Jump to content
tanknet.org

Recommended Posts

You keep on with the crusade, I see,

 

Your first point posted about practicality. To some extent, this point can lead to the realist approach in geopolitical arguments which I do agree with to some extent. Japanese move into Manchuria was an act of aggression however it was a rather very easy job and at that time, it was not in control by CKS. The Chinese clique that was in control of the Manchuria area pretty much collapsed by 1928 and that weak status was demonstrated with the SU attack in 1929 to reassert control of the whole railway that cuts across from the northwest to the southeast and onward to Vladivostok. So through 1930 and 1931, CKS was never able to move in. And then the other example of "Japanese aggression" was the starting of the Second Sino-Japanese War which was a war that was initiated as much by the Chinese as the Japanese. At several stages, the Japanese sought terms for cease-fire but each time, CKS refused. So that war dragged on even after reaching a rough stalemate. So while I do agree there is some degree of realpolitk in play in the world arena of self-serving states living in an anarchy world and that the US is not really that much at fault for pursuing top power seating with the realists perspective in mind. However that realpolitic approach also applies to some degree for other nations as well including Japan, the SU, Great Britain, etc. So in some sense the realpolitiks cancels each other out when considering all the major powers pursuing their interest in the anarchy world. But the idea that Japan would be easily prone to attack the colonies of other colonial powers is not really suggested by Manchuria or the starting of the Second Sino-Japanese War. So that is why I disagree with your assertion that Japan would just keep on consuming and consuming more and more territory.

 

Point 2 asserted that the Japanese did not understand the stakes in initiating war with the US. Some probably did not but some did. When the US oil embargo was put into place in July/early August, Japan first sought to find means for negotiations with Konoye Prime Minster, and pursued policy of trying to create an opportunity to meet with FDR for a period of about 2 or 3 months. When it became clear to the Japanese that the US was unwilling to have FDR meet Konoye, then Konoye stepped down and Tojo became Prime Minster. I recall there was one, Nagumo IIRC, who stated that war with the US should be avoided but if it had to be down, the sooner the better. Demanding that Japan leave all of China by 1941 must surely have been a very high demand for the Japanese. And an unwillingness to meet on those demands must surely speak that the intention is war in any case. There was also concern by Konoye about agreeing so openly to leave China as that would be too much for the interests that kept up the work in China for 4 years by that point. Meeting could have provided a chance for a understanding of a partial withdrawal from even from some parts of China I suspect, in addition to leaving Indochina and leaving the Axis, but at the very least meeting is well in order I would think.

 

For point 3 you argued that there would be no Malaysia, South Korea, etc and that there were some defeats (Vietnam, North Korea) and assessing the degree of good/bad in the Asia-Pacific region as a result. If there was no Pacific War, then there would have been no campaign for seizing all of South East Asia. The reason that it would have been highly unlikely that there would have been no South East Asia campaign later in the future from that point of time is because even when Japan was said to be at its height of zeal in 1941 still pursued negotiation attempts first as described in my counter to the second point and because the basis of the argument that Japan would just go on and on trying to dominate is asserting that domination appetite on the basis of previous acts of aggression on the China main land. But as I described in my counter to your point one, the degree of aggression is not nearly as heavy as regularly asserted. So assessment on how the Asia-Pacific would turn out would be in concern with how East Asia would turn out as I had described at leange already in post 872. Plus all of South East Asia being spared turning into a battleground and and just remain as the territory of colonial masters as has been.

 

For point 4, you brought up the admiral and stated that the US did put in an inquiry into the barbarity. That may be so and fair credit to that. However this point is a goal post shifting. If a person is taking the principle to try and stop the slaughter of civilians, then surely he would have done the same action in the Philippines when Filipino boys were also being shot. One could also extent this to the Chinese Civil War as CKS's forces have slaughtered by the mass civilians on grounds suspected of being communists in the mid 1930s. Or we can go to another time, the Korean War in which the Americans stood by and watched the South Koreans massacre 1,000s upon 1,000s of North Koreans. So surely he would be doing the same thing if he was in 1950s Korea or mid 1935ish mainland China or in the Philippines at the start of the 20th century. As a person's individual trait, its admirable, but for anyone that reads into history, war is hell. It is a good point to raise to raise awareness that we don't like these things which is why we generally will want to strive to avoid war or conquest.

 

 

Point 1 is about practicality is just from the US point of view, if you take what you call the moral approach Japan shouldn't have invaded Manchuria nor China, because Japan was part of the League of Nations (and as a victor of WW1, part of the Executive committee). However this conspiracy by Western powers to keep the Japanese down fells flat right there, when nothing was over Manchuria and Japan willingly left the League. Here you have Japan engaging in naked aggression at a time it had joined a international framework to avoid just that, under no pressure whatsoever.

 

Point 2 & 3: Between 1932 and 1941 Japan had plenty of opportunity of negotiating from a better position, instead it always defaulted to aggression and then tried to put forward a fait accompli - until it took one step too far.

First Manchuria in 1931, then the rest of China in 1937, then French Indochina in 1940, in the meantime, the US accepted Japanese apologies for the Panay incident and slapped an oil embargo only after it went beyond China occupying French Indochina, so, yes, the Japanese by their own hand put themselves in a very bad negotiating position that then became impossible after Pearl Harbor. Occupying all of SEA was inconcivable after Franch Indochina? hardly.

 

Remember the Japanese invaded neutral Thailand too?, so their plans were in place and didn't contemplate "just China" - again, no one forces them to do that.

 

Point 4: This time you aren't even bothering to fact check or read and comprehend my post. See point 1 - your "everyone did it" justification fails because you are comparing different periods and different places. From the point Japan joins the League of Nations, as one of the leading powers, the expectation is that it will behave as the other powers - instead when conditions didn't suit them, they left and took consciously a path of brutality that was encouraged from the top.

 

So, because "everyone did it", it will be fair to say that the Japanese were as bad as the Nazis in the Holocaust, because "dead is dead" and if the comparison works one way, then it works the other?

 

Let me end quoting Banshee to see if you finally get it: Here's your problem, and it's not the first time it's being pointed out to you. You don't debate, you crusade for giving Japan a pass for its history And all it does is making you look childish

 

Well of course, again, I did still call it aggression by the Japanese to go into Manchuria. But Japan received heavy criticism for going in, so that is why they left the league. It very well could have been a mistake for Japan to have gone into Manchuria. Me personally, I'm sort of on the fence with it and I don't mind if others disagree with Japan's course of actin in going into Manchuria. However, I do not think it was severe enough to earn justification 10 years later. If one argues the US did the oil embargo for practical geopolitical reasons, then well year, I don't disagree with it so much. But if one asserts a necessity to place an oil embargo on Japan in which there was no way out of it on the basis of having to eliminate a scourge, then I do indeed disagree with that sentiment. And for extra, it allowed communists to control the area instead, thus defeating the purpose of making for a better environment, and potentially making the practical effect worse too even for the US in having spread an more anti-american ideal to spread out more, hence DPRK and today's CCP.

 

For your response to point 2 and 3, I'm sorry but I disagree with that negotiating time wasn't since 1931 or 1937. The occuption of French Indonchina was becuase Japan was joining the Axis and France was a defeated power, thus essentially, no major ruling power in Indonchina, plus Japan had the interest in cutting off aid going into China via Indochina. However, its been made quite clearly that Japan was willing to leave Indonchina and the Axis if the US came into negotiations with Japan when the oil embargo was put in place.

 

Well the invasino of Thailand was a result of the SEA campaign getting the go ahead. So it is outside the the possible list of examples that Japan was going to invade all of Indochina even if no oil embargo. Thailand was along the path towards Myanmar. The invasion lasted for something like only a week or something and then Thailand agreed to join Japan's side and gave Japan passage of forces. Of all the areas in SEA, Thailand suffered the least. As a non-colony of a former power and not resisting so hard, they weren't abused. And in fact they gained some territory that they had wanted from Malaysia area for some time.

 

As for point 4, I was speaking in consideration of the origin of this point which was Ryan's conversation with the daughter of the admiral of him trying to stop Japanese soldiers shooting at Chinese civilians. Again, I believe the point that war is hell and that other examples of civilian killings do exists and so I would expect the fine admiral be motivated to take the same action had he been present in 1900 Philippines, 1935 China Civil War, or early 1950s Korea, just like Chinese cities under assault from Japanese forces. I do not think all these cases are equal to the Holocaust though.

 

I think I am debating just fine right now. There is going to be a degree of opinion based on some parts that are open for interpretation but well, those are my answers and opinions to your points of views.

Edited by JasonJ
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 917
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

 

Key thing about Americans in the Philippines, our boys didn't rape and murder their way across the islands and then keep doing so while they held sway. Americans kept order protected the innocent and conducted affairs in an orderly and civil manner.

See the links.

 

Was that brutality related to the insurrection or was it characteristic for the US possession of the islands under the entire time the US "held sway"? Note that specific bit. I chose that duration of the characterization specifically.

 

Was there widespread bayoneting of women and babies for sport as a method of quelling the insurrection?

 

Within your own provided links it shows that the behavior was barely condoned and was certainly not on the same scale, scope or breadth. Is it comparable to Japanese behavior?

 

 

Ryan, moving goalposts is not a good discussion tactic. I've never claimed there was "bayonetting of women and babies for sport as a method to quelling the insurrection". However, there were cases of indiscriminate murderting of women and babies. For instance:

 

Regarding the massacres in Bud Dajo, Major Hugh Scott, the District Governor of Sulu Province, where the incidents occurred, recounted that those who fled to the crater "declared they had no intention of fighting, - ran up there only in fright, [and] had some crops planted and desired to cultivate them."[14]

 

The description of the engagement as a "battle" is disputed because of both the overwhelming firepower of the attackers and the lopsided casualties. The author Vic Hurley wrote, "By no stretch of the imagination could Bud Dajo be termed a 'battle'".[15] Mark Twain condemned the incident strongly in articles[16][17] and commented, "In what way was it a battle? It has no resemblance to a battle ... We cleaned up our four days' work and made it complete by butchering these helpless people."[18] A higher percentage of Moros were killed than in other incidents now considered massacres. For example, the highest estimate of Native Americans killed at the Wounded Knee Massacre is 300 out of 350 (a death rate of 85 percent), whereas in Bud Dajo there were only six Moro survivors out of a group estimated at 1,000 (a death rate of over 99 percent). As at Wounded Knee, the Moro group included women and children. Moro men in the crater who had arms possessed melee weapons. While fighting was limited to ground action on Jolo, use of naval gunfire contributed significantly to the overwhelming firepower brought to bear against the Moros.

 

During the engagement, 750 men and officers, under the command of Colonel J.W. Duncan, assaulted the volcanic crater of Bud Dajo (Tausūg: Būd Dahu), which was populated by 800 to 1,000 Tausug villagers.

 

On March 2, 1906, Wood ordered Colonel J.W. Duncan of the 6th Infantry Regiment (stationed at Zamboanga, the provincial capital) to lead an expedition against Bud Dajo. The assault force consisted of "272 men of the 6th Infantry, 211 [dismounted] men of the 4th Cavalry, 68 men of the 28th Artillery Battery, 51 Philippine Constabulary, 110 men of the 19th Infantry and 6 sailors from the gunboat Pampanga."[19] The battle began on March 5, as mountain guns fired 40 rounds of shrapnel into the crater.[19] During the night, the Americans hauled mountain guns to the crater's edge with block and tackle. At daybreak, the American guns (both the mountain guns and the guns of the Pampanga) opened up on the Moros' fortifications in the crater. American forces then placed a "Machine Gun... in position where it could sweep the crest of the mountain between us and the cotta," killing all Moros in the crater.[20] One account claims that the Moros, armed with krises and spears, refused to surrender and held their positions. Some of the defenders rushed the Americans and were cut down. The Americans charged the surviving Moros with fixed bayonets, and the Moros fought back with their kalis, barung, improvised grenades made with black powder and seashells.[19] Despite the inconsistencies among various accounts of the battle (one in which all occupants of Bud Dajo were gunned down, another in which defenders resisted in fierce hand-to-hand combat), all accounts agree that few, if any, Moros survived.

 

In response to criticism, Wood's explanation of the high number of women and children killed stated that the women of Bud Dajo dressed as men and joined in the combat, and that the men used children as living shields.[21][22] Hagedorn supports this explanation, by giving an account of Lt. Gordon Johnston, who was severely wounded by a woman warrior.[23] A second explanation was given by the Governor-General of the Philippines, Henry Clay Ide, who reported that the women and children were collateral damage, having been killed during the artillery barrages.[21] These conflicting explanations of the high number of women and child casualties brought accusations of a cover-up, adding to the criticism.[21] Furthermore, Wood's and Ide's explanation are at odds with Col. J.W. Duncan's March 12, 1906 post-action report describing the placement of a machine-gun at the edge of the crater to fire upon the occupants.[20] Following Duncan's reports, the high number of non-combatants killed can be explained as the result of indiscriminate machine-gun fire.

Source

 

USA promised independence to the PI in 1898, then went to annex the PI as a colony.

 

If the atrocities were not condoned then where are the court martial records?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Committee_on_the_Philippines#Investigation

 

Edited to add: I found two officers that were court martialed, with quite mild results:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_H._Smith

 

On September 28, 1901, fifty-one [3] American soldiers of Company C of the 9th U.S. Infantry Regiment who had been stationed in the town of Balangiga, the third largest town on the southern coast of Samar Island, were killed in a surprise guerrilla attack. They had been deployed to Balangiga to close its port and prevent supplies reaching Filipino forces in the interior,[12] which at that time were under the command of General Vicente Lukbán. Lukbán had been sent there in December 1898 to govern the island on behalf of the First Philippine Republic under Emilio Aguinaldo.[13]

 

The attack provoked shock in the U.S. public, with newspapers equating what they called a "massacre" to George Armstrong Custer's last stand at the Battle of the Little Bighorn in 1876. Major General Adna R. Chaffee, military governor of the Philippines, received orders from President Theodore Roosevelt to pacify Samar. To this end, Chaffee appointed Smith to Samar to accomplish the task.

 

 

Smith's order "Kill Everyone Over Ten" became a caption in the New York Journal cartoon on May 5, 1902. The Old Glory draped an American shield on which a vulture replaced the bald eagle. The caption at the bottom proclaimed, "Criminals Because They Were Born Ten Years Before We Took the Philippines." Smith's conduct of this campaign eventually resulted in his court-martial.[2]

Smith instructed Major Littleton Waller, commanding officer of a battalion of 315 U.S. Marines assigned to bolster his forces in Samar, regarding the conduct of pacification:

 

I want no prisoners. I wish you to kill and burn, the more you kill and burn the better it will please me. I want all persons killed who are capable of bearing arms in actual hostilities against the United States," General Jacob H. Smith said.

 

Since it was a popular belief among the Americans serving in the Philippines that native males were born with bolos in their hands, Major Littleton "Tony" Waller asked,

 

"I would like to know the limit of age to respect, sir."

 

"Ten years", Smith said.

 

"Persons of ten years and older are those designated as being capable of bearing arms?"

 

"Yes." Smith confirmed his instructions a second time.[14][15][16]

 

A sustained and widespread massacre of Filipino civilians followed. Food and trade to Samar were cut off, intended to starve the revolutionaries into submission. Smith's strategy on Samar involved widespread destruction to force the inhabitants to stop supporting the guerrillas and turn to the Americans from fear and starvation. He used his troops in sweeps of the interior in search for guerrilla bands and in attempts to capture Philippine General Vicente Lukbán, but he did nothing to prevent contact between the guerrillas and the townspeople. American columns marched across the island, destroying homes and shooting people and draft animals.

 

The exact number of Filipino civilians killed by US troops will never be known. Littleton Waller, in a report, stated that over an eleven-day period his men burned 255 dwellings, shot 13 carabaos and killed 39 people.[17] An exhaustive research made by a British writer in the 1990s put the figure at about 2,500 dead; Filipino historians believe it to be around 50,000.[18]

 

The abuses outraged anti-Imperialist groups in the United States when these became known in March 1902.[citation needed] The Judge Advocate General of the Army observed that only the good sense and restraint of the majority of Smith's subordinates prevented a complete reign of terror in Samar.[citation needed]

 

As a consequence of his order in Samar, Smith became known as "Howling Wilderness Smith."[19] Smith earned another sobriquet, "Hell-Roaring Jake" not due to his violence in war, but because of his penchant for making outrageous oaths and the extravagance of his language.[citation needed]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littleton_Waller

 

Waller's court-martial

Smith's order was not discovered by superiors or the media at the time it was given. It was only revealed in the course of the court martial of Major Littleton Waller, one of Smith's subordinates, which began on March 17, 1902. Major Waller was being tried for ordering the execution of eleven mutinous Filipino porters.[20]

 

Waller did not mention Smith's order in his defense, instead relying on provisions of Civil War General Order Number 100. That General Order, also known as the Lieber Code, dictated how Union soldiers were expected to conduct themselves during wartime, and is considered a precursor to the Geneva Conventions. In contrast to later agreements regarding rules of war, the Lieber Code permitted the killing of POWs in reprisal for violations of the rules of war by the enemy, and called for the summary execution of spies, saboteurs and guerrilla fighters.

 

Waller's counsel had rested his defense. The prosecution decided to call Smith as a rebuttal witness. Smith was not above selling out Waller to save his career. On April 7, 1902, Smith perjured himself again by denying that he had given any special verbal orders to Waller.

 

In response, Waller revealed Smith's order to him and produced three officers who corroborated Waller's version of the Smith–Waller conversation, and copies of every written order he had received from Smith. Waller informed the court he had been directed to take no prisoners and to kill every male Filipino over 10.[21]

 

General Adna Chaffee, military governor of the Philippines, cabled the War Department requesting permission to keep Smith in the islands for a short time, since he feared that Smith, if given the opportunity to talk to reporters, could speak "absurdly unwise" and might say things contrary to the facts established in the case, "or act like an unbalanced lunatic."[11]

 

Smith's court-martial

In May 1902, Smith faced court-martial for his orders, being tried not for murder or other war crimes, but for "conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline". The court-martial found Smith guilty and sentenced him "to be admonished by the reviewing authority."

 

To ease the subsequent public outcry in America, Secretary of War Elihu Root recommended that Smith be retired. President Roosevelt accepted this recommendation, and ordered Smith's retirement from the Army, with no additional punishment.[6][22] General J. Franklin Bell was never investigated.[23]

Edited by sunday
Link to post
Share on other sites

More childish acting, moving the goalpost to fit your preconceptions:

 

Well of course, again, I did still call it aggression by the Japanese to go into Manchuria. But Japan received heavy criticism for going in, so that is why they left the league. It very well could have been a mistake for Japan to have gone into Manchuria. Me personally, I'm sort of on the fence with it and I don't mind if others disagree with Japan's course of actin in going into Manchuria. However, I do not think it was severe enough to earn justification 10 years later. If one argues the US did the oil embargo for practical geopolitical reasons, then well year, I don't disagree with it so much. But if one asserts a necessity to place an oil embargo on Japan in which there was no way out of it on the basis of having to eliminate a scourge, then I do indeed disagree with that sentiment. And for extra, it allowed communists to control the area instead, thus defeating the purpose of making for a better environment, and potentially making the practical effect worse too even for the US in having spread an more anti-american ideal to spread out more, hence DPRK and today's CCP.

 

For your response to point 2 and 3, I'm sorry but I disagree with that negotiating time wasn't since 1931 or 1937. The occuption of French Indonchina was becuase Japan was joining the Axis and France was a defeated power, thus essentially, no major ruling power in Indonchina, plus Japan had the interest in cutting off aid going into China via Indochina. However, its been made quite clearly that Japan was willing to leave Indonchina and the Axis if the US came into negotiations with Japan when the oil embargo was put in place.

 

Well the invasino of Thailand was a result of the SEA campaign getting the go ahead. So it is outside the the possible list of examples that Japan was going to invade all of Indochina even if no oil embargo. Thailand was along the path towards Myanmar. The invasion lasted for something like only a week or something and then Thailand agreed to join Japan's side and gave Japan passage of forces. Of all the areas in SEA, Thailand suffered the least. As a non-colony of a former power and not resisting so hard, they weren't abused. And in fact they gained some territory that they had wanted from Malaysia area for some time.

 

As for point 4, I was speaking in consideration of the origin of this point which was Ryan's conversation with the daughter of the admiral of him trying to stop Japanese soldiers shooting at Chinese civilians. Again, I believe the point that war is hell and that other examples of civilian killings do exists and so I would expect the fine admiral be motivated to take the same action had he been present in 1900 Philippines, 1935 China Civil War, or early 1950s Korea, just like Chinese cities under assault from Japanese forces. I do not think all these cases are equal to the Holocaust though.

 

I think I am debating just fine right now. There is going to be a degree of opinion based on some parts that are open for interpretation but well, those are my answers and opinions to your points of views.

 

 

No, Jason, it's not about opinions, but about disregarding historical facts and dressing and ignoring others to fit what you want. The invasion of Manchuria was a first step in the path of agression but there were others and those led one after another to the embargo that you believe (but facts don't sustain) was justification to attack the US, the UK, Thailand and the NEI, so now you are calling those historical facts "opinions" and saying the are worth the same as your unfounded beliefs.

 

And no, you are not debating fine points, just trying to dress up your denial as opinions and what-aboutism.

Link to post
Share on other sites

More childish acting, moving the goalpost to fit your preconceptions:

 

Well of course, again, I did still call it aggression by the Japanese to go into Manchuria. But Japan received heavy criticism for going in, so that is why they left the league. It very well could have been a mistake for Japan to have gone into Manchuria. Me personally, I'm sort of on the fence with it and I don't mind if others disagree with Japan's course of actin in going into Manchuria. However, I do not think it was severe enough to earn justification 10 years later. If one argues the US did the oil embargo for practical geopolitical reasons, then well year, I don't disagree with it so much. But if one asserts a necessity to place an oil embargo on Japan in which there was no way out of it on the basis of having to eliminate a scourge, then I do indeed disagree with that sentiment. And for extra, it allowed communists to control the area instead, thus defeating the purpose of making for a better environment, and potentially making the practical effect worse too even for the US in having spread an more anti-american ideal to spread out more, hence DPRK and today's CCP.

 

For your response to point 2 and 3, I'm sorry but I disagree with that negotiating time wasn't since 1931 or 1937. The occuption of French Indonchina was becuase Japan was joining the Axis and France was a defeated power, thus essentially, no major ruling power in Indonchina, plus Japan had the interest in cutting off aid going into China via Indochina. However, its been made quite clearly that Japan was willing to leave Indonchina and the Axis if the US came into negotiations with Japan when the oil embargo was put in place.

 

Well the invasino of Thailand was a result of the SEA campaign getting the go ahead. So it is outside the the possible list of examples that Japan was going to invade all of Indochina even if no oil embargo. Thailand was along the path towards Myanmar. The invasion lasted for something like only a week or something and then Thailand agreed to join Japan's side and gave Japan passage of forces. Of all the areas in SEA, Thailand suffered the least. As a non-colony of a former power and not resisting so hard, they weren't abused. And in fact they gained some territory that they had wanted from Malaysia area for some time.

 

As for point 4, I was speaking in consideration of the origin of this point which was Ryan's conversation with the daughter of the admiral of him trying to stop Japanese soldiers shooting at Chinese civilians. Again, I believe the point that war is hell and that other examples of civilian killings do exists and so I would expect the fine admiral be motivated to take the same action had he been present in 1900 Philippines, 1935 China Civil War, or early 1950s Korea, just like Chinese cities under assault from Japanese forces. I do not think all these cases are equal to the Holocaust though.

 

I think I am debating just fine right now. There is going to be a degree of opinion based on some parts that are open for interpretation but well, those are my answers and opinions to your points of views.

 

 

No, Jason, it's not about opinions, but about disregarding historical facts and dressing and ignoring others to fit what you want. The invasion of Manchuria was a first step in the path of agression but there were others and those led one after another to the embargo that you believe (but facts don't sustain) was justification to attack the US, the UK, Thailand and the NEI, so now you are calling those historical facts "opinions" and saying the are worth the same as your unfounded beliefs.

 

And no, you are not debating fine points, just trying to dress up your denial as opinions and what-aboutism.

 

On Manchuria, as I have stated before, the reason why I do not think Manchuria was a strong indication that Japan would have been willing to do the same to the colonies of major powers in SEA is because Manchuria was a collapsed state since 1928 and the Soviet Union had attacked it in 1929 to reassert complete control of the train line running through it. And because even though CKS considered Manchuria to be part of China, for 3 years, he was unable to move in and exercise any kind of control in Manchuria. I was also right on Japan's border. Just my view.

 

Thank you for the exchange of posts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It'll rumble back onto the tracks, too many free speech impacting things going on.

For one, Democrats are proposing a revision to the 1st amendment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Tanknet rule #3: No thread stays on topic for more than three pagesposts....

 

FIFY

 

There was the one about tanks and dog flatulence. What is sadly amazing is that it did make some sense in three posts :huh:

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Tanknet rule #3: No thread stays on topic for more than three pagesposts....

 

FIFY

 

There was the one about tanks and dog flatulence. What is sadly amazing is that it did make some sense in three posts :huh:

 

I recall that one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Google is Big Brother.

 

Break them up. S/F....Ken M

 

The Left says Teddy Roosevelt was one of the "good" Republicans because of his anti-trust work in going after those dastardly Robber Barons, let's give it another go. We need to update the old Robber Baron octopus cartoons for the Big Tech Robber Barons of Google/Facebook/Twitter.

 

d9d0843a14a5ae30c6e760b8baa29d2a.png

8fb2ff7c71c49a76d4a5d4ad6d5db598.jpg

 

image14.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

We need to update the old Robber Baron octopus cartoons for the Big Tech Robber Barons of Google/Facebook/Twitter.

 

already done a few years ago:

o-FACEBOOK-570.jpg​

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

no octopus, but I stumbled upon it:

 

 

v-leute_2020585.jpg​

"my cool informers"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sir, we see you want to say something about the current political situation. Now, that's your right under the 1st Amendment -- but because of how politically charged it is and the possible consequences, you will have to fill out these forms, pay a $200 NFA tax stamp and wait 8-12 months, but then you should be good to go!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...

This is an interesting and controversial current German case. Disregarding the politics of the involved parties, if any random citizen had been the target of online comments calling her a "dirty cunt", "piece of shit", "sick in the head", "slut" etc., there's little doubt the platform would have been ordered to release the poster's data for prosecution for defamation. However, the ruling basically says that politicians have to take it as part of controversial debate. Even learned usual defenders of the judiciary have expressed doubts that this will hold up on appeal.

 

Politically, this of course serves to highlight the ongoing debate about "hate speech" which usually gets narrowed down to that by rightwingers. Green politicians in particular have long complained that their criminal complaints over online defamation and threats generally get abated by authorities, while rightwingers like to complain about censorship for not being allowed to defame individuals and groups of people online.

 

Date 20.09.2019

 

Judge tells German politician to put up with derogatory online comments

 

A court decision that degrading, misogynistic online posts targeting a Greens lawmaker were "allowable" has met with widespread outrage. Renate Künast called the ruling a "catastrophic signal."

 

Greens parliamentarian Renate Künast has condemned a ruling by a Berlin court that deemed online comments calling her a "piece of shit" and an "old, filthy Green pig" as allowable in certain contexts, saying that she would appeal.

 

"The ruling by the district court sends a catastrophic signal, particularly to all women on the internet, as to what treatment women should put up with," she told German news agency dpa in comments published on Thursday.

 

In her suit, Künast had tried to gain permission for Facebook to release personal data on 22 users so that she could take legal steps against the writers of the derogatory, profanity-laced comments, her lawyer, Severin Riemenschneider, told the news agency.

 

But the court ruled that the posts, including those calling for her rape, did not constitute a "defamation of the complainant and thus not insults."

 

From an old debate

 

The incident that led to the online comments goes back to 1986 when Künast made a remark in parliament seen as indicating her support for the demand by some fringe regional Green politicians for the legalization of sex with minors. She has rejected the accusations as a misunderstanding and is documented as having never supported such a demand.

 

According to the Berliner Morgenpost newspaper, Künast's comment was posted and has since been deleted by a right-wing online activist on Facebook, where more users left derogatory comments about the politician.

 

The ruling said of these comments that no "abuse can be presumed when the utterance occurs in the context of a factual dispute."

 

[...]

 

https://www.dw.com/en/judge-tells-german-politician-to-put-up-with-derogatory-online-comments/a-50507975

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an interesting and controversial current German case. Disregarding the politics of the involved parties, if any random citizen had been the target of online comments calling her a "dirty cunt", "piece of shit", "sick in the head", "slut" etc., there's little doubt the platform would have been ordered to release the poster's data for prosecution for defamation. However, the ruling basically says that politicians have to take it as part of controversial debate. Even learned usual defenders of the judiciary have expressed doubts that this will hold up on appeal.

 

Politically, this of course serves to highlight the ongoing debate about "hate speech" which usually gets narrowed down to that by rightwingers. Green politicians in particular have long complained that their criminal complaints over online defamation and threats generally get abated by authorities, while rightwingers like to complain about censorship for not being allowed to defame individuals and groups of people online.

 

Date 20.09.2019

 

Judge tells German politician to put up with derogatory online comments

 

A court decision that degrading, misogynistic online posts targeting a Greens lawmaker were "allowable" has met with widespread outrage. Renate Künast called the ruling a "catastrophic signal."

 

Greens parliamentarian Renate Künast has condemned a ruling by a Berlin court that deemed online comments calling her a "piece of shit" and an "old, filthy Green pig" as allowable in certain contexts, saying that she would appeal.

 

"The ruling by the district court sends a catastrophic signal, particularly to all women on the internet, as to what treatment women should put up with," she told German news agency dpa in comments published on Thursday.

 

In her suit, Künast had tried to gain permission for Facebook to release personal data on 22 users so that she could take legal steps against the writers of the derogatory, profanity-laced comments, her lawyer, Severin Riemenschneider, told the news agency.

 

But the court ruled that the posts, including those calling for her rape, did not constitute a "defamation of the complainant and thus not insults."

 

From an old debate

 

The incident that led to the online comments goes back to 1986 when Künast made a remark in parliament seen as indicating her support for the demand by some fringe regional Green politicians for the legalization of sex with minors. She has rejected the accusations as a misunderstanding and is documented as having never supported such a demand.

 

According to the Berliner Morgenpost newspaper, Künast's comment was posted and has since been deleted by a right-wing online activist on Facebook, where more users left derogatory comments about the politician.

 

The ruling said of these comments that no "abuse can be presumed when the utterance occurs in the context of a factual dispute."

 

[...]

 

https://www.dw.com/en/judge-tells-german-politician-to-put-up-with-derogatory-online-comments/a-50507975

 

 

 

No they do not tell Künast to put up with it. She filed an application that Facebook was to give her the data of the writer of the post. The judges declined the request.

 

This was not a trial if it was a punishable insult. For that she would have to file it as such to get a proper trial.

 

 

Fun fact: Künast has a law degree and should know the difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the case was about releasing the data, but the ruling did in fact say it need not because she had to put up with such insults.

 

Weil das Thema, mit dem Künast "vor vielen Jahren durch ihren Zwischenruf an die Öffentlichkeit gegangen ist, sich ebenfalls im sexuellen Bereich befindet und die damals von ihr durch den Zwischenruf aus der Sicht der Öffentlichkeit zumindest nicht kritisierte Forderung der Entpönalisierung in der Gesellschaft hat, ist die Kammer jedoch der Ansicht, dass die Antragstellerin als Politikerin sich auch sehr weit überzogene Kritik gefallen lassen muss. Dass mit der Aussage allein eine Diffamierung der Antragstellerin beabsichtigt ist, ohne Sachbezug zu der im kommentierten Post wiedergegebenen Äußerung ist nicht feststellbar." Beleidigungen wie "Drecks Fotze" bewegten sich "haarscharf an der Grenze des von der Antragstellerin noch hinnehmbaren".

 

https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/renate-kuenast-berliner-landgericht-haelt-beschimpfungen-fuer-zulaessig-a-1287592.html

 

Because the topic with which Künast "went public many years ago through her interjection is also in the sexual area, and has the demand of depenalization in society which she then at least not criticized by the interjection from the public's point of view, the chamber is however of the opinion that the applicant as a politician must also accept very widely excessive criticism. That a defamation of the applicant alone is intended by the statement, without factual reference to the utterance reiterated in the commented post, ist not discernible." Insults like "dirty cunt" were moving "within a hair's breadth of the border of what the applicant has still to accept".

 

I. e., if you make a controversial interjection during a parliamentary debate on depenalizing sex with children (she was pointing out in 1986 that a motion of the NRW Greens to that effect, which was being criticized by a CDU member of the Berlin House of Deputies, narrowed it to cases without use of force), you have to take sexually-framed insults even three decades later.

 

Of course some busybody law firm has already filed a criminal complaint against the judges for perverting the course of justice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Politicians from both teams have been quite fond of "first amendment zones" for decades now.

 

It's been getting worse every year.

 

It's not the exception, of course; there's hardly an amendment from the BoR that doesn't get violated on a routine basis. In some cases these violations are markedly partisan (the Left's antagonism of the 2A, for instance) but on the most part not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hasn't it been remarkably consistent that the "free speech" that gets confined to "zones" is usually marked by violence by the radical left?

When us right types show up armed for a protest, we're polite, formal, many wearing ties. We help people cross the road, are polite with the people we're protesting against and noone gets arrested.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...