News Double Standards: Is WW2 Acceptable but Other Attacks Not?

[Adam]

It has become clear to me that several users here have double standards. Some have asserted that blowing up and burning hundreds of thousands of civilians in WW2 was acceptable because it would have the effect of hampering the German and Japanese military efforts. These same people then suggest that it is not acceptable when other people do precisely the same thing to their own nation (eg. WTC attack). However, after labelling these two nigh-identical crimes differently (one as a crime, one not), these same users then go on to say that it is indeed acceptable to attack military targets when civilians are in the way, and such attacks are not terrorism. Why? Because the civilians in the way, though they are in their own towns, their own homes, should know that the target placed in their midst by the attacking force is a viable military target.

How do people reconcile this pure hypocrisy, this monumental stupidity?

 

[russ_watters]

It has become clear to me that several users here have double standards. Some have asserted that blowing up and burning hundreds of thousands of civilians in WW2 was acceptable because it would have the effect of hampering the German and Japanese military efforts.

Again, unless you can give quotes, you have nothing to support your assertion. You're putting words in my mouth I didn't say. Stop lying about me.

Further, you are altering the scenario from the incident in question: stop lying about that too.

How do people reconcile this pure hypocrisy, this monumental stupidity?

Yes, while you're at it, you may as well throw in some pesonal attacks as well to further clarify your position.

For your basic point though, the only double standard here is yours. You said in one thread that 9/11 was acceptable and said in another that no civilian casualties are acceptable. edit: rereading, you actually have a triple standard going. You are arguing a position you have not explicitly said you believe by putting words in other people's mouths they didn't say, then arguing against the point no one made, then supporting that position with lies, then contradicting yourself.

 

[Adam]

I've never said any terrorist attack was acceptable. I have said that it is the position others have adopted.

Now, would you care to address the topic?

 

[russ_watters]

I've never said any terrorist attack was acceptable. I have said that it is the position others have adopted.

Yes, that's correct (and that's what I said above): you lie about other people's positions in order to argue a position without explicitly stating its your opinion. Then you support your position with lies about the facts of the incidents.

As I have stated a number of times before, Adam, if it is ever your wish to engage in honest debate, the choice is yours. The people you are arguing against, by and large, are very open, honest, and explicit about their positions. You argue your position by negation of strawman.

Now, would you care to address the topic?

The purpose of this thread is trolling/flame baiting/personal attacks and no, I will not participate in that. I'm finished here too.

 

[Adam]

Selected quotes:

Christianity and Western Civilization have been at war with Islam for almost 1400 years. The United States has been at war with Islam since 1801, We are not at war with terrorists. We are at war with Islam and terror is just one of many weapons being used against us on many fronts. We are losing the war, because President Bush refuses to acknowledge who the enemy is.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=313681&postcount=30

Islam is the problem, two thirds of the worlds conflicts involve Islam, and today it almost has a monopoly when it comes to terrorism.
Also the terror that we face today is apocalyptic, so its kinda diffrent than what the IRA did.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=308817&postcount=22

Not a good idea to interfere with combat troops in combat. Those people chose to give up their "civilian" status and died for it. They took their chances and paid the consequences.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=311870&postcount=2

Civilians choosing to be near an APC choose to risk death when it is destroyed. They choose to give up their civilian status.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=312767&postcount=30

Next, some of the people on the APC were enemy combatants (how many, no on knows), and that makes them a legitimate target. Again, civilians choosing to mingle with enemy combatants are choosing to be in the line of fire. They choose to give up their civilian status.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=312767&postcount=30

Any civilians in the crowd made their choices and paid the consequences. I have little sympathy for them, with the exception of the kids. Kids don't know better: their parents should have kept them out of the battle.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=312767&postcount=30

The civilians' behavior in this incident cannot be justified. There is a war going on. Under no circumstances should civilians jump on military vehicles (especially if they are burning). Chalk this one up for Darwin.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=313007&postcount=44

Are they responsible for their own deaths? Absolutely.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=313089&postcount=60

All of those reports are fine. None of them change the basic fact that those civilians chose to enter a battle.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=313101&postcount=63

No, Adam, the WTC was not a valid military target and even if it were, its still a different situation than this.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=313142&postcount=75

Actually in recent battles, Najaf in particular, most of the civilian population had left the city and it was occupied by foreign fighters, sleeping, looting and destroying homes without permission from the original habitants.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=313766&postcount=98

 

[Evo]

It appears this thread is directed at a single person, this is inappropriate.