[MiscBrah]

images/engli..._quote.gif

I was reading Beyond Borders *excellent* post in the 31 year old woman commits suicide thread and it got me thinking. Especially his story at the end about how he reacted to the news that a man who had wronged him had died.

Awhile back I was in Honolulu and visiting Pearl Harbor. I was on board the USS Missouri (the ship where Japan officially surrendered) and heard the story of a failed kamikaze attack on the ship. A young Japanese pilot flew into the starboard side of the ship, causing a minor fire and minimal damage. No American was killed or injured but the remains of the enemy pilot were recovered intact.

Imagine you were on the USS Missouri. That young Japanese man attacked the ship! He tried to send you and your buddies to your deaths! What do you do with the body? Piss on it? Throw it overboard? Send it back to Japan defiled?

Captain Callaghan, the commanding officer on the ship, decided what was going to happen. Just as the seaman were about to wash the enemy body overboard, he stepped in and ordered the body to be prepared for burial.

He determined that the Japanese pilot had done his job to the best of his ability, and with honor, so he should be given a military funeral. The following day he was buried at sea with military honors. The Marine Guard fired a traditional three-volley rifle salute, a bugler played taps and the ship chaplain concluded it by saying "Commend his body to the deep."

Imagine what it must have been like for the young Japanese pilot’s family at the time. To find out their son received respect and honor from the American enemy amidst a very brutal and devastating war. I believe at a later date the Japanese family thanked the sailors on the ship.

I still think about this story often.

When should this respect end? Should ISIS terrorists be shown respect in death as the young Japanese pilot was? Their fighting tactics are very different, one being honorable and the other being completely inhuman, but should that change anything?

Jesus often said to forgive your enemies while Genghis Khan said "A man's greatest joy is crushing his enemies."

I'm very curious to hear some of your thoughts on this. I'm aware that there are an endless number of different scenarios but what is the general principle that a man should strive to follow? I find this sort of thing very hard to understand but very important in regards to masculine ethics.

[MiscBrah]

Just realized my link was broken. This is what I was referring to.

(03-30-2016 12:01 AM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  

Once a man came and attacked me in a bar with the members of a truly dangerous criminal organization. Over something that had zero to do with me - I got a blowjob from a woman and then got caught in the crossfire of their gang shit over misunderstood text messages I'd sent her.

This stranger then had a hit put on my life, and when I tracked down his number and called him on the phone, he refused to back down because he already had the ball rolling. I could sense he knew he was in the wrong, but admitting so would have made him look like a fool in front of his gangster buddies.

I remember sitting in a hotel room, my eye swollen shut, pointing the pistol in the mirror and screaming my head off like a lunatic, ready to murder someone. I'd already figured out where he lived and had a plan to meet him with a face full of lead when he walked out of his house in the morning.

In the end, I put down that gun. Because of this incident, I lost everything I owned. My reputation on the streets where I grew up was largely tarnished. I turned my back on my childhood home and left, unsure if I'd see my family again, as interested in preserving their safety as I was interested in not getting caught up in this drama or losing my life over something that didn't seem quite worth it.

You know what, years later, this man took a bullet and died.

Did I jump around with glee or gloat about it and cackle "see what happens?" Fuck no. Did I go online and post anonymous comments talking shit about him on news stories about the incident (like I saw a lot of other people doing)? Fuck no.

I walked down to my favorite beach bar, sat down and ordered a beer for him. Shook my head and said, that's a tragedy. Considered myself lucky that I was sitting there in Thailand, living a dream life, while the life he tried to drag me into devoured him. I even said a sincere prayer on his behalf.

[Parzival]

There is a code of honour, beside the international laws we have. When warrior face each other to test their skills, they had be aware that they can lose. Get crippled or die. Show honour to your enemy is a common thing. At least in an ideal way. But it can be seen different. The Germans did treat the Russians quite different then their western enemies. The soviet union did not sign the Geneva Convention, so they got a different treatment. Then you have also the fact that the war against the Soviet Union was an ideological one, also a race war. Germanic people against Slavs that are seen as sub humans. Or the Japanese, with their codex of honour, Bushido, an enemy that surrender lose his honour. Thats why allied prisoners to the Japanese did face a hard treatment. They lost their value in the eyes of the Japanese.

Over the centuries, countries did agreements how to treat the enemies and the prisoners. Still its hard in the heat of the battle to lower your emotions. There are reports of torture, killing and so on. After a hard battle and you lose you are at the mercy of the winner. The losers did not every time get their right. Also look at Abu Graib and Guantanamo. When western troops fight Daesh, they can expect no mercy. Torture and a painful death.
What set us apart from them? What makes our civilization? Ain't it laws and rules? A fair trail? Cut out the emotions, not become a violent mob? What kind of enemy is Daesh? They are not a regular army, there is no official deceleration of war. Are they non combatants? Combatants? They don't play by the Geneva convention, so are western countries bound by it? This is a question for the law experts. I just see what happen in Germany, when people that did join Daesh come back, they went in front of a court and mostly get a time in prison.
Terrorism and the fighters of terror are a different enemy. On one side we have to deal with them in a special way, on the other hand, when we become like them, don't we lose our superior way of life? Ain't it the hypocritical behaviour of the west that also get a lot of blame? Call for freedom, rights and so on but then throw them away when it don't fit any longer in the agenda? Its easy to talk about rights and laws in peace times. Who keep up the values and the laws in the heat of the battle? Not get driven away by anger and hate?

From a personal note. I never was in a war. I had sparring fights at boxing and I had fights on the streets. In sparring, its about testing my limits, my skills, learn. Always fair, I have no bad feelings at all even when I lose. I then think, I need to improve. An attack in a bar or street, I response with brute force. Break the enemy resistance. There I could care less what happen to the enemy. Of course deep in my mind, something holds me back, because its not a war situation. There are civil laws what bring in also consequences for me. So my legal ways to defend me are limited compare to a war situation. But even in war, when soldiers don't follow the rules, they get a punishment.

So the question, how to deal with them, depends on the law situation. The personal actions a soldier will take are on a different level.

[CombatDiet]

Quote:

Thats why allied prisoners to the Japanese did face a hard treatment. They lost their value in the eyes of the Japanese.

That is a disgusting and pathetic interpretation.

The first part of this podcast discusses "The Forgotten Highlander." http://jockopodcast2.com/2016/03/02/jock...ng-on-off/

If after reading that book or listening to the podcast, you think POW treatment had something to do with a "code of honor," I would like to know it.

[Parzival]

Did they gain value? Don't think so. Why are you upset with my interpretation?

I did listen about 15 minutes of it will do more later. I know King Rat from James Clavell. Its about the Changi Prison.
Code of honour is an ideal form, like the noble warrior. In reality its quite different. The Japanese did cruel stuff, no question. So did Germans and Russians. Even the allied troops in small scale. As I said, the loser are at the mercy of the winners.
My interpretation still stands. In the bushido culture, the death was the noble way. To surrender and get catch was a way of the coward and get dishonour. Samurai did test new swords on prisoners, young boys did learn kill strokes at prisoners. The Japanese civil war was extreme cruel. This spirit never vanish and was still there in the second world war. When you add the racial or ethnic thinking of the times you have a mentality that prisoners are worthless in the eyes of the superior Japanese. They even did cannibalism.
So there was no code of honour with prisoners, and I never said something different. Also what had be the laws back in the times? Treatment of prisoners depends also what law agreements did exist.

[CombatDiet]

Quote:

Did they gain value? Don't think so. Why are you upset with my interpretation?

Because it's bullshit? Because you're over-intellectualizing sadists as adhering to some code as if they took some pledge instead of derived pleasure?

[Parzival]

Ok, just imagine the Japanese had laws how to treat prisoners. Do you think that stuff would happen on the big scale? Don't think so. The non existence of law and a code of honour did open the gates to cruel and sadist behaviour. It was even more supported by the leaders. The Japanese government did create a climate where abusive behaviour did become the norm. Out of this norm, the most sadist and cruel people could bring their sick behaviour into light.

I read a book about a German police unit in the second world war. It was their job to shoot jews. They describe quite well how the people did hesitate at first and later, out of the group mentality and the climate they are living, get used to it more and more. When a government create a climate of brutal torture and violence, yes, it is like a candy store for sadist. But it will also turn normal men into violent abusers. Creating such an environment can seen as a weapon of war itself. To say, yes it was all done by sadist driven by pleasure don't answer, why it did happen in this big scale. Because when you say, its was all done by sadist, does it mean Japanese are in general more sadistic? What about the Japanese of today?

[CombatDiet]

Quote:

Or the Japanese, with their codex of honour, Bushido, an enemy that surrender lose his honour. Thats why allied prisoners to the Japanese did face a hard treatment.

You originally state that Bushido is the reason for the sadistic behavior. Now you are saying it is because "The non existence of law and a code of honour did open the gates to cruel and sadist behaviour. It was even more supported by the leaders. The Japanese government did create a climate where abusive behaviour did become the norm. Out of this norm, the most sadist and cruel people could bring their sick behaviour into light."

That it happened because the govt created a conducive climate and encouraged sadistic behavior. I would agree with that.

I am still curious to know whether you will claim that the Japanese's conduct was due to some conceptual acceptance of Bushido after you listen to the entire on that book.

[h3ltrsk3ltr]

(03-31-2016 08:36 AM)CombatDiet Wrote:  

Quote:

Did they gain value? Don't think so. Why are you upset with my interpretation?

Because it's bullshit? Because you're over-intellectualizing sadists as adhering to some code as if they took some pledge instead of derived pleasure?

Those should be declarative statements.

Also...



Dude, he stated his opinion and you call us all sadists?? That's some SJW shit right there. Fuck your shitty attitude.

[CombatDiet]

I don't get it. Are you Japanese?

Did you torture POWs or something?

[Parzival]

(03-31-2016 09:00 AM)CombatDiet Wrote:  

Quote:

Or the Japanese, with their codex of honour, Bushido, an enemy that surrender lose his honour. Thats why allied prisoners to the Japanese did face a hard treatment.

You originally state that Bushido is the reason for the sadistic behavior. Now you are saying it is because "The non existence of law and a code of honour did open the gates to cruel and sadist behaviour. It was even more supported by the leaders. The Japanese government did create a climate where abusive behaviour did become the norm. Out of this norm, the most sadist and cruel people could bring their sick behaviour into light."

That it happened because the govt created a conducive climate and encouraged sadistic behavior. I would agree with that.

I am still curious to know whether you will claim that the Japanese's conduct was due to some conceptual acceptance of Bushido after you listen to the entire on that book.

The bushido had a big influence on the Japanese culture. When an enemy did not die with honour, he got no mercy. This mentality did never change, so the Meiji government did carry on this spirit / mentality / culture.
Mix it then with the thinking of the time, that Japanese are a pure and superior race. Add no international laws about the treatment of prisoners of wars.
To you have now international laws that did forbid the Japanese their behaviour, you have the culture where the enemy got no mercy and you have a government that thinks, the Japanese race is superior.
Even more, their mentality was, that the soldiers should release their aggression because they did consider it normal and the best way to do.

List it:
Bushido: No mercy for the ones that surrender
Race thinking: Japanese are a superior race and born to rule
Laws: Japan did not feel any boundary to made contracts. They did not sing the Geneva convention and the government did not punish other crimes that Japanese soldiers did break.

Out of this you create a climate that lead to this behaviour. Just look at the Stanford Prison experiment, Milgram Experiment or any other stuff where they explain human behaviour made up in special environments. To say, that Japanese are born sadist has no evidence. Again, in such a climate sadist can act open, but not everyone that torture and commit war crimes is a sadist. But thats what you say.
Anyway its strange that your only point is: no no you talk bullshit and do not offer any argument why I talk bullshit.

[CombatDiet]

Quote:

Anyway its strange that your only point is: no no you talk bullshit and do not offer any argument why I talk bullshit.

You offered the counter-argument yourself, although in this last post you walked it back and again placed Bushido as the reason.

From my perspective, the causality runs from: sadistic people in charge>creating a climate that accepts sadistic behavior>promotion of the "cowardly" POWs as legitimate objects to torture>justify it all because Bushido (and if Bushido didn't exist, then because of race; and if the Japanese didn't conceptualize themselves as a superior race, then because they didn't sign the Geneva Convention; and if they did agree to some laws (which BTW, they did; and then they broke them [you still haven't listened to the podcast clearly]), they would have justified it some other way.

[Parzival]

There is nothing wrong with the statement, that an enemy lose his face and reputation when taken alive because of Bushido. The then treatment of the enemy is how the government made it up. I don't think that the people in charge had be sadistic, because Japan had some laws how to treat prisoners, they just broke it. Why did they sign the laws in first place? I think the terror they did create was a way for them to wage the war, made more by calculation then by be sadistic. Even more, the thinking of the time was, that war is cruel and you have to let the soldiers do those thinks, that they can release their aggressions to be brave little citizens back at home.

[MiscBrah]

Now that CombatDiet is gone let's proceed to show respect and not talk shit about him

[Deepdiver]

In today's era of Modern Scientific Warfare the only acceptable military ethic is to WIN and to WIN decisively while crushing the enemy and destroying their will to fight or even to resist and then enforce complete unconditional surrender. To refuse to use the full depth and breadth of our entire arsenal to CRUSH our enemies is a war crime against our very own troops. This attitude, in fact, instills paralyzing fear and dread into the hearts of our enemies and always will.

President Harry Truman who fought as a US Army captain in the horrific trench warfare of WWI knew this instinctively and vaporized two cities and yet no Japanese surrender. Truman then dropped leaflets that Tokyo and the Emporer would be the next to be vaporized and finally the Japanese agreed to unconditional surrender. Truman crushed their will to fight and instilled fear in their hearts which led to the complete rebuilding of a new democratic and enormously successful global trading and manufacturing giant that Japan is today.

Trump is right it is time to allow Japan and Korea to build their own mega high-quality compact nukes in stealth drones to give China, North Korea and the Eastern Russian Siberian empire pause to think before they threaten drastic actions.

To quote the great Donald John Trump, a graduate of the NYMA "I will tell you what is Presidential, VICTORY is Presidential".

As I wrote in the Trump Thread:

As a military veteran, I was not successful because I was a boy scout, or an alter boy, or a saint or a nice guy.

I was successful because I was enthusiastically willing to sail across entire oceans under nuclear power to fight and torpedo, tomahawk cruise missile and NUKE our freaking enemies and wipe their genetic code from the face of the earth for eternity.

Let's band together and FIGHT to WIN and to utterly destroy our domestic and foreign enemies and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

[MiscBrah]

Just to clarify, I am not saying that you don't fight to win or completely destroy your opponents. In regards to war, I am specifically referring to showing respect *in death* and how far that respect should go.

How should a man react to the defeat of his enemies across a broad spectrum of different scenarios? In my opinion, I don't think there is a right answer. The God of the Old Testament ordered the Jews to completely kill every last living being in villages after a battle.

I think it is a complicated question but one worthy of discussion.

[storm]

If you read the Records of the Grand Historian (史記), there are no such ethics in the ancient chinese wars. The japanese have quite a bit in common with ancient china (according to some scholars they are a preserved image of the Tang dynasty).

I have yet to hear a story from Japan where they treat a foreign enemy the way Simo Häyhä was treated by russians.

We should remember always to be human, but to be careful we do not do so in a way that our enemies will exploit.

[Quintus Curtius]

MiscBrah:

I think you're raising a very profound question: how should "enemies" be treated? It really comes down to looking at the law of warfare, international law, and natural law.

There have been a lot of thinkers who have discussed this issue. As I see it, the best answer seems to be this: nations or armies should make a good faith effort to adhere to established norms and international conventions on war. Obviously this is going to vary greatly depending on the time, place, and circumstances.

Usually nations or armies that are losing are in no mood to play by the rules.

I really to think that there is such a thing as the concept of "Natural Law": that is, there are basic, fundamental rules of civilized behavior that transcend man-made statutes or laws. In other words, even if something is not specifically prohibited by man's laws, it might still be contrary to "natural law."

Natural law boils down to everyone's innate sense of justice and fundamental fairness. Certain types of barbaric behavior just should be off bounds, even if you can technically get around some Geneva Convention rule or something.

[Parzival]

Lets compare Japan and Germany in the second world war. The way how the Japanese did act was a way more cruel then the Germans did. Even in the concentration camps, there was so far no big spreading of torture. It did happen but mostly the higher ranks did check their men. People did starve to dead or get shoot, even human experiments. But never in the big scale like the Japanese did. So the east - west mentality is quite different. Also look the way how Germans did fight in Africa or the western front.

We can also compare the way how crusaders treat their enemies compare to the ones taken by Islam. It always did depend, if the enemy was seen as equal or not. Also are the intentions after the war. So what should happen to a Daesh member, that is responsible for torture, rape and killing? After the fight is over, release him? Send him to DeHag? Or to a court in his country? Or to the court in Iraq or Syria?

[Going strong]

In this particular case, I think the Japanese kamikaze pilot did not deserve honors.

Because he used a dirty, abnormal, un-gentleman-like trick: the kamikaze attack. Using his plane as a hammer.

Thus, he went from being a dignified fighting military man, to becoming a crazed inefficient terrorist. He broke the rules of war.

(and yes, I know about the meaning of kamikaze, sacred wind, but it doesn't change the gross abnormality of it)

[Quintus Curtius]

To me it's the height of chivalry to be able to treat an enemy at arms with respect. There are many examples of this in history...such as the relationship between Saladin and Richard the Lionhearted.

But in the modern age, it's sadly rare. One has a hard time imagining world leaders today treating their enemies with respect. But I think it does exist on the battlefield, in one form or another, in some situations.

[Parzival]

To add something there, look just how people in the west treat foreigners in general. Beside all that SJW racist crap. Look how immigrants get threaten in other parts of the world. Be a low wage worker in China, or an Indian in Singapore at construction. A Filipino in Qatar. Those parts of the world have no concept of equal rights. So how they even can see an enemy with respect?
This is a complete western kind of thing, to honour the fallen enemy, in general.

[YoungBlade]

If he fought well, give him a warrior's honors.

If he did not, then he is nothing. Flesh and bone, soulless.

[EDantes]

(03-31-2016 01:53 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

To me it's the height of chivalry to be able to treat an enemy at arms with respect. There are many examples of this in history...such as the relationship between Saladin and Richard the Lionhearted.

But in the modern age, it's sadly rare. One has a hard time imagining world leaders today treating their enemies with respect. But I think it does exist on the battlefield, in one form or another, in some situations.

My knowledge isn't superb but I believe there was more honor in war prior to the industrial revolution.

In a way I've heard "war" actually filled a void which modern professional sports do, it wasn't just about "killing the enemy" but a competative and bonding experience as well.

After the industrialization of war and the eventual invention of machinery such as drones, missiles, nuclear weapons, etc the soul got sucked out of war and it became simply about maximizing killing efficiency. I believe WWI and WWII played a big role in this when nations saw how much destructive power they could harness with technology.

I honestly see technology as having done more harm than good to societies in a lot of ways, and it's probably one of the biggest threats to masculinity really.

This is one of the reasons why we see a rise in "beta males" in industrialized nations, since men no longer have to hunt, have to fight, have to have male bonding - office jobs, fast food, automated transportation, video games, etc end up replacing traditional outlets for masculinity, androgenyzing the gender roles as a result.

[Constitution45]

Pfft, I think one of the reasons why depression is so high among males is because they are not living like men. Working in office jobs, marketing, administration, human resources, recruitment and whatever. Is soul destroying and too comfortable. I can't see how men can be fulfilled doing these types of jobs, they must only live for the weekend or the never ending pursuit for pussy.

Professions like military, law enforcement, the trades or perhaps self building enterprise schemes and high end finance jobs on the other hand I can get. Point Im trying to make to here, is that war and pursuing the military as a career is a venture which creates camaraderie, actual risk and character traits. It follows through with a purpose and then that leaves men to develop on ideas such as ethics and essentially having control over your life.