Jimmy Carter Praises Arafat

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-11-12 08:08am

Ghost Rider wrote:Just so BS doesn't think I'm going off kilter...my point is that terroism is anunlawful action.

It's up to you to show that Truman had in using the A-Bomb on Japan was an unlawful action in the whole of what is considered total war.

And note...he doesn't show why using the A-bomb in total war is an unlawful action .

Purposely targeting innocent civilians in war is unlawful, thanks for playing.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2004-11-12 08:13am

BoredShirtless wrote:
Ghost Rider wrote:Just so BS doesn't think I'm going off kilter...my point is that terroism is anunlawful action.

It's up to you to show that Truman had in using the A-Bomb on Japan was an unlawful action in the whole of what is considered total war.

And note...he doesn't show why using the A-bomb in total war is an unlawful action .
Purposely targeting innocent civilians in war is unlawful, thanks for playing.

It's amazing that you don't even think what I was asking and actually provide me with that point.

You do understand in the concept of toal war...there are no innocents.

it is that the entirity of the country is a target.

But that apparently escapes you. But I know the response. "Nu-UH!!!"

So please...prove that US vs Japan were not engaged in total war in WW2.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-11-12 08:15am

Cpl Kendall wrote:
BoredShirtless wrote:
Why is it expected of them to turn up to the funneral of a terrorist? Will they also be expected to turn up to OBL's?
It is expected because besides his role of terroirst he was unfortunatly the leader of the Palestinian people.

OBL is the leader of Al-Qaeda, try again.

And it looks good to rock up to terrorists funnerals? Do you even read what you type?
Of course I do, dumbass. It looks good to show up to his funeral because 1) he was also their President 2)the Palestinains are the downtrodden, and it's always cool to campaign for them. Look at Bono.

Ah, so it's "cool" to side with the Palestinians eh?

Whether it was a correct decision or not isn't the point. I repeat my question, is President Truman a terrorist for nuking innocent civilians?
No he's not. It was a decision made to save American and Allied lives. The war was started by Japan, they got what they deserved. Truman really only had three options.

1) Declare victory and go home, Japan was already crushed militarily.

2) Invade and lose 1 million Americans.

3) Nuke them.

2) Where did you get that figure from? Do you have a Tardis or something?

By the way, justifying [or trying to] the use of the nukes doesn't change the cold hard fact that innocent civilians were killed; not by collateral damage, but on purpose. That is terrorism, and no amount of justification will change that fact.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-11-12 08:20am

BoredShirtless wrote:
Ghost Rider wrote:Just so BS doesn't think I'm going off kilter...my point is that terroism is anunlawful action.

It's up to you to show that Truman had in using the A-Bomb on Japan was an unlawful action in the whole of what is considered total war.

And note...he doesn't show why using the A-bomb in total war is an unlawful action .
Purposely targeting innocent civilians in war is unlawful, thanks for playing.

starting a fucking war is unlawful. maybe if your people had a little more sense in the 'ruthless dictator and ally selction lobe' of your brains the whole goddamn thing wouldn't have started in the first place and we wouldn't be haing this conversation.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2004-11-12 08:23am

Col. Crackpot wrote:
BoredShirtless wrote:
Ghost Rider wrote:Just so BS doesn't think I'm going off kilter...my point is that terroism is anunlawful action.

It's up to you to show that Truman had in using the A-Bomb on Japan was an unlawful action in the whole of what is considered total war.

And note...he doesn't show why using the A-bomb in total war is an unlawful action .
Purposely targeting innocent civilians in war is unlawful, thanks for playing.
starting a fucking war is unlawful. maybe if your people had a little more sense in the 'ruthless dictator and ally selction lobe' of your brains the whole goddamn thing wouldn't have started in the first place and we wouldn't be haing this conversation.

Leave him ... He is just trolling Crack.....

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2004-11-12 08:33am

How many times will BS have to say he's Aussie for the fact to enter some people's carbon steel skulls

It's the second time in a week I see his location serving as motive for a smartass "racial - your people" based attack.

This thread should be closed, it's been done to death and the fact is, no matter how you spin it, if you accept that sometimes targeting innocent civilians is acceptable, then the terrorist definition must be wider, or it will catch Truman and many others. Arafat had a respectable goal and scarce means to achieve it. If he had nukes to threaten Israel with and thus avoid the terrorist acts he would still have the same goals, wouldn't he? If OBL had nukes, on the other hand, we'd all be dead ny now.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-11-12 08:35am

BoredShirtless wrote:
OBL is the leader of Al-Qaeda, try again.

Are deliberatly trying to be an ass? I know who OBL is. And no world leaders will show up to his funeral except to piss on his grave.

Ah, so it's "cool" to side with the Palestinians eh?

They do it because they are being opressed. And I'm convinced the only reason the Euro's care about the Palestinians is because it pisses Israel and the US off. In fact if it wasn't for US protection than Israel would be internationally isolated.

2) Where did you get that figure from? Do you have a Tardis or something?

I must apologise. Although I have heard that figure tossed around, google provides me with 545,000 casulaties. Somewhat short of a million but still unacceptable. The figures are here.

By the way, justifying [or trying to] the use of the nukes doesn't change the cold hard fact that innocent civilians were killed; not by collateral damage, but on purpose. That is terrorism, and no amount of justification will change that fact.

So the US was supposed to risk 545,500 lives to invade Japan? Chances are that the Japanese would have lost even more civvie lives in the invasion than were lost in the nukings.

Maybe you should examine your own governmets actions in WWII before casting dipersions on others. The Germans happily bombed civvie targets throughout Europe.

You should also remember that bombings of civilian targets were considerd acceptable at the time. It was an attempt to break the back of the countries involved.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2004-11-12 08:42am

For fuck's sake, he's an Aussie and attacking someone based on their nationality is a fucking turd of a strawman.

They do it because they are being opressed. And I'm convinced the only reason the Euro's care about the Palestinians is because it pisses Israel and the US off. In fact if it wasn't for US protection than Israel would be internationally isolated.

Good God, it can certainly not be because they're in fact being opressed and we don't like injustices, can it? Besides the obvious problem that that opression fuels half the discontent of the average muslim towards the EU, which happens not to have an Ocean between them and us?

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-11-12 08:45am

Colonel Olrik wrote:How many times will BS have to say he's Aussie for the fact to enter some people's carbon steel skulls It's the second time in a week I see his location serving as motive for a smartass "racial - your people" based attack.

I would think thats to be expected. If you start tossing around WWII motivations and your location is listed as Germany than you better be prepared to defend Germany's WWII actions. And how is everyone to know that he's really an Aussie?

Now if you tell us as a mod to stop than I will, hell I'll even apologise to him.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-11-12 08:47am

very well, i apologise, but for fucks sake, if he insists on dredging up irrelevant shit from 60 years ago, he should be prepared to deal with the consequences.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-11-12 08:48am

Colonel Olrik wrote: Good God, it can certainly not be because they're in fact being opressed and we don't like injustices, can it? Besides the obvious problem that that opression fuels half the discontent of the average muslim towards the EU, which happens not to have an Ocean between them and us?

Thats funny, European governments seem to only care about opressed people if it benefits them or opposes the US.

And if Europeans care so much for the oppressed than why did they oppose the invasion of Iraq? They were clearly opressed and the US did liberate them, somewhat.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-11-12 08:50am

Col. Crackpot wrote:very well, i apologise, but for fucks sake, if he insists on dredging up irrelevant shit from 60 years ago, he should be prepared to deal with the consequences.

Bored Shirtless I apolgise. I was wrong to attack you based on your location.

However I second Crackpots statement about the irrelevant shit.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2004-11-12 08:50am

Cpl Kendall wrote:
I would think thats to be expected. If you start tossing around WWII motivations and your location is listed as Germany than you better be prepared to defend Germany's WWII actions.

Why? Do you suppose any one around here agrees with those actions, at this time and age? It's no different than asking a canadian to defend Germany's actions. Nothing but a mix of strawman and racist attack (and nobody tell me german is not a race, you know what I mean).

And how is everyone to know that he's really an Aussie?

Because he's said it countless times, and you could ask first. I'm from the EU, but also not german, btw.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-11-12 08:54am

Ghost Rider wrote: You do understand in the concept of toal war...there are no innocents.

Says who, you? The little girl playing outside her house isn't an innocent? What the fuck are you smoking?

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-11-12 08:55am

Colonel Olrik wrote:*snip*

Ok then. I stand corrected.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2004-11-12 08:56am

BoredShirtless wrote:
Ghost Rider wrote: You do understand in the concept of toal war...there are no innocents.
Says who, you? The little girl playing outside her house isn't an innocent? What the fuck are you smoking?

I gotcha...so you want to define what countries before us have already defined, and engage in semantics to show that Truman was a terroirst for engaging in an action against a hostile.

This is my point, so far you've provided nothing except your own personal rhetoric and given a bold claim to go and rile people up.

Try again, and provide proof that WW2 was not total war. And while you're at it, read and learn what Total war is because by your definition every war is a terrorist action.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2004-11-12 08:56am

Cpl Kendall wrote: Thats funny, European governments seem to only care about opressed people if it benefits them or opposes the US.

Why do you say that?

And if Europeans care so much for the oppressed than why did they oppose the invasion of Iraq? They were clearly opressed and the US did liberate them, somewhat.

Surely it can't be because most people correctly guessed how said "liberation" would end. Nothing new, Bush I didn't topple Saddam because of those same consequences we are seeing now.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-11-12 08:57am

BoredShirtless wrote: Says who, you? The little girl playing outside her house isn't an innocent? What the fuck are you smoking?

You should know that the Japanese civilans encountered on the invaded Japanese WWII holdings fought to the death along with the soldiers. On Okinawa, I believe it was, they even committed mass suicide rather than be occupied. Their own actions removed their protected status as non-combatants.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-11-12 09:03am

It just seems that lately anything the US does is wrong in the EU's eyes. Israel, Iraq etc.

Surely it can't be because most people correctly guessed how said "liberation" would end. Nothing new, Bush I didn't topple Saddam because of those same consequences we are seeing now.

True. If Bush had said "we're going in to free the Iraqi's" would that have reulted in a different European response?

On a whole I find that the EU tends to have a very pacifisct attitude. Probably because the continent has been devestated twice in the last century by war.

I understand the Bush Sr. didn't topple Saddam because it wasn't in the UN mandate to do so. In fact he has said so on numerous occasions, as Powell has.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-11-12 09:06am

Ghost Rider wrote:
BoredShirtless wrote:
Ghost Rider wrote: You do understand in the concept of toal war...there are no innocents.
Says who, you? The little girl playing outside her house isn't an innocent? What the fuck are you smoking?
I gotcha...

we will see.

so you want to define what countries before us have already defined, and engage in semantics to show that Truman was a terroirst for engaging in an action against a hostile.

But I never called him a terrorist, try again.

This is my point, so far you've provided nothing except your own personal rhetoric and given a bold claim to go and rile people up.

Try again, and provide proof that WW2 was not total war. And while you're at it, read and learn what Total war is because by your definition every war is a terrorist action.

Hahaha! You're asking ME to prove WW2 wasn't this thing called "Total War" and that by proving that, I would have proven killing innocent people on purpose isn't terrorism! Just like magic!

Guess what? Terrorism isn't dependent on "Total War". Try again.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-11-12 09:10am

I'll connect the dots for you Ghost Rider. Even if it's a fact that Japan and the US were in "Total War", killing innocent people on purpose is done primarily to terrorise.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-11-12 09:12am

Col. Crackpot wrote:starting a fucking war is unlawful. maybe if your people had a little more sense in the 'ruthless dictator and ally selction lobe' of your brains the whole goddamn thing wouldn't have started in the first place and we wouldn't be haing this conversation.

Wow, dredging up Germanys role in WW2 like it even fucking matters here....combination of red herring mixed with appealing to emotion. Idiot.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-11-12 09:14am

BoredShirtless wrote:I'll connect the dots for you Ghost Rider. Even if it's a fact that Japan and the US were in "Total War", killing innocent people on purpose is done primarily to terrorise.

Your ignoring the fact that Japanese civilians had removed their innocent status by fighting alongside their troops. One reason why projected casualties were so high is because the civvies were expected to fight with the same fanaticism(?) as the Japanese troops.

In fact the Japanese military wanted to keep fighting after the nukings, it took a direct order from the Emperor before they would surrender.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-11-12 09:15am

BoredShirtless wrote:
Col. Crackpot wrote:starting a fucking war is unlawful. maybe if your people had a little more sense in the 'ruthless dictator and ally selction lobe' of your brains the whole goddamn thing wouldn't have started in the first place and we wouldn't be haing this conversation.
Wow, dredging up Germanys role in WW2 like it even fucking matters here....combination of red herring mixed with appealing to emotion. Idiot.

YOU dredged up WWII asshole.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-11-12 09:17am

theski wrote:Leave him ... He is just trolling Crack.....

Your stare is emptier then usual, what's up?