Current Events > Should Biden go to jail for his handling of Israel one day?

(+) Yeah! (+)

"This isn't a war crime" is indeed a valid response to "They should be prosecuted for war crimes!" No matter how much you want to complain about it. Things have definitions and meaning.

Now you shifted the goalpost to "real crime," whatever that means.

What goal post? I never called him a war criminal.

Kinda because it seems weird to see this, not denounce it at all, and focus on specific definitions. Seems like you're much more interested in defending Obama than the lives of the people murdered under his leadership.

You're the one distorting "this is not a war crime" to "you're saying it's fine?"

And anyone who complains about Obama's drone strikes killing several hundred civilians in eight years had better come ready with some receipts to show they were just as upset when Trump killed more civilians in a single year with drones.

All living american presidents should be in jail for the atrocities they've committed across the world.

If he can't go to jail for it, there is absolutely nobody on the planet who could ever go to jail for it.

No, because nobody else will and I refuse to hold Biden to a higher standard than republicans would be held.

Singling out Biden as being extraordinarily complicit strikes me as ignorant of recent history, if not outright partisan.

Not Netanyahu and his entire government?

LightSnake never found an American war crime he couldn't defend or whatabout or otherwise deflect from. The dude is a blatantly obvious American nationalist who somehow manages to convince some users here that he isn't.

You can't put the guy that stabbed 100 people in jail and not put the guy that supplied him with the biggest and stabbiest knives the world has ever seen while also stopping anyone from ending the stabbing spree. Netanyahu and his governmet simply could not have done what they did if Biden wasn't so utterly capitulatory and accomodating. No President, Democrat or Republican, has ever even been in the same zip code as Biden in terms of letting Israel do whatever it wants. If they go, he has to go too.

You can, though? You absolutely can?

It's just right wing propaganda machine keeping the focus away from what Trump is doing this very minute.

LightSnake never found an American war crime he couldn't defend or whatabout or otherwise deflect from. The dude is a blatantly obvious American nationalist who somehow manages to convince some users here that he isn't.

The dude is a blatantly obvious American nationalist

Considering how you've outright accused me of being an American Nationalist, you might just have a fucked-up definition of the term.

Well, this is a funny statement given the amount of times I've criticized American war crimes

American nationalist lmao

You could just not defend war crimes. It's a really low bar. If your response to the intentional killing of civilians is "actually it's justified because", you're a lost cause. The only people who are fucked up are the ones defending killing civilians.

You literally said killing civilians was justified in WW2 because it might have ended the war faster and said this was settled and not up for debate.

Ignoring all statements from actual military leaders at the time. And look at you in this topic, having to push back at the possibility killing civilians might be bad. Weird how this keeps happening.

The funniest part is under this definition we can accuse you of being a Japanese Nationalist with equal validity.

But you get all uppity whenever that gets brought up.

See it's funny because you said that before and yet again I will call you out. Name a single Japanese war crime I defend. You can't because I don't.

In fact we have a topic right now of my pushing back against people defending Japanese nationalists:
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/400-current-events/81041702

You guys keep telling on yourselves. You assume I must defend Japanese war crimes because I live in Japan and yet I just don't because it's such a low fucking bar. It's actually incredibly easy to just not defend war crimes.

you get all uppity

I stand by that, yes. Bold of you to take the stance "bombing the Axis's military targets is bad."

I provided like six statements on historians and contemporary information that countered you and you're still mad about this. Dude, come on.

But sure, I'm sure you can point to me defending, I dunno... the genocide of the Natives, Vietnam, the Philippines, the Iraq War, everything Eisenhower did in South America and Africa etc etc as some evidence.

When you keep trying to go back to this by arguing Japan should've been allowed to continue its genocide in the pacific...

Hence the "equal validity" thing.

Because that would be a stupid thing to accuse you of being.

Please read all the words in the post before

You keep ignoring that all the military leaders were in agreement it wasn't actually necessary to kill civilians and yet, here you go making up excuses. Just like you did in this topic. It isn't either you support killing civilians or you support a genocide. That's a fake dilemma you made up to defend American war crimes.

Japan's offer to surrender was "we give up nothing, we keep the land we conquered, we have immunity to warcrimes. Deal?"

Sounds real familiar, I wonder where I heard that type of deal in recent times.

The actual military leaders and the conclusion of strategic bombing command are personal opinions, but people making after the fact assessments that agree with his opinion (which as seen in this topic consistently downplays, deflects, or denies American war crimes) are objective facts. Yeah CE can decide for themselves if you're a nationalist. I think the evidence in this topic alone is ample.

A healthcare CEO being killed is a tragedy, but a bunch of (non-American) kids getting blown up is a statistic.

The actual military leaders and the conclusion of strategic bombing command are personal opinions, but people making after the fact assessments that agree with his opinion (which as seen in this topic consistently downplays, deflects, or denies American war crimes) are objective facts.

Yeah CE can decide for themselves if you're a nationalist. I think the evidence in this topic alone is ample.

And what's funny is that even if you think Japan didn't want to really surrender, conventional warfare and a naval blockade could've ended them regardless. There is no excuse really for dropping a mass-murder bomb that poisoned babies, among other things.

• More civilians would be killed during attacks on Japanese military centers and cities.
• Many US soldiers would die.
• Japan keeps its wartimes holdings and keeps killing civilians in those areas.

Again: There are facts modern historians are aware of that people in 1945 were not. Internal documents and discussions in Japan, declassified documents etc.

Do you think historians are ever right about something when they disagree with contemporary sources, just FYI? This could be used to defend Germany, too. There is so much we are aware of now that we were not during the actual war.

Anyone is entitled to an opinion on anything, sure. Like I think you are a Japanese war crimes apologist because you conveniently never bring up what would happen to the territories occupied by Japan had this "surrender" been accepted. At a point when people were still being summarily killed by Imperial Japan's forces.

Anyone is entitled to an opinion on anything, sure. Like I think you are a Japanese war crimes apologist because you conveniently never bring up what would happen to the territories occupied by Japan had this "surrender" been accepted. At a point when people were still being summarily killed by Imperial Japan's forces.

the us didn't nuke japan to save anyone. ssjevot is an outspoken critic of japanese war crimes anyway.

also, what proof is there that the nukes caused the surrender anyway? and how could one have more insight into the war than the actual people fighting it? smells like revisionist history to me.

japan committing war crimes doesn't mean the us didn't also commit warcrimes.

SSjevot refuses to address what would happen to the people in Japan's wartime holdings. The US "doing it save anyone" is also pretty irrelevant to the point: many more people would've died.

Because those historians have access to internal documents from Japan that those people didn't have? As well as more intelligence and declassified materials.

....and we have very good evidence the nukes caused the surrender that hit. But since we bring it up, even then there was a planned coup to keep fighting in opposition to surrender.

The US has committed warcrimes. This wasn't one of them

You made up a surrender condition and then accuse me of war crimes for not talking about the condition you made up. I literally do not care if you think military leaders were wrong about it they were going to surrender.

I do not support bombing civilians. Ever.

And many of those civilians were Korean workers forcibly mobilized. In Nagasaki they literally killed more Chinese and Korean prisoners than Japanese soldiers (ground zero was a prison filled with Chinese and Korean civilians, there are memorials there for them now).

This is just more of your deny, downplay, deflect strategy. I'm not denying a single bad thing Imperial Japan did not trying to justify any of it. Some of my wife's ancestors suffered directly from Japan. Japanese nationalists today are a threat to me and my family. I consider them my enemy. You however cannot ever stop yourself from defending US atrocities in topic after topic. As seen here. There is always some excuse to justify it.