Firing Squads

[SARGE]

we always called them " safety rounds"

[bugjuice]

i always have a problem with 'people' being punished, no matter what. If you ask a person why they shoot someone, they're 'told' to. What has that person done to them? The 'country' has done some horrible crime or thing, so get people from that country and kill them.. what have those people done?

I feel like countries are like corporate. You can be angry at the country, but who is it you're really angry at? no one knows, cos it's too big, so you're just angry at the country. There's too many 'few' people who make the decision, and too many 'innocents' who take the flak/bullet. There are some people who do/did deserve a bullet. Then there's too many people who don't, and still get it..
my 2¢

[kickingzebra]

Which begs the question, should war be run in such a fashion? should we go in to kick ass without running an extensive pow network? As anyone knows, I am not anti war, It just the ethics involved... Maybe we should just let the politicians into a glass room to sort it out.

George W Bush vs Helen Robobitch Clark
George W Bush vs Kim jong Il
George W Bush vs Victor whatever his name is

George Ws Tough, he'll kick ass...

[Swoop]

There seems to be a lot of information missing regarding the photos.
Was there a court case (military court marshall) where they were found guilty? or does "rule 303" apply here (aka Breaker Morant)?
Firing squads are still in use worldwide for civil court decisions.
The Russians use belt-fed machineguns.

[Ixion]

..
Firing squads are still in use worldwide for civil court decisions.
The Russians use belt-fed machineguns.

Eek. I hope not. Puts a whole new slant on bankruptcy! I presume you meancivilian criminal courts.

[kickingzebra]

The photos were in the field, not a standard setup as per military justice, in different locations, and the owner of the photos, (the son of one of the shooters) informed me that they were informal shoots....

Court martialled and shot is another story again, what of all those shot, because of shell shock? dazed and confused, they wander the battlefield, if not picked off by the enemy, they were shot by their own side for leaving their duties/deserting.

Ouch. Good reason to wear ear plugs that one... Not that they'll do much if a 105 lands anywhere within coo ee

[Lou Girardin]

Read a bit about WW2 in the Pacific/Southeast Asia, then you'll realise why they did this.
Though I see that Clive Hulme VC is currently being criticised for dressing in German uniform when he won his VC. That's an offence that usually ends before a firing squad if the other side catches you.

[The Stranger:Me]

Are you not missing too much information really to make informed comment?

Do you know that these people were not tried legitimately?

[Patrick]

The winners of a war usually write the histroy books...and buries those dirty deeds... Plenty of old timers at any RSA wouldn't be too concerned after what was done to them in POW camps etc...and they were there and in the know.

Unlike this one...lacking info really...

[Ixion]

If it was an official firing squad there would have been an officer in attendance. And probably a chaplain (though in the field the latter might not be possible) But certainly an officer.

But, in war, shit happens.

[Sniper]

Its a pity people pass judgement on others for the actions in the past done not by them. Pity the japanese had to die, but imagine how up in arms we would all be if it was our soldiers

[Lias]

Given the way the Japanese treated their prisoners in general, and especially those on the death reailway its hardly surprising that some allied soldiers took the law into their own hands. Doesnt make it right, but its hardly surprising.

The victors always write history, and the axis lost.

Both sides commited atrocities, but because the allies won their crimes are generally overlooked.
Hell look at the actions of General Curtis LeMay and his firebombing attacks on Japan. He publically stated that if the allies had lost the war he would expect to have been tried for war crimes. But they won and he was a hero.

[ManDownUnder]

All other issues aside - the problem I have it that people were enjoying the death of another.

If you enjoy killing you need to take a good look atyourself. Unfortunately war (which I have never experienced I hasten to add) seems to reduce the act of killing to a simple thing, of minimal consequence where it isn't and never should be.

The use of words is interesting in wartime "gooks", "spiks", "wogs" "wops" etc all serve to reduce the identity of those wearing the label. It's the us and them syndrome. We are right - they are wrong.

We are normal, they are not etc.

They may have all been tried and found guilty, I'm also not qualified to pronounce the suitability (or otherwise) of the sentence handed down, but to use their misery and pain as the source of entertainment is just plain wrong.

Take a look at those photos and learn from them. I'm glad you feel disgusted and dirtied - your standards are higher than those you see in the photo. That doesn't make the men in the photos wrong - necessarily, but mislead. Altered perception is a wonderful thing, incredibly powerful and not to be dismissed.

[MSTRS:Me]

How do you know it wasn't a case of an officer saying "who will rid me of this troublesome priest" ?? War is/was not a pleasant thing and the war in the Pacific was right at the top for unpleasant things.
Personally I think the Japanese started it and deserved whatever they got. And THEY hadn't signed the Geneva Convention. Or abided by it's tenets.

[kickingzebra]

There is a point, if Japan weren't signatories... However, again I add, the individual responsibility to be above board.
I have satisfied myself, by asking the guy who's father is the shooter what the story was. They were guys they captured in the field. Held them long enough to secure the area, etc, then shoot them one by one.

Cream with your scones anyone who does not find that reprehensible?

I can understand the mentality, and have read plenty of WW2 history, pacific included. The japanese certainly weren't the nicest of captors, nor at that time the nicest of people collectively.

Because they were dispicable, and inhumane to our people, does that mean it is right to do the same back?

If your child gets a sharp stick, and stabs my child in the eye. Is it right for me, to come to your house, after my child has been patched up, get out my sharp stick, and poke it in your childs eye?

The Defender in this case (Japan the aggressor) if on the side of justice and right, has the obligation to be beyond reproach.