Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

NEWS: Hiroshima group plans peoples tribunal over US atomic bombings

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 02:23 AM
link   
Anti war activists in Japan have announced that they will hold a “people’s tribunal” over the atomic bomb explosions during World War II. They could hold the United States symbolically responsible for war crimes. Potential defendants include late president Harry Truman and secretary of war Henry Stimson, along with Robert Oppenheimer and other scientists. They also indicate the culpability of the current U.S. government as well.

 



story.news.yahoo.co m
TOKYO (AFP) - Japanese anti-war campaigners said they planned a "people's tribunal" over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that could symbolically hold the United States responsible for war crimes.

Some 30 academics, lawyers and peace activists are preparing for the trial to start next year on the 60th anniversary of the bombings, with the verdict likely to be read out in Washington in early 2006.

Defendants could be key US decision-makers including late president Harry Truman and secretary of war Henry Stimson, along with Robert Oppenheimer and other scientists and the military personnel who carried out the order.

"As the statute of limitations is not applicable to war crimes, the responsibility should lie with the present US government, too," the Hiroshima-based group said in a statement.




Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


What possible purpose could this Kangaroo Court serve? The U.S. was justified in dropping the bombs on Japan. The Japanese would have fought to the last man and the consequences could have been dead and wounded in the millions on both sides. It was a time of war, and perhaps the learned academics trying to rewrite history should spend more time teaching their students rather than this political grand standing.




posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 02:44 AM
link   
I don't think dropping bombs on civilian populations can ever be justified.

Why do you think U.S keeps insisting that they're not doing it in Iraq?



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 02:49 AM
link   
How do you figure it was justifiable to drop nukes on civilians? Must be that "moral values" line of thinking...



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 03:43 AM
link   
Some of the Japanese didnt even want to surrender after both bombs were dropped. A group of the military even tried to steal the Emperors radio message of surrender to prevent it from getting aired.

One captured American pilot was even question about the bombs after they were dropped. He said the US had 200 more just waiting for the order, even though we used the only two we had.

And yet people in Japan still wanted to fight. If the Emperor wanted them to keep fighting they would have fought to the last man millions more would have died. Do people forget the images of Japanese soldiers jumping of cliffs rather then surrendering to the US. The Kamikaze pilots the Japanese had suicide bombers long before any Islamic terrorist ever thought of it.



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 07:42 AM
link   
Lets hope they have a trial for the Rape of NanKing as well, or perhaps the Batan Death March, or all the other extreme atrocities they commented with the support of the civilian population. The question here isn’t whether or not a bomb should be dropped (we had 20 X that destruction in the war with normal bombs) But whether it NEEDED to be dropped. Some say they were going to sign a peace treaty and we knew threw back door channels, but wanted to show Russia what we were capable of. Not sure which is true, Some say (including Japanese that the take over of the emperor would have been successful and each civilian would be up in arms, which makes them targets.

Also Does any here know about the balloon bombs and Sub attacks on OUR civilian on the West coast Japan did. These were strictly civilian targets. SO IF we were at war and it saved Millions of lives should the bomb be used, Yes. Japan was the enemy, they were and their civilians were willing to die and kill us until the last one. This would have meant up to a million more people Civilians and all would have died because they kept fighting to defend Japan. Sounds like people against the bomb don’t know their history, and would prefer a million or more deaths to 300,000 +



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thorfinn Skullsplitter
How do you figure it was justifiable to drop nukes on civilians?


There really weren't many civilians, if any, in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Children from the age of 6 and up were working in the factories making
bombs and bullets. The ENTIRE Japanese population was a giant
war machine.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both MAJOR building places for
war machines and materials. (The old USSR had DETROIT on
their nuke hit list ... because it's a MAJOR place to build and work
metals)

I was in the Army and I was stationed in Japan for three years.
I spent three days TDY in Hiroshima. I went to the museum there,
ground zero, everything.

For weeks we dropped leaflets on the people of Hiroshima. We
told them what we were going to do if they didn't surrender. They
KNEW what was coming. The leaflets are on the walls of the museum
in Hiroshima.

The people bringing this lawsuit are idiots who want to rape the
deep pockets of the American government. THEY attacked America
and THEY lost. It sounds just like the stories you hear in the news
papers all the time ... 'thief breaks into home, gets' bitten by family
dog, sues the family for injuries sustained during the break-in'.



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 08:22 AM
link   
n/m


[edit on 6-12-2004 by AceOfBase]



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 10:42 AM
link   
What idiots...
If they don't remember.... 2 words...
PEARL HARBOR...
they started it, and we kicked em... they got what they deserved at the time... they should be spitting on the emperors grave for causing all this rather than blameing the USA.



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Aggression never should be used as an excused for a devastating bomb as the nuclear bomb and not only one but two.

Pearl harbor was the fist time in modern history that the US was attack by another sovereign country.

And act of aggression against a country give that country the right to defend themselves.

Yes US had the right to fight back, but I believe that the US did not really realized at that time that the two bombs were going to be that powerful.

I wonder why the Japanese waited this long to do this tribunal it will be something to keep an eye on, if they win in any way that will make other countries that US has been an aggressor in the past do the same thing.

And yes the atomic bomb killed a lot of people.




The horrors caused by the destructive atomic bomb were immediate and still remain today: reminders of the deadly and unnecessary mistake. Immediately after the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, 70,000 Japanese were instantly killed, the same numbers instantly injured. More slaughter was committed when the A-bomb was dropped on Nagasaki three days later. Death tolls were massive, yet less than Hiroshima. 40,000 Japanese were instantly killed and 60,000 injured.
The destruction of the A-bomb reached far beyond the 2 fateful days in August. Several thousand more deaths were caused by the radiation from the ill stricken mushroom cloud. Radiation related diseases plagued families for generations. Even children who didn't exist during the bombing were effected with cancerous diereses such as leukaemia. Proof of the damage from radiation can be found in the death tolls for 1950: 340,000 in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.



www.pomperaug.com...







[edit on 6-12-2004 by marg6043]



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Bombing Japan saved hundereds of thousands of lives on BOTH sides. Perhaps even Millions. Short memories is what morons like these that want to have the "peoples tribunal" are counting on. Don't foget the bio-warfare agents that were tested on innocent civilians (black plague) by JAPAN in china.



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Short memories is what morons like these that want to have the "peoples tribunal" are counting on. Don't foget the bio-warfare agents that were tested on innocent civilians (black plague) by JAPAN in china.


Will you provide a link pleased.

I guess you forgot US littler secrets on human testing also.


www.lafayettesbest.com...


Dr.Horacid before pointing fingers learn about the dark side of our nation.



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Short memories is what morons like these that want to have the "peoples tribunal" are counting on. Don't foget the bio-warfare agents that were tested on innocent civilians (black plague) by JAPAN in china.


Will you provide a link pleased.

I guess you forgot US littler secrets on human testing also.


www.lafayettesbest.com...


Dr.Horacid before pointing fingers learn about the dark side of our nation.



www.crimesofwar.org...

I am in Bio-warfare Marg............I am well aware of bio-experiments in our past. More than I can say...........The history of biowar is hideous at best. The Germany were bad, the Jap's were worse.



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid

I am in Bio-warfare Marg............I am well aware of bio-experiments in our past. More than I can say...........The history of biowar is hideous at best. The Germany were bad, the Jap's were worse.


Thanks for the link, Dr.Horacid,

I know testing is horrible, but countries around the world will due it to their citizens anyway, I am glad that the US is now more awared of this things.

And that the public knows about it too.



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 11:44 AM
link   
The use of nuclear weapons is never justifiable. Not only are you dealing with the initial destruction of the bomb's impact, but you are dealing with nuclear fallout, and the effects of highly radioactive material for years to come. Years after the bombs were dropped, children were being born with disfiguring birth defects because of the nuclear fallout.

Being that the United States is the most powerful nation in the world, we should have a certain level of responsibility when it comes to matters like this. "With great power comes great responsibility."
Was it responsible of the United States to drop two weapons of mass destruction? Were there other options?

It seems that those who are in support of the U.S.'s actions are either in the military, or wish you were in the military, or something... In that case, I'm sure there is no changing your mind, because you are brainwashed to think that way.



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reverie
The use of nuclear weapons is never justifiable.

It seems that those who are in support of the U.S.'s actions are either in the military ... because you are brainwashed to think that way.


Of course the use of nuclear weapons is VERY justifiable. Especially
in this case. Dropping the bombs SAVED LIVES. It saved Americans,
and it saved Japanese. The emperor would have killed every last
Japanese person in his quest against America. HUGE NUMBERS
of Americans would have been killed in conventional warfare trying
to defeat the aggressors.

Yes I was in the military. It doesn't mean I was 'brainwashed'.
The stats presented are common sense. If you really cared about
people living as you claim, you would be able to see the truth of
the stats presented. Hiroshima saved more lives than it took.
Sounds like YOU are the one who has been brainwashed?
Could be. Best check your stats again.

To say that using a nuclear weapon is 'never justified' ...
well, that's plain wrong.


[edit on 12/6/2004 by FlyersFan]



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Its easy to debate this now fifty years after the fact . But the truth to the matter is we (being the us) know very little of how this wepon worked or the long term problems that could be created by using it.
The whole thing was put toghter in just a few years and manny testing steps were skiped because the war was going badly expicaly for our Navy with the kamkasies.
Im not saying we wouldNot eventuly win the war without using the bomb but it would have taken alest another two years . And at this point in our understanding of nuks the main thing we know is it was just a larger bomb and knew very little about radichion .Heck we dug diches put our own people in them and then denated a test nuk to see if they could servive the blast. Never relizing in twenty years what thous guys wrere going to go through. Wile this was bad science this war was Unlike any war ever fought befor and we need any advange we could get .



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Not, used of the nuclear bomb was not justify, US was doing an experiment and Japan happend to be an agressor.

Plain and simple, the results of those two bombs was beyond US dreams at the time.



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Remidnds me of a fight I was in. I won the match but the other fellow would not quit even though we was hurt severly. I guess the Japaneese people are the same way.
We defeated them militarily but in spirit they never surrendered. Always remember that the Western mind set is totally different than those of Asia or the Middle East.
At the present time the U.S. currency is at an all time low and it appears that many Nations of the world are using this against us to voice they contempt and hate against us.



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 12:30 PM
link   
It ended a world war and very quickly. I guess the those in the tribunal forgot of the attrocities Japan inflicted that those two bombs quickly ended. If Japan had nukes at the time they would have used them. If you pick a fight with one twice your size do you cry foul when you are hit with all of the force behind the punch they throw back? Do you run to the authorities and say I started it but he hit back with brass knucles and thats not 'fair'?

[edit on 12/6/2004 by just_a_pilot]



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 12:32 PM
link   


Sounds like YOU are the one who has been brainwashed?
Could be. Best check your stats again.

To say that using a nuclear weapon is 'never justified' ...
well, that's plain wrong.


First of all, its not "plain wrong" its my opinion.

Second, you've proved my point exactly. People in the military will believe anything their country tells them, and never once question it.

I think its kind of funny that there are many credible people, historians, scientists, even the great Albert Einstein, who disagree with the idea that dropping the bombs saved as many lives as the United States claims and that it was the best solution, but there are people ignorant enough to believe whatever numbers and facts their country spits out.

Tell me: How does dropping a bomb on a country help it? Sounds so much like the idea widespread in Vietnam. You know...about how burning down villages actually saved them.

Leo Szilard, who was largely involved with the devolopment of the atomic bomb, argued
"If the Germans had dropped atomic bombs on cities instead of us, we would have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them."

Some of you have claimed that not many civilians died as a result of the atomic bombs...how about several hundreds of thousands. That's not a lot?

Check out this link, Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki



Their use has been called barbaric since, besides destroying a military base and a military industrial center, several hundreds of thousands civilians were killed. Others argue that the Japanese industrial heart, operated mostly by civilians, shared as much culpability as Japanese Army regulars.

It has been argued that, under the Nuremberg Principles and the Hague Convention, then in force, the use of atomic weapons against civilian populations on a large scale is a crime against humanity and a war crime. Willful killing of civilians, wanton destruction of cities, and use of poisonous weapons (due to the effects of the radiation) were defined as war crimes by international law of the time, which counters the argument that conventional bombings of civilians also cost many lifes. Murdering civilians on a large scale, in peace or wartime, is a crime against humanity. Some people consider the bombings the largest and most lethal acts of terrorism in history. One officer of the International Court of Justice has stated: "Nuclear weapons can be expected—in the present state of scientific development at least—to cause indiscriminate victims among combatants and non-combatants alike, as well as unnecessary suffering among both categories… Until scientists are able to develop a 'clean' nuclear weapon which would distinguish between combatants and non-combatants, nuclear weapons will clearly have indiscriminate effects and constitute an absolute challenge to humanitarian law." [4]


As well as these links:
Atomic Diplomacy

Hiroshima Was No Longer A City

Also check out Bernstein's article,A Postwar Myth: 500,000 U.S. Lives Saved

[edit on 6-12-2004 by Reverie]





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join