God/Nature punishing US because Trump cancelled gloabal warming agreement

[brian___]

I guess murdering a million people in Iraq didn't count then. Or nuking two cities full of innocent people.

To bad they missed this dumb *****

[1bad65]

You can't have a rational conversation with somebody who thinks when civilians get incinerated that got what was coming to them.

Which I did not say.

Can you please cut it with the strawmen arguments.

That it's not a crime because back then lawyers said it wasn't so.

Again, not an argument I made.

I only pointed out bombing cities back then was not a war crime. Which is factual.

[1bad65]

Youre the one who said they were the legit targets of nuclear weapons.

I also said the cities themselves were legit military targets.

You left that part out.

You're now leaving out parts of my arguments on top of adding in arguments I never made.

Think of the actual flesh and blood people and tell me it wasn't wrong.

Murder is murder. Collateral damage in total war is not murder. It's unfortunate, but not a war crime.

Your emotions don't trump reality or international law.

[Zaroku]

US citizens are suffering because of Trump's disregard for nature. What do you expect from someone with sons who like trophy hunting endangered animals. This family has no regard for nature. smh

'Twas a ****ed deal from the start. Trump did right..

[bluepete]

Which I did not say.

Can you please cut it with the strawmen arguments.



Again, not an argument I made.

I only pointed out bombing cities back then was not a war crime. Which is factual.

One look at your posts prove you were justifying the act. Bombing cities may not have been a war crime in the eyes of the criminals running the world at the time, but it was a war crime because it was a crime against humanity. It doesn't matter to me about some lawmakers definition of it at the time.

[Zaroku]

I also said the cities themselves were legit military targets.

You left that part out.

You're now leaving out parts of my arguments on top of adding in arguments I never made.



Murder is murder. Collateral damage in total war is not murder. It's unfortunate, but not a war crime.

Your emotions don't trump reality or international law.

My brother.. Well said

[bluepete]

I also said the cities themselves were legit military targets.

You left that part out.

You're now leaving out parts of my arguments on top of adding in arguments I never made.



Murder is murder. Collateral damage in total war is not murder. It's unfortunate, but not a war crime.

Your emotions don't trump reality or international law.

Natural law trumps international law. I'm sure if Hitler had won the war extermination of all Jews wouldve been international law. Would it still be a crime? Yep. Maybe not in the mind of those who let the people in power tell them what's right or wrong. Now you know I was saying that the bombing of those cities with nuclear bombs was not right or justified. You said they were legitimate targets. They are not legitimate when thousands of innocent people have to die just to hit military targets. As a more enlightened world now accepts. Nothing legitimate about something just because a guy in a suit says it is so. Collateral damage is just another word for murder when you know for a fact bombing that factory is going to kill that many innocents. But you can't understand that. Anyway, what do you care about international law? You think it's a good thing Blair ignored he's population to engage in an illegal war.

[bluepete]

To bad they missed this dumb *****

Theres alot of dumb ****s on this site. They talk like rambo from behind a screen and would get mugged in ten minutes by the kids on my estate.

[1bad65]

One look at your posts prove you were justifying the act.

Yes, I justified them as being a legit military targets.

You're catching up!

Bombing cities may not have been a war crime in the eyes of the criminals running the world at the time, but it was a war crime because it was a crime against humanity. It doesn't matter to me about some lawmakers definition of it at the time.

Editorializing.

Stick to the facts please.

[1bad65]

Natural law trumps international law.

In your head, yes.
In the real world, nope.

I'm sure if Hitler had won the war extermination of all Jews wouldve been international law.

Conjecture.

That's two different fallacies in the span of a few posts. I asked you to cut the fallacy, not to use different fallacies.

The rest of it is more editorializing on your part.

I'm here to discuss the facts of the bombings, not listen to your rants on what you wish was reality.