Letters from Iwo Jima

[JudgeDredd]

ORIGINAL: Reiryc

ORIGINAL: Mart

This thread may well be to the liking of those who have got carried away in the nonsensical bigotry and convoluted, pointless arguments, but I don't think it's good for the community. You may well think you ARE the community, but you are NOT. You take no account whatsoever of what visitors to the forum, or less vocal members may think. They may well think that players of Matrix Games are not so much interested in replaying conflicts as in conflict itself.
Suit yourself. I think it's getting more and more tasteless, and if you were in a pub, you'd have been thrown out by now.
When you get into completely bigoted raving and ranting, and think it's rational argument, you've lost the plot entirely. Well, that's fine for you, but it doesn't look too good from the outside.
If this were a case where I was asking for a cessation of rational debate, you might have a point. Sadly, the debate is no longer even vaguely rational.

So where have I gotten into completely bigoted raving and ranting? [&:]

I've seen a few folks write some prejudicial and bigoted things, such as those who brought up the US not doing something in china in a thread discussing the portrayal of japanese soldiers in a film, but nothing that goes to the lengths that you are stating.

I would also disagree with your interpretation of what's rational debate in this thread. I've seen some irrational things, such as those who start clamoring for a closing of a thread to which they are hardly participating because they feel that their views are definitive on what is or isn't rational debate, but nothing so out of hand as you suggest.

Reiryc

He didn't specifically mention you. I think you noted that at the bottom right of his reply it said "in reply to Reiryc"...in fact, when you use the reply box at the bottom of a thread, it automatically puts that caption in...it doesn't necessarily mean the user was replying to you.

Hope that's cleared up [:D]

[JudgeDredd]

Thank you mjk [:D]

[JudgeDredd]

As you can see from my post above, Reiryc, I replied to myself....even though I didn't specifically aim it at me...it just puts it in. [:D]

Of course, it also automatically puts it in when you quote someone (as I did with your post above)

ooops...did I take this thread off topic [;)]

[Ike99]

If you look at my earlier threads, you won't find that to be my motivation at all. On the contrary. If you do read them, you might want to consider offering me an apology.

No I don´t offer an apology. I think i hit the nail pretty much on the head.

Yeah, good thing the Allies won the war. Move over stories of Jewish soap and the murdering Jap. Here comes the US Marines making necklaces of Jap fingers and American girls using Japanese skulls as table conversation pieces.[:'(]

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Mart



You take no account whatsoever of what visitors to the forum, or less vocal members may think.

Nor SHOULD we, who are posting, take ANY acount of what less vocal members may think.

This IS, after all, a forum.

If one doen't speak out (read post) then one cannot expect one's viewpoint to become a concern of anyone who does speak out (read post).

To have anyone "take account" of what one thinks, one has to actually express one's point of view.

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

How come when a thread is talking about how mean or cruel the Axis troops were during the war it is fine but when someone speaks about how the Allies hands were not so clean as it seems we have to close the thread?

Can anyone wonder now as to why there are such few records of Allied atrocities from WW2?!

Here is a good clue.

ORIGINAL: Mart

If you look at my earlier threads, you won't find that to be my motivation at all. On the contrary. If you do read them, you might want to consider offering me an apology.

No I don´t offer an apology. I think i hit the nail pretty much on the head.

Yeah, good thing the Allies won the war. Move over stories of Jewish soap and the murdering Jap. Here comes the US Marines making necklaces of Jap fingers and American girls using Japanese skulls as table conversation pieces.[:'(]

If you've read this thread from its start you'd know that it quickly went from talking about a movie into Japanese vs. American atrocities committed during WW2 then spread into the relevant histories of both countries, as well as others (a philisophical/moral discussion concerning individual vs. collective guilt was also included). The why is not important. That it did spread is. Attacking Mart for a peacemaking, neutral statement doesn't hit it on the head, it misses the nail/roof/house. He wasn't asking nor was anyone else demanding that this thread be closed due to posts about American atrocities.

Can anyone wonder why this thread went to shite in a handbasket?

Here is a good clue.

[Reiryc]

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

ORIGINAL: Reiryc

ORIGINAL: Mart

This thread may well be to the liking of those who have got carried away in the nonsensical bigotry and convoluted, pointless arguments, but I don't think it's good for the community. You may well think you ARE the community, but you are NOT. You take no account whatsoever of what visitors to the forum, or less vocal members may think. They may well think that players of Matrix Games are not so much interested in replaying conflicts as in conflict itself.
Suit yourself. I think it's getting more and more tasteless, and if you were in a pub, you'd have been thrown out by now.
When you get into completely bigoted raving and ranting, and think it's rational argument, you've lost the plot entirely. Well, that's fine for you, but it doesn't look too good from the outside.
If this were a case where I was asking for a cessation of rational debate, you might have a point. Sadly, the debate is no longer even vaguely rational.

So where have I gotten into completely bigoted raving and ranting? [&:]

I've seen a few folks write some prejudicial and bigoted things, such as those who brought up the US not doing something in china in a thread discussing the portrayal of japanese soldiers in a film, but nothing that goes to the lengths that you are stating.

I would also disagree with your interpretation of what's rational debate in this thread. I've seen some irrational things, such as those who start clamoring for a closing of a thread to which they are hardly participating because they feel that their views are definitive on what is or isn't rational debate, but nothing so out of hand as you suggest.

Reiryc

He didn't specifically mention you. I think you noted that at the bottom right of his reply it said "in reply to Reiryc"...in fact, when you use the reply box at the bottom of a thread, it automatically puts that caption in...it doesn't necessarily mean the user was replying to you.

Hope that's cleared up [:D]

Agreed that it doesn't necessarily mean me, but the post did quote me, did answer my direct questions, and it had the word 'you' quite a bit in it.

Whilst I know that 'you' could have been the generic form, and since the other factors listed indicated otherwise, I figured I should at least ask for clarification and if he meant 'you' in the general form, then no harm or foul was committed by either side. [:)]

[JudgeDredd]

Fair dos...but still, I regarded his second post as being the general, dare I say, collective you.

You did say in your post, though, that...

Can't we, the participants in this thread freely choose to stop on our own, provided we stay within the rules of this board -- which we have for the most part -- without someone else nannying us?

(and I am quoting you there [:D])
but it seems to me that various members (quite a few now) have not stayed within the bounderies of the rules of the board, and it seems to me, with all the childish mud throwing going on, that nannying is exactly what is required.

oh, and I include myself in the "childish" comment there whan I piped up with this...

This thread is the biggest joke...there are people quoting and mis-quoting people all over the place, in and out of context, using analogies all over the place to get their little insignificant point across. There are several different discussions going on and all are hilarious in their own right...

Please do continue...this is great stuff

Although it was a desparate attempt to shake people out of this ridiculous non-ending ever growing circle of people that seem to demand the last word rather than just move on.

The thread has most definitely taken a tumble from sensible, rational debate....right from page 2 (if I can cast my memory back...I would go back and check, but I really can't be arsed...it was round about there...and we're on page 17 now).

Time for a diaper check people. [:D]

[Ike99]

Can anyone wonder why this thread went to ****e in a handbasket?

Here is a good clue.

Yeah let´s take a look....I think it was post number 4 before the Yank flag waving and moral high ground band standing began...

Doggie-Too bad any movie that portrayed them as they really were would be worse than the most graphic slasher film imaginable.

Mr.Boats-Perhaps there should have been more scenes of Japanese soldiers torturing marines in the film.

This is funny. I´d like to have seen more Marines cutting off japanese heads to send to their girlfriends.

Halsey-I actually started booing in the movie theatre when the Japanese commander wouldn't let his troops shoot the wounded Marine. He wanted to treat his wounds, and talk to him about the good ole days back in the USA. What a crock that was!

He wasn't asking nor was anyone else demanding that this thread be closed due to posts about American atrocities.

Oh no? Mart wants the thread closed because people are debating collective and personal guilt?

Uh, huh, Surreeeee....[8|]

The thread has become just awful and completely gross, and the sooner a moderator puts the stops on it the better.

[morvwilson]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

Can anyone wonder why this thread went to ****e in a handbasket?

Here is a good clue.

Yeah let´s take a look....I think it was post number 4 before the Yank flag waving and moral high ground band standing began...

Doggie-Too bad any movie that portrayed them as they really were would be worse than the most graphic slasher film imaginable.

So just to get back somewhat closer to the subject Ike, what did you think of Letters?

[Sarge]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

How come when a thread is talking about how mean or cruel the Axis troops were during the war it is fine but when someone speaks about how the Allies hands were not so clean as it seems we have to close the thread?

Can anyone wonder now as to why there are such few records of Allied atrocities from WW2?!

Here is a good clue. [;)]

What ?

If I am wrong and you have records to link up confirming wide spread killing of POW's at the hands of Americans please enlighten away .

Or is it you have a hunch of a Yank Dog conspiracy and Marts post is conformation [:D]

[mjk428]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

Can anyone wonder why this thread went to ****e in a handbasket?

Here is a good clue.

Yeah let´s take a look....I think it was post number 4 before the Yank flag waving and moral high ground band standing began...

Doggie-Too bad any movie that portrayed them as they really were would be worse than the most graphic slasher film imaginable.

That you would view that as Yank flag waving says a lot about your mental state. It's a true statement, even considering how graphic slasher films have gotten recently. The behavior of the Japanese military during WW2 was absolutely abominable. It will be no less abominable no matter how many acts of barbarity you point to committed by others.

As for the moral high ground, it's not at all difficult to be on the moral high ground when compared to the Nazis or the Japanese of WW2.


For those who don't get why Clint's depiction of the Japs in "Letters" might bother some folks: Imagine Mel Gibson made a movie about Auschwitz and the only time we see the guards interact with any Jews, they are nursing them back to health. Plus he throws in a scene of the Jews torturing a Nazi guard they managed to get their hands on. I'm exaggerating only slightly to make the point. I've yet to see Nazis portrayed sympathically on the silver screen. Although, I'm sure it's coming soon to a theater near you. The Japanese were every bit as monstrous as the Nazis and don't deserve any lighter treatment.

Now, my only real complaint about "Letters" was the lack of context and balance. Had "Flags" been "Letters" in reverse then I'd have had no problems with the second film at all. I guess that would have made too much sense - let alone be far more entertaining. Clint decided instead to devote half the movie to what represented a few pages in the book and he was sure not to include anything that might make the stars of his next movie, the Japanese, look too bad.

[Ike99]

What ?

If I am wrong and you have records to link up confirming wide spread killing of POW's at the hands of Americans please enlighten away .

Or is it you have a hunch of a Yank Dog conspiracy and Marts post is conformation

Are you serious? [&:]You seriously believe large numbers of Japanese POW´s were not killed in the Pacific theatre!? [:D]

Gee let´s see here, where does one start?

Well you can start at the Australain Government site Sarge on Digger history.

I´m pretty sure it´s a Australian Government, but whatever, type in Digger history and you´ll find it. I´m not doing your homework for you.

Read through the Veterans interviews and you can find many, many cases of killing Japanese POW´s. Hell one said on the Kakoda track it was not uncommon to capture a Japanese, question him for info and then shoot them because they didn´t feel like walking all the way back down the trail. Another said when they came upon a wounded Japanese they just shot them. No problems.

Sarge this type of stuff was all too common and not out of the ordinary at all in the Pacific Theatre. You can believe whatever glossy view you want but that was the nature of the war in the Pacific on both sides.

I understand there is a relatively new book called ¨Utmost Savagery¨ on all this kind of stuff in the Pacific theatre. I think you need to order a copy.

[Sarge]

ORIGINAL: Sarge

What ?

If I am wrong and you have records to link up confirming wide spread killing of POW's at the hands of Americans please enlighten away .

Or is it you have a hunch of a Yank Dog conspiracy and Marts post is conformation [:D]

Take another look Ike [;)]

[Doggie]

ORIGINAL: Ike99



Are you serious? [&:]You seriously believe large numbers of Japanese POW´s were not killed in the Pacific theatre!? [:D]

Serious as a heart attack. Not one Japanese prisoner starved to death or was eaten alive while in Allied custody. None were tortured to death. Ninety five percent of Jpanese prisoners in Allied custody survived the war. There is not even a rumor about Japanese prisoners of war being systematically murdered, tortured, or used as slave laborers.

Allied soldiers in the field were sometimes reluctant to take prisoners, as the conduct of Japanese soldiers did not endear them to anyone. But the ones who did make it into an Allied Prisoner of War camp usually survived the experience unharmed, as opposed to one hundred percent of prisoners of the Japanease who were treated with the most unimaginaqble barbarism.

Read through the Veterans interviews and you can find many, many cases of killing Japanese POW´s. Hell one said on the Kakoda track it was not uncommon to capture a Japanese, question him for info and then shoot them because they didn´t feel like walking all the way back down the trail. Another said when they came upon a wounded Japanese they just shot them. No problems.

No problem indeed, when you consider the Austrailains routinely found bodies of their countrymen who had literally been eaten alive, the flesh cut from their arms and legs while the remains were thrown into a ditch whilst still alive so the kidneys and livers would still be fresh the next day.

Can't say as I blame the Austrailians. It really wasn'ty worth the effort to walk the sick, sadistic bastards back down the trail. I would have gut shot them and left them to bleed out.

Sarge this type of stuff was all too common and not out of the ordinary at all in the Pacific Theatre.

Yes it was. The Japanese butchered, raped, and tortured their way across the Pacific. They even butchered their own women and children on Okinawa and Saipan. What was out of the ordinary was simple human decency from the Japanese, towards anyone.

Even the nazis did not murder and rape french citizens at random on the streets of Paris. The Japanese did this everywhere they went.

[Ike99]

mjk428-It's a true statement, even considering how graphic slasher films have gotten recently. The behavior of the Japanese military during WW2 was absolutely abominable. It will be no less abominable no matter how many acts of barbarity you point to committed by others.

What are you saying? Only the barbaric acts commited by the Japanese count? Those commited by the Allies don´t count no matter how many were commited? If that´s not what your saying is sure sounds an awful lot like it.

Sarge-Take another look Ike

I don´t need to take another look Sarge.

You do.

Your either very naive or just want to lie about it to yourself if you don´t think it was common practice to murder Japanese wounded and POW´s in the Pacific War.

Heres a film about it. Perhaps you need to watch it if it won´t burst your bubble too much.

Horrific footage shot during battle with Japanese shows execution of wounded....

For more than half a century they have been portrayed as wholesome heroes who fought in terrible conditions to save the Western way of life from Japanese aggression. But now the savage acts that Allied soldiers were driven to commit in the Pacific theatre are about to be exposed.

The film, shot in colour, was taken by an unknown combat cameraman in 1944 during fighting on the Pacific Island of Peleliu. It includes scenes of American soldiers shooting Japanese wounded as they lie prone on the ground....

In another scene on the Japanese island of Okinawa a year later, a US soldier is filmed dragging a wounded enemy from a hiding place. Although the man has his ankles tied together, two bullets are fired into his knees and then, while he is still moving, shots are fired into his chest and head....

....Others spoke of units throwing away their bayonets to avoid being ordered by 'over-enthusiastic' officers to charge, and of machine-gunning villages full of civilians and clubbing wounded Japanese soldiers to death as they tried to surrender....

Are you getting a understanding of how the war was fought Sarge? Perhaps you and some other people on this thread need to order a copy and have a look you think?

The revelations will shock many accustomed to the heroic image of American soldiers....

Yeah, like most of the Yanks on this thread it seems!

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/internat ... 31,00.html

[mjk428]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

mjk428-It's a true statement, even considering how graphic slasher films have gotten recently. The behavior of the Japanese military during WW2 was absolutely abominable. It will be no less abominable no matter how many acts of barbarity you point to committed by others.

What are you saying? Only the barbaric acts commited by the Japanese count? Those commited by the Allies don´t count no matter how many were commited? If that´s not what your saying is sure sounds an awful lot like it.

What I'm saying is what I already said. If you weren't so unhinged over this subject maybe you'd have understood it the first time. A billion atrocities committed by US Marines wouldn't make Doggie's statement any less accurate. It wouldn't make it "Yank flag waving" either.

Are you saying that the behavior of the Japanese military was not abominable in WW2? Go ahead and come right out and say it, child of Tojo, I know you want to. It's ultimately all FDR's fault. Those sanctions drove the Japanese to war and we all know war is hell. So lets just give them a free pass. That's your stance as far as I can tell. Problem is that's not going to fly.

[Hortlund]

ORIGINAL: mjk428
However, even in Western legal traditions there are components of collective guilt.

Recently we had a football star murdered in his home in Miami. Four people broke in. One person fired a gun and killed him. Four people are charged with his murder. They were all guilty of a crime, true - but only one committed murder. Charging them all with murder is an example of "collective guilt" in the legal process.*

LOL, where do you come up with this stuff? You are just making it up as you go, arent you? That all people who took part in the break-in are convicted of murder is not an example of collective guilt, the legal argument is that they all wilfully took part in the "original" crime (break-in), and therefore, they all have a responsibility in what happened next (murder).

For it to be an example of collective guilt, then all members of their gang would have to be convicted of murder aswell.

In fact, when you look at it like that, the situation becomes not unlike the one doggie advocates. Suppose the gang has 15 members, 4 are doing this break-in and subsequent murder while 11 are at home watching tv. Collective guilt would mean that all 15 members of the gang are equally guilty to the murder...because of their membership in the gang, and regardless of their individual actions.

I can fully understand why you are "anti" collective guilt. However, not even entertaining "the notion" that guilt can be collective just seems closed-minded to me. I don't see the notion as any kind of threat to our freedoms. Especially since it's already amongst us and by closing our eyes to it, we can only make its practice that much more a threat.

LOL priceless.

I've yet to hear Doggie say that all Japanese deserved to be butchered.

Then you need to re-read his posts. They were stinking savages that deserved to be butchered, and "they" did not refer only to the Japanese army, since the firebombings of Tokyo also taught "them" a lesson. Clearly an indication that he is refering to "the japanese" and not "the japanese army".

[Ike99]

Are you saying that the behavior of the Japanese military was not abominable in WW2? Go ahead and come right out and say it, child of Tojo, I know you want to.

Did I say that? I don´t think so. I said both sides did this type of stuff all the time. The war in the Pacific had heavy racial tones on both sides and as a result this was pretty much standard operating procedure.

So when I see comments like these...

Doggie-Too bad any movie that portrayed them as they really were would be worse than the most graphic slasher film imaginable.

Mr.Boats-Perhaps there should have been more scenes of Japanese soldiers torturing marines in the film.

Halsey-I actually started booing in the movie theatre when the Japanese commander wouldn't let his troops shoot the wounded Marine. He wanted to treat his wounds, and talk to him about the good ole days back in the USA. What a crock that was!

I like the record to be set straight that this was very much a two way street.

[mjk428]

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

LOL, where do you come up with this stuff? You are just making it up as you go, arent you? That all people who took part in the break-in are convicted of murder is not an example of collective guilt, the legal argument is that they all wilfully took part in the "original" crime (break-in), and therefore, they all have a responsibility in what happened next (murder).

For it to be an example of collective guilt, then all members of their gang would have to be convicted of murder aswell.

In fact, when you look at it like that, the situation becomes not unlike the one doggie advocates. Suppose the gang has 15 members, 4 are doing this break-in and subsequent murder while 11 are at home watching tv. Collective guilt would mean that all 15 members of the gang are equally guilty to the murder...because of their membership in the gang, and regardless of their individual actions.

Did I miss something. Has it been credibly reported that Sean Taylor's murder was gang related or is this just an assumption of yours based on a racist stereotype?

Wardlow's attorney, David Brener, distanced his client's actions from those of Rivera and said he expected to go to trial.

"I believe that the acts of Mr. Rivera, who was the shooter of this case, constitute an independent act," Brener said Wednesday. "My client never contemplated that Mr. Rivera was going to arm himself or use lethal force against Mr. Taylor."

Anyway, I "get this stuff" from attorney David Brener. He's arguing that his client's guilt should be judged independently. It seems he's willing to indulge the notion that Guilt is NOT always independent. Which is probably a good thing for his client.

I guess we can go at this the other way, if you'd prefer. Since every invading member of the Japanese military was guilty of trespassing, they all share the same guilt as those that committed war crimes. No collective guilt is in play. They're all condemned individually and equally.

Then you need to re-read his posts. They were stinking savages that deserved to be butchered, and "they" did not refer only to the Japanese army, since the firebombings of Tokyo also taught "them" a lesson. Clearly an indication that he is refering to "the japanese" and not "the japanese army".

So you take snippets from multiple posts from different days and then divine who "they" & "them" referred to in order to draw your conclusion. You cling to "there is no collective guilt" but completely ignore "innocent until proven guilty" & "beyond a reasonable doubt".

It just seems to me that Doggie should actually type those words before you get to put them in his mouth.