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.

>> > Is that
>> > because the term "collateral damage" had not been coined yet?
>>
>> No, because it is war, and not an exact laboratory procedure.

> I know innocents die in war. The issue is how or why they died or were killed.

Uh, yes, that's certainly a statement on your part, Mr Takabayashi...

>> No, you are reading that they didn't intend to kill civilians if they
>> didn't even know anyone was in there.
>>
>> As I said, I really have no idea what you meant by that.

> Ernest appears to justify methods such as pouring flaming gasoline down into caves into
> which civilians were hiding, because of fierce armed resistance from caves. I am saying
> enemies were not in every cave, nor was there resistance from every cave. I don't even know
> that soldiers were in every cave holding civilians.

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

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.

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

>> > So why the bombings of the cities?
>>
>> 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?

> 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.

Had they bombed Oahu at the time, they would have been bombing a city 
not at war,  as the Japanese didn't bother to declare such.

> Have you read of the "forgotten Hiroshimas"?

You mean, we dropped more than 2 a-bombs?

> http://www.godhatesjanks.org/forgotten-hiroshimas.html

Uh, this is cute; "rants, silliness, benign nationalism", etc.

>> >Just this month, I read the estimate of over 600,000
>> > deaths nationwide (don't know if that included the A-bombs). Even Fukuyama was bombed,
>>
>> I read that a long while ago.

> 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.

>> > Yet another reason to downplay American killings of Japanese/Okinawans.
>>
>> Sorry, who's downplaying it?

> You, apparently.

Sorry, but your English  is obviously less up to snuff than you believe.
I am giving you facts, and asking you questions. There is no value
judgement implied.

> I will feel the same remorse or outrage over unnecessary deaths of Japanese, as for victims

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.

>  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.

>> The "mistake" applied to the bizarre situational you gave above.

>> Unless you can show deliberate killings of civilians with no intent to
>> take out militarily significant targets, you can continue to wait.

> Gifu, near Ernest, is one.

So there were no factories, no production, no communication, no
transportation facilities there, correct? Sorry, you're wrong.

>> 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...

Mike