowed to burn incense because the smell is offensive. Anyone else can still burn incense, but not Roman Catholics.
Frazzled wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:Well, to be fair: The United States wasn't officially at war with Japan or Germany, as far as I recall.
But they were providing materiale to Britain and Russia under the lend-lease act, if I remember it right.
Either way, kamikaze pilots would be put into a special category of hell now for their actions.
legally they declared war on us. I don't think there were any Kamikaze attacks in Pearl, mayhaps some impromptu crashing planes but not "Kamikazes." Angels dancing on the head of a pin argument though as you correctly point out.
KillKrazy you are correct, and I amd remaking that statement their hasnt been any in "continental U.S" I bleieve since the 1920's coal miners strike. Also the alaska territory is not continental.
@Frazz the Kamikazis were an actual wing created byt he japanies to suicide attack our troops. They took a vile of some form of pain killer so as to give them as little pain as possible.
@Shuma by literal definition yes the U.S soldiers are committing acts of terrorism, and also if you look it up we are also barbarians. What honestly it all comes down to is who's side your on in the end because that is what is going to lead to how we interpret things. To me they are my enemy, but to them I am the devil you get my meaning?
@SGT_Scruffy: where are you getting your info because when I looked at army times the other week it made no mention of him being a open supporter of Al'Queda, and I would think that Army Times would post such a thing, or at least I hope they would. If you saw it on the news then it is not a fully reliable source.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Empy that was my reasoning. the kamikazis weren't formalized until later, although there were impromptu suicide attacks throughout the war.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Empy that was my reasoning. the kamikazis weren't formalized until later, although there were impromptu suicide attacks throughout the war.
You brought this upon yourself, and everyone has only you to blame.
perhaps, open supporter was a bit strong - however, as stated in my other post, the CIA said he was under investigation for links to Al Qaeda and he openly advocated muslims rising up against American "aggressors"
Empchild wrote:@Frazz the Kamikazis were an actual wing created byt he japanies to suicide attack our troops. They took a vile of some form of pain killer so as to give them as little pain as possible.
Wouldn't exploding make for a relatively painless death?
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:perhaps, open supporter was a bit strong - however, as stated in my other post, the CIA said he was under investigation for links to Al Qaeda and he openly advocated muslims rising up against American "aggressors"
I hadn't seen that part before. I'd heard that he was talking to a radical imam, but not that he was actually advocating Al-Qaeda beliefs.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:perhaps, open supporter was a bit strong - however, as stated in my other post, the CIA said he was under investigation for links to Al Qaeda and he openly advocated muslims rising up against American "aggressors"
This is true, but as per our current threat levels anytime something like this happens to this kind of capacity they look to insure he was not a member of a known terrorist organisation or sympathizer. I would be much to the same avail as me saying to you that you were caught drunk drivng so I think you MAY be a terrorist not an attack of coarse towards you just an example, but you are right on the fact he felt muslims deserved to be on top.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:according to news reports, he made comments of that nature to his superiors and patients as well as at presentations while working at Walter Reed.
Specifically, about half way down, there's a quote. "At Fort Hood, he told a colleague, Col Terry Lee, that he believed Muslims should rise up against American 'aggressors'."
here it is. This thread has reached critical OT mass that prevents useful information from being distributed. Plus, I just quoted myself
Empchild wrote:@Frazz the Kamikazis were an actual wing created byt he japanies to suicide attack our troops. They took a vile of some form of pain killer so as to give them as little pain as possible.
Wouldn't exploding make for a relatively painless death?
Yeah, but the knowledge that it won't hurt helps you go through with it. It also kept them going after being hit by flak, you get a lot of stories of burning destroyed planes still careening towards their targets, largely because the pilots we're physically destroyed but still alive enough to aim for the giant grey thing, the painkillers had a lot to do with that.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:according to news reports, he made comments of that nature to his superiors and patients as well as at presentations while working at Walter Reed.
Specifically, about half way down, there's a quote. "At Fort Hood, he told a colleague, Col Terry Lee, that he believed Muslims should rise up against American 'aggressors'."
here it is. This thread has reached critical OT mass that prevents useful information from being distributed. Plus, I just quoted myself
Ok so im gonna give you a brief low down as because of personal reason I don't trust most major news networks. An officer in the military especially one inhis area has to go through a lot to become said officer. Their are a number of securaty clearances that this man has to go through. I am not saying some may not have fallen through the crack in the past but that is beyond the point right now. If an officer was even remotely believed to have contacted any extremist group weather it be skinheads, black panthers, or Al'Queda they would be removed from their position and put into holding until a CID(criminal investigative division) can do a full investigation into the situation at hand. Their fore though I do accredit you for putting forth this evidence it holds little bearing for anyone who knows enough about how the military runs. Againnot an attack against you just a statement to the disscussion.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:according to news reports, he made comments of that nature to his superiors and patients as well as at presentations while working at Walter Reed.
Specifically, about half way down, there's a quote. "At Fort Hood, he told a colleague, Col Terry Lee, that he believed Muslims should rise up against American 'aggressors'."
here it is. This thread has reached critical OT mass that prevents useful information from being distributed. Plus, I just quoted myself
Ok so im gonna give you a brief low down as because of personal reason I don't trust most major news networks. An officer in the military especially one inhis area has to go through a lot to become said officer. Their are a number of securaty clearances that this man has to go through. I am not saying some may not have fallen through the crack in the past but that is beyond the point right now. If an officer was even remotely believed to have contacted any extremist group weather it be skinheads, black panthers, or Al'Queda they would be removed from their position and put into holding until a CID(criminal investigative division) can do a full investigation into the situation at hand. Their fore though I do accredit you for putting forth this evidence it holds little bearing for anyone who knows enough about how the military runs. Againnot an attack against you just a statement to the disscussion.
I know, I hold a secret clearance. If I kept up with my user name it would read CW2_Scruffy. I've been in 8 years and have 3 tours in Iraq.
Automatically Appended Next Post: wow, I just responded to your post before you postd it! my internet -fu is stong!
If an officer was even remotely believed to have contacted any extremist group weather it be skinheads, black panthers, or Al'Queda they would be removed from their position and put into holding until a CID(criminal investigative division) can do a full investigation into the situation at hand.
What about the large number of service personnel with active gang affiliations?
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:according to news reports, he made comments of that nature to his superiors and patients as well as at presentations while working at Walter Reed.
Specifically, about half way down, there's a quote. "At Fort Hood, he told a colleague, Col Terry Lee, that he believed Muslims should rise up against American 'aggressors'."
here it is. This thread has reached critical OT mass that prevents useful information from being distributed. Plus, I just quoted myself
Ok so im gonna give you a brief low down as because of personal reason I don't trust most major news networks. An officer in the military especially one inhis area has to go through a lot to become said officer. Their are a number of securaty clearances that this man has to go through. I am not saying some may not have fallen through the crack in the past but that is beyond the point right now. If an officer was even remotely believed to have contacted any extremist group weather it be skinheads, black panthers, or Al'Queda they would be removed from their position and put into holding until a CID(criminal investigative division) can do a full investigation into the situation at hand. Their fore though I do accredit you for putting forth this evidence it holds little bearing for anyone who knows enough about how the military runs. Againnot an attack against you just a statement to the disscussion.
I know, I hold a secret clearance. If I kept up with my user name it would read CW2_Scruffy. I've been in 8 years and have 3 tours in Iraq.
Automatically Appended Next Post: wow, I just responded to your post before you postd it! my internet -fu is stong!
seriously, I don't know what's happening... all my posts are being appended even though there is a response after it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: oh, and the man had been in the military for years (prior to 9/11 IIRC) and a secret clearance is only updated everyt ten years. Since, by all accounts, this is a fairly recent shift towards readicalism, it is entirely possible it slips through the cracks.
If an officer was even remotely believed to have contacted any extremist group weather it be skinheads, black panthers, or Al'Queda they would be removed from their position and put into holding until a CID(criminal investigative division) can do a full investigation into the situation at hand.
What about the large number of service personnel with active gang affiliations?
Though I am sure their are active gang member inside the military, as part of an agreement you sign when you join you have unaffiliated yourself with your gang. The military allows former gang members in as long as they are not found to be active. If somone is found out to be active they are looking at jail time.
@scruffy: two things one is grats on the chief I am decideding weather to go that route myself, two if you post in a certain ammount of time frame after or before somone else posts then it just appends itself.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Empy that was my reasoning. the kamikazis weren't formalized until later, although there were impromptu suicide attacks throughout the war.
You brought this upon yourself, and everyone has only you to blame.
I surrender someone get me a battleship and a top hat to make this official.
Kanluwen wrote:Well, to be fair: The United States wasn't officially at war with Japan or Germany, as far as I recall.
But they were providing materiale to Britain and Russia under the lend-lease act, if I remember it right.
Either way, kamikaze pilots would be put into a special category of hell now for their actions.
I find the hell comment kind of offensive. The US has the MoH for actions very similar to the Kamikaze attacks with the only difference is that US soldiers face death in the hope that perhaps they will not die while Kamikazes were sure that they were going to die.
Code of Federal Regulations wrote:"conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States."
So if you want to disrespect members of the armed forces of Japan that chose (no matter how mistaken they were) the ultimate sacrifice for their country I want an open day on the 3467 recipients of the MoH or the 1356 VC.
Kanluwen wrote:Well, to be fair: The United States wasn't officially at war with Japan or Germany, as far as I recall.
But they were providing materiale to Britain and Russia under the lend-lease act, if I remember it right.
Either way, kamikaze pilots would be put into a special category of hell now for their actions.
I find the hell comment kind of offensive. The US has the MoH for actions very similar to the Kamikaze attacks with the only difference is that US soldiers face death in the hope that perhaps they will not die while Kamikazes were sure that they were going to die.
Code of Federal Regulations wrote:"conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States."
So if you want to disrespect members of the armed forces of Japan that chose (no matter how mistaken they were) the ultimate sacrifice for their country I want an open day on the 3467 recipients of the MoH or the 1356 VC.
Hugely different circumstances. When you KNOW you're going to die(e.g. a mortal wound as in a number of Medal of Honor cases), and you're intending to do everything you can to take the bastards with you?
Very different than purposely killing yourself just to take down a target.
Kanluwen wrote:Well, to be fair: The United States wasn't officially at war with Japan or Germany, as far as I recall.
But they were providing materiale to Britain and Russia under the lend-lease act, if I remember it right.
Either way, kamikaze pilots would be put into a special category of hell now for their actions.
I find the hell comment kind of offensive. The US has the MoH for actions very similar to the Kamikaze attacks with the only difference is that US soldiers face death in the hope that perhaps they will not die while Kamikazes were sure that they were going to die.
Code of Federal Regulations wrote:"conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States."
So if you want to disrespect members of the armed forces of Japan that chose (no matter how mistaken they were) the ultimate sacrifice for their country I want an open day on the 3467 recipients of the MoH or the 1356 VC.
Hugely different circumstances. When you KNOW you're going to die(e.g. a mortal wound as in a number of Medal of Honor cases), and you're intending to do everything you can to take the bastards with you?
Very different than purposely killing yourself just to take down a target.
When you KNOW you're going to die=killing yourself and you're intending to do everything you can to take the bastards with you=to take down a target.
What if the marine wasn't wounded, and could flee the battle and survive, but was still willing to die to defeat the enemy in the bunker (because if the enemy in the bunker wasn't defeated they would go on to kill more of his comrades)?
I wouldn't call that immoral.( Or at least, I wouldn't if I didn't think his killing the enemy without killing himself was immoral.) I mean, everyone who goes into a warzone is increasing the chances of their death. What's the difference between a 90% certainty that you will die and a 100% certainty?
Orlanth wrote:No, one of the parties supporting the initiative is racist.
That party wrote the policy and submitted it for referendum. I have no idea why you’re trying to claim otherwise, except in some belief that you need to say nuh-uh to every single element of the other person’s argument.
The policy was instigated by the Swiss government and for good reason, it draws a line and says to Islam here and no further.
But it doesn’t. It just jerks around some people that want to build a place to pray. Any nutter who wants to build a European caliphate won’t be swayed or affected by this.
as for the myth that Western culture is under siege, ok, look at the policies of Islamic fundamentalism. They are quite open about it, Islam must replace Christianity and Islamic law must be introduced. Whether it is practical or not doesn't stop it from being a threat, especially if some continue to profess that it is all a myth even after Islamic fundamentalists admit full face that this is what they want to do.
Except you’re missing the very important point that fundamental Islam does not characterise the entirety of the billion Muslims on the planet. ‘Drawing a line’ by restricting the freedoms of an entire group because you’re worried about a slight minority is idiotic.
The poster is unclear and you are confused.
What is a black sheep? You narrowed it down to 'black immigrants', in fact a black sheep can be any misfit or minority as stated above. You need to look closely at propoganda to understand it, you have not and thus you are confused.
Look again, the poster is not anti black, its anti black sheep and mentions security as the issue. This can be used to represent ANYONE the pary considers a black sheep. homosexuals Jews, immigrants black or otherwise, other faiths etc etc etc. The poster IS unclear.
Take a deep breath and then think about what you’re doing here. You’re claiming there is nothing racist to be found in a poster from an explicitly racist party showing white sheep kicking a black sheep out of their country.
You can, of course, pretend anything means anything you want it to. But you’re kidding yourself if you thought the creators of that poster weren’t aware of how it would be understood by everyone that saw it, supporter and opposition alike.
Nope you are wrong again. Its not racism to believe your culture is under threat if the threat is open and undisguised. Read what the Islamic Fundamentalists say they want to do. You are also wrong because they are not 'jerking around people who just want somewhere to pray'. The ban is on minarets, not mosques, its sends a message against proliferation but says that within that limit Moslem citizens can continue as normal. If Mosques were to be banned yes I would agree, but Minarets are not core to Islamic teaching, just tradition and the Swiss have every right to insist that their indigenous tradition takes precedence..
Please read what I said, it was clear and it’s annoying you’ve misread it so badly. Racism can be a cause of believing one’s culture is under threat (and there are lots of other reasons to also believe your culture is under threat, such as being generally paranoid, believing the wrong people, falling into the myth of the golden age, and just occasionally because your culture actually is under threat.)
And yeah, note that I’ve said that if a ban on mosques and other non-traditional architecture was installed in historical and particularly beautiful parts of the country, that’d be fine. But that isn’t what they’ve done – they’ve put a constitutional ban on one specific type of building across the entire country.
And the thing is, the tradition of architecture in most of Zurich is grey cement cubes – seriously, it’s pretty commonly considered the number one biggest let down for tourists to Europe. There is no beautiful aesthetic to most of the city, and a mosque would not look out of place among the 1970s fugly that is most of the city.
Actually many of the people fighting is Afghanistan are European moslem converts, a frighteningly large number from the UK. Just don't expect the British government to admit this, ask veterans instead. By sticking heads in the sand this nation has birthed a Chimera. You are utterly wrong.
What in the world? Seriously, you understand how conversation works, right?
I mean, I make a point about there being a billion Muslims, and the violent fundamentalists making up a small number of them, and it therefore being wrong to set policy against the religion as a whole. From there you could attempt a point about how majority are really in support of the violent minority, or how the religion will inevitable produce that violent minority therefore the religion as a whole must be strictly controlled, or you could concede the point, or something else.
But you didn’t do that. You just said that a portion of the minority of violent fundamentalists come from the same continent as the people affected by this policy, ignoring entirely that they remain a minority of Muslims, and then you declared I was wrong.
We agree on something. Part of the problem in the US is a very vocal Irish American lobby which has been quieter once 9/11 taught the US that terrorism against a democratic state was not heroic or positive. You should see some of the crap that they taech on Irish history in some American schools, calling it one sided would be an understatement. I remember US news articles about Irish history school curriculum books in New York, ALL were from a very slanted Republican viewpoint. If you read those at face value in school you would be forgiven for thinking the UK is a colony of the Third Reich.
Interesting, thanks for that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote:Wounded Marine pulling the pin on a satchel charge and running through MG fire to drop it into a dug-in pillbox
vs
Flying a fully armed warplane into the deck of an aircraft carrier, with the intention of NEVER engaging other than to get to that target.
Huge difference.
No, there isn't. Not in the act itself, anyway. In the two situations, 'going to kill the enemy' and 'going to kill the enemy and knowing you'll die' the only differing factor is what happens to you. Given that our lives are our own, I don't see how it becomes grossly immoral when we add the element of dying to the equation.
Really, as with all these things the factor that really matters is what motivates the actor. If the Japanese fellow is sacrificing himself because he believes he can cripple a US ship, stop the US advance and protect his friends and family from US invasion, well then he would be wrong but his morals would be understandable. On the other hand, if he was sacrificing himself because he knew the war was lost and he just wanted to kill some Americans before he died, then that'd be immoral.
A fanatical devotion, and blindly following directives to sell your life for crippling a warship and the honor of your ancestors is far differing from acting in the interests of your comrades in the warzone.
So it's still matter of motivation and thought behind it, though.
If an American pilot volunteered to fly a plane into a Nazi battleship (don't ask) in an effort to stop the Nazis from taking over the United States (which is a real possibility), knowing full well what he's doing and what he's giving up, then would that be justified?
Medal of Honor citation wrote:Determined to force a breakthrough when Japanese troops occupying trenches and fortified positions on the left front laid down a terrific machinegun and mortar barrage in a desperate effort to halt his company's advance, P/Sgt. Julian quickly established his platoon's guns in strategic supporting positions, and then, acting on his own initiative, fearlessly moved forward to execute a 1-man assault on the nearest pillbox. Advancing alone, he hurled deadly demolition and white phosphorus grenades into the emplacement, killing 2 of the enemy and driving the remaining 5 out into the adjoining trench system. Seizing a discarded rifle, he jumped into the trench and dispatched the 5 before they could make an escape. Intent on wiping out all resistance, he obtained more explosives and, accompanied by another Marine, again charged the hostile fortifications and knocked out 2 more cave positions. Immediately thereafter, he launched a bazooka attack unassisted, firing 4 rounds into the 1 remaining pillbox and completely destroying it before he fell, mortally wounded by a vicious burst of enemy fire. Stouthearted and indomitable, P/Sgt. Julian consistently disregarded all personal danger and, by his bold decision, daring tactics, and relentless fighting spirit during a critical phase of the battle, contributed materially to the continued advance of his company and to the success of his division's operations in the sustained drive toward the conquest of this fiercely defended outpost of the Japanese Empire. His outstanding valor and unfaltering spirit of self-sacrifice throughout the bitter conflict sustained and enhanced the highest traditions of the U.S. Naval Service. He gallantly gave his life for his country.
I fail to see how a Japanese Kamikaze pilot diving on a carrier with the intent of sacrifice himself denying the enemy vital assets is inmoral while Sgt Julian´s action is praise worthy. In both cases we are talking about a soldier loosing his life for his country.
M.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Btw I forgot to add that the first "Kamikaze" was a British pilot diving his crippled plane on top of a Regia Marina ship instead of bailing out. Was he too being immoral Kanluwen?
sebster wrote:What about the 300 at Thermopylae, fighting to the last as a rear guard action to give the Greeks time to gather their army?
Are you saying that every single instance of someone going to fight, knowing they will die, is immoral?
No, what I'm saying is that it's my OPINION.
I could give less of a crap about how the Japanese felt when they did it. To me, it's wrong. To US soldiers then, it was wrong. In this day and age, it would be highly frowned upon to pull any crap like the kamikazes did without a VERY good reason.
Kanluwen wrote:No, what I'm saying is that it's my OPINION.
I could give less of a crap about how the Japanese felt when they did it. To me, it's wrong. To US soldiers then, it was wrong. In this day and age, it would be highly frowned upon to pull any crap like the kamikazes did without a VERY good reason.
"Without a very good reason..."
Which is what everyone's been saying - what matters is why someone commits a suicide attack, not the fact they die in the attack as well. Flying a torpedo strike is exactly as moral as flying a kamikaze raid - what matters is why you're doing it.
And incidentally, what's with pointing out that it's your opinion? We know it's your opinion, we're just pointing out that it's our opinion that you're wrong.
Flying a torpedo strike, to me, is a completely different thing than turning YOURSELF into a guided torpedo. It's really just that simple. It's the same difference between a soldier charging a bunker and putting himself willingly in a situation he might not come back from--and strapping a bomb vest on and running into a crowded shopping district.
I also find it amusing that this whole argument is coming about because Miguelsan can't tell the difference between opinions and fact.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, I was pointing out the opinion bit because it seemed to me with the constant pointing out of US Medal of Honor recipients, etc that he somehow believed I was stating a fact.
I understand the difference pretty well, thank you. I made the MoH reference to say that if you want to have a especial hell for Kamikaze pilots I want to say that the MoH recipients were a bunch of adrenaline junkies and when you take offense point out your inconsistencies about people that sacrifice their lives for their countries.
Flying a torpedo strike, to me, is a completely different thing than turning YOURSELF into a guided torpedo. It's really just that simple. It's the same difference between a soldier charging a bunker and putting himself willingly in a situation he might not come back from--and strapping a bomb vest on and running into a crowded shopping district.
No, the difference there is one is charging a bunker and the other is charging a market. If you're going to try and debate this kind of thing, especially with members of foreign nationalities, at least try to be somewhat civil about it.
sebster wrote:What about the 300 at Thermopylae, fighting to the last as a rear guard action to give the Greeks time to gather their army?
Are you saying that every single instance of someone going to fight, knowing they will die, is immoral?
No, what I'm saying is that it's my OPINION.
I could give less of a crap about how the Japanese felt when they did it. To me, it's wrong. To US soldiers then, it was wrong. In this day and age, it would be highly frowned upon to pull any crap like the kamikazes did without a VERY good reason.
You say it is nothing more than your personal opinion, then you claim the US forces of the time all had the same opinion as you, then you declare that it is a moral law which applies throughout the world, but you don't give any of the reasons why it would be all right.
Flying a torpedo strike, to me, is a completely different thing than turning YOURSELF into a guided torpedo. It's really just that simple. It's the same difference between a soldier charging a bunker and putting himself willingly in a situation he might not come back from--and strapping a bomb vest on and running into a crowded shopping district.
No, the difference there is one is charging a bunker and the other is charging a market. If you're going to try and debate this kind of thing, especially with members of foreign nationalities, at least try to be somewhat civil about it.
There's no difference whatsoever in that case.
One is wrong in so many fething ways it's not even comprehensibly right...
The other is an acceptable action done under combat situations.
You have to take into accounting the circumstances of most kamikaze strikes, and the tactics that Japan used when employing kamikazes. Look at the hidden kamikaze boats and planes that were captured on Okinawa. They were stashed away near areas that the Japanese were planning on using as redoubts, and packed to the brim with explosives.
And I fail to see how a poor analogy is being uncivil.
Kanluwen wrote:Sorry, but do you expect to change my opinion?
I expect everyone to participate in an informed discussion on the morality or immorality of suicide attacks, and leave the conversation with more considered opinions.
I expect everyone to attempt to defend their position in good faith, and if their position proves unsupportable they should be intellectually honest enough to change their mind.
Flying a torpedo strike, to me, is a completely different thing than turning YOURSELF into a guided torpedo. It's really just that simple. It's the same difference between a soldier charging a bunker and putting himself willingly in a situation he might not come back from--and strapping a bomb vest on and running into a crowded shopping district.
By your standard, the primary point of difference is if the attacker kills himself in the attack. This leads you to putting a guy flying a kamikaze attack on a military vessel and a suicider bomber blowing up a market place on the same level. But what about a remote detonated bomb used against the market place - in that instance the attacker survives but he still kills loads of civilians?
Most of us would think the more important consideration would be targetting civilians, so the remote detonation of a bomb in a market place and a suicide bombing that market place would be morally equivalent. While targetting a military vessel in war time would be very different, placing the torpedo attack on the boat and the kamikaze raid as morally equivalent. What happens to the attackers seems quite irrelevant.
Oh, I was pointing out the opinion bit because it seemed to me with the constant pointing out of US Medal of Honor recipients, etc that he somehow believed I was stating a fact.
What? Responding with substantive argument means the other person must be attempting to claim a fact. How are you using 'fact'?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote:You have to take into accounting the circumstances of most kamikaze strikes...
And when it was pointed out what really mattered was the circumstances leading the kamikaze to make his attack, you said you didn't care what his reasons were.
It's not so much if the attacker kills himself in the attack that affects my opinion on the subject.
It's the tactics BEHIND the attack.
A kamikaze strike was designed as a tool to strike troops and damage morale at the same time. Look at the treatment of snipers captured during WWII, Korea, and Vietnam and even today. It's the idea that it's a sneaky, underhanded tactic that wastes your soldiers' lives that exists for no other purpose than to unnerve and destroy the enemy soldiers' morale.
Kanluwen wrote:
There's no difference whatsoever in that case.
Good, I'll just note somewhere in the back of my mind that you don't see civilians as being distinct from members of the military.
Kanluwen wrote:
You have to take into accounting the circumstances of most kamikaze strikes, and the tactics that Japan used when employing kamikazes.
No you don't. Can I say that all the American soldiers in WWII were horribly immoral because we rounded up the Japanese into internment camps, and firebombed Dresden?
Kanluwen wrote:
Look at the hidden kamikaze boats and planes that were captured on Okinawa. They were stashed away near areas that the Japanese were planning on using as redoubts, and packed to the brim with explosives.
Yes, because they wanted to stall the American advance for as long as possible. There's nothing immoral about that.
Kanluwen wrote:
A kamikaze strike was designed as a tool to strike troops and damage morale at the same time. Look at the treatment of snipers captured during WWII, Korea, and Vietnam and even today. It's the idea that it's a sneaky, underhanded tactic that wastes your soldiers' lives that exists for no other purpose than to unnerve and destroy the enemy soldiers' morale.
That's not sneaky, its intelligent. Morale is a critical element of of any war effort. Many, many tactics are employed specifically for their affect on enemy morale. Things like sabotage, strategic bombing of civilian targets, etc. Really even something as simple as bombardment is calculated to affect the morale of the target.
Kanluwen wrote:It's not so much if the attacker kills himself in the attack that affects my opinion on the subject.
It's the tactics BEHIND the attack.
So it is about why the attacker launched the attack, and so it does matter if it was done in the belief that US could be defeated, or just out of spite to kill as many as possible?
A kamikaze strike was designed as a tool to strike troops and damage morale at the same time. Look at the treatment of snipers captured during WWII, Korea, and Vietnam and even today. It's the idea that it's a sneaky, underhanded tactic that wastes your soldiers' lives that exists for no other purpose than to unnerve and destroy the enemy soldiers' morale.
Kamikaze strikes came into use when US naval superiority meant the Japanese air force were outranged, and couldn't strike US ships and still have enough fuel to return to base. So they doubled their range by making them one way trips. It was a last, desperate measure to find some way of striking back at the US fleet.
If I may defend kanluwen here a little, (because really, do five of you have to jump all over him?) I believe what he is trying to say is that he sees the MoH actions as the actions of men doing what they could to save their buddies and just trying to survive the fight. Kamikazes were volunteers who took drugs and slammed themselves into ships for their country, their emperor, and what they considered an honorable death.
I don't particularly hold the kamikazes in any contempt - instead I pity a country that was so blinded by its militarism that it took the death of hundreds of thousands of troops and hundred of thousands of civilians (I may be low-balling those figures) for it to accept surrender.
However, I do find it reprehensible that these soldiers were actively supporting an army and government that committed the rape of Nanking, the killing of 100,000 people in forced labor camps in Burma (bridge on the river kwai) and countless other atrocities. While the kamikazes in and of themselves seem like the victims of a callous government desparately trying to retain power, a great many japanese soldiers and sailors do indeed deserve a special place in hell.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:If I may defend kanluwen here a little, (because really, do five of you have to jump all over him?) I believe what he is trying to say is that he sees the MoH actions as the actions of men doing what they could to save their buddies and just trying to survive the fight. Kamikazes were volunteers who took drugs and slammed themselves into ships for their country, their emperor, and what they considered an honorable death.
I don't particularly hold the kamikazes in any contempt - instead I pity a country that was so blinded by its militarism that it took the death of hundreds of thousands of troops and hundred of thousands of civilians (I may be low-balling those figures) for it to accept surrender.
However, I do find it reprehensible that these soldiers were actively supporting an army and government that committed the rape of Nanking, the killing of 100,000 people in forced labor camps in Burma (bridge on the river kwai) and countless other atrocities. While the kamikazes in and of themselves seem like the victims of a callous government desparately trying to retain power, a great many japanese soldiers and sailors do indeed deserve a special place in hell.
Yes, the conduct of the Japanese throughout much of the war was appalling, and many soldiers deserve condemnation (I've been to the memorial in Nanking - its a powerful place). But it's a different thing to extend that immorality to every soldier who fought for the Japanese. If a US soldier and a Japanese soldier are each drafted, and each fight honourable, brave fights, is the US soldier more more moral because he was drafted into a better cause?
It is also worth remembering that morality and good and evil are all subjct to the individuals point of veiw. History is written by the victors. In almost all wars the side which ultimately won is considered to be the good guys.
@Squilverine - True, but I don't think anyone who viewed the facts objectively and dispassionately, could conclude anything other than the fact that The Japanese and The Nazis were the 'bad guys'.
Also I think the main problem with the the Kamikaze thing is that it was a matter of policy to employ suicide attacks - VCs and MoHs were awarded for individual acts of bravery that went above and beyond the call of duty. IMO a Kamikaze attack (or rather, the people who decided to employ this tactic) were just as cowardly and cynical as modern-day suicide bombing. I feel sorry for the people who perpetrate such acts - they are obviously brainwashed, and drugged to the eyeballs in many cases - a fact which kind of negates bravery as a factor in this particular scenario.
Kanluwen wrote:Well, to be fair: The United States wasn't officially at war with Japan or Germany, as far as I recall.
But they were providing materiale to Britain and Russia under the lend-lease act, if I remember it right.
Either way, kamikaze pilots would be put into a special category of hell now for their actions.
I find the hell comment kind of offensive. The US has the MoH for actions very similar to the Kamikaze attacks with the only difference is that US soldiers face death in the hope that perhaps they will not die while Kamikazes were sure that they were going to die.
Code of Federal Regulations wrote:"conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States."
So if you want to disrespect members of the armed forces of Japan that chose (no matter how mistaken they were) the ultimate sacrifice for their country I want an open day on the 3467 recipients of the MoH or the 1356 VC.
M.
I'll be clear so a not to be misinterpreted.
Feth them
Feth their ancestors for 10 generations
Feth their descendants for 10 generations
May they rot in a hell of worms and biting ants.
My grandfather was one of the guys that helped smuggle pics of what the "armed force of Japan" did in Nanking, to men, women, and children. That was Japan unchecked.
Feth them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:
Frazzled wrote:the Fort Hood terrorist was a psychiatrist as well.
And the entirety of the Cavalier King Charles breed comes from just six dogs remaining after the Second World War.
This is a fun game, but why are we spouting random statements?
Thats not a radnom statement. This is a random statement.
Chicken McGinty flavored Space Monkey Rocket Juice!
You're gonna have to raise your game to play random statements with a Professional Nutcase!
Really? You sure you want to say that Frazzled? I believe you just made yourself the least objective person in this thread. I may not agree with Kanluwen, but at least he has not insinuated that ALL Japanese past and present are horrible people.
By your reasoning, I could say that the Allies and their ancestors and descendents were horrible people for killing millions of civilians via firebombings and bombing raids.
It only takes a few to create an atrocity. The Nazi's numbered only 100,000 people, but managed to kill 6 million jews. The choices of a few on Allied command who thought they could break the German morale by bombing civilian cities (which actually caused the opposite to happen) caused the deaths of millions of Germans who had nothing to do with the Nazi Party.
I just know I'm gonna enjoy devil's advocate in this thread.
GundamMerc wrote:Really? You sure you want to say that Frazzled? I believe you just made yourself the least objective person in this thread. I may not agree with Kanluwen, but at least he has not insinuated that ALL Japanese past and present are horrible people.
By your reasoning, I could say that the Allies and their ancestors and descendents were horrible people for killing millions of civilians via firebombings and bombing raids.
It only takes a few to create an atrocity. The Nazi's numbered only 100,000 people, but managed to kill 6 million jews. The choices of a few on Allied command who thought they could break the German morale by bombing civilian cities (which actually caused the opposite to happen) caused the deaths of millions of Germans who had nothing to do with the Nazi Party.
I just know I'm gonna enjoy devil's advocate in this thread.
Not all Japanese. Anyone who was in the Japanese military pre and at WWII that supported that brutal killer regime.
Albatross wrote:@Squilverine - True, but I don't think anyone who viewed the facts objectively and dispassionately, could conclude anything other than the fact that The Japanese and The Nazis were the 'bad guys'.
Not if the Nazi's and the Imperial Japanese has won. They would have made sure that the British and the Americans were seen as the baby eating monsters of the whole piece. The majority would have been kept ignorant of their countries attrocities via clever censorship and propaganda, whilst anyone brave/stupid enough to speak out against the ruling regimes would be....... silenced.
Albatross wrote:@Squilverine - True, but I don't think anyone who viewed the facts objectively and dispassionately, could conclude anything other than the fact that The Japanese and The Nazis were the 'bad guys'.
Not if the Nazi's and the Imperial Japanese has won. They would have made sure that the British and the Americans were seen as the baby eating monsters of the whole piece. The majority would have been kept ignorant of their countries attrocities via clever censorship and propaganda, whilst anyone brave/stupid enough to speak out against the ruling regimes would be....... silenced.
I think China, Vietnam, Korea, Myanmar, and the Phillipines would disagree with you on that.
Wiki wrote: The two major religious confessions are the Roman Catholic Church (42% of the population) and the Swiss Reformed Church (35%). The country is historically about evenly balanced between Catholic and Protestant regions. The larger cities (Bern, Zürich, Basel, Geneva) are traditionally Protestant, while Central Switzerland and the Ticino are traditionally Catholic.
Immigration has brought Islam (4.26% as of 2000, compared to 0.26% in 1970) and Eastern Orthodoxy (1.8%) as sizeable minority religions.[2]. Other minority communities include various Protestant denominations (totalling 1.9%), the New Apostolic Church (0.45%), Hinduism (0.38%), Buddhism (0.29%), Judaism (0.25%), Jehovah's Witnesses (0.23%) and the Old Catholic Church (0.18%). Various other communities account for 0.31%. 11.1% of the Swiss were irreligious as of 2000, another 4.3% refused to make a statement.[3]
Regarding personal belief, the 2005 Eurobarometer Poll found that 48% of Swiss citizens expressed belief "that there is a God", 39% expressed belief in "some sort of spirit or life force" while 9% answered that that they did not believe that "there is any sort of spirit, God, or life force"[4]
Conclusion:
I know we are kinda moving on... But I am just going to leave this right here...
\sarcasm = true
Damn immoral bastard... He knew he had no chance of survival... NO CHANCE!!! But he flew his plane into that ship anyway... Stupid fether... BURN IN HELL YOU IMMORAL FETHTARD!!!
I'll be clear so a not to be misinterpreted.
Feth them
Feth their ancestors for 10 generations
Feth their descendants for 10 generations
May they rot in a hell of worms and biting ants.
My grandfather was one of the guys that helped smuggle pics of what the "armed force of Japan" did in Nanking, to men, women, and children. That was Japan unchecked.
Feth them.
I work at a museum that specializes in artifacts of native peoples (yay graphic design jobs!). Most surviving indigenous tribesman in america would tell you you're being a giant tool for saying that. But hey, it's only awful when you're not directly benefitting when it's done.
I'll be clear so a not to be misinterpreted.
Feth them
Feth their ancestors for 10 generations
Feth their descendants for 10 generations
May they rot in a hell of worms and biting ants.
My grandfather was one of the guys that helped smuggle pics of what the "armed force of Japan" did in Nanking, to men, women, and children. That was Japan unchecked.
Feth them.
I work at a museum that specializes in artifacts of native peoples (yay graphic design jobs!). Most surviving indigenous tribesman in america would tell you you're being a giant tool for saying that. But hey, it's only awful when you're not directly benefitting when it's done.
I'm indigeneous. I was born here, don't know about you.
But I get what you're flailingly trying to get at, that "native Americans" can make the same claims. Yep.
Of course its utterly irrelevant to the topic of terrorists and suicide bombers, which itself is utterly irrelevant to the topic of the Swiss and their apparent love of zoning.
There's no defense for Japanese war atrocities. But Kamikaze attacks aren't a war atrocity.
As Kanluwen noted, most of our Medal of Honor winners were probably well aware they would die or expecting to die doing what they did. I do see a bit of a difference between spur-of-the-moment suicidal gallantry vs. premedidated suicide attacks, but it's not in the bravery of the guy dying for his country. I don't see any of those guys as evil if they really thought they were defending their country and had a chance to stop or slow our invasion of Japan.
As noted, if they KNEW it was hopeless and they were making suicide attacks out of spite & hatred, that's different. That is indeed more akin to a terrorist suicide bomber, though I do agree with the earlier point that there's still a moral difference between targeting civilians and attacking a military target during a war.
I personally rather doubt that many of the Kamikaze were doing it for evil reasons. It is possible that some or many of them were lied to and motivated by officers who knew the war would be lost, in which case said officers would certainly be evil scumbags. It's hard to know, though. Certainly the Japanese as a people had a hard time believing that they would lose. That's a big part of the justification behind the dropping the The Bomb. That it finally convinced them to stop fighting and wasting lives.
Of course its utterly irrelevant to the topic of terrorists and suicide bombers, which itself is utterly irrelevant to the topic of the Swiss and their apparent love of zoning.
Which is irrelevant to the topic of japanese kamikaze pilots, which is irrelevant to the topic of nationalistic jingoism and the decrying of "foreign" war crimes. This topic has gone on such a big ferris wheel that the people at the topic are probably having a hard time breathing.
About the totals, take out the soviet union totals, because just as much of their people died from the scorched earth tactics of the soviets as from attacks by Germans, if not more. Also, the allies had more population in general, even if we do not include the u.s.
Thus, more civilian casualties. It would be more accurate to show the percentage of each nations total population that died rather than the actual totals.
Not if the Nazi's and the Imperial Japanese has won. They would have made sure that the British and the Americans were seen as the baby eating monsters of the whole piece. The majority would have been kept ignorant of their countries attrocities via clever censorship and propaganda, whilst anyone brave/stupid enough to speak out against the ruling regimes would be....... silenced.
I think it's hard to spin the Holocaust and events like 'The Rape of Nanking' and 'Black Christmas' to make them look WORSE. 'City-busting' wasn't our country's proudest moment, but that was just part of the war - London suffered massive bombing, in addition to V1 and V2 attacks.
The V1's and V2's hitting london were all Hitlers decisions. Had he listened to his command staff, they would have been used to help protect the beaches.
GundamMerc wrote:About the totals, take out the soviet union totals, because just as much of their people died from the scorched earth tactics of the soviets as from attacks by Germans, if not more.
Umm... no. 7,420,379 directly killed by Germany, 2,164,313 captured died doing forced labor for Germany, 4,100,000 died from hunger, disease and other hardships. Some of the Polish deaths could have been caused by the USSR, but for the most part the USSR just didn't intervene while the Germans killed them (to make for a less rebellious country when taken over by them). And while we're on the subject, most of the civillian deaths in Romania and Austria (and a few from Germany) were holocaust deaths.
Also, the allies had more population in general, even if we do not include the u.s.
Thus, more civilian casualties.
Military deaths are also shown. In every Allied country besides the United States and the UK (who were never invaded) there are more civillian casualties than military casualites. In no Axis nation is that true (except Romania, in which the civillian deaths are all holocaust).
In total, there are over two civillians killed by the Axis for every soldier. There is less than a third of a civillian killed by the Allies. That's a sixfold difference.
It would be more accurate to show the percentage of each nations total population that died rather than the actual totals.
It would be most accurate to show the ratio of military and civillian deaths.
However, the graph also does show the percentage of the population killed by nation in the war (four out of the top five are allies, by the way), so I'm not sure what you're complaining about.
The V1's and V2's hitting london were all Hitlers decisions. Had he listened to his command staff, they would have been used to help protect the beaches.
GundamMerc wrote:About the totals, take out the soviet union totals, because just as much of their people died from the scorched earth tactics of the soviets as from attacks by Germans, if not more. Also, the allies had more population in general, even if we do not include the u.s.
Thus, more civilian casualties. It would be more accurate to show the percentage of each nations total population that died rather than the actual totals.
See, told you I'd have fun.
So you can kill a million Russians, but it isn't as bad as killing a million Germans because there's more Russians overall? I'm not getting that logic at all.
Every dead civilian is a horrible tragedy, and it isn't lessened because you come from a really big country.
SS units were frequently late in reaching the front lines because they got sidetracked shooting up Polish villages. The allies undertook some operations that probably wasn't worth the toll in civilian lives, but that's wholly different to the deliberate and frequently organised efforts to slaughter civilians undertaken by the Axis powers. Trying to make any comparison is a poorly judged, tasteless exercise.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote:Does that mean the UK shouldn't have retaliated?
It was an indicator that the UK's own program of strategic bombing would be as ineffective as the Nazi program to bomb London into submission. It's odd that command staff could be relieved that the Germans stopped attacking airfields and military sites and started focussing on population centres... and then went and made the same mistake themselves.
dogma wrote:Its understandable. The last thing a war leader is likely to do is treat his people as equivalent to those he's fighting.
"The British people are proud and strong, we can resist strategic bombing. The German people are weak, and evil, they'll never do the same."
Stupid sure, but nationalism was stronger then.
Fair point. It's a little odd that we're still falling for it now ("we're only losing to the rebels because we're not cruel enough...") but I understand the mistake a little more ain the context of WWII.
I did not say killing a million russians is not as bad as killing a million germans, just that it is more likely to occur because of the population differences. Also, Orkeosaurus (I spelled it right!) note that i was speaking of USSR totals alone. I did not include poland, or romania, or austria... so thats that. Also, military deaths in germany WOULD be greater, as they had most men around the ages of 16-40 in the armed forces.
Yes, the german SS were bad. But when the soviet troops conquered east germany, they were just as bad when it came to killing and raping civilians.
although, orkeosaurus, you make a good point about the percentages. did not see those blue bars on the graph. thanks.
GundamMerc wrote:I did not say killing a million russians is not as bad as killing a million germans, just that it is more likely to occur because of the population differences.
How does that matter? More likely or not, atrocity is atrocity, no?
Modquisition on:
I usually don't mod threads I am involved in unless I have to, but I believe this one has run its course a wee bit. At 13 pages and four to five topic shifts its probably best to put this one to bed.
not an attack of coarse towards you just an example, but you are right on the fact he felt muslims deserved to be on top.
Especially after heated debates.
Military deaths are also shown. In every Allied country besides the United States and the 