If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
"Alan Minyard" wrote in message ... On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 11:42:40 GMT, "weary" wrote: "Alan Minyard" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:08:15 GMT, "weary" wrote: "B2431" wrote in message ... From: "weary" Do you think Saddam Hussein had the same right to use WMD to save the lives of Iraqi servicemen while fighting Iran and internal rebellion? Did Al-Qaeda have the same right to deliberately target civilians in their war with the USA, specifically WTC? If Saddam hadn't invaded Iran there would not have been a need to defend "Iraqi servicemen." Complaints about his use of WMD relate to uses considerably pre-dating his invasion of Kuwait. As for the attacks on the WTC there was no military value there. An argument could be made for the strike on the Pentagon being a military attack. Nagasaki and Hiroshima each had valid military targets within the cities. The odds are that there were Reservists in the WTC at the time of the attack. The poster I was replying to advocated using "ANY MEANS" to end the war. He also wrote "If that means incinerating two, three, or however many Japanese Cities by the bombs carried by the 509th's B-29s, so be it." He made no mention of destroying military assets. His choice of words clearly states that the destruction of cities was what would produce a Japanese surrender, not destruction of military assets. Destruction of Japan, by whatever means possible, was warranted. That's what AQ thinks of the USA And it is clear that you think that they are right. They are not, and we will hunt them down. An irrational conclusion from what I wrote, but what I expect from you. The barbarity of their military was an abomination, and it was continuing daily That's what AQ thinks of the USA. Once again, you think that they are right. And once again an irrational conclusion. You are either massively mis-informed or you simply hate the US. Actually I'm just stating or summarising what is in the public domain regarding statements by AQ. In either case, welcome to my kill file. Tell someone who cares. A very mature response to hearing bad news - shoot the messenger. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
"Matt Wiser" wrote in message news:3fe70e02$1@bg2.... "weary" wrote: "Alan Minyard" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:08:15 GMT, "weary" wrote: "B2431" wrote in message ... From: "weary" Do you think Saddam Hussein had the same right to use WMD to save the lives of Iraqi servicemen while fighting Iran and internal rebellion? Did Al-Qaeda have the same right to deliberately target civilians in their war with the USA, specifically WTC? If Saddam hadn't invaded Iran there would not have been a need to defend "Iraqi servicemen." Complaints about his use of WMD relate to uses considerably pre-dating his invasion of Kuwait. As for the attacks on the WTC there was no military value there. An argument could be made for the strike on the Pentagon being a military attack. Nagasaki and Hiroshima each had valid military targets within the cities. The odds are that there were Reservists in the WTC at the time of the attack. The poster I was replying to advocated using "ANY MEANS" to end the war. He also wrote "If that means incinerating two, three, or however many Japanese Cities by the bombs carried by the 509th's B-29s, so be it." He made no mention of destroying military assets. His choice of words clearly states that the destruction of cities was what would produce a Japanese surrender, not destruction of military assets. Destruction of Japan, by whatever means possible, was warranted. That's what AQ thinks of the USA The barbarity of their military was an abomination, and it was continuing daily That's what AQ thinks of the USA. in China, Korea, etc. If incinerating every building in Japan would have ended the war, it would have been completely justified. The only thing that the US did that was "wrong" was not hanging the ******* Hirohito from the nearest tree. Al Minyard So why do you apologize for them? Dropping the bombs and 9-11 were two different events under vastly different circumstances. That your opinion, and point out where I apologised for them. My opinion - supported by facts - is that there are similarities, deliberately targetting civilians, especially with regard to Hiroshima. In case you forgot: Pearl Harbor's treachery was rewarded at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If you think an attack without a declaration of war is "treachery", do your sums and see how many times the US has declared war in the conflicts it has been involved in since WW2. 9-11's treachery has been partially rewarded with the Taliban who sheltered AQ and OBL reduced to a low-level insurgency. AQ believe that US treachery in supporting Israel inits oppression of the Palestinians was rewarded by Sept 11. It is apparently news to you but others can hate as strongly as you, and be as ruthless as your government in targetting civilians. rant snipped |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message ... On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 11:39:57 GMT, "weary" wrote: a major arsenal, a chemical plant (that happened to be producing mustard gas and cynagen chloride agents), an air base, rail facilities, and so on. All of which could have been destroyed by conventional means. Like the 16 sq miles of tokyo was in March 1945 perhaps ? No. Do try to follow the thread. Back up a couple of lines and you can read that the previous correspondent tried to justify the bombing of Hiroshima on the grounds that there were military and industrial assets in the city. However the aiming point was a bridge in a mainly residential area and the assets were only lightly damaged. The incendiary raids on Tokyo deliberately targetted civilians, not military or industrial assets. With military targets located in the cities, the cities were legitimate targets. The difference between the 1945 nuclear strikes and 9-11 is that in 1945, there was a WAR ON that had to be brought to an end by whatever means necessary. But you deny others the same right. Of course, to allow idiots like you to sleep safe at night. Bad news - it isn't working, if we are to believe the number of heightened terror alerts. Besides, I have never asked nor do I want my government to kill civilians so that I can sleep safe at night. As a matter of fact, if I knew that is what my government was doing, I would not sleep safe at night. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
"Matt Wiser" wrote in message news:3fe70de0$1@bg2.... "weary" wrote: "Matt Wiser" wrote in message news:3fe49de1$1@bg2.... "weary" wrote: "B2431" wrote in message ... From: "weary" Do you think Saddam Hussein had the same right to use WMD to save the lives of Iraqi servicemen while fighting Iran and internal rebellion? Did Al-Qaeda have the same right to deliberately target civilians in their war with the USA, specifically WTC? If Saddam hadn't invaded Iran there would not have been a need to defend "Iraqi servicemen." Complaints about his use of WMD relate to uses considerably pre-dating his invasion of Kuwait. As for the attacks on the WTC there was no military value there. An argument could be made for the strike on the Pentagon being a military attack. Nagasaki and Hiroshima each had valid military targets within the cities. The odds are that there were Reservists in the WTC at the time of the attack. The poster I was replying to advocated using "ANY MEANS" to end the war. He also wrote "If that means incinerating two, three, or however many Japanese Cities by the bombs carried by the 509th's B-29s, so be it." He made no mention of destroying military assets. His choice of words clearly states that the destruction of cities was what would produce a Japanese surrender, not destruction of military assets. For weary: I'm the one who stated that however many cities had to be destroyed by the 509th's B-29s. Military targets WERE located in said cities. Hiroshima had the 2nd General Army HQ, a Railroad line and depot, a airfield and port facility, and a division's worth of troops garrisoned there. Nagasaki: Mistubushi aircraft works, a torpedo factory, port facilities and related infrastructure, an air base, etc. Kokura (would've been hit on 9 Aug if not for weather)had a major arsenal, a chemical plant (that happened to be producing mustard gas and cynagen chloride agents), an air base, rail facilities, and so on. All of which could have been destroyed by conventional means. With military targets located in the cities, the cities were legitimate targets. The difference between the 1945 nuclear strikes and 9-11 is that in 1945, there was a WAR ON that had to be brought to an end by whatever means necessary. But you deny others the same right. If that meant destroying cities to prevent two invasions of the Japanese Home Islands, so be it. What would you rather risk: several B-29 aircrews on the missions, or 766,000 soldiers and Marines in the U.S. 6th Army hitting the beaches of Kyushu on or after 1 November? Not to mention the American and British aircrews and sailors directly supporting the invasion. Al-Queda started the war on terror on 9-11 with a massacre. No they didn't . The war was declared by OBL in 1995, IIRC. They may have started the war, but we'll finish it. You still haven't answered the question: drop the bomb or invade. False dichotomy. There are were many major US players, both military and civilian who wanted to use a third option, diplomacy, to end the war. The Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that the Japanese would have surrendered without the use of the bombs before November. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
"weary" wrote in message ... Which doesn't answer my question about a country saving lives of its servicemen by using WMD. It seems that some regard the use as OK if their side does it but bad if the other side does it. From a Pratt and Whitney ad in the October 2001 issue of "Air Force Magazine". THERE IS NO SECTION TITLED, "THE UNFAIR USE OF TECHNOLOGY" IN THE GENEVA CONVENTION. Tex Houston |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
"Gregory Baker" wrote in message nk.net... Do you think Saddam Hussein had the same right to use WMD to save the lives of Iraqi servicemen while fighting Iran and internal rebellion? Actually, he did in the war against Iran; however, this absolute right was tempered by international treaties on the laws of war which restrict the use of poison gases in combat, to which Iraq was a signatory. He used mustard gas, a blister agent, against Iranian forces. However, the Hussein regime did not have the right to use nerve gas on civilians in rebellion. Firstly, there were other, less drastic means to suppress any demonstrations, as any competent army will use. The use of nerve gas on Shiites and Kurds was to spread terror. Secondly, under the 1954 Are you sure of this date? The latest I can find is dated 1949 with additional Protocols in 1977. Geneva conventions, internal wars and their combatants also fall under the same restrictions as international wars. The blanket prohibition against using poison as a weapon applies. Any tribunal will be right to try Saddam and his assistants for the use of this weapon. Did Al-Qaeda have the same right to deliberately target civilians in their war with the USA, specifically WTC? No. Al-Queda is not a state and as such cannot declare war. Online see Wikipedia: "is any conflict involving the organized use of arms and physical force between countries or other large-scale armed groups. " Other dictionaries Support the notion that war does not necessarily involve countries. GWB described Sept 11 as "war" and subsequently declared war on terrorism. The US had previously declared war on crime and drugs. Al-Queda is a combination of private persons united by ideology. They don't fall under the 1906 Hague Convention definition of legitimate combatants, nor under the 1954 Geneva Convention extension of these rules. The United States actions against al-Queda fall into the category of suppression of criminals or pirates, not warfare between states. The acts of September 11 were by international law murder, not warfare. Gregory Baker |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
|
#78
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 00:58:16 GMT, "weary" wrote:
All of which could have been destroyed by conventional means. Like the 16 sq miles of tokyo was in March 1945 perhaps ? No. Do try to follow the thread. Your laughable attempt at evasion is noted. You claimed that "All of which could have been destroyed by conventional means." I am asking you to tell us how. Back up a couple of lines and you can read that the previous correspondent tried to justify the bombing of Hiroshima on the grounds that there were military and industrial assets in the city. He didn't have to try. The military and industrial assets in Hiroshima were well documented. I ask you like I've asked all the other revisionists. Tell us how *you* would have targeted these facilities and these facilities using the technology of the period. However the aiming point was a bridge in a mainly residential area and the assets were only lightly damaged. ROFLMAO! Like all those who blindly regurgitate indoctrination, I bet you cannot name a single one. The incendiary raids on Tokyo deliberately targetted civilians, not military or industrial assets. It targeted the distributed nature of the japanese war industry which was turning out the means to kill millions of Chinese in 10s of thousands of back yard workshops up and down the kanto plain. If you had even a modicum of clue on the topic, you would be aware of that. With military targets located in the cities, the cities were legitimate targets. The difference between the 1945 nuclear strikes and 9-11 is that in 1945, there was a WAR ON that had to be brought to an end by whatever means necessary. But you deny others the same right. Of course, to allow idiots like you to sleep safe at night. Bad news - it isn't working, The opinion of uninformed idiots doesn't count. Especially those who claim that military targets in hiroshima managed to escape unscathed. greg -- Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland. I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan. You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 01:03:40 GMT, "weary" wrote:
False dichotomy. There are were many major US players, both military and civilian who wanted to use a third option, diplomacy, to end the war. Oh really. Name them with references. greg -- Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland. I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan. You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide. |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological
achievements From: (B2431) Date: 12/27/03 8:48 PM Pacific As a Jew I take offense at your comparing Dachau to Hiroshima. Many thousands of humans died there, not just Jews, but I have been there and have seen the grave markers. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired I entered Dachau a few days after it was liberated and before it was cleaned up.I still have the bad dreams. Arthur Kramer 344th BG 494th BS England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|