....lybob Posted January 13, 2012 Author Share Posted January 13, 2012 (edited) No, you are misinterpreting the article........it is requesting perspective in your response. You should read the entire thing first. The event merited a small column in the media. It exploded due to the graphic image, not the severity of the offense. The four Marines committed an offense for which they will be punished. The action was offensive, but it was not murder, rape, or mayhem. . Agreed, it certainly rates lower than the US soldiers who were killing Afghanistan civilians and cutting off their fingers for souvenir key-chains or some of the wedding party bombings. Edited January 13, 2012 by ....lybob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 That doesn't make it right. It also doesn't make the citizens who were bombed guilty - THAT argument is even more disingenuous than the "they were civilians, hence innocent" argument. They weren't innocent BECAUSE bombing them was commonplace? "Imperial," you dolt. And that is also debatable. If only because the warped concept of "bushido" they used was far more complex than merely acting like animals. The most interesting thing about the end of the war in the Pacific is the second atomic bomb dropped. After the bombing of Hiroshima the Japanese wanted to negotiate terms of surrender as long as they could keep their emperor. The we refused and dropped the second. There was no need for it. It was more along the lines of saying, "Hay Stalin, why don't you take a look across the Sea of Japan on August 9th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 I don't win until you're capable of curing your own ignorance. Trace the doctrine of strategic bombing through the 30's, through the 8th AF's operations in Germany, the XX AF's operations in the CBI theater, and the XXI's early operations over Japan. And don't even think of bothering me with Griffith...almost everything he says on the matter is completely unsourced, and his thesis is inaccurate to begin with. Oh, you just want someone to discuss WWII with, don't you, you big softy. But yeah, I'll get right on that. Capable of curing my own ignorance? DC Tom's burden on full display. Any luck defining a word without adding your own connotations? Because I won't rest until you're capable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Agreed, it certainly rates lower than the US soldiers who were killing Afghanistan civilians and cutting off their fingers for souvenir key-chains or some of the wedding party bombings. Ah, yes, the Stryker Dozen. Not just "killing civilians". Sport-hunting them. Hope those idiots get the long step, or however they do executions at Leavenworth these days. But note: the indignation over and amount of coverage for a bunch of guys pissing on corpses is greater than a squad that repeatedly went on hunting trips for civilians as if on some sort of big-game safari. Why? Because the pissers were dumb enough to video-tape it. Yeah, that makes perfect sense. Oh, you just want someone to discuss WWII with, don't you, you big softy. But yeah, I'll get right on that. Capable of curing my own ignorance? DC Tom's burden on full display. You think I abuse you idiots because I enjoy it? It's a viciously Socratic method to get you fools to actually think about the bull **** you spew. Once in a while it works. I would have hoped, in the case of someone who's arguing the History Channel as a source, it would have made them stop and think "Hey, maybe that's not the best info available. Maybe I should dig into this some more before I spout off." I could recommend some books. I have about thirty or so on the subject (some good, some - like Griffith - not so much). But if you don't WANT to be informed, THEN DON'T !@#$ING ARGUE WITH ME, BECAUSE I AM! Tell you what...when I write an article on this subject (because, after trying to cure your stupidity, it's occurred to me that it would make a pretty decent subject for a magazine article), I'll let you proof-read it. How's that? Any luck defining a word without adding your own connotations? Because I won't rest until you're capable. What the !@#$ are you talking about? Are you back to "punitive" not being judgmental? Of course it is, how you're using it. You're ascribing motive to action, in this case with a serious paucity of evidence to back it up. You're making a judgement that is, at best (and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here), grievously inaccurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Our overly PC pantywaist MSM outcry is a joke and yet so predictible. war is UGLY. it is hell. it is not pretty. For anyone isolated back home here in your cushy office or home nice and safe and cozy to try and claim some type of moral superiority over these brave Marines is pathetic and you are ignorant. Who knows what the context of this video is. Did these Marines witness these taliban throwing acid on defenseless women or children and pursue and kill them ? Did the dead taliban just ambush and kill some of the Marines friends moments before? we don't know what happened and who are we to judge them. Don't even get me started on our overly PC rules of engagement. Don't send our troops to do an ugly job for you while you happily sit home watching reality tv in the CONUS oblivious to the harsh reality of a combat soldiers every day existence if you are not willing to support them. Don't give me some crap about how we need to hold ourselves to a higher standard. Our troops are trained to kill people, blow things up and win. That is their job description for which they are trained. How would our liberal media today react if they were time warped to 1944/1945 with American troops flamethrowing Japanese in caves and bunkers of Guam/Okinawa/Iwo Jima etc.. how would they react to marines raiding dead Japanese bodies as war trophies ripping gold teeth from their dead decaying lifeless bodies? Many times we weren't sure if Japanese were really trying to surrender or pretending to surrender so we shot them just to be safe. these were a few samplings of actions from "the greatest generation" dude, the rest of the world hates America (save a few of our closest allies) regardless so is this video just going to make them really really really REALLY not like us? Being brave doesn't give them the right to be !@#$s. Regardless of what the Taliban where doing before the marines killed them pissing on them afterwards is still taking it to a whole other level. I think we all agree that two wrongs don't make a right. If the Taliban were throwing acid on women and children better to turn the camera on that wouldn't you say? I would be more willing to forgive soldiers that massacre civilians in the heat of combat due to fear and anger. Shooting a Japanese trying to surrender because the didn't know if they were really surrendering or not. But did they need to piss on them afterward "just to be safe" If they did it was because they were being !@#$s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 (edited) The most interesting thing about the end of the war in the Pacific is the second atomic bomb dropped. After the bombing of Hiroshima the Japanese wanted to negotiate terms of surrender as long as they could keep their emperor. The we refused and dropped the second. There was no need for it. It was more along the lines of saying, "Hay Stalin, why don't you take a look across the Sea of Japan on August 9th. Thats a load of simplistic bull **** designed to allow you to continue with your efforts to make the US decisions in that conflict improper. The US dropped the second bomb in order to send a message to the USSR? Stop it. Edited January 13, 2012 by RkFast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted January 13, 2012 Author Share Posted January 13, 2012 Ah, yes, the Stryker Dozen. Not just "killing civilians". Sport-hunting them. Hope those idiots get the long step, or however they do executions at Leavenworth these days. But note: the indignation over and amount of coverage for a bunch of guys pissing on corpses is greater than a squad that repeatedly went on hunting trips for civilians as if on some sort of big-game safari. Why? Because the pissers were dumb enough to video-tape it. Yeah, that makes perfect sense. That's part of it but in that part of the world there also seems to be more outrage over being disrespected or dishonored than slaughtered - saw an interview with an Afghanistan who said he had more respect for the Soviets because they fought you like men (probably referring to drones and such) , even though the Soviets were probably much more brutal than we were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 (edited) Thats a load of simplistic bull **** designed to allow you to continue with your efforts to make the US decisions in that conflict improper. The US dropped the second bomb in order to send a message to the USSR? Stop it. I didn't say they were improper did I? These were the first few posts I have in this forum. Don't put words in my mouth. And yes, the second bomb was dropped to send a message to the Russians. "We have it, and we WILL NOT hesitate to use it". Edited January 13, 2012 by Bigfatbillsfan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 You think I abuse you idiots because I enjoy it? You crack me up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 I didn't say they were improper did I? These were the first few posts I have in this forum. Don't put words in my mouth. I figured that where you were going. And if so, I thought you were taking a very simplistic view. if Im off, I apologize. You crack me up Tom's like Anthony Michael Hall in Sixteen Candles. Hes the "king of the dipshits." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 You crack me up Sorry, I mis-typed that. It should have been "...just because I enjoy it?" That's part of it but in that part of the world there also seems to be more outrage over being disrespected or dishonored than slaughtered - saw an interview with an Afghanistan who said he had more respect for the Soviets because they fought you like men (probably referring to drones and such) , even though the Soviets were probably much more brutal than we were. I kinda brought that up earlier. http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/141061-if-you-are-going-to-do-something-horrific/page__view__findpost__p__2361462 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 (edited) You think I abuse you idiots because I enjoy it? It's a viciously Socratic method to get you fools to actually think about the bull **** you spew. Once in a while it works. I would have hoped, in the case of someone who's arguing the History Channel as a source, it would have made them stop and think "Hey, maybe that's not the best info available. Maybe I should dig into this some more before I spout off." I could recommend some books. I have about thirty or so on the subject (some good, some - like Griffith - not so much). But if you don't WANT to be informed, THEN DON'T !@#$ING ARGUE WITH ME, BECAUSE I AM! Tell you what...when I write an article on this subject (because, after trying to cure your stupidity, it's occurred to me that it would make a pretty decent subject for a magazine article), I'll let you proof-read it. How's that? What the !@#$ are you talking about? Are you back to "punitive" not being judgmental? Of course it is, how you're using it. You're ascribing motive to action, in this case with a serious paucity of evidence to back it up. You're making a judgement that is, at best (and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here), grievously inaccurate. I've already conceded that I mis-characterized the war in the Pacific as punitive, and acknowledged that as much as many citizens may attribute Doolittle and the firebombing as retribution or punishment, that it cannot be proven to be motive for or an objective of said events. The word punitive in it of itself bears no judgement. The discussion was whether or not the events were or were not punishment, not whether punishment was justified or unjustified, thus no judgement. Are you doing your best bigfatbills fan impression and really trying to define the word punitive for me or trying to explain how a word in context alters the meaning of a sentence? Edited January 13, 2012 by Jauronimo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 And yes, the second bomb was dropped to send a message to the Russians. "We have it, and we WILL NOT hesitate to use it". Nope. More like, they were both dropped to try to end the war before the Russians came in and grabbed themselves some spoils. Though the existence of the weapons was kept from them (unsuccessfully - at Potsdam, Stalin knew more about the bomb than Truman did) in part to intimidate them with use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 I've already conceded that I mis-characterized the war in the Pacific as punitive, and acknowledged that as much as many citizens may attribute Doolittle and the firebombing as retribution or punishment, that it cannot be proven to be motive for or an objective of said events. I believe you're only conceding that you don't want to argue with me, not because you think I'm right, but because you're sick of my bull ****. The word punitive in it of itself bears no judgement. The discussion was whether or not the events were or were not punishment, not whether punishment was justified or unjustified, thus no judgement. No, the discussion was not whether the events were punishment, but whether or not the events were intended to be or inflicted as punishment. That's the definition of "punitive", and that's why it's judgmental: it doesn't describe the event, it judges the motives of the people making the decision, with no evidence other than the event happening. Kind-of like how DIE sees inner-city violence, and immediately jumps to the conclusion that it's because black people are animals. How is that NOT judgmental? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 (edited) I believe you're only conceding that you don't want to argue with me, not because you think I'm right, but because you're sick of my bull ****. No, the discussion was not whether the events were punishment, but whether or not the events were intended to be or inflicted as punishment. That's the definition of "punitive", and that's why it's judgmental: it doesn't describe the event, it judges the motives of the people making the decision, with no evidence other than the event happening. Kind-of like how DIE sees inner-city violence, and immediately jumps to the conclusion that it's because black people are animals. How is that NOT judgmental? [/quoted] Obviously, punitive is all about intention or motive. As I've stated several times, I believe I was mistaken regarding the motives as there is no evidence supporting the aforementioned events as punitive in nature. The example you use about DIE clearly places a value on the intention of the participants, in contrast to the word punitive which has no value as to whether punishment is right, wrong, good or bad, and thus is not judgmental. Its clear now that you were either attempting to define the word punitive for me, or even worse, define the word adjective. Channeling bigfatbillsfan today? Edited January 13, 2012 by Jauronimo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 A more appropriate response would be, these guys !@#$ed up. Unfortunately, most people want to rationalize the action into being fine and dandy. I think atrocity is too strong a word, but it is horrible and unnecessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted January 13, 2012 Author Share Posted January 13, 2012 You think I abuse you idiots because I enjoy it? It's a viciously Socratic method to get you fools to actually think about the bull **** you spew. Once in a while it works. I would have hoped, in the case of someone who's arguing the History Channel as a source, it would have made them stop and think "Hey, maybe that's not the best info available. Maybe I should dig into this some more before I spout off." I could recommend some books. I have about thirty or so on the subject (some good, some - like Griffith - not so much). But if you don't WANT to be informed, THEN DON'T !@#$ING ARGUE WITH ME, BECAUSE I AM! Tom in your opinion strictly between Japan and the United States who committed the first act of war, Japan with Pearl Harbor or the United States with the embargo of oil and steel and freezing of Japan's financial assets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Can anyone give me a reasonable explanation as to why, aside from the obvious PR concerns, that this is such a travesty? Is it that dead bodies are somehow super sacred and should never be desecrated? Do the character and actions of the person whose body it is have any impact on how sacred it is? If these were Nazis would it still be so awful? If these guys ass raped little boys or murdered innocent women and children for kicks would it make a difference? What if they just gang raped and murdered your mom? Then would we still need to show their corpse honor and respect? In death does everyone's rotting corpse ascend to some greater status? I really want to understand, because it seems to me like a bunch of you just need your string pulled, so please help me to see the error of my ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Can anyone give me a reasonable explanation as to why, aside from the obvious PR concerns, that this is such a travesty? Is it that dead bodies are somehow super sacred and should never be desecrated? Do the character and actions of the person whose body it is have any impact on how sacred it is? If these were Nazis would it still be so awful? If these guys ass raped little boys or murdered innocent women and children for kicks would it make a difference? What if they just gang raped and murdered your mom? Then would we still need to show their corpse honor and respect? In death does everyone's rotting corpse ascend to some greater status? I really want to understand, because it seems to me like a bunch of you just need your string pulled, so please help me to see the error of my ways. Do we know what vast military advantage taking to time to do this action gave us? As I said before, if they were doing this to me family or friend, I would take it upon myself to put an end to it very quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Do we know what vast military advantage taking to time to do this action gave us? As I said before, if they were doing this to me family or friend, I would take it upon myself to put an end to it very quickly. Why did you reply if you weren't going to answer thae question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts