WikiLeaks Preparing to Release Video of U.S Massacre in Afghanistan; worse then previous - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Arrows;22794355]Who cares, war is war, what happens in war, stays in war. wikileaks should just die.[/QUOTE] Yo, Hitler was a cool guy dawg, I don't get all the hate. It was just a war, how comes people don't get that?

[QUOTE=The_Fly56556;22803447]That just makes it even worse, he should stop bashing other countries and do something productive.[/QUOTE] I'm quite sure exposing the worlds lying governments/businesses/millionaires IS a productive thing to do.

[QUOTE=Regulas021;22804619]No, you're just pulling the race card. The men in power at the time of the bombing did not have the pleasure of sitting in their computer chairs 65 years later, with 6 decades of Cold War politics to judge it on and countless statistics. What they had were the lives of their soldiers, predicted casualty counts of both American soldiers and Japanese civilians, and a new, more destructive bomb. Even the members of the Manhattan Project had no grasp on the powers of radiation at the time, and this is very evident. Many, many of the scientists who worked later developed cancer because immediately after the first atomic detonation in New Mexico, they walked into the blast zone to survey the results. Even less aware of the risks of radiation were the commanders who had to make the call. As fire bombing and deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure was perfectly acceptable at the time (and receives no criticism in the modern world remotely comparable to that of the Atomic Bombings), this was [i]still[/i] a difficult choice. Based on every bit of evidence that the commanders in charge of the bombing had, it was justified. Because there was no way for them to predict the future, their decision can not be judged on the long term effects.[/QUOTE] So their best plan was to rush out an untested (or not tested enough) weapon that they [I]knew[/I] had unparalleled destructive force, and use it on an enemy's civilians which they [I]knew[/I] Japan cornered through an already terribly bloody conflict, and they were in such a hurry to do this, to fit into the attention span of the public and their opinion, that they just had no choice. What a coincidence that they suddenly decided to grow a conscience near the end when the public was obviously growing tired of war. People in 1946 were not dumber than they are today. They had a good idea of what would happen and went ahead with it anyway because they needed an expedient ending and an impressive finale to wave in the faces of other nations. [editline]03:43PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Kalibos;22804741]Add the fact that nobody (read: nobody) knew much about radioactivity or the long-term effects of a nuclear bomb and I'd say it's pretty solid reasoning[/QUOTE] It doesn't matter they wanted to wipe out cities!

[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;22805267]So their best plan was to rush out an untested (or not tested enough) weapon that they [I]knew[/I] had unparalleled destructive force, and use it on an enemy's civilians which they [I]knew[/I] Japan cornered through an already terribly bloody conflict, and they were in such a hurry to do this, to fit into the attention span of the public and their opinion, that they just had no choice. What a coincidence that they suddenly decided to grow a conscience near the end when the public was obviously growing tired of war. People in 1946 were not dumber than they are today. They had a good idea of what would happen and went ahead with it anyway because they needed an expedient ending and an impressive finale to wave in the faces of other nations.[/QUOTE] Please tell me you're just fucking around.

[QUOTE=Morcam;22805504]Please tell me you're just fucking around.[/QUOTE] In any case I'm derailing the thread and don't want to talk about it anymore.

[QUOTE=Aman V;22803239]The men on the ground could have gone on and killed an American soldier (not talking about the journalist, the other guys who had guns with them). Killing them theoretically could have saved an American soldier for all we know. And to be honest if were gonna play the "make the biggest deal in the world when 1 innocent dies during war" the Americans commited one of the largest war crimes in history killing 300,000+ innocent civilians...[/QUOTE] to save millions [editline]04:58PM[/editline] [QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;22805267]So their best plan was to rush out an untested (or not tested enough) weapon that they [I]knew[/I] had unparalleled destructive force, and use it on an enemy's civilians which they [I]knew[/I] Japan cornered through an already terribly bloody conflict, and they were in such a hurry to do this, to fit into the attention span of the public and their opinion, that they just had no choice. What a coincidence that they suddenly decided to grow a conscience near the end when the public was obviously growing tired of war. People in 1946 were not dumber than they are today. They had a good idea of what would happen and went ahead with it anyway because they needed an expedient ending and an impressive finale to wave in the faces of other nations. [editline]03:43PM[/editline] It doesn't matter they wanted to wipe out cities![/QUOTE] would it be different if they just used standard bombs to destroy the city? because that's what everyone else in ww2 did. the atomic bomb just did it quicker [editline]04:59PM[/editline] after weeks of warnings

[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;22805267]So their best plan was to rush out an untested (or not tested enough) weapon that they [I]knew[/I] had unparalleled destructive force,[/QUOTE] yes and that is the only thing they focused on or cared/knew anything about they didn't know about radiation poisoning, fallout, contamination etc. etc. at that point they just knew they had a really big bomb and since nobody else (Japan) had the capacity to make them, they had an inherent advantage just by having a brand new weapon that their enemies didn't [QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;22805267]and use it on an enemy's civilians which they [I]knew[/I] Japan cornered through an already terribly bloody conflict, and they were in such a hurry to do this, to fit into the attention span of the public and their opinion, that they just had no choice. What a coincidence that they suddenly decided to grow a conscience near the end when the public was obviously growing tired of war. [/QUOTE] I'm really not sure what you're saying here [QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;22805267]People in 1946 were not dumber than they are today. [/QUOTE] well actually when it comes to the effects and consequences of nuclear weapons I'd say yes they [B]were[/B] far "dumber" (read: less knowledgeable) than people today [QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;22805267]They had a good idea of what would happen and went ahead with it anyway.[/QUOTE] wrong they had a good idea that there would be a large asplosion that's it [QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;22805267]It doesn't matter they wanted to wipe out cities![/QUOTE] it's not like they just got up one morning and decided to murder hundreds of thousands of civilians I mean I agree it was wrong, but they needed a way to force Japan to surrender (Japan made it pretty clear that we could go fuck ourselves before they did) and the bombings made the most sense. And while this is only conjecture, I'm sure that their almost-total lack of knowledge about the weapon they had available to them played a significant part in the decision.

[QUOTE=Gummylamb;22804426]Wouldn't you think that commiting your life to saving others would make you more useful (at least) than civies? Arguably that means worth more.[/QUOTE] Well actually I can't really make that argument because I forgot about drafts and whatnot, but it's not like the goverments of either nation had much compassion for soldiers or civilians so... [editline]04:18PM[/editline] And by good idea I meant that it would create a large explosion, destroying much of the city, and killing indiscriminately. [editline]04:20PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Kalibos;22805974] I'm really not sure what you're saying here [/QUOTE] What I meant was that the US military wanted to appeal to the public and get it over with quickly, because they had proven through the rest of the campaign that they really didn't give a shit about civilians or soldiers. They cared more about them than other nations but that isn't saying much.

I hope the wikileaks guy destroys the US government, I hate corrupt leadership.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;22806753]I hope the wikileaks guy destroys the US government, I hate corrupt leadership.[/QUOTE] Worst idea fucking ever

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;22806753]I hope the wikileaks guy destroys the US government, I hate corrupt leadership.[/QUOTE] I think destroying the government would be a bit much. But overcoming the negativity against him and Wikileaks would be a formidable accomplishment.

[QUOTE=Gummylamb;22806807]Worst idea fucking ever[/QUOTE] So you are happy with a government that says one thing to it's people and does the opposite when they're not looking. We need a government that works for the people, not themselves.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;22806850]So you are happy with a government that says one thing to it's people and does the opposite when they're not looking. We need a government that works for the people, not themselves.[/QUOTE] ahaha [editline]05:43PM[/editline] ahahahahahahahaa

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;22806850]So you are happy with a government that says one thing to it's people and does the opposite when they're not looking. We need a government that works for the people, not themselves.[/QUOTE] Yeah but destroying a government is a bit extreme, considering anarchy will most likely follow.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;22806850]So you are happy with a government that says one thing to it's people and does the opposite when they're not looking. We need a government that works for the people, not themselves.[/QUOTE] Do you not see the repercussions of letting one of the biggest government in the world...die

[QUOTE=Gummylamb;22806982]Do you not see the repercussions of letting one of the biggest government in the world...die[/QUOTE] Freedom.

Yeah man we're so oppressed imma kill myself

[QUOTE=Pirate Ninja;22795985]TheChantzGuy4President i always wanted to go to iraq and shoot all civilians.[/QUOTE] This guy knows what the fuxup

[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;22799327]People have a right to know what's going on. War is war, but the killing of non-combatants deliberately or through negligence is [B]illegal[/B]. They don't always get followed, but war has rules. If people break the rules then the public has a right to know about it. If someone is murdered in your town, the newspaper reports it. By your logic it shouldn't be reported and if you wan't to know about murders then you better do it yourself.[/QUOTE] Nothing and everything is illegal in war. You have shown up in another nation with an army and plan on destroying their entire system of government. If you lose, it was illegal, if you win, you now own the territory and it was legal. We avoid killing civilians because we have no wish to harm those not involved in terrorist or insurgent activities. However both terrorist and insurgent parties have adopted a policy of civilian camouflage to achieve their objectives. They leverage our rules of engagement in order to deal the most damage to us. This leads to a high rate of accidental civilian death caused by coalition troops. This isn't merely a side effect, it's part of the goal of this method of warfare. By maximizing the civilian casualties on your side, you gain more support and the attacking force loses support both abroad, and at home. I wish people would take the time to actually understand why civilians die in modern conflicts. Everyone instantly jumps on the "OH THEY WERE BLOODTHIRSTY MURDERERS" bandwagon.

[QUOTE=GunFox;22807235]I wish people would take the time to actually understand why civilians die in modern conflicts. Everyone instantly jumps on the "OH THEY WERE BLOODTHIRSTY MURDERERS" bandwagon.[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_Baghdad_shootings[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse[/url] not blood thirsty at all.. just takin' care of of 'dem terrorist :patriot:

[QUOTE=Mac2468;22797901]Which is a big reason I'm not too fond of my country.[/QUOTE] "Do you and your comrades feel anything when shooting these innocent civilians?" "Some recoil." -Interview with a typical American soldier. [editline]05:58PM[/editline] [QUOTE=JDK721;22807299][URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_Baghdad_shootings[/URL] not blood thirsty at all.. just takin' care of of 'dem terrorist :patriot:[/QUOTE] Fuck yeah Amurica!

[QUOTE=firstblood;22807009]Freedom.[/QUOTE] ....you do realize that the United States probably has more personal freedoms than just about any other major nation on the planet right? We make Europe look like a police state.

[QUOTE=GunFox;22807235] I wish people would take the time to actually understand why civilians die in modern conflicts. Everyone instantly jumps on the "OH THEY WERE BLOODTHIRSTY MURDERERS" bandwagon.[/QUOTE] Still, even though war is brutal and such, and civilian causalities are inevitable and expected, especially in asymmetrical warfare; in this particular case, I think that the initial shooting of the reporters and their escort was a slight lapse in judgment. However, the shooting of the van that came to drag out the wounded/dead was a severe mistake that was made, and some sort of reprimand should come of this. [editline]06:01PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;22807303]"Do you and your comrades feel anything when shooting these innocent civilians?" "Some recoil." -Interview with a typical American soldier. [/QUOTE] If I remember right, there was someone who said something almost exactly like that, and he was actually British.

[QUOTE=GunFox;22807329]....you do realize that the United States probably has more personal freedoms than just about any other major nation on the planet right? We make Europe look like a police state.[/QUOTE] hahahah gay marriage is illegal in 44/50 states, arresting people for victimless crimes, Patriot Act, etc. yep, those are all fictional

[QUOTE=GunFox;22807329]....you do realize that the United States probably has more personal freedoms than just about any other major nation on the planet right? We make Europe look like a police state.[/QUOTE] .....you do realize that the United States probably has one of the highest corruption rates and definately one of the highest crime rates than just about any other nation on the planet right?

[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;22807373].....you do realize that the United States probably has one of the highest corruption rates and definately one of the highest crime rates than just about any other nation on the planet right?[/QUOTE] Corruption is hard to measure objectively, and how does a high crime rate correlate with personal freedom? If you're defining it as a high incidence of arrests for victim-less crimes, sure. But the crime rate overall? That makes no sense.

[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;22807303]"Do you and your comrades feel anything when shooting these innocent civilians?" "Some recoil." -Interview with a typical American soldier.[/QUOTE] lol that never happened nice try though [url]http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/recoil.asp[/url] [editline]06:03PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Kagrenak;22807397]personal freedom?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=JDK721;22807371]hahahah gay marriage is illegal in 44/50 states, arresting people for victimless crimes, Patriot Act, etc. yep, those are all fictional[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=JDK721;22807406]lol that never happened nice try though [url]http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/recoil.asp[/url][/QUOTE] Ah, never mind, I recant what I said earlier. [b]Edit:[/b] Wait, how does that second bit answer my question? I understand how personal freedoms are limited, and I agree that they are, I just don't get how an overall crime rate would be a measure of freedoms?

[QUOTE=JDK721;22807371]hahahah gay marriage is illegal in 44/50 states, arresting people for victimless crimes, Patriot Act, etc. yep, those are all fictional[/QUOTE] We're working on it

[QUOTE=Gummylamb;22807463]We're working on it[/QUOTE] That's nice; that doesn't mean you can say you're better when you're still working at becoming better.