|
|
|
|
#1
12-01-2005, 04:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The Crusades
[ QUOTE ]
For part of WWII, this claim was regrettably true (as it was for every other major combatant). For any other time, not so much. [/ QUOTE ] Japan was the only instance I could think of as well. "integral part" of strategy seems very unfair. Tuco. 
|
|
#2
12-03-2005, 07:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Crusades
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] For part of WWII, this claim was regrettably true (as it was for every other major combatant). For any other time, not so much. [/ QUOTE ] Japan was the only instance I could think of as well. "integral part" of strategy seems very unfair. Tuco. [/ QUOTE ] The firebombings of Dresden and Hamburg seem to have been designed to inflict lots of civillian casualties as well, and IIRC, killed more civillians than the nuclear bombs in Japan.
|
|
#3
12-03-2005, 10:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Crusades
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] For part of WWII, this claim was regrettably true (as it was for every other major combatant). For any other time, not so much. [/ QUOTE ] Japan was the only instance I could think of as well. "integral part" of strategy seems very unfair. Tuco. [/ QUOTE ] The firebombings of Dresden and Hamburg seem to have been designed to inflict lots of civillian casualties as well, and IIRC, killed more civillians than the nuclear bombs in Japan. [/ QUOTE ] FWIW,the firebombing of Tokyo prior to Hiroshima & Nagasaki killed a minimum of 120,000 Japanese civilians. Attacking civilian populations was a poitical decision carried out by the military of most of the major combatants of WWII.....Germany, Japan, Russia, England and the USA.
|
|
#4
12-13-2005, 03:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Crusades
[ QUOTE ]
Japan was the only instance I could think of as well. "integral part" of strategy seems very unfair. [/ QUOTE ] Well actually Germany as well. Special bombs and bombing runs that were designed to kill workers and burn thier homes. I believe there were other instances not in WWII. We did not have the ability to attack whole populations prior to WWII easily with bombs, and fire, but we did kill most of the indignious populations with biological weapons in the form of blankets deliberatly infected with small pox. Indians have very little immunity to the european diseases, STDs included, and so we exploited this weakness. Not that I gnash my teeth over it, but we need to remember it. We didn't do it because it was very difficult to do. When it is easy we seem to have a propensity to do it.
|
|
#5
12-03-2005, 07:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Crusades
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] " (the) massacre of civilian populations was always an integral part of US [warmaking strategy" [/ QUOTE ] Well, now we can figure out the agenda of the manufacturers of the above patently ridiculous claim. For part of WWII, this claim was regrettably true (as it was for every other major combatant). For any other time, not so much. [/ QUOTE ] "Always" is certainly overstating the case. However, the cold war strategy of nuclear deterrence (fortunately never carried out) would have entiled massacre of civilian populations (on both sides). Sherman's march to the sea in the civil war also intentionally inflicted a lot of civilian casualties. I'm not sure we could have won WWII without killing a lot of civillians. That doesn't mean I like it, especially the firebombings in Dresden and Hamburg and the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There seem to be two schools of thought as to how necessary the use of nukes in Japan was to securing Japan's surrender without invading (which would have killed a lot of American troops, Japanese troops and Japanese civillians. I'm not sure who I believe on this.
|
|
#7
12-01-2005, 04:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Crusades
[ QUOTE ]
At least it's clear what your motives are for this post. [/ QUOTE ] If BigMacs were slaughtering thousands of people, I would have said "nice stuff. that special sauce" It was a comment on the worst part of the history of the institution of religion, not my overall opinion. Thank you for assuming, though. Tuco.
|
|
#8
12-01-2005, 05:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Crusades
[ QUOTE ]
It was a comment on the worst part of the history of the institution of religion, not my overall opinion. [/ QUOTE ] If that were the case, you wouldn't have made an indictment of organized religion as a whole, which, in your statment, you did.
|
|
#9
12-01-2005, 05:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Crusades
I hate islam. Its a forced religion. Most muslims can't don't even read the Koran. If you are born in Pakistan, you are probably not going to understand Arabic so how in the hell can you read the Koran and say that you understand the religion. Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb....
Indy
|
|
#10
12-01-2005, 05:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Crusades
The same can apply to christianity, especially pre-Vatican 2.
[ QUOTE ] I hate christianity . Its a forced religion. Most christians can't don't even read the Bible. If you are a Christian anywhere, you are probably not going to understand Latin so how in the hell can you read the Bible and say that you understand the religion. Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb.... Indy [/ QUOTE ] So don't make it seem like this is something unique Islam.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
