murder or justification in the war?

[VonMessa]

And got it the worst (per square mile)- it's largest cities were carpet-firebombed, and it was nuked not once, but TWICE.

It was wrong to bust a cap in that kid's head.  By doing so, you make yourself no better than him.

-Penguin

I hope that you never, ever have to find out if your opinion would change when there are rounds coming downrange in your direction.

Otherwise, as educated as you seem to be, until you've picked up a rifle and stood a post, you can't even imagine

It's not a book.

It's not a movie.

[gyrene81]

penguin...if it weren't a waste of time, i'd point out every erroneous statement you have made in this discussion thus far.

[Slash27]

I hope that you never, ever have to find out if your opinion would change when there are rounds coming downrange in your direction.

Otherwise, as educated as you seem to be, until you've picked up a rifle and stood a post, you can't even imagine

It's not a book.

It's not a movie.

This.

[Reaper90]

penguin...if it weren't a waste of time, i'd point out every erroneous statement you have made in this discussion thus far.

Guys, trying to have a discussion with someone who has no idea what they're talking about is as futile an effort as trying to draw a picture of a smell.

I have no experience in combat, so I do not dare pass judgement. I know my brother earned his CIB in a firefight in Somolia in 1993, and plenty of stuff went down that people on the outside would look at and say "That's wrong." What he told me was that after a certain point in time, the rule became "if it moves, it dies." Well, those who would pass judgement weren't there, and didn't have to make those decisions. From what I have seen in the years that followed that ordeal, he had a lot of stuff that he had to deal with, and according to his wife, many many nights he woke up screaming. But I don't think (at least he never expressed it) he regretted a single action he or his buddies took, he only struggled with what happened to his friends and with the fact they had to go through it at all.

[mechanic]

interesting debate.

I say kill the sniper purely because he killed an unarmed man in the same way. That messenger was someone's brother, friend, squad mate. Nothing but equal revenge for that murder would suffice. At least they did not torture him.

[Yossarian]

To everyone who says that we shouldn't be judging the person who shot the sniper - I'm not judging them.  What's happened has happened, and it happened almost 70 years ago now.  What I am doing is trying to decide whether or not he did the right thing.  And please note that 'right' in this context (for me) means whether what he did was morally justifiable or not.  I don't think it was, but I also think that what he did was understandable, and I might very well have done the same thing.

interesting debate.

I say kill the sniper purely because he killed an unarmed man in the same way. That messenger was someone's brother, friend, squad mate. Nothing but equal revenge for that murder would suffice. At least they did not torture him.

But the sniper was also someone's friend, son, husband, etc.  And looking at it with regard to the consequences only, you have two dead people when you could have had one dead person, and two damaged families instead of one.

[Ack-Ack]

actually, we didnt drop the atomic bomb purely because of pearl.

You're not very bright are you?  If Japan hadn't bombed Pearl Harbor and started the war in the Pacific, there wouldn't have been a need to bomb Japan.  Now do you understand or do I have to type slower for you?

ack-ack

[Yossarian]

You're not very bright are you?  If Japan hadn't bombed Pearl Harbor and started the war in the Pacific, there wouldn't have been a need to bomb Japan.  Now do you understand or do I have to type more slowly for you?

ack-ack

Fixed

[Tyrannis]

You're not very bright are you?  If Japan hadn't bombed Pearl Harbor and started the war in the Pacific, there wouldn't have been a need to bomb Japan.  Now do you understand or do I have to type slower for you?

ack-ack

ack, i'll repeat. we didnt drop the bomb PURELY because of pearl.

yes, pearl started the war. and if you want to break everything down to its basics then in a way yes pearl is the reason.


but things changed since pearl.

like i said, we gave japan a warning to surender otherwise great destruction would befall there cities.  they ignored it so we droped the first bomb. they still refused to believe it so we droped the second.


those are the MAIN reasons why we droped the bomb. pearl was just part of the equation but not the most important factor in the decision.


dont argue with me if you think what im saying is wrong, go argue with the author who's book i learned this information from. "survivors of the A-bomb".

[mechanic]

But the sniper was also someone's friend, son, husband, etc.  And looking at it with regard to the consequences only, you have two dead people when you could have had one dead person, and two damaged families instead of one.

The main difference I see is that the sniper shot someone unfairly infront of the people that cared about him. No one who cared about the sniper saw him getting excecuted.

My point being, if someone shot your friend or loved one unfairly right infront of you then you would want an eye for an eye. Especially in war time. Neither of the deaths were right, but the second death was by way of release for the hurt of the first, and was necessary in my opinion to make things 'right' for those soldiers.

The consequences of letting the sniper get away with it would have been very detrimental to the group of soldiers.

[MarineUS]

It's just like giving someone the death penalty for murder.

He would have gotten tried and executed anyway by the Geneva convention for killing not just an unarmed man, but also a messenger. You NEVER - EVER shoot a messenger. Ever.

So in short: They sped up the trial process.

[Yeager]

Now remember boys: Play war by the rules and be nice out there while you maim and destroy other human beings with violent explosive kinetic energy 

[gyrene81]

It's just like giving someone the death penalty for murder.

He would have gotten tried and executed anyway by the Geneva convention for killing not just an unarmed man, but also a messenger. You NEVER - EVER shoot a messenger. Ever.

So in short: They sped up the trial process.

  coffee marine...more coffee...remember the class in boot camp...

the geneva convention(s) were not the war crimes trials held at the end of the war...they were international agreements that dictated the treatment of military personnel, sick, wounded and p.o.w. in times of war...

i don't recall seeing even a rumor that a war time sniper was tried for war crimes from any war...not even the ones that were killing civilians in bosnia...

besides a radio operator and machine gunner...a sniper is a priority target.

[MarineUS]

I've been up for 3 days. Coffee will not help.

....tonight...I get to sleep.

[Ack-Ack]

ack, i'll repeat. we didnt drop the bomb PURELY because of pearl.

And I'll repeat that you're not a very intelligent little kid.  Maybe you should get one of your parents to read my post for you and have them explain it to you slowly in simple terms that you can understand.

Japan bombs Pearl Harbor = Starts war with United States and culminated in the atomic bombings to end the war.
Japan doesn't bomb Pearl Harbor = No war with United States = No dropping of atomic bombs

Hopefully, the person you get to read my post so they can explain it to you has more functioning brain cells than you do.

ack-ack