Anniversary of worlds largest Terrorist Attack

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Oh right. I forgot. The US isn't allowed to do ANYTHING bad, or anything to try to end the war faster. I strongly suggest you study the Japanese people and their history. The WOULD have fought and they would have fought ferociously. As someone said, they were training young girls how to spear US soldiers when they landed, and other ways to fight back. Their mindset was completely different from the US mindset.

But then I guess that doesn't matter. All that matters is that the US is evil for setting off bombs that were supposed to end things, may I add AFTER warning Japan we were going to do it first.

They don't care about facts, they don't care about history, and they seem to have no grasp on reality. They see a "civilian" die and anything related is evil. I don't see how that even makes sense, when in open war not a single civilian should die.. or that somehow war should never happen... which has never happend.. but let them go on thinking they are saving the world.

Originally posted by Zach
well atleast it effectivly helped keep down the over population issue, which is the biggest threat to survival right now, that and all the problems that stem from over population.

REPLY: Except to the UN (who wishes to see 2/3rds of the worlds population disappear) ..... there is no such thing as overpopulation. We could fit the entire population of the world inside of Texas, and every 4 people would have 1/3rd acre. It won't happen .... just some facts for you.

You presume to know who is worthy of killing so that others may live... that is not our responsibility. That is God's job.

REPLY: How true that is. It's not our job, but it is Gods (Yahweh's) job; The best thing we can do is arrange the meeting a bit sooner.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
[They don't care about facts, they don't care about history, and they seem to have no grasp on reality. They see a "civilian" die and anything related is evil. I don't see how that even makes sense, when in open war not a single civilian should die.. or that somehow war should never happen... which has never happend.. but let them go on thinking they are saving the world.

You're right... when I see a civilian die, that is NOT a good thing. If you can't understand that or comprehend it then it just proves the points I've made in past posts in this thread. You do not understand anything other than violence and war. It's obvious we won't get any futher on this topic so I'll just let it go... you simply don't get it.

Some links here.

k43.pbase.com...

www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp...

Read the speech. Wise words from the Japanese.

Also.. The hiroshima page at deathmasters dot com will show you some pictures from the time. Don't find it if you can't stomach it.

What gets me is that our modern nuclear weapons are so much more destructive, it's not even funny.

[edit on 7/8/06 by SteveR]

[edit on 7/8/06 by SteveR]

Originally posted by watch_the_rocks
Tomorrow, August the 6th, 2006, will be the 61st anniversary of the worlds most deadly and destructive terrorist attack - the only time weapons of mass destruction have been used in anger in this planets history:

The bombing of Hiroshima

It actually saved thousands of more lives and we got it before them, barely. Check your history.

First, now we know the destructive and murderous force of dropping the bomb.

Second, if we didn't , many more would've died on both sides in the invasion. I'm not gonna confuse the issue with relative morality. Fact is, The Japanese are a very strong and brave race of people, not the buck toothed four eyed, camera carrier you may believe them to be. Best fighters on the planet. That in some ways was their downfall.

I wish the world was made of chocolate mountains and rasberry streams but not gonna happen. Not in our life times.

I do agree with remembering those that died in the "blasts" and I also beleive we should remember those that died in China, Korea, Hawaii, Midway the Philipenes...

How about one big remembrance for all? Why should the way I died matter?

Originally posted by warthog911
....and terrorsits at that time were japanese kamakazis and not U.S military

To the best of my knowledge the Kamakazi's only targeted military targets. Did their attacks cause terror, sure. Were they terrorists by doing that, no, not in the modern sense. They were military men, poorly trained but still carrying out actions towards miltary targets. You could call every military action terroristic if you really wanted to.

I am sorry so many had to die to end the war qucker, but it was the lesser of two evils.

Originally posted by pavil
I am sorry so many had to die to end the war qucker, but it was the lesser of two evils.

Choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil.

Why did they use the atom bomb? OPERATION OLYMPIC
www.neswa.org.au...

Admiral William Leahy estimated that there would be more than 250,000 Americans killed or wounded on Kyushu alone. Gen. Charles Willoughby, chief of intelligence for Gen. Douglas MacArthur, the Supreme Commander of the Southwest Pacific, estimated American casualties from the entire operation would be 1 million men by the fall of 1946. Willoughby's own intelligence staff considered this to be a conservative estimate.

Please take the time to read the link. Or better yet, talk to a WWII Marine that took part in one or more of the pacific island invasions. I had the honor of talking to one Marine who was at Iwo Jimi. His story of the battle is truly brutal. Their advance was measured in yards in a day, with the Japanese fighting bravely and to the end. There was no surrender there, they had to grind the Japanese armed forces into nothing literally. The same and even worse would have occurred on the Japanese Home Islands. It would have made the worst days of the Eastern front look like a picnic.

Was the Atom bomb a terrible thing to use, yes. Was it the right thing to do, sadly yes. Again you are picking between the lesser of two evils. An invasion of the Japanese Home Islands would have resulted in the wounding and deaths of millions of Americans and Japanese and would have laid waste to much of Japan.

Originally posted by firebat

Originally posted by pavil
I am sorry so many had to die to end the war qucker, but it was the lesser of two evils.

Choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil.

That's right. And you become what you choose.

[edit on 7/8/06 by SteveR]

Originally posted by pavil
An invasion of the Japanese Home Islands would have resulted in the wounding and deaths of millions of Americans and Japanese and would have laid waste to much of Japan.

You haven't been reading the links, you'll see that invasion wasn't necessary, either.

Originally posted by firebat

Originally posted by pavil
I am sorry so many had to die to end the war qucker, but it was the lesser of two evils.

Choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil.

Yes, but "shades of evil" help people deny the facts. Concerning those in the shadows, the rest of us just nod our heads and wonder when the pod-people arrived.


[edit on 8-7-2006 by Valhall]

Originally posted by firebat
Choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil.

See the above post and tell me which you would have rather had. You don't get to pick anyother options. Just:

1. Drop two bombs, cause horrible carnage to two cities and kill hundreds of thousands of people in one day.

or

2. Invade the Japanese homeland with dead and wounded in the Milliions of people. Plus destroy hundreds of cities in Japan in the process.

You don't get to play what if and "war is bad". Those were the options on the table at the time.

Which do you choose firebat?

See the above post and tell me which you would have rather had. You don't get to pick anyother options. Just:

1. Drop two towers, cause horrible carnage to two cities and kill thousands of people in one day.

or

2. Invade the American homeland with dead and wounded in the Milliions of people. Plus destroy hundreds of cities in America in the process.

You don't get to play what if and "war is bad". Those were the options on the table at the time.

Which do you choose pavil?

Originally posted by pavil

Originally posted by firebat
Choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil.

See the above post and tell me which you would have rather had. You don't get to pick anyother options. Just:

1. Drop two bombs, cause horrible carnage to two cities and kill hundreds of thousands of people in one day.

or

2. Invade the Japanese homeland with dead and wounded in the Milliions of people. Plus destroy hundreds of cities in Japan in the process.

You don't get to play what if and "war is bad". Those were the options on the table at the time.

Which do you choose firebat?

I just love the options of a closeminded person

Make no mistake warhawk, the best soldiers are ones that can think

[edit on 7/8/06 by SteveR]

It is nice to be an arm chair quarterback 60 years after the fact. Most likely none of us were alive during this period, and have a skewed concept of what it was really like at the time. Some people have an anti-American slant and are already not going to agree with anything American ever.

A military decision was done. 1. to try to end the war. 2. to save American lives. 3. To show the Soviets not to mess with us. (this is a crappy reason.) 4. To prevent the Soviet Union from occupying any of Japan. (another crappy reason.)

To agrue Japan would have surrendered quickly if the bomb was not dropped is a stretch in my opinion.

The nit picking point is under the laws of armed conflict a formal declaration of war was in effect with the USA and Japan. To some this does not matter.

Al-Qadea never made a formal declaration of war on the USA, and did an attack on the US killing nearly 3000 people.

I love how the person who started this thread left out the millions and millions of people killed in the Soviet Union and China in the 20th century.

I guess he cares more about one day and wants to look at one day only, and not over decades.

There was a thing called WWII going on, but in the Soviet Union ad China where millions of there own citizens were "terrorist" victims of the state in peace time are not good enough as America did not kill them and he can't say America is bad. I guess those millions of people don't mean anything to you from the Soviet Union and China.


Keep on hating America brother.

Originally posted by SteveR
I just love the options of a closeminded person

Make no mistake warhawk, the best soldiers are ones that can think

Please Spare me the closeminded, warhawk comments. You make it sould like WWII was something that was preventable or managable once it started. Sorry once it commenced it had to go to the bitter end. If only we had been nicer maybe Japan would have surrendered earlier. Yeah. Those were the only two options being really discussed by the U.S., sure you can find other opinons but it came down to those two choices, Invasion or A-bomb.

Japan was not surrendering unconditionally, as was required by the Allies.
The next options were Invasion of the Japanese Homeland or Bombing. Study all of WWII. I am well aware that there was hope that we could get Japan to surrender if we allowed them a conditional surrender. That was not the case. We did not change the terms of our conditions to Japan for their surrender. I am also aware that Japan was a beaten nation and had no chance of stopping whatever we did next. Still that did not change the equation as Japan had fought to the bitter end on every island towards the conclusion of the war.

Infact, there was the distinct possiblity that the A-bombs would not cause Japan to surrender unconditionally and the invasion would still have to take place, causing even more death and destruction. We had firebombed the cities of Japan in Feb, Mar and May of 1945 destroying completely 47 square miles of city and killing over 200,000 residents of Tokyo and other citiies and still Japan didn't surrender. Japan didn't even surrender after Hiroshima, it took Nagasaki to get them to unconditionally surrender.

I noticed that no one has chose between the two options.... I didn't say they were nice options but one had to be made. You may kid yourself and say there were other ways to proceed but a choice had to be made.

Again what would you have chosen?

Originally posted by Valhall

You don't get to play what if and "war is bad". Those were the options on the table at the time.

Which do you choose pavil?

Comparisons between Al-Qaeda and the German and Japanese war effort in WWII where about 50 million died ( 17M in armed forces, 33M civilians) is difficult at best and you make a mockery of it. Are you implying that the U.S. is the aggressor in the battle with Al-qaeda? Where exactly did we attack them Al-Qaeda first?

Your analogy isn't even correct as they do not have the capability to invade nor is Al-qaeda a nationstate. At the end of WWII those were the options REALLY on the table. And if I am Al-Qaeda and my goal is the utter destruction of the U.S. and implimentation of Islam worldwide then I guess they will have to pick #2 as all #1 did was really get us mad and awake to the dangers.

Being that they will eventually have to pick #2, what do you do Val?

Originally posted by sbob
I love how the person who started this thread left out the millions and millions of people killed in the Soviet Union and China in the 20th century.

Keep on hating America brother.

The reason he left it out is because the thread was originally about August 6th being the anniversary.... the Soviet Union and China are irrelevent to this thread.

Originally posted by pavil

Being that they will eventually have to pick #2, what do you do Val?

It's easy for me...I make the decision not to commit a terrorist attack on civilians who have nothing to do with the conflict (either military or policy related).

That's what I do.

It's that simple.