I think no-one gets to judge war, or the acts within war unless they were there.

no one can comprehend or condemn any act of war unless they were the ones who had to act it or choose it.

Its a madness were unfortunately morals and rights get compromised. For example, you can't say that using dogs is wrong, but the government permitted murder of millions one soldier at a time is any more or less wrong.

its unfortunately all equal. Its madness, its unfortunate, its immoral, and its inconceivable. Which is why we don't get to pass judgement, it happened we have to accept it and learn from it. But we don't get to judge it.

Almost every nation has done something reprehensible throughout the course of history. I could list things but can't be bothered as it's not relevant. the point is, humans always have done horrific things to each other and things around them, and we always will.

Your statement may be true, but it seems as though you are making excuses for them. You seem to come from the standpoint that its ok to do whatever you want since it is war. Are you saying we cant judge modern day suicide bombers?

I am simply speaking on behalf of these murderd animals. Animals are more pure than humans anyway.

I am simply saying I am glad it failed for these people. And I still stand by every single statement I have made in this thread.

I make no excuses for anyone's behaviour, hence the inclusion of the word "reprehensible", however it is history, and therefore not changeable, you may disagree with what they did, but they were different times, different attitudes, and in the circumstance they were under you don't get to judge.

Because your opinion, however valid in today's times, is neither relevant, or valid for those times.

Also modern day suicide bombers are different in two ways... 1) they are modern e.g. different times, different attitudes, and also not technically in a state of war.

and 2) Terrorism is not the same as a large scale global military conflict sanctioned legally by the government. Hence the Geneva convention dictating human rights during a time of war and the clear description of what is and is not a war crime.

There are a few books which I think you might find interesting :

1) Slaughter House Five by Kurt Vonnegut
and
2) The Wars - by Timothy Findley

i can see where house is coming from many many evil act were commited in the name of war .

i am not condoneing what they did but i can see there reasoning behind it ..
dont forget what the german army/tanks were doing to innocent civillians in russia

put it this way you best mates your family members are getting slaughtered around you the village the german tanks are heading to happens to be your home where you WIFE AND CHILDREN ARE hiding and the only option open to u was to do the same i think you would ???
i know i would and im an animal lover i cant even watch programmes like animal rescue becuse i get so ANGRY at the way ppl treat animals i feel like smashing the tv but war is war and normality doesnt apply you do what you have to do to protect your loved ones ....

Animals are more pure? I guess that makes rocks even more pure than animals by extension?

Most animals lack the developed cortex for higher thought and thus do not attach any sense of right or wrong to any of their actions. So when an alligator kills someone's only child and causes tremedous emotional trauma to the family - the alligator sees no difference between that act and killing a pitbull that was about to attack the only child. It was hungry and grabs whatever is convienent.

Purity would be more like understanding the impact of all your actions and ALWAYS choosing to act in a way that benefits those around you - even to your detriment - altruism.

Animals generally do not do this. They are simply ignorant, not pure. There are examples of altruistic biological phenomenoms in the animal kingdom - but these are generally evolutionary mechanisms, not concious efforts by individual animals.

People can choose to be "evil" or "good" in general, animals generally do not get beyond figuring out how to eat, sleep, and procreate.

You should check out some of the Japanese anti-tank weapons... >_>

lol cowards... you wanna' run at a tank? douche bag.


and I'd love to see what your leading statement about Japanese AT methods are if you have any more information or pictures. In the words of G.I. Joe... knowing is half the battle! ;)

Oh and on the animal front... they also have no symbolic memory, and therefore are not capable of attributing methods or logical reasoning towards actions, they very much live in the moment and do not ascribe any form of judgement to and action or event.

To start with the most basic they used backpacks loaded with explosives, functionally similar to satchel charges except they were worn on the back of an infantryman who would conceal himself until the tank was in range, and then dive under it, detonating the charge by pulling a cord. They would also dig foxholes in the middle of the road, mostly during the Burmese campaign, where troops would hide with explosives which they would detonate when a tank passed over them. These men were not issued sidearms, and there are reports of them being overrun by Allied forces and standing to die rather than use the explosives to defend themselves - presumably because they had been instructed that these explosives were only to be used for the vital effort of destroying enemy armour. Type 93 anti-tank mines were also mounted on poles and thrust under the track of an oncoming tank by hand; bad for the tank, and the guy on the other end of the stick.

Christ, desperate times, desperate measures. The psychological issues behind it must be mind blowing. knowing your sole purpose is to sit in a hole, wait for a tank, and die. job done. mission complete. just crazy.

They could have used timed charges surely? or fused charges, or did they not have the availability? I know some armies have used prisoners for these purposes in the past. Was that the case here or were they regular conscripted citizens?

Useing animals to fight in a war is the lowest form a fighting! it has to be.
I know that the Russian send Lyka ( pronouncion???) to space to see if Humans could life there? i know that the American Goverment (who else?) trained Dolphins to find Bombs.
I know that soldiers will do hearbreaknig things to each other, and sometime even had to do to Animals. but, as my Grandfather pointed out real seriously, Killing animals is Wrong and that's a crime. He once had to shoot a Horse with his Side arm to kill a Horse because the Horse was bleeding to dead and was litteratly crying! ---- thank God we have orginizations such as the HSPC (animal PLanet) who protect animals from the worse kind of sittuations.

Killing each other is one thing, but animals? uh-uh, that's a No,no.