Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    09 Apr '17 23:211 edit
    Originally posted by HandyAndy
    No.
    really? and yet the vast majority of those killed were non combatants, women and children. How is that not a crime against humanity?
  2. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12477
    10 Apr '17 01:03
    Originally posted by HandyAndy
    No.
    I was responding to those who do.

    Every liberal in this forum other than you believes it was a war crime.
  3. Standard memberHandyAndy
    Non sum qualis eram
    At the edge
    Joined
    23 Sep '06
    Moves
    18031
    10 Apr '17 02:22
    Originally posted by Eladar
    I was responding to those who do.

    Every liberal in this forum other than you believes it was a war crime.
    Were any of them around in 1945?
  4. Standard memberHandyAndy
    Non sum qualis eram
    At the edge
    Joined
    23 Sep '06
    Moves
    18031
    10 Apr '17 02:35
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    really? and yet the vast majority of those killed were non combatants, women and children. How is that not a crime against humanity?
    There was no other way. The Japanese were prepared to dig in and fight to the last
    man. The Pacific war would have continued for another four or five years and many
    more civilians would have been killed.

    There is no nice and friendly way to fight a war.
  5. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    Just another day
    tinyurl.com/y3ngvdp2
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    10 Apr '17 02:53
    Originally posted by Eladar
    I was responding to those who do.

    Every liberal in this forum other than you believes it was a war crime.
    I never claimed it was a war crime.
  6. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    Just another day
    tinyurl.com/y3ngvdp2
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    10 Apr '17 02:561 edit
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    really? and yet the vast majority of those killed were non combatants, women and children. How is that not a crime against humanity?
    It happened before the United States Strategic Bombing Survey was released.

    The UNITED STATES Strategic Bombing Survey. If the USA hadn't done that research, nobody else would have bothered. It was this study which showed that bombing civilians didn't help.

    Also it was before the Geneva Convention of 1949.
  7. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    57067
    10 Apr '17 08:33
    Originally posted by Eladar
    How does killing evil people equal being a hateful bigot?

    Some people like to claim a higher morality only after someone has paid the price for them.

    You are one of those leaches.
    You really are a hypocrite and a moron.
  8. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    80175
    10 Apr '17 09:13
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    really? and yet the vast majority of those killed were non combatants, women and children. How is that not a crime against humanity?
    What makes a war crime a war crime is technical. For it to have been a war crime it would need to be in contravention of the relevant treaties or significantly against the custom of how war is waged. There was no specific treaty outlawing air bombardment of civilian areas at the time and all the sides in the Second World War had been using strategic bombing against cities since the mid '30s. So the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not war crimes.
  9. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    10 Apr '17 09:282 edits
    Originally posted by HandyAndy
    There was no other way. The Japanese were prepared to dig in and fight to the last
    man. The Pacific war would have continued for another four or five years and many
    more civilians would have been killed.

    There is no nice and friendly way to fight a war.
    More bull than a herd of highland cattle. The Japanese were already making overtones for peace through the Russians. The idea that the war would have continued for another five years has no basis in any reality beyond your own made up and sinister narrative. Your government was complicit in a crime against humanity and I find your attempts to morally justify it most unsavoury. Bombing women and children??? get a grip you psychotic apologist for mass murder.
  10. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    10 Apr '17 09:332 edits
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    What makes a war crime a war crime is technical. For it to have been a war crime it would need to be in contravention of the relevant treaties or significantly against the custom of how war is waged. There was no specific treaty outlawing air bombardment of civilian areas at the time and all the sides in the Second World War had been using strategic bo ...[text shortened]... ities since the mid '30s. So the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not war crimes.
    I have stated that in my opinion it was a crime against humanity, note the wording 'against humanity. If i had my way Churchill would have been charged with crimes against humanity for the bombing of Dresden and I deeply resent your attempted defence on some kind of technical level. The only reason that he was not tried for crimes against humanity was that he was part on the winning side, Had it been the other way around he most certainly would have been.
  11. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    10 Apr '17 09:36
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    It happened before the United States Strategic Bombing Survey was released.

    The UNITED STATES Strategic Bombing Survey. If the USA hadn't done that research, nobody else would have bothered. It was this study which showed that bombing civilians didn't help.

    Also it was before the Geneva Convention of 1949.
    Well gee that makes it all right then doesn't it. get a grip!
  12. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    57067
    10 Apr '17 09:50
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    I never claimed it was a war crime.
    I did and do.
    The deliberate targetting of civilians.
    Generalistic punishment.

    And in my eyes, anyone who doesn't see it as a crime against humanity is a complete bastard.
  13. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    57067
    10 Apr '17 09:58
    Originally posted by checkbaiter
    I learned something very new when I was done with this 11 minute video.
    David Wood on what's the driving force behind Islamic terror. Now it makes more sense.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gfA5ZLQJyxU
    Simplistic garbage.

    To suggest there's a singular force driving a multitude of individuals to terrorism is as black and white as a Hollywood movie and completely void of reality.

    Will there be men who wish to redeem a place in paradise? Wouldn't know, but I presume there might be.

    Are there mentally ill / mentally handicapped individuals being abused? Pretty sure that happens.

    Are there people living in poverty enlisted to do the job, so that their families are promised food and shelter?
    Yes. 100% certain this happens; quite a lot.
    Especially Hamas and Hezbollah use this method.

    Are people inspired to take up arms by the West's interventions?
    Absolutely. Al Qaeda, for example.

    Is there pure hate? Yup.

    Is there a sense of self-defence and rightious revenge? Absolutely.

    It's a complicated world.
    And to think of any of it in absolutes will never lead to solutions.
  14. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    80175
    10 Apr '17 10:051 edit
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    I have stated that in my opinion it was a crime against humanity, note the wording 'against humanity. If i had my way Churchill would have been charged with crimes against humanity for the bombing of Dresden and I deeply resent your attempted defence on some kind of technical level. The only reason that he was not tried for crimes against humanity ...[text shortened]... y would have been which makes a mockery of you and these other psychotic mass murder apologists.
    Resent what you want, it's not a war crime. Crimes against humanity is an ill defined category, it includes mass murder of civilians, but for the strategic bombings, including the nuclear attacks, to be crimes against humanity you would have to establish that the civilian deaths were unlawful, so you'd have to show that it was a war crime for it to be a crime against humanity. You can't make it into one by claiming victor's justice. The Nazi's were not tried over their use of strategic bombing or, for that matter, unrestricted submarine warfare. Churchill had not started a war of aggression and he had not attempted a holocaust. It's pretty unlikely that the Nazi's would have put "strategic bombing" on any indictment since they started that game in Geurnica. So your counterfactual doesn't establish any grounds for thinking that the strategic bombing campaigns against Germany and Japan were war crimes.
  15. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10113
    10 Apr '17 10:06
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    Simplistic garbage.

    To suggest there's a singular force driving a multitude of individuals to terrorism is as black and white as a Hollywood movie and completely void of reality.

    Will there be men who wish to redeem a place in paradise? Wouldn't know, but I presume there might be.

    Are there mentally ill / mentally handicapped individuals being abu ...[text shortened]...
    It's a complicated world.
    And to think of any of it in absolutes will never lead to solutions.
    Luckily for us, most Muslims are peaceful. This means that most have a better moral character than Mohammad did going around converting with the sword, taking women sex slaves, and marrying little 6 year old girls.

    Unfortunately for us, as with all societies you have a smaller percentage who are insane, stupid, and children who are vulnerable. These are the ones that are left to interpret verses in the quran such as "Kill the infidel where you find them"..... These are the murderous killers, for which it is big enough percentage of society to conduct world wide jihad. Sane Muslims I think have the ability to rationalize such hate and insanity away with their theological gymnastics as where the rest simply capitulate to what the words seem to indicate allah wants them to do.
Back to Top