Surprising quality gun camera footage from japanese theatre.
 

<original post deleted>

Interesting video, only the part where the fellow with the parachute is shot up is a bit......well it is like shooting people in a life boat.....but war then is nasty business.

Not to mention the footage at 1:20 where they attempt to down another pilot in his chute. They must have jumped at the opportunity to kill any pilots that they could... almost sorta upsetting. :(

Its allied guncam footage of US planes shooting at Japanese over Japan.

Presumably the fear was the pilots would simply return to fight again the next day if allowed to escape.

Here is some footage from the other side ... Rudel's tank buster Stuka squadron in Russia.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU6OK1zSxKg

<original post deleted>

I was mislead that this was in fact Japanese footage.. Thanks for clearing that up. Still seems very inhumane.. but war is war.

Sorry do not agree on that, and yes I have done military service. Maybe I view it differantly, a foe who can fight is one thing a person who can not is another ball game.
With that attitude, if a family with children is between you and the target I guess it is ok to bump them off, though luck. Sorry some one else needs a reality check!
My last comment on that as this will only get out of hand.

But anyways back on topic.

I trust that Oleg has gone leaps and bounds beyond the smoke and fire that we have in IL-2. We have yet to see a finished product as we all know everything is still WIP. :-P Ill admit though that the quality of this video is pretty good considering how old it is.

Well, the OP's vid has gone, so:

I think that's a poor comparison, the family are presumably not combatants.

I think the best analogy to shooting a parachute, is shooting an enemy soldier who has dropped (or hasn't picked up) his gun. I guess the fate of such a soldier is probably usually dependent on whether there's time or resources to take prisoners.

It's interesting that one form of killing is generally more accepted than the other.

Well I think people have always differed on where the people able to defend themselves or not. You might remember a story about a U-boat that machine gunned survivors in a life boat, and that caused a fair amount of outcry.
That there where always some who thought first when the enemy is dead the danger is curbed, is also true, but in most cases people did frown apon those.
I personally would differ between rendering a enemy from continuing to fight and out right killing, a bit of a differance, even though in many cases it was the same.
Maybe I have a more humanitairen attitude?

It is always hard to think what should you do in war.

I hope that in the situation, if it was me, I would not have shot down any pilot parachuting out.

But, by not shooting him, which is pretty much what you are doing when he is in a plane, you are allowing him to get back into a plane and kill 1 or hundreds in the future. What about bombing runways and destroying planes and killing pilots and ground staff, is that okay? So why not just shoot the parachuting pilots?

What about a sniper, his prey have no chance to defend themselves.

What about banning bio weapons, that when a drop of the liquid touches you, you feel no pain but die in seconds.

But, you allow Napalm that sticks to you and burns you alive in pain.

War is Mad, the rules are madder.

Good on that line of thought why not shoot at life boats, sink hospital ships, and aim especially at medics, or even better go especially after civilians as that is where you next soldiers are coming from, shall I continue?

You may continue if you wish, it is a free world.

I do not have the answers, I was just making some points. I said I would not have shot the parachutist.

like it or not, all of these things were acitvely done on purpose by both sides during WWII.

There is no such thing like humantity looking at War. War is most likely a festival of pure violence, a situation where moral measures do count NULL.
All efforts made to set up rules are mostly trampeled under foot when the conflict escalates.

No sense in stating examples since that discussion will never end.

I do wonder whether war now is actually more humane than it was in days of old.
In olden days towns and cities were attacked by the invading hoards and all and sundry massacred,regardless.
As weapons became more and more accurate,sophisticated the options of whether to kill or not open up,it is then up to the weapons operator to make that final decision.
Media and instant reporting now mean people can get away with less ,especially in the name of war.
Not nice and hopefully i won't happen anymore but thats a false hope,humans have a tendency to destroy.

Ghengis Khan always killed all of his enemy in battle to make sure they couldn't raise an army to kill his army.

First, I do not see the guy being shot up in his chute. Were there tracers I missed? (I make no point with that, I am just asking if others see the tracers)

Second, yes war has become more "sanitized" for some countries. One reason is that civilian populations back home will not tolerate the wanton killing of other civilians. Another is that weapons are more precise and it is much more efficient to take out one target with one bomb in most cases. And finally, most people do not want to kill civilians when it can be avoided, most people are basically "good".

If modern armies targeted civilians with the technology available, there would be infinitely more dead civilians than we see.

Back to shooting someone up in their chute: I think most would agree that not only is it immoral, it is a really bad idea. If the enemy sees their people shot up in their chutes, they are likely to retaliate in kind. As a pilot, you are probably going to be flying against those same enemies in the very near future.

I would not want anyone on my side starting such a practice. So if there were tracers in the OP, was the "victim" receiving payback for shooting at chutes himself? I guess we'll never know.

Splitter

I didn't see "chute killing" in the footage either, just a fly-by...

But I saw a lot of "everything else" shooting, with a lot of humans inside these "things"...

In WWII was used nuclear weapons against civilians, just to think in terms of "war weapons"... Will you guys really discuss what is more or less "moral" or "humane" in war?

The footage is good just to see how good IL-2 represent the real airfare war of WWII.

if this is the footage i think it was then yeah, camera only pass. there was no firing at the guy on the chute, but way to go getting the vid removed wutz.

during the bob there were plenty of people who were surprised the germans did not, as a matter of routine, fire on bailed out pilots - they would be back in the air if uninjured. it would have been entirely logical to ensure that combatants are out of the fight for good, especially if bailing over their own territory. there were occasions where bailed out pilots of both sides were found riddled with bullets, and sometimes that may have been deliberate. there are accounts of those from occupied countries having a very tangible sense of vengence, and deliberately targetting bailed out luftwaffe pilots.

but yes, generally i believe the idea of "what i do may be done unto me" prevented it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...my-iraq-attack

War follows no rules. It is a matter of fear and terror, and of silly people with guns in their hands.

ROFL, more anti-American hatred? I've seen that video several times. It certainly looked like the camera man was armed, that camera looked like a weapon. Then he crouches and looks around the corner with what looks like the front of an RPG.

Mistake? Maybe. Hanging around with other armed people, possibly insurgents, to get a story is bound to be dangerous. That was a good shoot.

Notice that the helicopter kept moving the entire time. Why? RPG's, anti aircraft missiles, and small arms fire. They were obviously in a potentially "hot" situation.

Hind sight is always 20/20.

Did you know that Navy Seals were brought up on charges because a terrorist, Ahmed Hashim Abed, claimed they punched him when capturing him? Thankfully, they beat the charges and Abed walked away (ok, into custody) with a bloody lip.

Now, compare a country bringing soldiers up on charges for maybe punching a terrorist against...oh...I dunno...beheading someone on camera.

Who are the bad guys again?

Sorry, I am tired of the "warmongering, hateful, murderous Americans" stuff. If the US wanted to kill civilians, there would be few left at this point. Mistakes happen. Individuals may commit crimes. But the US military goes out of its' way to minimize collateral damage, often putting its' own troops in harm's way to do so.

Splitter

I've come to understand that it avails little to explain anything to such individuals, mate. Comparison and reason means little to them, so long as they spout the "party line". Whoever does not agree is evil, and there is no other option. That their own way of life might be in danger means little to them as they have long ago given over individual thought to "collective thought". The simple fact is that "we" must not only fight for ourselves but for "them", as the two are one in the same. It's not fair, but it's the fact.

Stalin had 22.000 Polish officers murdered one night in a forest - that would make a great commander too I guess?
Both were f'ing bastards, and the move itself is actually incredible stupid.

Read this and the case it settled. Humanity may have come a long way, but self-preservation of body and conscience is still our prime motive in life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

I wasn't talking about humanity.


If you conquer land you probably intend to keep and exploit it.
Manpower helps a lot, I guess...
BTW: Most of the armies that time weren't exactly freedom fighters, you should fear your personal slave way more than a defeated army composed of mercenaries.

This thread has gone offtopic yet gain :D


Some more PTO footage ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUpCsO3pI08

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-Kia79GyWU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBTxtt1VgDQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEDDRLeSKF0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7u7zdR8Sbs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48Mvy7uNHxY

And that's why the Germans called the Shermans "Tommy Cookers" and the Allies referred to them as "Ronsons" because they lit the first time, every time. Scary.

Splitter

You might be tired of the sentiment, but there sure are a lot of civilians tired of the conditions (loss of infrastructure) and death brought by an occupying force.

Yeah, they were much better off before. You could tell by the way they sulked Saddam's statue was torn down....

They would be much better off if we built them schools and hospitals....oh wait....

Splitter

Bad example. The US admitted eventually the whole thing was staged as a PR/spin event and they rounded up a bunch of civilians and got them to pull it down once the cameras were ready to roll.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyn8Kb_do8g

Also the main guy that climbed the statue embarrassed the US a few years later by saying he regretted it and the US occupation was actually worse than Saddam.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRtj82fR4N0


You need to pick better examples :D

Most interviews with Iraqis that I've watched show that they don't think they're better off. You may believe otherwise, and I'm not going to argue with you about it because it can't be proven one way or the other without touring the place...

Either way, many civilians have suffered because a 3rd party decided to impose its will on the country. It will take years for enough stability to return, to allow what I would regard as a healthily functioning government. Assuming of course that the right people emerge from the chaos, to govern.

Dangit, Galway, I was purposfully leaving that opening. Now you ruined it :). My plans foiled again! lol

Splitter

I dunno, Julian, from everything I have heard it seems they want troops to leave....but not yet. They are afraid of the Iranians, afraid of chaos between their own groups, etc.. It seems also that they feel more secure these days.

I recently read an article that quoted a former US enemy in Iraq who said the US has made mistakes, but at least they weren't breaking into homes and chopping off heads. The rebuilding of Iraq is the largest such undertaking since the Marshal Plan.

This whole thing went off topic because someone asserted, by a misrepresented video, that there were no rules and no morality in war. They used a very graphic video from US forces to prove their point. Their underlying point was obviously that US forces are out to kill civilians or went into engagements without any thought given to civilian casualties. In fact, the video actually showed rules of engagement being followed.

I am reminded of a video of a Japanese pilot (or survivor from a ship) blowing himself up with a grenade as a US ship pulled along side to pick him up. Of course, this WWII video is usually misrepresented as US sailors shooting a poor guy lost at sea. It's sickening.

The disdain, the outright prejudice against the US is tangible sometimes. It gets old and far too often, the silence of others is deafening.

Splitter

Mate, i say this in the most sincere manner and with no ill will at all. If what you say is true, then it's not really effective. According to reports from the coalition troops themselves that were leaked on the internet, around 60000 of the total 110000 casualties in Iraq are civilians.

I discuss these things a lot in another forum and people tell me it's standard operating procedure to throw grenades into a house before going in, even if that means not checking for civilians inside.

I can understand the troops fearing for their own safety, but when one's stated mission is to supposedly liberate someone and elevate their standard of living and then they do this, well, people are goint to talk in a negative manner.

Frankly, i have no reason to hate America more than any other country, including my own. But when i am part of an occupying force on a foreign land that makes me a legitimate target at all times and it's the duty of every able bodied person in the land to shoot me. Why? Because nobody among the people suffering from this inside their own homes asked me to be there.

I can understand the reasons your people might be detached from war and always view it as a noble undertaking, but i don't have to agree with them. You've never really had a war on your own territory since maybe the inception of your nation and with the lack of conscription it's even easier for the general public to detach themselves from it all.

That doesn't mean being right however, it just means lacking the collective memory and knowledge of what it means to have your entire way of life turned upside down and your prospects ruined for the rest of your life, because of a foreign intruder. And since people don't know this, they can't understand the ways it motivates other people to do horrible things in return.

That's pretty much the bottom line. To tell you the truth, if i was invaded this way by an army that's impossible to face in direct combat due to their overwhelming manpower and material advantage and yet their usual mottos consist of "being in a fair fight means you planned it wrong" among other things, i certainly wouldn't be looking for a fair fight myself. I would be looking to inflict the maximum amount of casualties with the cheapest tools and the less cost of life for my side.

As for the Iraqis wanting the coalition to stay because they fear the ensuing chaos of a withdrawal, well, the conditions for that chaos were actually set up by the action of invading the place. In fact, there were more christian churches in Iraq and there are still in Syria than all the Arab nations allied to the western powers combined (like Saudi Arabia for example).
What happened was actually a PR spin campaign to paint them not with their own negative traits but with the negative traits of other neighboring countries (who are much worse in their behaviours but nobody as much as gives them a slap on the wrist because they are considered allies), so that access to cheap oil could be secured.

Iraq had neither a real terrorist problem nor any influences from Iran before the invasion, because under Saddam both of these meant a short trip to an unmarked grave. I still don't agree with it, but it's results seems to agree more with the stated mission of the coalition than the chaos the same coalition ushered in. Toppling this power structure made it possible for both terrorist groups and Iranian agencies to infiltrate the place. As for the Iraqis fearing Iran, that's not entirely true since the majority of them share a common religion with Iran. In short, the coalition invaded to supossedly correct a bunch of thigns Saddam had perfectly under control, only to end up losing control of all of them in the process. No matter my personal feelings on the matter, from a purely objective point of view that's certainly not a definition of success.

All that is equivalent to me pretending i'm saving the local baker from the debt incurered by his flour suppliers, while what i'm really after is giving him a solid beating so that he can sell bread cheaper to me. After a while he has no debt to his flour suppliers because they simply won't do business with him anymore due to fear of having to deal with me, his shop is all busted up and when the guy is missing half his teeth and agrees to my terms i offer him some money to remodel the place, placing a nice fat loan tax on it and gradually ending up appropriating his business so that he does most of the work and i get most of the earnings. First of all, it doesn't make sense if my stated goal is to help someone improve his life. Second, it's not outright slavery or theft, but it's definitely a "protection" racket of the kind mafia organizations usually run.

What i'm trying to say is Iraq surely was no democracy under Saddam, but it was a secular, stable state. As it turns out, after the end of the occupation it will still not be a democracy, but it will also be unstable and minus 60000 civilian lives. I really fail to see anything positive in the whole affair. I'm not talking about Afghanistan, where a group that attacked your homeland was based, i'm talking about a country that's been finally proven beyond all doubt to have absolutely nothing to do with it and yet, there's nobody in an official position that will come out and say "you know what world, we really screwed up on this one as a leadership and as a state", it even usually goes the other way with certain people still trying to justify it.
Afghanistan is a different story, but once again instead of targetting the terrorist organization responsible for the attacks, the coalition managed once again to target the local's way of life.

This is the biggest mistake of the western powers since maybe the end of WWI. We all hear how people fight for a religion, a country, an ideal, even a ragged piece of colored cloth they call their flag and it might not even be a national flag but the flag of a military unit, a political party or even a sports team.
However, what people really fight for is the preservation of their way of life, their sense of identity, the ability to have some stability in life and the right to improve it on their own terms and not under terms imposed arbitrarily by outsiders who know next to nothing about the prevailing mentality in the place. Attack this and you get suicide bombers and other nasty stuff, which by the way is not exclusive to islam no matter how keen some high profile people are to tell you so.
I come from a predominantly christian country (discounting immigrants from other countries, the citizens here are 98% christian orthodox) and many times during our history there have been cases when people preferred group suicide instead of capture, especially if it involved giving the aggressor a bloody nose or blowing up the gunpowder magazine as a fortified position was getting overrun in order to inflict massive casualties to the invading force.

The thing is, apart from terrorists there used to be guerillas and resistance movements too before the televised reality-TV wars of our age. If someone in Iraq kills coalition combatants that doesn't make him a terrorist outright. If he videotapes and circulates footage of torture and/or ritual killings of prisoners then he is a terrorist.If a roadside bomb deliberately targets civilians that's terrorism. If it targets a military convoy and happens to kill civilians, then it's no different than what happens when a gunship chopper fires stray rounds at a crowd. See, i didn't even mention specific nationalities because, wether we like it or not, there are examples on each side of doing what is considered the accepted norm in war and what is considered over the top even for war.

The distinction between terrorist and combatant is not who they target by nationality, but who they target based on the target's actions.

A suicide bomber targetting civilians is a terrorist. It's not the method that makes him one, it's his target choice or even his disregard for civilian life if it's guaranteed that a hit in a certain location with a certain weapon will cause loss of it.
A person who kills people on camera in order to circulate this around is also one. It's his aim of demoralizing through terror that makes him one. A guy wearing an official uniform of a state is also a terrorist if he poses in front of prisoners that he tortures or deliberately targets civilians.

I think this is the core of the issue, until the same set of standards start applying to everyone you can't expect much support from the rest of the globe in these wars. We had this discussion again and someone linked various papers on the matter, some written by active US officers. The one and only golden constant in these papers, gleaned from studying the counter-insurgency methods of the British, was that "whatever you decide to do, make sure it applies equally to everyone, including your own guys...this shows the locals that even if they don't like you they can depend on you to be reasoned with within certain limits, making them less likely to revolt and take arms against you."

This is the reason the US can't win these wars, the double standards that serve to provide the justification for them.
Britain enslaved half the globe and didn't get that much flak, because the law was law for everyone involved. Again, that has nothing to do with my personal feelings towards any nation (i know better than to judge individual people by the actions of their governments).
It's just the facts on why the Brits, Romans, Byzantines and others all the way back in history were infinitely better at imperial conquest than the US is today...because first and foremost they used to admit it's an imperial conquest and then gave the locals back something sufficient under the standards of the time so that they would tolerate it.
What the guys in charge of today's wars usually try to do is draw inexistent parallels to the noble fight against the armed to the teeth Axis during WWII, when they are actually fighting starving people with no access to basic amenities like running water, or even a future for that matter, giving very few in return for the pain they cause and then talk it off with pretty words. Well, dogs bite the worst when they are backed in a corner with nothing to lose, even the small dogs...actually, especially the small ones!

Once again, you can see i'm not saying "the X people" or "the X troops", but "the decision makers".
Anyway, people will take offense to that, enough so that they will picket embassies even if they are not directly affected, or place IEDs if they actually live there...because the feeble construct of a justification for what's happening to them daily, simply adds insult to injury.

As for the argument of protecting the western way of life, if that was the goal then my country wouldn't be requested to send more troops to Afghanistan in the midst of a near-bankruptcy to force more people from that place into emigrating to more developed countries , but would probably be requested to concentrate all its means on its border and be assisted in controling the immigration wave into Europe, as it sits right on the proverbial crossroads between Europe and Asia.
As we speak, there's 500 Afghan refugees crossing the border DAILY. Where do you think these guys will go if Greece finally goes bankrupt? Where will they go if the whole of Europe does? That's right, they'll be coming to the last place left standing behind the buffer zone, good old US of A, with whatever means possible, in a constant imperceprible trickle and yet and in numbers that are too big to be effectively controlled without resorting to blatant genocide.

The local nationalist party here (these guys are fully anti-immigration, even in cases wher political asylum should be granted) went as far as to say "let's give them all some kind of limited citizenship so they can travel wherever they want, since we can't feed or absorb them, nobody is helping us do so and nobody is creating any motive for them to stay in their own country, but usually motives to the contrary".

And just to lighten up a little as i'm closing this, this is the way a lot of people in Europe perceive these wars...imagine i'm beating a guy senseless and at the same time screaming to him he's an idiot for not liking it, because he can't understand i'm doing him a favor, since the subsequent ride in the ambulance with the cool sirens, the buzz from strong painkillers and pretty nurses and everything is so awesome...all this, despite the fact that i have not been in his place since time immemorial to really know about what the experience really entails. :grin:

I think this is enough from me, with adequate pre-emptive argumentation to cover various possible counter-points. I do this all the time, preempting as much as i can so that i can avoid coming back to answer and gradually getting obsessed with stuff, as it's not healthy and it usually leads to flamewars. Much better to have one say, maintain some civility and leave it at that, in my humble opinion at least. In other words, i'll try my absolute best not to post on this subject again in the current thread :grin:

Respectully and no hard feelings as always. I don't hate anybody, i just think that disagreeing with what is widely accepted (or presented as being so by by certain people high up for certain gains to the expense of other people down low) can be healthy and promote some thought in all of us. Heck, it's how science came to be, by people refusing to do and believe as they were told by their higher-ups. Well meaning doubt and questioning of everything is the real essence of freedom and honestly, no human is ever free until he can start questioning his own self and what's supposed to be happening by others on his behalf. ;)

Amen!

Viking

does anyone still have the link in the first post? send by PM, cheers.

Viking...weren't you the one who made the post hoping that the Blue Angels aerobatic team bumped into one another and crashed?

I like you, Blackdog, you know that. You are one of the more intelligent people I have run across. You can even make a good argument for wrong positions :). Now take a look at the person who said "Amen!" to your post. Same guy that wanted the American exhibition pilots to crash and die. What does that tell you about the hatred out there?

With friends like that, who needs enemies. Right? lol

Old arguments. I'll say that WMD's were never the sole reason for taking out Saddam. I'll say we are not at war with Islam, but are at war with Radical Islam. I'll say that the US has not suffered another 9/11 and that we are fighting them "over there" instead of over here. I'll say that Iraq was never about imperialism and point out that it is a money pit. Yadda, yadda, yadda.

But it comes down to this: American troops are not terrorists. They are not targeting civilians. They go out of their way to limit civilian casualties, often putting US troops in harm's way to do so. Believe me, were it otherwise, we would all know.

You can be against the war. You can think it is not fair that the US is so powerful. You can think that radical elements aren't all that dangerous. Just stop the name calling, direct or indirect.

Blackdog, your country is broke. Your country spent itself into overwhelming debt. Well, mine is broke too and has followed the same spending path. Just understand that your country would be in chaos right now if not for the bailout. Now which nation gave the most for the bailout? That's right, your friends. Friends with whom you need not agree on every issue. Friends whom some call terrorists themselves.

People keep cherry picking Wikileaks. Read about the other stuff, see the bigger picture. You know what Wikileaks actually says? It says that nations around the globe are terrified of the terrorists, Iran included. It says they all hope "someone" will do something about their nuclear threat. Wikileaks shows a lot more "unity" on these issues than public facades would seem to indicate.

Interesting, huh?

I don't care to debate the war, we've done that before. All I care about is the name calling. So, sorry, I won't be a good little American and let our servicemen be called terrorists (not saying you were, btw, Blackdog). People can say, "Hey, wrong forum for politics!"....ok, then slap down the haters when they post. As I said, the silence is often deafening.

Splitter

Yes he was, as I recall, and then that thread went off on some ridiculous tangent about how bad airshows were for the environment or somesuch.

Anyway...

War is war, plain and simple. I've always thought it was silly to try and sanitize war to make it more "humane". War in itself is a tragedy and there is no changing that. Whatever it takes to win and end it should be the next objective. I don't think I could ever kill a helpless combatant but I have a hard time condemning those who do without having been in their boots. It's easy to sit back in our comfy chairs from the safety of our homes and make judgment calls but I think that is oversimplifying things.
________
Zoloft Settlement Update

Why bother to make any noise.. when you can just go over there and get yourself (and your sons/daughters) killed, again... for 'nothing'. It won't change anything.....just like last time, and the many times before that.
Off you go now... :grin:

Well you cannot really say this is environmentally sound ...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5huN-GQnm8


As they say in the Bible Belt if God had meant man to fly he would have been born with a tail rotor !!


... oh we are getting off topic again aren't we.



oh well

Galway's right, this is well off topic.
http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/0...lean_super.jpg

Pilots must have had baked beans for breakfast.. just as well they were going fast, or they might have exploded.
:)

i looked on youtube & i couldn't find any IJN or IJA gun camera ..

they didn't have any... did they?

The link that was originally posted was of U.S. gun cameras over Japan. The title is a little misleading.. i thought the same thing as you did. As for Japan having gun cameras on their planes check out this link:

http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Japanese_aerial_cameras

So ... they did have gun cameras but we have no footage ... ok i see!

ThaNKS!

and ... look what i just found ...

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/292/7...r_Bombing.html


Photos stored in camera for 68 years - Pearl Harbour Bombing



http://beforeitsnews.com/ckfinder/us...images/111.JPG

there some breathtaking shots there, with explosions etc..

I remember reading somewhere that the allies destroyed all the Japanese guncam footage shortly after the war.

I'd be a little bit surprised if there wasn't some stashed away somewhere though.

Thing is, I can't think of a time between the end of the war and even now when an official release of such footage would have been politically or diplomatically beneficial. I don't think historians get a lot of say in those sort of matters, not when there are 'more important' factors involved.

You only hide, whatever is embarasing for you ...

... and there's no way they have destroyed a single frame ... these things do not hapen in the real world ...

Guy talking about shooting (german ) pilots in parachutes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8LVl...layer_embedded

No mercy for Japanese sailors

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6gFQH54k0M

Sokol1

er ..... when a person finds him self in life threating situation goes through a metamorphosis so to speak.

To the above add the "alien environment"

the fact you can't decide for your self

you are constantly under terrible stress

you are surrounded basically by males

females are scarce so tension builds up geometrically

and so on ...

That guy shooting those helpless persons in the water
would possibly even shoot his own mother in the very same black waters .

That 's the altered state of mind you possibly get into,
when you have shacked hands with death himself so to speak ...

It is my firm believe that we should refrain from judging things
that we wish, we'll never have to go through...

my point is war is war and xxxx happens,
let's hope it never happens again ... (as in WWIII)

how the yanks put it ...

my 2 or 3 cents ...

Hopefully, I will get to listen to the Bud Peterson interview later tonight when I am on a PC with sound. Can't comment on it without sound.

The other video....did you notice the editing? That is creative editing. You see guys shooting, you see people in the water. You never see both images together.

The Japanese guy in the water at the end? He blew himself up with a grenade. Watch it again. Japanese prisoners were sometimes known to pull guns or grenades while surrendering. Sometimes they tried to take out Allies with their last act, sometimes their last act was just suicide to keep from being captured. Often, they swam away from enemy rescue vessels.

Or do you think that a ship or sub would stop in hostile waters to make sport of picking off survivors?

Good try though.

Splitter

EDIT: Just watched the second video again. Same conclusion: creative editing.

Off topic again :P Next we will be arguing about Calley and My Lai ;)



One question though ... I don't understand why the original footage was deleted.

I think because the original poster was irritated that the thread got so off topic. I don't blame him honestly... it's ridiculous. I'll admit i didn't help much but at least i tried getting things back on topic on the first page. I've never seen a forum quite like this, its kinda sad :(

Yes, this forum is sad, in that everyone talks about stricter moderation to prevent topics from going off topic, but nothing ever gets done.

Actually, stricter moderation was called for on the update threads only. For the rest of the thread, a few months ago there was an announcement that as long as things don't devolve into personal attacks the moderation on the rest of the board will be lax to allow for tangential discussions. This was because they tend to bring up some interesting things to light which would otherwise be completely bypassed.

The general reasoning behind it all is pretty sound. When there's specific information to be presented (like an update thread) off topic matters need to be kept to a minimum and it is enforced as such.
When we are just discussing other stuff, it's treated as a forum with a general interest in history and aviation, where people are allowed to stray from the topic as long as it's still about history, aviation and warfare , which is what we recreate on our PCs as a hobby.

Yea that sounds fair enough i suppose. Although it can get somewhat frustrating when there is a specific topic you want to talk about and people interrupt with off topic nonsense. I'm not necessarily talking about this thread, but there have been some i've seen in the past like this. I usually butt-out of most threads though... unless there is something of vast interest to me, where i feel like i need to give my 2 cents. :rolleyes:

Well since the OP removed the footage, there's not much else to talk about than war etiquetteMy personal view on this, is that anyone who can fight, or can return to fight, is a valid target.

If a pilot is parachuting over their own territory, and you don't shoot them, they will get back in a new plane to kill people on your side. So using BoB, you could leave a bailed German bomber crew for them to come and bomb London a few days later

Whether or not someone can defend themselves is quite a funny rule of thumb for a war. If you're a sniper taking out someone in the distance that doesn't know you're there, they can't defend themselves. Being armed with the intention of attacking your side at some point, they are a very valid target, but defending themselves doesn't come into in. When you're in a bomber over an enemy target, they can no longer defend themselves.

But to allow a pilot to RTB so they can kill innocent people on your side is a crime to me. Shoot the chute!

why were the posts deleted?

By that rule of thumb during the BoB ,Allied pilots baling out would be shot but Axis pilots bailing out over the UK would be safe.
How many Allied pilots were proven to be shot in their chutes compared to how many got back to fight again .
It probably happened but not very common,not sure i could live with that on my conscience,but each to their own.

I was watching a great show on youtube last night called "Spitfire Ace" (BBC I think). It seems that chute shooting in Europe was rare from what the resident historian said. Stories were common but confirmed incidents were rare.

The exception seems to have been the Poles flying for the RAF. They were very interested in killing Germans any way possible in retaliation for what happened to their country. The Poles were also apparently some of the most revered pilots for their bravery.

I have heard many stories of chute killing in the Pacific....seems it was almost a different war.

Splitter

Yeah that's generally how I feel about it. I don't have a problem with a German pilot shooting a bailed British pilot over Britain. Both sides deliberately dropped bombs on each other's civilians, which makes enemy pilots seem very fair game by comparison. The only problem I'd have with enemy pilots bailing over your own territory is if those pilots are armed and likely to kill your side or evade capture.

If a British pilot bailed over Britain, they'd be back in a plane shooting at the Germans. Why would the Germans want that? Happy to escort a bomber to Coventry to bomb children, but won't shoot the enemy - it's madness.

Does anyone know why the original post was deleted? i'd like to see it.

If people want to talk about shooting parachutes and what not surely they can create a thread for it, makes it hard to keep track of anything relevant to the original post.

twas a bit odd ...

all was fine until I pointed out the footage was US guncams shooting at the Japanese not the other way around and then suddenl7 people started deleting posts and links

must admit I was rather confused myself

Wow, that video made me want to kill a few people in real. Almost. Glad I can't do it :lol:


Edit: Nah, killing would be too ez fate for some.

All this 'I'd kill a guy in a chute' talk is fine until it's you hanging from the chute.

BoB wise some of the top RAF commanders were quite happy to have thier men shooting at chutes, but it was Churchill who told them it wasn't acceptable (he saw it like shooting sailors in the sea which was also seen as not the done thing). Also, most allied aircrew were treated quite well if captured and there was a degree of respect between RAF/Luftwaffe.

Pacific was a whole different war.. It got very personal and the treatment of allied pilots was.. well, extreme. Allied pilots knew of the barbarism and so reacted in kind. There was a fight to the death mentality with the japanese that meant that they were treated with a lot less respect, on land and sea and in the air.

Eastern front was also a lot less chivalrous..

In IL-2 the game shooting parachutes is just stupid because this game should be fun for all people, including the enemy, and remember without the enemy you would not have the game. And if you shoot for revenge a parachute in IL-2 you have played far too emotionally, and lost to your feelings. I don't though care abit if I get shot in parachute. Has happened, was irrelevant. Or maybe I lolled a little.

I don't say a word about chute shooting in WW2, but I would be interested to know did those who did it boast and laugh with it.

Yeah, it's weird. The original footage did NOT show an Allied plane shooting someone in a parachute, for those who were wondering (it was a camera pass, no bullets).

While I still think it is wrong to shoot someone up in a chute IRL (except of course in a case like Bud Peterson talked about where it was simply battlefield justice), apparently Dowding agreed with Trigaaaar.

From another website:

"According to ACM H. Dowding in his despatch submitted
to the Secratary of State for Air on August 20, 1941:
Supplement to The London Gazette 11 September, 1946.
PDF page 1, Supplement page 4553
items 158 to 160.

158. This is perhaps a convenient opportunity
to say a word about the ethics of shooting
at aircraft crews who have "baled out"
in parachutes.

159. Germans descending over England are
prospective Prisoners of War, and as such
should be immune. On the other hand, British
pilots descending over England are still
potential Combatants.

160. Much indignation was caused by the
fact that German pilots sometimes fired on our
descending airmen (although, in my opinion,
they were perfectly entitled to do so), but
I am glad to say that in many cases they refrained
and sometimes greeted a helpless
adversary with a cheerful wave of the hand."

This surprises me.

Also, shooting at pilots who had bailed was not covered under the Geneva convention. So legally, it was ok. In the Pacific, it is important to note that the Japanese never signed on to the Geneva convention.

It is also important to not that an Allied airman in the Pacific had a decent (not great) chance of being rescued at sea. The Japanese did not have as good a record of recovering their own pilots.

Lastly, I think it is important to note that there are far more reports of acts of chivalry between airmen than there are verified accounts of "chute shooting". Exceptions to that seem to be German vs. Russian and Allies vs. Japanese. I think most of us would agree that there was a special brutality in those theaters of war for various reasons.

Splitter

I gladly agree with your first statement.
I don´t agree to make exceptions.

Being emotional get you into such a situation in the first place.

I bet the German pilot also had his reasons to aim at the chutes of a bomber crew having dropped their payload on civilians.
Maybe he lost his family the night before. Which doesn´t make it right, but just as understandable as in Bud Petersons case. The difference is they were soldiers, the citizens weren´t.

Someone wrote that Churchill himself intervened in shooting pilots. Yet allowed to bomb German cities late in the war. Ok to bomb civilians but not shoot chutes?

No matter how hard I try I can't believe ethics got anything to do with Churchill's intervention. I think he saw that if British pilots start shooting chutes in Battle of Britain, then German pilots will begin to do the same, and it is British who will lose in that game for they wont get pilots back to flying. Captured German pilots could also been interrogated about German squadron strenghts and stuff. I have understood British got notable advantage in that their pilots could continue flying about the next day after shot down in Battle of Britain. How would had the Battle of Britain ended if all chutes were shot down on both sides? I don't know, but definetly Churchill didn't want to gamble that, which was wise.

*

While #159 makes sense, it can be argued that chute pilot has surrendered (given up) and therefore should not be shot down. If we compare that to Japanese early war doctrine where Japanese pilots did not have parachutes so that they could not "give up" (and would have to fight harder), not shooting chutes makes even more sense ethically, thus effectively countering RAF ethics about accepting chute shooting in the name of potential future combatant argument.

So I see #159 as just a way to try make British pilots accept that even if Germans shoot chutes we can't do so because Germans are "entitled" to do so.

*

If we can talk about ethics I might say shooting a chute is unethical since the chute pilot has surrendered. But if we can't talk about ethics there is pragmatical view which says chute pilots are potential future combatants and has not been captured (eliminated) yet. Like in France where resistance groups helped pilots to get back to England.



Edit: "There is no challenge" and "helpless" arguments are valid in sports and honour, not in war. For the best time to attack is when the enemy is helpless.


Edit: Huh, it seems that shooting chutes in war is not unethical because the chute pilot is in state of "tactical retreat", and there is not much reason for the victorious pilot to gamble in that will the chute pilot be captured or not. You can freely hate me because of this conclusion.

Churchill understood what they had to do and what they didn't need to do.

They didn't need to kill pilots in thier 'chutes, they had to bomb Germany.

War is full of paradoxes and contradictions.

Well, Churchill was not stupid. I don't believe a second he thought shooting chutes is like shooting sailors without a ship in the sea because they are very different things. Sailors without a ship are ready to be captured, there is no question about that. Chutes on the other hand are very different in many ways. Sailor analogy was just great analogy in making stupids (lol no offence meant) to believe shooting chutes is bad. Aren't British seafaring people?

Interview with Fritz Boost Luftwaffe Pilot Part 1

"P-51 pilot went past waving before he shot only at the wing of the FW190"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6AIp...eature=related

Er, what? It's no different than thinking it's ok for a sniper to shoot a soldier in the distance - that's also not great when you're the soldier in the distance, but it's a war. Personaly I hate the thought of having to shoot anyone, I'm very glad I'm not involved in a war. But in a war I think those in chutes over their own territory are a valid target.

Oh hello, that's basically what I said.

Those are great stories about chivalry in crazy times. However things are not very simple. Honour and ethics are a little bit different things. Some pilots maybe tried to be like knights as everyone should try to be.

But why they were flying in the first place? To be a knight of the sky or to defend their country and people to make the war end? To do both? To do both was impossible. Either you were knight of the sky and let the enemy live, or you defended your people and wanted to end the war.

Which was better? I can't answer to that. Both were honourable and ethical things to do, and in the same time both were dishonourable and unethical to do. The pilot who you let to live could kill 1000 civilians or shoot 10 chutes next week. Were you not supposed to protect your people? Not blaming anyone or pointing with finger. Absolutely not doing that.

But again, you are free to hate me :lol:


Edit: This was response to I/ZG52_Gaga.

Exactly. You make an excellent analogy there. And I can imagine chute shooting or sniping would both suck to do. I am not a killer. However it can be argued that one should be able to do both. Now, talk about sacrifice. If you get what I mean.

No no there's no problem ..:)

This is the fact : great power comes with great responsibility

Meaning that when it is up to you to decide for someone's death

then you really show what you're made of ...

off course circumstances always perplex the situation at hand ...

Right. Even if it would be against most of your principles. Sacrifice everything and be the merciless killer.

I said nothing about the rights and wrongs of it, I mearly pointed out that if you were hanging from a 'chute and an enemy aircraft was approaching you'd be thinking 'hope he dosn't shoot me'

Sniping is a different thing totally, different operation, different objective, different execution. You simply cannot apply morals to war and to try and argue a wrong with another wrong, it is pointless. Most pilots saw thier jobs as destroying as many aircraft as possible, then up to them what they do to the pilots. A snipers job is to kill people.

If there's chute shooting going on, freefall to 500 ft above ground.

It was mentioned in "Flying Tigers", which was a WW2 film, so they knew it at the time.

Hmm, how is sniping different? In air combat one of your missions is to eliminate the enemy. In sniping your mission is to eliminate the enemy. If we would go to different operations we would go for example to snipers in police. By then we could say sniping is different. However even by then the sniper would have to shoot mercilessly, possibly risking innocent people.

I don't say what pilots in WW2 thought about what is their job. I spoke about what people think was the job of the WW2 pilots. And I have seen many think something like air combat would had been some sort of glorified game with some sort of rules (moral code) which makes the difference between "us" and "them" e.g. good and evil.

So, if people begin to talk about ethics in air combat (is chute shooting right or wrong) and if they don't see enough to talk about it, I may have a word to say.

Shortly said there was a war going on, and in war you have certain responsibilities. Like protect your people and defeat the enemy. The faster and more effective you are in your responsibilities, the better. Now imagine a war where Knighs of the Sky are playing a game while the rest are burning and torn by explosions and gunfire. How much does that make sense? Are pilots privileged to only shoot "planes" down and not people? Or if they only shoot planes down does it make them better pilots (especially when they don't shoot chutes down because of the fear of getting the same fate from enemy)?

I know what people think with that glorified Knights of the Sky illusion. However that is sandbox war. Real war is not sandbox war. Now don't drink coffee. You have been warned. I will turn things upside down from what you have used to believe and I don't want you burst coffee on your keyboard and monitor.

Those who shooted chutes made the real sacrifice. They stopped playing a wargame and begun to do their best to eliminate the enemy. In the process they sacrificed their humanity, their principles of not shooting helpless, their respect as seen by enemy and comrades (honour stuff), and their safety of not getting shooted at in a chute by themselves. They sacrificed possibly everything we can imagine to stop the war and minimize casualties. They had the choise, and they made the sacrifice.

Such is war. Total madness. And it is best to see as it is.

That is one opinion, but certainly one that I would not give any respect for.
I have had the honor of meeting a few former airmen of that time, and they all said those who shot at parachutes where frowned upon. I know you will say that is not backing 100% the war effort, many exmilitary will say that is the differance between being human and a savage.
With that attitude I can understand why civilians went medival when after a bombing raid, downed air crew where lead through their town, they where making sure that those crew members would not escape........

Sorry as a former military member myself I can not share your view.

All those things what you mentioned I already listed as sacrifice some pilots did, either unwillingly or not. Read again if you don't believe that, and note how "sacrifice" was written in italics.

After that I am interested to know how you define what is a big sacrifice soldiers in WW2 did?

Also I am interested to know do you think that you can shoot helpless in the name of revenge?

Please answer and note you have 100% rights to totally disagree with me. I am just interested on what you think.



Edit: Now that I read you posting again I can do nothing but laugh. I am glad you understood how people went medieval after being bombed. Very glad. And now I am not laughing. Only smiling a little, but it is savage smile, I can tell ya.

For one, there is western allied tank troops going up against panzers in shermans, where the tactic was to form a circle, and race in, with the panzer shooting shermans and the last sherman in the circle hopefully getting close enough in that time to shoot the panzer.

Yes, the sherman was that crap. However, it was easy and cheap to make, and many thousands were made, almost as many as the soviets made t34s, but the soviets made bigger tanks too.

:lol: Thank you very much of your input, Igo Kyu. I realized something essential.

Also thanks to Wutz of his comment, was very interesting opinion.

A sniper is trained to kill someone. A fighter pilot is trained to shoot down planes the death of the pilot is secondary. I can't put it any simpler than that

A sniper is a trained killer, Infantry is totally different.
You also compared it to Area bombing whhich is also different.
Bomber pilots were hitting targets and the civillian casualties were secondary. Snipers target is a human being and usually military and is his primary target. It dosn't matter how you kill someone as it is always wrong, justified sometimes but always wrong.

If you want to compare Area bombing to something compare it to the use of Artillery on a City as they have similar objectives. Snipers and fighter pilots do not.

Ah...but how about fighter pilots who strafe ground troops? I mean is shooting down enemy planes the only thing a figther pilot is trained to do? What about his role and duty as just one soldier in the war machine? Or does fighter pilots have some privileges?

Why it is okay for a sniper to make headshots on helpless enemy but if a fighter pilot does the same on a chute pilot it is suddenly oh so wrong :mad:? :lol: Is it really because of what sniper has been trained to do and what fighter pilot has been trained to do?

Always a difficult subject, the not shooting of shutes is just common accepted among pilots and therefore will mostly not fire upon them, I'm just glad that there is such a thing, less people killed.

Unfortunately there is no such thing in the sniper role, otherwise the sniper role would be pretty useless wouldn't it? Just my opinion, sometimes things are just the way they are.

Sven

You didn't read what I said. Both are wrong. And I'm not the one comparing them, you are, and it's not a fair comparison. It's about justification, and personal choice.

If you are just comparing any type of killing with any other type of killing then what's the point? It's ALL wrong..

Yes the well known "Tommy cookers" or "Ronsons" I know one fellow through my parents he was in the battle of the Bulge, although not in a "Tommy cooker" but the other side. He got his tank seven times shot out beneith his but.

As to viewing the opponent as human, when my grandfather surrendered with his comrad, a grenade went off as they both had their hands up. My granddads comrad got shrapnel in the head and was dead on the spot, my granddad when he was allowed to lower his hands saw that he had lost all his fingers except his thumb on the right hand. But his captures where very kind to him and treated his wound very well so that it healed very well. They could have also shot him, but they didn´t. Thinking of another episode which my granddad told me, a officer caught two on sentry duty sleeping, this officer thought he was smart and removed the bolts of their rifels and went away. In the mean time those two woke up and noticed their bolts where missing and got replacements. That officer came then back, he was called upon to say the pass word, but he thought "what are they going to do I have their bolts" so he said nothing. So those two shot that officer as he did not say the pass word.

I personally prefer to stay human where I can, only when driven to an extrem another side may appear, I hope this will never happen.

In a way its the code of honor that fighter pilots are supposed to live by. There are written rules of war and there are un-written rules of war. Killing a helpless pilot in his cute is just something that fighter pilots are not supposed to do. Infantry live by a differant set of rules, similiar, but differant.

So you say that snipers doing headshots on helpless soldiers and chute shooting are both wrong. You also say that all killing is wrong. But what if there is no choise? What if a sniper gets a chance to do a headshot on terrorist who takes just a few steps too much away of the bomb trigger which could kill 100 hostages? At times merciless killing is needed, we can agree on that?

Now the disagreement part is that for some reason I can't understand why fighter pilots enjoy of the privilege to just shoot planes down. No need to do anything else, actually if you do more you are frowned because it would so much suck to be the chute pilot shot down. And who the hell would shoot helpless victims! Or bomb civilians! We have some moral standards!! Imagine for example artillery dudes, what bastards! We fighter pilots are not coward bastards, we don't shoot chutes because we could get shot! And we have been trained to only shoot planes! We are Knights of the Sky. We let the chute pilot live so we could live - and could not care less what happen on the ground!! This be our sandbox! If you get bombed by chute pilots we did not shoot down, we don't care! It is freaking our honour and sandbox war vs ur life. Get a clue which matters more.

There is so many so ridiculous contradictions and double standards I can't think anything else having so many so ridiculous contradictions. Not even in war.

Yeah, I know. I call those "don't shoot in ur leg while maintaining holier than thou image".

That is exactly one reason why those pilots who shooted chutes sacrificed so much for their country and people.

Jeez.. you are hard work. Even if killing someone is justified it is still wrong.


I can't even tell what your point is.
Are you saying that killing pilots in thier 'chutes is right? Or Justified.
And again it comes down to what the individual choses to do at that specific moment.

For the record if I don't think that shooting pilots in thier parachutes is a good thing to do. Other people did, and did so.
Stop trying to lump it all together in one moral lump because you can't. Your argument seems to contradict itself because it's an impossible argument. You can only really say if you agree or disagree, comparisons of one murder against another are pointless.

My point is as I wrote it:

Those who shooted chutes made the real sacrifice. They stopped playing a wargame and begun to do their best to eliminate the enemy. In the process they sacrificed their humanity, their principles of not shooting helpless, their respect as seen by enemy and comrades (honour stuff), and their safety of not getting shooted at in a chute by themselves. They sacrificed possibly everything we can imagine to stop the war and minimize casualties. They had the choise, and they made the sacrifice.

There is no words about right or wrong, good or bad, or anything like that. It was all about unseen sacrifice some pilots did, and which makes a very good example what kind of madness the war was in real even though it can be looked with rose coloured eye shades.


Edit: They gave everything, not just risking their lives and health. And Knights of the Sky just call them "scum". Oh well, but I know that is difficult to understand. There has been times when people could not understand how a black man could possibly use same toilet as white man. So anything is possible.

What sacrifice did those that shoot chutes make? That sounds like a murderer makes also a sacrifice. I differ between stopping someone from fighting on and killing him out right. You make it sound like a butcher is someone doing something honourable........can it be you have just been playing too many shooter games? Your line of thought is just a step away from saying well to stop the enemy one must also prevent new soldiers from coming, so kill also any civilian in sight as that is a potential new soldier or could raise one....... I think you would have a hard time in the military, only a gamer talks like that.

Any soldier knows he might be at the receiving end sometimes.

Murderes have a choise. Soldiers don't have a choise, at least we don't begin to argue about that did they have a choise or not.

If you are a soldier and don't eliminate the enemy when you have the best chance, then you just failed. Elimination can be killing or capturing the enemy.

And don't take honour into this. I haven't written about honour. Stay in line.

Forget it you are hopeless. I know many soldiers that would boot you for that kind of attitude. Pointless in carrying on.http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m...pillepalle.gif
It also shows you know little of military tactics, a dead soldier is done with, a wounded soldier binds more man power reducing the enemies fighting ability. But sure put a bullet in the persons head big sacrifice pulling the trigger.

Your comment suggests that my opinion that it can be right to shoot enemy parachutes would change if I was in the chute. No it wouldn't. I think if you're a foot soldier, it's right that the enemy shoots back at you. I wouldn't like them shooting at me, but I'd understand that's the way it has to work, and the same goes for chute shooting.

You also say that all killing is wrong. I disagree. If someone is walking round killing civilians, and you can't stop them without killing them (they have body armor), you say it's wrong to kill them - I disagree.

We're all entitled to our views, and it's interesting to read how others feel about these things, but it seems moilami and I have the same views.

Very well said. There would have been nasty people on both sides who shot at chutes for fun - I'm not talking about them. There would have been those like the RAF Polish who shot for revenge, or anger - I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about those that don't like killing, but recognised that a job had to be done, and as moilami put it, sacrificed their own humanity. I also appreciate that many pilots wouldn't want to make that sacrifice (I certainly wouldn't want to), but I think of those pilots as humans like me, not as honourable knights.

So it was frowned upon, big deal. This is about understanding how nasty war is, and looking at the bigger picture. Shooting the enemy is not savage. If they are over your territory with little chance of evading capture, that's different, but if they can return to fight...

Er, what war are you talking about? When London, Coventry, Berlin etc were bombed, were they military targets? Did the Atom bombs hit a gun placement in Japan?

If it was less people killed, I'd agree with you - but it's not. When you don't shoot a bailed airman, and they later bomb your city, how is that less people killed? Gunther Rall was shot down 8 times I think - if he'd been shot in his chute the first time he wouldn't then have shot another 240 ish allied planes. So bravo to any chivalrous knight that let him parachute to safety (and I really mean no disrespect to either Gunther or the allies that let him live, but I do question the logic).

This is your opinion and I respect that, but it is not a fact. I'm not actually sure what you mean by the word 'wrong' when you say something is justified. It doesn't matter, we are allowed to disagree.