Hiroshima and the London bombers (2 Viewers)

[tattoodguy]

We are so quick to condem the suicide bombers etc for attackign civilians.

didnt america bomb a city fulll of civilians with a WMD?

We have no right to cry and bitch when a few of us are bombed,

If we really thought it was wrong to murder civilians, why dont we condem america for what it has done, instead of standing side by side with it as it invades a country and murders another bunch of innocent civilians.

When we leveled a city full of civilians- our actions said its ok to murder civilians.

Its a case of what goes around comes around.

 

[tempco]

i'm not saying the bombing the "right" thing to do. killing innocent civilians is never acceptable. but in war, it happens. both sides are responsible for killing countless of civilians. and according to the US and the coalition, we are at war.

the uk went to iraq. this bombing was going to happen sooner or later.

 

[nick1048]

How true. It just goes to show how politicians have mastered "the spin" to make America seem infinitely correct. What about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Did they actually think they could go an invade a country without consequence? This isn't the UN they are dealing with...

 

[supercharged]

Note back in the days of WW2, precision guided weapons were not yet invented so countries fought each other by carpet bombing their opponents cities to dust just like Britain and Germany.

In regards to Japan and America, Japan started the war against America by bombing the crap out of Pearl Harbour, so they only have themselves to blame for what happened afterwards.

America bombed Japan with two atom bombs to make it surrender, the first one didn't do the trick, so a second one was dropped.

The war would not of ended without the atom bombs, and Japanese soldiers would of continued their WW2 rampage including civilian slaughter contests, gang raping all young girls to old women, murdering entire families and using prisoners in medical and torture experimentation.

So seen in this context, the atom bombs actually saved a great many lives of both American soldiers if they otherwise had to invade, and all the people who were victims to Japan's war madness.

 

[JoeysBoy]

This topic cannot be discussed intelegently. People have different morals. Don't even try...

 

[tattoodguy]

charged....If you justify killing civilians - you cant have it both ways.

your syaing because america killed like 50,000 civilians and it was so inhumane and shocking that it actually stoppped the war that it was ok?

So you deplore the suicide bombngs in london, but if they nuked london and it stopped the occupation of iraq etc - you would be fine with that?

I dont think you can appply that kind of test.


After what america did in japan - i dont think america or any country who stands shoulder to shoulder with america to oppress and murder other civilians has a right to complain about being bombed.

Shouldnt you keep the moral high ground? I think in a communist non elected country its worse to kill civilians.

In a democracy we are more responsible for the decisions of our government, since alledgedly we did elect them.


So you sometimes think terrorism is ok? When else is it ok to kill civilians charge?

 

[santaslayer]

There is no right or wrong in war. There is only teh winnar and teh loooooser. I agree with tattodguy on this one.

 

[tempco]

Note back in the days of WW2, precision guided weapons were not yet invented so countries fought each other by carpet bombing their opponents cities to dust just like Britain and Germany.

...

So seen in this context, the atom bombs actually saved a great many lives of both American soldiers if they otherwise had to invade, and all the people who were victims to Japan's war madness.

and why did you quote my post?

and if you think "precision guided" missiles hit their target all the time (or even most of the time), you're severely misguided. just take a look at the war in afghanistan and iraq. hundreds of villages in afghanistan were bombed for no apparent reason. and in iraq, take a look at fallujah.

 

[supercharged]

charged....If you justify killing civilians - you cant have it both ways.

your syaing because america killed like 50,000 civilians and it was so inhumane and shocking that it actually stoppped the war that it was ok?

So you deplore the suicide bombngs in london, but if they nuked london and it stopped the occupation of iraq etc - you would be fine with that?

I dont think you can appply that kind of test.


After what america did in japan - i dont think america or any country who stands shoulder to shoulder with america to oppress and murder other civilians has a right to complain about being bombed.

Shouldnt you keep the moral high ground? I think in a communist non elected country its worse to kill civilians.

In a democracy we are more responsible for the decisions of our government, since alledgedly we did elect them.


So you sometimes think terrorism is ok? When else is it ok to kill civilians charge?

What I'm saying is that you a have to look at the full picture and not just one aspect of it. Japan got nuked, but Japan was hardly an innocent party. Japan STARTED the war with America by bombing Pearl Harbour FIRST. Japanese soldiers were also rampaging throughout Asia bayoneting, decapitating, gassing, burning and torturing cilivians in a manner which would make the Nazi's look like peace loving hippies.

Had those 50,000 japanese civilians NOT been nuked, 500,000 or more likely 5 million more civilians throughout Asia would have been killed for the cruel entertainment of Japanese Imperial troops. How can the lives of 50,000 be worth more than 500,000 or 5 million especially when those 50,000 were supporting a government intent on wiping out non-Japanese from Asia?

Also the Japanese worshipped their emperor like a god, and even in the face of massive losses would not surrender. And hence if the nukes were not used, a massive drawn out invasion like in Stalingrad would of been needed to defeat Japan, which would make the losses of 50,000 lives look like a trivial matter.

You can't compare the morality of atom bombs on Japan and terrorist strikes in London. The atomic bombs saved millions of Asian cilivians from the terror of being massacred by the Japanese Imperial Army, and prevented a siege in Japan would have killed plenty of Americans and Japanese alike.

The bombing in London served no cause, since the majority of people in London opposed the war in Iraq, and hence was simply mindless killing of civilians who live in the "west" rather than an Islamic state.

 

[RedskyV]

Regardless of the justification, the killing of another human being is essentially wrong.
That said, when it becomes necessary, what is important is effectiveness.

 

[withoutaface]

We are so quick to condem the suicide bombers etc for attackign civilians.

didnt america bomb a city fulll of civilians with a WMD?

We have no right to cry and bitch when a few of us are bombed,

If we really thought it was wrong to murder civilians, why dont we condem america for what it has done, instead of standing side by side with it as it invades a country and murders another bunch of innocent civilians.

When we leveled a city full of civilians- our actions said its ok to murder civilians.

Its a case of what goes around comes around.

A more relevant comparison would have been with the bombing of Dresden.

 

[tattoodguy]

ive never heard of dresden - im not that smart.

Charge, i understand where ur comming from, but you cant say we are aloud to kill civilians but our enemies cant.

If you want to justify murdering civilians im sure the terrorists have their own justification for doing what they do.

There is a rule for us and a rule for them.

Any iraqi who tries to defend themselves and their country is a terrorist/insurgent and we are the liberators and the heros.

How about all the references to the insurgents etc - they all hate freeedom and thats why they are attacking us.

If we kill an iraqies family and they are innocent - does he have a right to bomb us?

 

[Serius]

In my opinion the losses sustained in London were acceptable losses. it could have been far worse, and anyone with any idea about the current situation has been expecting this to happen. It was bad, very bad but it was not preventable. When this happens to Australia, most likely Sydney[ and i have no doubts that terrorists will strike Australia] I hope the deaths are of the same scale as Londons, and not like in 9/11. 10's of deaths and not thousands.

in regards to America bombing Japan, i have researcghed the politics of the issue and in feel it was fully justified. For them it was a choice between something that was wrong[ bombing] and something much worse [ unaceptable losses in drawn oout seige/ civilian losses on asia if not seige] / what they did was not right... but the solution could have been far worse, afetr all did they bomb tokyo? did the send a nuclear warhead to every major japanese city [ dont kid yourself, they easily had the capability] no, the minimised damage to only 2 bombs. 1 wouldnt have effectivly ened the war but 2 is ver hard for japan to explain away.

anyways its th eissue of one wrong over a worse one

 

[ogmzergrush]

I agree 100% with tattoodguy, there need to be maueasesures put in plays to stop the paocelie and the untuned nationz from xploitng there powr. Fuck tha police, comin straight from the underground, etc, etc.

 

[ogmzergrush]

Umm.. Is the answer yes?

it's fucknig rediculus that you ppl....... can sit here and let tem steal our rites. Once I saw on tv that a dog bit sum1 and stuff, I don't know the detayls, anyway, fuck the government is currupt, we should be able to kill people eye for an eye.

 

[ogmzergrush]

Not an eye for an eye. 10,000 eyes for an eye.

Round 1:

vs.

Who will win?

 

[heybraham]

"history is the propaganda of the victors." - some dude who i can't be bothered looking up for your sake.

news is the most potent form of propaganda.

 

[ogmzergrush]

So, words don't speak, actions do; AND, a picture is worth one thousand words.

My, that's a mighty powerful statement you're making in your sig.

 

[Xayma]

Hiroshima bomb may have carried hidden agenda

* 13:46 21 July 2005
* NewScientist.com news service
* Rob Edwards

The US decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 was meant to kick-start the Cold War rather than end the Second World War, according to two nuclear historians who say they have new evidence backing the controversial theory.

Causing a fission reaction in several kilograms of uranium and plutonium and killing over 200,000 people 60 years ago was done more to impress the Soviet Union than to cow Japan, they say. And the US President who took the decision, Harry Truman, was culpable, they add.

"He knew he was beginning the process of annihilation of the species," says Peter Kuznick, director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University in Washington DC, US. "It was not just a war crime; it was a crime against humanity."

According to the official US version of history, an A-bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on 6 August 1945, and another on Nagasaki three days later, to force Japan to surrender. The destruction was necessary to bring a rapid end to the war without the need for a costly US invasion.

But this is disputed by Kuznick and Mark Selden, a historian from Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, US. They are presenting their evidence at a meeting in London on Thursday organised by Greenpeace and others to coincide with the 60th anniversary of the bombings.
Looking for peace

New studies of the US, Japanese and Soviet diplomatic archives suggest that Truman's main motive was to limit Soviet expansion in Asia, Kuznick claims. Japan surrendered because the Soviet Union began an invasion a few days after the Hiroshima bombing, not because of the atomic bombs themselves, he says.

According to an account by Walter Brown, assistant to then-US secretary of state James Byrnes, Truman agreed at a meeting three days before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima that Japan was "looking for peace". Truman was told by his army generals, Douglas Macarthur and Dwight Eisenhower, and his naval chief of staff, William Leahy, that there was no military need to use the bomb.

"Impressing Russia was more important than ending the war in Japan," says Selden. Truman was also worried that he would be accused of wasting money on the Manhattan Project to build the first nuclear bombs, if the bomb was not used, he adds.

Kuznick and Selden's arguments, however, were dismissed as "discredited" by Lawrence Freedman, a war expert from King's College London, UK. He says that Truman's decision to bomb Hiroshima was "understandable in the circumstances".

Truman's main aim had been to end the war with Japan, Freedman says, but adds that, with the wisdom of hindsight, the bombing may not have been militarily justified. Some people assumed that the US always had "a malicious and nasty motive", he says, "but it ain't necessarily so."
Related Articles

* The A-bomb: 60 years on, is the world any safer?
* http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18725083.800
* 16 July 2005
* Nuclear test fall-out killed thousands in US
* http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1993
* 01 March 2002
* Careful with that nuke
* http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg17022960.700
* 30 June 2001

Weblinks

* Peter Kuznick, American University
* http://domino.american.edu/AU/media...6ccc005e7e04?OpenDocument&Highlight=0,Kuznick
* Mark Selden, Cornell University
* http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/ms44/
* Lawrence Freedman, King's College London
* http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/wsg/prospectus/staff/lf.html

Source:http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7706

 

[Sepulchres]

What I'm saying is that you a have to look at the full picture and not just one aspect of it. Japan got nuked, but Japan was hardly an innocent party. Japan STARTED the war with America by bombing Pearl Harbour FIRST. Japanese soldiers were also rampaging throughout Asia bayoneting, decapitating, gassing, burning and torturing cilivians in a manner which would make the Nazi's look like peace loving hippies.

I find that largely hypocritical. Whether or not Japan was 'guilty' or not, innocents were still killed, 50000 of them mind you. I cannot see how you can justify killing these innocent people and then when it comes to the innocent westerners, you are quick to dismiss any justification whatsoever. Its the same in Iraq at the moment. The other day the death toll in the Iraq war of civilians reached 25,000. That is in no way to be justified because the sole purpose of the war has been lost. I think you value westerners lives much much more than others, which is wrong so STFU.

You can't compare the morality of atom bombs on Japan and terrorist strikes in London. The atomic bombs saved millions of Asian cilivians from the terror of being massacred by the Japanese Imperial Army, and prevented a siege in Japan would have killed plenty of Americans and Japanese alike.

The bombing in London served no cause, since the majority of people in London opposed the war in Iraq, and hence was simply mindless killing of civilians who live in the "west" rather than an Islamic state.

Even though the atom bombs may have saved lives indirectly it still doesnt affect the "morality" of the bombings. You cannot just come to the solution that to stop the Japan killing people, we will just drop 2 atomic bombs on them so destroy all the innocent people to make them think twice. That my friend IS immoral. Like I said, dont even try to justify killling innocents because then you leave room for the justification of the whats happening now.

The fact that the london bombings had no cause is speculative because you dont know what their purpose was. Maybe they wanted the Iraq invasion to end? You never know.