Comments on: The Anti-Economics of “Freedom Fondles”

By: Beefcake the Mighty

Beefcake the Mighty — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 11:59:01 +0000

Are you referring to an event before the bombing of London in September of 1940? Because the British began bombing German cities in May 1940.

If I misattributed to you support of the atomic bombings in Japan, then I apologize. And the firebombing of Tokyo should absolutely be condemned, but that wasn’t the focus of Raico’s article.

By: Walt D.

Walt D. — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 06:15:59 +0000

““tit for tat”? You’re aware that the British initiated the bombing of civilian centers in Germany in 1940, yes?” Yes – Germany tried to bomb the oil refineries outside of London, some of the planes went off course and the bombs fell in the East End of London, killing civilians. Churchill ordered retaliation bombing of Berlin. I seem to recall that aerial bombing was against “the rules of war” precisely for the reason that it would be almost impossible to do so without hitting civilian targets. “And the bland dismissal of Dresden as an experiment in fire storming manages to top your comment about Nagasaki on the other thread.” I’ve already said that I considered the fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo to be war crimes. Your reference source did not pick up on why Dresden was fire bombed. My comment about Nagasaki was meant to indicate that the purpose of dropping the bomb was not to intentionally target civilian areas, as stated in the article – if they had wanted to target civilian areas they would have targeted Tokyo or Kyoto. My point again was not that it was OK to bomb Hiroshima an Nagasaki, but that it was ridiculous to condemn these actions without also condemning the fire bombing of Tokyo (and Dresden) that unequivocally targeted civilian areas and caused more casualties. Note that you reference rightly condemns all bombings of civilians targets – he does not make a distinction based on what type of explosive was used.

By: Beefcake the Mighty

Beefcake the Mighty — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 03:31:37 +0000

“tit for tat”? You’re aware that the British initiated the bombing of civilian centers in Germany in 1940, yes?

And the bland dismissal of Dresden as an experiment in fire storming manages to top your comment about Nagasaki on the other thread.

By: Walt D.

Walt D. — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 03:13:41 +0000

“Beefcake the Mighty :
Advance to Barbarism is well-worth reading:”
This is a good read.
A couple of points.
1) Why did the RAF bomb civilian as opposed to military target?
a) When bombing at night, most of the bombs missed their targets.
b) When bombing military targets during the day , they were losing too many planes.
c) They could target civilian non-military targets during the day without running into anti-aircraft fire or the Luftwaffe.
The reason they did not want this strategy revealed as such is because it would have been perceived as cowardice. Since civilian areas had been bombed in England, the moral aspect was justified as “tit for tat” and this would have been acceptable to the British public.
2) The bombing of Dresden had an ulterior motive. In the center of Dresden, there were a large number of people living in wooden buildings. The purpose of the bombing was an experiment to see whether or not massive aerial bombing could cause a fire storm – which is what it did. This was done as a “proof of principle” prelude to the fire bombing of Tokyo, that took place a few weeks later.

By: Walt D.

Walt D. — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 00:32:02 +0000

Why not let Hugh Hefner or Hooters take over airport security.If you are going to be groped, at least you out to have a choice as to who is going to grope you.
The purpose of groping , is groping

By: Beefcake the Mighty

Beefcake the Mighty — Sat, 27 Nov 2010 03:57:49 +0000

Advance to Barbarism is well-worth reading:

http://www.aaargh.codoh.info/fran/livres10/VEALAdvance.pdf

By: newson

newson — Sat, 27 Nov 2010 03:49:26 +0000

“The designation and definition by the London Charter of the so-called crimes with which the defendants were charged, after such so-called offenses were committed, clearly violated the well-established rule against ex post facto legislation in criminal matters. The generally accepted doctrine is expressed in the adage: “Nullum Crimen Sine Lege” – a person cannot be sentenced to punishment for a crime unless he had infringed a law in force at the time he committed the offense and unless that law prescribed the penalty. Courts in passing on this proposition had declared that: “It is to be observed that this maxim is not a limitation of sovereignty, but is a general principle of justice adhered to by all civilized nations.” In my opinion, there was no legal justification for the trial, conviction or sentence of the so-called “war criminals” by the Nuremberg Tribunal. We have set a bad precedent. It should not be followed in the future.”

William L. Hart, Justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Doenitz at Nuremberg, a Reappraisal: War Crimes and the Military Professional .Henry Strutz , Harold Keith Thompson. p.xx.

By: newson

newson — Sat, 27 Nov 2010 03:36:26 +0000

it gets better though, check out his plaque:

http://www.ipernity.com/doc/phillprice/1886099/

By: Beefcake the Mighty

Beefcake the Mighty — Sat, 27 Nov 2010 03:32:20 +0000

Yes, lovely indeed. Apart from the love and affection he showered on German civilians, I believe his own RAF nicknamed him “Butcher” (less well-known than his well-deserved “Bomber” nickname) for his lack of concern over *British* casaulties.

By: Capt Mike

Capt Mike — Sat, 27 Nov 2010 03:16:51 +0000

You’re right. Welcome to Haiti, U.S. style.

By: newson

newson — Sat, 27 Nov 2010 03:06:04 +0000

to beefcake the mighty:

“bomber” harris got himself cast in bronze at stands proudly in london.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/27623927@N00/2074533518/

By: newson

newson — Sat, 27 Nov 2010 02:27:55 +0000

incidentally, 38 us airmen signed “confessions” whilst enjoying the pleasures of communist north korea, during the korean war. sworn admissions of have used bacteriological agents to poison korean civilians. of course, they were only following orders, and so were eventually released. not surprisingly, they retracted their confessions when finally repatriated.

By: newson

newson — Sat, 27 Nov 2010 02:18:14 +0000

what’s “common knowledge of nuremburg”? i’d hazard a guess: zero.

By: newson

newson — Sat, 27 Nov 2010 02:03:29 +0000

presiding judge nikitchenko, even before the opening of the trial:

“We are dealing here with the chief war criminals who have already been convicted and whose conviction has been already announced by both the Moscow and Crimea [Yalta] declarations by the heads of the [Allied] governments… The whole idea is to secure quick and just punishment for the crime…The fact that the Nazi leaders are criminals has already been established. The task of the Tribunal is only to determine the measure of guilt of each particular person and mete out the necessary punishment…”

so let’s not be too surprised when defendants decided that sentence mitigation and not repudiation of the charges was the smart way to play. “just following orders” gave the prosecution what they were going to get by hook or by crook, but gave the accused a chance of downplaying their own individual role, potentially avoiding a death sentence.

By: BioTube

BioTube — Sat, 27 Nov 2010 01:50:37 +0000

Take the intersection of people who accept the “just following orders” excuse and those who believe the common knowledge of Nuremburg. Note that it’s nowhere near zero.

By: newson

newson — Sat, 27 Nov 2010 01:00:43 +0000

as for targeting civilian objectives: my father fire-bombed dresden, and he got a dfc and a veteran’s pension! a special hello to kurt vonnegut.

By: newson

newson — Sat, 27 Nov 2010 00:55:30 +0000

by the way, the french version doesn’t even perfectly match the german. oops! where’s my phraselator?

By: newson

newson — Sat, 27 Nov 2010 00:48:18 +0000

unfortunately, the “serious” accusations aired in that august tribunal – the regime steaming thousands of people alive, conducting mass electrocutions with some infernal grid, as well as having pedal-powered skull-crushing machines – all this has been forgotten.that people use nuremburg as some sort of touchstone for due process and natural justice is just testimony to how much better our propaganda is than theirs. edward bernays prevailed, and leni riefenstahl re-invented herself as a photographer of nubians.

By: Beefcake the Mighty

Beefcake the Mighty — Sat, 27 Nov 2010 00:27:36 +0000

I seem to recall (I may be mistaken here) that the Germans were NOT accused of bombing civilian centers. I wonder why.

By: newson

newson — Sat, 27 Nov 2010 00:21:30 +0000

nuremburg was a farce. a little homework will reveal the travesty of justice it really was. forged documents, outrageous “witness” statements and hearsay allowed without examination by defense counsel, erroneous translations, and copies of copies of “original” documents furnished as evidence. torture and blackmail of defendants, and credence given to subsequent “confessions”.

the judge representing the ussr had been chief prosecutor in some of the most illustrious of stalin’s show trials. i won’t even get into the make-up of the american component to the trials. suffice to say, it was composed of people who had very personal reasons to hate germans.

allied propaganda is still propaganda. and victors’ justice is not to be confused with natural justice.