The Shotgun Blog
« Ron Paul | Main | Rules for Palestinians »
Thursday, November 01, 2007
"You use anything at your disposal."
We are today again reminded, albeit on a small scale, how a previous generation fought and won its wars with the death of Paul Tibbets, the pilot of the Enola Gay:
"Tibbets' historic mission in the plane Enola Gay, named for his mother, marked the beginning of the end of the war in the Pacific. It was the first use of a nuclear weapon in wartime.
The plane and its crew of 14 dropped the bomb, dubbed "Little Boy," on the morning of Aug. 6, 1945. The blast killed 70,000 to 100,000 people and injured countless others.
Three days later, the United States dropped a second nuclear bomb on Nagasaki, Japan, killing an estimated 40,000 people. Tibbets did not fly in that mission. The Japanese surrendered a few days later, ending the war."
For helping to end the bloodiest war in human history, and saving the lives of millions of Americans and Japanese, the then colonel, who retired as a Brigadier-General in 1966, was met with a hatred so fierce that he requested he be given no tombstone, lest his critics use it as a rallying point.
Tibbets own views on his actions that summer more than six decades ago were sober and straightforward:
"We had feelings, but we had to put them in the background," he said. "We knew it was going to kill people right and left. But my one driving interest was to do the best job I could so that we could end the killing as quickly as possible."
"I'm not proud that I killed 80,000 people, but I'm proud that I was able to start with nothing, plan it and have it work as perfectly as it did," he said in a 1975 interview.
"You've got to take stock and assess the situation at that time. We were at war. ... You use anything at your disposal."
"I sleep clearly every night," he said.
As the Iraq conflict drags on, prolonged by "humanitarian" rules of engagement that limit the ability of Allied forces to properly fight the Islamist fanatics that destabilize that country, we would do well to heed Paul Tibbets' words. What makes his views poignant is not their insight, important though it is, but that once they were so common as to be virtually unquestioned.
Cross posted at The Gods of the Copybook Headings
Posted by PUBLIUS on November 1, 2007 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e54f8ba2158834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "You use anything at your disposal.":
Comments
""I sleep clearly every night," he said."
And well he should have. Without the need for a home islands invasion as a result of the bombing, one million US soldiers and several million Japanese defenders owed their lives to this hero.
RIP, Good Sir!
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-01 7:30:09 PM
And as far as Leftoid protesters are concerned:
If Japan had not bombed Pearl Harbor, none of this would have happened. Start a war - live with the consequences.
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-01 7:37:00 PM
Thank you, Colonel Tibbets, for helping to end the costliest conflict in human history.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-11-01 8:34:17 PM
Tibbets drove the vehicle that delivered the bomb--no more and no less. Although he did that--he is not the beginning of what happenned, nor was he the ending. There were thousands, literally thousands of folks, from Northern Europe, across the Atlantic, and further, who worked on it--to effect the end of the war. It had to stop. And yet from what I have read--no one really believed the total intensity of the ending that that, and the subsequent--would bring.
So, there are many people who also share in that sense of guilt.
The one thing I can say about them--and their loved ones--is at least they feel some sense of remorse.
That is not anything we could ever say about the terrorists--whose aim it is, to rid the world, of what they have defined to be "kuffar", "infidels", "unbelievers" and the like!
Yes, those freaks actually relish in the pain and sufferring which they cause!
Posted by: Lady | 2007-11-01 8:49:38 PM
Funny how everybody here gets up in arms over these "savages" that blow themselves up or fly planes into buildings killing 30000 people, but applaud a man who was instrumental in killing 100.000 people and shows no regreat.
"We had feelings, but we had to put them in the background," he said. "We knew it was going to kill people right and left. But my one driving interest was to do the best job I could so that we could end the killing as quickly as possible."
And THAT was a line of defense that the allied judges at the Nuremberg trials didn't accept for the Nazis, but it is "okay" for the "good" guys?
Funny, most of you on here whine about the decayed moral standard of today's western society when something happens that you don't like (Gay Marriage, social services etc.), yet when it is in your own interest you push these values down a steep cliff waching it tumble and cheering on.
*shakes head*.
Come on OBC and "Lady" (and you of course too ZP), rip me a new one, show how much "better" you are than the people who don't agree with your way of life.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-11-01 10:27:22 PM
And yet, Snowrunner, The US was at war; one they did not start. We can argue about the whys and wherefores but the point remains that the US was attacked and had to respond. The Japanese were a clever and tenacious enemy fighting a total war. How would you have responded? Hindsight is great but of no help to the combatants. How would you have fought the war?
Posted by: DML | 2007-11-01 10:41:05 PM
And yet, Snowrunner, The US was at war; one they did not start. We can argue about the whys and wherefores but the point remains that the US was attacked and had to respond. The Japanese were a clever and tenacious enemy fighting a total war. How would you have responded? Hindsight is great but of no help to the combatants. How would you have fought the war?
Posted by: DML | 2007-11-01 10:41:14 PM
Snowy: Your moral equivalence is retarded. The man did what he had to do, and by doing it saved many lives. He was one of the "good guys". Don't ever think that we are all the same.
Posted by: Markalta | 2007-11-01 11:02:57 PM
It is precisely this kind of moral equivalency that is preventing the West from winning the present war. The jihadist enemy respects no rules and is not restrained, while the West, including Israel, expects its military to fight with one hand, and at time both hands, tied behind its back.
The communists have never saddled themselves with such silliness either.
As long as we insist on not fighting to win, we shall never win.
Posted by: Alain | 2007-11-01 11:49:46 PM
Snow Blunder and his ilk have been so brainwashed by their professors that they cannot see the difference between Paul Tibbetts and a teenage homicide bomber - who has also been equally brainwashed by HIS "professors".
No need to rip you a new one. Your old one is so wide that. . .
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-02 6:07:11 AM
I echo the RIP sentiment to Colonel Tebbits. I remember WWII and am struck by the difference in the way we fight wars these days. However, "You use anything at your disposal" also applies to the Jihadis that flew the planes September 11. It amazes me how human ingenuity can cope with unknown levels of technology. On paper, al Qeada should be ashes by now, but they are still bleeding us with so many little cuts. It disturbs me no end that the U S now has to rely on privatized armies like Blackwater. I do not think that is what Col. Tebbits and his comrades were all about.
Posted by: msgijoe | 2007-11-02 7:57:34 AM
But in WWII, the US President did not have to contend with traitors in Congress who tried to stymie his every move. When German invaders were caught on US soil, they were tried and executed in a matter of weeks without the media screaming about the legality of it. Then again, FDR was a patriotic Democrat - few exist today.
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-02 8:09:18 AM
And if any further proof was needed:
"Even Harvard Finds The Media Biased"
Journalism: The debate is over. A consensus has been reached. On global warming? No, on how Democrats are favored on television, radio and in the newspapers.
Just like so many reports before it, a joint survey by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and Harvard's Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy — hardly a bastion of conservative orthodoxy — found that in covering the current presidential race, the media are sympathetic to Democrats and hostile to Republicans.
Democrats are not only favored in the tone of the coverage. They get more coverage period. This is particularly evident on morning news shows, which "produced almost twice as many stories (51% to 27%) focused on Democratic candidates than on Republicans."
The most flagrant bias, however, was found in newspapers. In reviewing front-page coverage in 11 newspapers, the study found the tone positive in nearly six times as many stories about Democrats as it was negative.
THE DRIVE-BY MEDIA strikes again. No wonder newspapers are losing subscribers - they cannot be trusted to be unbiased in their reporting - especially on the news pages.
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-02 8:20:04 AM
obc - When German invaders were caught on US soil, they were tried and executed in a matter of weeks without the media screaming about the legality of it.
Which was possible because the US had declared war on Germany. Maybe Bush should declare war on Saudi Arabia, but he would have to be careful which date he picked so it wouldn't conflict with the frequent visits his relatives make there.
Posted by: O’REILLY | 2007-11-02 8:26:09 AM
And to further buttress newspaper failings:
"Exclusive: FAS-FAX Preview -- Circ Declines, Some Steep, Continue"
NEW YORK Newspaper executives have complained for years that the yardstick used to measure audience -- paid print circulation -- was unfair especially when compared to the likes of television and radio. Those media have always touted audience share to advertisers so why shouldn't newspapers?
Finally after years of debate, the industry is moving towards tracking its total audience which encompasses all its products (especially online viewership) -- not just how many people plunk down some coins for the newspaper. The change will be reflected next Monday, when the Audit Bureau of Circulations releases numbers for more than 700 daily newspapers throughout the country.
The push to herald total audience is coming not a moment too soon since paid circulation continues on a downward slide. According to industry sources speaking to E&P, daily circulation for reporting papers in the six-month FAS-FAX period ending September is down about 2.5% while Sunday is expected to fall 3.5%. Those types of declines -- in the 2% and 3% range -- have been occurring as far back as the March 2005 period.
E&P has learned that several major papers have suffered declines in daily circ of over 7%, including the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, The San Diego Union-Tribune, The Miami Herald and The Dallas Morning News.
Asked for comment, publishers of these papers blamed the decreases partly on the cut back in other-paid circulation -- which includes Newspaper in Education, hotel, and third-party copies. And papers have been chopping distribution areas--it's too expensive to serve outlying communities, at least in print.
Of course, some of the decline is occurring because fewer people are reading the print version. Single-copy sales, which is a barometer of paid circulation, have tumbled in recent years. This reporting period, the category is expected to decrease around 5%.
NEWSPAPERS ARE going the way of the dodo bird. If they had not adopted a Leftoid slant in their news coverage, they might have appealed to a larger segment of the population. I know I haven't purchased a paper in over a decade. Besides, online is the way to go today.
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-02 8:26:14 AM
obc - "Exclusive: FAS-FAX Preview -- Circ Declines, Some Steep, Continue"
What has this got to do with the death of Paul Tibbets or his views of WW2?
Posted by: O’REILLY | 2007-11-02 8:30:46 AM
Guess you'll have to read my posts again to see the connection - if that's not expecting to much from the likes of you.
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-02 8:32:37 AM
The lefties are trying to tell you if they had a choice between 100,000 and 1 Million deaths, they would prefer the 1 million, so they could say they their moral superiority did not condone dropping a bomb killing 100,000.
Posted by: Sounder | 2007-11-02 8:35:31 AM
I've recently read letters from the children of US soldiers who served in the Pacific campaign who are not sure if they and their siblings would have ever been born if their fathers had had to participate in a Japanese homeland invasion.
Those millions to be born are rarely counted as "survivors" due to the A-bomb ending the war so much sooner than expected. And that also goes for the many Japanese born AFTER the war whose parents would otherwise have been killed in defending their country from that same invasion.
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-02 8:52:22 AM
And to see where the loyalties of the Leftoid media lie:
"Remembering Biscet, &c."
By Jay Nordlinger
As you may have heard, George W. Bush gave Oscar Biscet the Presidential Medal of Freedom. That is, he will present it to him on Monday. Or rather: He will give it to him in absentia. Dr. Biscet is a political prisoner in Cuba.
I have been yelling about him ever since this column began, I believe — and that was in March 2001. He is one of the bravest and most inspired of the Cuban political prisoners. He is a physician, an “Afro-Cuban,” a follower of Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King. If he were a prisoner of anyone but Castro — a Communist dictator — he’d be world-famous. If he were a South African, under apartheid, he’d be on the stamps of virtually every country in the world.
Let me continue in this vein: If he were a prisoner under a right-wing dictatorship, he’d be featured on 60 Minutes every week. He’d be on the cover of Time magazine every week. College campuses would hold sit-ins. Biscet’s face would adorn posters and T-shirts. Etc., etc.
THE LEFTIST MEDIA remains silent on anything that might embarrass their icon - the killer Castro.
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-02 9:09:42 AM
Saw many B-29s at RCAF USAF Goose Bay Labrador -they carried a ten man crew not fourteen. The extra "crew" on the Enola Gay included specialists to arm the Nuclear bomb and observers. The Enola Gay was presented to the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum and subject to controversy when the signage describing it's mission, was found to be anti USAF or as it was in 1945 the US Army Air Corps and pro
Japanese -written by a minor curator who was in fact Canadian from Calgary who was subsequently dismissed
-General Tibbets himself came to the Smithsonian to
object to the ill founded and untruthful Signage
Tibbets was a veteran of the 8th US Army Air Force
based in the UK and flew many daylight bombing missions over Germany. He was picked to fly and command the Enola Gay by General Curtis LeMay
personally who devised the fire bombing strategy to destroy major cities in Japan. The idea at the time as I remember it without going to google was to win the war -which the Western world did -Macleod
Posted by: Jack Macleod | 2007-11-02 9:59:20 AM
O'Reilly makes a valid point in that the US, nor any Western leader, has never officially declared war on the enemy which makes the situation different from WW II. Oh yes, I think the term was and is war on terrorism which means nothing. You do not declare war on one of the enemy's strategies, especially while bending over backwards to avoid identifying the enemy.
So the war continues with us in denial after the enemy has declared openly and actively declared war on us. Go figure...
Posted by: Alain | 2007-11-02 10:48:50 AM
Speculation: imagine if the atomic bombs were built and tested but not used.
The Allies invade Japan, and the toll in both Allied and Japanese lives lives up to expectations.
Then word leaks out that the Allies built a superweapon that could have saved hundreds of thousands of Allied lives and potentially millions of Japanese lives.
What would have been the consequences not only for the Allies, but for Japan? Japanese civilization would have been all but wiped out in the invasion.
Hitler would have had the last laugh.
Sad as it may seem, and it truly is tragic, but using atomic weapons was the better option. Thank God that President Truman and General LeMay dropped the bomb, for it solved more problems than it caused.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-11-02 11:15:45 AM
If elements of certain sectors of the Muslim world and others declare "War" on the United States or the United
Kingdom, France, Canada, the Netherlands or any member Country of NATO then they are by definition "at war" Canada is at war in Afghanistan thanks to
Cambridge graduate and multi millionaire Harry Laden
now operating under an assumed name out of somewhere
in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia -don't think he's on
Prince Edward Island -you are just nit picking Alain
-If Canada indicated a desire to "declare War" the New Conservative Government would be tied up for months in an endless and pointless debate in the
House of Commons -PM Harper does not need nor deserve such torture -Jeez, it's bad enough just
to observe Citoyen Dion, Layton and what's his name from Quebec. Even the morons like MP Thebault from Nova Scotia's most forgettable village is getting national media coverage focused on his opinions of PM Brian Mulroney on a subject the former Village Clerk knows nothing whatever about. Macleod not surprised in Moncton NB
Posted by: Jack Macleod | 2007-11-02 11:18:16 AM
Alain - So the war continues with us in denial after the enemy has declared openly and actively declared war on us. Go figure...
There is clear evidence that the Saudi ambassador to the US, Prince Bandar, and his wife, made payments to two families in So. Cal that had definite links to the 9/11 terrorists. Was the Prince kicked out of the US, or shunned by the US government? No, he still has access to the highest officials of the US government, and occasionally pops up on Larry King Live reminding us all how great a partner Saudi Arabia is on the war on terror.
Posted by: O’REILLY | 2007-11-02 11:22:35 AM
Steady on O'Reilly. I did not say I disagreed concerning the Saudis. I am very aware of their connection and influence and the fact that they continue to export this vile ideology while claimed to be allies. Canada has in the past refused to intervene when one of its own was tortured by them, so I was not giving them a pass.
Posted by: Alain | 2007-11-02 11:55:00 AM
He gets through all the doors becausw of petroleum assets, which every subscriber and poster on the shotgun is aware of. Interesting item in Aviation Week today -USAF are committed to use synthetic fuels in the Boeing C-17 Heavy Lifter which Canada will soon have about six of. American and UK Technology can nullify the need for traditional
oils,fuels and lubricants produced for the most part in the Middle East -once the dependence is terminated the world will be a better and safer place -Iran will vanish into years of rebellion. Germany produced synthetic oil from coal slurry
immersed in hydrogen peroxide during World War II
the technique continues today in the giant SASOL
plants in South Africa - whose waste treatment plants and technology were designed in Canada. Macleod
Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2007-11-02 11:57:22 AM
Alain - Steady on O'Reilly. I did not say I disagreed concerning the Saudis.
Just a highlight to what you suggested.
Posted by: O’REILLY | 2007-11-02 12:03:46 PM
We were discussing the death of General Tibbets -I am reading "Nemesis" by Sir Max Hastings which defines in great detail the Pacific War, and its
conclusion -there has never been any doubt in my mind that the use of Nuclear weapons was absolutely necessary to bring conclusion to the nasty and vicious War with Imperial Japan -the battles for Okinawa and Iwo Jima set the stage for what would come from an invasion of Japan. If President Roosevelt had lived he most certainly have directed the Nuclear bombing of Japan. Which ultimately saved both Allied and Japanese lives.
Hand wringing and "guilt" did not appear in the Western World until many decades after World War II when the left wing political Academics started
to get tenure at unsuspecting Western Universities. The totally misguided sold Nuclear technology used in the bombs to the Soviet Union thus creating the "Cold War" Macleod
Posted by: Jack Macleod | 2007-11-02 12:28:37 PM
The end doesn't justify the means. It didn't matter who attacked who first.
Even so, if you want to play that game. Yes, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, a MILITARY base, they hit a military target, they didn't go and hit Honolulu, they didn't go and bomb San Francisco, they went after a purely military target.
To blow up a bomb that eradicated an entire city is morally wrong, regardless in how many patriotic colours you want to paint it. And not only did the US bomb one city but two with atomic bombs, they firebombed Tokio as well which killed countless people.
Yes, war is hell and bad things happen, but that doesn't mean that what you do is right OR moral.
By your logic, if a guy hits me in the face I can hit him back, so far I agree, but your next logic step is that I can then go to his house, beat up his wife and kids and for good measure set it on fire. After all HE attacked me first.
Sorry, but this moral white washing of atrocities (on both sides) doesn't fly.
BTW, I recommend watching "Fog of War" a very interesting "interview" film with Robert McNamara.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-11-02 12:34:30 PM
But in WWII, the US President did not have to contend with traitors in Congress who tried to stymie his every move. When German invaders were caught on US soil, they were tried and executed in a matter of weeks without the media screaming about the legality of it. Then again, FDR was a patriotic Democrat - few exist today.
Posted by: obc | 2-Nov-07 8:09:18 AM
In World War II the president also needed congressional approval to actually go to war, while thanks to GWB and a spineless congress that control has been taken away from Congress and soley given to the president. A "safety switch" that the founding fathers introduced because they didn't want to have a nation that could fight wars on the whim of one person. Not to mention they didn't want a standing army either, something the US has since the end of WWII and put to "good use" several times since then.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-11-02 12:37:33 PM
snow blunder ~
When Congress sides with the terrorists that want to kill us, sidestepping them is the right thing to do. In fact, if W. acted like Lincoln did in the Civil War, I'd support him as well.
Congressmen were deported then if they sided with the South - and habeas corpus was suspended by the the greatest US President whose legacy still lives on as the greatest Commander-In-Chief in US history.
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-02 12:46:27 PM
When Congress sides with the terrorists that want to kill us, sidestepping them is the right thing to do. In fact, if W. acted like Lincoln did in the Civil War, I'd support him as well.
Congressmen were deported then if they sided with the South - and habeas corpus was suspended by the the greatest US President whose legacy still lives on as the greatest Commander-In-Chief in US history.
Posted by: obc | 2-Nov-07 12:46:27 PM
You know, you would come off less as a retard if you wouldn't constantly try to demean the people who are trying to have a discussion with you.
But to your point: You cannot figh terrorists with war, if you wouldn't spend more time reading up on how terrorism works instead of sitting in your room trying to come up with funny names for people you don't agree with you may actually realize that.
But in case I am wrong and GWB is right (and you of course obc), what should congress have done that would have taken care of the whole terrorism thing once and for all? Please, do tell. I want to end terrorism in this world too. Who do we have to nuke? How many do we have to kill before it stops once and for all?
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-11-02 12:51:25 PM
snow blunder ~
Those questions were not asked in WWII. There was no "exit strategy" before FDR went to war. You fight as long as there is a threat - even if it means doing so for 100 years. How many should we kill? I don't care if it's millions, as long as it's on THEIR side and not ours.
(Glad you enjoy the funny names!)
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-02 12:57:53 PM
Sorry obc, you fail (again):
--------
JOINT RESOLUTION Declaring that a state of war exists between the Imperial Government of Japan and the Government and the people of the United States and making provisions to prosecute the same.
Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.
Approved, December 8, 1941, 4:10 p.m. E.S.T.
------------
Pretty clear "exit strategy".
And you still haven't answered my question on how you would erradicate Terror from the face of this planet.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-11-02 1:01:50 PM
Imperial Japan was entirely different from Islam.
The people in China or in Korea who Japan enslaved did not become "Japanese." Whereas the people of northern India became Islamic and then separated into Pakistan, and then continued to spread via terror.
Islam is the enemy. We can call it Islamo-Fascism but their religious book is exclusively the instruction manual for Islamo-Fascism.
The people of Iraq must defeat this pestilance within themselves by themselves. We (the USA) is fighting in Iraq so that a free minority rights respecting government can take over in that great nation and begin the process of controlling and fixing the fundamental (demonic) corruption of their society.
Our alternative is to obliterate all of the Islamic people on earth (Plan B - soon).
Any sane person wants the Islamic infected people to evolve and contain themselves. Turkey accomplished this at least partially for a time.
It may ultimately prove to be impossible for Islam to reconcile with the world (I fear that is actually the fact). Consequently, I am TOTALLY committed to creating a situation in Iraq where we can see if there is reason for hope and to help the process in every possible way.
If they prove themselves incapable of allowing the "war of ideas" where each combattant is allowed to live to see the next battle then Plan B is our only recourse, and we must decide soon.
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2007-11-02 1:13:38 PM
BINGO, Conrad ~
We must eliminate the enemy. Plan B sounds good to me. No different than executing convicted murderers so that they won't strike again.
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-02 1:24:20 PM
Our alternative is to obliterate all of the Islamic people on earth (Plan B - soon).
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2-Nov-07 1:13:38 PM
You want to kill approx. 1.2 Billion people? How are you planning on getting rid of the bodies? Soylent Green?
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-11-02 1:24:57 PM
A little learning is a dangerous thing. The first President of the United States of America was a soldier by choice and led the Continental Army to Victory -he knew as well as Jefferson that that their newly created Dominion would need a standing Army called the United States Army to serve and protect their Country which it has for centuries.
The German enemies who were executed by the United States were in fact Spies, arrested in civilian clothes,tried under the provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Executed, they were landed by Submarine and all had the commonality of
being fairly stupid. US Army used the same process to execute German SS Troops dressed as members of the US Army during the Battle of the Bulge US, British and French armies also executed Deserters.
The ultimate responsibility for the Nuclear bombing of selected Japanese Cities lies with the
leaders and politicians plus senior Military Commanders who refused to even consider surrender
If the war had continued after Hiroshima and Nagasaki at least two more Cities would have vanished -Japanese Admiral Yamamoto Harvard Graduate warned the Japanese High Command what going to War with the United States would mean,he
knew the ruthless quality of Americans at War by
studying the Civil War. Ultimately the US Army Air Corps killed him. Macleod
Posted by: Jack Macleod | 2007-11-02 1:29:57 PM
Wow, drop into blog world to discover a dystopia depressing to even the most vivid imagination. Take this insanity beyond this echo chamber and you will go down for inciting hatred. Christo-fascism is by far the world's most glaring threat to peace and all that is good ... it creates the Islamo-fascism ... do we really want World War II - battle of the religions? Where are the Gods in that? You guys are scary.
Posted by: Holographic | 2007-11-02 1:39:14 PM
125 million people died this past century at the hands of the godless communists. How many at the hands of Christians in that time frame?
Ignoramus!
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-02 1:45:11 PM
obc - "125 million people died this past century at the hands of the godless communists. How many at the hands of Christians in that time frame?"
Posted by: obc | 2-Nov-07 1:45:11 PM
Your point is vacuous ... as is your ideology
Ignoramus!
Posted by: obc | 2-Nov-07 1:45:11 PM
A lucid point of self-recognition
Posted by: holographic | 2007-11-02 1:52:13 PM
Pornographic ~
Did you say something cogent? I must have missed it.
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-02 1:53:42 PM
If it's only about numbers, lets have a look at some. Le May's Tokyo raid killed 100,000. The Japanese reaction was to kill 250,000 Chinese civilions. The Hiroshima bomb ended the madness in a way that kept people in line for 60 years.
Tibbets never apologized, and God bless him for that. Apologies are for when you spill ketchup on your buddies car seat. He did his duty and never asked for anything special.
Although he's been maligned over the years, Robert McNamara's Fog of War gives an interesting insight to matters of numbers. He was with Le May during many of the decisions made during the assault on Japan.
Posted by: dph | 2007-11-02 2:08:45 PM
Christo Fascism what in hell is that -can Jews join? are they equal opportunity employers -my Parish Priest will get a big charge out of that term -Jeez where is Joan of Arc when we need her. The Christos are taking over -we will re introduce a bi lingual version of the Inquisition -multiple choice questions -Thats what that little Fart Dion should call his Doggie "Christo" come to think of it Dion looks like a typical Hitler Youth of the late 1930's
lot of them were Christos -now residing in Purgatory thanks to the World War Two Canadian Army who introduced them to full metal jacket .303 Lee Enfield ammunition preferably in the centre of the forehead. we will be looking for Christos in this Tiny Perfect ultimate hick town of Moncton New Brunswick owned by the Irving Group
of Companies who have always appeared to me to be "born again" Macleod
Posted by: Jack Macleod | 2007-11-02 2:08:53 PM
Another demostration of liberalism being a mental disorder. I suggest they go play elsewhere or get treatment.
Posted by: Alain | 2007-11-02 2:12:00 PM
http://tinyurl.com/2x4lsz
Jack: Judge Stevens on the US Supreme Court says that the 'assassination' of Admiral Yamamoto was the even which turned him against the death penalty.
Why people regret the death of one of the masterminds behind Pearl Harbor is beyond me.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-11-02 2:12:06 PM
"Christo Fascism" is just another Leftoid coinage to disparage the religious and to elevate their failed godless morality to justify their pagan belief system e.g. Gaia - and the Church of Globull Warming.
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-02 2:14:29 PM
Alain ~
"Another demonstration of liberalism being a mental disorder. I suggest they go play elsewhere or get treatment."
The seriously mentally ill are incapable of recognizing how sick they truly are.
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-02 2:16:36 PM
Alain ~
"Another demonstration of liberalism being a mental disorder. I suggest they go play elsewhere or get treatment."
The seriously mentally ill are incapable of recognizing how sick they truly are.
Posted by: obc | 2-Nov-07 2:16:36 PM
That is funny in so many ways, I'll laugh all weekend long. Thanks obc for that one.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-11-02 2:25:56 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.