The U.S. just murdered sixty civilians in Syria

[wopphil]

39 minutes ago, Lawrence said:

It was a question. My baby I should have worded it "Does that make it ok?"

Most people, myself included, don't want to see innocent people killed, regardless of the circumstances. And frankly, I don't know enough about what happened here to have a strong opinion as to whether or not the U.S. did wrong.

That being said, we are giving U.S. lives and money to fight ISIS, which is a far greater threat to the middle east than the U.S. So forgive me for not pointing the finger at the good guys in this fight who may very well have mistakenly taken action with unfortunately tragic consequences.

Calling it "murder," as MT did, appears premature and almost certainly an inaccurate and reckless characterization.

[Thomas]

1 hour ago, nate said:

 You never win by killing the innocent. 

/Pulls out map of the United States

Yep, it appears that you can.

[Blarg]

1 hour ago, nate said:

This is not and never will be an excuse to kill innocent people. 

 

If they are clever then we must be more clever, not more barbaric.

 

the point of war is not to kill as many people as you can, the point is to win.  You never win by killing the innocent. 

See Hiroshima/Nagasaki for the rebuttal. 

[InsideThePark]

1 hour ago, wopphil said:

CNN is too busy preparing their next six anti Trump headlines and "fact check" installments.

Are you on board the Trump Train, Phil?

Btw, I agree that CNN is by and large anti-Trump.

[nate]

Right, we slaughtered and eliminated native Americans, and we killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese.  Can any of you really justify either of those or do you feel guilty for it?  Should we just continue on that way or accept that the world has changed in the last 75 years.

[arch stanton]

9 minutes ago, Blarg said:

See Hiroshima/Nagasaki for the rebuttal. 

Don't forget the napalm fire bombing of Tokyo. Gen LeMay didn't play favorites. 

[Blarg]

4 minutes ago, nate said:

Right, we slaughtered and eliminated native Americans, and we killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese.  Can any of you really justify either of those or do you feel guilty for it?  Should we just continue on that way or accept that the world has changed in the last 75 years.

You do realize the Japanese argument is fucking retarded? 

[Blarg]

4 minutes ago, arch stanton said:

Don't forget the napalm fire bombing of Tokyo. Gen LeMay didn't play favorites. 

Neither did the Japanese in Korea and China. 

[nate]

Is it?  Especially the second bomb we dropped?

Sorry but the only thing that is fucking retarded is killing 200k innocent people to end a war.

[Kevin]

14 minutes ago, nate said:

Is it?  Especially the second bomb we dropped?

Sorry but the only thing that is fucking retarded is killing 200k innocent people to end a war.

Most of those people would have been killed regardless if we invaded. 

[Thomas]

21 minutes ago, nate said:

Right, we slaughtered and eliminated native Americans, and we killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese.  Can any of you really justify either of those or do you feel guilty for it?  Should we just continue on that way or accept that the world has changed in the last 75 years.

Being on the losing side sucks I can assure you. But I think it's pretty clear that you can commit genocide and win. Not mutually exclusive. Being on the other end of genocide and winning?  Mutually exclusive.

[wopphil]

37 minutes ago, InsideThePark said:

Are you on board the Trump Train, Phil?

Btw, I agree that CNN is by and large anti-Trump.

I am not. I can't envision any scenario in which I vote for him.  And for the record, CNN is the only website I ever go to for news (other than links people post here or on Facebook). Which I guess is how I know how slanted it is. I can see through rhetoric and politics, so it doesn't bother me, but it is nonetheless worth noting that CNN is Foxnews' lefty counterpart.

[wopphil]

33 minutes ago, nate said:

Right, we slaughtered and eliminated native Americans, and we killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese.  Can any of you really justify either of those or do you feel guilty for it?  Should we just continue on that way or accept that the world has changed in the last 75 years.

Completely justified. Land had always been taken by conquest. And most of these actions you apparently feel guilt over happened 200 years ago. Do you honestly feel guilt over that? I don't.

As for Japan, they got what they deserved. Maybe they shouldn't have picked a fight with us. Or maybe they should have surrendered after the first bomb.

[nate]

I will remember that the next time you guys are complaining about ISIS killing 20 innocent people.

[InsideThePark]

16 minutes ago, wopphil said:

I am not. I can't envision any scenario in which I vote for him.  And for the record, CNN is the only website I ever go to for news (other than links people post here or on Facebook). Which I guess is how I know how slanted it is. I can see through rhetoric and politics, so it doesn't bother me, but it is nonetheless worth noting that CNN is Foxnews' lefty counterpart.

Depends which side of Fox News you're referring to. If it's O'Reilly/Megyn Kelly, then sure, I wouldn't really argue with that. But Hannity and some of the other shows that are on during the day are heavy on propaganda.

[wopphil]

17 minutes ago, nate said:

I will remember that the next time you guys are complaining about ISIS killing 20 innocent people.

Lol, you for real? Nobody condones the killing of innocents. But as for the Indians, that shit happened before most of our ancestors were even in the U.S. I am not going to lose sleep over things for which I have no responsibility.

[nate]

You are right, it happened and is in the past.  Definitely doesn't mean we should repeat it.  And it also doesn't mean that we should condone it.

The Japanese could have been dealt with by an invasion and the innocent casualties would have been a fraction of what they were.  We just had nukes and were itching to use them.

[wopphil]

4 minutes ago, nate said:

 

The Japanese could have been dealt with by an invasion and the innocent casualties would have been a fraction of what they were.  We just had nukes and were itching to use them.

That's total bullshit. Go tell that to a U.S. vet who served in the Pacific.

[Amazing Larry]

1 minute ago, nate said:

The Japanese could have been dealt with by an invasion and the innocent casualties would have been a fraction of what they were.  We just had nukes and were itching to use them.

Dude you're high. Just look at the invasion of Okinawa. Over 110,000 people were killed just for that island. 

The invasion of mainland Japan would have been some of worst fighting the world had ever seen.

[Thomas]

1 minute ago, nate said:

The Japanese could have been dealt with by an invasion and the innocent casualties would have been a fraction of what they were.  We just had nukes and were itching to use them.

You can make a good argument that the US was itching to use the weapons to intimidate the Soviets. You can make a good argument that the Japanese leadership could have been convinced to surrender "unconditionally" if the emperor, as he was anyway, allowed to continue ruling symbolically. You certainly can make an argument that the US shrugged off Japanese lives for a quicker end of the war. But fewer innocent deaths via ground invasion? I've never heard anyone argue that assertion before. Unless you are simply arguing that all the civilians would have been made to fight the invaders with pitchforks and shovels and there would be no innocents left?

[Thomas]

Tidbit: The US made so many Purple Hearts in preparation of the planned invasion of Japan that they still have stocks of them today which after a little refurbishment are handed out to injured servicemen and women.

[mtangelsfan]

1 hour ago, wopphil said:

Most people, myself included, don't want to see innocent people killed, regardless of the circumstances. And frankly, I don't know enough about what happened here to have a strong opinion as to whether or not the U.S. did wrong.

That being said, we are giving U.S. lives and money to fight ISIS, which is a far greater threat to the middle east than the U.S. So forgive me for not pointing the finger at the good guys in this fight who may very well have mistakenly taken action with unfortunately tragic consequences.

Calling it "murder," as MT did, appears premature and almost certainly an inaccurate and reckless characterization.

What do you call it?  I don't see why what we do is ok and what ISIS does is way worse.  

 

[Blarg]

1 hour ago, nate said:

Is it?  Especially the second bomb we dropped?

Sorry but the only thing that is fucking retarded is killing 200k innocent people to end a war.

Ever look at what the estimates were for using conventional weapons to force Japan to surrender? Try reading a little bit about the history of that war and your won't come off as a revisionist dumbass. 

[Blarg]

1 hour ago, nate said:

I will remember that the next time you guys are complaining about ISIS killing 20 innocent people.

Try 200 in Bagdad on one day during their holy celebration of Ramadan. And it was intentional. That is the difference,  Nate. The coalition is not advocating genocide and have been very careful to avoid civilian casualties while ISIS makes their targets primarily civilian. 

[wopphil]

35 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

What do you call it?  I don't see why what we do is ok and what ISIS does is way worse.  

 

See Blarg's post above.