Thread: Hiroshima and Nagasaki: 62 years

Originally Posted by gunnut

Great...another self-proclaimed intellectual, AKA useful idiot from the European liberal left, trying to teach us about history of warfare.

I swear, the liberals will be the death of western civilization.

They're trying as hard as they can to kill it.

Originally Posted by wabpilot

I would disagree with that. He had no decision making power with regard to the decision to go to war, or not.

I think you are mistaking his earlier position, Vice Minister for the Navy for his wartime position, Commander-In-Chief of the Fleet. As CInC Fleet, he was a subordinate commander to the Chief of Staff and the person who held his old job, Vice Minister, not to mention the War Minister/Prime Minister. Not every officer reported to Yamamoto, just those in the fleet. To be fair, as Vice Minister, Yamamoto had opposed the war in Manchuria and opposed war with the US. That cost him his ministry and nearly his life. It's hard to consider him a war criminal based on opposition to the war.

Knowing and having control of what went on in the POW camps are two very different issues. I do not know of enough evidence that as CInC Fleet Yamamto had the requisite control. A trial would have afforded the allies the opportunity to prove those facts and afforded Yamamoto the opportunity to dispute them. If you know of evidence that tends to prove Yamamoto had knew what was going on in the POW camps, and had control over them, bring it forward. And don't say "google it". Having made the charge, you have to prove it.

He may not have been a perfect admiral. None of them has been. That doesn't make him a war criminal.

"And don't say "google it". Having made the charge, you have to prove it."

*First off chief this isint my first rodeo. If you havent figured that out due to my amount of posts ...I do my home work. Now on to Yamamoto.

Yamamoto was appointed CinC Combined Fleet in 1939. This meant that all IJN ships in the Pacific at the time reported to him.

1941 Attack on Pearl Harbor. This plan was orchestrated by none other then Yamamoto. The fact that he had attacked Pearl Harbor before the intended paperwork was recieved in Washington is a moot point but a point none the less 2,403 U.S. service men perished without even a chance. That in itself makes him a war criminal.

1942 Midways attack. Nagumo and Kondo were to lead these forces under Yamamotos direction and plan of attack. Now all commanders (Admirals/Vice) are responsible for their actions their captains,officers and crew and those of ships that are contained in a strike/battlegroup. In other words Nagumo and Kondo both report to Yamamoto somewhere up the tree of command making their actions his responsibility. No we shall list a few war crimes during this time outside of Pearls attack.

*1) On the morning of 4 June 1942, Lieutenant Commander Lance E. Massey led a strike by twelve TBD torpedo bombers from USS Yorktown's VT-3 squadron against the Japanese fleet carrier Soryu. Ensign Wesley Osmus was the pilot of one of these torpedo bombers, and his radio-gunner was Benjamin R Dodson, Jnr. While still about 14 miles (22 km) from the Japanese carriers, VT-3 came under sustained attack from defending Japanese Zero fighters. The TBD of Ensign Osmus was the last aircraft in the American formation, and his aircraft was the first to be hit. When his fuel tank exploded in flames, Osmus bailed out. Dodson did not follow. The radio-gunner was either dead or badly wounded and went down with the blazing aircraft.

Ensign Osmus was plucked from the sea by the Japanese destroyer Arashi. After interrogating the pilot, the Japanese murdered him and dumped his body in the sea.

The murder of Ensign Osmus came to light after the Japanese surrender when the US Navy gained access to the Battle of Midway action report produced by Vice Admiral Chuichi Nagumo after the battle. The circumstances of the young pilot's death while on board Arashi were then investigated as a possible war crime. The Japanese police produced to war crimes investigators the names of Japanese who had been serving in Arashi at the time of the Battle of Midway. American investigators then questioned these crew members who were still alive. This questioning confirmed that Ensign Osmus had been rescued from the sea by Arashi and interrogated. Later that same day, the commander of Arashi gave the order for Osmus to be executed. This order was passed to Chief Sato. Osmus was taken to the stern of the destroyer and thrown overboard, but he managed to grab the chain railing. A fire axe was then fetched and employed to complete the murder of the young pilot whose body fell into the sea.

BOMBING AND SINKING OF HOSPITAL SHIPS
The dive-bombing of the Hospital Ship Manunda
Just before 10.00 am on 19 February 1942, Australia's northern port of Darwin was bombed by Japanese aircraft launched from Vice Admiral Chuichi Nagumo's carriers. The hospital ship Manunda was in Darwin harbour at the time of the Japanese air raid, and one dive-bomber attacked and bombed the hospital ship. There can be no doubt that this attack was deliberate. The hospital ship was painted white and was clearly marked with large red crosses. Nurses, medical staff, and crew were killed and injured in this barbarous attack on a hospital ship.

The sinking of the Hospital Ship "Centaur" by a Japanese submarine
On the night of 14 May 1943, the Australian hospital ship Centaur was steaming north, off the eastern coast of Australia, when it was struck by a torpedo fired from the Japanese submarine I-177. The ship exploded and sank within three minutes. No radio distress call was able to be sent out, and the survivors clung to rafts and debris for thirty hours before they were rescued by the destroyer USS Mugford. During that thirty hour ordeal, the survivors were repeatedly attacked by sharks. One survivor, who was interviewed on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of this atrocity, described how his dreams have been haunted by the screams of survivors as sharks dragged them beneath the water. Two hundred and sixty-eight crew members, doctors, nurses, and other medical personnel died. Only sixty-four survivors were rescued, including one nurse.

At the time when the Japanese sank this hospital ship it was painted white with several large red crosses prominently displayed along each side and on the funnel. The ship was lit up like a Christmas tree, with bright lights illuminating her white sides and all of the red crosses. In accordance with the relevant Geneva Convention, Centaur's description as a hospital ship with protected status had been supplied to Japan at the time of her conversion from merchant ship. Prime Minister John Curtin denounced the attack on a clearly marked hospital ship as "barbarous". In conformity with an established pattern of denial of atrocities, the Japanese government denied responsibility for sinking the Centaur at the time, and continued denying responsibility until 1979 when the commander of the submarine had died.

MURDER OF SURVIVORS OF MERCHANT SHIPS SUNK BY THE JAPANESE
On 20 March 1943, the commander of the Japanese First Submarine Force at Truk issued an order to all of his submarine commanders to murder all crew members of merchant ships after their ships had been sunk and relevant information obtained. This order to murder survivors of merchant vessels had been officially sanctioned and prescribed at the highest level of the Imperial Japanese Navy, and indeed, it emanated from the Japanese government itself.
Japanese schoolchildren are not permitted to learn from their history books or other official sources that, from early 1943, Japanese submarine crews routinely murdered all survivors of merchant ships sunk by them. Lifeboats were machine-gunned and rammed, and survivors in the water were machine-gunned.

Sixty survivors of the American merchant ship SS Jean Nicolet were taken aboard the Japanese submarine that torpedoed their ship in the Indian Ocean. They were brutally beaten and stabbed repeatedly on the deck of the submarine before their bloodied bodies were thrown into the shark-infested sea. Under the circumstances, it is astonishing that a handful of Americans reached their sinking ship and survived to bear witness to this atrocity. The Japanese government denied that its navy was responsible for this atrocity.

The order to murder survivors of merchant ships extended beyond the submarine service to Japanese surface warships. Following a sortie by the heavy cruisers Aoba, Chikuma and Tone into the Indian Ocean in February 1944 for the purpose of disrupting Allied merchant shipping, seventy-two merchant seamen were taken aboard Tone from MV Behar and murdered by command of Vice Admiral Sakonju. Sakonju was executed as a war criminal in 1947 for this atrocity. Vice-Admiral Sakonju pleaded in vain that the order to murder survivors of merchant ships had come from the highest level of the Imperial Japanese Navy.

An interesting aspect of the war crimes of the Imperial Japanese Navy is that Japan's "hero" of Pearl Harbor, Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, might well have found himself charged as a war criminal in respect of the officially sanctioned murders of Allied merchant seamen if he had survived the war. His culpability in respect of the murders of American aircrew at Midway might have been more difficult to prove.

Note the names of these ships and which Admiral, Vice Admiral was in command of any of the strike groups. All answered to Yamamoto as CinC Combined Fleet until his death in 43.

And as far as him dying a nobel death...He died quaking in his shoes screaming for mercy while plummeting to the jungle below half shot to peices knowing that the superb "Japanese Naval Doctrin of surprise" that he so inspired had infact been used to seal his own fate as his tranmissions days before would bring about an American strike.

My statement still stands as in commander in chief combine fleet those Admirals/Vice Admirals still answered to him until his death. Therefore he and his officers responsible for war crimes beyond doubt. It doesnt matter how many died the fact remains they died under his command therefore he had well known what was going on in his fleet and what would happen to those prisoners.

Japanse POW camps were prodominately ran by the Army. However Japanese naval prisoners were sent to some of the most ruthless POW camps that existed that is if they werent murdered and dumped at sea.

The above is just a drop in the bucket of the way the IJN controlled itself.

Yamamoto and the officers under his command had resonsibility for what happened aboard his ships and played an inticate part in all war planning up until his death. This fact is undisputable. He was certainly a war criminal.

If I may and pardon the intrusion ...

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Yamamoto was appointed CinC Combined Fleet in 1939. This meant that all IJN ships in the Pacific at the time reported to him. .

... Admiral Nagona - to be promoted to Admiral of the Fleet in '43 - was the chief of naval staff and he (Nagona) held the highest military position in the IJN. The Combined Fleet was not the only fleet operating as part of the IJN: there was also the China Area Fleet under koga. Yamamoto was a subordinate of the Nagona. More like the relationship between the Admiral Stark (CNO) and Admiral Kimmel (CINC-US-FLEET).

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

In other words Nagumo and Kondo both report to Yamamoto somewhere up the tree of command making their actions his responsibility..

True ... the 1st Air Fleet and the battleship forces (Kondo) were under Combined Fleet HQ. and so was Takahashi's 4th fleet, the 6th fleet (submarine) and the 8th fleet under Muakawa.

Originally Posted by xerxes

If I may and pardon the intrusion ...



... Admiral Nagona - to be promoted to Admiral of the Fleet in '43 - was the chief of naval staff and he (Nagona) held the highest military position in the IJN. The Combined Fleet was not the only fleet operating as part of the IJN: there was also the China Area Fleet under koga. Yamamoto was a subordinate of the Nagona. More like the relationship between the Admiral Stark (CNO) and Admiral Kimmel (CINC-US-FLEET).

*Agreed, He (or other will have to check) was appointed after Japan finally announced Yamamotos death approximately 1 month later then actual in April of 1943.

True ... the 1st Air Fleet and the battleship forces (Kondo) were under Combined Fleet HQ. and so was Takahashi's 4th fleet, the 6th fleet (submarine) and the 8th fleet under Muakawa.

* According to most books I have read (will list if need be) the Japanese naval officers held Yamamoto in very high esteem although they believed his war plans to be flawed with no room for improvisation ergo no flexability built into a very rigid timeframe/schedule. His entire Midway plan was based upon wargames being played out in Japan in the months prior to the engagment. Therefore being Cinc of Combined Fleet (All of the "heavies" carriers,battleships and most cruisers/destroyers) nothing would have happened onboard these ships of Combined fleet without his prior consent an or knowledge.

There is no doubt in my mind that the chain of command would have held him responsible had he lived to see the end of WWII.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

* According to most books I have read (will list if need be) the Japanese naval officers held Yamamoto in very high esteem although they believed his war plans to be flawed with no room for improvisation ergo no flexability built into a very rigid timeframe/schedule. His entire Midway plan was based upon wargames being played out in Japan in the months prior to the engagment. Therefore being Cinc of Combined Fleet (All of the "heavies" carriers,battleships and most cruisers/destroyers) nothing would have happened onboard these ships of Combined fleet without his prior consent an or knowledge.

There is no doubt in my mind that the chain of command would have held him responsible had he lived to see the end of WWII.

point A- (warcrimes allegations of highest level)

I understand your view and I am aware of Combined Fleet jurisdiction, but let me ask you this ... which man has the ultimate responsibility if there were allegations of warcrimes in the highest levels of the US Navy:

the C-in-C of the Fleet (Adm Kimmel) or the CNO (Adm Stark)?


point B- (warcrimes allegations of subordinate level)

also, in the US Navy, while Kimmel was the C-in-C of the US Fleet he also held the position of CINCPAC, it is well known that he (kimmel) held more control of the forces of the Pacific Fleet - understandebly. Whereas he did not have very close control over the Manila-based Asiatic Fleet and the Atlantic force, eventhough by definition he was the C-in-C of the US Fleet.

If you look at the Japanese naval hierachy, certain similirities exist: Yamamoto who was the head of the Combined Fleet also personnally commanded the 1st fleet and the 1st battleship division within that fleet. Just like - lets say - Kimmel (C-in-C of the Fleet) cant be held responsbile for warcrimes allegation within the Asiatic Fleet, nor can Yamamoto be held responbile for the actions of Kondo, Takahashi, Mikawa or Naguma.

Final point- all the naval Japanese garrisons were outside the jurisdiction of the Combined Fleet HQ, and were under the seperate parallel branch along with China Area Fleet and Combined Fleet that reported directly to Admiral Nagona - the chief of naval staff.

regards

Wabpilot/Dreadnought/xerxes,

Sorry for my intrusion.

I think that if you want to debate about the war criminals of Japan, comparing to Yamamoto, there are more evidences to indicate that the Japanese emperor Hirohito is a true war criminal.

Based on Japanese constitution, Hirohito was the supreme commander of Japan's military. He should be responsible for the war crimes committed by Japanese army.

The Imperial General Headquarters was established inside the Imperial Palace at that time. Hirohito directly participated or was informed the plans of all important Japanese military aggression, including invading China, Pearl Harbor and South East Asia countries. It was him that gave the final “GO” permissions. Hence, he should be responsible for the war crimes related to starting every of these aggressions.

He was the only guy who could stop the Japanese war machine and let Japan surrender before atomic bombing. But he failed to do so. Therefore, he is the one who had the largest responsibility for the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Because Hirohito was exempted from the war criminal trail, Japanese as a whole didn’t totally realize the crimes of the Japanese imperial army committed to their victims.

In fact, many of them feel proud about that period of history and today the right wing groups in Japan is getting some popularity. More and more people dressing in the Japanese imperial army uniform or neo-fascist uniform go to visit Yasukuni Shrine each year. Shinzo Abe got overwhelming support to visit Yasukuni Shrine.

In 1978, 14 convicted class A WWII war criminals were secretly enshrined as "Martyrs in Yasukuni Shrine.

Check the people from the Japanese right wing group praying in Yasukuni Shrine:
Kirainet.com - A geek in Japan — Yasukuni shrine

Shrine’s version of World War II casts Japan in positive light | TheNewsTribune.com | Tacoma, WA

Japan Today - Features - Yasukuni a battleground in Japan's struggle for self-identity

CNN online poll: 98% think it is appropriate for Shinzo Abe to visit Yasukuni Shrine : Japan Probe

Originally Posted by xerxes

point A- (warcrimes allegations of highest level)

I understand your view and I am aware of Combined Fleet jurisdiction, but let me ask you this ... which man has the ultimate responsibility if there were allegations of warcrimes in the highest levels of the US Navy:

the C-in-C of the Fleet (Adm Kimmel) or the CNO (Adm Stark)?

*It would fall upon Commander of said fleet. Beit a surface combatant or other. In the end it all follows the chain of command up to and including the next level of command. If they were sailing under the flag of the CinC or his subordonate it's his game and his responsibility ultimately.No matter the cost. He would answer for any high seas crime and or insubordonate act such as murder commited upon his ships or other such atrocities.

*There were many war crimes commited under Yamamtotos nose and with his full knowledge wether he chose to recognize this or not. In any good chain of command the head allows his officers to apply themselves as best they see fit often assuming they will follow doctrine, written laws of engagement and a moral compass without his intersession. These are his officers and they are the very support to his command and as such they are fully expected to present themselves and conduct themselves in such manner at all times or naval doctrine goes out the window.


point B- (warcrimes allegations of subordinate level)

also, in the US Navy, while Kimmel was the C-in-C of the US Fleet he also held the position of CINCPAC, it is well known that he (kimmel) held more control of the forces of the Pacific Fleet - understandebly. Whereas he did not have very close control over the Manila-based Asiatic Fleet and the Atlantic force, eventhough by definition he was the C-in-C of the US Fleet.

If you look at the Japanese naval hierachy, certain similirities exist: Yamamoto who was the head of the Combined Fleet also personnally commanded the 1st fleet and the 1st battleship division within that fleet. Just like - lets say - Kimmel (C-in-C of the Fleet) cant be held responsbile for warcrimes allegation within the Asiatic Fleet, nor can Yamamoto be held responbile for the actions of Kondo, Takahashi, Mikawa or Naguma.

Final point- all the naval Japanese garrisons were outside the jurisdiction of the Combined Fleet HQ, and were under the seperate parallel branch along with China Area Fleet and Combined Fleet that reported directly to Admiral Nagona - the chief of naval staff.

*This is true. However the IJN when they took prisoners if they took prisoners would drop them on Palawan within the Phillipines chain. This was a known place of no return. Im sure if you read about it you would surely agree. The Japanese were well aware of how any prisoners were treated once they were picked out of the water. Many never made it back to land ever again. Hundreds perhaps thousands were know to have been tortured killed and incinerated on Palawan.

regards

*IMO Yamamoto would have stood trial for warcrimes. He would have had to answer for what happened in the fleet while it was under his watch. A very simular case was the Nurenburg trials. If you noticed the "head" was held resposible as far as their chain of command went. You didnt see any uboat captains, cruiser,battlecruiser,destroyer etc. You only saw the head stand trial such as Doenitz.

I offer this comparison,

Doenitz stood trial however since he had no idea Hitler contenplated war so early that he was found not guilty of some charges but guilty of others.

*Doenitz became Commander-in-Chief of the German Navy in 1943 but the evidence does not show he knew of Hitler’s plans
to initiate war. He did have the U-boat arm of the Navy prepared for war, however, and was solely in charge of this area of
the military. While in control of the U-boats, Doenitz allowed them to sink all merchant ships, regardless of the ships were
enemy or neutral. In 1944 he ordered 12,000 concentration camp prisoners to be employed in the shipyards for additional
labor. He is ultimately unsure if this order was carried out as Doenitz was not in charge of the shipyards, but it does offer
evidence of his knowledge of the concentration camps’ existence

Yamamoto certainly had the fleet and airwing ready for a war that he knew was coming in fact he was asked to plan for it and initiate well ahead of time (Primary Naval Doctrine for the IJN stressed the element of surprise.) along with the rest of Japans forces. And was in charge of the fleet that would render the attack on Pearl Harbor (CV's BB's). Initiating a war by means of sneek attack on a fleet lying thousands of miles away from Japan at anchor and without any warning for which we lost approximately 2,400 men,women. civies.

Yamamoto as Combined Fleet command would be held responsible for anything that happened on his ships under his command at that time as surely as Doenitz was no question about it. Doenitz recieved 10 years for only the charges described above and that is leaving out what happened aboard his (Yamamotos) ships. He would have recieved punishment for the attack on Pearl alone and then they would have added to for what happened under his chain of command in that time period.

Since Yamamoto was dead in April of 1943 the next replacement that followed would have answered for such things as the hell ships and several other atrocities that happend at sea, outside of Geneava convention and against any moral laws known to us.

I rest my case IMO there is no doubt he was a war criminal and anything to suggest less we better start choosing the points to be made and get out the books.

In closing I refer to this document. Stating specific criteria about the charges Yamamto would have faced along with his collegues. I refer to count 7. This is a 45 page document and I didnt want to p off the WAB management with excessive posting.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

*IMO Yamamoto would have stood trial for warcrimes. He would have had to answer for what happened in the fleet while it was under his watch. A very simular case was the Nurenburg trials. If you noticed the "head" was held resposible as far as their chain of command went. You didnt see any uboat captains, cruiser,battlecruiser,destroyer etc. You only saw the head stand trial such as Doenitz.

Hello dreadnought,

I agree with you that Yamamoto should stand trial for anything regarding the treatment of captured prisonners of war in the Fleet, because, he commanded the Combined Fleet. That being said Karl Donitz was the head of the Navy, whereas Yamamoto was not. Fleet Admiral Nagona was. Therefore, his trial should have been solely related to the POW treatments and outside the scope of "conspiracy to wage war" that was presented in the Tokyo '47 Trials. Because for good or ill, Yamamoto was a soldier and patriot, and no different then Westmoreland or Tommy Franks.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Yamamoto certainly had the fleet and airwing ready for a war that he knew was coming in fact he was asked to plan for it and initiate well ahead of time (Primary Naval Doctrine for the IJN stressed the element of surprise.) along with the rest of Japans forces. And was in charge of the fleet that would render the attack on Pearl Harbor (CV's BB's). Initiating a war by means of sneek attack on a fleet lying thousands of miles away from Japan at anchor and without any warning for which we lost approximately 2,400 men,women. civies.Yamamoto as Combined Fleet command would be held responsible for anything that happened on his ships under his command at that time as surely as Doenitz was no question about it. Doenitz recieved 10 years for only the charges described above and that is leaving out what happened aboard his (Yamamotos) ships. He would have recieved punishment for the attack on Pearl alone and then they would have added to for what happened under his chain of command in that time period.

Again, the sneak attack maybe look cowrdly, but nevertheless Yamamoto did his job as a soldier. Samegoes for Moshe Dayan of Israel. Samegoes for the Operation Desert Fox against Iraq which counted on the element of surprise. I hold neither Donitz nor Yamamoto responsible for carring out their duties and soldiers (preparing for war), but I do held them responsible for any atrocities or maltreatment of POW. That is my view.

Your case is well made, however you are using Karl Donitz trial as a reference point. You see, I do not see eye-to-eye with the Nuremberg Trials's four counts. I agree with you on any issue regarding the treatment of captured POW and atrocities, but on the issue of "conspiracy to wage war", I think IMHO that neither Yamamoto nor Karl Donitz, nor Eric Raeder nor Alfred Jodl, should be held responsible. That being said trial of Hermann Goring and Kietel was well deserved, so was that of General Tojo, I might add.

regards

Originally Posted by xerxes

Hello dreadnought,

I agree with you that Yamamoto should stand trial for anything regarding the treatment of captured prisonners of war in the Fleet, because, he commanded the Combined Fleet. That being said Karl Donitz was the head of the Navy, whereas Yamamoto was not. Fleet Admiral Nagona was. Therefore, his trial should have been solely related to the POW treatments and outside the scope of "conspiracy to wage war" that was presented in the Tokyo '47 Trials. Because for good or ill, Yamamoto was a soldier and patriot, and no different then Westmoreland or Tommy Franks.



Again, the sneak attack maybe look cowrdly, but nevertheless Yamamoto did his job as a soldier. Samegoes for Moshe Dayan of Israel. Samegoes for the Operation Desert Fox against Iraq which counted on the element of surprise. I hold neither Donitz nor Yamamoto responsible for carring out their duties and soldiers (preparing for war), but I do held them responsible for any atrocities or maltreatment of POW. That is my view.

Your case is well made, however you are using Karl Donitz trial as a reference point. You see, I do not see eye-to-eye with the Nuremberg Trials's four counts. I agree with you on any issue regarding the treatment of captured POW and atrocities, but on the issue of "conspiracy to wage war", I think IMHO that neither Yamamoto nor Karl Donitz, nor Eric Raeder nor Alfred Jodl, should be held responsible. That being said trial of Hermann Goring and Kietel was well deserved, so was that of General Tojo, I might add.

regards

Agreed,
However Donitz was only found guilty of two of the four counts and IMO Yamamoto would have face atleast two of these charges. The other two counts article 1 and 4 are questionable. However given the two counts he would have atlest been given ten years if in fact her were not hung. His actions were what brought America into the war to begin with. He had the go ahead from the highers but everybody from the American side of the trial would relate his face to what happened at Pearl. Needless to say I sincerely doubt he would have been given a slap on the wrists. Not a chance. Im thinking he certainly would have become a windchime shortly there after.

Count Two: Waging Aggressive War, or "Crimes Against Peace"
Including “the planning, preparation, initiation, and waging of wars of aggression, which were also wars in violation of international treaties, agreements, and assurances.”

Count Three: War Crimes
These were the more “traditional” violations of the law of war including treatment of prisoners of war, slave labor, and use of outlaws weapons.

Originally Posted by Zeng_xinren

Wabpilot/Dreadnought/xerxes,

Sorry for my intrusion.

I think that if you want to debate about the war criminals of Japan, comparing to Yamamoto, there are more evidences to indicate that the Japanese emperor Hirohito is a true war criminal.

No arguments on my post. It must mean that everyone agrees with me

Originally Posted by Zeng_xinren

No arguments on my post. It must mean that everyone agrees with me

Hi there,

i had a discussion about that, there were a lot of arguments againt my view.

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/his...-humanity.html

Originally Posted by wabpilot

How cute. Now little boy go and play with the rest of the little children.

Rule number one, feel free to take exception with anything I say. Rule number two, insult me and you will get no respect from me.

*Hardly, Perhaps maybe you being the newcomer should go play with the children. As far as little boy goes...GFY!

*Rule one perhaps maybe YOU shouldnt insult those that have been here alot longer, posted more articles,held more discussion and dealt with enough snerts for the last few years to know the difference between the two after that if you want an intelligent pissing match then so be im game at all times.

I think the people that both manage and visit these forums know that well by now that I am very respectful of others until provoked.

If its respect that you demand then give it first and dont expect it from the get go without giving it.

Insult you?

Do you not believe that I know to do my homework and post such links, articles etc? And I insult you? Please, you lack the courage of you conviction sir and I have not thrown any stones that have not been previously hurled my way by none other then yourself.