TERMINATOR DRONES: Rise of the New World Order. (Page 4)

lori100
lori100: yes, it is more of the same ......the goal is always more violence, chaos......
11 years ago Report
2
Mew_
Mew_: Zionist??? That's a bit extreme ?
11 years ago Report
0
Eagster
Eagster: Hardly
11 years ago Report
0
darksomewayside
darksomewayside: "All I say is truth."

I don't see it, Kelleeee. American society strikes me as the freest on earth, and that is still true whether there are cameras picking up crimes and infractions that endanger public safety or not. Where are Constitutional freedoms disappearing or in danger of doing so? Worry when you can't speak your mind, when you can't vote in an election, when you can't attend the church of your choice, when educators are silenced for politically incorrect thought.

All societies need safety measures - that's how they protect their freedoms. The more a society is under siege, the more safety measures it needs. That's all. Be thankful someone is looking out for you.
11 years ago Report
0
Mew_
Mew_: Blah blah, you can lead a mule to water but you can't make it drink.
11 years ago Report
0
Mew_
(Post deleted by Mew_ 11 years ago)
Mew_
(Post deleted by Mew_ 11 years ago)
darksomewayside
darksomewayside: Pretty silly stuff, Kelleee. Have a look at these comments:

http://www.disinfo.com/2012/04/author-john-robbins-other-progressives-denounce-%e2%80%98thrive%e2%80%99/

While you're at it, please note that "whole" is spelt "w-h-o-l-e" (if you mean "entire" not "hole".

Cheers.
11 years ago Report
0
Mew_
(Post deleted by Mew_ 11 years ago)
Mew_
(Post deleted by Mew_ 11 years ago)
Mew_
(Post deleted by Mew_ 11 years ago)
darksomewayside
darksomewayside: By the way, do you notice that those smiley faces turn up on your posts whether you asked for them or not? I don't introduce smiley faces much myself, but, there they are!
(Edited by darksomewayside)
11 years ago Report
0
OCD_OCD
OCD_OCD: It's not a plot. LOL
11 years ago Report
0
lori100
11 years ago Report
4
Comrade_
Comrade_:
UN launches inquiry into drone killings:
-"The UN is launching an inquiry into the impact on civilians of drone strikes and other targeted killings."
-"There is a need for "accountability and reparation where things have gone badly wrong", the British lawyer heading the investigation told journalists."
-"Ben Emmerson QC, a UN special rapporteur, said the "exponential" rise of drone technology required a proper legal framework to be put into place."
-"The inquiry will assess the extent of civilian casualties, the identity of militants targeted and the legality of strikes where there is no UN recognition of a conflict."
-"'War crime'
Drones - or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) - have become an increasingly potent weapon for nations seeking to target militants but there is increasing controversy over their toll on civilians."
-"Some kinds of drone attacks - in particular "double tap" strikes where rescuers attending a first blast become victims of a second - could constitute a war crime, Mr Emmerson has previously said, according to the Guardian newspaper."
-"He said it was not a substitute for "effective, official and independent investigation" by states, and called for independent investigations where there was "plausible evidence of a war crime"."

->http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-21176279
____________________

I do feel that there is a need for accountability and managing but do the UN really has any 'power'/ influence any more..It is an injustice to have civilians losing there lives at the whims of other countries.
(Edited by Comrade_)
11 years ago Report
1
Comrade_
Comrade_:
On the convo between Davidk and Illuminatist, it is also considered that the Japanese surrendered mainly due to the Soviets officially joining the Allies. The bombs will always be remembered as a cowardly act. It wasn't uncommon that the cities where bombed via 'strategic bombing' on civilians, but not by these types of bombs. It is still debated whether it was necessary. My personal opinion remains they were not. For the area was mainly civilians, Japan was already dried out, they were seeking negotiations, and the Soviets were willing to go on with a land invasion (which the Japanese feared). I think they weren't dumb and mindless people.
(Edited by Comrade_)
11 years ago Report
0
davidk14
davidk14: .

Jack,

Your last comments were so ridiculous, I am not even going to respond. Pure rubbish.

.
11 years ago Report
0
Comrade_
Comrade_: I'll pull supporting sources and break down my comment. We'll take that as your own opinion.


"it is also considered that the Japanese surrendered mainly due to the Soviets officially joining the Allies"
-One historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa has placed evidence that it was the Soviet's entry into the Pacific conflict, not Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that forced Japan’s surrender. Though I'm only putting him as one example out of many. The debate is still there by other historians as to whether it was the Soviet's entry that caused the surrender or the Nuclear bombs. I think that it was both, but in my personal opinion more on the Soviet's entry. Since the US was already bombing the hell out of Japan.

"It wasn't uncommon that the cities where bombed via 'strategic bombing' on civilians, but not by these types of bombs"
-http://slantchev.ucsd.edu/courses/pdf/brodie-strategic-bombing-in-ww2.pdf
It was common to bomb civilian cities via strategic bombing but not the nuclear bombs.

" It is still debated whether it was necessary. My personal opinion remains they were not. For the area was mainly civilians, Japan was already dried out, they were seeking negotiations, and the Soviets were willing to go on with a land invasion (which the Japanese feared)."

- The area was mainly civilians: //"In his first speech to the US public about the bombing of Hiroshima, which he delivered on August 9, 1945, the day the atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, Harry Truman reported: "The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians." While Hiroshima did have a military base in the city, it was not the base that was targeted, but the center of the city. The vast majority of the victims in Hiroshima were ordinary civilians, including large numbers of women and children.
By the end of 1945, some 145,000 people had died in Hiroshima, and some 75,000 people had died in Nagasaki. Tens of thousands more suffered serious injuries. Deaths among survivors of the bombings have continued over the years due primarily to the effects of radiation poisoning."// [1]

I believe that it is now widely accepted that the purpose was not to destroy any military stance but it was dropped on civilians.

"For the area was mainly civilians, Japan was already dried out, they were seeking negotiations, and the Soviets were willing to go on with a land invasion (which the Japanese feared)." -[2]

[1] -http://www.hiroshimacommittee.org/RememberingNagasaki&Hiroshima.htm
[2] -http://www.digitalhistory2.uh.edu/teachers/lesson_plans/pdfs/unit10_16.pdf


I'm sorry if the Hollywood idea of the war is ruined for you. If you have questions on what I stated or have something opposing it then freely state it but don't make yourself look silly by writing off a comment if you have nothing to put forward.
(Edited by Comrade_)
11 years ago Report
1
davidk14
davidk14: .


Jack,

I have debated this topic before.


From page 416 - General MacArthur’s official reports regarding the planning of the invasion of Japan…

“d. Since April 1945, enemy strength in Southern Kyushu has grown from approximately 80,000 troops including in mobile combat the equivalent of about 2 Infantry Divisions to an estimated 206,000 including 7 divisions and 2 to 3 brigades, plus Naval, Air-Ground, and Base and Service Troops.”


The US was consistent that only a complete surrender would be acceptable. The Japanese military had no plans and was not going to surrender and they had the emotional control of millions of Japanese civilians who would have been included in the resistance from an invasion.


You should read MacArthur’s entire report in its entirety. I posted the entire internet site a few years ago. If you are interested in the complete report, I would be happy to re-locate it for you. It is extremely interesting reading. This site represents only pages 395 to 430

http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/MacArthur%20Reports/MacArthur%20V1/ch13.htm

____________________________


This site is the entire 460 pages

Reports of General MacArthur

THE CAMPAIGNS OF
MACARTHUR IN THE PACIFIC
VOLUME I

http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/MacArthur%20Reports/MacArthur%20V1/index.htm#contents

No matter what your beliefs, this stuff is great historical reading.

.
.
11 years ago Report
0
Comrade_
Comrade_:
I have also discussed this topic with others and done readings. Then I suppose that you'd realize that it will always be as I stated before a debate and many things are being revealed and considered.

If there is something I stated that you disagree with then state it directly. There are many facets of this conflict and what had happen. Some you may not accept but that is up to you.
(Edited by Comrade_)
11 years ago Report
0
Him_over_there
Him_over_there:
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

Admiral William D. Leahy
(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)
William Leahy, I Was There, page. 441.
11 years ago Report
0
Comrade_
Comrade_: Ah I agree seems there's this 'wipe out all and hope for the best' mentality, with no regard for human life once that life isn't a fellow citizen, mere 'casualties'. In war there is death, but as humans we still do what we are capable of doing to minimise these deaths. Not use it as a psychological warfare. Probably we'll look back and say the same of the misuse of drones.

"Do not use a cannon to kill a mosquito"
11 years ago Report
0
Him_over_there
Him_over_there: Quite so Jack. And what's hugely significant about the many atrocities the United States of America committed on Japan is that they were totally without an overt military objective. In fact one could argue they were as fanatically and racially inspired as was the Nazi holocaust perpetrated on the Jews, Gypsies, Polish, handicapped and other minorities. Truman was a racist him over there's Picture
and presided over a regime which widely regarded Orientals as sub-Human 'yellow monkeys'. Couple this with the corporate corruption linked to America's military industrial complex (over 90% of the $2 billion [now equivalent to $26 billion] funding for the Manhattan Project went on infrastructure - the production of fissionable materials and atomic weapons was and still is very profitable with arms manufacturers able to throw more than $18 million in the 2012 election campaigns to influence federal spending, employing over 95 former congressmen / Capitol Hill lobbyists)

And big business were shrewd enough to ensure him over there's Picture
the right bigoted, reactionary people were in the right political places in that facade we like to call 'Bourgeois Democracy', thus ensuring this fledgling 'golden goose industry' of Atomic war was delivered with a bang, and without the fetter of rationale and Human empathy.

However. Terms of the post A' Bomb surrender were precisely the same as those the Japanese were willing to sign before the attacks. (i.e. retention of the 'Emperor' and his institutions). 

So the dropping of atomic bombs were purely a matter of Capitalism's Imperialistic posturing before the World and in particular the gaze of dictator Stalin. And had no bearing on the conflict at hand. Truman's deception regarding loss of invasion forces is masterfully uncloaked in Oliver Stones Documentary Film: 'The Untold History of the United States'
11 years ago Report
0
duncan124
duncan124:
Hiroshima and Nagasaki people were by a great majority the worst offenders in Japans awful history.

Distroying them sent a clear message as well to all the 'clans' of Japan.

Even in the 1980s force had to be used against Japan to stop them stealing other peoples designs and to make them pay up for things they had already stolen. Both the US and UK 'returned' to Japan with military force.

Stealing other peoples trade is killing people just as surely as dropping bombs on them.

11 years ago Report
0
Him_over_there
Him_over_there:
[duncan124] Your point about stealing designs' or intellectual property is a strange one to bring up here in a debate about holocaust. But if you're going to lament international theft I suggest condemnation of the international Capitalist system itself,

him over there's Picture

where over 80% of the World's Human population is in a state of poverty according to the World Bank. And
where almost half Capitalism's Global population are living on less than $2.50 each day. Clearly all property is in fact theft, and the greatest culprits are the most wealthy of nations.

And if you're going to attempt justifying genocide on the basis of a nation's "awful history", as you put it, then you must also be an advocate of Terrorism, and in accord with atrocities such as the destruction of the twin towers in New York, given the 'awful history' of the United States, or indeed the 7th of July 2005 London transport bombings which were surely justified using your logic, because England also has an 'awful history' to be sure.
(Edited by Him_over_there)
11 years ago Report
0