70 Years Since Hiroshima

POSTED BY: Magonsdaughter
UPDATED: Saturday, August 8, 2026 10:26
VIEWED: 23968
PAGE 14 of 16

PREV PAGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NEXT PAGE

SECOND

Friday, August 21, 2015 3:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

AND FURTHERMORE, by your own tagline you support pointless wartime killing. Experiencing any sort of sadness or horror at mass death ... well, that's for the faint of heart, and you are clearly above all that.

If ten percent of all Germans of all ages were killed at random during WWII, decimated based upon the last digit in their Social Security number ( or the German equivalent to that ) some of those deaths would have actually hastened by luck alone the end of the war. The Strategic Bombing was very close to that kind of random killing by lottery number. The supporters of bombing declared it essential. They feel better about themselves by rationalizing away the waste and randomness, trying to claim certainty that does not exist. Their faith is in a big enough pile of humans as a burnt sacrifice to God guarantees that heaven will grant them victory. It's a religion for savages. www.businessinsider.com/percentage-of-countries-who-died-during-wwii-2
014-5

KPO

Friday, August 21, 2015 5:03 PM

Quote:
I've said this many times, in many ways: ALL sources are biased. Every single one.

That's not saying very much. Of course all journalism, history etc. contains bias. It's written by humans, duh. But bias is one thing, journalistic standards and integrity are another thing, and deliberate misinformation and propaganda from dictatorial regimes is yet another thing.

When talking about media, no wells of information are 100% pure. But some are better than others. And some are deliberately laced with hallucinogenic drugs. Your propensity to gulp from the wells of Kremlin propaganda and other extreme internet propaganda, like this Nazi video, leads to you parroting falsehoods from dubious sources, and embarrassing yourself.

Quote:
AND FURTHERMORE, by your own tagline you support pointless wartime killing. Experiencing any sort of sadness or horror at mass death ... well, that's for the faint of heart, and you are clearly above all that.

Watching you having this conversation with yourself about my tagline is faintly entertaining.

Quote:
My MIL had to take shelter from strafing behind a horse-drawn cart (the horse was killed).

In what geographic location was this?

It's not personal. It's just war.

SECOND

Friday, August 21, 2015 6:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:

Watching you having this conversation with yourself about my tagline is faintly entertaining.

Then change the comments to anything other than journalistic sources, please. I'll give you two examples. Pick one or both:

Do you find praiseworthy the tactics used against Germany by the forces under command of Air Chief Marshal Arthur Harris? I don't. If you do, isn't now a good time to use those tactics, again? Pick a country that needs peace and begin firebombing.

Do you believe atom bombs brought 70 years of peace to Japan? I don't. If you do, isn't now the best time to use A-bombs? Pick a country that needs peace and drop a bomb on it.

This is all hypothetical. My intention is to discover what you would do if you ruled the world, to the same extent that the USA does today. 1944-1945 is very interesting, but what did you learn that you can apply in 2015? Remember, this is hypothetical and you rule the world. I really want to know. You're not allowed to weasel out by claiming Putin will retaliate against you with his not hypothetical, totally real, A-bombs. Why should he? You were smart and didn't drop the bomb within the old Soviet Union, did you? Putin might very well do nothing since your one or two atom bombs will bring 70 years of peace to a country of your choice. It did in Japan, did it not? I think not, but you think different. Putin might even nominate you for a Nobel Peace prize, assuming that Putin believes Japan surrendered because of Nagasaki and not because the Soviet Union invaded Japan.

SIGNYM

Friday, August 21, 2015 10:08 PM

Quote:
I've said this many times, in many ways: ALL sources are biased. Every single one.-SIGNY

That's not saying very much. Of course all journalism, history etc. contains bias. It's written by humans, duh. But bias is one thing, journalistic standards and integrity are another thing, and deliberate misinformation and propaganda from dictatorial regimes is yet another thing.

When talking about media, no wells of information are 100% pure. But some are better than others. And some are deliberately laced with hallucinogenic drugs. Your propensity to gulp from the wells of Kremlin propaganda and other extreme internet propaganda, like this Nazi video

Which you have already agreed is substantially factually correct. And then you moved the goalposts and said that it had to be MORE than substantially factually correct, it had to explain all relevant facts equally ...

Quote:
But some are better than others

I noticed that you moved the goalposts AGAIN. Instead of being "substantially factually correct" or "explaining all relevant facts" you have now decided that a source has to be "better than others". Apparently, you don't know WHAT makes one source believable, because you keep shifting your rationalizations for why you trust one source over another. And it has nothing to do with being substantially correct or being complete, now it's all relative (Compared on what grounds?)

OOC, which sources do YOU think are "better than others"? Let's get to specifics, and see which ones have spread deliberate falsehoods and drunk deep from well of propaganda.

Quote:
AND FURTHERMORE, by your own tagline you support pointless wartime killing. Experiencing any sort of sadness or horror at mass death ... well, that's for the faint of heart, and you are clearly above all that. -SIGNY
Watching you having this conversation with yourself about my tagline is faintly entertaining.

I agree with SEOND- then change the nature of the conversation.

Quote:
My MIL had to take shelter from strafing behind a horse-drawn cart (the horse was killed).- SIGNY
In what geographic location was this?

Hungary. Two (of four) wartime Hungarian-born in-laws were strafed by American planes. The other was my FIL, who was strafed while chained (by the Germans) to a munitions cart. But in that case, you could say that the Allies were targeting the munitions.

Quote:
It's not personal. It's just war.=KPO

And you're still an ass, and you apparently don't realize what awful things this says about your ethics.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

SIGNYM

Friday, August 21, 2015 11:04 PM

Straight from the horse's mouth, today's BBC "analysis" of Putin v Merkel

Quote:
On Monday German Chancellor Angela Merkel will host a summit in Berlin about the conflict in eastern Ukraine. French President Francois Hollande and Ukraine leader Petro Poroshenko are due to attend, but not Russian President Vladimir Putin. So how is the relationship between Mrs Merkel and Mr Putin?

They are the leaders of two of the most powerful countries in the world, they both grew up in communist states and they both had their careers transformed by its collapse.

But that's where the similarity ends.

One leader is a submarine-faring, bare-chested action-man, whose show-off, tough-guy image is intended to compensate for Russia's stalling economy, the head of a country accused of throwing its weight around and meddling militarily abroad. The daredevil antics go down well with many Russian voters, traditionally partial to a strong leader.
Short on charisma

But the televised wrestling and horse-back riding is seen as comic by Western journalists, who sniggered at the Austen Powers baddie images of Mr Putin emerging from the waters of Crimea in a mini-submarine. More "mid-life crisis red sports car" than "superpower leader", was the verdict internationally.

The other spends her summer holidays hiking in an anorak, and leads a country terrified of showing just how powerful it has become - usually dragging France along to crisis summits so that no one can accuse Berlin of getting pushy. Unlike Russia, Germany in the past has often been accused of not doing enough with its power militarily - although, given how quickly the Nazi clichés have re-emerged during the Greek debt crisis, German reticence could now be seen as not entirely unjustified.

Let's go looking for fact selection and emotive language in this piece together! Here is the whole article:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34009581

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

KPO

Sunday, August 23, 2015 5:38 AM

Quote:
And then you moved the goalposts and said that it had to be MORE than substantially factually correct

Ha, I moved your goalposts. Boasting that your propaganda film has facts in it is pointless; all propaganda blends facts with lies - including this one.

Quote:
you have now decided that a source has to be "better than others"

I have stated that some sources are better than others. You disagree? Maybe that's why you think it's fine to post videos from neo-Nazi websites.

It's not personal. It's just war.

1KIKI

Sunday, August 23, 2015 8:08 AM

kpo particularly highlights this as reason to label something a 'bad' source - deliberate misinformation and propaganda from dictatorial regimes . Or, since it seems to be a single, indivisible thought, more like - deliberate-misinformation-and-propaganda-from-dictatorial-regimes.

It looks like this is the glitch in kpo's thinking. There are a few ways to interpret this, but all of them reveal a falseness in the original statement.

Here are three examples:

He may think that ONLY 'dictatorial regimes' engage in propaganda. So, like rappy, despite factual examples of propaganda by western governments, aided and abetted by western media, he's unable to, or resistant of, understanding facts that he disagrees with. In this case, that western governments, western media, and western governments and western media in cooperation, propagandize us on a daily basis.

Or he may have the usual right-wing double standard. When THEY do it, it's BAD. When WE do it it HAS TO BE GOOD! So if a source carries western propaganda from a western government, it's ok because it;s not a 'dictatorial regime' doing it.

And then there's his circular logic which goes round and round - if he thinks it's propaganda then there is no truth in it, and because there's no truth in it by definition, it's propaganda. Nowhere does he seem able to stack up claims against evidence to test them for veracity. Nowhere does he use the measure of factuality to judge a source. Instead he judges sources by some other criteria to determine their factuality.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

SIGNYM

Sunday, August 23, 2015 8:27 PM

KPO

Quote:
I have stated that some sources are better than others. You disagree? Maybe that's why you think it's fine to post videos from neo-Nazi websites.

And you think it's OK to post propaganda from the BBC. By the way, let's look at that BBC article together, for emotive language and fact selection, shall we? And then we can compare whether the video is more factual than the article.

Quote:
Ha, I moved your goalposts. Boasting that your propaganda film has facts in it is pointless; all propaganda blends facts with lies - including this one.

No the video doesn't have facts in it", it substantially factually correct.

You're as goofy as rappy, and that's saying something.

KIKI

Quote:
And then there's his circular logic which goes round and round - if he thinks it's propaganda then there is no truth in it, and because there's no truth in it by definition, it's propaganda. Nowhere does he seem able to stack up claims against evidence to test them for veracity. Nowhere does he use the measure of factuality to judge a source. Instead he judges sources by some other criteria to determine their factuality.

Nowhere.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

KPO

Sunday, August 23, 2015 11:16 PM

Quote:
Do you find praiseworthy the tactics used against Germany by the forces under command of Air Chief Marshal Arthur Harris? I don't. If you do, isn't now a good time to use those tactics, again? Pick a country that needs peace and begin firebombing.

I have opined quite a lot in this thread, giving my thoughts on this matter (and others)
. You have not paid attention even when I've responded directly to your questions, so I don't see the point in doing so again.

It's not personal. It's just war.

1KIKI

Monday, August 24, 2015 2:53 AM

kpo
I have opined quite a lot in this thread, giving my thoughts on this matter (and others).

As always, I like to review posts to see how far the poster pegs the bullshit meter. Starting from the beginning:

The point of the allied bombing campaigns was generally to degrade the enemy's ability to wage war. Destroy its factories, munitions stores, transport hubs, military facilities etc. Bombing targets were ALWAYS chosen with these things in mind.
But the facts have shown, that wasn't true.

Here is a passage from the Wiki page on the bombing of Hamburg (1943), which describes the destructiveness, but also the effectiveness ... there is some indication from later Allied interrogations of Nazi officials that Hitler stated that further raids of SIMILAR WEIGHT would force Germany out of the war.
But right at the top of the very page kpo linked, WIKI CLEARY identifies Hamburg as a militarily strategic target: The Allied bombing of Hamburg ... a large port and industrial centre, Hamburg's shipyards, U-boat pens, and the Hamburg-Harburg area oil refineries ... Which means, presumably having read the page, kpo chose to leave out extremely salient facts in discussing Dresden, by deflecting the discussion to Hamburg, which clearly was not an equivalent target. And he never mentions Dresden by name, or relates it to the discussion.

Though he CLAIMS to have talked about it here:
there was a discussion on Dresden, Hamburg etc. that was more sensible

In fact, kpo NEVER addresses Dresden by name, and when pressed to address it specifically, prefers instead to derail the discussion away from relevant historical facts and on to 'sources', trolling, and snark.

Which makes the next claim a patent lie, and which BTW pegs the bullshit meter off-scale:
I've already commented and spoke my mind on various things including the Allied air campaign in general, the Dresden bombings specifically
Ahhh ... that would be a NO.

Gets out popcorn and waits for kpo to post-edit ...

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

PREV PAGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NEXT PAGE