Jimmy Carter Praises Arafat

[Colonel Olrik]

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

Can you say the EU position is wrong in either case? What's that etc? Afeganisthan, where we went with our allies and are still there? Going after terrorist organizations in our territory, like we've been doing with much greater success than the US? Hmm?

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

No, because regardless of the justification the end result is the same. Iraq is not "freed", it's a bloody mess. The only reason to go there would be to put an end to a real threat to us (hence the lies), the Iraqi people would always end up fucked (with many of them liking it).

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.

True, so what? It doesn't add anything to this matter.

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.

That's the official reason. He could have gone and finish the job, and one of the reasons that didn't happen was the following power vacuum resulting in a fundamentalist takeover.

[BoredShirtless]

YOU dredged up WWII asshole.

But I was being relevent, moron.

[Col. Crackpot]

YOU dredged up WWII asshole.

But I was being relevent, moron.

no you were not.

[theski]

YOU dredged up WWII asshole.

But I was being relevent, moron.

You are never relevent.....

[Aaron]

Can you say the EU position is wrong in either case? What's that etc? Afeganisthan, where we went with our allies and are still there? Going after terrorist organizations in our territory, like we've been doing with much greater success than the US? Hmm?

I can't really decide whether it's wrong or not. Most of the world opposed Iraq, including my government and myself. And the reulting mess would seem to indicate that the world was right.

Can you provide me with some proof of European results? I believe you but I'd like to know specifics.

No the etc. Is not Afghanistan, the EU has contributed troops who are helping emmensely. With the exception of the French or was it the Belgians who are missin gweapons caches right under their noses.

No, because regardless of the justification the end result is the same. Iraq is not "freed", it's a bloody mess. The only reason to go there would be to put an end to a real threat to us (hence the lies), the Iraqi people would always end up fucked (with many of them liking it).

Fair enough.

True, so what? It doesn't add anything to this matter.

True.

That's the official reason. He could have gone and finish the job, and one of the reasons that didn't happen was the following power vacuum resulting in a fundamentalist takeover.

I see. It would seem that he was right about it too. I must admit that I wasn't aware of any potential problems with offing Saddam until this war.

[BoredShirtless]

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.

Well gee fucking whiz pa, ain't that the mystery!!! What did you expect them to do, lay down on the road and offer their throats?

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.

I see. So because civilians didn't greet the invaders with flowers and kisses, dropping nukes on their heads isn't designed to terrorise them, the government and the armed forces.....right.

[frigidmagi]

Well gee fucking whiz pa, ain't that the mystery!!! What did you expect them to do, lay down on the road and offer their throats?

Because we all know that American Troops are blood thristy murdering devils of destruction that cannot be contained. Give me fucking break.

[Aaron]

Well gee fucking whiz pa, ain't that the mystery!!! What did you expect them to do, lay down on the road and offer their throats?

I don't expect them to greet the US with open arms. But by activelly fighting the invasion they gave up any right to be considered non-combatants. And in doing so they became acceptable targets under international law.

I see. So because civilians didn't greet the invaders with flowers and kisses, dropping nukes on their heads isn't designed to terrorise them, the government and the armed forces.....right.

It's an example designed to show you how fanatic the Japanese civilians were. In fact seeing as the civvies that fought the US and Allied forces did so without uniforms, ID, and didn't obey the Geneva Conventions they in effect became terrorists themselves.

Here's an idea, instead of spouting ideaology, why don't you tell us what the US should have done instead of nuking them.

[Colonel Olrik]

Because we all know that American Troops are blood thristy murdering devils of destruction that cannot be contained. Give me fucking break.

Well, that's most certainly what the Japanese were told.

[HemlockGrey]

Well gee fucking whiz pa, ain't that the mystery!!! What did you expect them to do, lay down on the road and offer their throats?

Oh, please, like the Marines were going to burn civilians in giant bonfires and the drink the blood of innocents. The Japanese government was arming the citizenry with fucking awls and bamboo spears, and the official war plan in the event of an invasion involved pitching massive waves of soldiers and civilians onto the beaches in an effort to halt the landings and then drag out the invasion in bloody guerrilla combat using the civilians as mostly willing combatants.

The Emperor's decision to surrender was greeted with widespread *animosity*. This was not a nation of fucking reasonable people, and your idiotic charactizeration of the US troops as bloodthirsty kill-mongers does not change this fact.

[BoredShirtless]

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.

Not even Harry Potter with all the magic in the world could turn this projection into "killing legitimate millitary targets".

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

Not relevant. You can't escape it, it's not going anywhere; killing innocents on purpose is terrorism. There WERE innocent civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, another inescapable fact.

[Elfdart]

What's this "Total War" bullshit? There's nothing whatsoever in the Geneva or Hague Conventions or any other laws of war that allow deliberate attacks on civilians. Period. Those who do it -no matter what their motives- are murderers, war criminals and "terrorists".

By this bullshit "total war" logic, all Bin Laden has to do is say the 9/11 attacks were part of a "total war" and -Presto!- the murder of thousands of innocent people is excused.

[Aaron]

Not even Harry Potter with all the magic in the world could turn this projection into "killing legitimate millitary targets".

What are you trying to say here?

Not relevant. You can't escape it, it's not going anywhere; killing innocents on purpose is terrorism. There WERE innocent civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, another inescapable fact.

I'm going to spell it out for you.The Japanese civvies became legitimate military targets once they became involved in the fighting. The Japanese government was arming them in preperation for an invasion

Do you have any idea how the Geneva Conventions and Laws of War work? If civilians engage in combat then they become illegal combatants and legitimate targets.

[BoredShirtless]

Well gee fucking whiz pa, ain't that the mystery!!! What did you expect them to do, lay down on the road and offer their throats?

Oh, please, like the Marines were going to burn civilians in giant bonfires and the drink the blood of innocents. The Japanese government was arming the citizenry with fucking awls and bamboo spears, and the official war plan in the event of an invasion involved pitching massive waves of soldiers and civilians onto the beaches in an effort to halt the landings and then drag out the invasion in bloody guerrilla combat using the civilians as mostly willing combatants.

Uh huh. And you can naturally prove that all the civilians over in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were armed and in on this plan. Idiot.

The Emperor's decision to surrender was greeted with widespread *animosity*.

And that helps prove that civilians are military targets now?

This was not a nation of fucking reasonable people, and your idiotic charactizeration of the US troops as bloodthirsty kill-mongers does not change this fact.

I didn't characterise US troops like that, you're projecting.

[Perinquus]

Apparently, in the mind of Bored Shirtless, nothing makes civilians legitimate targets in time of war, not even their picking up arms and attacking you. So I guess the message for our soldiers to take from this is never shoot at civilian targets, or you will be guilty of terrorism. Of course, if they are shooting at you, you'll end up dead, but at least your conscience will be clear.

[Perinquus]

This was not a nation of fucking reasonable people, and your idiotic charactizeration of the US troops as bloodthirsty kill-mongers does not change this fact.

I didn't characterise US troops like that, you're projecting.

Then what did you mean by this?

Well gee fucking whiz pa, ain't that the mystery!!! What did you expect them to do, lay down on the road and offer their throats?

You suggested that the Japanese civilians fought because the only alternative they had was to "lay down on the road and offer their throats". This is a bullshit black and white fallacy. Full opposition and keep fighting, or surrender one's self meekly to death. This is BS. Surrender does not entail this level of submission, and the U.S. troops would never have behaved so barbarically.

[Colonel Olrik]

Apparently, in the mind of Bored Shirtless, nothing makes civilians legitimate targets in time of war, not even their picking up arms and attacking you. So I guess the message for our soldiers to take from this is never shoot at civilian targets, or you will be guilty of terrorism. Of course, if they are shooting at you, you'll end up dead, but at least your conscience will be clear.

Of course, he's never said that, his whole point was that if it's legitimate to target civilians in some situations, then Arafat can't be branded a terrorist only because he did so, but let's not allow the facts get in the way of the bashing.

[Colonel Olrik]

This is BS. Surrender does not entail this level of submission, and the U.S. troops would never have behaved so barbarically.

Can I ask again how could a very brain-washed Japanese population know about the civility of western troops? Probably they truly believed that the alternative to fight would be the slaughter, and that I think was BS point.

[Aaron]

Of course, he's never said that, his whole point was that if it's legitimate to target civilians in some situations, then Arafat can't be branded a terrorist only because he did so, but let's not allow the facts get in the way of the bashing.

No he's still a terrorist. Arafat and his men are illegal combatants. They wear no uniform, carry no ID and fight for no country. The only way that would make their actions even close to legal is if the Israeli civilians were fighting them alongside the soldiers. International law and the Geneva Conventions are quite clear on this.

[BoredShirtless]

Not even Harry Potter with all the magic in the world could turn this projection into "killing legitimate millitary targets".

What are you trying to say here?

That your projections can't prove the civilians who were killed by the nukes were armed combatants, therefore legit military targets.

Not relevant. You can't escape it, it's not going anywhere; killing innocents on purpose is terrorism. There WERE innocent civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, another inescapable fact.

I'm going to spell it out for you.The Japanese civvies became legitimate military targets once they became involved in the fighting. The Japanese government was arming them in preperation for an invasion

Yeah right. You're a moron of unparallel magnitude if you believe without proof that the civilians killed in the nukes were legit military targets. But if you have the proof, please show it.

Do you have any idea how the Geneva Conventions and Laws of War work? If civilians engage in combat then they become illegal combatants and legitimate targets.

Prove that the civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were engaged in combat.

[Aaron]

That your projections can't prove the civilians who were killed by the nukes were armed combatants, therefore legit military targets.

Go look at that document I linked to earlier. There's proof in there. Not to mention the mountain of proof in US government records. All of which is accessable to the public.

Yeah right. You're a moron of unparallel magnitude if you believe without proof that the civilians killed in the nukes were legit military targets. But if you have the proof, please show it.

Once again I refer you to the earlier article.

Prove that the civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were engaged in combat.

Here's an idea, look at that article I posted. Then hop on google and find some evidence yourself. Fuck all this is in the public record. Once again your flying in the face of all the stablished facts. The burden of proof is on you to show that they were unarmed.

[Perinquus]

Apparently, in the mind of Bored Shirtless, nothing makes civilians legitimate targets in time of war, not even their picking up arms and attacking you. So I guess the message for our soldiers to take from this is never shoot at civilian targets, or you will be guilty of terrorism. Of course, if they are shooting at you, you'll end up dead, but at least your conscience will be clear.

Of course, he's never said that, his whole point was that if it's legitimate to target civilians in some situations, then Arafat can't be branded a terrorist only because he did so, but let's not allow the facts get in the way of the bashing.

Come off it. He's making a bullshit attempt to equate the actions of Harry Truman with the actions of Yasser Arafat. The actions of a president, who in a time of total war, made a difficult choice and took the course he believed would end the war, and cost the fewest lives in the end (both American and Japanese), are not similar to a terrorist who is guilty of kidnapping and murder, instigating violence, and walking away from the Oslo accords and launching another campaign of violence, despite the fact that the accords were an unprecedented diplomatic victory (showing that Arafat was interested in neither peace with Israel or diplomacy; but only in getting all he wanted by any means necessary, even violence).

[BoredShirtless]

Apparently, in the mind of Bored Shirtless, nothing makes civilians legitimate targets in time of war, not even their picking up arms and attacking you. So I guess the message for our soldiers to take from this is never shoot at civilian targets, or you will be guilty of terrorism. Of course, if they are shooting at you, you'll end up dead, but at least your conscience will be clear.

Where did I type that a civilian picking up a weapon isn't a target? So much straw...

[Perinquus]

This is BS. Surrender does not entail this level of submission, and the U.S. troops would never have behaved so barbarically.

Can I ask again how could a very brain-washed Japanese population know about the civility of western troops? Probably they truly believed that the alternative to fight would be the slaughter, and that I think was BS point.

It's irrelevant, really, what they thought. What matters is that the moment they determine to fight U.S. troops, and take up weapons to do so, they become legitimate targets. Moreover, the fact that everywhere U.S. troops had previously enountered Japanese civilians they had taken an active part in defense, plus the fact that U.S. intel indicated weapons were being issued to Japanese civilians and they were being formed into units that would fight, gave the U.S. military every reason to regard Japanese civilians as legitimate targets.

[BoredShirtless]

Come off it. He's making a bullshit attempt to equate the actions of Harry Truman with the actions of Yasser Arafat.

Learn to read, asshole. I never equated their actions with each other. I equated them to the word "terrorism".

The actions of a president, who in a time of total war, made a difficult choice and took the course he believed would end the war, and cost the fewest lives in the end (both American and Japanese), are not similar to a terrorist who is guilty of kidnapping and murder, instigating violence, and walking away from the Oslo accords and launching another campaign of violence, despite the fact that the accords were an unprecedented diplomatic victory (showing that Arafat was interested in neither peace with Israel or diplomacy; but only in getting all he wanted by any means necessary, even violence).

Another irrelevent knee-jerk reaction to critisism of the US government, what a surprise.