Abu Ali

[rmcrobertson]

That I more or less agreed with you about actual American history, and the claim that there were other things than military necessity driving our bombing campaigns.

 

[Flatlander]

-------------------------------
Mod Warning:

Return to the topic, please.

-Dan Bowman-
-MT Moderator-
-------------------------------

 

[ginshun]

What happened to the discussion about Abu Ali? Wasn't that the point of this thread?

I guess I just wanted to chime in one more time and say that I don't think enough information has been released on this case for any of us here to make any reasonable assumptions.

This whole argument pretty much boils down to one thing, whether or not you trust our government. One reasonable assumption that I can make, is that none of us will be able to change anyone else's mind on that.

 

[Karazenpo]

Can you point out a single post where I referred to you as a pig? Thanks.

As for not being able to debate, I think it's pretty clear that you don't understand what fascism is, how it forms, and what its dangers are, or you might recognize that it's not an insult I'm throwing, but a genuine description of the beliefs you espouse.

I understand what fascism is and it always goes along with 'pig', like 'white on rice' and please don't lecture me on my beliefs or like I said I could swing toward socialism and communism, now would that be fair?

 

[Karazenpo]

What happened to the discussion about Abu Ali? Wasn't that the point of this thread?

I guess I just wanted to chime in one more time and say that I don't think enough information has been released on this case for any of us here to make any reasonable assumptions.

This whole argument pretty much boils down to one thing, whether or not you trust our government. One reasonable assumption that I can make, is that none of us will be able to change anyone else's mind on that.

Ginshun, I agree, although I will give him our presumption of innocence here and I won't try him until he has his day in court but I heard all the current evidence against him and all I can say he's in very serious trouble even if some of it proves true and I'll leave it at that. The rest of my post is not directed toward you, ginshun. Here goes:


However, it's really funny about the liberal media. The Washington Post and the New York Times in their editorial sections are pro Ali, talking about how he was tortured in Saudi Arabia and essentially giving him the benefit of the doubt, quite UNLIKE what they did to the Marine who shot the terrorist innsurgent playing possom and was recently cleared of any potential court martial. Go figure. Liberals seem to always give the terrorists the benefit of the doubt but never, ever the military. My opinion, no, it's not, all anyone has to do is READ THE EDITORIAL PAGES OF THESE NEWSPAPERS! By the way, old Ali had phone conversations with his Mom, didn't appear he was under duress and seemed fine. Other witnesses, including federal agents (I know, the left wing doesn't trust anyone federal or in law enforcement,lol) interviewed him in Saudi Arabia and saw no signs of torture and no complaints. He also told his Mom all they are is holding him right now. So he's released to our authorities, gets himself a lawyer and now he was 'tortured'. First off, I'm not naive either, I know Saudi Arabia isn't above torturing prisoners but many in this country speak about EVIDENCE, you need evidence to prove this or that, ya, you're right but even though there is no evidence that suggested mistreatment of Ali the liberal newspapers are taking it as a 'given'. Again, don't go by me, just read the papers.

 

[Karazenpo]

I am not supporting Churchill, I am asking where you got 500 thousand to a million deaths from as information, quote me a source and I will have a look.
Here is a site that takes a while to read and doesn't give any specific numbers of dead Vs drop or not drop.http://www.doug-long.com/hiroshim.htm

Courtesy Doug Long. A lot had to do with conditional and unconditional surrender and Japans Culture that held the Emperor Divine. Here though is the major point I would look at, Japan　was　in　bad　shape.

”Their report, The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, was issued in July 1946. It declared, "Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." (Bernstein, ed., The Atomic Bomb, pg. 52-56).

and

There is no way we can know for certain whether this approach would have ended the Pacific war sooner and with fewer deaths. But one may regret that such an attempt was not made. Had the attempt failed, the continuing blockade of supplies, Soviet invasion, and the atomic bombs were still available. However, anyone tempted to use the atomic bomb would have done well to share the hesitancy agreed upon by President Roosevelt and Great Britain Prime Minister Winston Churchill on September 19, 1944: the atomic bomb "might, perhaps, after mature consideration, be used against the Japanese" (Robert Williams and Philip Cantelon, ed., The American Atom, pg. 45). (School of Advanced Airpower Studies historian Robert Pape has written an intriguing paper stating that further conventional air bombing would have been unnecessary: Why Japan Surrendered, International Security, Fall 1993). It is likely Dwight Eisenhower was right when he said of the atomic bombings of Japan, "it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." (Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63, pg. 108

Your　fathers　participation　does　not　qualify　your　statements　by　the　way．

Sir, again, I didn't pull any of that out of the air. In 2004 I watched several television documentaries concerning this issue (WW2) on the A&E channel and the History channel. These are very well respected sources and there was no left/right politics involved. It was very thorough, intense and full of facts and figures and yes, there is always some conjecture and opinions and it's up to the reader to sift those out but every documentary seemed pretty steadfast on what I stated and I stand by it. If you have a chance they always repeat these shows, see if you can catch one. Thanks for the conversation. Joe

 

[Ray]

Sir, again, I didn't pull any of that out of the air. In 2004 I watched several television documentaries concerning this issue (WW2) on the A&E channel and the History channel. These are very well respected sources and there was no left/right politics involved. It was very thorough, intense and full of facts and figures and yes, there is always some conjecture and opinions and it's up to the reader to sift those out but every documentary seemed pretty steadfast on what I stated and I stand by it. If you have a chance they always repeat these shows, see if you can catch one. Thanks for the conversation. Joe

As I read Churchill, I thought that he was referring to half a million dead Iraqi children as a result of Bush's initiatives. There was some meandering historical stuff which may have also included a reference to WWII Japanese children. But I'm fairly certain he referred to half a million Iraqi children dying because of Bush...although, I suppose we can assume that Saddam killed zero Iraqi children (and zero Kuwaiti children; and zero kurdish children).

But this thread is about Abu Ali. Give the man a trial.

 

[ginshun]

There was some meandering historical stuff which may have also included a reference to WWII Japanese children. But I'm fairly certain he referred to half a million Iraqi children dying because of Bush

Where the hell did that come from?

The Washington Post and the New York Times in their editorial sections are pro Ali, talking about how he was tortured in Saudi Arabia and essentially giving him the benefit of the doubt, quite UNLIKE what they did to the Marine who shot the terrorist innsurgent playing possom and was recently cleared of any potential court martial. Go figure. Liberals seem to always give the terrorists the benefit of the doubt but never, ever the military.

Makes you wonder who's side they are on doesn't it.

 

[Ray]

Where the hell did that come from?

Following up to #26.

 

[shesulsa]

-MODERATOR'S NOTE:

Two warnings have already been posted in this thread for the discussion to return to topic. It has not.

If users wish to discuss a comparison/contrast between the actions in Iraq versus the actions in Japan, this should be done in a separate thread. If the discussion does not return to the original topic which is the discussion of the treatment of, charges against, and implications of Abu Ali, this thread will be locked.

Further, this is a final warning to keep all discussion at a polite, respectful level and pertinent to the discussion at hand.

-Georgia Ketchmark
-MT Moderator

 

[Karazenpo]

Blind stated: Your　fathers　participation　does　not　qualify　your　s tatements　by　the　way．

I say; Really! Well, what else can be expected from those who are down on our military, the same military who fought for the freedoms that you and 'some' others are sooooooo paranoid about our government taking away. My father's participation does not qualify my statements? You must be 'Blind' then, lol. Well, your participation on this forum certainly doesn't qualify your statements either! Yes, I just passed judgement on you but who are you to pass judgement on me? Nne good turn deserves another. Good discussion though..........

 

[PeachMonkey]

I understand what fascism is and it always goes along with 'pig', like 'white on rice' and please don't lecture me on my beliefs or like I said I could swing toward socialism and communism, now would that be fair?

I think it would be perfectly fair; I don't consider it insulting when someone attempts to describe my points of view, as long as they're accurate. Since many of my views fit solidly into a socialist framework, you would even be correct.

 

[Seig]

This thread is locked