DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on November 09, 2007, 05:40:22 PM
-
(http://image.guardian.co.uk/sitelogos/Guardian.gif)
Afghan suicide attack killed 59 children, ministry confirms
Associated Press
Friday November 9, 2007
(http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2007/11/09/afghan372.jpg)
A suicide attack in northern Afghanistan earlier this week killed 59 schoolchildren and wounded 96 others, the education ministry said today.
The schoolchildren were lined up to greet a group of lawmakers visiting a sugar factory in the northern province of Baghlan on Tuesday when a suicide bomber detonated explosives.
In total, at least 75 people were killed, including several parliamentarians.
The 59 schoolchildren, aged eight to 18, and five teachers were among those killed in the attack, said Zahoor Afghan, a ministry spokesman.
The attack was the deadliest in the country since the removal of the Taliban regime from power in the 2001 US-led invasion.
"The education minister has ordered that no children should be ever again be used in these sort of events," Mr Afghan said.
The Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, declared three days of mourning on Wednesday and ordered an investigation. No group has claimed responsibility, and the Taliban has denied any involvement.
Nato and Afghan troops, meanwhile, battled Taliban fighters near Gulistan district, in western Farah province, today.
The soldiers seized the district centre after it was overrun by militants last week, said Bariyalai Khan, the spokesman for the provincial police chief.
In southern Zabul province, Taliban militants on motorbikes ambushed and killed Shahjoy's district chief and two of his bodyguards yesterday, said Mohammad Rasool Khan, a district police chief.
The victims were shopping in a market when four militants on two motorbikes shot them dead, Mr Khan said.
US-led coalition forces and Afghan troops, meanwhile, clashed with Taliban insurgents in southern Helmand province's Nahr Surk district on Wednesday, leaving several militants dead, a coalition statement said.
The joint force was conducting a reconnaissance patrol near the district when insurgents fired on them with machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and small arms, the statement said.
"The combined force immediately engaged the Taliban fighters with small-arms fire and close air support, killing many of the insurgents before they fled the area," it said.
Violence in Afghanistan this year has been the deadliest since the Taliban was ousted. More than 5,700 people, mostly militants, have died so far this year in insurgency-related violence, according to an Associated Press count based on figures from Afghan and western officials.
-
Jeeze, if they do that another 10,000 times, they'll have killed about 600,000 children - - bringing them ahead of the 500,000 Iraqi children killed as a result of the US-planned embargo of Iraq before the invasion. Then another 10,000 times and they'll have killed about as many children as were killed in the U.S. war on Viet Nam.
Yes, I can see that those Muslims ("religion of peace," hah!) are very bad people. Very bad people. No respect for the lives of children. Terrible, isn't it?
-
I heard that the Lancet was going to publish an estimate of 590k dead based on extrapolations from this one attack. Some new statistical model or something.
-
Ain't it terrible. And if the bomb had been from an American plane, the Pentagon would have reported 59 terrorist ringleaders killed.
-
Yeah i know. If the bomb had been from an american plane the Lancet would have reported it as genocide.
New Math.
-
nice try
huge difference
it's called intent
in today's world the Islamist target innocent civilians
in fact anyone that is not Muslim is a "target"
dont believe it?
watch video below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maHSOB2RFm4&mode=related&search= (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maHSOB2RFm4&mode=related&search=)
-
<<in today's world the Islamist target innocent civilians
in fact anyone that is not Muslim is a "target">>
Whereas the nice Americans, who don't "target" any civilians at all, just plan wars in which millions of them unfortunately happen to die. By accident, of course. Which makes a HUGE difference to the victims and their families. Just ask any bereaved parent.
-
>> ... just plan wars in which millions of them unfortunately happen to die. ...<<
Wow. Now it's millions.
These kinds of lies just get tiresome. America is THE force for liberty in the world today, as his has been for most of the twentieth century. That's not to say that other countries join us in the cause of liberty, they have. Even Canada does the right thing most of the time. I guess some folks just hate winners because they are obviously such losers.
-
Jeeze, if they do that another 10,000 times, they'll have killed about 600,000 children - - bringing them ahead of the 500,000 Iraqi children killed as a result of the US-planned embargo of Iraq before the invasion. Then another 10,000 times and they'll have killed about as many children as were killed in the U.S. war on Viet Nam.
Yes, I can see that those Muslims ("religion of peace," hah!) are very bad people. Very bad people. No respect for the lives of children. Terrible, isn't it?
MT, your rant here is of no substance. Are you actually condoning this horrible act? Referencing other places and other acts do not lessen the severity of this one, does it?
You keep mentioning how terrible America is, but , guess what? You can be just as terrible by doing nothing or little as Canada seems to do. Canada not reaching out? Naw, tell me it ain't true...
-
Ain't it terrible. And if the bomb had been from an American plane, the Pentagon would have reported 59 terrorist ringleaders killed.
Again, you misdirect. This suiciide bomber was not American, probably, anyway, so why keep deflecting to the U.S. This is an act by a coward. Targeting children is abominable. Surely you agree with that, do you not?
-
<<Wow. Now it's millions.>>
Yeah, you got it. TWO million in Viet Nam alone, half a million CHILDREN in the Iraq embargo, and 100,000 to 600,000 in Iraq to date. Plus throw-aways like the 2,500 killed in the bombing of Panama City, half a million in the CIA coup in Indonesia, God alone knows how many in the Shah of Iran's torture chambers or the torture chambers of Latin America (all bought and paid for by the U.S.A.) and, geeze, forgetful schmuck that I am, I'm sure I must have overlooked other slaughters, massacres and tortures that the world's great "benefactor" has conferred on some lucky individuals somewhere else on this great big planet of ours.
<<These kinds of lies just get tiresome. America is THE force for liberty in the world today, as his has been for most of the twentieth century. >>
What gets REALLY tiresome, Rich, is this endless stream of bullshit that the U.S.A. is "THE" force for liberty in the world. Tell that to the Iranians, whose families perished in the Shah's torture chambers, tell it to the Guatemalans or the Chileans or the Argentinians or the Palestinians or the Salvadorenos or the Uruguayans. Do you REALLY think your bullshit is fooling ANYBODY?
<<That's not to say that other countries join us in the cause of liberty, they have. >>
If you're talking post-war, show us ONE instance where the U.S. went to bat for "liberty," and if you can (which I seriously doubt) I'll show you TWO where they subverted and overthrew a democratically elected government. If you are talking WWII, nobody "joined you" in the cause of liberty. You were a little late to the party - - you joined US.
<<Even Canada does the right thing most of the time.>>
Like you'd know "the right thing" if it came up and bit you on the ass.
<<I guess some folks just hate winners because they are obviously such losers.>>
No, some folks just hate people who cause the needless deaths of millions of unoffending human beings and lie about why they're doing it because they're hateful individuals. Some folks just because they are good, solid, decent human beings, hate people who operate torture chambers all over the planet and try to hide them from the public eye. Some folks just hate: liars, fascists, torturers, murderers, rapists and all their supporters and protectors.
BTW, "Winner," that title usually is reserved for those who actually win their battles. I still believe in the long run the Arabs will kick your ass just like the Vietnamese before them. Whatever gave you the idea you were a winner?
-
And a reply to the Professor:
no of course I don't condone an attack targeting children. It goes without saying that the attack was reprehensible.
My remarks were directed at the unbelievable hypocrisy of our friend, who condemns the killing of 59 children but remains supportive of the totally unjustifiable war which has killed hundreds of thousands of children. The argument that non-targeted killings are OK while targeted killings are not is ludicrous. If you plan and execute a war such as this, it is inconceivable that it could be conducted without massive civilian casualties. That the civilian casualties are unintended, or even that steps were taken to minimize them is irrelevant - - it was known or should have been known from the outset that civilian casualties on this scale were a likely by-product of the war, and the decision was taken to go forward anyway. To the victims, of course, dead is dead - - the issue of targeting or not targeting them is an almost comical irrelevancy.
If the men who carried out the latest attack have the blood of 59 innocent children on their hands - - and they do - - they are guilty of the massacre of 59 innocent children. The guilt of the American architects of the war, and their agents, the U.S. military, stands at many, many times higher than that.
Canada, BTW, does not "stand on the sidelines." We participated in the invasion of Afghanistan, and I supported that invasion, at least at the beginning, because they allowed their territory to be used to launch an attack on our neighbour. It would have been extremely foolish NOT to have retaliated. What I'm not comfortable with now is the open-ended nature of the committment. I can see that there are limits to the punishment that we can impose on the Taliban, simply because, at bottom, Taliban is just an idea, and an army can't kill an idea. There will always be Taliban in Afghanistan, it's a self-renewing idea and new Taliban appear in the ranks from the coming generations.
I think it's time to set out clear objectives, set a timetable, do what little we can and then pull out - - sooner rather than later - - with a stern warning that the next time a 9-11 is launched from Afghanistan, they'll be nuked back to scorched earth with not even an insect left alive. Not that anyone would ever do such a thing. The best real protection the U.S. could ever hope to have would be by a combination of (a) radical changes in foreign policy, i.e., cut Israel loose to solve its own problems with its neighbours and quit propping up repressive dictatorships such as (but not exclusively) Egypt and (b) improved airport and other public area security.
-
>>Yeah, you got it. TWO million in Viet Nam alone, half a million CHILDREN in the Iraq embargo, and 100,000 to 600,000 in Iraq to date.<<
Are you sure it's not 4 million in Vietnam? 1 million Iraqi children? 2 million Iraqis? I mean if you're going to lie, why not lie big? By the way, where are all the dead bodies in Iraq? Anybody seen them? I mean, 2 million bodies wouldn't be hard to find. :D I'm sure MSDNC would love to get some pictures. Can you point them in the right direction? :D
-
<<Are you sure it's not 4 million in Vietnam? >>
Yeah, I am, Rich. It's the figure I've seen most often in papers I respect, the Toronto Star, for example.
<<1 million Iraqi children? 2 million Iraqis?>>
No, half a million dead Iraqi kids is the commonly accepted figure.
<< I mean if you're going to lie, why not lie big?>>
I'm not you, Rich, so I don't feel the need to "lie big." For example, I LMFAO at your "three million dead in Nam after the Americans quit." Really hilarious. That's one good reason not to lie, and it's enough. Not to appear like a moronic ass-hole quoting garbage out of sheer ignorance.
<<By the way, where are all the dead bodies in Iraq? Anybody seen them? I mean, 2 million bodies wouldn't be hard to find. >>
The two million bodies were in Viet Nam, not Iraq. They're all over the country. Where the fuck did you think they would be, lined up for morons like you to count? You don't have enough fingers and toes. You sound like you've been learning some tricks from your good mentors, the Nazis - - "What Holocaust? Where are the six million bodies? yuk, yuk, six million bodies wouldn't be hard to find."
<<Cheesy >>
You got THAT right.
<<I'm sure MSDNC would love to get some pictures. Can you point them in the right direction?>>
Sure. Here. http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqwarpix.html WARNING! EXTREMELY GRAPHIC PHOTOS OF AMERICAN ATROCITIES posted at the request of one of their biggest fans.
-
How the hell is a war wound/death an "American Atrocity"? ??? Oh yea, gotta remember who's reality we're referring to. In Tee's corner, ANY death is directly the fault of the U.S. & Bush
-
<<In Tee's corner, ANY death is directly the fault of the U.S. & Bush>>
No, of course not. It's the fault of the VICTIM. THAT's the guy that started the war, and as you can see, he got what he deserved, the bastard.
-
<<In Tee's corner, ANY death is directly the fault of the U.S. & Bush>>
No, of course not. It's the fault of the VICTIM.
Actually, it's the fault of the person that caused the injury/death. And more importantly if it was intentional vs accidental. Especially since atrocities largely refer to intentional death & mutilation. In this case, a picture isn't worth squat
THAT's the guy that started the war, and as you can see, he got what he deserved, the bastard.
Boy, aren't you the compassionate commie
-
<<Actually, it's the fault of the person that caused the injury/death. >>
The casualties of a war are the fault of whoever started the war. No war, no casualty. More basic than that, it does not get. If you don't like to see casualties or don't want the responsibility for causing them: Do Not Start Wars. Very simple, really. Most people get it instinctively.
-
<<Actually, it's the fault of the person that caused the injury/death. >>
The casualties of a war are the fault of whoever started the war. No war, no casualty
Strange, I thought you were talking about atrocities. Apparently you were mistaken, and now its about casualties. Or just trying to move the goalposts yet again...........no surprise there
-
Originally, I WAS talking about American atrocities. The one who moved the goal-posts is you. And I quote from your post: <<In Tee's corner, ANY death is directly the fault of the U.S. & Bush>> YOU were the one who moved the discussion from American atrocities to "ANY death." I was happy to follow your moving goal-posts and kick the ball right over them no matter where you planted them.
If you want to keep the focus on American atrocities, I will say that the responsibility for American atrocities rests upon American troops and American politicians who started the war.
If you want to switch the focus to "ANY deaths" in the war, I will be happy to follow your lead and tell you that any and all deaths in a war are attributable to the person or persons who started the war.
It really is not all that complicated.
-
http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqwarpix.html#IRAQWARPIX
from a link on the above-referenced site - - more photos of American atrocities as requested by Rich. Love to see how sirs argues his way out of these pictures of the "benefits to humanity" that Amerikkka so generously confers on the world's darker-skinned citizens.
WARNING: GRAPHIC AND HIGHLY DISTURBING PHOTOS.
-
Note I am not saying who in particular caused any of these injuries, just that this is the sort of suffering happening to both sides as the result of the war.
From your source.
-
Originally, I WAS talking about American atrocities. The one who moved the goal-posts is you. And I quote from your post: <<In Tee's corner, ANY death is directly the fault of the U.S. & Bush>> YOU were the one who moved the discussion from American atrocities to "ANY death."
That was in reference to your hairbrain idiocy of how evil Bush and Amerikkka are supposed to be. What was also just as demonstrable, was how quickly you used it to move AWAY from atrocities, after simply posting a tragic casualty of war, as if THAT was some form of atrocity validation. Your movement, not mine.
If you want to keep the focus on American atrocities,....
Which, for all to see, was what the picture was supposed to substantiate
....I will say that the responsibility for American atrocities rests upon American troops and American politicians who started the war.
No, those would be casualties once again. ATROCITIES are actual intentional, purposeful, wonton acts of violence, on a mass scale. Defined as: An appalling or atrocious act, situation, or object, especially an act of unusual or illegal cruelty inflicted by an armed force on civilians or prisoners
Casualties of war does not equate to atrocity, no matter how repetative you are with the moronic cries of an illegal war
It really is not all that complicated.
I didn't think it was either, but that sure didn't stop the sprint-like backpedaling on your part
But the bigger point here, outside of your goalpost moving service, is again how you have no problem repeating hyperboilc accusations of "atrocities", "fascists", "nazis", at nearly anyone who hasn't adopted your warped Bush is evil, America is evil opinion of what is, is, and as a result, largely muting those terms to the point of making them meaningless. It's very much like what Pooch accurately referenced ".... is that your perspective is so skewed as to be completely unreliable"
-
<<Note I am not saying who in particular caused any of these injuries, just that this is the sort of suffering happening to both sides as the result of the war.>>
Yes, well then we have to ask ourselves, who started this war, don't we? So we know who is to blame for all the casualties.
-
That would be Saddam. Invasion of Kuwait. Violations of the truce.
-
<< . . . after simply posting a tragic casualty of war, as if THAT was some form of atrocity validation. Your movement, not mine.>>
Actually, what I posted was a link to a page with one photo and multiple links. YOU chose to focus on the first photo as if that were the only "atrocity" photo in the collection, although the links were clearly labelled as to content, including child victims, etc., which were, strictly speaking, the REAL Amerikkkan war crimes and atrocities. There was no shortage of atrocity photo links, all clearly labelled as such, which you deliberately chose to avoid in order to attack the first photo on the page. All I did was respond to your attack on that photo by pointing out the fact that ANY casualty of a war is the fault of those who started the war.
<<Which, for all to see, was what the picture was supposed to substantiate>>
No, it's what the LINK was supposed to validate. The link, as I said, led to many clearly-labelled collections of photos of various Amerikkkan war crimes and atrocities, including children, civilians, torture, Abu Ghraib, etc., etc., all of which you studiously chose to ignore in order to create the phony impression that the first photo on the page, rather than any of the clearly-labelled links, was the ONLY evidence of the victims of Amerikkkan atrocities, and as such was clearly inadequate.
<<Casualties of war does not equate to atrocity, no matter how repetative you are with the moronic cries of an illegal war>>
Civilian casualties of war, victims of napalm and/or white phosphorus, are definitely atrocities, as are children, etc., and in a war of unjustified aggression, any civilian casualty is the victim of a war crime because the war of aggression itself is a war crime. Several of the Nuremburg defendants went to the gallows specifically for the crime of plotting and waging a war of unjustified aggression.
<<It's very much like what Pooch accurately referenced ".... is that your perspective is so skewed as to be completely unreliable">>
LOL. Nothing at all wrong with MY perspective. It's your own inability, and Pooch's, to accept the obvious, that is the problem here. There is certainly no shortage of individuals in the world, and even in Amerikkka itself, who accept the obvious and share my perspective entirely. I sure as hell didn't invent it out of whole cloth. To me it's the only logical way of accounting for the events that we all have seen unfold. You and Pooch have found a different way of rationalizing them. Good for you, but don't expect me to agree with your ridiculous nonsense.
-
<<That would be Saddam. Invasion of Kuwait. Violations of the truce. >>
Really. Saddam started the Second Gulf War? Well, that's certainly a novel interpretation of the events leading up to the invasion of Iraq. Thank you for your interesting POV. I blame Bush. We'll have to agree to disagree.
-
Saddam started the Second Gulf War?
Sure. as the second was a continuation of the first.
Which Bush?
-
Yeah. Well, as I said, that is certainly a novel and creative way of looking at this war.
In answer to your question, I blamed Dubya. Still do.
-
So the first gulf war was justified?
-
The first gulf war was a more complex situation. In the first place, I don't think that Iraq has ever accepted the legality of Kuwait as a separate entity, given the facts of its origin. In the second place, Saddam claimed that Kuwait had been slant-drilling into Iraqi deposits and refused to stop despite numerous official protests. In the third place, the U.S. ambassador had told Saddam's government that the U.S.A. had no objection to Saddam moving into Kuwait.
IMHO, the invasion of Kuwait was still an illegal act and all of Iraq's concerns could have and should have been addressed in due course through the International Court of Justice at the Hague and the United Nations. So, yeah, I'd say that the war was justified to the extent that the Iraqi Army had to be forced out of Kuwait. Once back within its own borders, there was no further reason to pursue the war.
-
In the first place, I don't think that Iraq has ever accepted the legality of Kuwait as a separate entity, given the facts of its origin.
Though Kuwait had been an independent political entity for more than two centuries, it gained international recognition as a sovereign state in June 1961. A few weeks later Kuwait joined the Arab League. In 1963 the country became a member of the United Nations.
The State of Kuwait?s Constitution was ratified on November 11, 1962. Its National Assembly was convened under the Constitution on January 29, 1963.
http://www.kuwait-info.com/sidepages/nat_history.asp
....Another problem was insufficient documentation for the boundary. "Geographic coordinates were not established for the boundary. That task was left for the Demarcation Commission", Mr. Pinther said. The Commission had to depend on letters between the two Governments, which only broadly described the border dividing the countries.
These communications had taken place between Iraq and Kuwait in 1932, when Iraq joined the League of Nations.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1309/is_n4_v30/ai_14879122
In the second place, Saddam claimed that Kuwait had been slant-drilling into Iraqi deposits and refused to stop despite numerous official protests.
Was this ever proven? Or was this like WMDs?
In the third place, the U.S. ambassador had told Saddam's government that the U.S.A. had no objection to Saddam moving into Kuwait.
Relevance, if even true?
Once back within its own borders, there was no further reason to pursue the war.
Except Iraq refused to abide by the terms of the truce.
So to summarize, Iraq 2 is a continuation of Iraq I and Saddam is to blame.
-
<<Accept Iraq refused to abide by the terms of the truce. >>
Bullshit. The alleged violations were minimal to non-existent. That's why those lying bastards had to cook up the "WMD" excuse. Iraq was targeted for its oil, pure and simple. They had made up their minds as per PNAC's plan, to seize a major oil-producing country in the Middle East and Iraq was it.
-
Not Bullshit.
They wouldn't have been shelled for 40 days and 40 nights by Clinton if they were in compliance.
An attempt on the life of a former President is not minimal.
The sanctions would have been lifted a couple years after the truce if they were in compliance.
-
<<They wouldn't have been shelled for 40 days and 40 nights by Clinton if they were in compliance.>>
LMFAO. So now Clinton can do no wrong, is that it? They sure as bitchin hell WOULD have been shelled 40 days and nights by Clinton for doing no wrong if that was what it took to shore up his domestic political position.
<<An attempt on the life of a former President is not minimal.>>
Apparently it is, because they took no legal action that I'm aware of to punish the so-called attempt and waited years to invade.
<<The sanctions would have been lifted a couple years after the truce if they were in compliance.>>
LOL. You really don't get it, do you? The sanctions would NEVER have been lifted, because the Iraqis would never be "in compliance." The sanctions were one way to immobilize an important enemy of Israel. The U.S. could find, fake or provoke one bullshit excuse after another to demonstrate "non-compliance" as required.
-
<< . . . after simply posting a tragic casualty of war, as if THAT was some form of atrocity validation. Your movement, not mine.>>
Actually, what I posted was a link to a page with one photo and multiple links.... it's what the LINK was supposed to validate.
Ahhh, the all too famous reference to a "link", as the supposed smoking gun. Sorry Tee, it didn't work with Bush Lied diatribes, and sure as hell isn't gonna work here. Again, a picture here is worth squat
<<Which, for all to see, was what the picture was supposed to substantiate>>
YOU chose to focus on the first photo as if that were the only "atrocity" photo in the collection
YOU chose to provide the disclaimer "Here. posting a link that claims U.S. war atrocities with a photo (http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqwarpix.html) WARNING! EXTREMELY GRAPHIC PHOTOS OF AMERICAN ATROCITIES posted at the request of one of their biggest fans.
One more time for the dense, atrocites do NOT equal casualties...casualties do NOT equate with atrocities. Just because your damn link says atrocities, and just because you say atrocites, doesn't make it so. INTENT by Americans to kill and mame any and all at will, regardless of who they are is what would make such acts atrocities. There could be thousands of pictures or casualties.....NONE of them being atrocities
<<It's very much like what Pooch accurately referenced ".... is that your perspective is so skewed as to be completely unreliable">>
Nothing at all wrong with MY perspective. It's your own inability, and Pooch's, to accept the obvious, that is the problem here.
LOL, now we move into the 2nd to last level of desperate rebuttal.....the "obvious" tact
-
<<Ahhh, the all too famous reference to a "link", as the supposed smoking gun. >>
Yes, sirs, a link. That happens to be what I posted, that was the reference I made.
<< Sorry Tee, it didn't work with Bush Lied diatribes . . . >>
Ah, the famous sirs distraction tactic. The subject is Amerikkkan atrocities and war crimes and he tries to steer the discussion back to "Bush Lied." Sorry, sirs, aint' gonna work this time.
<< . . . and sure as hell isn't gonna work here. >>
Sorry to disappoint you sirs, but it already HAS worked here. You tried to misrepresent a single picture as the reference I had steered you to, and I answered your false accusation by pointing out, correctly, that the picture YOU selected from my link was just one of many. Case closed.
<<Again, a picture here is worth squat>>
What's this? An actual substantive comment on the topic under discussion? From sirs?? Hey now that's what I call progress. So: a picture is worth squat, huh? Well, I guess it's all in context. Rich had asked for a photo of all those dead Iraqi civilians. So I showed him a photo. Lots of photos. So in the context of the thread that led me to post that link, I don't think the picture is worth squat at all. You of course are welcome to your own opinion on the subject and good luck with it.
<<YOU chose to provide the disclaimer "Here. posting a link that claims U.S. war atrocities with a photo WARNING! EXTREMELY GRAPHIC PHOTOS OF AMERICAN ATROCITIES posted at the request of one of their biggest fans.>>
I guess I did. I posted a link to a page with one photo and with a bunch of links clearly labelled as such to such photos as "Child casualties," "Civilian casualties," "torture," etc. I did that. In response to a request for photos of civilian victims of U.S. atrocities. And your point is . . . ?
<<One more time for the dense, atrocites do NOT equal casualties...casualties do NOT equate with atrocities. Just because your damn link says atrocities, and just because you say atrocites, doesn't make it so. INTENT by Americans to kill and mame any and all at will, regardless of who they are is what would make such acts atrocities. There could be thousands of pictures or casualties.....NONE of them being atrocities>>
I'm sorry, sirs. I happen to think that civilian casualties, particularly caused by WP or napalm, when occurring during a criminal war of unprovoked aggression are atrocities and war crimes. Torture is an atrocity and a war crime. Cruel and degrading treatment is an atrocity and a war crime. My opinion. You obviously have a different opinion. We have to agree to disagree.
<<LOL, now we move into the 2nd to last level of desperate rebuttal.....the "obvious" tact>>
I'm glad you recognize the humour in the remark ("Nothing at all wrong with MY perspective. It's your own inability, and Pooch's, to accept the obvious, that is the problem here.")
That was a little bit of tongue in cheek. It was in response to your own equally lame and inane comment that <<It's very much like what Pooch accurately referenced ".... is that your perspective is so skewed as to be completely unreliable" >>
When you let the debate slide to such a level of invective so totally devoid of any substance that in effect it's just an ad hominem aspersion on my perspective and reliability, I just responded in kind with an equally lame and meaningless ad hominem attack both on both yours and Pooch's alleged "inability to accept the obvious." I thought it was particularly funny to slip the word "obvious" in there, adding that extra twist.
It's a little bit like the saying "Ask a stupid question and you get a stupid answer." Use a stupid debating tactic and you get your stupidity thrown right back atcha (with a little extra, in this case the "obvious.")
-
I guess I did. I posted a link to a page with one photo and with a bunch of links clearly labelled as such to such photos as "Child casualties," "Civilian casualties," "torture," etc. I did that. In response to a request for photos of civilian victims of U.S. atrocities. And your point is . . . ?
Except that the author of the page says "I am not saying who in particular caused any of these injuries."
Perhaps if you found one that documented victims of US atrocities, instead of nebulous claims?
-
<<Except that the author of the page says "I am not saying who in particular caused any of these injuries."
<<Perhaps if you found one that documented victims of US atrocities, instead of nebulous claims?>>
My nebulous claim is that whoever started the war is responsible for the casualties of the war. That's usually how it works. That's why the plotting and waging of an unjustified war of aggression is itself a war crime deserving of death.
-
Many of the dead were killed by the other side in each of the examples cited.
Why should our enemys attack Americans at all?
Atacking Americans is hard work it is expensive and risky.
Easyer by far to blow up a bunch of kids and let the Americans take the heat for it.
This 59 will be added to the total number of dead figure that will be used by opponents of fighting back in the future.
-
<<Many of the dead were killed by the other side in each of the examples cited.
<<Why should our enemys attack Americans at all?>>
Because they're aiming at that magic number. When they put enough Americans in body bags, the American people will turn on the war and pull out of Iraq. Just because nobody knows what the magic number is, is no reason not to keep moving towards it.
<<Atacking Americans is hard work it is expensive and risky.>>
It's adventurous, life and material are cheap and there's no risk at all for jihadis who aren't afraid to die.
<<Easyer by far to blow up a bunch of kids and let the Americans take the heat for it.>>
Same argument applies with much more logic to the Americans: It's hard work to go thousands of miles away, live in a shit-hole away from your friends and family and fight the Iraqi people; it's very expensive (close to half a trillion dollars already) and it's risky, especially for troops who don't want to die. Easier by far to blow up a bunch of kids and let the Iraqi Resistance take the heat for it.
<<This 59 will be added to the total number of dead figure that will be used by opponents of fighting back in the future.>>
This is the Age of Spin. Both sides can put those 59 dead kids to good use. They'd be alive today if Bush hadn't invaded Iraq. That's MY bottom line.
-
<<Many of the dead were killed by the other side in each of the examples cited.
<<Why should our enemys attack Americans at all?>>
Because they're aiming at that magic number. When they put enough Americans in body bags, the American people will turn on the war and pull out of Iraq. Just because nobody knows what the magic number is, is no reason not to keep moving towards it.
<<Atacking Americans is hard work it is expensive and risky.>>
It's adventurous, life and material are cheap and there's no risk at all for jihadis who aren't afraid to die.
<<Easyer by far to blow up a bunch of kids and let the Americans take the heat for it.>>
Same argument applies with much more logic to the Americans: It's hard work to go thousands of miles away, live in a shit-hole away from your friends and family and fight the Iraqi people; it's very expensive (close to half a trillion dollars already) and it's risky, especially for troops who don't want to die. Easier by far to blow up a bunch of kids and let the Iraqi Resistance take the heat for it.
<<This 59 will be added to the total number of dead figure that will be used by opponents of fighting back in the future.>>
This is the Age of Spin. Both sides can put those 59 dead kids to good use. They'd be alive today if Bush hadn't invaded Iraq. That's MY bottom line.
So a brave Jhahadi kills himself in order to kill a big group o kids and this is just for the sake ofthe spin with which it can be presented to the world?
-
In the second place, Saddam claimed that Kuwait had been slant-drilling into Iraqi deposits and refused to stop despite numerous official protests.
Was this ever proven? Or was this like WMDs?
===================================
It is pretty easy to verify how an oil well was drilled.
The American companies had perfected the technique and had the tools for doing this. The Iraqis didn't. I have never heard anyone deny this, so I assume it is true.
Saddam was suckered into the first Gulf War. Olebush, the CIA, other secret US and UK forces planned the whole thing. I imagine that Kissinger was in on it, too. Unlike the current mess, it pretty much didn't cost the US anything. The Kuwaitis, Saudis, Japanese and others financed nearly the whole thing. If the US had invaded to take out Saddam, it would have had to do so in its own nickel, and they weren't prepared for that.
The Emir of Kuwait in 1990 was sitting atop a huge pile of cash, and was thinking seriously about taking it out of the US and investing it in Euros. The war forced him to spend it to get his country back. The money was paid to the US for services rendered, of course. The US did lose a very few soldiers, but they died to keep the Emir of Kuwait in power, and presumably this was a sufficiently worthy cause.
-
<<So a brave Jhahadi kills himself in order to kill a big group o kids and this is just for the sake ofthe spin with which it can be presented to the world?
Isn't that what you meant when you said <<Easyer by far to blow up a bunch of kids and let the Americans take the heat for it.>>?
Personally, I can think of at least two reasons why a "brave jihadi" would blow up 59 kids - - (a) revenge for their tribe blowing up 29.5 of his own tribe's kids; (b) to provoke retaliation, stoking the fires of a civil war.
I can also think up at least one reason for Americans blowing up the kids - - to "prove" that the Iraqis still need American troops to keep the country from degenerating into a blood-bath.
-
<<So a brave Jhahadi kills himself in order to kill a big group o kids and this is just for the sake ofthe spin with which it can be presented to the world?
Isn't that what you meant when you said <<Easyer by far to blow up a bunch of kids and let the Americans take the heat for it.>>?
Personally, I can think of at least two reasons why a "brave jihadi" would blow up 59 kids - - (a) revenge for their tribe blowing up 29.5 of his own tribe's kids; (b) to provoke retaliation, stoking the fires of a civil war.
I can also think up at least one reason for Americans blowing up the kids - - to "prove" that the Iraqis still need American troops to keep the country from degenerating into a blood-bath.
Somewhere in there, I find that you agree with me, that the Jahadi, was killing these children for the sake of the number.
-
<<Somewhere in there, I find that you agree with me, that the Jahadi, was killing these children for the sake of the number.>>
Absolutely not. My point ("at least two reasons") was that nobody really knows why. My numerical reference to "29.5" children was just a feeble attempt at humour.
-
<<Somewhere in there, I find that you agree with me, that the Jahadi, was killing these children for the sake of the number.>>
Absolutely not. My point ("at least two reasons") was that nobody really knows why. My numerical reference to "29.5" children was just a feeble attempt at humour.
So why indeed do Jahadi seek out soft targets and kill themselves with them?
No number of chldren could be cosidered a military target.
I wonder why they don't quit doing this , they can't think this is good for their cause.
-
I can also think up at least one reason for Americans blowing up the kids - - to "prove" that the Iraqis still need American troops to keep the country from degenerating into a blood-bath.
This happened in Afghanistan. The war i believe you called righteous.
-
<<So why indeed do Jahadi seek out soft targets and kill themselves with them?
<<No number of chldren could be cosidered a military target.
<<I wonder why they don't quit doing this , they can't think this is good for their cause.>>
But I thought I already indicated two possible reasons and also that nobody really knows in any one case. The possible reasons were revenge and fomenting anarchy or civil war. Revenge might not be good for their cause as YOU interpret their cause, but they could be fighting for several things at the same time including national liberation (from foreign occupiers) and the honour of their tribe (which demands revenge.) Or maybe they were just trying to terrorize some collaborators by killing their kids, which would intimidate others and stop them from collaborating. (in the eyes of the killers - - in reality, maybe it would galvanize the parents of the murdered children)
<<This happened in Afghanistan. The war i believe you called righteous.>>
I don't think the American Army is capable of fighting a righteous war as presently led. The leadership from the top down is morally degenerate, permits and encourages torture and murder and places virtually no controls on its soldiers, not one of whom has been executed to date for rape, torture or murder of civilians in Afghanistan. We were speculating on why the kids were blown up and I speculated on WHO had blown them up. I didn't say the Americans DID it, I said the Americans are CAPABLE of doing it and should never be ruled out as suspects, even if someone else "confesses" to the deed.
-
I didn't say the Americans DID it, I said the Americans are CAPABLE of doing it and should never be ruled out as suspects, even if someone else "confesses" to the deed.
The Germans once thought the same thing of the Jews.
According to you, southerners still think the same of blacks.
If that type of generalized thinking is wrong, why isn't yours?
-
<<The Germans once thought the same thing of the Jews. [that they were CAPABLE of blowing up 59 kids and should never be ruled out as suspects even if somebody else has "confessed."]>>
No, the Germans thought much worse of the Jews. The Germans thought that all Jews were criminally inclined AND racially inferior AND plotting the destruction of the Aryans. All I said of the American military was that it was capable of committing that crime and should never be ruled out as a suspect. Nothing I said referred to the GUILT of all Americans, the criminality of all Americans, the racial inferiority of all Americans or the aspirations to racial dominance of all Americans.
<<According to you, southerners still think the same of blacks.>>
Again, you have grossly overstated my views. I am saying that white racism is a powerful force in the South as evidenced by the racism and popularity of figures such as Trent Lott, the late Strom Thurmond, Senator Macacawitz and others. From time to time, this expresses itself in ugly acts of violence, most recently the display of nooses from pickup trucks.
<<If that type of generalized thinking is wrong, why isn't yours?>>
Because you made a false comparison. My thinking [that the American military is capable of blowing up 59 kids and much worse] is correct. I did not say that all U.S. soldiers or even that most of them would do it, but the military could certainly find the men for the job. They have already killed many more than that number, most of it probably covered up, but some of it exposed despite the best cover-up efforts they are capable of. Fortunately they seem like a pretty stupid bunch, so the cover-ups aren't quite all they could be.
Thoughts like "All southerners hate blacks" or "All Jews are criminal and racially inferior" are incorrect. Obviously because they lack any scientific validation and are way too broad.
-
They have already killed many more than that number, most of it probably covered up, but some of it exposed despite the best cover-up efforts they are capable of. Fortunately they seem like a pretty stupid bunch, so the cover-ups aren't quite all they could be.
There is a lot working against such coverups.
Why should we suppose that we already know about most such incidents and that most coverups have failed?
-
The Germans thought that all Jews were criminally inclined AND racially inferior AND plotting the destruction of the Aryans.
So if they just said some jews.... they would have been fine?
And where is your scientific data concerning the military?
-
I think the strongest thing working FOR the coverups is the camaraderie between the soldiers who are the only living witnesses. Usually they'd be smart enough to kill all witnesses, but even those they miss will probably go into hiding, terrified of coming forward. So the only real risk of exposure comes from one of them talking too much. Sometimes you have incredible stupidity, such as using the souvenir photos as screensavers, where soldiers who aren't part of the original group of criminals not only see them but have a chance to copy them. But that's gotta be a very rare kind of stupidity. Happened only once - - Abu Ghraib. Most of these guys won't rat out a brother, not after their bonding experiences together.
I just don't know of any force operating in the opposite direction of exposure that's anywhere near as powerful as the bonding of the men. Add to the bonding, there is the ability to exterminate or intimidate witnesses, the reluctance of the brass to expose the atrocities, and the reluctance of the MSM to go with the exposure of it. All very powerful factors promoting cover-up. Nothing like that promoting exposure.
My rule of thumb would be that for every known war crime or atrocity, there must be AT LEAST ten that were successfully covered up. We are only seeing the tip of the ice-berg. Pooch, Rich, sirs and some of the other pro-military posters in the group believe that there were WWII Allied atrocities just as bad as anything from Nam or Iraq that were successfully covered up for over sixty years, so the number of successful cover-ups in Iraq must be enormous by that standard.
-
I think the strongest thing working FOR the coverups is the camaraderie between the soldiers who are the only living witnesses. Usually they'd be smart enough to kill all witnesses, but even those they miss will probably go into hiding, terrified of coming forward. So the only real risk of exposure comes from one of them talking too much. Sometimes you have incredible stupidity, such as using the souvenir photos as screensavers, where soldiers who aren't part of the original group of criminals not only see them but have a chance to copy them. But that's gotta be a very rare kind of stupidity. Happened only once - - Abu Ghraib. Most of these guys won't rat out a brother, not after their bonding experiences together.
I just don't know of any force operating in the opposite direction of exposure that's anywhere near as powerful as the bonding of the men. Add to the bonding, there is the ability to exterminate or intimidate witnesses, the reluctance of the brass to expose the atrocities, and the reluctance of the MSM to go with the exposure of it. All very powerful factors promoting cover-up. Nothing like that promoting exposure.
My rule of thumb would be that for every known war crime or atrocity, there must be AT LEAST ten that were successfully covered up. We are only seeing the tip of the ice-berg. Pooch, Rich, sirs and some of the other pro-military posters in the group believe that there were WWII Allied atrocities just as bad as anything from Nam or Iraq that were successfully covered up for over sixty years, so the number of successful cover-ups in Iraq must be enormous by that standard.
A platoon is at least sixty persons that travel together and keeping secret inside a platoon is very hard.
A secret is safe with three as long as two of the three are dead.
During WWII things tht we might consider atrocitys were not considered so , I have heard first hand about shooting prisoners rather than accepting their surrender which happened a lot to Japaneese in the Phillipines , but it caused little fuss at the time , we tolerate so much less now that less seems like more.
-
<<So if they just said some jews.... they would have been fine?>>
Well, if it was only "some" Jews, where was the rationale for trying to exterminate the entire race? They could have said "some Germans" with equal validity and then would have had to commit mass suicide to be consistent with the extermination of an entire race for the defects of only some.
<<And where is your scientific data concerning the military?>>
Every atrocity they commit, every child they've killed, is proof of what they're capable of. Bob Kerrey got a Silver Star for slitting the throats of two grandparents and three little grandchildren, all tied up, and none of it would have come to light until ONE of the guys with him finally spoke of it. I read of similar atrocities by LURPS (LRRPs) in Viet Nam. In Cuba there's a museum which showed what U.S. mercenaries did to young kids in the countryside who had been sent there as teachers in the literacy campaigns of the early 1960s. I have no doubt at all as to what U.S. forces are capable of. (And no, that's not a blanket indictment because there are probably some soldiers who wouldn't do any of those things. But I believe most would keep quiet about it if they did see them.)
-
<<A platoon is at least sixty persons that travel together and keeping secret inside a platoon is very hard.
A secret is safe with three as long as two of the three are dead.>>
There are smaller units than platoons. A LRRPs ("LURPS") patrol in Viet Nam was about five or six guys. Nothing much ever published about their atrocities. The My Lai massacre was company level, I believe, but witnessed by an American helicopter pilot who wasn't part of the murder squad. Even so, it took a year for the story to come out in the U.S. The VC press office in Paris had issued a press release naming My Lai AND "Charlie Company" within the first week of the massacre. There's a whole book devoted to just the official cover-up. It gives you an idea what you're up against, just trying to get a story to see the light of day. This was a big one, with over 800 victims, the pilot and other stuff that put it way beyond cover-up, but that didn't stop them from trying.
I would think most of the massacres and atrocities are small-scale, with units much smaller than platoon level doing most or all of the torture and/or killing. Word will almost never get out. The bonds between the men are just way too strong for that.
-
Atrocities are just that ---atrocious. However, they are indeed a part of war and will never be completely eliminated. I do think, however, you greatly exaggerate the number of them, MT, in order to further your aim of degrading the U.s> and in this instacne, the U.S. military. And, yes, your previous Canadians commit them too because tis is human nature to commit errors of judgment. The birth of Canada only shows that even Canadians are vicious, bloodthirsty HUMANS. To exaggerate the number of them is a disservice to the military of ALL nations. In the many years I have spent around military types, I have never seen it and I have been involved in some "interesting" firefights. I was in the Intel business for some years and I thus saw events as reported and not reported. None involved atrocities even though it would have been easy for a stress-induced soldier to "justify".
Are you free to further your aim? Many many times ad nauseum. Sure. It just should be put in perspective.
-
Well of course it's possible I overestimated the number of U.S. atrocities. Anything that's done in secret and is covered up to the maximum extent possible is bound to be overestimated or underestimated. It's like trying to estimate how much weed is smoked at the local college or how many tonnes of cocaine were imported last year.
I admit the Canadian army has committed terrible atrocities in Somalia, which is the only one I'm aware of, but they aren't as active as the U.S. military and don't get as much chance to do evil.
I'm not so fatalistic as to believe that it's impossible to conduct war without atrocities. I don't think they were committed to any large extent by Allied forces in WWII except for the killing of captured or surrendering Japs, which I know of first-hand from my dad's first cousin, who was a private in the U.S. Army in the Pacific in some of the island campaigns. Frankly, the Japanese treatment of captured Allied prisoners was truly atrocious and they had sacrificed any right they might have otherwise had to be treated humanely and compassionately. If you knew what those fucking bastards had done to Allied prisoners (a good friend of mine was in Tokyo Bay during the surrender ceremonies and participated in the liberation of the first liberated POWs in mainland Japan) you would understand U.S. and British Empire attitudes towards them a little better.
I think overall the answer to the problem is discipline. There has to be a serious will from the top to enforce humane behaviour. There has to be iron discipline top-down, with examples made. Commanders have to be dismissed, lower ranks and other active participants actually executed as examples, in order to get the message through that atrocities will not be tolerated, looking the other way will not be tolerated. I believe with the right tools, including the liberal application of the death penalty, it should be possible to eliminate atrocities or at least reduce them to WWII levels or lower, even in wartime.
-
They very likely are hapening at a lower rate than during WWII.
Everything you state about coverups now was even more applicable sixty years ago.
Commanders in Aganistan and Iraq are trying to wn over the population they very likely make this clear to the rank and file.
-
<<They very likely are hapening at a lower rate than during WWII.
<<Everything you state about coverups now was even more applicable sixty years ago.
<<Commanders in Aganistan and Iraq are trying to wn over the population they very likely make this clear to the rank and file.>>
===========================================================================
Maybe they're starting to get it right at last. Or maybe they're just covering up better. Let's hope it's the former.
-
This problem was rare in France as WWII made the French glad to see the invadeing English and Americans. Same for Duch and Danes
The Russians had more like a simular set of problems as they crossed Eastern Europe where there were more people who preferred the other invader.
-
<<The Russians had more like a simular set of problems as they crossed Eastern Europe where there were more people who preferred the other invader.>>
Yeah. They were called collaborators, fascists, Nazis and anti-Semites. The Russians knew how to deal with them. Taught 'em a few lessons in payback.
-
<<The Russians had more like a simular set of problems as they crossed Eastern Europe where there were more people who preferred the other invader.>>
Yeah. They were called collaborators, fascists, Nazis and anti-Semites. The Russians knew how to deal with them. Taught 'em a few lessons in payback.
You are tolerant of this teaching?
-
<<You are tolerant of this teaching?>>
Sure, provided it's exercised on the real Nazis, fascists, anti-Semites, collaborators and anyone supporting or helping them. The world's better off without 'em.
-
<<You are tolerant of this teaching?>>
Sure, provided it's exercised on the real Nazis, fascists, anti-Semites, collaborators and anyone supporting or helping them. The world's better off without 'em.
You are thereby dehumaniseing a lot of people .
-
Fuck 'em, if you really want to know about dehumanizing, study them a little more closely.
-
Fuck 'em, if you really want to know about dehumanizing, study them a little more closely.
Perhaps we should, when given the choice between Stalin or Hitler some people had to flip a coin.
-
<<Perhaps we should, when given the choice between Stalin or Hitler some people had to flip a coin.>>
Relatively few people had any reason to expect extermination from Stalin and those that did had little to fear from Hitler. Those targeted by Hitler had little to fear from Stalin.
People targeted for death by Hitler or Stalin knew their intended fate and had no need to flip a coin.
Of those not targeted, the choice was pretty clear in most cases. Very few of them would have had to flip a coin, but some of them (particularly the Ukrainians) made a really bad choice. (Bad for them, I mean.)
One of the most comical misjudgments of the war was made by the OUN, Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, who sent Hitler a congratulatory letter on his initial Eastern Front victories and offered to work hand-in-hand with him in making a world completely free of Jews. Hitler, of course, put them in their place immediately with a letter informing them that the Third Reich did not enter into partnerships with untermenschen (sub-humans.) Eventually, as Aryan S.S. manpower became severely depleted in the course of their encounters with the Red Army, Hitler began to form S.S. regiments composed of various kinds of untermenschen, including the Ukrainians, who often seemed to find themselves in places from which very few would ever emerge alive, the Battle of Brody being a classic example. In the meantime, the Ukrainian Nationalists had managed to further offend Hitler and finally their leaders all wound up in concentration camps, in less than ideal circumstances. One of them (I forget which, but it hardly matters, each one was worse than the other) was finished off when they wrapped him in sheets soaked in cold water and left him outside one freezing winter night. Proving again the old adage, when you sup with the Devil, use a long spoon.
Most people had pretty clear choices. The Poles were the only ones I know of who might have had to flip a coin. Under the Germans they could expect nothing but slavery and under the Russians, more Russian oppression, from which they had only been freed in WWI. Because of their Catholicism, there was a lot of high-level anti-Communism which was bound to lead to some mass executions of priests, intellectuals, artists and writers if the Communists won, but they were already going through this with the Nazis anyway.
This business of "flipping a coin" is mostly (with a few exceptions) pure bullshit. It's what you hear from Nazi collaborators after the war to cover their Holocaust guilt.
The Poles, to their credit, much as they hated the Jews, nevertheless fought the Nazis for the most part but one of their underground armies also fought the Red Army and the communist partisans as well. Usually, as with the royalist Chetniks in Yugoslavia, or the anti-communist Ukrainian Nationalists, an underground army fighting the Nazi occupation, if it's also an anti-communist army, will wind up fighting only the communists. It's too hard to fight a guerrilla war against both the Nazis and the Red Army and/or communist partisans. As the war ground on, and particularly after Stalingrad, when it became apparent that the Nazis were finished, the real issue for nationalist guerrillas was who would control their post-war world, and their real objective became very clear - - to fight the local communists, and sometimes the Red Army as well, and hope for a right-wing provisional government that could attract the support of the Western Allies.
-
I have never heard anyone deny this, so I assume it is true.
Then you weren't listeing...
The Santa Fe employees worked on several rigs ''immediately adjacent'' to the Iraqi border, Mr. Mika said. He added that he was unaware of any well that might have utilized the ''slant'' drilling technique along the Iraqi bor der.
W. C. Goins, senior vice president of OGE Drilling Inc., a Houston company that provided oilfield supervisors and workers for Kuwait in the same area, said he was ''positive'' all of the wells his employees drilled and operated ran vertically down to the Rumaila pay zone. ''That field crosses the border in north Kuwait,'' he added. ''Iraqis were drilling on one side, and Kuwaitis on the other side.''
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE3D7173CF930A3575AC0A966958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2 (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE3D7173CF930A3575AC0A966958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2)
-
<<Perhaps we should, when given the choice between Stalin or Hitler some people had to flip a coin.>>
Relatively few people had any reason to expect extermination from Stalin and those that did had little to fear from Hitler. Those targeted by Hitler had little to fear from Stalin.
People targeted for death by Hitler or Stalin knew their intended fate and had no need to flip a coin.
Of those not targeted, the choice was pretty clear in most cases. Very few of them would have had to flip a coin, but some of them (particularly the Ukrainians) made a really bad choice. (Bad for them, I mean.)
Don't forget the Finns who were much more successfull at turning a Natzi allience into a postwar nutrality.
The Finns spanked Stalins freshly purged army so badly that it emboldened the Germans to think that Stalin had killed all of the competance out of his officer corps . Not quite , perhaps if given another year of purgeing the Red Army would have been completely politicly pure and absolutely free of competance.
Stalin had no more right to kill Finns and Latvians and Ucrainians etc than Hitler had to kill Jews , Poles, Slavic peoples , Gypisys etc.
Which great leader had the higher total? Some say Stalin , some say Mao , some say Hitler I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to Stalin because he had much more oppurtunity to cover up his massicres than the other two and could very well be the champion.
When given the choice of sideing with the Germans over the invasion of Finland or not , I can imagine that Chirchill kept his farthing warm with flipping . He didn't know at the time that the Soviets would become an ally to England in just two years.
-
What was the reason for the hostility between Russia and Finland? The Finns can't be all bad because they refused to hand over their Jews when Hitler demanded them. The Latvians, Lithuanians and Estonians wanted the pleasure of massacring the Jews themselves - - one of the Lithuanian massacres was even filmed by Nazi cameramen to prove that it was the locals and not the Nazis who carried it out. The local pro-Nazi government let common criminals out of jail, gave them iron bars and told them to beat the Jews to death with them, which they and the anti-Communist militia did together. The Lithuanians killed men, women and children while the Nazi cameras rolled so the Germans could say, "See? It's not us. The local people themselves are fed up to here with the Jews." It was one of the few pogroms captured live on film during WWII.
After the war, the emigres from the "tiny, enslaved" Baltic countries who were able to escape Red Army justice made their way to the U.S.A. and began their "What could we do it was Russia or Hitler?" bullshit campaign, which appears to have taken in guys like plane by the trainload. The Jews were paralyzed - - they couldn't say publicly that Communism would have saved them, that the anti-communists were the BAD guys because they were afraid of being slimed as "pro-Red" during the McCarthy era, also because there were so many Jewish Communist spies and Soviet agents that they were afraid of raising a new Amerikkkan Nazi party.
-
What was the reason for the hostility between Russia and Finland? The Finns can't be all bad because they refused to hand over their Jews when Hitler demanded them. The Latvians, Lithuanians and Estonians wanted the pleasure of massacring the Jews themselves - - one of the Lithuanian massacres was even filmed by Nazi cameramen to prove that it was the locals and not the Nazis who carried it out. The local pro-Nazi government let common criminals out of jail, gave them iron bars and told them to beat the Jews to death with them, which they and the anti-Communist militia did together. The Lithuanians killed men, women and children while the Nazi cameras rolled so the Germans could say, "See? It's not us. The local people themselves are fed up to here with the Jews." It was one of the few pogroms captured live on film during WWII.
After the war, the emigres from the "tiny, enslaved" Baltic countries who were able to escape Red Army justice made their way to the U.S.A. and began their "What could we do it was Russia or Hitler?" bullshit campaign, which appears to have taken in guys like plane by the trainload. The Jews were paralyzed - - they couldn't say publicly that Communism would have saved them, that the anti-communists were the BAD guys because they were afraid of being slimed as "pro-Red" during the McCarthy era, also because there were so many Jewish Communist spies and Soviet agents that they were afraid of raising a new Amerikkkan Nazi party.
Land , expanding the Empire required conquering land , Finland did not absolutely win they lost a good bit of territory . The other Baltic states also had land and resorces which is why Stalin wanted them , not much diffrent from Hitler.
"The local pro-Nazi government let common criminals out of jail, gave them iron bars and told them to beat the Jews to death with them, which they and the anti-Communist militia did together."
In what land would this tecnique fail to work?
-
<<In what land would this tecnique fail to work?>>
Any land that didn't have a pro-Nazi government and a pro-Nazi militia or para-military movement.
Any land where the people wouldn't put up with it. Basically, the Nazi technique of letting the locals massacre the Jews worked only in the Baltic, Croatia, Romania. Hungary was a little different because the pro-Nazi, anti-Semitic Horthy regime, while allied with Hitler, did not allow transportation of Hungarian Jews to death camps and did not have them attacked in the streets - - for that to occur, the Horthy regime had to be overthrown by a regime even more right-wing than it was, the Arrow Cross movement. From that point onward, the Hungarian Jews were doomed, either to be transported to the death camps or taken off the streets or out of their homes to Arrow Cross torture chambers where they were tortured to death and the bodies dumped in the Danube.
-
<<In what land would this tecnique fail to work?>>
Any land that didn't have a pro-Nazi government and a pro-Nazi militia or paramilitary movement.
Any land where the people wouldn't put up with it. Basically, the Nazi technique of letting the locals massacre the Jews worked only in the Baltic, Croatia, Romania. Hungary was a little different because the pro-Nazi, anti-Semitic Horthy regime, while allied with Hitler, did not allow transportation of Hungarian Jews to death camps and did not have them attacked in the streets - - for that to occur, the Horthy regime had to be overthrown by a regime even more right-wing than it was, the Arrow Cross movement. From that point onward, the Hungarian Jews were doomed, either to be transported to the death camps or taken off the streets or out of their homes to Arrow Cross torture chambers where they were tortured to death and the bodies dumped in the Danube.
That is intresting about Horthy , I should read further about him.
Scalawags are human beings , they are in every society. This anti Jewish effort worked well in every country that the Nazis conquered . French collaborators were no less numerous or enthusiastic than Serb.
Think about the story you just told me , a guy is taken out of prison by a squad of well armed soldiers , handed an iron bar and ordered to beat some people , I can imagine that some of the people he is being ordered to beat are the one who refused the same order.
Hero's are born to every nation too , but it was not in the intrest of the Nazis nor the Bolsheviks to record the hero's of Latvia.
-
<< This anti Jewish effort worked well in every country that the Nazis conquered . French collaborators were no less numerous or enthusiastic than Serb.>>
You couldn't possibly be further off the mark. For every occupied country, or Axis ally, there is a survival rate for its Jewish citizens, expressed as a total of the pre-war Jewish population. The rates range from the low to mid 70s for the better countries (France and Italy) to much lower rates for traditional havens of anti-Semitism such as Poland, the Baltics and much of Eastern Europe (except for Bulgaria, which resisted all German attempts to deport Bulgarian Jews.) I almost forgot Denmark. Denmark had the highest Jewish survival rate of any occupied country, 92 or 93%. Most of the Jews who perished in Denmark died because they were afraid to follow the Danish Resistance fighters who had secured fishing boats to ferry them to Sweden. They thought they'd get in worse trouble by trying to flee the country illegally than if they stayed. The Germans fucked up because they were trying to transport the Jews in commercially chartered ships rather than military transports. A German civilian clerk in one of the shipping company offices tipped off the Danish underground well in advance and they organized a textbook escape plan that functioned almost like clockwork.
Your reference to the Serbs is particularly ludicrous - - they of all people were the fiercest resistors to Nazi occupation, while the Croats were the most enthusiastic Nazi supporters under their leader, Ante Pavelich of the Ustashi (pro-fascist) party. The Italian war correspondent Curzio Malaparte (a pen name, being a take-off on Bonaparte) was once present in Pavelich's office when an aide brought in a wicker basket full of what Malaparte assumed were oysters. Pavelich turned to Malaparte and remarked, "A present from my loyal Ustashi. Forty pounds of human eyes." As part of their war-time accomplishments, the Croatians under Pavelich and the Ustashi massacred some 600,000 Serbs and 60,000 Jews. Of course, there are exceptions - - Tito, the leader of the mostly Serbian anti-Nazi guerrillas, was a Croatian, chosen as leader because of the symbolic national-unity message he would provide, and the royalist Serbian Chetnik guerrilla movement, originally formed to resist the Nazi occupation, wound up either collaborating with or neutral to the Nazis and fighting Tito's communist guerrillas.
If you ever want to read a fantastic action-adventure tale, take a look at Sir Fitzroy MacLean's "Eastern Approaches." MacLean, one of the founders of the S.A.S. , was a brilliant linguist and diplomat serving in Moscow during the purges and the Show Trials, who travelled on his own (and completely illegally) through Russia and Soviet Central Asia, fluent in its languages and on eventually to India. In the S.A.S. he served in North Africa in behind-the-lines desert warfare, kidnapped an Iraqi general during Iraq's brief period of pro-Axis rule, and then was parachuted into occupied Yugoslavia on a personal mission for Churchill to see which of the Yugoslav guerrilla groups were worthy of British support. He figured out that Tito's communist partisans had the best shot at killing the most Nazis, but the stories of his exploits with the guerrillas are a real eye-openers and would probably clue you in to what really went down there during the war.
<<Think about the story you just told me , a guy is taken out of prison by a squad of well armed soldiers , handed an iron bar and ordered to beat some people , I can imagine that some of the people he is being ordered to beat are the one who refused the same order.>>
You really don't have a clue. The "squad of well-armed soldiers" is a figment of your imagination. They give the guys the iron bars. let 'em out of jail and tell them to visit the Jews. They don't need any encouragement from anyone, least of all a "squad of well-armed soldiers," once they hear "Jews." You oughtta read up on some of these places. Honestly, you have no idea.
<<Hero's are born to every nation too , but it was not in the intrest of the Nazis nor the Bolsheviks to record the hero's of Latvia.>>
I'm sure you're not going to like hearing this, but the REAL heroes of Latvia were all communists.
-
"I'm sure you're not going to like hearing this, but the REAL heroes of Latvia were all communists. "
Oh no , a communist is by definition a villan.
-
<<Oh no , a communist is by definition a villan.>>
Not in any dictionary I'VE ever seen.
The Bolsheviks saved my mother-in-law's life during the Russian Civil War and the lives of all the Jews in her village. She was a nice lady, plane. She was saved by heroes. There is nothing you can say that would convince me otherwise. That's because I know the real truth and you've been fed a pack of lies.
-
<<Oh no , a communist is by definition a villan.>>
Not in any dictionary I'VE ever seen.
The Bolsheviks saved my mother-in-law's life during the Russian Civil War and the lives of all the Jews in her village. She was a nice lady, plane. She was saved by heroes. There is nothing you can say that would convince me otherwise. That's because I know the real truth and you've been fed a pack of lies.
If they did anything nice , it must have been with ulterior motives. Communism being what it is.
-
<<If they did anything nice , it must have been with ulterior motives. Communism being what it is.>>
You're just prejudiced. Majorly prejudiced.
You don't really know anything about Communism, just a ton of negative shit that you've read in anti-Communist sources, and you made up your mind that they can't do anything good without an ulterior motive. Well, that's OK - - don't let the facts get in the way of your ignorant prejudices.
-
<<If they did anything nice , it must have been with ulterior motives. Communism being what it is.>>
You're just prejudiced. Majorly prejudiced. You don't really know anything about <<Communism>>, just a ton of negative shit that you've read in <<anti-Communist>> sources, and you made up your mind that they can't do anything good without an ulterior motive.
Ohhhh, the irony ;D Well done, Plane
-
<<If they did anything nice , it must have been with ulterior motives. Communism being what it is.>>
You're just prejudiced. Majorly prejudiced. You don't really know anything about <<Communism>>, just a ton of negative shit that you've read in <<anti-Communist>> sources, and you made up your mind that they can't do anything good without an ulterior motive.
Ohhhh, the irony ;D Well done, Plane
He will catch on after a while.