• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

ISIS brutaly murders Jordanian pilot. [W:119]

j-mac said:
touched a nerve? That's your whole game is it not? The depravity of some of your postings makes me thankful that America is large enough that I don't have to personally interact with you.
Click to expand...

That's your call buddy.
 
matchlight said:
The U.S. did not use napalm in the bombings of either of those cities. The district bombed in Tokyo in Spring, 1945 was heavily residential--but attached to many of those residences were workshops with lathes, presses, etc. These dual-purpose structures not only saved the time lost in commuting to and from a factory, but they also were easier to hide. They constituted a cottage industry that was making a significant volume of machine parts for Japan's military. That made them legitimate targets under the laws of war, as the people who set them up knew very well.

I see you are anxious, once again, to run down the United States. It's interesting that whether it is Japan and Germany in WWII or Islamic jihadists today, you seem less concerned with the welfare of this country than with that of its enemies.
Click to expand...

I bet MC loves the Jihadists more.
 
Montecresto said:
Match, you have no knowledge of the use of napalm bombs on civilian targets during WW11.

A napalm bombing campaign against Tokyo on March 9, 1945, killed an estimated 100,000 people and burned 15 square miles (39 square kilometers) of the city [source: Laney].

Napalm in World War II and Korea - HowStuffWorks

Napalm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

That's too bad, but if you can't stand the heat of Napalm, then don't start a war with the US. Japan drew first blood. Have you forgotten that? So what do you ascribe, it's alright for them to do it to us, but not alright for us to do it back?
 
Montecresto said:
Match! Pat yourself on the back all you wish for justifying the killing of innocent civilians, you have ample company in that enterprise.
Click to expand...

I think there are also millions of Americans who share your animosity toward their county. I'm glad whenever they expose their sentiments for other people to see. The Soviet Union has been dead for a long time now, and apparently many commies in the West still hold a grudge against the U.S. for helping put paid to it.
 
Montecresto said:
If it's ok for the Jordanian government to publicly burn two men alive, then why wasn't it ok for The Islamic State to do it? I think breaking the bottle that let these guys out was the greater crime.
Click to expand...

When did the Jordanian government publicly burn two men alive???
 
bicycleman said:
That's too bad, but if you can't stand the heat of Napalm, then don't start a war with the US. Japan drew first blood. Have you forgotten that? So what do you ascribe, it's alright for them to do it to us, but not alright for us to do it back?
Click to expand...

Jesus Christ dude! Besides the fact that your wrong about who drew first blood, your response is to drop nukes on children and women! You can go to the same place they were sent.
 
matchlight said:
I think there are also millions of Americans who share your animosity toward their county. I'm glad whenever they expose their sentiments for other people to see. The Soviet Union has been dead for a long time now, and apparently many commies in the West still hold a grudge against the U.S. for helping put paid to it.
Click to expand...

Poor baby.
 
DiAnna said:
When did the Jordanian government publicly burn two men alive???
Click to expand...

Why don't you look at the bull**** homie posted that I responded to before you jump in with dumb ****.
 
Montecresto said:
Why don't you look at the bull**** homie posted that I responded to before you jump in with dumb ****.
Click to expand...

In other words, you don't wish to answer my question. Understood. :lol:
 
DiAnna said:
In other words, you don't wish to answer my question. Understood. :lol:
Click to expand...

Not quite girl friend. IOW, you failed to read the post I was responding to and with egg on your face, you need a bath.
 
Montecresto said:
Not quite girl friend. IOW, you failed to read the post I was responding to and with egg on your face, you need a bath.
Click to expand...

I read it, and the way you worded your response confused me. I thought you were referring to the two individuals Jordan executed yesterday, saying they too were burned alive. If you had replied to me civilly, I would simply have thanked you for the clarification. But civil isn't really your forte, is it? :lol:
 
DA60 said:
I wonder what will happen if that ever happens to an American pilot?
Click to expand...

Probably depends on who is the president
 
DiAnna said:
I read it, and the way you worded your response confused me. I thought you were referring to the two individuals Jordan executed yesterday, saying they too were burned alive. If you had replied to me civilly, I would simply have thanked you for the clarification. But civil isn't really your forte, is it? :lol:
Click to expand...

A poster here suggested that Jordan should have burnt the two prisoners that they held alive, at the same time condemning the Islamic State for doing the same. Why didn't you read what I was responding to before assuming I was claiming something that I wasn't???????
 
TurtleDude said:
Probably depends on who is the president
Click to expand...

Whoever it is, a US president is not a king, and doesn't have the authority to yank folks off death row and publicly hang them the way the king serving a tribal nation can. Part of me says "more's the pity", but the rational part says we have an independent judiciary for a reason, lol!
 
Montecresto said:
A poster here suggested that Jordan should have burnt the two prisoners that they held alive, at the same time condemning the Islamic State for doing the same. Why didn't you read what I was responding to before assuming I was claiming something that I wasn't???????
Click to expand...

Why didn't you read the post you quoted of mine, in which I answered the very question you are asking? The topic of the thread is not me; I suggest we both return to discussing the Jordan/ISIS issue. But not with each other. :)
 
DiAnna said:
Whoever it is, a US president is not a king, and doesn't have the authority to yank folks off death row and publicly hang them the way the king serving a tribal nation can. Part of me says "more's the pity", but the rational part says we have an independent judiciary for a reason, lol!
Click to expand...

you are right-I was talking about a president sending in a military strike or a hunter-killer team
 
DiAnna said:
Why didn't you read the post you quoted of mine, in which I answered the very question you are asking? The topic of the thread is not me; I suggest we both return to discussing the Jordan/ISIS issue. But not with each other. :)
Click to expand...

You're the one who jumped in before looking, so return to whatever place you want!!!!!!!!!
 
Moderator's Warning:
Simmer down, people.
 
Montecresto said:
Jesus Christ dude! Besides the fact that your wrong about who drew first blood, your response is to drop nukes on children and women! You can go to the same place they were sent.
Click to expand...


Oh, so you're a student of rewritten history. So it was really America who started the war with Japan. Gee, I didn't know that. Please point me to the proof of that. Have you been reading Wikipedia again or was that Snopes?
 
bicycleman said:
Oh, so you're a student of rewritten history. So it was really America who started the war with Japan. Gee, I didn't know that. Please point me to the proof of that. Have you been reading Wikipedia again or was that Snopes?
Click to expand...

US support increased in mid-1941, with the clandestine formation of the 1st American Volunteer Group, better known as the "Flying Tigers." Equipped with US aircraft and American pilots the 1st AVG, under Colonel Claire Chennault, effectively defended the skies over China and Southeast Asia from late-1941 to mid-1942, downing 300 Japanese aircraft with a loss of only 12 of their own. In addition to military support, the US, Britain, and the Netherlands East Indies initiated oil and steel embargos against Japan in August 1941.
 
bicycleman said:
Oh, so you're a student of rewritten history. So it was really America who started the war with Japan. Gee, I didn't know that. Please point me to the proof of that. Have you been reading Wikipedia again or was that Snopes?
Click to expand...

It's not revisionist history. You should read the McCullom memo for starters, and then move on to the secretary of wars diaries that explicitly state FDR was waging an economic war against Japan, as well as placing naval vessels near Japanese waters, stating that he was willing to loose a couple ships to legitimise a declaration of war.

Whether or not you are of the opinion that the US should have confronted Japanese aggressions in the WestPac is a different debate. A Gallup poll in April of 1941 placed a whopping 80% of Americans against involvement in another world war, and just 20% in favor!!!!!!! After FDR's intrigue/provocation and Japan's response by attacking at PH, those numbers nicely reversed and FDR had his war!

The U.S. officially declared neutrality in what had become World War II, but President Roosevelt was under heavy pressure from the British to get involved. Roosevelt was also concerned that Japan may threaten U.S. interests in the Pacific. Thus, he explored ways in which the U.S. may intervene despite its neutrality status.

The main obstacle preventing Roosevelt from getting involved was the American public, which was overwhelmingly opposed to intervention. Most Americans remembered the flawed peace that came from the First World War and wanted no part of another. And 1940 was an election year, in which Roosevelt was seeking an unprecedented third term as president. While campaigning, he declared, “I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.”

So if Roosevelt was going to involve the U.S. in the conflict, he first needed to sway public opinion. One way to do this was to coax the potential enemy into attacking first.

In October 1940, Lieutenant Commander Arthur H. McCollum submitted a memorandum to his superiors. McCollum headed the Far East Asia section of the Office of Naval Intelligence, the forerunner to the Central Intelligence Agency. In what became known as the McCollum Memo, he listed eight steps the U.S. could to take to provoke Japan:

1 Use British military bases in the Pacific
2 Use supplies in the Dutch East Indies
3 Supply aid to China
4 Deploy warships to Asian ports
5 Deploy submarines to Asian ports
6 Build up naval strength at Pearl Harbor
7 Persuade the Dutch to refuse Japan’s requests for oil and other resources
8 Impose a trade embargo on Japan
 
Last edited:
DiAnna said:
Whoever it is, a US president is not a king, and doesn't have the authority to yank folks off death row and publicly hang them the way the king serving a tribal nation can. Part of me says "more's the pity", but the rational part says we have an independent judiciary for a reason, lol!
Click to expand...

It could be said that our present "king" has murdered American citizens abroad just because he didn't like their associations with terrorist groups.
 
Montecresto said:
It's not revisionist history. You should read the McCullom memo for starters, and then move on to the secretary of wars diaries that explicitly state FDR was waging an economic war against Japan, as well as placing naval vessels near Japanese waters, stating that he was willing to loose a couple ships to legitimise a declaration of war.

Whether or not you are of the opinion that the US should have confronted Japanese aggressions in the WestPac is a different debate. A Gallup poll in April of 1941 placed a whopping 80% of Americans against involvement in another world war, and just 20% in favor!!!!!!! After FDR's intrigue/provocation and Japan's response by attacking at PH, those numbers nicely reversed and FDR had his war!

The U.S. officially declared neutrality in what had become World War II, but President Roosevelt was under heavy pressure from the British to get involved. Roosevelt was also concerned that Japan may threaten U.S. interests in the Pacific. Thus, he explored ways in which the U.S. may intervene despite its neutrality status.

The main obstacle preventing Roosevelt from getting involved was the American public, which was overwhelmingly opposed to intervention. Most Americans remembered the flawed peace that came from the First World War and wanted no part of another. And 1940 was an election year, in which Roosevelt was seeking an unprecedented third term as president. While campaigning, he declared, “I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.”

So if Roosevelt was going to involve the U.S. in the conflict, he first needed to sway public opinion. One way to do this was to coax the potential enemy into attacking first.

In October 1940, Lieutenant Commander Arthur H. McCollum submitted a memorandum to his superiors. McCollum headed the Far East Asia section of the Office of Naval Intelligence, the forerunner to the Central Intelligence Agency. In what became known as the McCollum Memo, he listed eight steps the U.S. could to take to provoke Japan:

1 Use British military bases in the Pacific
2 Use supplies in the Dutch East Indies
3 Supply aid to China
4 Deploy warships to Asian ports
5 Deploy submarines to Asian ports
6 Build up naval strength at Pearl Harbor
7 Persuade the Dutch to refuse Japan’s requests for oil and other resources
8 Impose a trade embargo on Japan
Click to expand...

We have blockaded other countries, but none led to war. Might it be because Japan was allied with Germany and unwisely thought they could flex their muscles against what they thought a weaker country? Again, America did not draw first blood. A blockade is not first blood nor is it an attack. You need to go back to school or learn to read with some understanding before you copy and paste incorrect data.
 
Montecresto said:
It's not revisionist history. You should read the McCullom memo for starters, and then move on to the secretary of wars diaries that explicitly state FDR was waging an economic war against Japan, as well as placing naval vessels near Japanese waters, stating that he was willing to loose a couple ships to legitimise a declaration of war.

Whether or not you are of the opinion that the US should have confronted Japanese aggressions in the WestPac is a different debate. A Gallup poll in April of 1941 placed a whopping 80% of Americans against involvement in another world war, and just 20% in favor!!!!!!! After FDR's intrigue/provocation and Japan's response by attacking at PH, those numbers nicely reversed and FDR had his war!

The U.S. officially declared neutrality in what had become World War II, but President Roosevelt was under heavy pressure from the British to get involved. Roosevelt was also concerned that Japan may threaten U.S. interests in the Pacific. Thus, he explored ways in which the U.S. may intervene despite its neutrality status.

The main obstacle preventing Roosevelt from getting involved was the American public, which was overwhelmingly opposed to intervention. Most Americans remembered the flawed peace that came from the First World War and wanted no part of another. And 1940 was an election year, in which Roosevelt was seeking an unprecedented third term as president. While campaigning, he declared, “I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.”

So if Roosevelt was going to involve the U.S. in the conflict, he first needed to sway public opinion. One way to do this was to coax the potential enemy into attacking first.

In October 1940, Lieutenant Commander Arthur H. McCollum submitted a memorandum to his superiors. McCollum headed the Far East Asia section of the Office of Naval Intelligence, the forerunner to the Central Intelligence Agency. In what became known as the McCollum Memo, he listed eight steps the U.S. could to take to provoke Japan:

1 Use British military bases in the Pacific
2 Use supplies in the Dutch East Indies
3 Supply aid to China
4 Deploy warships to Asian ports
5 Deploy submarines to Asian ports
6 Build up naval strength at Pearl Harbor
7 Persuade the Dutch to refuse Japan’s requests for oil and other resources
8 Impose a trade embargo on Japan
Click to expand...

I always get a kick out of the left, who constantly accuses America of being an imperialistic nation always trying to take over other countries under the guise of bringing democracy to them. America froze Japanese assets because of the Japanese imperialistic expansion into Indochina. I suppose in your ideas it is okay for every other country to be imperialistic and take over weaker countries. I guarantee you, Japan was not bringing democracy to Indochina, nor was it seeking the betterment of Indochinese. Far from it. Talk about imperialism, Japan was full of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom