Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Tyrannis on March 10, 2011, 04:35:12 AM
-
hey guys, i thought i'd ask everyone this to see what they thought on the subject.
me& a friend were discussing band of brothers yesterday, and it boiled down to this:
i told him about how i had seen in a documentary, that americans would shoot surendering snipers. and here is the reason why.
the documentary stated that, the snipers would ignore chances to peacefully surender given to them, and would procede to kill as many americans as they could. then when they ran out of ammo, they would surender to save themselves from being killed.
in the documentary, they had footage of a sniper who was dug into a windmill, it stated that that an american unit had offered the sniper a peaceful surrender, and even sent a messenger to deliver this to the sniper(unarmed).
the sniper shot the messenger, and 4 other americans. after 3 days the sniper decided to surrender due to lack of food. in the footage it shows the sniper taking a white flag&stuffing it down his rifles barrel. he then came out, held the white flag up, and backed up towards the awaiting americans. when the sniper got to about point blank range. the americans shot him in the back of the head.
the argument me&my friend had is, were the americans justified in killing the sniper? or was it murder?
i personally feel it was justified, the sniper had no chance of escape or shooting his way to freedom. he was offered a chance to surrender peacefully but shot the messenger and then anyone who he could. and then he only attempted to surrender because his supplies were running low, so he wanted to save himself.
my friend tho feels it was murder, due to the sniper surrendering. he said that the sniper was only following orders and therefore didnt deserve to be killed like he was.
what do you guys think? was it wrong or right to kill the sniper?
-
It was wrong.
Sure they felt it was justified in that time because they just lost friends etc.
-
Unless one has been in a live combat situation, one cannot even presume to form an opinion on this matter.
In war, one makes decisions that no rational man would. The rules are different. The question of "right or wrong" becomes absolutely moot.
I pray that you neither never have to experience it, nor make a decision like that.
-
You NEVER shoot a messenger.
He deserved it. Would I have done it (killed the sniper)? No.
I believe in Chivalry. The man was doing as much damage as he could to the enemy. If he had NOT killed the UNARMED messenger (which IS murder, which he WOULD have been tried for and WOULD have received the death penalty for), I would have said it is wrong. I would expect no less from an American sniper when it comes to damaging the enemy, with the exception of the messenger.
-
It was wrong - no matter what that sniper had done, he was surrendering and posed no threat to those Americans when he surrendered. Killing a person who poses no threat whatsoever to you is murder.
Additionally, the sniper had just shot the messenger (who was presumably an unarmed soldier). The American then shot the surrendering sniper (who wasn't quite unarmed, but whose weapon had a flag stuffed in it - so he was practically unarmed) - so there really wasn't any difference between what the sniper and the American solider did. One man killed an unarmed man, then another man killed that first (now unarmed) man. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Unless one has been in a live combat situation, one cannot even presume to form an opinion on this matter.
The fact that this was a combat situation makes the actions of both sides understandable, but it doesn't change the morality of what they both did - I think they were still wrong.
-
Sounds like an execution to me.
-
MarineUS:
If the sniper had known standard procedure was to kill captured snipers, why would he not shoot the messenger(s)?
-
I'll say it again.
Unless one has been in that situation, where one is in a position where one has had to watch friends die or part of one's job description includes the possibility of taking another man's life, at close range, no honest or experiential conclusions can be drawn of whether it was right or wrong.
When one is under fire and has been for more days, weeks, etc. in a row than one cares to remember, has seen friends die/get maimed, hasn't had a hot meal, soft bed proper shower or comfort of a woman for even longer, one's outlook is drastically different than the one of a peacetime civilian and, as such, so is one's sense of morality and definition of justice.
"War is Hell" - William Tecumseh Sherman
-
I'll say it again.
Unless one has been in that situation, where one is in a position where one has had to watch friends die or part of one's job description includes the possibility of taking another man's life, at close range, no honest or experiential conclusions can be drawn of whether it was right or wrong.
When one is under fire and has been for more days, weeks, etc. in a row than one cares to remember, has seen friends die/get maimed, hasn't had a hot meal, soft bed proper shower or comfort of a woman for even longer, one's outlook is drastically different than the one of a peacetime civilian and, as such, so is one's sense of morality and definition of justice.
"War is Hell" - William Tecumseh Sherman
I agree that that would change your viewpoints beyond all recognition/imagination...but I still think that the situation cannot change certain absolutes (at least, I consider them to be absolutes), one of which is that it's wrong to kill people who don't pose a threat to you (or replace 'pose no threat' to 'innocents' or whatever)
-
Snipers were not well received on either side in all parts of WW2.
-
should've blew his knee caps first.
-
I can surely think of something bad enough for him without killing......
Start by chopping the trigger finger. Maybe that should rather have been the rule? Or the hand :devil
-
I once read something about Omar Bradley having said that he did not want to read too much about snipers being taken prisoner. May have been Eisenhower.
Stephen Ambrose wrote that one of the most dangerous moments in a war is at the time of surrender.
Combine these with the fact the sniper shot an unarmed messenger, and I think the outcome was predictable.
It is too easy for us to debate ethics while sitting behind keyboards. If the sniper wanted to live, he should have let the others live.
-
I agree that that would change your viewpoints beyond all recognition/imagination...but I still think that the situation cannot change certain absolutes (at least, I consider them to be absolutes), one of which is that it's wrong to kill people who don't pose a threat to you (or replace 'pose no threat' to 'innocents' or whatever)
What you are saying is very true.
The problem is that, given the opportunity (abundance of food/ammunition, etc), he would have still been a threat.
Snipers were not well received on either side in all parts of WW2.
I think that applies to any conflict. I have never met a person that enjoys taking random, deadly rounds from out of nowhere :devil
-
Snipers are some of the most feared and hated units on any battle fields, ever.
When a entire company can be held down by one sniper, you can fairly guess that when man after man lay dead or wounded "your buddys" and that sniper try's to "surrender" hes not going to be given the chance. NOWA days we send counter sniper teams into a combat zone just to end these "3 day stand off's"
:Edit: so to your question, bolth only depending. Murder is murder and always will be, but many people can try to justify something, but justification never makes something truly "right".
-
MarineUS:
If the sniper had known standard procedure was to kill captured snipers, why would he not shoot the messenger(s)?
The Americans were ordered to shoot any sniper that ignored surrender pleas to kill more soldiers.
because german snipers would board themselves in a hard to get place. and hold out as long as they could killing whoever when they were surounded. and THEN only surender because they ran out of supplies.
i think the americans did this because they wanted it to be known to the rest of the german snipers that if they ignored surender requests to take more kills. then they would be put to death on the spot.
-
hey guys, i thought i'd ask everyone this to see what they thought on the subject.
me& a friend were discussing band of brothers yesterday, and it boiled down to this:
i told him about how i had seen in a documentary, that americans would shoot surendering snipers. and here is the reason why.
the documentary stated that, the snipers would ignore chances to peacefully surender given to them, and would procede to kill as many americans as they could. then when they ran out of ammo, they would surender to save themselves from being killed.
in the documentary, they had footage of a sniper who was dug into a windmill, it stated that that an american unit had offered the sniper a peaceful surrender, and even sent a messenger to deliver this to the sniper(unarmed).
the sniper shot the messenger, and 4 other americans. after 3 days the sniper decided to surrender due to lack of food. in the footage it shows the sniper taking a white flag&stuffing it down his rifles barrel. he then came out, held the white flag up, and backed up towards the awaiting americans. when the sniper got to about point blank range. the americans shot him in the back of the head.
the argument me&my friend had is, were the americans justified in killing the sniper? or was it murder?
i personally feel it was justified, the sniper had no chance of escape or shooting his way to freedom. he was offered a chance to surrender peacefully but shot the messenger and then anyone who he could. and then he only attempted to surrender because his supplies were running low, so he wanted to save himself.
my friend tho feels it was murder, due to the sniper surrendering. he said that the sniper was only following orders and therefore didnt deserve to be killed like he was.
what do you guys think? was it wrong or right to kill the sniper?
We will let your friend "volunteer" to take the next one a message.
-
I would have shot him. No doubt about it. you do not SNIPE soldiers (especially unarmed and approaching under truce) and then surrender to them.
Any sniper that kills and then surrenders to the forces he was killing is an idiot.
-
Atrocities like this happened on a much more grander scales than the single life of a lone sniper, many civilians and alike were not even afforded an opportunity to surrender and were brutally murdered for nothing, the countless bombings of civilian towns on both sides was terrible enough.
War is beyond anyones comprehension and certainly morality takes a back seat to survivability, its either kill or be killed.
These types of things happened on all sides of the war, some more than others, too many of these types of stories are out there, Japan was one of the worst culprits of the time.
-
hey guys, i thought i'd ask everyone this to see what they thought on the subject.
me& a friend were discussing band of brothers yesterday, and it boiled down to this:
i told him about how i had seen in a documentary, that americans would shoot surendering snipers. and here is the reason why.
the documentary stated that, the snipers would ignore chances to peacefully surender given to them, and would procede to kill as many americans as they could. then when they ran out of ammo, they would surender to save themselves from being killed.
in the documentary, they had footage of a sniper who was dug into a windmill, it stated that that an american unit had offered the sniper a peaceful surrender, and even sent a messenger to deliver this to the sniper(unarmed).
the sniper shot the messenger, and 4 other americans. after 3 days the sniper decided to surrender due to lack of food. in the footage it shows the sniper taking a white flag&stuffing it down his rifles barrel. he then came out, held the white flag up, and backed up towards the awaiting americans. when the sniper got to about point blank range. the americans shot him in the back of the head.
the argument me&my friend had is, were the americans justified in killing the sniper? or was it murder?
i personally feel it was justified, the sniper had no chance of escape or shooting his way to freedom. he was offered a chance to surrender peacefully but shot the messenger and then anyone who he could. and then he only attempted to surrender because his supplies were running low, so he wanted to save himself.
my friend tho feels it was murder, due to the sniper surrendering. he said that the sniper was only following orders and therefore didnt deserve to be killed like he was.
what do you guys think? was it wrong or right to kill the sniper?
It was murder but justified. Isn't that what war is?
That is assuming the above story is true. Did you happen to see the messenger get shot in that film or was that what they said after?
-
You should have seen what the Soviet soldiers did to captured flame thrower operators in WWII.
-
Be very careful judging when you have not walked in the shoes of those being judged.
This goes for LEO's, soldiers (etc), victims, etc, etc.
-
We will let your friend "volunteer" to take the next one a message.
many have walked in those same footsteps. also have read many accounts of soldiers who shot prisioners, not one of them said it was ok or justified. they all said they killed them because they were angry and wanted to get back at them for whatever reason. prisoners were killed in the thousands by all the sides along with innocent civilians.
You should have seen what the Soviet soldiers did to captured flame thrower operators in WWII.
or to most german soldiers captured. including civilians, rape/murder was widespread.
semp
-
I smell BS how the hell did a sniper know that the guy was unarmed and why the hell would anyone volunteer to be a messenger and run out in the open where a sniper could see you?
-
The better call would be to send him to the intel boys for interrogation. Snipers were well trained and more than likely had info that would've been useful.
-
From our warm comfy chairs, it's very easy to look at the situation in hindsight and make a judgment of the situation. I would agree that the best decision would not have been not shooting him, but I would never pass moral judgment or support any disciplinary action against the soldiers.
It makes me think about some of the pressures on law enforcement.
-
I support disciplinary action being levied on soldiers only if they're doing the Macarena.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gh2zRBJcZ4Q
-
I smell BS how the hell did a sniper know that the guy was unarmed and why the hell would anyone volunteer to be a messenger and run out in the open where a sniper could see you?
The sniper was surounded and cut off from any chance of being rescued. they thought they would give him the chance to surender and avoid bloodshed on both sides.
in the video i think they show the messenger. they show a guy walking towards the windmill with his hands in the air, he was holding up a white flag in one and what looked like an envelope in the other. the only cloths he had on were pants. no shirt or shoes it didnt look like. and i didnt see a pistol belt on him. he got to where he was allmost to the windmill when he got shot. the sniper then proceded to shoot anyone who tried to rescue the the guy.
im not sure if the man was the messenger but i think he was.
-
the argument me&my friend had is, were the americans justified in killing the sniper? or was it murder?
It's war. It's no different than when a former US president strafed Japanese life boats in his dive bomber, war is Hell.
ack-ack
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gh2zRBJcZ4Q
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Unless one has been in a live combat situation, one cannot even presume to form an opinion on this matter.
In war, one makes decisions that no rational man would. The rules are different. The question of "right or wrong" becomes absolutely moot.
I pray that you neither never have to experience it, nor make a decision like that.
This is the best response so far :aok except that the rules of right and wrong.....they NEVER change, it is WRONG to rape a woman and that happened way to much in all the friggin stupid wars.
Ive never been through a "war" so its hard to say if they were right or wrong in doing it....but I woulda shot him too...if he truly did shoot the messenger, and I witnessed it. war it self in my eyes is "wrong" I feel you should only go to "war" when "war" is brought to you.
we will all pay for our deeds good or bad, we will not be able to say "they told me to do it" for our soul is in our keeping, morality is a binding thing, no matter the situation Morality does not change because of "WAR"
men are wretched things.
-
MarineUS:
If the sniper had known standard procedure was to kill captured snipers, why would he not shoot the messenger(s)?
The Americans were ordered to shoot any sniper that ignored surrender pleas to kill more soldiers.
because german snipers would board themselves in a hard to get place. and hold out as long as they could killing whoever when they were surounded. and THEN only surender because they ran out of supplies.
i think the americans did this because they wanted it to be known to the rest of the german snipers that if they ignored surender requests to take more kills. then they would be put to death on the spot.
Just like dropping the nukes on Japan.
It ended up saving lives.
As for the Japanese being the worst about POW's - that statement is 100% true.
-
I would err on the side of it being murder, but that's about as far. Yes, if the intention was to kill/defeat the sniper after he forfeited his peaceful chance to surrender, I'm sure some mortars, artillery or other means of delivered devistation would of solved the problem of the sniper in the windmill quite promptly after he made his intentions of not surrendering peacefuly well known. The fact they let him remain in place for long enough to run out of supplies and then bothered with waiting for him to walk all the way back to them and point blank range before shootign him, despite already offering him the chance to peacefuly surrender without any harm, leads one to believe they did not intend to kill him or at the least were laying in waiting until after they had him in custody, alive.
-
Atrocities like this happened on a much more grander scales than the single life of a lone sniper, many civilians and alike were not even afforded an opportunity to surrender and were brutally murdered for nothing, the countless bombings of civilian towns on both sides was terrible enough.
War is beyond anyones comprehension and certainly morality takes a back seat to survivability, its either kill or be killed.
These types of things happened on all sides of the war, some more than others, too many of these types of stories are out there, Japan was one of the worst culprits of the time.
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'm pretty sure the guys who did the deed could give a flying fig what you guys think of it.
-
I'm pretty sure the guys who did the deed could give a flying fig what you guys think of it.
Or it was a decision that has haunted them their entire lives.
-
As for the Japanese being the worst about POW's - that statement is 100% true.
I think the Germans that survived the Soviet prison camps wouldn't agree, nor would the Soviets in the German prison camps.
Out of the 5.7 million Soviet soldiers captured by the Germans between 1941 and 1945, 3.5 million died in captivity.
Out of the slightly over 3.5 million Axis soldiers in Soviet POW camps, over a million died. The Italians that were in Soviet prison camps suffered a mortality rate of 85.4%. A specific example were the 91,000 German troops taken prisoner at Stalingrad and out of those numbers only 5,000 survived the Soviet POW camps.
ack-ack
-
And got it the worst (per square mile)- it's largest cities were carpet-firebombed, and it was nuked not once, but TWICE.
-Penguin
If Japan didn't put its factories in civilian neighborhoods, their cities wouldn't have been firebombed and leveled and if they never had attacked Peal Harbor we wouldn't have to drop the atom bomb twice.
ack-ack
-
The war with Japan was inevitable, the US was not willing to lose its sphere of influence in the Pacific.
-Penguin
-
If Japan didn't put its factories in civilian neighborhoods, their cities wouldn't have been firebombed and leveled and if they never had attacked Peal Harbor we wouldn't have to drop the atom bomb twice.
ack-ack
actually, we didnt drop the atomic bomb purely because of pearl.
we warned the japanese that if they did not surender,disaster would befall them.
they ignored these warnings so we droped on hiroshima.
when hiroshima was leveled, and word reached the japanese higher command. they made the choice to ignore what ppl were saying. they didnt think 1 bomb could do so much damage so they chacked up no transmissions from hiroshima to communication problems.
we sent them another msg telling them to surender and they ignored it. so we droped another one. finally they surendered.
there was some higher command people tho, who wanted to continue the fight even after seeing the bombs.
i read that one of the american generals suggested dropping the atomic bomb in tokyo harbo as a visual warning. but truman opted for it to be droped on a city to see its full affects of devestation.
-
I'm pretty sure the guys who did the deed could give a flying fig what you guys think of it.
And? I could say this about any number of events in the world, it doesn't make them any less worthwhile to discuss.
-
Love the armchair generals ... I spent 16 long months in a combat zone and I'll tell you all this...It sucks no 2 ways about it.Let anyone of you spend day after day getting shot at sniped at, mortared, rocketed and IED'ed and tell me you wouldn't look at things differently. I have met very few that would say they went through their tours with the same attitude they had when they left. I for one sure don't. You spend 8 hours on a roof in 130 degree heat pinned down by a retard with a rifle taking pot shots at you and tell me that if you had the chance to put a bullet in his brain you would not take it. While it is no excuse because war in and of itself is an atrocity, the laws of war are very different and the morality on the battlefield is nothing like you have in your neighborhood at home. What you see as reprehensible may very well be nothing but a fact of life for the soldier on the battlefield. We have lawyers going over every incident that happens nowadays and it stinks. The laws that govern a society on a daily basis do not apply to the battlefield if they did then everyone with a gun would be tried as a criminal and we would all be in prison. Sorry if this seems like a rant but as someone who went to war one person and came back another it's hard to listen to folks second guess anything that they have not experienced themselves. It's even harder to take when you hear folks talk about it being wrong.
In the end was it right for those soldiers to do what they did, in a peaceful; society ofcourse not but on a battlefield yes. I looked at it this way I was gonna do whatever I had to do to get my young soldiers and myself back home to the people we loved and the lawyers be damned........
-
Love the armchair generals ... I spent 16 long months in a combat zone and I'll tell you all this...It sucks no 2 ways about it.Let anyone of you spend day after day getting shot at sniped at, mortared, rocketed and IED'ed and tell me you wouldn't look at things differently. I have met very few that would say they went through their tours with the same attitude they had when they left. I for one sure don't. You spend 8 hours on a roof in 130 degree heat pinned down by a retard with a rifle taking pot shots at you and tell me that if you had the chance to put a bullet in his brain you would not take it. While it is no excuse because war in and of itself is an atrocity, the laws of war are very different and the morality on the battlefield is nothing like you have in your neighborhood at home. What you see as reprehensible may very well be nothing but a fact of life for the soldier on the battlefield. We have lawyers going over every incident that happens nowadays and it stinks. The laws that govern a society on a daily basis do not apply to the battlefield if they did then everyone with a gun would be tried as a criminal and we would all be in prison. Sorry if this seems like a rant but as someone who went to war one person and came back another it's hard to listen to folks second guess anything that they have not experienced themselves. It's even harder to take when you hear folks talk about it being wrong.
In the end was it right for those soldiers to do what they did, in a peaceful; society ofcourse not but on a battlefield yes. I looked at it this way I was gonna do whatever I had to do to get my young soldiers and myself back home to the people we loved and the lawyers be damned........
:aok
I think the Germans that survived the Soviet prison camps wouldn't agree, nor would the Soviets in the German prison camps.
Out of the 5.7 million Soviet soldiers captured by the Germans between 1941 and 1945, 3.5 million died in captivity.
Out of the slightly over 3.5 million Axis soldiers in Soviet POW camps, over a million died. The Italians that were in Soviet prison camps suffered a mortality rate of 85.4%. A specific example were the 91,000 German troops taken prisoner at Stalingrad and out of those numbers only 5,000 survived the Soviet POW camps.
ack-ack
I'm not talking about the ones who survived. I'm speaking of overall treatment. The Japanese saw POW's as cowards who were too afraid to die so they surrendered. They thought all POW's should be killed because they were not worthy of the title of a warrior.
There are stories and photos of Marines who had been taken captive only to have their arms, legs, head and genitals cut off. Once they did that they stacked the parts on top of the torso and stuffed the genitals into the mouth of the head and placed it on top of the stack.
-
Love the armchair generals ... I spent 16 long months in a combat zone and I'll tell you all this...It sucks no 2 ways about it.Let anyone of you spend day after day getting shot at sniped at, mortared, rocketed and IED'ed and tell me you wouldn't look at things differently. I have met very few that would say they went through their tours with the same attitude they had when they left. I for one sure don't. You spend 8 hours on a roof in 130 degree heat pinned down by a retard with a rifle taking pot shots at you and tell me that if you had the chance to put a bullet in his brain you would not take it. While it is no excuse because war in and of itself is an atrocity, the laws of war are very different and the morality on the battlefield is nothing like you have in your neighborhood at home. What you see as reprehensible may very well be nothing but a fact of life for the soldier on the battlefield. We have lawyers going over every incident that happens nowadays and it stinks. The laws that govern a society on a daily basis do not apply to the battlefield if they did then everyone with a gun would be tried as a criminal and we would all be in prison. Sorry if this seems like a rant but as someone who went to war one person and came back another it's hard to listen to folks second guess anything that they have not experienced themselves. It's even harder to take when you hear folks talk about it being wrong.
In the end was it right for those soldiers to do what they did, in a peaceful; society ofcourse not but on a battlefield yes. I looked at it this way I was gonna do whatever I had to do to get my young soldiers and myself back home to the people we loved and the lawyers be damned........
16 months straight? Ouch. I've heard that after six months you start to go crazy, is that true? However, there is a balance between letting US soldiers shooting anything that moves and completely neutering combat effectiveness. If we treat the Iraquis and Afghanistanis the same way the Taliban do- we may as well be the Taliban.
It's a battle for hearts, minds and infrastructure (schools, running water, electricity), and the strategy of "Grab them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow" failed miserably in Vietnam. Look at the Long March, the retreating troops did not steal, rape or pillage (or at least did so far, far less). They were loved (in comparision to the previous Goumindang).
Think of it this way- you live in the Bronx. There is a gang (corresponding to the Taliban), and the police (corresponding to US forces). The gang steals, kills or maims anyone who gets in their way- but they get brownie points for being the home team. If the police do the same thing, only using modern weapons, the gang will be supported far more than the police. It's a simple question of survival.
However, I can't imagine what it must be like to be pinned down for hours, even days by just one guy with a rifle. Seeing bullets whiz through your buddies, hearing the screams by the medic's or corpsman's tent. It must change your thought process quite a bit. :salute
-Penguin
-
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.
-
penguin...if it weren't a waste of time, i'd point out every erroneous statement you have made in this discussion thus far.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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 ;)
-
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".
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 :old:
-
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.
:huh 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.
-
I've been up for 3 days. Coffee will not help.
....tonight...I get to sleep.
-
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
-
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 :old:
War needs a penalty box.
ack-ack
-
War needs a penalty box.
ack-ack
Better than a pine one..
-
Sniper kills unarmed Soldier delivering a mercy message. That is murder. Penalty for murder is death. Sniper was executed. Executed=Death. It's not like the GIs could have found a Judge, Public defender and a jury of his peers where they were. In the end he got what he deserved. So what if the execution was carried out by opposing forces. That soldier is the same as the guy at the gallows dropping the floor. Only difference is that it wasn't ordered by a dude in a black robe.
I agree with all those who say don't speak unless you're in that situation. Not have ever been there, in "THAT" situation. It's a horrible thing to go through and I thank God I've never been called on to do it. If or when I ever do though I certainly will be Judge and Jury if someone murders my friend in a non battle situation.
-
Shoot? No.
But I will cut on him a while (carefully tying things off).
Either way, he's not making to an internment camp.
:aok,
Wab
-
The war with Japan was inevitable, the US was not willing to lose its sphere of influence in the Pacific.
-Penguin
A) What crack are you smoking today?
B) Get a refund on your forum trolling lessons if you still can.
C) Stop blaming the history teacher for punishing you for your bad habits and shortsightedness. Just because you're one of the kids never in the class until 10-seconds before or after the bell rings doesn't mean the teacher is stupider than you for not letting you skip out on something that's good for you but you obviously want to avoid as much as possible. And if you're gonna make yourself look like a fool infront of class because you're about to wet and soil your pants like a 2-yo, I guess that's your buisness, but I'm assuming none of you kids - all smarter and more intelectualy mature than the teachers and staff lecturing you- have ever walked to your next class as swiftly as possible, deposited your bags and books and informing your teacher before the last minute you have to hit the restroom and apologize in advance for being a little late? (Always worked in my school classes and still to this day, letting people know you'll be a little late for whatever reason _before_ you know for a fact you're gonna be a little late, it's a courtesy that establishes trust and that portrays you as a mature and responcibile individual that won't light the boy's restroom on fire or drop the ball on a major proposal/client. When you showup, as promised and ready, you proved it.)
-
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
ack your stupidly missing my point entirely.
if we wanted to drop the bombs soley because of pearl, we would never of offered japan a chance to surender before we had done it.
we would of just gone ahead and droped without any warning at all.
we had allready got our revenge for pearl. by devestating one of japans major harbors in the pacific (i cant remember the name, but im sure you know what im talking about).
after that, it just became how fast we could end the war.
like i said twice before, pearl was NOT the majoring factor in the decision to drop the a-bomb.
and you call me stupid, yet do you REALLY believe america would not of been dragged into a war with japan if they had not attacked pearl harbor? the japanese were rolling islands in the pacific. if they had not attacked pearl, then it would of been another american island that would of dragged us into the war.
but like i said dont argue with me old man. because i'd rather not read your wikipedia knowledge. go argue with the author of the book i read to learn this. :rolleyes:
-
ack your stupidly missing my point entirely.
if we wanted to drop the bombs soley because of pearl, we would never of offered japan a chance to surender before we had done it.
we would of just gone ahead and droped without any warning at all.
we had allready got our revenge for pearl. by devestating one of japans major harbors in the pacific (i cant remember the name, but im sure you know what im talking about).
after that, it just became how fast we could end the war.
like i said twice before, pearl was NOT the majoring factor in the decision to drop the a-bomb.
and you call me stupid, yet do you REALLY believe america would not of been dragged into a war with japan if they had not attacked pearl harbor? the japanese were rolling islands in the pacific. if they had not attacked pearl, then it would of been another american island that would of dragged us into the war.
but like i said dont argue with me old man. because i'd rather not read your wikipedia knowledge. go argue with the author of the book i read to learn this. :rolleyes:
Zip your fly.
Your code is showing in your signature.
-
I agree with Tyrannis. We dropped the bomb to end the war not as a direct result of Pearl Harbor. By Ack-Acks reasoning we might as well say we dropped the bomb because Hitler was born.
-
I agree with Tyrannis. We dropped the bomb to end the war not as a direct result of Pearl Harbor. By Ack-Acks reasoning we might as well say we dropped the bomb because Hitler was born.
I see you're just as bright as Tyannis and both are utterly incapable of simple reading comprehension. Why don't you both gets some adults that can read and comprehend the Engish language and have them explain what I wrote. You and Tyrannis are shining examples of the failures of our shool system in this country.
My point is, if we were not at war with Japan there wouldn't have been need to drop the bomb on Japan which was a response to the other ignorant child that posts in here that was critizing the US for dropping the atomic bomb.
ack-ack
-
like i said twice before, pearl was NOT the majoring factor in the decision to drop the a-bomb.
and you call me stupid, yet do you REALLY believe america would not of been dragged into a war with japan if they had not attacked pearl harbor? the japanese were rolling islands in the pacific. if they had not attacked pearl, then it would of been another american island that would of dragged us into the war.
but like i said dont argue with me old man. because i'd rather not read your wikipedia knowledge. go argue with the author of the book i read to learn this. :rolleyes:
No offense but your lack of knowledge of WW2 history and you trying to portray some knowledge of it is, well, just utterly mind boggling.
ack-ack
-
No offense but your lack of knowledge of WW2 history and you trying to portray some knowledge of it is, well, just utterly mind boggling.
ack-ack
:bhead ok ack, i can tell that nomatter what facts are thrown in your face, or how many ppl agree with me, your still going to think your right. no matter what.
whatever, lets move on. not worth arguing with a stubborn old man who never admits when he's wrong.
back on topic.
if the sniper had NOT of shot the messenger, but still ignored the surende request and killed 4 soldiers even tho there was no chance of him escaping, would you guys still feel the same about the situation? or is it only because he shot the messenger that your saying taking his life was just?
-
back on topic.
if the sniper had NOT of shot the messenger, but still ignored the surrender request and killed 4 soldiers even tho there was no chance of him escaping, would you guys still feel the same about the situation? or is it only because he shot the messenger that your saying taking his life was just?
Precisely.
-
A) What crack are you smoking today?
B) Get a refund on your forum trolling lessons if you still can.
C) Stop blaming the history teacher for punishing you for your bad habits and shortsightedness. Just because you're one of the kids never in the class until 10-seconds before or after the bell rings doesn't mean the teacher is stupider than you for not letting you skip out on something that's good for you but you obviously want to avoid as much as possible. And if you're gonna make yourself look like a fool infront of class because you're about to wet and soil your pants like a 2-yo, I guess that's your buisness, but I'm assuming none of you kids - all smarter and more intelectualy mature than the teachers and staff lecturing you- have ever walked to your next class as swiftly as possible, deposited your bags and books and informing your teacher before the last minute you have to hit the restroom and apologize in advance for being a little late? (Always worked in my school classes and still to this day, letting people know you'll be a little late for whatever reason _before_ you know for a fact you're gonna be a little late, it's a courtesy that establishes trust and that portrays you as a mature and responcibile individual that won't light the boy's restroom on fire or drop the ball on a major proposal/client. When you showup, as promised and ready, you proved it.)
1.) I'm clean
2.) I'm not trolling. If I am wrong, then I am wrong. I don't know how to subtly introduce an idea (yet). I'm still learning how to do that. If I am creating an undue disturbance, I apologize. However, you are flaming me for the alleged trolling.
3.) I do not show up to class late, ever. My knees are (no joke) beginning to give out on me, and it's becoming quite hard to walk. My history teacher thinks I'm great, and if I need to go to the bathroom I ask either during a quiet time in class or at either the beginning or end. Fail troll.
The US did have a sphere of influence in the Pacific- the Phillipines, the Hawaiian islands, various atolls, and Alaska to a lesser extent. The US and Japan both wanted control of the world's largest body of water, and the Pacific war was therefore inevitable.
Not to mention the oil embargo on Japan, which gave the already militant regime in power all the more reason to lash out. This did not justify the war, it merely encited greater hostility. As for the nukes, they ended up saving more lives (on both sides) than would have been lost as a result of a D-Day style invasion of the mainland. The radiation poisioning and cancer were their horrid consequences, however.
Back on topic- the shooting of the sniper was understandable, but that still does not make it right.
-Penguin
-
back on topic.
if the sniper had NOT of shot the messenger, but still ignored the surende request and killed 4 soldiers even tho there was no chance of him escaping, would you guys still feel the same about the situation? or is it only because he shot the messenger that your saying taking his life was just?
messenger or not...sniper shot 4 men...if those men had been in my unit, i personally would have shot him as soon as he showed his face...casualty of war, move on.
now, considering you have less than zero experience with getting shot at...let alone being in a combat situation as a soldier...the dilemma for you is to try and imagine what it's like to be scared, tired, dirty, hungry and thirsty...haven't had more than 4 hours of sleep in nobody knows how long...seen a good number of your friends wounded or killed...been shot at...had bombs, artillery, mortar shells and grenades dropped on you...and you have already killed a lot of men that tried to kill you...then watch a sniper kill 4 men you have fought side by side, shared food and water with, slept in the same cold muddy foxholes with, hell you even know the names of their wives, children and/or girlfriends...and there wasn't a thing you could do to help them or stop the sniper until he gave up...and you're going to let the guy live?
-
Again, it's a question of it being morally right vs it being understandable. These are two distinct things.
-Penguin
-
morally right does not exist but to the individual.
no reason or discussion can ever define a concrete set of morals outside of the individual.
-
Again, it's a question of it being morally right vs it being understandable. These are two distinct things.
-Penguin
you're wrong...the question is was it justifiable...morality would insinuate there were some sort of societal laws in place to dictate proper action and there weren't.
-
guys don't bother arguing with ack. It's obvious he is so brainwashed with his own ideas that he is completely incapable of seeing anything other than his own viewpoint.
This moron said "If they had not bombed us, we would not have needed to go to war which means no need for the A-Bomb to be dropped." - yeah cool. We all get what you're saying
The guy saying dropping the bomb because, Hitler was born is in the EXACT same category as what ACK said, but the better analogy would have been Tojo.
Yes if they had not bomber Pearl we more than likely would not have gone to war with them (yet - remember they nearly completed imperialistic conquest in all of the Pacific).
Quit trying to save the already sunken ship of your poorly typed and proposed generalization.
The ULTIMATE decision behind dropping the atomic bomb was because the Japanese did not believe in surrender and normally fought to the last man which lead to insanely high casualties....and invading their homeland would have been almost suicide. The amount of life that would have been lost on a Japanese homeland invasion would have bee catastrophic.
Again such generalization is like saying we purposely dropped Napalm on tons of Vietnamese people because we had a beef with communism. When you generalize it and leave out the facts it does nothing but prove your own lack of intellect, thought process and ability to learn.
Did you comprehend that or are you so severely damaged that no matter how "slow" I typed or if I broke it down Barney style that you STILL would not be able to see past your own cloud of bull$h!t?
-
you're wrong...the question is was it justifiable...morality would insinuate there were some sort of societal laws in place to dictate proper action and there weren't.
Oops. :lol
-Penguin
-
guys don't bother arguing with ack. It's obvious he is so brainwashed with his own ideas that he is completely incapable of seeing anything other than his own viewpoint.
This moron said "If they had not bombed us, we would not have needed to go to war which means no need for the A-Bomb to be dropped." - yeah cool. We all get what you're saying
The guy saying dropping the bomb because, Hitler was born is in the EXACT same category as what ACK said, but the better analogy would have been Tojo.
Yes if they had not bomber Pearl we more than likely would not have gone to war with them (yet - remember they nearly completed imperialistic conquest in all of the Pacific).
Quit trying to save the already sunken ship of your poorly typed and proposed generalization.
The ULTIMATE decision behind dropping the atomic bomb was because the Japanese did not believe in surrender and normally fought to the last man which lead to insanely high casualties....and invading their homeland would have been almost suicide. The amount of life that would have been lost on a Japanese homeland invasion would have bee catastrophic.
Again such generalization is like saying we purposely dropped Napalm on tons of Vietnamese people because we had a beef with communism. When you generalize it and leave out the facts it does nothing but prove your own lack of intellect, thought process and ability to learn.
Did you comprehend that or are you so severely damaged that no matter how "slow" I typed or if I broke it down Barney style that you STILL would not be able to see past your own cloud of bull$h!t?
i may be wrong, but when they were creating the invasion plans for japan, didnt they estimate that somewheres around 1 million american lives would of been lost, had we actually invaded?
-
yes.
-
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.
I cba to read the rest of what you posted (since quite frankly it isn't relevant to this post), but I'd just like to inform you that beating up on kids a fraction of your age is not cool, and gives me the very strong impression that you're a world-class salamander*. And no, I don't care that you don't care about my opinion.
*jerk
-
(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQZMWUBm4U8g4g9Q9Vi-HbRNA6mZmNwYzGmrn9sW7LIHT6A-QZN7w)
:bolt:
-
(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQZMWUBm4U8g4g9Q9Vi-HbRNA6mZmNwYzGmrn9sW7LIHT6A-QZN7w)
:bolt:
:rofl
All hail amazing word filters!
-
Let me tell you why I think the scenario is unrealistic . The U.S. Army would bring up what ever ordinance that was necessary to blast the sniper from his hole . A sniper is only safe as long as his position is unknown . If it would have been necessary to bring up 8" arty that's what would have happened . Remember this is the Armed Force that coined the term reconnaissance by fire . I can cite a few historical examples in the pacific , mind you , where 155 mm guns were used just for this purpose . Read "With The Old Breed" ,by Eugene Sledge .
-
Let me tell you why I think the scenario is unrealistic . The U.S. Army would bring up what ever ordinance that was necessary to blast the sniper from his hole . A sniper is only safe as long as his position is unknown . If it would have been necessary to bring up 8" arty that's what would have happened . Remember this is the Armed Force that coined the term reconnaissance by fire . I can cite a few historical examples in the pacific , mind you , where 155 mm guns were used just for this purpose . Read "With The Old Breed" ,by Eugene Sledge .
the sniper was surounded, and cut off from any chance of escape, it wasent like he could sit there, snipe a couple ppl. then run to the safety of his own army. he was trapped.
im guessing this fact was he reason why the soldiers gave the sniper a chance to surrender peacefully, but like i said. he shot the messenger right infront of the windmill.
now, at the time the messenger got shot, they most likely didnt know wether he was dead or alive at the time.
would you really want to start shelling that position when you had a shot messenger/friend who could possably of been alive so close to it?
-
Understandable? Absolutely
Morally right? No.
Justified? Probably, given the context
Would I have done it (having been in similar situations, myself)?
You're damn skippy
I would have retired that sumbiatch in the time it would take one to say Auf Wiedersehen
-
Were I a soldier, I would do exactly what I was ordered.
Were I an NCO, I would smash his melon with the butt of my rifle.
Were I an officer, I would order that he be taken to HQ for interrogation, orders to the contrary notwithstanding.
-
There is no such thing as morale in war. It's perverted. You're OBLIGED to kill on an order, yet you commit a crime if you do it against an order. You're killing anyway.
I guess the correct thing to do with the OP sniper would have been to arrest the sniper, have him tried as war criminal (for shooting the messenger) and THEN executing him anyway.
On the other hand place yourself in the position of the sniper. You have your orders to kill as many as you can. The enemies have killed multiple of your friends so you have no remorse returning fire. Yet you want to survive yourself.
Isn't it just insane? War may make great games and great movies but in real life it is the expletive removed by the language filter nanny.
-
uh ripley...slight correction...there is "morale" in war...has to do with the mental state of the troops..."moral or morality" was the word you were looking for...funny how a single letter completely changes the meaning of a word.
military personnel are supposed to be guided by the uniform code of military justice and whatever international "human rights" treaties or laws their country recognizes as valid in war time first...their own moral standards come second...depending on the individual and the situation, it could all be nothing more than a footnote for them to think about when it's over...
as far as "war crime" trial for that sniper had he been taken prisoner...i seriously doubt any such event would have occurred simply because shooting a messenger under a white flag was no worse than shooting a medic on the battlefield...it wasn't supposed to happen, but it did...on all sides. snipers weren't supposed to target officers specifically either...but it happened.
you don't train a man to kill, then hand him a weapon and send him into battle alone and expect him to make random judgement calls...he is going to follow orders and his use his training to the best of his ability, and his personal moral code of right/wrong is going to determine what he does.
-
Having been there, three wars, 3 1/2 years in combat missions (Infantry Ranger), here is my take:
Violation of the Laws of War: Yes
Justified : Yes
Morally correct : No
Would I have done it: Probably not (wasn't there can't be 100%)
Situationally correct: No. The intel that may have been gained through interrogation may have saved the lives of many more American soldiers than the sniper ever could have taken. These men in WWII were Brigade or Division assets with enormous intell that could have tremendous impact for our side.
The laws of war state that when a soldier is no longer a combatant they are to be captured; that is the law. The Laws of War state that a surrendering soldier is no longer a combatant; that is the law.
Reality is, surrendering soldiers were used as means by the surrendering side to kill our soldiers. (that doesn't appear to be the case here given the stated circumstances). Fear often overrides our moral rational.
Just my take, worth what you paid for it.
-
16 months straight? Ouch. I've heard that after six months you start to go crazy, is that true? However, there is a balance between letting US soldiers shooting anything that moves and completely neutering combat effectiveness. If we treat the Iraquis and Afghanistanis the same way the Taliban do- we may as well be the Taliban.
It's a battle for hearts, minds and infrastructure (schools, running water, electricity), and the strategy of "Grab them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow" failed miserably in Vietnam. Look at the Long March, the retreating troops did not steal, rape or pillage (or at least did so far, far less). They were loved (in comparision to the previous Goumindang).
Think of it this way- you live in the Bronx. There is a gang (corresponding to the Taliban), and the police (corresponding to US forces). The gang steals, kills or maims anyone who gets in their way- but they get brownie points for being the home team. If the police do the same thing, only using modern weapons, the gang will be supported far more than the police. It's a simple question of survival.
However, I can't imagine what it must be like to be pinned down for hours, even days by just one guy with a rifle. Seeing bullets whiz through your buddies, hearing the screams by the medic's or corpsman's tent. It must change your thought process quite a bit. :salute
-Penguin
Well I can say this much the hearts and minds bull that came during Vietnam was because the politicans got in involved. War is no place to win hearts and minds it is for forcing your opponents into seeing your point of view by means of force. You do not train and equip an army to go to war to hand out blankets food and kiss the enemy and make them feel good. You send the red cross to do that after the war is over. Do you really think we cared what the people of the Axis powers thought of us as we bombed them?? Nope not one bit. This political correctness you see on the battlefield is a modern phenomena . It is SO that folks can feel better about themselves and deal with the horror that is war and so you see war is supposed to be hell for a reason ....
-
Well I can say this much the hearts and minds bull that came during Vietnam was because the politicans got in involved. War is no place to win hearts and minds it is for forcing your opponents into seeing your point of view by means of force. You do not train and equip an army to go to war to hand out blankets food and kiss the enemy and make them feel good. You send the red cross to do that after the war is over. Do you really think we cared what the people of the Axis powers thought of us as we bombed them?? Nope not one bit. This political correctness you see on the battlefield is a modern phenomena . It is SO that folks can feel better about themselves and deal with the horror that is war and so you see war is supposed to be hell for a reason ....
I've always heard that the idea is to shoot the enemy, and win over the hearts and minds of the civilians, at least when dealing with an insurgency.
-
could you imagine a bunch of ap reporters with live satellite feed cameras on okinawa or saipan? i wonder what the public reaction would have been to see a platoon of marines "souvenir collecting" after a firefight on saipan? if that kind of thing were to happen today...damn near every marine that survived the battles would be court martialed just because some anti-war civilian twits cried about it on facebook...or blogged their congressmen.
-
could you imagine a bunch of ap reporters with live satellite feed cameras on okinawa or saipan? i wonder what the public reaction would have been to see a platoon of marines "souvenir collecting" after a firefight on saipan? if that kind of thing were to happen today...damn near every marine that survived the battles would be court martialed just because some anti-war civilian twits cried about it on facebook...or blogged their congressmen.
You sound as if you think there nothing at all wrong about doing that.
-
The US did have a sphere of influence in the Pacific- the Phillipines, the Hawaiian islands, various atolls, and Alaska to a lesser extent. The US and Japan both wanted control of the world's largest body of water, and the Pacific war was therefore inevitable.
Not to mention the oil embargo on Japan, which gave the already militant regime in power all the more reason to lash out. This did not justify the war, it merely encited greater hostility. As for the nukes, they ended up saving more lives (on both sides) than would have been lost as a result of a D-Day style invasion of the mainland. The radiation poisioning and cancer were their horrid consequences, however.
Japan didn't give a rats bellybutton about the water. It needed the resources in the land the water surrounds.
"Not to mention the oil embargo on Japan"? :huh So you're saying it's all America's fault for pushing poor little Japan into it because they had no choice? You really are ignorant.
Try learning a little bit about just what Japan was up to in the decade before the oil embargo. They had plenty of opportunity and were given countless warnings to stop their aggression in China, and they refused to heed any of those warnings.
There was nothing "inevitable" about it. They brought it on themselves.
-
Japan didn't give a rats bellybutton about the water. It needed the resources in the land the water surrounds.
"Not to mention the oil embargo on Japan"? :huh So you're saying it's all America's fault for pushing poor little Japan into it because they had no choice? You really are ignorant.
Try learning a little bit about just what Japan was up to in the decade before the oil embargo. They had plenty of opportunity and were given countless warnings to stop their aggression in China, and they refused to heed any of those warnings.
There was nothing "inevitable" about it. They brought it on themselves.
have to control the waterways to reach the islands to retrieve said resources, so yes japan did give a "rats ass" about the water.
and no, he's not blaming America for it. he's saying that japan would of declared war on us wether pearl happened or not,due to America denying to export to them.They would of invaded American controlled islands to plunder the resources they needed.
this all goes back to the argument with ack, where we're trying to explain to ack that Pearl didnt have as much influence in the decision to nuke japan as ack thinks. but im afraid we may never excede :( his ego is too thick for us to get through.
-
You sound as if you think there nothing at all wrong about doing that.
i wouldn't personally do it...and sitting here in my comfortable environmentally controlled house where i can eat, sleep and relax without anyone trying to kill me by whatever means they have at their disposal...i could say it's wrong...but i'm not going to because i know what battle trauma does to a persons psyche...i've seen it first hand and maybe 1 in 100 can handle it.
and i dare anyone in this discussion ready to pass judgment on the actions of a soldier in battle to go put themselves into the exact same conditions and see what they're made of...
-
Japan didn't give a rats bellybutton about the water. It needed the resources in the land the water surrounds.
"Not to mention the oil embargo on Japan"? :huh So you're saying it's all America's fault for pushing poor little Japan into it because they had no choice? You really are ignorant.
Try learning a little bit about just what Japan was up to in the decade before the oil embargo. They had plenty of opportunity and were given countless warnings to stop their aggression in China, and they refused to heed any of those warnings.
There was nothing "inevitable" about it. They brought it on themselves.
I didn't say that it pushed Japan into the war- reread my post, I said that it heightened tensions.
You are correct on the water part- allow to rephrase, the body of water and the islands thereof. Those islands were worth quite a bit (naval and air bases, tariffs on docking ships). Trade routes are the life-blood of any industrial nation, and waterways are the most efficient way to go between continents. Everyone wanted a slice (and still does want) of the pie.
-Penguin
-
the sniper was surounded, and cut off from any chance of escape, it wasent like he could sit there, snipe a couple ppl. then run to the safety of his own army. he was trapped.
im guessing this fact was he reason why the soldiers gave the sniper a chance to surrender peacefully, but like i said. he shot the messenger right infront of the windmill.
now, at the time the messenger got shot, they most likely didnt know wether he was dead or alive at the time.
would you really want to start shelling that position when you had a shot messenger/friend who could possably of been alive so close to it?
He was a sniper . It would have been up to him to surrender . I find it highly improbable anyone was asked to approach a known sniper position , let alone unarmed . I say again . A enemy sniper whose position is known , would simply have been the victim of whatever ordinance was needed to kill him without risking an American life . The hard part about getting a sniper is fixing his position . Try to determine direction one of these days from a single report of a firecracker or whatever . Simply put , once a snipers position is known his life span is measured at best in minutes , usually seconds . What you may find interesting is some methods used to fix a snipers position . Glider troops had a method used in Normandy a field expedient , I find kind of unusual . They took armor off of gliders from the landings . Used a white horse and took turns riding in view of snipers daring them to take the shots . Results were needless to say uneven .
-
i wouldn't personally do it...and sitting here in my comfortable environmentally controlled house where i can eat, sleep and relax without anyone trying to kill me by whatever means they have at their disposal...i could say it's wrong...but i'm not going to because i know what battle trauma does to a persons psyche...i've seen it first hand and maybe 1 in 100 can handle it.
and i dare anyone in this discussion ready to pass judgment on the actions of a soldier in battle to go put themselves into the exact same conditions and see what they're made of...
I usually find you a little pompous . I doubt we ever would have got along . I must give credit where credit is due though . You are spot on here . I think your ratio is a little low though , not alot but a little . Just my personal experience speaking though not a fact I would care to dispute . Don't you find the whole scenario off though ? I don't know but would bet you have at the very least the training that tells you . Once a snipers position is known he has very , very , little time to surrender . No one would be asked/ordered to approach a known snipers position unarmed ? The thinking just doesn't work like that . If a green junior officer were to issue an order like that his NCO's would step in . A man asked would simply refuse . I had to add the last because I have seen 2nd Lt's dso some spit I would not believe had I not seen it . Cod save us from the ROTC ;)
-
In answer to the original question...Yes it was murder.
By any standard of law, military or civilian, it was murder and should have been tried as such.
Geeze, I didn't even have to make this one up.
RTR
-
I usually find you a little pompous . I doubt we ever would have got along . I must give credit where credit is due though . You are spot on here . I think your ratio is a little low though , not alot but a little . Just my personal experience speaking though not a fact I would care to dispute . Don't you find the whole scenario off though ? I don't know but would bet you have at the very least the training that tells you . Once a snipers position is known he has very , very , little time to surrender . No one would be asked/ordered to approach a known snipers position unarmed ? The thinking just doesn't work like that . If a green junior officer were to issue an order like that his NCO's would step in . A man asked would simply refuse . I had to add the last because I have seen 2nd Lt's dso some spit I would not believe had I not seen it . Cod save us from the ROTC ;)
i'm very pompous hlbly... :D in real life i'm just one of those people who doesn't walk around in the dark like the average person...and people who say stuff with their craniums planted firmly in their rectums get my best extraction effort...even if it pisses them off.
i probably am off a bit on the ratio...i served with and/or spoke with a large number of army, navy and marine front line combat vets from wwii, korea and vietnam since i was a kid...and the ones that have stuck out over the years are the few who could drink alcohol and share their experiences without their hands shaking or getting emotional...
i do agree that the op's scenario is a bit off...almost sounds like a scene from a movie like saving private ryan.
-
i'm very pompous hlbly... :D in real life i'm just one of those people who doesn't walk around in the dark like the average person...and people who say stuff with their craniums planted firmly in their rectums get my best extraction effort...even if it pisses them off.
i probably am off a bit on the ratio...i served with and/or spoke with a large number of army, navy and marine front line combat vets from wwii, korea and vietnam since i was a kid...and the ones that have stuck out over the years are the few who could drink alcohol and share their experiences without their hands shaking or getting emotional...
i do agree that the op's scenario is a bit off...almost sounds like a scene from a movie like saving private ryan.
I have a Tattoo of a guy with his head stuck up is own ass, I did it when I was 18 :aok
-
You sound as if you think there nothing at all wrong about doing that.
War is state sanctioned mass murder and you are all bunched about some shell shocked marines full of hate digging gold teeth out of dead japanese soldiers mouths? Come on man. What about the firebombing deaths of many hundreds of thousands of civilians, men, woman, the elderly, children, and infants in cities all across Europe, China and Japan? Or the inhumane treatment of tens of millions of POWs at the hands of Japanese and German incarcerators? There was so much barbarity and inhumanity during that war, as there is during any war in which millions of combatants wage total violence against one another. This story about some sniper getting plowed under is of almost insignificant value in the grand scheme of things.
Lets be nice to each other.
-
Although the original story may not be true, cases like this have always happened and always will.
"Killin'? What do any of y'all know about killin'?" -Platoon
-
I have that movie memorized word for word
-
War is state sanctioned mass murder and you are all bunched about some shell shocked marines full of hate digging gold teeth out of dead japanese soldiers mouths? Come on man. What about the firebombing deaths of many hundreds of thousands of civilians, men, woman, the elderly, children, and infants in cities all across Europe, China and Japan? Or the inhumane treatment of tens of millions of POWs at the hands of Japanese and German incarcerators? There was so much barbarity and inhumanity during that war, as there is during any war in which millions of combatants wage total violence against one another. This story about some sniper getting plowed under is of almost insignificant value in the grand scheme of things.
Lets be nice to each other.
I completely agree...but gyrene's post was about two locations, and so my response was only referring to those two locations.
edit: fixed.
-
I completely agree...but since gyrene's post was about a single incident, my response was also about that single incident.
single incident? :huh get out of movie mode yossarian...should i have gone down the long list of places instead of naming just one? don't make me go get the crayons so you can see the picture.
-
the sniper shot the messenger
At that point he is very likely a dead man. Its battlefield justice and hardly surprising? Your chances of mercy would be slim indeed. Well, let me restate that. Your chances are zip.
-
single incident? :huh get out of movie mode yossarian...should i have gone down the long list of places instead of naming just one? don't make me go get the crayons so you can see the picture.
I should have said two locations, since you mentioned two locations in your first post on the subject. But just to clarify: I am aware of the crap that happens in war, and please don't mistake a single post as indicating that I'm not.
-
At that point he is very likely a dead man. Its battlefield justice and hardly surprising? Your chances of mercy would be slim indeed. Well, let me restate that. Your chances are zip.
Bingo.
-
should've blew his knee caps first.
:aok
-BigBOBCH
-
Try learning a little bit about just what Japan was up to in the decade before the oil embargo. They had plenty of opportunity and were given countless warnings to stop their aggression in China, and they refused to heed any of those warnings.
Quoted for truth.
The embargo on Japan by the US was an attempt to slow their aggressions (and atrocities) in China. Nanjing, which was so horrible as to shock a Nazi diplomat, happened in 1937-38.
It is a case of misinterpretation that the Japanese perceived the vague threat from Truman of complete destruction as a sign that the US was willing to negotiate terms. Reference the book. The Rising Sun: The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire, 1936-1945, John Toland (who also wrote a extensive biography of Hitler.)
Parson the off OP tangent.
-
Although the original story may not be true, cases like this have always happened and always will.
"Killin'? What do any of y'all know about killin'?" -Platoon
^^^
What he said.
Also, to answer your question/quote, more than I ever cared to...
-
Amen brother
-
Amen brother
Sua Sponte :salute
-
When it comes to "personal" incidents I think it's more of a matter of "payback", although "payback" could be done on far larger country vs country payback but I do not believe that was the case of the US dropping atomic bombs on Japan...that was a different story.
There were many incidents of soldiers killing snipers, flamethrower operators, minelayer sappers, etc. and their superiors simply looked the other way.
One thing you have to do with history is get every fact possible and then ask yourself (after long soul searching) of WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE DONE?
Now that's one tough pill to swallow, much less really want to come face to face with. I can only imagine training with a company of guys for months, being shipped out, sent into real battle, and seeing them picked off or mowed down by a specific enemy soldier and not wanting payback--even if the guy did run out of ammo and food. I can't say I'd judge that guy too harshly, and as said before, many superiors looked the other way and the incident went unreported. Unethical or even criminal? Of course. Something that has happened in most wars since the dawn of time? Yes.
Country vs country "payback" has many ugly faces but the US was on the world stage as a superpower for really the first time nearing the end of WWII and the eyes of the world was on them and Truman knew it. The best estimates Truman was getting from Bedell Smith was that "Operation Olympic" would cost at least 1 MILLION American lives to invade the Japanese homeland and bring a conventional end to the war with Japan. On the other hand he was then (after Roosevelt's death) finally and fully aware of the US A-bomb project and it's possible ability to save over 1 Million American lives at a time where already far too many US families had made sacrifices. At that point, I don't think payback for Pearl Harbor was on his mind at all...finally ending that horrible conflict as quickly as possible was...along with keeping as much of Japan out of Stalin's hands, who had only declared war on Japan days before.
Yes, there is an "other hand" to this as well. Stalin was so incensed about Soviet losses in "Operation Barbarossa" and the atrocities, not to mention the USSR having taken the hugest losses of soldiers and civilians in the war, wanted payback on Germany on a colossal scale. Of the over 1/2 million German POW's taken (some sources estimate ever far more) less than 100,000 (and some sources estimate far less as well) were ever repatriated back to Germany after the war was over. Their fates are mostly undocumented but gulags, death camps, and out and out execution has been linked by ex-camp guards after the fall of the USSR. Payback in Stalin's eyes also had much to do with Hitler's "shoot all Soviet political commisars" on sight order as well as Soviet POW's being sent to German extermination camps...and payback he got.
With over 60 years of 20/20 hindsight, it's difficult if not impossible to put yourself in the shoes of a soldier who sees death all around him everyday and second guess and judge them without actually have been in THEIR shoes at the time.