It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: starwarsisreal
Now I don't remember where I read this but Churchill refer non Anglo Saxon Europeans (French, Spanish, Eastern Europeans, Italians) as "dirty whites."
Also, war has no rules. That is all BS. Its up to the ones fighting the actual war to do what they think they must. Maybe they show mercy, maybe they dont.
A war which is unrestricted in terms of the weapons used, the territory or combatants involved, or the objectives pursued, especially one in which the accepted rules of war are disregarded
originally posted by: Kryties
originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: xuenchen
That is awesome! I never understood that blatantly biased...or should I say racist move by Obammy
Racist? How on Earth is replacing it with a Martin Luther King Jr bust "racist"?
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Kryties
War is hell.
We are fortunate today that we can sit here and try to armchair quarterback those times rather than actually live them.
And there are times coming when we may have to see those responses again. We have a new enemy in this world who thinks nothing of hiding among the civilian population and using them as a shield, caching men and material among what we think of the most civilian of places: hospitals, schools, places of worship.
If we fight that war, and we are coming to a time when we may no choice, then you may have to think long and hard about whether you want to win or appear moral.
originally posted by: Kryties
originally posted by: pteridine
originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: ketsuko
There's a HUGE difference between what the German and Jap MILITARY did, as opposed to how Churchill bombed a city full of CIVILIANS.
Military and Civilians are two separate things, you know this right?
Look up "London Blitz" and get back to us about who threw the first stone.
Please explain why a city full of German civilians had to be bombed when the Germans were in retreat and the war was almost won?
The London Blitz happened at the height of the war. Dresden happened when the Germans were nearly toast.
originally posted by: zosimov
originally posted by: alldaylong
originally posted by: zosimov
originally posted by: alldaylong
originally posted by: zosimov
a reply to: alldaylong
ONE death by government sanctioned firebombing is reprehensible, let alone thousands.
Who is a more admirable human being: Stalin, Hitler or John Wayne Gacy?
Evil is evil whether it be in response of horrific actions or not. Moral relativity is a dangerous game to play.
The actions sanctioned by Churchill where a response to a war instigated by Hitler.
Did you expect Churchill to standby and not respond ?
Maybe Britain should have been like The French, and just let The Nazi's walk in. You would have been happy with that i do believe.
Please inform us how bombing a civilian city gave Britains a tactical advantage over their enemy.
You could ask the same question of Nazi Germany.
London
Birmingham
Coventry
Sheffield
Liverpool
Cardiff
Manchester
The list goes on.
No, I'm asking you! No one is here defending the actions of the Nazis, but there are people on here defending the actions of Churchill. So I'll ask again:
How did bombing the civilians of Germany give Britian a tactical advantage?
Or was the massacre done solely as revenge?
originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: ketsuko
Mate WW2 has been scrutinized in minute detail for 81 years now. I don't need to have been there to know the Germans posed no more threat as they were hastily retreating and getting their asses kicked. Dresden was simply a "F**k you" bombing and thousands of civilians needlessly died.
originally posted by: burgerbuddy
originally posted by: zosimov
originally posted by: alldaylong
originally posted by: zosimov
originally posted by: alldaylong
originally posted by: zosimov
a reply to: alldaylong
ONE death by government sanctioned firebombing is reprehensible, let alone thousands.
Who is a more admirable human being: Stalin, Hitler or John Wayne Gacy?
Evil is evil whether it be in response of horrific actions or not. Moral relativity is a dangerous game to play.
The actions sanctioned by Churchill where a response to a war instigated by Hitler.
Did you expect Churchill to standby and not respond ?
Maybe Britain should have been like The French, and just let The Nazi's walk in. You would have been happy with that i do believe.
Please inform us how bombing a civilian city gave Britains a tactical advantage over their enemy.
You could ask the same question of Nazi Germany.
London
Birmingham
Coventry
Sheffield
Liverpool
Cardiff
Manchester
The list goes on.
No, I'm asking you! No one is here defending the actions of the Nazis, but there are people on here defending the actions of Churchill. So I'll ask again:
How did bombing the civilians of Germany give Britian a tactical advantage?
Or was the massacre done solely as revenge?
Was the F'n war over?!
originally posted by: zosimov
Sounds like the people are content sitting back and allowing the world players to wage incessant war, and then to write the history about it as they see fit. There is no amount of noble rhetoric that can justify the actions of the psychopaths who deal death for a living.
But I can see this is the way of the world, and will never change. We will continue to kill and be killed at the behest of our masters, and when the smoke clears we will find ways to convince ourselves we have done the right thing.