now heres a funny kitteh
http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/2...terthedive.jpg
:rotfl2:

Not possible. Once started, an argument has to run its course. Otherwise it's like a cartoon character who has just run off a cliff - legs churning forever, but never falling.

lol yeah fair enough :salute:

+10 this post says it all really , I can't believe that this argument is still going on. What Steve says is quite correct in that because of the editing of the video, the video proves nothing.

We all know the massacre happened and no-one is denying that fact.

The problem is the video.

Yeah, Neal and a few others thought so when I posted it here a few months ago :DL

im trying to change the subject lol:yep:

I never said she said it was common practice to do so. Now you are putting words in my mouth. I merely provided a video on a topic that was previously discussed.

LOL. It wasn't a crime. As I said, it was legal to do this. Mush Morton was not tried like Eck.

Again, you seem to think this is some sort of trial. You turned an innocent thread into some sort of courtroom drama for absolutely no reason. No one is arguing for anyone to be tried and convicted of a crime. So your insisting that this video can not "prove" anything is juvenile. If one does not wish to believe what it clearly shows, that is up to them.

Again with the evidence bit. What is this Law and Order?

Ah ha. Now we come to the root of your motivation for making a mountain out of molehill. You resent that video because you find what is in that video to be disturbing and wish to mitigate these actions by suggesting that perhaps they were justified. "He might have been fired on first". Wow. Now let's assume that happened. What rational person would justify massacring men in a life raft because someone in that life raft would have fired a side arm at a large vessel? Why didn't he just sail away and leave them there? There is no moral defense of that. It may have been legal at the time, but it certainly is not legal today and for good reason.

Again with the "proof". Where is this trial for which you seem so concerned with acting as defense attorney? It is a video that shows men in the water being shot. It is not being used in any war crime trial. It was legal to do what is described in the video. So you can forget about being a defense attorney relying on the old canard that "you can't prove it was me". lol. It is merely an interesting piece of archival footage to which you have taken great exception. This whole trial is only in your head. Nobody cares.

BTW, we can see in one scene both the shooter and the man in the water in the same frame. That is pretty hard to refute. And the reason why he was shot was because the Navy instructed its sailors to not allow Japanese survivors aboard.

I am seriously astounded that you just can't seem to work out what Steve is saying , a number of us have tried to get you to understand by posting it in as simplistic form as possible - but you just don't get it do you?

No - one is refuting the massacare, we are all just saying that because of the way the editing is done in the video - it may not show what it claims to. Of course it may well actually show the massacre - who knows? and to be honest - who cares?

Get over it lol.

I never said Steve is refuting the massacre. I just find it silly that anyone would take such exception to this piece of archival footage when there is no reason to suspect it of being anything other than what it appears. And Steve can defend himself. He does not need any proxies.

Now get over yourself - I'll add a post in a thread whenever I want to:nope:

No, he may not want to admit that it took place, but he has. The issue is not the historical reality of the massacre, but of any reason to suspect that his video does not show what was US Navy policy. What it shows is consistent with what we know was allowed at the time. Therefore, there is no merit in questioning the veracity of the film. It's very simple.

I could post large photos from photobucket, too, but what good would that do. Then it just becomes a childish pissing contest and the moderators don't want bandwidth wasted like that.

A pretty good analogy and one it looks like some contributors on here would agree with :hmmm:

The reason I posted it is because once again you have left me completely speechless in your inability to see that there is no right or wrong here.

You are the one making Mount Everest out of a tiny molehill, quite a few people have attested to that in this very thread , and yet you cannot see this.

A situation worthy of a face palm picture methinks.


http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w...0265/Uzrco.gif

I couldn't agree more...

No, it was Steve who started the argument. My sin, apparently, is for taking Sailor Steve up on that argument and not going away once he has spoken. I posted a molehill, and a mountain was made of it by one member of this board. However, that one member is a fixture here and his opinion is not to be challenged. Apparently, that is a sign of disrespect that riles some of his friends. That is not done. So I will give him the last word.

Nonetheless, I see no reason to question the veracity of the film as it is consistent with what we know was policy. We see in the end of the film a US Navy sailor shooting a man in the water, right next to the sub. In the end, the film is consistent with known historical fact.

......

Can't be bothered anymore, he's not listening and Top Gear is on.

thats where i say its a grenade... old mate is holding a colt because they are approaching a survivor and are on guard because they knew of the kamikase threat... at which point the jap survivor detonates a grenade to avoid capture and dishonoring his family.
all in all lets drop it now please people:yeah: