retrogrouch@comcast.net said:

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 20:09:13 GMT, Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:

retrogrouch@comcast.net said:

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:11:51 GMT, Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:

It seems to me that if the bombing of Japanese residential
neighborhood to disrupt military manufacturing that was going on there
was strategically necessary and was limited as much as reasonably
possible

Limited?

BWAHAHAHAHA!

ANd the military manufacturing aspect you just picked up this week
from Emmi. Sheesh. Limited?

Laugh your ***** off, and you will lose what you are thinking with.

Thanks for cutting off the paragraph to suit your needs. And did you
notice the "if"? I'm setting my criteria. IF THEY ARE MET is the
question.

Go read.

I'm not saying it wasn't happening on all sides but the leaps to
excuse the shift to targeting civilians in WWII on for only one side
seem ridiculous to me. It's revisionist nationalism. "When we do it
it's okay, when they do it it's evil".

I didn't do that.

hat you did do was claim the bombing of Japanese civilians "was
limited as much as reasonably possible". That's absurd on the face of
it.

*****. That is either a lie or a stupid mistake on your part. Take
your pick, it is one of them. Look for the "if" that I stated and add
back what you clipped.

Here it is. the sixth word is IF. If you didn't flunk reading
comprehension, you should have. That's IF.

It seems to me that if

neighborhood to disrupt military manufacturing that was going on there
was strategically necessary and

possible, and

the areas that included homes used for the manufacture of military
goods have been identified and are subject to rather indiscriminate
bombing,

by the Japanese to safe locations prior to this bombing,

reasonable time (without specifying any locations) this would satisfy
most modern Just War theories even if the enemy government took no
action to protect its civilians. Of course the Japanese government
could "draft" all of its civilians to avoid having to do anything to
protect them, but drafting babies for this purpose would probably be
considered a war crime.
Jim07D5

In article <3k5pnbFsfj38U1@individual.net>, "Jim F." <me@privacy.net>
wrote:

"Emmi H." <hugnkiss98122MYBLOUSE@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hugnkiss98122MYBLOUSE-241EF2.18111619072005@pita.alt.net...

In article <3dopd1phmoo55keq3aut3l6e57dgakejid@4ax.com>,
retrogrouch@comcast.net wrote:

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 06:30:14 -0700, "Emmi H."
<hugnkiss98122MYBLOUSE@yahoo.com> wrote:

Of course, but how does one draw a distinction between "wartime
specific manufacturing facilities" which have always been fair game
and non-wartime manufacturing?

Good, you're finally beginning to see my earlier point.

Placing their wartime manufacturing facilities in the homes of
civilians in an effort to protect their supply line was about as evil
as
evil gets, Jim.

'Rosie the Riveter's' hearth and home, stateside, would have been
very
much a legitimate target if she were assembling B-17's or B-29's in
her
kitchen or living room.

In fact, as WW II proceeded,
the net was drawn increasingly wide, so that whole cities,
including
their civilian populations became "military" targets. And that as
I
suggested before opened the door to the legitimation of terrorism
against civilians.

You might have a point if the terrorists were uniformed soldiers
from a
country acting under a formal declaration of war.

Terrorists are criminals, Jim -- Not soldiers.

And those who fire bombed cities of civilians are equally criminals -
unless they win.

Not if those civilians were contributing to the war effort from their
homes - As Japanese civilians were most certainly doing.

Well, to take a more recent example, in the 1999 NATO
war against Yugoslavia, the US bombed such targets as
bridges in Belgrade and television stations in the same
city. Presumably, the bombings of the bridges could
be justified on the grounds that they could be used for
the movement of military traffic in and around Belgrade,
but how does one justify the bombing of the television
stations? Presumably, the people who worked there
were civilians rather than military personnel. As I
recall, the justification that was given, was that the
stations were conduits for propoganda by the Milosovic
regime, and hence were instrumental for maintaining
public support by Serbs and other Yugoslavs for
his regime, against NATO, and so was apparently
regarded as part of the infrastructure of his regime,
and hence a legitimate military target. But this
seems to me, to be stretching the net pretty wide,
and so can legitimate all sorts of things including
acts of terrorism, directed against civilians. Hence,
my remarks, that one could use similar reasoning
to justify the suicide bombings in Israel against
public transportation, which after all plays a role
there in the country's defense infrastructure as a
means for transporting IDF reservists to their posts.

--WHOOSH-->

Do you even have it within yourself to stay the ***** on-topic just long
enough to concede a fucking point, Jim?

Look, Jim... I'm talking about fucking WWII, not fucking Israel.

Dumbass.

--
-
Emmi H. - Sacred cow tipping in Usenet since May '96