Doctors of Depravity

Daily Mail ^ | 3/2/07 | Christopher Hudson

[BIGLOOK]

Dinner time table banter?

Keep this in mind, Japanese soldiers held out to the last. Some much longer than you would believe. Their code was to fight and resist; to fail was shame upon themselves, their families and the Emperor. They took this code religiously.

http://www.wanpela.com/holdouts/registry.html

(some one can help me out on links....please.)

Whether there were reprisals and revenge actions by US forces is moot considering the mindset of the enemy. On Okinawa, the Japanese propaganda machine convinced the Okinawans that Americans were brutal marauders and urged them to commit suicide rather than capitulate. The fate of the civilians who flung themselves from cliffs holding their children is blood on Japanese hands.

The atrocities and and experimentations on humans conducted by both the Nazis and the Japanese were recorded as medical research data and saved for posterity.....and captured by the Allied Forces in both theaters. It was kept. The information held medical and forensic value....at the price of the horror in obtaining it.

Any one fishing for apologies should read history more carefully and examine closely their motives in condemning a free and responsible society.

[NewLand]

The firebomb raids killed far more civilians in Tokyo, Kyoto, etc.

We never dropped one bomb on Kyoto. You've been proven wrong again, narbo.

[MistrX]

Nevertheless, these examples pale in contrast to the unspeakable horrors forced upon the Abu-Graib prisoners who were forced to wear panties on their heads.

[SandRat]

Here you go,

http://www.wanpela.com/holdouts/registry.html

[NewLand]

I told NewLand I wanted the truth, and that's exactly what I want.

But until you find "your" truth, you accuse Americans of atrocities without any evidence.

There is nothing truthful about that. The many comments from others on this thread about your lack of evidence and your dubious agenda is overwhelming.

I had the same idealistic view of our soldiers that NewLand has

I have a patriotic view of our military, there is nothing idealistic about it. They are humans like anyone else and are prey to the real enemy. When anyone objectively looks at the incredible and unselfish accomplishments of the US military over the last 100 years, they would never feel the overwhelming need to make the kind of accusations you have.

But, I'm sure it made you feel good. That time is now over.

[Hattie]

Bush's fault.

[Valin]

I had a brother-in-law who was a sea-bee in WWII who always asked the same question. So many people here (america) don't know anything about this. The IJA was every bit as brutal as the SS

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

"bring in some extra fire power."

So you figuratively whistle to your posse or freepers who have similar ideas to you so that you can bully those with dissenting views to yours into submission?

How boorish.

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

narby seems to be in the extreme minority here. So what? Isn't he allowed to give his views about this?

He doesn't seem to be stating that the Japanese and American atrocities were the same--if that is the case, then that is a bit off. Although the American military and government didn't exactly view the Japanese people all that kindly, they didn't sanction atrocities mentioned in this article. In contrast, the Unit 731 and experimentation on civilians in surgeries, transfusions, temperature effects, and biological warfare were definitely government sanctioned. And were done to people specifically selected who were civilians (in comparison to the nuclear bombings which because of their power were bound to kill civilians, though both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets).

Yet on a soldier to soldier basis, there are bound to have been several American soldiers who did do atrocities to civilians in World War 2, even if such cases were much less than individual Japanese soldier atrocities.

That seems to be all that narby is stating, not that the United States in World War 2 did war crimes equal to those of Imperial Japan.

[metmom]

You apparently don't get it either. This thread was about the atrocities performed against humanity by the Japanese during WW!!. Narby comes on this thread in posts 38, 39, 70, etc. bringing in his comments about how *bad* the American soldiers were and supporting a Nazi sympathizer who's views and documentation of the war are at odds with everything else we hear (which is all government propaganda- sure).

This article wasn't about soldier to soldier atrocities on an individual level. It was about a whole program government ordered and carried out. Trying to make our soldiers look as bad as that because there may have been some that did things that weren't right, doesn't at all justify the attack on us trying to make the US look just as bad.

Like newland asked: "Just what is your point with this post?"

Just what is the point of bringing that up on a thread like this? Any grief he gets is his own making; he started it.

And what? We're not allowed to express our opinion either? He can spread uncorroborated reports by a nazi sympathizer as truth and we can't call him on it?

He brought this on himself. Too bad.

[ohioWfan]

Amen, metmom!

You have entirely missed the point here, Jedi.

narby made serious unsubstantiated accusations of our American troops with NO evidence except the words of a single anti-war, anti-American highly questionable source.

No one is saying he doesn't have the 'right' to speculate that our soldiers did what there is NO evidence to support, but there are many of us who question his motive for it, and where it's coming from.

John Kerry had the right to bash our troops and lie about them too, but that doesn't make it right, does it? Would you be defending John Kerry's 'right' to post about American 'atrocities' in Viet Nam based on one man's opinion alone? It seems as though you would.

I, for one, think that making unsupported accusations of our military on a conservative forum that is public is completely irresponsible, but if one does that, as narby has done (and then stubbornly clung to it as his 'evidence' is shot out of the water), then he should be treated as highly suspect and questioned as such.

metmom is right. He started it. He brought everything on himself. And he wouldn't let go even though he refused to give any evidence whatsoever of his false charges against brave men, most of whom are not alive to defend themselves.

[cubstoseries07]

Question for you Narby.

It must be hard on you to decide.

What is your favorite day in history? 12/7/41 or 9/11/01?

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

"charges against brave men, most of whom are not alive to defend themselves."

While you do have a point about that (the above quote), it is absurd to figure that all 20 million American soldiers were all proverbial "darling little angels." Note the use of ALL. You and others seem to have difficulty separating all from a few. narby did not seem to be bringing up charges against all American soldiers. There were bound to be a few soldiers who did barbaric things. The United States did not do nearly as heinous crimes as the Japanese Empire, but an American soldier 'a' surely did something as savage as a Japanese soldier 'b'

---

The same thing with the Haditha and Bacos things in the conflict in Iraq. WHILE THE ALLEGED ATROCITIES IN THOSE TWO CASES MIGHT NOT HAVE ACTUALLY HAPPENED, a lot of freepers (guessing you included) took questioning the few soldiers involved as an attack on all American soldiers and the entire war effort.

Such is not the case at all. If an organization, such as the American military, seeks to keep an honorable reputation for itself, then it should: disassociate itself from members who do bad things; castigate those members; and state that they did not support the bad thing that those members did. It definitely shouldn't sweep things under the rug or whistle into the air and turn its back and act as though those members didn't do anything bad. It even more definitely should not condone the actions of those members. To do such tacitly implies that that organization endorses the bad action, or even that the bad action is representative of the organization's values.

You remove malignant tumors from a body so that the cancer doesn't spread.

[ohioWfan]

While you do have a point about that (the above quote), it is absurd to figure that all 20 million American soldiers were all proverbial "darling little angels."

What a ridiculous statement. No one is even remotely implying such a thing. What a sorry attempt to change the subject and confuse the issue.

You need to go back and read this entire thread, starting with the article. You're very confused as to what's been said here.

I appreciate your loyal defense of narby, but I still want the answer to the question.....If John Kerry had the internet in 1973, would you support his 'right' to post here about atrocities committed by American soldiers in Viet Nam?

As for our current situation, you misjudge there as well (no surprise to me). Every misdeed done by an American soldier should be thoroughly investigated BY THE MILITARY, and those found guilty punished. And that is exactly what happens...........with no help from anonymous accusers (without evidence) on the internet.

The military polices itself far better than the civilian world does, and they know that violations of their very high standards are harmful.

But narby's motives are not likely as lofty as you suspect......though your loyalty to him is quite remarkable.

Would you have been so loyal to John Kerry's 'right' to smear our troops were it a different day and time and he was doing it right here on FR? I suspect you would.

[narby]

We never dropped one bomb on Kyoto. You've been proven wrong again, narbo.

No. But here are the percentages of other Japanese cities destroyed by non-nuclear bombing.

Yokohama - 58% destroyed

Tokyo - 51% destroyed

Toyama - 99%

Nagoya - 40%

Osaka - 35%

Nishinomiya - 11.9%

Siumonoseki - 37.6%

Kure - 41.9%

Kobe - 55.7%

Omuta - 35.8%

Wakayama - 50%

Kawasaki - 36.2%

Okayama - 68.9%

Yawata - 21.2%

Kagoshima 63.4%

Amagasaki - 18.9%

Sasebo - 41.4 %

Moh - 23.3 %

Miyakonoio - 26.5%

Nobeoka - 25.2%

Miyazaki - 26.1%

Hbe - 20.7%

Saga - 44.2%

Imabari - 63.9%

Matsuyama - 64%

Fukui - 86%

Tokushima - 85.2%

Sakai - 48.2%

Hachioji - 65%

Kumamoto - 31.2%

Isezaki - 56.7%

Takamatsu - 67.5%

Akashi - 50.2%

Fukuyama - 80.9%

Aomori - 30%

Okazaki - 32.2%

Oita - 28.2%

Hiratsuka - 48.4%

Tokuyama - 48.3%

Yokkichi - 33.6%

Uhyamada - 41.3%

Ogaki - 39.5%

Gifu - 63.6%

Shizuoka - 66.1%

Himeji - 49.4 %

Fukuoka - 24.1%

Kochi - 55.2%

Shimizu - 42 %

Omura - 33.1%

Chiba - 41%

Ichinomiya - 56.3%

Nara - 69.3%

Tsu - 69.3%

Kuwana - 75%

Toyohashi - 61.9%

Numazu - 42.3%

Chosi - 44.2%

Kofu - 78.6%

Utsunomiya - 43.7%

Mito - 68.9 %

Sendai - 21.9%

Tsuruga - 65.1%

Nagaoka - 64.9%

Hitachi - 72%

Kumagaya - 55.1%

Hamamatsu - 60.3%

Maebashi - 64.2%

I think that list makes up for my unfortunate pick of one of the very few major civilian population centers not seriously damaged by B-29 fire bomb raids.

My point still stands that what we were unwilling to do against the Germans, target civlians, were were quite happy to do against Japanese civlians. That our commanders would look the other way when our soldiers killed Japanese that tried to surrender in battle, as Lindbergh witnessed, is quite believable if we were willing to alter the rules of targeting Japanese civlian population centers on a massive scale.

And then came the nukes.

[narby]

What is your favorite day in history? 12/7/41 or 9/11/01?

Did you have a point?

[narby]

narby made serious unsubstantiated accusations of our American troops with NO evidence except the words of a single anti-war, anti-American highly questionable source.

Some anti-war American. A man who voluntarily went into battle while not in the military, who shot down and killed an enemy fighter pilot. A man who flew bombing raids under fire.

Yeah. I can see him carrying a protest sign now, singing kumbya.

[TAdams8591]

Neither could I.

[ohioWfan]

It's OK narby. It's OK to have admiration for people, even if they're anti-war, anti-Americans.

I'm actually glad to know that about you now.

Most of us Americans (conservatives, that is) prefer to choose pro-American heroes, but you're in good company on the left.

Good luck to you in finding corroboration for your anti-military propaganda.

Get back to us when some old veteran hero from the South Pacific backs up your accusations against him, OK?

[longtermmemmory]

bump