Firing Squads

**The Stranger:Me** · 12th April 2006, 13:51

Originally Posted by 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.

Was his son present?
Is the father alive to verify?

Yes it does give them the right to do it back.
A tyrant may take a thousand lives, so he gets shot by a firing squad and someone complains about his treatment.
Personally I would rather die by firing squad than some of the methods used by the japs, quite humane really.

These people were not children. Kids may not know right from wrong.

Who says the defender must be beyond reproach?

**Swoop** · 12th April 2006, 13:57

Originally Posted by MSTRS

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.

Neither had the USA at that time. I do not know if they have signed it now.

**kickingzebra** · 12th April 2006, 14:09

Fathers dead, but the son heard the stories all his life... I have no reason to disbelieve. Tell me, if you were running a military firing squad, would you let the other guys in the unit lie down at the feet of the shooters?

Also I believe procedure would have called not only for the officer present, and chaplain, but a set number of shooters. This varied in the photographs. Standard exectution isn't done 3 feet away from the victim, there is normally a bit of a walk etc etc.

So then, to the roads, you, being an adult, accidentally cut someone off. Should they then cut you off to even the score, remembering, pulling in from lane splitting, or tight passing, most cagers would consider being cut off.

Death isn't always the object of war, defeat is. Not always best accomplished by sheer kills either.

Imagine again, being drafted into fight you don't give a shit about
(on that note, anyone know the reason the Japs attacked Pearl Harbour?) having a rifle thrust into your hands, a bag of rice, you've been torn away from your family etc, and you are dropped on a pacific island, told to kill anything white.

Kill or be killed, combat occurs that is war, but then, when you cock up, and someone points a gun at you, you stick your hands in the air, surrender, thankful to not have to kill anymore, you are tied up, bundled to the ground, fighting continues for a little while. You realise all those that didn't surrender with you are dead. Captors come back, light a cigarette, have a spot of tea. Stand together in a group, pull you to your feet. Arrange themselves around you, for a laugh. Then the Guns are lifted, pointed at you. You are shot, Dead, because Japanese are inhumane?
The same Japanese that make 90% of our bikes and cars?

Gaurantee that scenario replayed itself thousands of times during the war. And probably the one on Private Ryan, where some psycho little weed is caught, you feel sorry for him, let him go, and again, in the most inhuman way, he comes back and kills members of your platoon.

That death is justified, and likely wouldn't happen in cold blood.

**Ixion** · 12th April 2006, 15:35

..(on that note, anyone know the reason the Japs attacked Pearl Harbour?)

Oil .

**Sniper** · 12th April 2006, 15:47

Originally Posted by Ixion

Oil .

Cause they felt like it at the time, as well as it would have been a good step to knock out some of Americas best fleet for when they joined the war, unfortunatly, it just pissed the americans off so they went and dropped atomic bombs to prove they are better

**kickingzebra** · 12th April 2006, 15:53

Keep trying... If it was nothing to do with commodities, or the economy, would you be even more surprised?

**Ixion** · 12th April 2006, 15:53

No, it really was oil. Dutch East Indies oil to be specific. Japan needed it, the Yanks wouldn't let them go for it. Japan didn't really want to fight the USA, just annex DEI. But the Yanks wouldn't stay on the sidelines, so Japan decided to get in first. Then couldn't get out.

Irony is , Netherlands lost DEI anyway,they would have been better to sell to Japan . Then no Pacific War (maybe, the Yanks might have tried to stop a sale, or attacked Japan anyway, they were itching for a fight over China)

**Lou Girardin** · 12th April 2006, 16:02

Originally Posted by kickingzebra

And probably the one on Private Ryan, where some psycho little weed is caught, you feel sorry for him, let him go, and again, in the most inhuman way, he comes back and kills members of your platoon.

Really? As far as I saw he was a crewman on an MG42 doing his job. He surrendered and was entitled to be dealt with as a POW.

**kickingzebra** · 12th April 2006, 16:08

I hadn't heard that, but it does make sense, however My sources tell me a slightly different story, which I have to now tell to prove myself an idiot...
As we may or may not have observed, Japanese are a strange people. Rigid culture etc, In stark contrast to the Americans, loose, easy going, rude and brash?
1 percieved slight, when in the early to mid1800s, Japan had been a self sustaining society for many years, USA trade ambassador came over, and wouldn't take "no, we want to remain closed to external trade" for an answer.
Said,or did something rash.

Japan waits... Oil may well have been fat on the fire, because the anti american sentiment was very strong, and had been for more than 100 years.

A cultural slight from days long past avenged...

Thats the story as I heard it... I won't stake my life on it though.

Anyways, they came up with the GSXR, and therefore must be bloody good blokes!! Dunno about those "other" brands though....

**Nitzer** · 12th April 2006, 16:12

Originally Posted by Ixion

No, it really was oil. Dutch East Indies oil to be specific. Japan needed it, the Yanks wouldn't let them go for it. Japan didn't really want to fight the USA, just annex DEI. But the Yanks wouldn't stay on the sidelines, so Japan decided to get in first. Then couldn't get out.

Irony is , Netherlands lost DEI anyway,they would have been better to sell to Japan . Then no Pacific War (maybe, the Yanks might have tried to stop a sale, or attacked Japan anyway, they were itching for a fight over China)

It's always about the oil isn't it

I know this has gone a bit

but it's a good thread.

That's an interesting point you've highlighted there Ixion, not one I've heard before.

I'm not sure if the oil would have made much difference though, I think America and Japan would probably have come to blows anyway. History suggests that when you have several nations building up their military might (Germany, Japan, USA, Briatain) war is inevitably going to happen as they vie for top spot in the world

**kickingzebra** · 12th April 2006, 16:12

Originally Posted by Lou Girardin

Really? As far as I saw he was a crewman on an MG42 doing his job. He surrendered and was entitled to be dealt with as a POW.

He himself was a cold blooded killer, but doing his duty. I suppose it was sickening that he obviously enjoyed this, but then again, he was killed in hot blood... After they had recaptured him...

War ethics is not the easy topic I had imagined...

Does anyone actually have experience on what the military teach about this??

**Lou Girardin** · 12th April 2006, 16:18

I don't know about the cold blooded killer bit. Around 50% of GI's in WW2 didn't fire their weapons in battle. One reason why the Yanks tried different training methods including video games now.
Dehumanise the enemy and they'll kill them. But then all gooks, slopes, ragheads, sand niggers all look the same really, so you may as well kill 'em all.

**Sniper** · 12th April 2006, 16:19

You forgot camel jockey Lou.

**u4ea** · 12th April 2006, 16:27

just reading thru and my thoughts are today the yanks are taking a life of a suspected suicide bomber,was it not the japs who had the kamikazi bombers?these type of soldiers dont play fair .they should be eradicated allbeit thru due processes........