Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by james212)
    I never said they did have the intention of doing so. Read what I actually write. I was talking in a more general sense. Im not entirely sure why the Japanese did attack the US - I believe it was to destroy any ability they had to interfere in Japan's expansion. The first strike was designed to disable the US Navy. So you are right, but I never said they did want to plunder the US...
    " Well, yes, I think if a country is completely unjustly attacked (for no reason other than the desire of another country to plunder it) "

    Considering we were talking about Japan and how that could be extended to other countries, then you did say that.


    (Original post by james212)
    That depends on definition. They were fighting on actual Japanese territory. Both sides knew the Japs had lost, but they planned on fighting to the very last man. To me, that's prettty exhaustive.
    Clearly, they were not planning to fight to the very last man, because otherwise they would have done that.

    To you that is exhaustive. In reality, there were other options like the continuation of a blockade which would have brought Japan to an effective standstill.



    (Original post by james212)
    My degree is PPE (Oxford), so Im not a historian - although I did A-Level and scored 581/600 - so I do have decent qualifications...
    Wow. That is the first time that someone has used that in argument.

    What does that have to do with anything I said?




    (Original post by james212)

    Im sorry, but if a mugger came upto me in the street and hit me, I turned around and punched him, he pulled a knife on me...then yes, I would have no hesitation in breaking his arm/knocking him unconscious...can people please stop telling me what I would/wouldn't do...
    No, if he punches you, then you are saying you have the right to kill him.

    OR perhaps a better example would be if someone punches you, you find out where he lives and then you blow up his house with his family inside.

    According to you, you have the right to use all means necessary to defend yourself even if it requires the massacre of innocents.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    " Well, yes, I think if a country is completely unjustly attacked (for no reason other than the desire of another country to plunder it) "

    Considering we were talking about Japan and how that could be extended to other countries, then you did say that.




    Clearly, they were not planning to fight to the very last man, because otherwise they would have done that.

    To you that is exhaustive. In reality, there were other options like the continuation of a blockade which would have brought Japan to an effective standstill.





    Wow. That is the first time that someone has used that in argument.

    What does that have to do with anything I said?






    No, if he punches you, then you are saying you have the right to kill him.

    OR perhaps a better example would be if someone punches you, you find out where he lives and then you blow up his house with his family inside.

    According to you, you have the right to use all means necessary to defend yourself even if it requires the massacre of innocents.
    I'm sorry but you seem to lack even the most basic understanding of the English language. Once again, READ what I actually write, rather than making inferences that are completely incorrect.

    1) No I didn't. Please quote me the exact bit where I said "Japan wanted to plunder the US"...
    I was talking generally, about if 1 country wanted to invade another. Most countries invade other countries for economic/resource reasons. Sometimes its to give a regime legitimacy/popularity - but mainly its the former. I was thinking about Gulf War I/Wars in Africa etc.

    2) Well, they were. Despite losing the war, most Japanese solders . They didn't do it because the government realized the insanity of having your entire population wiped out (after the US made clear they had more atomic weapons) and the Americans agreed that they could keep the Emperor and that blame would be shifted. Until the bombs, the plan was for every last solider to fight to the death.

    I, personally, doubt a blockade would achieve anything. Look at sanctions (effectively a blockade) and how well they have worked in Cuba, Iraq, North Korea, Iran (this is sarcasm).

    3) You again seem completely incapable of correctly reading what I write. I wasn't saying how clever I was. Conversely, I was saying I don't have a deep knowledge - so I'm not claiming to be an expert, but I did study surrounding subjects and have an A-Level understanding - perhaps someone with a history degree can give a deeper understanding. Frankly, if you think I was attempting to put you down with that, I'm a little insulted.

    4) No, I'm not saying that. My point is, if he punched me and drew a knife, and subsequently I feared for my life, I would have absolutely no hesitation in defending myself, and if that involved the use of strong force, so be it.

    Your last example is insane.
    I do not believe in the innocence of either the Japanese or German people, particularly the latter. There are 100's of books detailing collaboration, of complicit behaviour etc. Look up Post Revisionism (school of thought) regards the issue. Lets not forget, Hitler was voted into power...

    Yes, I do believe that if France invaded Dover, and Britain had the opportunity to shell say Paris from Norfolk, but that 'non-combatants' would be killed, we would have every right to do so, in defence of our country.

    Civilian casualties should be avoided at almost all costs...but unfortunately, If a country declares war on another, then that countries casualties seem to me to be its own fault. If the people of said country truly are against such a war, they should bring down the government. In reality, very few governments survive when they lose the support of elites - and their support tends to crumble with an unpopular government (read The Third Wave)...


    Frankly, you said
    "You wouldn't allow those justifications to be used by any other country, so I don't see why you would allow them to be used by America,"
    to which I replied "I think its incredibly ignorant of you to tell me what I would and wouldn't allow using those justifications. For many cases, actually I would."

    You said "I am not sure how it is ignorant. Perhaps, it is presumptuous."

    If you cant understand how it is ignorant (being presumptuous and lecturing someone that they 'wouldn't this that or the other') I suggest you learn some social skills...

    You repeatedly do it. If I meant that, I would say it. By saying "Japan wanted to invade for reason x". Clearly, if specific countries aren't mentioned, it is a more general point. Just because the thrust of the discussion is on Japan/the US, doesn't mean you can elaborate or illustrate more generally.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pippa90)
    They were too far away to be shot you do realise? The victims didn't even notice their helicopters.



    I totally agree, the US police force behave in the same way, it's appalling.
    the americans do feel like they can get away with everything these days since they're a superpower. not one country would stand up to USA, in metaphor terms, USA is a teacher with too much power
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=pippa90;28850834]I see a group of chavs in the distance, a couple appear to have weapons so I shoot them. You think this is acceptable?


    In a hostile area, when they have what appears to be weapons, yes. Are you honestly saying if you were walking across, say the roughest area of the city where gun crime is at its highest and a group of men are off in the distant walking in the direction towards a family member you'd honestly wouldn't do anything because you "assume" nothing would happen?

    It's a combat zone and it's a military operation. You need to think about it in a militarised way because so far you seem to just think "They were safe, they didn't have to shoot because they weren't in danger" when it wasn't their job to get into danger. They do this sort of thing on probably a daily basis, it's routine. Go through hostile territory, see enemy with what appears to be weapons, shoot them. It's as much the journalists fault for not informing that they would be in a hostile area as the pilots, but the pilot was doing his job. If they appear to have objects which look like weapons and tell their CO, they will get the order to shoot. If they see them trying to escape, they will shoot.

    Do you not think it was idiotic of the journalists to bring children to the hostile area?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rooster523)
    well OP, if you're so unhappy, why not do something about it?

    Or are you just going to sit in your little chair and pretend to care about what you just saw?
    This.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aj12)
    you mean the video? Believing what video named collateral murder says is like believing what hitler says about jews.
    Godwin's Law

    Get out... :cool:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by style)
    What are you suggesting? All the civillians just stroll out of Iraq:rolleyes:
    ......Those people did not live there.....


    (Original post by pippa90)
    That is true but you can't entirely blame the victims. There shouldn't be a war zone in the first place!
    And there should not be disease and famine but there always will be because that is life sadly.


    (Original post by lightburns)
    When your town is the war zone, it's a bit hard to not be in it.
    .....The men worked for Reuters.....I did not realise they were hiring in Iraq. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jimbo1234)
    .....The men worked for Reuters.....I did not realise they were hiring in Iraq. :rolleyes:
    I was actually talking about the many locals that got shot and killed (or injured, in the case of the two kids).

    But if you want to talk about the Reuters people.. I don't know where they lived. Nor do you. They were both Iraqis, born in Iraq. We don't know if they were still living there or had moved abroad. Wikipedia has only this to say:
    "He was one of the first photographers trained by the Reuters news agency as part of a strategy to employ photojournalists with strong local knowledge and access to areas considered too dangerous for Western photographers to work in."(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namir_Noor-Eldeen)
    Which suggests that if he was living abroad, he hadn't been for long. He was still considered a local, with local knowledge. Namir Noor-Edeen started work in Mosul - which just so happens to be his birthplace.
    Reuters describe the two men as "Iraqi's". Not "Brits" (or other country) or "Iraqi-born Brits" (or other country) or anything.

    Oh, this is interesting. "and Reuters have been hiring Iraqi reporters. Some of these reporters have then found themselves in American jails for covering the Iraqi insurgents; and almost 40 of them have died (without much note in our press) reporting the occupation and the insurgency" (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1103-24.htm)

    It looks like they had a local funeral.

    From Saeed Chmagh's burial, in Iraq.

    Now if anyone knows if they were living in Iraq the entire time, or if they temporarily lived abroad, please answer.

    _________
    They were photojournalists. Of course they are going to be near the action, and that does put them in danger. They still should not have been targeted, they were not near fighting at the time. If they had been accidentally shot whilst a battle was going on, this would be a different story.

    US were so desperate to kill a couple of photographers, they blew up children.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The main point is that, even if they were justified in removing a potential threat (which they I believe they weren't - there was no immediate threat to their safety), they went too far in their shooting up anything that moved in the area...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lightburns)
    I was actually talking about the many locals that got shot and killed (or injured, in the case of the two kids).

    But if you want to talk about the Reuters people.. I don't know where they lived. Nor do you. They were both Iraqis, born in Iraq. We don't know if they were still living there or had moved abroad. Wikipedia has only this to say:
    "He was one of the first photographers trained by the Reuters news agency as part of a strategy to employ photojournalists with strong local knowledge and access to areas considered too dangerous for Western photographers to work in."(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namir_Noor-Eldeen)
    Which suggests that if he was living abroad, he hadn't been for long. He was still considered a local, with local knowledge. Namir Noor-Edeen started work in Mosul - which just so happens to be his birthplace.
    Reuters describe the two men as "Iraqi's". Not "Brits" (or other country) or "Iraqi-born Brits" (or other country) or anything.

    Oh, this is interesting. "and Reuters have been hiring Iraqi reporters. Some of these reporters have then found themselves in American jails for covering the Iraqi insurgents; and almost 40 of them have died (without much note in our press) reporting the occupation and the insurgency" (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1103-24.htm)

    It looks like they had a local funeral.

    From Saeed Chmagh's burial, in Iraq.

    Now if anyone knows if they were living in Iraq the entire time, or if they temporarily lived abroad, please answer.

    _________
    They were photojournalists. Of course they are going to be near the action, and that does put them in danger. They still should not have been targeted, they were not near fighting at the time. If they had been accidentally shot whilst a battle was going on, this would be a different story.

    US were so desperate to kill a couple of photographers, they blew up children.

    So they specialised in going into area's that were deemed to dangerous and therefore army officials would presume there would be no reporters in that area???

    It is sad that they got killed, but seriously, being a war time reporter is a very dangerous and unnecessary job. To be killed is normally a matter of time with jobs like that.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jimbo1234)
    So they specialised in going into area's that were deemed to dangerous and therefore army officials would presume there would be no reporters in that area???

    It is sad that they got killed, but seriously, being a war time reporter is a very dangerous and unnecessary job. To be killed is normally a matter of time with jobs like that.
    This is where the bit I wrote at the bottom becomes relevant.

    (Original post by lightburns)
    They were photojournalists. Of course they are going to be near the action, and that does put them in danger. They still should not have been targeted, they were not near fighting at the time. If they had been accidentally shot whilst a battle was going on, this would be a different story.

    US were so desperate to kill a couple of photographers, they blew up children.
    If they had been killed in a war zone, I would be saying differently. They were killed just in the town with no fighting going on, and locals all around.
    They did spend a lot of time in the action - but they weren't in the action when they got killed.

    Simply being in the same town as American forces appears to be too dangerous for Westerners.. Just like being 'rescued' by the Americans isn't too safe, or fighting 'alongside' the Americans isn't too safe!
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    There is no such thing as an 'army hero' its a phrase made up by society to get all the ignorant people to support the army.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by james212)
    I'm sorry but you seem to lack even the most basic understanding of the English language. Once again, READ what I actually write, rather than making inferences that are completely incorrect.

    1) No I didn't. Please quote me the exact bit where I said "Japan wanted to plunder the US"...
    I was talking generally, about if 1 country wanted to invade another. Most countries invade other countries for economic/resource reasons. Sometimes its to give a regime legitimacy/popularity - but mainly its the former. I was thinking about Gulf War I/Wars in Africa etc..

    " Well, yes, I think if a country is completely unjustly attacked (for no reason other than the desire of another country to plunder it) "

    You didn't say generally. You didn't say for example. You stated it as the sole reason.

    If you meant something else, then that isn't my problem.


    (Original post by james212)
    2) Well, they were. Despite losing the war, most Japanese solders . They didn't do it because the government realized the insanity of having your entire population wiped out (after the US made clear they had more atomic weapons) and the Americans agreed that they could keep the Emperor and that blame would be shifted. Until the bombs, the plan was for every last solider to fight to the death.

    I, personally, doubt a blockade would achieve anything. Look at sanctions (effectively a blockade) and how well they have worked in Cuba, Iraq, North Korea, Iran (this is sarcasm).
    .
    No, sanctions are not effectively blockades. I am talking about a blockade of virtually all goods into the country.

    Japan wasn't self sufficient and unlike any of the countries that you have mentioned, I cannot imagine another country wanting to supply them goods.



    (Original post by james212)
    3) You again seem completely incapable of correctly reading what I write. I wasn't saying how clever I was. Conversely, I was saying I don't have a deep knowledge - so I'm not claiming to be an expert, but I did study surrounding subjects and have an A-Level understanding - perhaps someone with a history degree can give a deeper understanding. Frankly, if you think I was attempting to put you down with that, I'm a little insulted.
    .
    I read what you wrote correctly. I don't really see how 581/600 at A levels or where you went to university has to do with what I said.

    (Original post by james212)

    4) No, I'm not saying that. My point is, if he punched me and drew a knife, and subsequently I feared for my life, I would have absolutely no hesitation in defending myself, and if that involved the use of strong force, so be it.


    Your last example is insane.
    I do not believe in the innocence of either the Japanese or German people, particularly the latter. There are 100's of books detailing collaboration, of complicit behaviour etc. Look up Post Revisionism (school of thought) regards the issue. Lets not forget, Hitler was voted into power...

    .
    I know it is an insane example. I am just using your logic.

    " the country that was initially attacked has every right to use all means at its disposal to defeat the attacker"



    (Original post by james212)
    Frankly, you said
    "You wouldn't allow those justifications to be used by ........................or the other') I suggest you learn some social skills...
    .
    I am not sure why you are bringing that up now. If you wanted to bring it up, then you should have said have 4 messages ago.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pippa90)
    I only watched the video once, I thought they were cameras pretty much straight away. Yes they looked slightly suspicious but how do you know that there were ground troops in range?
    How do you know there weren't any troops within the area? See that's why the hype around this video fails. It's relatively short footage with little to no background. The context of the video can be taken many ways. Why would a chopper be scouting the area like that? I'm more than sure soldiers are not just allowed to grab one and fly wherever shooting whoever.

    Why do you think I'm 'so obviously anti American'? I am not. My favourite tv shows are American and they have invented some great things.
    The problem with killing people because they are a 'potential threat' is that it would be illegal on the streets of many countries. Why should it be legal because it involves soldiers?
    Look, I know you want to live in a utopia but the reality is that the world we live in has been sculpted by war for better or worse. Wars happened, happen now and will continue to do so.

    These soldiers are not on any old streets they're in a recognized war zones yet they still operate under strict rules to protect civilians as much as possible which also means risking your own lives even more.


    No I don't think that it's only US soldiers, but here is an example of soldiers and it just happens to be that they are from the US. If this attack was made by any other country's army I would still be outraged.
    Are you outraged with Iran special forces training the very militants that blow up markets full of civilians, plant thousands of IEDs that mutilate, maim, and kill people indiscriminately, butcher the rights of women etc? Are you outraged at Saudis funding terrorists? Were you also this upset when North Korea bombed an island of civilians?

    There are far worse things to be disgusted and outraged by than one incident which happened in one of the most fierce modern war zones.

    I know war is ugly, that is why it should be stopped. Invading other countries is only going to aggravate them and make them invade us.
    I don't think about it because I don't know about it. And do you know how many times a day they do it? You may call it one unfortunate incident but if it was a member of your family or a close friend who became victim of that then I doubt you would be calling it just 'unfortunate'.
    Oh yes I obviously think that :rolleyes:
    Why do you think almost 40 European countries have been involved in Iraq and Afghanistan? The stability of that region is important not only for the people that live there but the entire world. It can't possibly have a positive outcome when there are brutal dictators and regimes at the helm. And the fact that Saddam for example was put there by the West only doubled their responsibility to remove him.

    Yeah if it was a family member or friend then I'd be upset but who wouldn't? Not sure what actual point you're trying to make here. Do you also feel upset and empathize with the families of all of the good US soldiers when their son/husband/friend is blown to pieces when he went to help some civilians? In the context of Iraq/Afghanistan this is a grain of sand on a beach of horrible causalities. There only reason people get so outraged is because it's the US and they watch it with "root of all evil" preconceptions. If only you saw videos of all of the good work they do, videos of what the people they are trying to remove do etc.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Xhotas)
    In a hostile area, when they have what appears to be weapons, yes. Are you honestly saying if you were walking across, say the roughest area of the city where gun crime is at its highest and a group of men are off in the distant walking in the direction towards a family member you'd honestly wouldn't do anything because you "assume" nothing would happen?

    It's a combat zone and it's a military operation. You need to think about it in a militarised way because so far you seem to just think "They were safe, they didn't have to shoot because they weren't in danger" when it wasn't their job to get into danger. They do this sort of thing on probably a daily basis, it's routine. Go through hostile territory, see enemy with what appears to be weapons, shoot them. It's as much the journalists fault for not informing that they would be in a hostile area as the pilots, but the pilot was doing his job. If they appear to have objects which look like weapons and tell their CO, they will get the order to shoot. If they see them trying to escape, they will shoot.

    Do you not think it was idiotic of the journalists to bring children to the hostile area?
    Of course I wouldn't do nothing, but I wouldn't have bombed them and been like 'I think I just ran over a dead body hahaha', see one of them badly injured and struggling for their life so I'll be like 'Hurry up I just want to shoot!'. I don't like what they did but I understand now, however the way that they went about it was disgusting.

    Also I hate these excuses 'it's just combat' or 'it's just their job'. Say someone is a rape assassin (they rape women that someone else has chosen for money) It's like saying oh well that's just rape for you, that's just their job, get over it. Basically what I'm saying is they don't have to have that job.

    Yes it was idiotic to bring children into it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jimbo1234)
    And there should not be disease and famine but there always will be because that is life sadly.
    No. If they attack us then fine, we'll fight back, but we're just there intruding on their affairs. It's idiotic because in time they will end up attacking us properly and it'll be World War III.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thisisnew)
    How do you know there weren't any troops within the area? See that's why the hype around this video fails. It's relatively short footage with little to no background. The context of the video can be taken many ways. Why would a chopper be scouting the area like that? I'm more than sure soldiers are not just allowed to grab one and fly wherever shooting whoever.

    Look, I know you want to live in a utopia but the reality is that the world we live in has been sculpted by war for better or worse. Wars happened, happen now and will continue to do so.

    These soldiers are not on any old streets they're in a recognized war zones yet they still operate under strict rules to protect civilians as much as possible which also means risking your own lives even more.


    Are you outraged with Iran special forces training the very militants that blow up markets full of civilians, plant thousands of IEDs that mutilate, maim, and kill people indiscriminately, butcher the rights of women etc? Are you outraged at Saudis funding terrorists? Were you also this upset when North Korea bombed an island of civilians?

    There are far worse things to be disgusted and outraged by than one incident which happened in one of the most fierce modern war zones.

    Why do you think almost 40 European countries have been involved in Iraq and Afghanistan? The stability of that region is important not only for the people that live there but the entire world. It can't possibly have a positive outcome when there are brutal dictators and regimes at the helm. And the fact that Saddam for example was put there by the West only doubled their responsibility to remove him.

    ]Yeah if it was a family member or friend then I'd be upset but who wouldn't? Not sure what actual point you're trying to make here. Do you also feel upset and empathize with the families of all of the good US soldiers when their son/husband/friend is blown to pieces when he went to help some civilians? In the context of Iraq/Afghanistan this is a grain of sand on a beach of horrible causalities. There only reason people get so outraged is because it's the US and they watch it with "root of all evil" preconceptions. If only you saw videos of all of the good work they do, videos of what the people they are trying to remove do etc.
    Show me them then. Watch the video at the bottom of that page, you won't have to defend them and ask me any more questions after that. If you think that being told to 'shoot any mother****er on the street' is acceptable then I can't even be arsed to reply to you any more my friend.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    ah yes, 5 pages of military insight from 20 year old armchair generals.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    No surprise really.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pippa90)
    Wow, I didn't realise how many inhumane people there are around these days.

    Did you not hear them saying things like "Oh come on hurry up, I just want to shoot!" at the guy who was badly injured and "I think I just ran over a dead body", "hahahaha".

    It's ****ing sick, and if you agree with or defend this kind of behaviour then you are ****ing sick too.
    Have you ever been in a warzone? :holmes:

    If not, then shut the **** up. You've probably never had to face the challenges that any of those soldiers have ever had to face, and that goes for soldiers all over the globe, not just American ones.
    Granted, what they did was wrong and they shouldn't have covered it up, but when you've been shot at several times and you really start to fear for your own life, you can't blame them for being too trigger happy in situations where in their mind it's "kill or be killed".
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.