Is Germany Serious?


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @TDWTF123 said:

    You appear utterly blind to the arguments being presented. Which isn't terribly surprising given the bigotry this subject engenders. The point is that attitudes don't matter.

    But institutions do. Throw money at corrupt murderers (this appears to be the crux of your idea) and you have corrupt murderers with better guns and bling.



  • @Rhywden said:

    It's the first result from Google on the subject.

    Hmm.. that article is very light on details. It sounds like maybe some doctors took it upon themselves to force Depo on patients from Ethiopia, which is clearly wrong, but it doesn't sound like an institutionalized policy.

    @Rhywden said:

    Don't fret, though, it was a common practice in the US as well (that's where Nazi Germany got the idea from, by the way.)

    It was common in the US, but I doubt it originated here. Sterilizing "undesirables" was a Progressive fantasy throughout the world for the latter part of the 19th and early part of the 20th centuries.

    @Rhywden said:

    Yeah, right..

    Yeah, it sounds like there are some isolated racist incidents, just like you see in every single nation on Earth. It doesn't sound particularly unsafe for Arabs (no more unsafe than being a Jew or Muslim in Europe). If this is all you have, it's really pathetic.

    @Rhywden said:

    Not to mention that your own attitude pretty much reeks of racism.

    Um.. what? Where? So far I've seen rabid antisemitism from you. I guess defending Jews is racist to you? Jesus, you pathetic fucking Europeans.. I just hope and pray your stupid fucking continent wipes itself out in the next few decades.

    @Rhywden said:

    Or how do you explan the shenanigans around the soccer club Beitar from February this year? Were or were there not actual riots because two muslim soccer (from Chechnia, not that that made any difference...) players were to join the club? Did or did not the club's home go up in flames over the issue?

    I have no idea what you're talking about, but since it's fucking soccer I'm going to assume estrogen levels got a bit high and the gay sex wasn't as enjoyable as you're used to.

    @Rhywden said:

    Israel is not a country of saints.

    Yeah, attack that straw man! Beat him like your granddad beat those Jewish shopkeepers! That'll learn 'em to drink the blood of Christian children!


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @Rhywden said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    Wait, who is sterilizing Ethiopian Jews?

    It's the first result from Google on the subject.

    Don't fret, though, it was a common practice in the US as well (that's where Nazi Germany got the idea from, by the way.)

    Yes, American Progressivism and European Fascism have a lot in common, including that. Fortunately, the Progressive racism of the early 20th century went out of vogue. Their current racism is much more subtle, though, so it may be more difficult to get rid of.

    @Rhywden said:

    Yeah, right.. Just because you don't want a problem to not exist, doesn't mean that it's not there. Not to mention that your own attitude pretty much reeks of racism.

    Sadly, there are assholes everywhere. But at least racism isn't the official policy of the Israeli government. The Ethiopian birth control thing is weird (and wrong), but I'm confused, because the fascists here in America tell me how horrible I am that I don't want to pay for their contraception, let alone make sure they take it.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @Rhywden said:
    It's the first result from Google on the subject.

    Hmm.. that article is very light on details. It sounds like maybe some doctors took it upon themselves to force Depo on patients from Ethiopia, which is clearly wrong, but it doesn't sound like an institutionalized policy.

    It's actually, as I said upthread, just a Protocols-style lie. No-one was forcibly sterilised, no-one was even coerced into consenting to sterilisation, or even the contraception the story's actually about. There may have been some issues over whether the consent of some extremely culturally-displaced immigrants was truly as informed as the doctors thought at the time, but that's the limit of things. Bear in mind that one of the key drivers behind Israel rescuing the Ethiopian 'Jews' was that they wanted to increase the Jewish population; sterilisation obviously doesn't help meet that goal.



  • @TDWTF123 said:

    There may have been some issues over whether the consent of some extremely culturally-displaced immigrants was truly as informed as the doctors thought at the time, but that's the limit of things. Bear in mind that one of the key drivers behind Israel rescuing the Ethiopian 'Jews' was that they wanted to increase the Jewish population; sterilisation obviously doesn't help meet that goal.

    Yeah, that's exactly what it sounded like to me.

    And, in spite of the words people are trying to put in my mouth, I never said Israel was full of saints. They have problems and racism, like any nation. But it's funny, if skinheads curb-stomp a Jew in Berlin, it's "a few bad apples" and it doesn't at all reflect on the larger culture, but if some Jewish thugs beat up an Arab kid, it's obviously a sign that Israel is deeply racist. And therefore we must side with the deeply-racist people who want to erase Israel and Judaism from the history books.

    Why, it's almost as if people want to see Israelis as monsters, and just work backwards from that conclusion until they find a nail they think they can hang their hats on.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @morbiuswilters said:

    I never said Israel was full of saints.

    Duh. It's a Jewish state, not a Catholic state.



  • @boomzilla said:

    This is a good way to waste money and make people dependent on the subsidies. Look at the Nth generation welfare families in Britain, for example.
    The British case aside - that's not actually why they're on benefits at all - I agree with you. That's why I don't advocate it as a solution for Detroit. In the case of Palestine/Israel, though, it's better than the horrific fucking mess we have at the moment.


    Basic economics says that an economic stimulus will boost the economy - of course it will, that's not in doubt. We normally debate whether the costs of the stimulus having to be paid for at some point are greater or less than the benefits, but when we're talking about the outside world subsidising it, that doesn't come into the argument. The key is making sure the money is spent on something that can only be provided by massed Palestinian labour.

    @boomzilla said:

    Why would anyone take a job when they can get fame and glory (and money for their surviving family) by martyring themselves?
    I could attempt to give my views on why, but they're completely fucking irrelevant. History shows us clearly that it is the case. For what it's worth, you might consider how much that martyrdom money is in terms of current average Palestinian incomes, compared to what it would be worth to a Westerner.

    @boomzilla said:

    You're also assuming that economic benefits would flow down
    No, I've stipulated clearly that the main spending has to be on labour. That's starting at the bottom. I'm sure the venal and corrupt will still have their hands out for their share, but that's a cost of distribution, not a desired effect.

    @boomzilla said:

    More likely, Hamas appropriates the wealth
    I'm sure they'll try, but how will they do it? Palestine, despite what you may have heard, is a stable enough place that a big corporation - preferably one from Asia, given how they view the West in Palestine at the moment - could buy a large plot of land, announce they were starting to build a large hospital, and start employing tens of thousands of labourers - a significant proportion of the local population. Who's going to stop them? How?

    The only thing stopping them doing it at the moment is that there's no prospect of a profit from it.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @TDWTF123 said:

    @boomzilla said:
    More likely, Hamas appropriates the wealth
    I'm sure they'll try, but how will they do it? Palestine, despite what you may have heard, is a stable enough place that a big corporation - preferably one from Asia, given how they view the West in Palestine at the moment - could buy a large plot of land, announce they were starting to build a large hospital, and start employing tens of thousands of labourers - a significant proportion of the local population. Who's going to stop them? How?

    Hmm...lemme think. Maybe guys with AK-47s? You realize that Hamas is the democratically elected government in Gaza, right? Even if they let the laborers work, what's to stop them from taxing / extorting the money away from them? Kleptocrats are incredibly clever about this sort of thing, and they have the guns. Hey, if you want to throw away money there, be my guest. Just don't use any of mine, please.



  • @boomzilla said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    I never said Israel was full of saints.

    Duh. It's a Jewish state, not a Catholic state.

    They should all be sainted: if they hadn't killed your savior, then you'd still be obliged to make sacrifices to God.



  • @boomzilla said:

    Even if they let the laborers work, what's to stop them from taxing / extorting the money away from them? Kleptocrats are incredibly clever about this sort of thing, and they have the guns.
    We're talking about how to stop Palestinians making hopeless head-on attacks against vastly superior forces, yes? And you're suggesting that a problem with the suggested solution is that, er, it's easy to crush the Palestinians into submission?


    As I've said repeatedly, you're ignoring the multiple actual examples we have of this working. Did the Irish warmongers and kleptocrats try and oppose Ireland's economic growth? No, they just stopped running the IRA as a terrorist organisation and started using it to rob banks.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    They should all be sainted: if they hadn't killed your savior, then you'd still be obliged to make sacrifices to God.
    Miracles of the Jewish state:

    Er, I don't know any other Jesus miracles. What else did the boy get up to?


  • Wow, just: wow. This thread contains everything:

    • Antisemitism
    • Islamophobia
    • Volksverhetzung
    • Inappropriate Nazi comparisons
    • Antiamericanism
    • Stereotypical, condescending right-wing American BS

    And, as a bonus WTF:

    • An attempt to justify war crimes (the murder of approximately 100,000 civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

    TheDailyWTF, indeed. Humanity, I have lost my faith in you. Both the Europeans and the Americans in this thread should be ashamed of themselves.



  • @anonymous_guy said:

    An attempt to justify war crimes (the murder of approximately 100,000 civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

    War crimes my ass. Do you think fewer civilians would have been killed if we hadn't dropped the bombs? Keep in mind, civilians were dying in vast quantities in Europe and Japan before anybody even had nukes. Those were legitimate targets, just like the repeated Allied bombings of German cities. Why the fuck wouldn't they be?

    Besides which, how innocent are civilians who are contributing to the war machine? As far as I'm concerned, Axis civilians made themselves targets when they willfully supported the state which itself was targeting truly innocent civilians. A factory fully of Japanese workers assembling rifles used to gut Chinese civilians who had had their lands invaded aren't fucking legitimate targets? Cry me a river, you Fascist jock sniffer.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @They call me trouble said:
    Wait, you guys are literally arguing that any decision that is bad for Israeli* business interests amounts to Nazism?

    I don't think he was saying it was Nazism, just that it's a return to retarded, antisemitic form for Europe.

     

    Nazism, antisemitism... it doesn't make the argument any less idiotic.

    Taking a decision that is fully in line with, and actually follows logically from, the internationally recognized status of the occupied territories is not discrimination by any stretch of the imagination. (Even if you think these areas OUGHT to be part of Israel, they haven't been recognized as such, either by the EU, the UN, or even by the US. Hell, apart from East Jerusalem, Israel doesn't even claim annexation of them.) You scoff at the UN and international law, but this is one very small example that such formalities do have consequences.

    And this really shouldn't be necessary to state, but even if Germans were to boycott certain Israeli products linked to the occupation, opposing Israel's policies in this matter does not make someone an antisemite, any more than disliking Obama's policies automatically makes someone a racist.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    My suggestion that Europe return to pre-1000 borders was deliberately fucking absurd, to illustrate how hypocritical Europe is when it demands the same of Israel. Okay? Do you get that?
    90

    There's a difference between what happened 1000 years ago and what happened in 1967. No one is disputing that European kings and their armies did lots of horrendous shit hundreds of years ago (and much more recently in their colonies). What people HAVE been saying for about a hundred years now, and ESPECIALLY after WWII, is that it's NOT OK do stuff like that. Building an empire or expanding territory by conquest is no longer cool.

    Human history is bloodsoaked, America's as much as Europe's. Trying to put a stop to it is not absurd or hypocritical because of that. 

     

    @morbiuswilters said:

    If tomorrow Germany invaded Poland and Poland repulsed the invasion and
    won a bit of a Germany's land, would you guys be screaming about how
    Poland shouldn't be trying to "steal" Germany's land? Would you be like
    "Hey, Poland: not cool. When Germany attacked you they had a
    reasonable expectation they should be allowed to take your land, but
    when you defeated their surprise attack you went too far by taking some
    of their land."

    That was pretty much exactly the EU's position over Russian occupation of Georgian territory after the Russia-Georgia war in 2008. That it was launched by Georgia (trying to take back regions that had broken away with Russian support in a civil war some time back), albeit provoked by the Russians, didn't give the Russians any right to hold Georgian territory. In the end, the Russians withdrew.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    I mean, it's just glaring goddamn stupidity on the surface. It's like
    you all are so incapable of empathizing with a Jewish person that you
    can't even put yourself in Israel's position and see how it's stunning
    victory in 1967 over a much larger, better-armed surprise attack by
    several of its neighbors might actually have been just cause for taking a
    small bit of land from those same countries.

    You keep saying that Israel was attacked, and only took the
    territory while defending itself, but it actually launched the first
    strike (a surprise attack, as you say) in the 1967 Six Day War. You're thinking of the Yom Kippur War in 1973. And about that "small bit of land"; Israel tripled the territory under its control.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    And what's more, Israel has been adamant for 20 years now that it wants
    to give the land to Palestinians and let them have their own country, if only they'd fucking stop with the terrorism and calls to eliminate Israel and all Jews.
    I mean, you literally have one side that's will to do everything you
    ask of them, and another side that is intent on genocide and wiping
    Israel of the map, and you still act like Israel is the bad guy here.

    For just as long, the Palestinian authority has offered to accept a deal if Israel withdraws to its pre-1967 borders and allows the right of return for refugees who were driven out or fled in 1948. Israel is not willing to meet these demands (for not entirely senseless reasons). Both sides need to compromise, they need to negotiate. The general outline of what an acceptable deal looks like has been known for decades. 

    But meanwhile, settlers keep building in the Palestinian territories, grabbing more and more land (with the tacit support of the Israeli government). Walls, checkpoints and exclusion zones keep Palestinians from moving about. Homes are razed on flimsy pretexts, settler gangs mow down Palestinian orchards. Neighborhoods are raided in night razzias.

    Palestinians are pissed. Yes, they hate Israel. Can you blame them? It doesn't excuse terrorism–the Hamas tactics are despicable–but as mentioned, actions by the Israeli military kill an order of magnitude more Palestinians, out of a population about half the size.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    Please, tell me the last time Israel was the first to violate a mutually-agreed upon peace accord. Please show me when Israel started a conflict by firing rockets at civilians in Palestinian territories.

    As mentioned above, the Israelis arguably started it by launching the Six Day War, invading and occupying the territories in the first place. But really, it's a conflict that's been going on for so long, and where pretty much everything is in retaliation for something that was done before, so it's a pointless question to ask. Basically everyone now fighting was born into the conflict.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    Then take a long, hard look at the Palestinians, who have been the first
    to violate every carefully-negotiated agreement. Look at the
    Palestinians, who have always made the first move to interrupt periods
    of relative peace by using suicide bombers and cowardly attacks on
    civilians.

    The expansion of the settlements are arguably an ongoing violation of any good-faith effort to end the conflict. If they're just pretending that this is a land grab they have no intention of ever reversing, they're doing a damn fine job of it. (At this point, senior figures in the Israeli government are openly saying exactly that.)

    @morbiuswilters said:

    Your argument boils down to "Israel, you have a moral obligation to
    stand there and do nothing when you are being attacked and your citizens
    are being murdered." And that's asinine. But I think I know why
    Europeans believe this: you guys are still really ashamed of colonialism
    and slavery and all that, so you see white people fighting brown people
    with superior fire power and your first instinct is simply to see the
    whole thing through the lens of your own twisted, racist past. Now it's
    the brown people who are the noble defenders and the white people who
    are the evil invaders--but that's not the fucking case here, and you're basically demanding that Jews suffer and die for your White Guilt, which is totally fair after the shit you did to them.

    No need for the psychoanalysis. There's one main motive, and it's a simple one, deriving from the ideals of enlightenment: Oppression is bad. Whether it's an apartheid regime in South Africa, Mugabe's thugs in Zimbabwe, Egyptians under Mubarak, Syrians under Assad, Tibetans under the Chinese, or what have you, it's indefensible. There's not always a lot to do about it (China, what are you gonna do?), and sometimes realpolitik gets in the way, but it's always deplorable.

    And the Palestinians are being oppressed by the Israelis. That's just a fact. You can say they only have themselves to blame, you can say that their own leaders also oppress them, you can say they're no better off in other countries (talking about Arab-Israeli citizens is a feint; people in the occupied territories don't have citizenship, and they're never going to get citizenship because Israel couldn't risk allowing them the right to vote), but it doesn't change the basic truth.

    That's why there's sympathy in Europe for the Palestinian cause (which is really support for the idea of peace based on mutual concessions; the suggestion that European leaders want the conflict to go on is absurd).



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @anonymous_guy said:
    An attempt to justify war crimes (the murder of approximately 100,000 civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

    War crimes my ass. Do you think fewer civilians would have been killed if we hadn't dropped the bombs?

    Yep, definitely. The war was already won. Besides, if the US military wanted to show off its power, it could have at least dropped the bombs on legitimate targets.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    Keep in mind, civilians were dying in vast quantities in Europe and Japan before anybody even had nukes.

    And that justifies killing 100,000s of civilians because?

    @morbiuswilters said:

    Those were legitimate targets, just like the repeated Allied bombings of German cities. Why the fuck wouldn't they be?

    [Insert concentration camp comparison here to show Morbs how retarded his opinion is.]

    @morbiuswilters said:

    Besides which, how innocent are civilians who are contributing to the war machine? As far as I'm concerned, Axis civilians made themselves targets when they willfully supported the state which itself was targeting truly innocent civilians.

    From now on, I'm going to hold you responsible for any war the US are involved in.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    Fascist

    Ironically, the only one uttering fascist opinions is you.



  • @They call me trouble said:

    You scoff at the UN and international law, but this is one very small example that such formalities do have consequences.

    Yes, asinine consequences. Why do you think I scoff at them? This is beyond parody.

    @They call me trouble said:

    And this really shouldn't be necessary to state, but even if Germans were to boycott certain Israeli products linked to the occupation, opposing Israel's policies in this matter does not make someone an antisemite, any more than disliking Obama's policies automatically makes someone a racist.

    Of course not: a small fraction of people who oppose Israel are just plain stupid.

    @They call me trouble said:

    There's a difference between what happened 1000 years ago and what happened in 1967. No one is disputing that European kings and their armies did lots of horrendous shit hundreds of years ago (and much more recently in their colonies). What people HAVE been saying for about a hundred years now, and ESPECIALLY after WWII, is that it's NOT OK do stuff like that. Building an empire or expanding territory by conquest is no longer cool.

    True, there is a difference between what happened in Europe and Israel. Many European countries were expanded by conquest-seeking aggressors. Israel wasn't seeking conquest, they were the victims of a surprise attack and they still hold some of that land. Israel has more right to Palestinian land than England does to Wales.

    @They call me trouble said:

    Human history is bloodsoaked, America's as much as Europe's.

    Yes and no. America's is bloodsoaked, sure, but as much as Europe's? That's fucking retarded.

    @They call me trouble said:

    You keep saying that Israel was attacked, and only took the
    territory while defending itself, but it actually launched the first
    strike (a surprise attack, as you say) in the 1967 Six Day War.

    They launched a preemptive strike after it became clear they were about to be invaded. So I guess in your mind this makes them aggressors. Hold on, I'm going to go grab a knife so I can run at you. If you strike me before I strike you, you're clearly the aggressor.

    @They call me trouble said:

    And about that "small bit of land"; Israel tripled the territory under its control.

    Yeah, Israel's a small country. It was still a small bit of territory they gained. And honestly I have no idea why this fucking matters. It's just unfortunate they didn't conquer all of Egypt, Syria and Jordan..

    @They call me trouble said:

    For just as long, the Palestinian authority has offered to accept a deal if Israel withdraws to its pre-1967 borders and allows the right of return for refugees who were driven out or fled in 1948. Israel is not willing to meet these demands (for not entirely senseless reasons).

    Yeah, I highlighted fucking why, you dumbshit. The right of return would destroy Israel. Would you want radical, violent, women-hating Muslims who wanted to erase your race from the history books to be able to become citizens of your country? Hey, at least the death camps would be democratically voted in (again)! No, seriously, right of return is not going to happen. It's Palestinians saying "Hey, let just murder you" and Israel saying "No thank you". If you're too fucking dumb to see that (and based on the rest of what you said, yeah..) then there's no hope for you.

    @They call me trouble said:

    Both sides need to compromise, they need to negotiate.

    Israel has already compromised, already negotiated. The Palestinians aren't having it. And as far as I'm concerned, Israel is done compromising. They should just come in with tanks and drive the fucking Palestinians into Syria. Let's see how quickly they are begging to be allowed to once again live under the "awful oppression" of Israel after Assad gasses them.

    @They call me trouble said:

    Yes, they hate Israel. Can you blame them?

    Yes, I can. They are despicable, violent, insane religious fanatics who want to murder an entire race. They've been given every opportunity to compromise, but are not willing to come anywhere close to meeting halfway. Fuck them all. They had their goddamn chances.

    @They call me trouble said:

    ...actions by the Israeli military kill an order of magnitude more Palestinians, out of a population about half the size.

    Yeah, that's what superior firepower does. When someone attacks you, you fight back. Despite what you retarded, shit-for-brains Europeans think, war isn't some fucking sporting event. You don't aim for a "fair fight" with someone who is trying to kill you. You pound them into the fucking ground until they surrender, until they've learned their fucking lesson and don't ever think of attacking you again.

    @They call me trouble said:

    As mentioned above, the Israelis arguably started it by launching the Six Day War...

    Right, because when Jews are involved, war is a sporting event and they should have let the Arabs attack them first. I mean, the Arabs didn't even have everything perfectly organized so they could finish the work Europe started--if Israel had just waited until the Arabs attacked, then they would have been wiped out and none of this would be a problem and that would make you happy, wouldn't it you little antisemitic piece of shit?

    (I fucking hate Europe. I can't wait until your Muslim immigrants go for the jugular and wipe you fuckers out. I'd rather have a Muslim Europe than one populated by quisling little shits like you--at least the Muslims make it very clear where they stand.)

    @They call me trouble said:

    Oppression is bad.

    Bullshit. Oh, I believe oppression is bad, but I know you sure as fuck don't. Or else you'd be more upset about Muslims' 70 year effort to oppress Jews right out of existence.

    @They call me trouble said:

    And the Palestinians are being oppressed by the Israelis.

    Bullshit. The Israelis are no more oppressing the Palestinians than the US oppressed the Nazis. They're defending themselves, plain and simple. They've made every effort to negotiate peace, and the Palestinians refuse to compromise. The Palestinians want everything, including the "right of return" which would see Israel turn into Auschwitz within a fucking month and you fucking know it, you fascist little shit.

    @They call me trouble said:

    ...the suggestion that European leaders want the conflict to go on is absurd

    I never suggested that. Of course they don't want the conflict to go on--they want the Palestinians to win and finish what they started by killing all of the Jews in Israel.

    Seriously, have you ever even bothered to research the Palestinians? To listen to what Muslim leaders say? (And I'm not talking about the shit they specifically say for consumption by braindead European shitheads like yourself--I'm talking about what they actually say to their own citizens.) It's not "Oh, hey, we need peace with Israel and the Jews." It's "The Jews are going to vanish from the history books." They are extremely fucking open about their plans for a second Holocaust. And, as usual, Europeans are too busy jerking each other off over how smart and morally superior they are to even realize it.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @TDWTF123 said:

    @boomzilla said:
    Even if they let the laborers work, what's to stop them from taxing / extorting the money away from them? Kleptocrats are incredibly clever about this sort of thing, and they have the guns.

    We're talking about how to stop Palestinians making hopeless head-on attacks against vastly superior forces, yes? And you're suggesting that a problem with the suggested solution is that, er, it's easy to crush the Palestinians into submission?


    As I've said repeatedly, you're ignoring the multiple actual examples we have of this working. Did the Irish warmongers and kleptocrats try and oppose Ireland's economic growth? No, they just stopped running the IRA as a terrorist organisation and started using it to rob banks.

    The Irish wanted independence, not genocide, AFAIK. I wouldn't have given any money to those guys, either.



  • @anonymous_guy said:

    Yep, definitely. The war was already won.

    FUCKING IDIOT ALERT!!

    @anonymous_guy said:

    Besides, if the US military wanted to show off its power, it could have at least dropped the bombs on legitimate targets.

    Those were legitimate targets, you idiot. Why the fuck else would we have dropped them there? We were trying to do as much damage as possible. We wouldn't waste them on non-targets. Were your parents related or something, dipshit?

    @anonymous_guy said:

    And that justifies killing 100,000s of civilians because?

    Because it put an end to the war, and saved hundreds of thousands (probably millions) more. It also saved at least a million soldiers on both sides.

    @anonymous_guy said:

    [Insert concentration camp comparison here to show Morbs how retarded his opinion is.]

    So apparently killing the civilians who were keeping the concentration camps open is as bad as running them in the first place? Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?

    @anonymous_guy said:

    From now on, I'm going to hold you responsible for any war the US are involved in.

    Do you really not understand the difference between Germany starting wars with its neighbors and its neighbors fighting back? Are you that far gone?

    So, let me see if I understand your reasoning: "Germany locks people up in concentration camps" is Okay. "Civilian who is in concentration camp and facing certain death fights back and in the process kills a civilian who helps run the camp" is a War Crime. Gotcha.

    See, Germany, Japan and Italy started the war. They were the aggressors. Their citizens were the lifeblood that kept their monstrous states running and permitted them to commit atrocities. (Some citizens were likely forced into it, but most were all too happy to serve Hitler, Mussolini or Hirohito.) If their citizens had stopped making guns, bombs and Zyklon B, the war would have stopped. Hitler wasn't some magical wizard who drew his power from mystical sources; he was a popular, democratically-appointed man who had the full support of Germany. That makes their civilians accomplices to the crimes of the state. It makes them legitimate targets.

    Now, I know in your retarded, inbred little mind that this isn't going to make sense. You've probably been taught that Hitler was a magical wizard who had cast a spell on the Fine, Upstanding German people, and forced them to do Very Bad Things against their wills. So, clearly, it was unfair to attack these Good, Innocent Germans and Japanese whose only sin was being susceptible to magic spells. By the way, what did your grandparents do during the war? My guess is "concentration camp Commandant". But, but, but, Evil Wizard Hitler made them do it!!

    @anonymous_guy said:

    Ironically, the only one uttering fascist opinions is you.

    Yes, because "killing Fascists" == "Fascism". I almost forgot the impeccable reasoning skills they teach in your "schools".



  • @boomzilla said:

    The Irish wanted independence, not genocide, AFAIK.
    You're missing the bigger picture, which is that ordinary people mostly just want to get on and live their lives, and the leaders, who actually want stuff like genocide or 'independence' - you might like to do a bit more reading about the Troubles - and try to persuade others to follow them find it a fuck of a lot harder to get anyone to make bombs and so-on when they all have good jobs.
    @boomzilla said:
    I wouldn't have given any money to those guys, either.
    What the hell kind of American are you, then?



  • @TDWTF123 said:

    You're missing the bigger picture, which is that ordinary people mostly just want to get on and live their lives, and the leaders, who actually want stuff like genocide or 'independence'...

    I wish that were true, but it's not. Sometimes it's true. Sounds like it was true about Ireland.

    But, for example, the German people wanted genocide of the Jews. The Shoah wasn't some odd, obscure bit of policy trivia which just got in the way of the average German's day-to-day life. It was widely-popular and was gleefully carried out by large quantities of German citizens. By the way, the Germans under Hitler had lots of good jobs--didn't stop them.

    Jim Crow and segregation weren't something cooked up by American politicians--it was widely-supported by your average white citizen (who also probably had a good job).

    Lots of Muslims in non-Palestinian areas want a second Shoah, and many of them are so rich with oil money they don't even need to work. And the ones who do work have very good jobs.

    Now, the hatred and prejudice and violence might be initiated by those in power, or those in power might fan the flames, but that's certainly not the only thing at work. I don't have a problem with Palestinians having good jobs, so long as they aren't continuing to work towards the destruction of Israel. In fact, I very much want both Israelis and Palestinians to be wealthy, happy, free, liberalized and at peace. I want both sides to thrive, maybe even engage in some friendly competition, to become centers of enlightenment and compassion and liberty and human dignity.

    Here's the thing: Israel is already a lot closer to being those things than the Palestinians. And the Palestinians refuse to accept a peace that doesn't have a "right of return", which would not make Palestinians better, but which would make Israel much, much worse. Which would destroy a lovely country and its amazing people who have endured so much hardship. And the fact is, that is unacceptable.

    Will giving the Palestinians jobs stop them from fighting? Or will it just give them an economic base from which to wage even more effective campaigns of propaganda, terrorism and war?



  •  @morbiuswilters said:

    They should just come in with tanks and drive the fucking Palestinians into Syria. Let's see how quickly they are begging to be allowed to once again live under the "awful oppression" of Israel after Assad gasses them.
    @morbiuswilters said:
    (I fucking hate Europe. I can't wait until your Muslim immigrants go for the jugular and wipe you fuckers out. I'd rather have a Muslim Europe than one populated by quisling little shits like you--at least the Muslims make it very clear where they stand.)
    @morbiuswilters said:
    Seriously, have you ever even bothered to research the Palestinians? To listen to what Muslim leaders say? (And I'm not talking about the shit they specifically say for consumption by braindead European shitheads like yourself--I'm talking about what they actually say to their own citizens.) It's not "Oh, hey, we need peace with Israel and the Jews." It's "The Jews are going to vanish from the history books." They are extremely fucking open about their plans for a second Holocaust. And, as usual, Europeans are too busy jerking each other off over how smart and morally superior they are to even realize it.

    morbiuswilters, courageous foe of hateful rhetoric! A man so disgusted by violence he'll kill anyone who disagrees. A humanitarian who has achieved the deep insight that his enemies are sub-human. A man with the clear-eyed vision to see the world in black and white. A man who recognizes no similarity between his own views and those he excoriates his enemies for.

    Oh, if only there were more like him, I'm sure this whole conflict could be settled easily and painlessly, and would in no way drag on and on for decades!

     

    On the off-chance that anyone who has a shred of rationality is reading, there's two ways to end a deep conflict like this: 1) You crush your enemy utterly. Given the level of force and oppression already practiced by the Israelis, and the Palestinians' response to it so far, this would probably require actual genocide. 2) You make peace. With your enemy. Yes, with people who hate you, people who've attacked you, killed yours. It can be done. But it will require concessions. Painful ones. Giving up things you think you have a right to, and things you can hardly imagine doing without. It's not going to seem fair. (If you and your enemy agreed on what's fair, you wouldn't be enemies.) But with enough will, it can bring peace.

    Or, you know... You can just go on doing the same thing, because that's going so well.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Those were legitimate targets, you idiot. Why the fuck else would we have dropped them there? We were trying to do as much damage as possible. We wouldn't waste them on non-targets.

    That statement doesn't even remotely deserve a comment, but I'll still quote it, just to emphasize how disgusting you are.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    Because it put an end to the war, and saved hundreds of thousands (probably millions) more. It also saved at least a million soldiers on both sides.

    That is an opinion, not a fact. For fucks sake, at the very least read the damn Wikipedia page on that topic before continuing to argue with me if you skipped your history lessons in high school. Besides, the question whether it ended the war or not is irrelevant to the fact that it was a war crime.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    @anonymous_guy said:
    [Insert concentration camp comparison here to show Morbs how retarded his opinion is.]

    So apparently killing the civilians who were keeping the concentration camps open is as bad as running them in the first place? Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?

    Japan ran concentration camps? Interesting, tell me more…

    @morbiuswilters said:

    @anonymous_guy said:
    From now on, I'm going to hold you responsible for any war the US are involved in.

    Do you really not understand the difference between Germany starting wars with its neighbors and its neighbors fighting back? Are you that far gone?

    Do you really fail to understand comparisons? And do you still think I'm comparing anything to GERMANY although we're talking about the last days of the war between JAPAN and the US?

    @morbiuswilters said:

    So, let me see if I understand your reasoning: "Germany locks people up in concentration camps" is Okay.

    At this point, one can safely assume that your reading comprehension skills are non-existent. Who in their right mind would even try to justify concentration camps? By the way, don't even try to suggest that I have anything in common with a Neo-nazi. I've participated in more anti-Nazi-rallies than you will ever see in your sad, sad life.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    That makes their civilians accomplices to the crimes of the state. It makes them legitimate targets.

    As I said, from now on you're personally responsible for Guantanamo, as far as I'm concerned.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    By the way, what did your grandparents do during the war? My guess is "concentration camp Commandant". But, but, but, Evil Wizard Hitler made them do it!!

    One of my grandfathers (a former member of the SPD party, who certainly did not vote for Hitler) provably risked his fucking life multiple times because he refused any order to kill civilists during WW II. The other one died soon after the war started. So don't event try to tell me anything about my ancestors. Even though he fought for Germany (after all, it was his fucking job and the only reasonable way to avoid that would have been committing suicide), I still consider my grandfather to be morally superior to the soldiers involved in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    Yes, because "killing Fascists" == "Fascism". I almost forgot the impeccable reasoning skills they teach in your "schools".

    At least my education was better than yours. Heck, your reasoning is so bad that you already have to resort to severe personal insults. And if you honestly fail to see the similarities between fascism and your mindset, I pity you even more than I already do



  • @anonymous_guy said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    Those were legitimate targets, you idiot. Why the fuck else would we have dropped them there? We were trying to do as much damage as possible. We wouldn't waste them on non-targets.

    That statement doesn't even remotely deserve a comment, but I'll still quote it, just to emphasize how disgusting you are.

    It's disgusting to try to inflict damage on your enemy and bring an end to the war which is killing so many? Who knew?

    @anonymous_guy said:

    That is an opinion, not a fact. For fucks sake, at the very least read the damn Wikipedia page on that topic before continuing to argue with me if you skipped your history lessons in high school.

    facepalm Yes, thanks for telling me that something which didn't happen isn't a fact we can confirm. Of course it's a goddamn opinion--did you think I flitted back in my time machine, stopped the bombings, then let history play out so I could count corpses? Any fucking statement about what might have happened if another course was taken is an opinion, not a fact. But it's a well-educated opinion, based on facts and analysis.

    Wikipedia? You fucking pathetic dumbshit. I don't skim Wikipedia articles when trying to understand a complex topic like this. I read actual fucking books. Jesus Christ..

    Seriously, what makes you think the bombings didn't save lives? Japan was had no intention of surrendering, they were training women and children to die in suicide attacks when enemy soldiers set foot on Japanese soil. Shit, the fact that the Japanese "Big Six" had split on surrender after both bombings shows how far from over the war was. It was only when the Emperor gave the thumbs-up to surrender (his main condition being that he got to keep being Emperor--yeah, he was willing to risk having his entire country nuked into oblivion rather than step down) that the war ended. Yet, somehow, this is all America's fault.

    (I also find it amusing you and every other crybaby pussy focuses on the atomic bombings, when we killed far, far more people with the firebombing raids against Japanese cities. I guess those don't make such lovely props for your anti-American lies, though.)

    @anonymous_guy said:

    Japan ran concentration camps? Interesting, tell me more…

    Well, yeah, they actually did, but you're the one who brought concentration camps up. I should have known someone stupid enough to be against the atomic bombings wasn't smart enough to form a coherent argument..

    @anonymous_guy said:

    Do you really fail to understand comparisons? And do you still think I'm comparing anything to GERMANY although we're talking about the last days of the war between JAPAN and the US?

    It's called an analogy. It's a way to explain an idea to dumb people by using something they're already familiar with. And, yes, German and Japanese citizens were supporting the war efforts of their countries. How was the lifeblood of the Third Reich and Imperial Japan not a legitimate target?

    @anonymous_guy said:

    I've participated in more anti-Nazi-rallies than you will ever see in your sad, sad life.

    Yeah, we don't have anti-Nazi rallies here, because we don't have your problem with Fascism and antisemitism. Duh. Still, you seem very intent on legitimizing the Axis powers attacks on other nations. Either their attacks were wrong, in which case going after those supporting the attacks is justified, or else the aggression Germany and Japan showed was legitimate, in which case the attacks on civilians were not justified. Why is this so hard for you? Do you need me to get out the puppets and walk you through it again?

    @anonymous_guy said:

    As I said, from now on you're personally responsible for Guantanamo, as far as I'm concerned.

    Well, for one, Guantanamo isn't a crime (oh wait, you're retarded, so you probably think it is..) Two: I don't give a shit. I wish we had a hundred Gitmos to hold terrorists. (OH NO! He doesn't like terrorists! That makes him a Fascist!) Also, I'd like to see you do jack shit to hold me "accountable", you pathetic little dipshit.

    @anonymous_guy said:

    Even though he fought for Germany (after all, it was his fucking job and the only reasonable way to avoid that would have been committing suicide), I still consider my grandfather to be morally superior to the soldiers involved in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    Called it! I knew you had a Nazi in the closet.

    Listen, your grandfather was a cocksucking piece of shit is who forever burning in Hell next to Hitler. He is drenched in the blood of innocents. "Being his job" does not justify being an accessory to the greatest atrocity in human history, as I think you fucking know. He is not worthy to lick Paul Tibbets' (may he rest in peace, forever at God's right hand) asshole clean with his fucking Fascist tongue, you hear me, boy?

    @anonymous_guy said:

    Heck, your reasoning is so bad that you already have to resort to severe personal insults.

    No, I use insults in addition to better arguments. Your argument is apparently "My Grandpa was busy jerking Hitler off and murdering Jews, but he was a good guy, honest!"

    Anyway, at least your piece-of-shit grandfather will be tortured for all eternity in Hell. Enjoy that image, you Nazi cocksucker.



  • @anonymous_guy said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    Because it put an end to the war, and saved hundreds of thousands (probably millions) more. It also saved at least a million soldiers on both sides.

    That is an opinion, not a fact. For fucks sake, at the very least read the damn Wikipedia page on that topic before continuing to argue with me if you skipped your history lessons in high school. Besides, the question whether it ended the war or not is irrelevant to the fact that it was a war crime.

    I should note that [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall]this[/url] was the alternative - to sum it up, it would have caused 400k-800k US fatalities and >5 million Japanese fatalities by most estimates, so the atomic bombings may have actually saved lives.

    The alternative to Op. Downfall was a blockade and bombardment campaign, severing sea links to Japanese holdings. Since Japan has been a net importer of food for as long as it could, the results of the B&B campaign are pretty well predictable: mass starvation. It's hard to get good figures, but Japan imported about 50-70% of it's food in the late period of the war. Essentially, a comprehensive blockade would have killed something like 20-30 million civilians, probably more.

    These were the only two real options outside of nuclear to American planners. Of the 3, which one would you choose? (

    To recap, you have 3 options:
    [list=1]
    [] land invasion, 6m+ fatalities
    [
    ]blockade, 20m+ fatalities
    [*] nuclear attack, 200-300k fatalities
    [/list]

    Pick one.

    @anonymous_guy said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    @anonymous_guy said:
    [Insert concentration camp comparison here to show Morbs how retarded his opinion is.]

    So apparently killing the civilians who were keeping the concentration camps open is as bad as running them in the first place? Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?

    Japan ran concentration camps? Interesting, tell me more…

    [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Japanese-run_internment_camps_during_World_War_II]This[/url] should speak for itself.



  • It's cute how you intentionally misread everything I say to avoid reflecting on your own opinion. Some examples:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    @anonymous_guy said:
    That statement doesn't even remotely deserve a comment, but I'll still quote it, just to emphasize how disgusting you are.

    It's disgusting to try to inflict damage on your enemy and bring an end to the war which is killing so many? Who knew?

    Nope, I said it's disgusting to call civilians "legitimate targets".

    @morbiuswilters said:

    I don't skim Wikipedia articles when trying to understand a complex topic like this. I read actual fucking books. Jesus Christ..

    That's why I wrote:

    @anonymous_guy said:

    at the very least read the damn Wikipedia page

    @morbiuswilters said:

    Seriously, what makes you think the bombings didn't save lives? […] Yet, somehow, this is all America's fault.

    Nowhere did I suggest that WW II was America's fault somehow. I just said that the US have committed a war crime.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    Still, you seem very intent on legitimizing the Axis powers attacks on other nations.

    No, I'm definitely not.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    Either their attacks were wrong, in which case going after those supporting the attacks is justified, or else the aggression Germany and Japan showed was legitimate, in which case the attacks on civilians were not justified.

    Come on, you must be intelligent enough to know that morals are not that simple!

    @morbiuswilters said:

    (OH NO! He doesn't like terrorists! That makes him a Fascist!)

    I never said anything about terrorists.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    @anonymous_guy said:
    Even though he fought for Germany (after all, it was his fucking job and the only reasonable way to avoid that would have been committing suicide), I still consider my grandfather to be morally superior to the soldiers involved in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    Called it! I knew you had a Nazi in the closet.

    Nope, I intentionally did not pull the "he just did his job" card to justify any action related to the Holocaust.

    What I did say and what you might have read, hadn't you searched my posts for what you wanted to find in them: My grandfather never killed any Jew during WW II, although he was ordered to and knew that refusing the order might result in his death. He had the balls to risk his life for what he thought was right and I'm proud of that. Furthermore, he was a member of the only party that voted against the Enabling Act.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    "My Grandpa was busy jerking Hitler off and murdering Jews, but he was a good guy, honest!"

    See above. (Why am I even replying to this?)

    Maybe, if you calm the fuck down and focus on the actual argument, an interesting discussion about the legitimacy of the use of nuclear weapons against Japan might ensue. I'm even admitting that my opinion on that subject is debatable. But at the moment, I consider trying to formulate conclusive counter-arguments against yours a waste of time (especially at 4am in the morning).



  • @lushr said:

    @anonymous_guy said:
    @morbiuswilters said:
    @anonymous_guy said:
    [Insert concentration camp comparison here to show Morbs how retarded his opinion is.]

    So apparently killing the civilians who were keeping the concentration camps open is as bad as running them in the first place? Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?

    Japan ran concentration camps? Interesting, tell me more…

    This should speak for itself.

    I know, my point was that he was constantly referring to Germany (the only country with camps called "concentration camps").



  • @anonymous_guy said:

    @lushr said:
    @anonymous_guy said:
    @morbiuswilters said:
    @anonymous_guy said:
    [Insert concentration camp comparison here to show Morbs how retarded his opinion is.]

    So apparently killing the civilians who were keeping the concentration camps open is as bad as running them in the first place? Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?

    Japan ran concentration camps? Interesting, tell me more…

    This should speak for itself.

    I know, my point was that he was constantly referring to Germany (the only country with camps called "concentration camps").

    This was a bit of a side comment, actually. My main point is that the US was stuck: Japan wasn't going to surrender (see the Operation Ketsugō part of the wiki article I linked above). The US had 3 options: invade, blockade, or nuke. The first two would have been atrocities, but [i]traditional[/i] atrocities, with many millions dead. They saw a neat way out, which allowed them to cause "only" 200-300k deaths. Which would you rather do?



  • @lushr said:

    They saw a neat way out, which allowed them to cause "only" 200-300k deaths.

    That's what you get when you give control of a brand new big red button to a Democrat. Like Obama and Stuxnet, or Obama and Prism. Or Obama and Obamacare.



  • @They call me trouble said:

    morbiuswilters, courageous foe of hateful rhetoric!

    Wow, you're such a whiny pussy that if exposed to a few insults you start bawling. The funny thing is, if the Palestinians were trying to kill you you'd probably have a different attitude. But, ah, it's so easy to judge from the safety of your antisemitic cocoon.

    @They call me trouble said:

    On the off-chance that anyone who has a shred of rationality is reading, there's two ways to end a deep conflict like this: 1) You crush your enemy utterly. Given the level of force and oppression already practiced by the Israelis, and the Palestinians' response to it so far, this would probably require actual genocide. 2) You make peace. With your enemy. Yes, with people who hate you, people who've attacked you, killed yours. It can be done. But it will require concessions. Painful ones. Giving up things you think you have a right to, and things you can hardly imagine doing without. It's not going to seem fair. (If you and your enemy agreed on what's fair, you wouldn't be enemies.) But with enough will, it can bring peace.

    Wow, way to completely miss every single point I made. Is there some special class where they lobotomize you guys, or what?

    Since you are dumb, I will put it in big letters:

    Israel has tried to make peace. Repeatedly. They want peace. But the Palestinians will accept nothing short of genocide and destruction of Israel. What are the supposed to do? Just die? I know that's what you want, but what do rational, not-insane-with-Jew-hatred people think?



  • @lushr said:

    Since Japan has been a net importer of food for as long as it could, the results of the B&B campaign are pretty well predictable: mass starvation.

    No, no, no, the US had a moral obligation to keep their enemy well-fed. I mean, depriving them of food would be a war crime, right? Also, we had a moral obligation to keep them stocked with uranium, so they could work on their own atomic bomb. What are you, some kind of sick war criminal who wants to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of your enemies??

    @lushr said:

    This should speak for itself.

    He doesn't really care. His grandfather was a fucking soldier in the Nazi regime, and he's not even sorry for it. He thinks his grandpa's a hero and ours are the war criminals, because they fought back too well, or something.



  • @lushr said:

    This was a bit of a side comment, actually. My main point is that the US was stuck: Japan wasn't going to surrender (see the Operation Ketsugō part of the wiki article I linked above). The US had 3 options: invade, blockade, or nuke. The first two would have been atrocities, but traditional atrocities, with many millions dead. They saw a neat way out, which allowed them to cause "only" 200-300k deaths. Which would you rather do?

    Call me an idealist, but I'd probably choose an option which does not require me to intentionally kill a large number of civilists, risking a traditional war which may result in more deaths. The end does not justify the means, IMO.



  • @anonymous_guy said:

    @lushr said:
    This was a bit of a side comment, actually. My main point is that the US was stuck: Japan wasn't going to surrender (see the Operation Ketsugō part of the wiki article I linked above). The US had 3 options: invade, blockade, or nuke. The first two would have been atrocities, but traditional atrocities, with many millions dead. They saw a neat way out, which allowed them to cause "only" 200-300k deaths. Which would you rather do?

    Call me an idealist, but I'd probably choose an option which does not require me to intentionally kill a large number of civilists, risking a traditional war which may result in more deaths. The end does not justify the means, IMO.

    So, the needs of the very many outweigh the needs of the very, very many?



  • @anonymous_guy said:

    @lushr said:
    This was a bit of a side comment, actually. My main point is that the US was stuck: Japan wasn't going to surrender (see the Operation Ketsugō part of the wiki article I linked above). The US had 3 options: invade, blockade, or nuke. The first two would have been atrocities, but traditional atrocities, with many millions dead. They saw a neat way out, which allowed them to cause "only" 200-300k deaths. Which would you rather do?

    Call me an idealist, but I'd probably choose an option which does not require me to intentionally kill a large number of civilists, risking a traditional war which may result in more deaths. The end does not justify the means, IMO.

    I'm with you. Diplomatic solutions are almost always better. Was there one here? I don't think so.

    Imagine this: you were the primary US planner. You have to take Japan out of the equation, somehow. How do you do it?



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    He doesn't really care. His grandfather was a fucking soldier in the Nazi regime, and he's not even sorry for it.

    I'm honestly sorry for what happened between 1933-45 and especially for any of my ancestors which may have supported Hitler's regime. (There must be a reason why I don't know what my other grandfather did during the war.)

    @morbiuswilters said:

    He thinks his grandpa's a hero and ours are the war criminals, because they fought back too well, or something.

    Take a look out of the window, the world isn't black and white. Whereby I don't mean to say that there was anything good about Nazi Germany. But you're not responsible for a dictatorship's actions just because you happen to live in it and also happen to be a member of that country's army at the time the dictator rises to power.



  • @Ronald said:

    @lushr said:
    They saw a neat way out, which allowed them to cause "only" 200-300k deaths.

    That's what you get when you give control of a brand new big red button to a Democrat. Like Obama and Stuxnet, or Obama and Prism. Or Obama and Obamacare.

    So you think that 5+ million (with ~200k US), or 20+ million (with ~2k US) dead is better? I should note that both of the non-US figures are 80-90% civilian.



  • @anonymous_guy said:

    Nope, I said it's disgusting to call civilians "legitimate targets".

    So, it's okay to shoot a guy who is trying to kill you, but not to shoot the guy who is helping him kill you? And not only were the civilians the lifeblood of the Nazi regime, they were a major force behind the war and the Shoah. Most of the civilians were in no way innocent. They had it coming.

    @anonymous_guy said:

    That's why I wrote:

    @anonymous_guy said:

    at the very least

    I know what you wrote. I don't have to read the fucking Wikipedia article because, unlike you, I've done a lot of research on the topic and given it actual thought.

    @anonymous_guy said:

    I just said that the US have committed a war crime.

    And I call bullshit. German and Japan declared war on us. Their civilians were keeping the war machine rolling. (Fuck, in Germany the goddamn civilians put the Nazis into power and then empowered them to carry out their horrendous acts.) That makes them legitimate targets. If the guy dropping the bomb is a target, why isn't the son of a bitch making the bomb? Does that distinction make any fucking sense to you?

    @anonymous_guy said:

    Come on, you must be intelligent enough to know that morals are not that simple!

    So let me see if I understand this: a dude comes up and threatens me with a knife, I can fight back. However, if he brings along his friend, who is keeping him supplied with knives and food and water and moral support, the friend is off limits? And if the friend is the one who put him up to attacking me in the first place?

    In your mind, the guy behind the war is not a target, because he wasn't actually pulling the trigger? Then what about Hitler? He didn't pull any triggers. He was simply providing administration, planning, etc. I mean, if the guy making bombs isn't a target, then why is the guy planning where to drop 'em? And Germany was a democracy. Democratic countries go to war if it's in the interests of the majority, right? The soldiers don't choose which wars they fight, right? So how does a war started by a democratic process not the responsibility of the civilians who started it?

    (By the way, before you make some dumbass comment assuming that I think America is exempt from this, I don't. Of course, I can't really think of any wars we've started since WWII that involved innocent countries. But let's say tomorrow 51% of Americans support invading Canada and taking their maple syrup reserves, I'd say that makes American citizens legitimate targets. Now, I'd hope they'd avoid targeting those of us who said "Canada? What the fuck of value is there in invading Canada?" but I can totally understand if they drop bombs on some US city which was supplying the war against them. (This assumes Canada has bombs, planes or an army, which as far as I know, they do not.))

    @anonymous_guy said:

    My grandfather never killed any Jew during WW II...

    Yeah, he never did it with his own hand, which I guess is the only thing that counts. He wore the uniform of the country that did, he fucking fought for them. His choices were to die with honor or to fight in the name of a psychotic, antisemitic regime and guess which one he chose? Your grandfather is a repulsive coward. If he'd actually had balls, he wouldn't have gone along with Hitler, dude.

    @anonymous_guy said:

    Furthermore, he was a member of the only party that voted against the Enabling Act.

    Wow, he was a member of a party! And that party voted not to do evil stuff. Of course, he then turn around and served that evil regime, so...

    @anonymous_guy said:

    Maybe, if you calm the fuck down and focus on the actual argument, an interesting discussion about the legitimacy of the use of nuclear weapons against Japan might ensue.

    So let's see, you say that your Nazi granddad is more honorable than my country because I guess we fought too well or something, and then you expect to have a rational argument? Are you nuts?



  • @anonymous_guy said:

    ...Germany (the only country with camps called "concentration camps").

    Ah, pedantic dickweedery--that's the way to win your argument!



  • @electronerd said:

    @anonymous_guy said:
    @lushr said:
    This was a bit of a side comment, actually. My main point is that the US was stuck: Japan wasn't going to surrender (see the Operation Ketsugō part of the wiki article I linked above). The US had 3 options: invade, blockade, or nuke. The first two would have been atrocities, but traditional atrocities, with many millions dead. They saw a neat way out, which allowed them to cause "only" 200-300k deaths. Which would you rather do?

    Call me an idealist, but I'd probably choose an option which does not require me to intentionally kill a large number of civilists, risking a traditional war which may result in more deaths. The end does not justify the means, IMO.

    So, the needs of the very many outweigh the needs of the very, very many?

    No, but morals sometimes outweigh seemingly more pragmatic solutions.



  • @lushr said:

    Which would you rather do?

    Surrender. Seriously, the dude's just pissed we kicked his Nazi granddad's ass. Apparently if nearly the entire population of a country is making war against you, you have to kill them one-at-a-time as they come at you, instead of just fucking their shit up and ending it before more people die.



  • @Ronald said:

    @lushr said:
    They saw a neat way out, which allowed them to cause "only" 200-300k deaths.

    That's what you get when you give control of a brand new big red button to a Democrat. Like Obama and Stuxnet, or Obama and Prism. Or Obama and Obamacare.

    Honestly, I'd take Truman over most of the last several Republicans, except Reagan. (And please, don't act like Dewey wouldn't have dropped the bomb, too..)



  • @anonymous_guy said:

    The end does not justify the means, IMO.

    The end of preventing millions of civilian deaths does not justify killing a hundred thousand civilians? Huh?



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @anonymous_guy said:
    My grandfather never killed any Jew during WW II...

    Yeah, he never did it with his own hand, which I guess is the only thing that counts. He wore the uniform of the country that did, he fucking fought for them. His choices were to die with honor or to fight in the name of a psychotic, antisemitic regime and guess which one he chose? Your grandfather is a repulsive coward. If he'd actually had balls, he wouldn't have gone along with Hitler, dude.

    Let me get this straight: If a violent dictator rose to power in your country, supported by the majority of the population, you would single-handedly finish him off? You've seen too many movies.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    Of course, he then turn around and served that evil regime, so...

    "Turn around"? Nope.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    So let's see, you say that your Nazi granddad is more honorable than my country […]

    Nope, I said nothing about any country. I just don't consider a soldier who feels good about killing thousands of civilians (as Paul Tibbets did) honorable. And I think that's a valid opinion.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Seriously, the dude's just pissed we kicked his Nazi granddad's ass.

    Your black-and-white world continues to amaze me.



  • @anonymous_guy said:

    But you're not responsible for a dictatorship's actions just because you happen to live in it and also happen to be a member of that country's army at the time the dictator rises to power.

    But you are responsible if you keep fighting. Look, maybe your grandfather was a good guy, but he had choices, don't you fucking pretend he did not. If he's as good as you say, then he knew the Nazis were evil and the majority of his countrymen (civilians included) were committing vile acts.

    What kind of person goes along with that? I'm not saying he's some monster; I understand that choosing to die fighting against your own countrymen would be a hard choice to make, but it is the only defensible choice. (He also could have tried to run away or refused to fight--those are also defensible. But either one of those would have likely ended in his death, whereas actively betraying his country--through sabotage, espionage or just grabbing his rifle and shooting Nazi officers until someone put him down--would have actually created some positive good.)

    Sorry, don't tell me the US committed war crimes by bringing the quickest close to the war they could, and then tell me the US compares unfavorably to your grandfather who served a regime that committed war crimes. If people like your grandfather had stood up for what was right, then the war would have been over with sooner. Fewer innocent Jews would have died in the Shoah. Fewer Allied troops would have died unnecessarily. Hitler would have faced punishment sooner.

    I'm sorry for saying your granddad is in hell (I don't even believe in such a place) but what the fuck do you expect when you tell me a dude who wore the uniform of Nazi Germany is more honorable than men and women who were trying to end a war they didn't start, by striking right at the heart of their enemy?



  • @anonymous_guy said:

    @electronerd said:
    @anonymous_guy said:
    @lushr said:
    This was a bit of a side comment, actually. My main point is that the US was stuck: Japan wasn't going to surrender (see the Operation Ketsugō part of the wiki article I linked above). The US had 3 options: invade, blockade, or nuke. The first two would have been atrocities, but traditional atrocities, with many millions dead. They saw a neat way out, which allowed them to cause "only" 200-300k deaths. Which would you rather do?

    Call me an idealist, but I'd probably choose an option which does not require me to intentionally kill a large number of civilists, risking a traditional war which may result in more deaths. The end does not justify the means, IMO.

    So, the needs of the very many outweigh the needs of the very, very many?

    No, but morals sometimes outweigh seemingly more pragmatic solutions.

    Consider [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731]this[/url], and [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemic_Prevention_and_Water_Purification_Department]any of thse others[/url], or [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korea_under_Japanese_rule]this[/url] or [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_under_Japanese_rule]this[/url], and would you say that that was moral? I'd hope not.

    Then, consider [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakk%C5%8D_ichiu]this[/url]. The Japanese wanted to engage in empire-building (or do those aforementioned things elsewhere), spreading those human rights issues around. I think that preventing that empire building was the morally correct thing to do. Now, how do you do (as the US) stop that ambition? Speak sternly to them? Do you think that saying "[i]Stop it, stop it right now![/i]" is going to work?

    I don't think that there's any diplomatic option to prevent empire building, leaving one option: war. I'll gloss over the whole early and mid war (which aren't actually that important to the sociopolitical situation) to the end of the war. The US has reclaimed many of the Japanese held islands, and they'd rather that the governments that they left behind stayed there. They know that the Japanese would happily retake those islands, given the chance, and has every intention of doing so. There is only remedy for that problem: replace the leadership. This obviously wasn't going to happen peacefully (the generals weren't going to step down anytime soon), so you have to force the governmental shift. There are two ways of doing this: either the defender says "I surrender!" or the attacker says "change or I'll shoot". This was the situation at the end of the war, and the situation that the nuclear bomb provided a relatively nice way out of: it provided a big stick that the Japanese couldn't touch. This led to the Japanese surrender, and the end of the war.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    (And please, don't act like Dewey wouldn't have dropped the bomb, too..)

    Nah he was too busy creating chaos in libraries.



  • @anonymous_guy said:

    Let me get this straight: If a violent dictator rose to power in your country, supported by the majority of the population, you would single-handedly finish him off? You've seen too many movies.

    Of course not. Who the fuck said this? But I wouldn't help the sumbitch. You accuse me of black-and-white morality, but apparently the only choice you see is serving the dictator..

    @anonymous_guy said:

    I just don't consider a soldier who feels good about killing thousands of civilians (as Paul Tibbets did) honorable.

    You still haven't explained why it's okay to kill soldiers, but not okay to kill the people supporting the soldiers. In a democratic society like the US, civilians are more responsible for the actions of the military than the military themselves. Why is it moral to kill soldiers but not civilians who are the ones really behind the war? It seems absurd. I think you're the one with inflexible, black-and-white morality.

    Here's how I see it: a person's actions should be judged by their aims, intentions and methods. In my mind, every Allied soldier who died in combat was murdered. And every Axis soldier was dishonorable simply by virtue of serving the Nazi regime; an accomplice to evil. I don't believe this ridiculous nonsense about valiant German soldiers fighting valiant Allied soldiers. What the Germans was doing was evil. Same for the Japanese. People who served them, in uniform or not, were targets.

    At the same time, I would have been glad to see the war end without a single shot fired. Despite what you seem to think, I do not revel in violence or death. But I do think the US was justified in taking the war to its enemy, in choosing to go after the civilians who were driving the war effort. I honestly don't see why being in a uniform should matter. If you are harming people--committing evil against them--then I think it is valid for them to strike back at you, whether you are in uniform or not. I don't go for this medieval view of war you seem to have--noble men in armor meeting honorably on a field of battle and agreeing to rules like "No targeting civilians". Of course, I think it's wrong to target innocent civilians, to kill people who have done nothing to you. But I see no problem with fighting back against people who have attacked you.



  • @lushr said:

    This was the situation at the end of the war, and the situation that the nuclear bomb provided a relatively nice way out of: it provided a big stick that the Japanese couldn't touch. This led to the Japanese surrender, and the end of the war.

    And I should also point out this was still a very narrow victory. The Emperor had one condition, and that was he got to remain Emperor. If we had said "No", his Plan B was for every single Japanese person to die in combat. This quote from the War Journal of the Imperial Headquarters sums up the Japanese attitude at the time:

    @Some Japanese Assholes said:

    We can no longer direct the war with any hope of success. The only course left is for Japan's one hundred million people to sacrifice their lives by charging the enemy to make them lose the will to fight.

    Yes, they would prefer every Japanese person die rather than surrender. Now, obviously, they would have surrendered at some point, but I think it would have been well, well, well past the number of casualties in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    Here's the thing: this kind of decision is one made all the time in war. It was a calculation by the Americans to end the war as quickly and with as few casualties (particularly Allied casualties) as possible. I don't see how anybody in their right mind could have a problem with this. The people we bombed weren't innocents (like the Chinese, Koreans, Vietnamese, Filipinos, British and Americans who died at the hands of the Japanese, who actually were innocent)--they were drenched in the blood of their regime.

    In fact, the only reason people do have a problem with it is because of raving, irrational anti-Americanism combined with the unique situation of the atomic bomb. If we had firebombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki and killed 500k people (like we did other Japanese cities) nobody would be saying a fucking thing about it.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Here's how I see it: a person's actions should be judged by their aims, intentions and methods. In my mind, every Allied soldier who died in combat was murdered. And every Axis soldier was dishonorable simply by virtue of serving the Nazi regime; an accomplice to evil. I don't believe this ridiculous nonsense about valiant German soldiers fighting valiant Allied soldiers. What the Germans was doing was evil. Same for the Japanese. People who served them, in uniform or not, were targets.

    I'd actually argue that this is going somewhat too far. In my humble opinion (non-humble opinions follow), soldiers are killed, not murdered, no matter whose side they were on. At the infantry level, it's hazardous to good analysis to think too much about whodunnit.


    @morbiuswilters said:

    At the same time, I would have been glad to see the war end without a single shot fired. Despite what you seem to think, I do not revel in violence or death. But I do think the US was justified in taking the war to its enemy, in choosing to go after the civilians who were driving the war effort. I honestly don't see why being in a uniform should matter. If you are harming people--committing evil against them--then I think it is valid for them to strike back at you, whether you are in uniform or not. I don't go for this medieval view of war you seem to have--noble men in armor meeting honorably on a field of battle and agreeing to rules like "No targeting civilians". Of course, I think it's wrong to target innocent civilians, to kill people who have done nothing to you. But I see no problem with fighting back against people who have attacked you.

    This is very by-the-book for military planning, and the modus operandi of asymetrical warfare. Infrastructure can be a far easier target than the equipment it supports and creates, making it an obvious target for bombardment, and the same is true of blockades. In time of war, essentially every economic activity becomes devoted to the war effort, and this makes almost every economic activity a valid target.

    In fact, the noble men never really existed, and the whole idea was silly at a practical level. Medieval transportation infrastructure was insufficient to support a mobilized army, which led to pillaging and targeting of civilians to acquire resources. In fact, the whole idea of chivalry was made to stop the noblemen's actions, which notably didn't work.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    but it is the only defensible choice

    I agree with you there, but it requires more courage (and suicidal tendency) than almost everyone has, so I'm still proud of the courage he actually had.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    @anonymous_guy said:
    I just don't consider a soldier who feels good about killing thousands of civilians (as Paul Tibbets did) honorable.

    You still haven't explained why it's okay to kill soldiers, but not okay to kill the people supporting the soldiers. In a democratic society like the US, civilians are more responsible for the actions of the military than the military themselves.

    You've mentioned one of the important facts: Even if you count the Weimar Republic as a working democracy (which it wasn't), in 1939 Germany had definitely ceased to be one. But more importantly: Even if you assume that in a totalitarian state, about 50% of the population actually supports the dictator and his actions, killing 100,000 civilians means you're killing about 50,000 innocent people. If you think killing them is justified, you're basically arguing that executing a group of people is justified because you suspect half of them to be actual criminals.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    People who served them, in uniform or not, were targets.

    The problem is that you're assuming that everyone who was killed actively served the regime. That's definitely not the case. Just to clarify: If my grandfather would have been killed during the war, I would not judge the soldier who killed him. He served an enemy nation, so he would have been a legitimate target, unlike the average citizen.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    I honestly don't see why being in a uniform should matter.

    Because of the basic principle "in dubio pro reo".


Log in to reply