| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 04/13/2005 10:44:44 AM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Endless complaints. |
Posted on 12/31/2004 2:21:30 PM PST by Caipirabob
Insult? lol, in relation to the verbal on slots in here, that's a stunning compliment! :)
I am not in agreement with lining up innocent Iraqi civilians, but jihadic creeps, once captured, should be lined up and made to wear panties on their heads which would be an improvement over the used dishrags.
And I have two (that I know of) that fought for the Union during the Civil War, one of them getting his leg shot off. And I've seen them and all who fought for the north reviled on these threads as rapists, thieves, arsonists, mass murderers, as stooges and lackies of a tyrant who puts Stalin to shame. It's been implied that anyone who fought under the flag of the United States in that war was a fool who didn't understand the intent of the founders, that all they cared about was putting the south under their collective thumb and destroying individual liberties to create a modern proto-fascist state. That they fought to collect tariffs, that they fought because they hated southern Christian values, that they hated and feared blacks, that they just hated the south.
So you go ahead and honor your ancestors. Let them lie in their cemeteries under the Confederate flag. Hold your memorial services. I've got no problem with that. But don't expect me to accept that my ancestors, who answered the call of the United States in her time of peril, who fought and sacrificed under the Stars and Stripes, were evil or deluded.
So I assume that you consider Hiroshima and Nagasaki to be war crimes, no?
the last go-round UNARMED civilians (like MY family for example) and HELPLESS CSA POWs were "the most favored target" of the bluebellies, especially those persons of "minority" racial/religious groups, as it was certainly easier & MUCH SAFER than fighting the valiant, ARMED, "lads in gray".
free dixie,sw
Thanks for clearing up your viewpoint on the rest of the nation. Nobody in here would believe you actually had those sentiments. Arrogantly barfing!
And I am the 'illiterate' one? Try hitting the send button once, Gomer, or has the southern sun fried what remains of a brain?
Why do think you people lost the Civil War anyway? -- 'L o a d.. the ..c a n n o n, Clem '...(in slow motion)
As many as it took for them to realize that they have no right to rebel and commit treason.
the last go-round UNARMED civilians (like MY family for example) and HELPLESS CSA POWs were "the most favored target" of the bluebellies, especially those persons of "minority" racial/religious groups, as it was certainly easier & MUCH SAFER than fighting the valiant, ARMED, "lads in gray".
Confederate casualties of combatants outnumbered civilian casualties about 3-1. Again, your claims are not based on any facts.
the "rest of the nation" are NOT damnyankees. only the SELF-righteous, ARROGANT, IGNORANT HATERS & BIGOTS are DAMNyankees.
free dixie,sw
Kudos to them for their service.
And I've seen them and all who fought for the north reviled on these threads as rapists, thieves, arsonists, mass murderers, as stooges and lackies of a tyrant who puts Stalin to shame. It's been implied that anyone who fought under the flag of the United States in that war was a fool who didn't understand the intent of the founders, that all they cared about was putting the south under their collective thumb and destroying individual liberties to create a modern proto-fascist state. That they fought to collect tariffs, that they fought because they hated southern Christian values, that they hated and feared blacks, that they just hated the south.
I condemn the actions of the leaders, those that were responsible, those that knew it wrong to wage war on civilians. Fighting against the CSA was not dishonorable for those that answered the call of their country. Many a Union man served with honour, and I respect their service.
Knock it off & return to the real world before you go off the deep end 100%!
"mysteriously disappeared", as in CHILE,UKRAINE, POLAND & NICARUAGUA.
NOTE to ALL: remember the damnyankee coven of WAR CRIMINALS around lincoln, the TYRANT & shyster railroad lawyer, INVENTED the CONCENTRATION CAMP.
damnyankee "bummers" were REALLY good at burglary,rape,robbery,looting, murder & other WAR CRIMES.
free dixie,sw
I'll bet they're all on board the U-Boat in Galveston, next to the practical cotton harvester of the 1850s and the national headquarters of the KKK.
Source, please. The only numbers I was able to come up with was the 50K range I mentioned in my post.
The nuts are really out there today :)
Walt? Wlat? Is that you Walt?
I doubt my pickup cares, just a good example of the crap we've been putting up with for years, while someone new on the other side gets people wiped from the FR rolls for little or nothing at all.
Nope, it's your Aunt Sally from Selma. LOL
Yes, but it is a subjective call.
From Wikipedia regarding collateral damage and war crimes:
Collateral damage is the unintended damage to civilians and non-military property during war, either accidental or as a side effect of actions that do not violate the laws of war. Although the concept goes back at least to Thomas Aquinas, some feel the phrase is used these days as a cynical euphemism for civilian casualties. The term came into popular use among the general public during the 1991 Gulf War.
Regarding the deliberate targeting of civilian populations, by military or non-military personnel, see terrorism.
In war, there are in principle legitimate military targets and illegitimate civilian targets. If civilians or their property are affected, it is nevertheless not a war crime if a) that effect could not be foreseen or b) it could not be avoided and was minor in relation to the military objective. Clearly, because whether damage is collateral or not depends on judging internal states and what counts as minor, it can be difficult to judge in individual cases whether civilian loss was a war crime or collateral damage.
The intentional bombardment of Charleston civilians was clearly avoidable and thus a war crime by the definition above. The Feds aimed at the steeple of St. Michaels Church in a civilian area of town.
The Federal commander demanded in an unsigned note sent in the middle of the night that the Confederates surrender Morris Island and Fort Sumter or he would start bombarding civilians, which he did that same night at 1:30 AM. My interpretation is that he wanted to bomb Confederate civilians and set up the circumstances so that that would happen. This senseless and vindictive bombardment continued off and on for 18 months, long after Morris Island was in Federal hands.
Maybe selecting your friends with a tad more wisdom will avoid such vulgar human waste in the future. Could it be you actually relish such sordid associations?
The Days of Wine and Roses
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
