Clinton, Bush, Obama and war crimes

[Zanting]

Sure. Neither President Clinton, nor Bush, nor Obama is a war criminal.

That germane enough?

Did you read the report? Too cumbersome for you maybe? It is long.

Do you know where their information came from? You can check their sources if you like since it's all from pubic documents.

And what's with being so sarcastic about getting back on topic?

 

[USincognito]

Did you read the report? Too cumbersome for you maybe? It is long.

I don't need to. I've lived through the last three administrations. Nothing any of them did would be considered a war crime by even the most marginally unbiased observer.

Do you know where their information came from? You can check their sources if you like since it's all from pubic documents.

The source of the OP is all I need to know.
Globalresearch.ca - RationalWiki

And what's with being so sarcastic about getting back on topic?

I'm at work and it's been a long night. My apologies.

 

[Zanting]

I don't need to. I've lived through the last three administrations. Nothing any of them did would be considered a war crime by even the most marginally unbiased observer.



The source of the OP is all I need to know.
Globalresearch.ca - RationalWiki



I'm at work and it's been a long night. My apologies.

Apology accepted. Hope your day gets much brighter.

I must say, however, that I find it extremely disturbing when someone brushes off a report such as this sight unseen. Especially when all the information in the report can be checked by anyone, regardless of whether one considers the source reliable. Certainly a critic does just that before they cast it off. Isn't that the informed way of claiming something is bogus?

Considering the "indictment" claims are very serious allegations, wouldn't that make those who put the report together liable if it is false? Why would they put themselves in that position?

I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but it seems that many people will discredit something without even reading it or checking the documentation the report is made up of. How then is their comment credible?

Besides, the Constitution Project in Washington put the report together...not Global Research who have posted it on their site.

 

[USincognito]

Apology accepted. Hope your day gets much brighter.

I must say, however, that I find it extremely disturbing when someone brushes off a report such as this sight unseen. Especially when all the information in the report can be checked by anyone, regardless of whether one considers the source reliable. Certainly a critic does just that before they cast it off. Isn't that the informed way of claiming something is bogus?

I simply don't like giving traffic to advertiser sponsored blogs or "news" sites. How about this as a compromise? You summarize or cut and paste a few germane bullet points and I'll address them here?

Considering the "indictment" claims are very serious allegations, wouldn't that make those who put the report together liable if it is false? Why would they put themselves in that position?

I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but it seems that many people will discredit something without even reading it or checking the documentation the report is made up of. How then is their comment credible?

Besides, the Constitution Project in Washington put the report together...not Global Research who have posted it on their site.[/QUOTE]

Can you link directly to anything on the Constitution Project's website or tell me if any of the links on this Wikipedia entry are germane to the claims being made in the Global Research story?
Constitution Project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Zanting]

I simply don't like giving traffic to advertiser sponsored blogs or "news" sites. How about this as a compromise? You summarize or cut and paste a few germane bullet points and I'll address them here?

See post 35...some points are there

I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but it seems that many people will discredit something without even reading it or checking the documentation the report is made up of. How then is their comment credible?

Besides, the Constitution Project in Washington put the report together...not Global Research who have posted it on their site.

Can you link directly to anything on the Constitution Project's website or tell me if any of the links on this Wikipedia entry are germane to the claims being made in the Global Research story?
Constitution Project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/quote]


You can go directly to their website The Constitution Project

and use their link...it takes you here Detainee Treatment | Task Force On Detainee Treatment

You can bypass global research, they simply posted it.

 

[USincognito]

You can go directly to their website The Constitution Project[/COLOR]

and use their link...it takes you here Detainee Treatment | Task Force On Detainee Treatment

Ah yes. I heard about this report (though it was largely overshadowed by the Boston bombing and the explosion in West, TX). It appears to be quite a scathing indictment of our capture and detainment protocols and lack of efficacy for torture and enhanced interrogation techniques.

 

[Zanting]

Ah yes. I heard about this report (though it was largely overshadowed by the Boston bombing and the explosion in West, TX). It appears to be quite a scathing indictment of our capture and detainment protocols and lack of efficacy for torture and enhanced interrogation techniques.

Yes it was, and now that so many are focused on the latest potential conspiracy due to shoddy reporting and who knows what other disinformation/misinformation is floating around. It certainly opens doors for speculation, questions, theories and just simple distraction from the findings of this report. At least that can also be proposed as a theory in light of all the others out there.

And yes, it does contain some very serious allegations against all three administrations. Will it ever see the light of day, or be swept away? If charges do result from this report, are those guilty going to be prosecuted, or will they be excused for this behaviour under the guise of protecting the US?

 

[PatrickM]

Hyperbole - Oh dear - I guess you didn't bother to read the links then.

None of them had specifics of the tortured portion of their population in 1940.

China had around 500 million alone at the time of the conclusion of WW2 (not all of whom were suffering under the Japanese). Throw in another 70 million or so for Indonesia. Let alone the others.

In a study published in 1996, historian Mitsuyoshi Himeta claims that the Three Alls Policy, sanctioned by Emperor Hirohito himself, was both directly and indirectly responsible for the deaths of "more than 2.7 million" Chinese civilians.

Since the Three Alls was the worst, simple extrapolation will do for the remaining counties you listed. 1/2 of 1% of the Chinese population (according to your figures?), which was the most populated, times 70 million (?) in Indonesia is 350,000. Still hard to get "tens of millions".

Add to this the fact Japan had a TOTAL POPULATION of 73 million in 1940, including women and children, it's hard to see how the military could control 500 million in China alone.

You don't think you even slightly exaggerated to make a point? Any links to specify your claim of "tens of millions"?

And two command centres including that for the defence of Japan's southern front. And 40,000 troops, and a communications centre....

Yet it wasn't even on the list of twelve possible cities mentioned on the leaflets.

And what about the fact the bomb exploded near a large medical center, supposedly because of wind shifts? Killing 90% of the doctors, and 93% of the nurses? Coincidence? "Casualties of war"?

And unless you lived under the Japanese occupation, you have no idea what they went through or how relieved they were when the war ended early because of the use of the atomic bomb. Members of my family did and they were fortunate - not so everyone else.

My mother lived under both Hitler and Stalin in Latvia during WWII. The atrocities she witnessed were nothing in comparison to the brutality of Hiroshima. This opinion was shared by my father, who earned the Bronze Star in North Africa against Rommel, and served with the UN occupation forces in Japan, where my mother accompanied him there. I shudder to think of where I would be today if A-bombs were used in Europe.

Sorry, there is NO JUSTIFICATION for the use of such weapons near civilian populations, PERIOD.

 

[Zanting]

None of them had specifics of the tortured portion of their population in 1940.


In a study published in 1996, historian Mitsuyoshi Himeta claims that the Three Alls Policy, sanctioned by Emperor Hirohito himself, was both directly and indirectly responsible for the deaths of "more than 2.7 million" Chinese civilians.

Since the Three Alls was the worst, simple extrapolation will do for the remaining counties you listed. 1/2 of 1% of the Chinese population (according to your figures?), which was the most populated, times 70 million (?) in Indonesia is 350,000. Still hard to get "tens of millions".

Add to this the fact Japan had a TOTAL POPULATION of 73 million in 1940, including women and children, it's hard to see how the military could control 500 million in China alone.

You don't think you even slightly exaggerated to make a point? Any links to specify your claim of "tens of millions"?


Yet it wasn't even on the list of twelve possible cities mentioned on the leaflets.

And what about the fact the bomb exploded near a large medical center, supposedly because of wind shifts? Killing 90% of the doctors, and 93% of the nurses? Coincidence? "Casualties of war"?


My mother lived under both Hitler and Stalin in Latvia during WWII. The atrocities she witnessed were nothing in comparison to the brutality of Hiroshima. This opinion was shared by my father, who earned the Bronze Star in North Africa against Rommel, and served with the UN occupation forces in Japan, where my mother accompanied him there. I shudder to think of where I would be today if A-bombs were used in Europe.

Sorry, there is NO JUSTIFICATION for the use of such weapons near civilian populations, PERIOD.

I can only agree...there is no justification for Hiroshima and the devastation it caused.

As to the OP...have you had a chance to review the report? The link is posted above. They have made some very serious allegations against three administrations.

 

[PatrickM]

I can only agree...there is no justification for Hiroshima and the devastation it caused.

As to the OP...have you had a chance to review the report? The link is posted above. They have made some very serious allegations against three administrations.

As I get older, I seem to be developing ADD. No insult intended, I just get distracted easily, sorry. Am reading now, just Truman came to mind at the beginning...

 

[Zanting]

As I get older, I seem to be developing ADD. No insult intended, I just get distracted easily, sorry. Am reading now, just Truman came to mind at the beginning...

I wasn't insulted at all . And the subject matter is related, but past and nothing can be done about it...whereas this report could lead somewhere and maybe help America start to get it's country back on more democratic footing.

Hope this doesn't get swept away, but somehow I think they will weasel their way out of it.

 

[TheQuietRiot]

I can only agree...there is no justification for Hiroshima and the devastation it caused.

As to the OP...have you had a chance to review the report? The link is posted above. They have made some very serious allegations against three administrations.

The atomic bombings averted the inevitable invasion of Japan.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

None of them had specifics of the tortured portion of their population in 1940.


In a study published in 1996, historian Mitsuyoshi Himeta claims that the Three Alls Policy, sanctioned by Emperor Hirohito himself, was both directly and indirectly responsible for the deaths of "more than 2.7 million" Chinese civilians.

Since the Three Alls was the worst, simple extrapolation will do for the remaining counties you listed. 1/2 of 1% of the Chinese population (according to your figures?), which was the most populated, times 70 million (?) in Indonesia is 350,000. Still hard to get "tens of millions".

Tens of millions living under Japanese oppression. Or are you still claiming that "There weren't even tens of millions in total living in the whole Pacific Rim at the time."

Add to this the fact Japan had a TOTAL POPULATION of 73 million in 1940, including women and children, it's hard to see how the military could control 500 million in China alone.

The same way Germany controlled all of western Europe and much of Eastern Europe in 1942. And as I did point out, I didn't claim Japan controlled all of China - only a substantial amount of it. They did control all of Indonesia, Manchukuo, Taiwan, Korea, Malaya, Vietnam etc etc though.

My mother lived under both Hitler and Stalin in Latvia during WWII. The atrocities she witnessed were nothing in comparison to the brutality of Hiroshima. This opinion was shared by my father, who earned the Bronze Star in North Africa against Rommel, and served with the UN occupation forces in Japan, where my mother accompanied him there. I shudder to think of where I would be today if A-bombs were used in Europe.

Sorry, there is NO JUSTIFICATION for the use of such weapons near civilian populations, PERIOD.

So is it worse to be killed or horribly burned by an A-bomb, be incinerated in a minute or two after a bomb falls on your house, dying over a period of weeks while experimented on by a Japanese "doctor" in a death camp, be gassed in Auschwitz or have your limbs blown off and then drown in a sea of burning oil when your ship is sunk by a U-boat?

Sorry, but I don't share the point of view that the way Japanese civilians died in Hiroshima was somehow worse than every other way civilians have died in war, under Japanese control or otherwise. War is awful, regardless of how you die.

My point is that people who argue against the atomic bomb claim that the war should have been prolonged by weeks or months until the Japanese surrendered through other means or the Japanese homeland was invaded, without paying any regard (or in many cases even knowing) that many were still suffering and dying under Japanese rule elsewhere.

 

[PatrickM]

Tens of millions living under Japanese oppression. Or are you still claiming that "There weren't even tens of millions in total living in the whole Pacific Rim at the time."

I will admit I under estimated. Can you admit you exaggerated as well?

So is it worse to be killed or horribly burned by an A-bomb, be incinerated in a minute or two after a bomb falls on your house, dying over a period of weeks while experimented on by a Japanese "doctor" in a death camp

Only 100,000 died instantly, 440,000 "survived":

"On the morning of the bombing, 6-year-old Tanaka, her clothes clean and her hair brushed, was standing in the street with friends before heading to school. Moments after the bombers passed overhead, she was thrown to the ground by the force of the bomb, which exploded in midair over the city.

She awoke with her face and arms burned and her hair singed, and she wandered back to her half-destroyed home. When her mom came outside, she didn't even recognize her own daughter, whom she sent to school 15 minutes earlier." Just one story.

gassed in Auschwitz or have your limbs blown off and then drown in a sea of burning oil when your ship is sunk by a U-boat?

These, too, horrific. The effects of war were terrible throughout both theaters, on all sides. But they were committed by evil men. Not so dropping the bomb. That was done by supposed civilized men. Huge difference. That was the horror of it.

And no A-bombs were dropped in Europe to stop them. I am talking about those nearly half million who suffered from radiation poison until they have, or will die.

Sorry, but I don't share the point of view that the way Japanese civilians died in Hiroshima was somehow worse than every other way civilians have died in war, under Japanese control or otherwise. War is awful, regardless of how you die.

That is your right, unfortunately hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese may disagree, which is my point. They were killed intentionally, not "casualties of war". We knew civilians would be killed and maimed for life. That was the point. That is unforgivable.

I suppose you approve of the slaughter of innocent Native Americans for the greater good, too? For fulfilling America's Manifest Destiny?

My point is that people who argue against the atomic bomb claim that the war should have been prolonged by weeks or months until the Japanese surrendered through other means or the Japanese homeland was invaded, without paying any regard (or in many cases even knowing) that many were still suffering and dying under Japanese rule elsewhere.

And your family may now live in relative peace. Not so for the 220,000 remaining radiation-poisoned survivors of Hiroshima.

Just curious, have you served in the military? Seen the horrors of war first hand? I have, and I cannot condone nor justify any killing of innocent civilians intentionally to "perhaps save others." I am not God, and do not have this authority of choosing which innocents live and which die.

 

[Zanting]

Tens of millions living under Japanese oppression. Or are you still claiming that "There weren't even tens of millions in total living in the whole Pacific Rim at the time."



The same way Germany controlled all of western Europe and much of Eastern Europe in 1942. And as I did point out, I didn't claim Japan controlled all of China - only a substantial amount of it. They did control all of Indonesia, Manchukuo, Taiwan, Korea, Malaya, Vietnam etc etc though.




So is it worse to be killed or horribly burned by an A-bomb, be incinerated in a minute or two after a bomb falls on your house, dying over a period of weeks while experimented on by a Japanese "doctor" in a death camp, be gassed in Auschwitz or have your limbs blown off and then drown in a sea of burning oil when your ship is sunk by a U-boat?

Sorry, but I don't share the point of view that the way Japanese civilians died in Hiroshima was somehow worse than every other way civilians have died in war, under Japanese control or otherwise. War is awful, regardless of how you die.

My point is that people who argue against the atomic bomb claim that the war should have been prolonged by weeks or months until the Japanese surrendered through other means or the Japanese homeland was invaded, without paying any regard (or in many cases even knowing) that many were still suffering and dying under Japanese rule elsewhere.

Hey...guys...could we get back on topic please...your topic is about a historic event, this topic is in the present. Thanks

Besides, I would really like to hear your opinion about the report.