Eric Takabayashi <etakajp@yahoo.co.jp> wrote:
> mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:

>> Eric Takabayashi <etakajp@yahoo.co.jp> wrote:
>> > mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
>>
>> >> > Are the deaths and killings of Okinawan non-combatants to be called "mistakes"?

>> >> In some cases, yes.

>> > And the others, in which killing of non-combatants was not a "mistake"?
>>
>> You're getting decent at grasping the painfully obvious.

> No, because still I don't know what you think of any killings of non-combatants by Americans
> which were not "mistakes".

My opinions on the matter are somewhat irrelevant. Deliberate executions
of civilians are war crimes, and punishable as such. Civilians killed in
the moment of combat are not "mistakes", but are not crimes, either.

You'll have to learn to live with my lack of hysterical weeping and
gnashing of teeth.

> You won't even bite on the the My Lai Massacre. Was Calley or any of

"bite"? You mean is was a joke?

> the handful of men who made it to court martial, "jerks"?

"jerks"? Who said anything about "jerks"? Really, are carrying on a
conversation with voices in your head?

BTW, those men were war criminals. I didn't realize that you were
confused on the issue.

>> So please tell us how the US was supposed to know which caves housed
>> entirely civilians.

> Check.

Uh, check what? You are attempting to seem pithy, but are beginning to
seem dense.

>> Then, of course, you could read the accounts of the battle, where the
>> IJA deliberately moved into caves where the civilians hid, and fired at
>> US troops from among the civilians.

> Heard.

Heard what?

>> Tell us, please, how GI Joe is supposed to be able to quickly sort out
>> goats from sheep in that situation.

> Don't do it quickly.

Ah, then all you have to do is get those pesky IJA guys to stop shooting
so they can take their time, right?

> How would you like Japanese or Germans to treat resistance coming from caves of civilians? The
> same as Americans did to Japanese?

Actually, that would be a considerable improvement over the way they
treated most of the civilians in their control.

>> >> Gosh, that's tough. How 'bout:
>> >> that's were industry and communications centers are? That's where the
>> >> Japanese military were?
>>
>> > All those cities?
>>
>> Sorry, were the words too large?

> No, just your generalization.

Again, sorry, but that's what cities are, Mr Takabayashi. They are
centers of communication, transport, and (in time of total war) war
effort. I didn't realize you were unaware of that.

>> > Would Americans have been any more upset if the Japanese bombed all of Honolulu, than if
>> > they had focused their attack on Pearl Harbor?

>> Sorry, this doesn't make sense.
>>

>> not at war,  as the Japanese didn't bother to declare such.

> That is not the question.

As I said, your question makes no sense.

Again, I didn't realize the words were too large.

>> > Have you read of the "forgotten Hiroshimas"?
>>
>> You mean, we dropped more than 2 a-bombs?

> There were other bombings, and more deaths.

Why yes there were. Good boy. The US bombed 58 cities by incendiary, in 
addition to the 2 subjected to atomic blasts.

> But not even Japanese want to consider them. Even
> survivors of the Tokyo Firebombing will call themselves forgotten, for good reason.

Oddly, you are wrong again. Live with the shock.

When I lived there, a movie about the firebombing opened, the first such
movie. Older people were seen exitting the theatre with tears streaming
down their eyes saying "someone finally remembered us".

Assuredly, sir, they did NOT forget. I have in fact posted this before.

>> > http://www.godhatesjanks.org/forgotten-hiroshimas.html
>>
>> Uh, this is cute; "rants, silliness, benign nationalism", etc.

> Try commenting on actual content, or at least views.

The content is nothing of significance. After stating that there were
indeed manufacturing facilities there, he claims there was nothing of
military significance there. Manufacture, transport, etc., were and
are valid military targets.

Utter nonsense.

>> > Hard to tell by your lack of reaction.
>>
>> Actually, what is easy to tell by your reaction is that you have NOT
>> read very much on the war, and likely will not.

> Why do I need to read more to understand the concept of

Because you are making misstatements and demonstrated no knowledge of
what happened and why decisions were made the way they were. Too, you 
seem to become surprised at things which were known to other  posters
here for decades.

> historical double
> standard, particularly regarding the views of posters on this thread?

Sorry, what double standard?

>> > You, apparently.

>> Sorry, but your English  is obviously less up to snuff than you believe.
>> I am giving you facts,

> Facts about the Gifu firebombing, please, to counter the claims of the website and researchers
> quoted who went to the primary sources:

The facts about the firebombing is that an enemy city was bombed. There
is no dispute on this. YOU are making a claim that it was a crime. It
was not.

BTW, I read the article; I have no idea why you need to try to
cut-and-paste the whole thing.

> It's obvious that despite the common belief of this attack as being on specific
> military targets, it was in fact a more centralized strategy.

Which "more centralized strategy", please?

You mean "the defeat of Japan"? Well, that's shocking.

> Don't just tell me I am ignorant. 

You are.

> Tell me why all of them are wrong.

Again, SLOWLY, an enemy city is a military target.

>> and asking you questions. There is no value judgement implied.

> Then try some, please.

How's this: "you're ugly and your mother dresses you funny"?

Better?

>> Well, that's very librul of you and all, and I'm sure you derive a great
>> deal of self-satisfaction from that, but then you're left to explain how
>> the US was to force a Japanese surrender.

> Invade.

Oh, well THAT will certainly mitigate civilian deaths. Yes, look how it
mitigated them on Okinawa.

Excellent, excellent idea.

> Wait.

Yep; let 'em starve. After all, it's not like the military was taking
food from civilians when they ran low. And of course, with the daily
ration falling below 800 cal already, no danger at all the children
and elderly would starve.

Another excellent idea.

> Screw it, they're mostly back in their own country, and go home.

Right. What do you care about the Japanese murdering Chinese and Indochinese,
right? After all, if one is properly indignant enough, the ordered slaughter
or 300,000 POWs in Indochina is not a factor, right?

Seriously, have you read ANYTHING about the Japanese actions?

>> >  I do not blame Japanese dead or hold them responsible for
>> > simply being in the way, as you seem to suggest doing.

>> Really? Do show me where I've held them responsible for simply being in
>> the way, Mr Takabayashi. Or, withdraw the statement like a man.

> Again: why are a few hundred thousand civilian residents of cities bombed dead?

Please address my statement; where have I said the Japanese citizens were
"responsible for simply being in the way">

>> > Gifu, near Ernest, is one.
>>
>> So there were no factories, no production, no communication, no
>> transportation facilities there, correct? Sorry, you're wrong.

> Please explain. Tell me why the writer and researchers are wrong.

The writer himself stated there was "some manufacturing" there.

Did you read your own article?

>> >> Point of fact, even during the war crimes' trials, no Axis member was charged
>> >> with killing civilians in a combat area, even if that area was a city.

>> Um, you oddly missed this statement in your ranting and raving...

> What of it?

If the issue is "crimes" and "atrocities", there are definitions involved.

>Just another technicality. Does this wash with the Koreans and Chinese?

What do you care? One of your proposals was to leave them at the mercy of
the Japanese, so it's a bit odd that you suddenly pretend it's of interest
to you.

Mike