David Horrowitz encounters genocidal Muslim student.

[Pardalis]

Well that made perfect sense.

 

[DC]

nuking 2 civilian cities is rated good solution here but others are killing less civilians to archieve their goal and that is rated a no go.

for me both are no go's

 

[Pardalis]

for me both are no go's

So why are you trying to excuse the girl?

 

[DC]

So why are you trying to excuse the girl?

i was not

 

[Pardalis]

i was not

Yes you are, you're trying to use the example of Hiroshima to make what she said seem less appalling.

 

[DC]

Yes you are, you're trying to use the example of Hiroshima to make what she said seem less appalling.

no im not.

i sure dont want to excuse the murder of humans, be it a round up of jews or beeing the nuking of civilians.

and expecially i dont excuse the girl for saying what she said, especially not if she did not missunderstand it.

i am not the one that excused the massmurder of civilians, others did.

 

[Pardalis]

and expecially i dont excuse the girl for saying what she said, especially not if she did not missunderstand it.

 

[tyr_13]

Correct, if the nuking of thousands of Japanese destroyed key ship yards and ultimately saved the lives of millions more. But how about instead of this stupid derail we focus on the actual event this thread is talking about.

If you or anyone else wants more discussion about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it has been done. Try those. EDIT: Especially that last link.

And in those links, especially the first post of the last one, is why DC, most of us see the comparison as intellectually dishonest and a poor one to make.

 

[DC]

i see, to think she MIGHT be (thats not a claim that she is) misstaken (especially after the claim of her teacher) is excusing her and excusing murdering of civilians. But telling how a good solution the nuking of Japan was is sure not excusing murdering of civilians......

 

[DC]

And in those links, especially the first post of the last one, is why DC, most of us see the comparison as intellectually dishonest and a poor one to make.

to solve our problems all weapons and tactics seem legitim.
but other solving their problem is never legitim.

 

[tyr_13]

to solve our problems all weapons and tactics seem legitim.
but other solving their problem is never legitim.

No, that is simply not the relevant difference in the situations at all. You keep asserting that it is, but that isn't the argument that anyone is making.

 

[DC]

No, that is simply not the relevant difference in the situations at all. You keep asserting that it is, but that isn't the argument that anyone is making.

so what is?

 

[tyr_13]

so what is?

Linky

Oh, and the aforementioned fact that those cities were by definition valid military targets and a bus full of civilians in a marketplace are not.

 

[DC]

strange, a buss full of civilians is not a valid target, but a city full of civilians is......

ok ok, whatever makes you feel better......

 

[WildCat]

strange, a buss full of civilians is not a valid target, but a city full of civilians is......

ok ok, whatever makes you feel better......

What military target was in the bus again?

 

[tyr_13]

What military target was in the bus again?

Voters.

 

[Cain]

Stupid Moslems. Go back to Afrika.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

i see, to think she MIGHT be (thats not a claim that she is) misstaken (especially after the claim of her teacher) is excusing her and excusing murdering of civilians. But telling how a good solution the nuking of Japan was is sure not excusing murdering of civilians......

Since you insist on harping about the nuclear bombs on Japan in this thread, who are these civilians you keep talking about? The Japanese were arming every able adult and child to fend off the invasion. Once you've got a gun in your hand and stand ready to defend your country from invasion, you are no longer a civilian, no matter if you're 10, 20 or 75 years old. If I joined the Norwegian Army and found myself stationed in Afghanistan and kids attacked my unit's stormpanservogn, I would not be committing murder when I returned fire.

When the Russians invaded Germany, the Germans fought back vigorously until the Russians were litterally standing on the Reichstag with the Soviet flag. Even after Hitler had killed himself and Germany surrendered, there were still gunfights with pockets of resistance around Berlin that refused to give in.

The Germans knew they had zero chance of defeating the Western Allies, yet they fought on. Given that the Japanese had a far higher threshold of surrender than the Germans, and fought far harder even in hopeless battles, why do you expect the battle of Japan to be any different than the fight for Berlin, where Russian men and tanks fought little German boys with machine guns, rifles, rocket launchers and cannons?

http://www.saak.nl/battlefieldtour/2008 berlin/fuhrerbunker/Hitler with Hitler Youth.jpg

Edited by LashL: 

Please do not hotlink images in your posts. See Rule 5.

Source: http://www.saak.nl/battlefieldtour/2008%20berlin/fuhrerbunker/bunkerberlin.html

There is something called the "lesser of two evils". Killing a comparably small number of people with two atomic bombs is sure as heck in my eyes a far better way to end the war than to kill a far greater number of them over a longer period of time, doing far more damage in the process.

Now please tell me how this is relevant to this thread.

to solve our problems all weapons and tactics seem legitim.but other solving their problem is never legitim.

Strawman.

 

[DC]

Since you insist on harping about the nuclear bombs on Japan in this thread, who are these civilians you keep talking about? The Japanese were arming every able adult and child to fend off the invasion. Once you've got a gun in your hand and stand ready to defend your country from invasion, you are no longer a civilian, no matter if you're 10, 20 or 75 years old. If I joined the Norwegian Army and found myself stationed in Afghanistan and kids attacked my unit's stormpanservogn, I would not be committing murder when I returned fire.

When the Russians invaded Germany, the Germans fought back vigorously until the Russians were litterally standing on the Reichstag with the Soviet flag. Even after Hitler had killed himself and Germany surrendered, there were still gunfights with pockets of resistance around Berlin that refused to give in.

The Germans knew they had zero chance of defeating the Western Allies, yet they fought on. Given that the Japanese had a far higher threshold of surrender than the Germans, and fought far harder even in hopeless battles, why do you expect the battle of Japan to be any different than the fight for Berlin, where Russian men and tanks fought little German boys with machine guns, rifles, rocket launchers and cannons?

[qimg]http://www.saak.nl/battlefieldtour/2008%20berlin/fuhrerbunker/Hitler%20with%20Hitler%20Youth.jpg[/qimg]
Source: http://www.saak.nl/battlefieldtour/2008%20berlin/fuhrerbunker/bunkerberlin.html

There is something called the "lesser of two evils". Killing a comparably small number of people with two atomic bombs is sure as heck in my eyes a far better way to end the war than to kill a far greater number of them over a longer period of time, doing far more damage in the process.

Now please tell me how this is relevant to this thread.

Strawman.

 

[Pardalis]

That's Swiss for "I don't have a clue of what I'm talking about".