It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Anniversary of worlds largest Terrorist Attack

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
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.


All of WWII? Are you kidding me? This discussion is about the pacific theater only and unlike you and others, that is all I am giving my opinions on. I don't think you are being supplied with enough information to deduce who is a "hippie" or a "commie" yet.




posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
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.



Is it?

Remember WWII was a winner takes all, win or be defeated. In WWII most of a nation's resources and people were put to use in the war effort. Do you not bomb the farms that eventually feed the troops? What about the rail lines and trains that move both civilians and military. What about the ball bearing plant that makes parts for the Military and regular industry?

The choices in war are never easy or simple. I talked recently to a lady who survived the bombings in Hamburg, she understood why they were being attacked (sub pens and rail) but she still was shocked and terrorized by it. Would you have struck those sub pens? Knowing full well that if you did not, the war would drag on even longer and even more people would die or If you did bomb the pens it was unavoidable that you would kill innocent civilians as well. Still simple?



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 12:04 AM
link   
So, all principals are expendable?

Some of the greatest men in history have died for their principals.



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 12:12 AM
link   
yes, yes, yes!!!

it was a terrorist attack


i am so happy you called it that...

you and i should be friends


it wasn't an "act of war"...





posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
I don't think you are being supplied with enough information to deduce who is a "hippie" or a "commie" yet.


What exactly is the point you are trying to make? I really am not following your train of thought, sorry.
I have enough information to make my opinons on the Pacific theatre of WWII known and will support them.

I contend that while the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were horrible events. The attacks saved more Japanese and American lives in the long run. By the end of Spring in 1945, it was clear that Japan would be defeated, it was just a matter of how. Invasion or use of the Atomic bomb to cause surrender without an invasion. Again, we weren't into an "equitable peace" with Japan, they had to surrender unconditionally, which they were not yet ready to do.

Read up on how we firebombed Japan's cities in the early 1945, it was just as bad if not worse than the strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, yet they still did not surrender.

I know you don't like the choices that were presented at the end of WWII but they were the choices available and debated at the time. At the Potsdam conference in July of 1945 Japan was given an ultimatium by the Allied powers:


Towards the end of the conference, Japan was given an ultimatum (threatening "prompt and utter destruction", without mentioning the new bomb), and hastily after Japan had rejected it, atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and August 9, 1945 respectively.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 12:23 AM
link   
okay...

so (to go off on a tangent) here:

if bin ladden gave the US an ultimatum, and we refused to comply, and then 9-11 occurred, what would this be???

a terrorist attack or a genuine "act of war"???





posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by they see ALL
okay...

so (to go off on a tangent) here:

if bin ladden gave the US an ultimatum, and we refused to comply, and then 9-11 occurred, what would this be???

a terrorist attack or a genuine "act of war"???




Off tangent for sure.
Bin Laden is not a nation, Al-Queda is an organization. They can not be at a declared state of war like nations do since they have no country and do not field an actual Army in the classic sense of the word.
It would be a terror attack.

The Allies in WWII declared actual war on the Axis powers. They also stated their terms for surrender should the Axis feel so inclined-Unconditional surrender. The Axis powers were the aggressors in WWII, we can agree on that can we not?

Japan had just seen Germany pummelled into surrender on 3 sides in the previous months and still did not take the allies claim of "prompt and utter destruction" of Japan as something they would do if Japan would not unconditionally surrender.



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 03:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by they see ALL
yes, yes, yes!!!

it was a terrorist attack


i am so happy you called it that...

you and i should be friends


it wasn't an "act of war"...



Next time,for the love of god please use capital letters.

It wasn't a terror attack, it was an act of war.Period.
The bombing was necessary to end the war.
The Japanese were born and raised into a culture that taught them that dying for their emperor and country was the most important thing in life.More important than their families and friends.
But what the bombings at Hiroshima(and Nagasaki) showed them that with ONE plane and ONE bomb that they could destroy a city.
The effect that this(along with nagasaki) had on the Japanese government showed them that it didn't matter if they had millions of fanatical followers,if they were dead before they could sacrifice themselves on the altar of futility in an effort to defend Japan.



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Anti Chris

Originally posted by they see ALL
yes, yes, yes!!!

it was a terrorist attack


i am so happy you called it that...

you and i should be friends


it wasn't an "act of war"...



Next time,for the love of god please use capital letters.

It wasn't a terror attack, it was an act of war.Period.
The bombing was necessary to end the war.

I suppose Osama and the rest, if they actually were behind 9/11, considered it to be 'necessary' as well.


The Japanese were born and raised into a culture that taught them that dying for their emperor and country was the most important thing in life.More important than their families and friends.
But what the bombings at Hiroshima(and Nagasaki) showed them that with ONE plane and ONE bomb that they could destroy a city.
The effect that this(along with nagasaki) had on the Japanese government showed them that it didn't matter if they had millions of fanatical followers,if they were dead before they could sacrifice themselves on the altar of futility in an effort to defend Japan.

I don't think there's any question as to WHY the American military did what they did. The question is, is there justification legit.... you believe it us, others do not. I do not.... we "showed the Japanese government" what would happen if they didn't surrender.... we used the deaths of 200,000 innocent civilians to "show" them something... to prove a political point. There was no tactical advantage to killing these people... it was a brutual way of proving a political point. That is why it is no different than 9/11. (If what we're told is in fact true).



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
Still simple?


Yes, it's still very simple - for those who know the difference between terrorists and soldiers. For instance, for your "ball bearing" factory example, a terrorist wouldn't know this simple fact



A military strategist would.



[edit on 8-8-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 06:19 PM
link   
The americans had 2 choices at the end of the war. We either invade japan and suffer tremendous casualties,or we use this new weapon to spare our troops. Every japanese citizen was trained and vowed to resist the invaders,with no surrender. That would have been terrible. But the a- bomb was also terrible. It was the lesser of the two evils. When a leader of a country engages in the act of taking lives (war) it is that leaders duty to end the war as soon as possible,to limit suffering. This is why the a-bomb was used. End it now,or even more ppl will have to suffer.

It was not a terrorist attack,but a means to end the war quickly. Technically,this is terrorism.......




posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 06:31 PM
link   
That definition still works to prove it was terrorism.



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by pavil
Still simple?


Yes, it's still very simple - for those who know the difference between terrorists and soldiers. For instance, for your "ball bearing" factory example, a terrorist wouldn't know this simple fact

A military strategist would.


Is it that simple?
You seem to think that strategic bombing something that was accurate. It wasn't like the JDAM's of today. Even daylight bombing by the USAF was not accurate. Yes they hit their target but they also hit everything around it. Night bombing by the RAF was little more that drop it on the city and hope you hit the targets you were aiming for.

Using the Ball bearing factory again since you liked it. Do you bomb the factory, knowing full well you will take out most of the surrounding neighborhood where most of the workers and their families live? In fact there is a good possiblity that the majority of your bombs land on the neighborhood and not the factory. Are you a terrorist or a soldier? WWII bombing was hardly ever accurate enough to just take out the target intended.

Do you still bomb the factory?



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 10:29 PM
link   
On August 6th, 1945, three good things happened:

1) A war was ended;

2) We won, and;

3) Japanese Karma received the Karma they so richly deserved.

Call it what you will........

[edit on 8-8-2006 by zappafan1]



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 10:40 PM
link   
I like your point about karma zappafan .Japan had somethin bad comin to em after what they did in china
. Just as i believe that america as a country deserves what its getting right now. 9/11 was one of the saddest days i can remember. Watching it happen live.Watching 2,000 ppl die the moment they died. It was horrible,just as WWII was. But in terms of karma/what goes around comes around,america is due for some really tough times.



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 08:34 PM
link   

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.


Then prove what you say. Put a razor to your wrist. If this is what you really beleive, then do the right thing and break out the razor. Many Japaneese did or atleast a dagger.

I don't see you on the beaches of Guadal canal and such (historical film). Easy for you to say. EEAAASSSSYYYY.



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by spanishcaravan
I like your point about karma zappafan .Japan had somethin bad comin to em after what they did in china
. Just as i believe that america as a country deserves what its getting right now. 9/11 was one of the saddest days i can remember. Watching it happen live.Watching 2,000 ppl die the moment they died. It was horrible,just as WWII was. But in terms of karma/what goes around comes around,america is due for some really tough times.


9/11 was a bee-sting compared to what America has coming to her.... I'm almost shocked you even mentioned it in the same breath as the event of hundreds of thousands of people being incinerated on the spot. No one who died in 9/11 "deserved" it.... no one who was incinerated in Hiroshima "deserved" it. While I will shy from Winston Churchill's "little Eichman" reference, I will say that I see a direct correlation between the civilians who died at the twin towers, working in and for a system that runs on corruption, spilled blood and lies, and the civilians who ultimately were responsible for giving the Japanese military so much power in the first place. Neither group of civilians deserved to die but they did and instance was a reaction to empirical tyranny.



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Ya know the odd thing about this thread as others is, if they had the technology? If the Japanese had the tech, know how, would they use it? Keep in mind they were striving for it and were accepting help from Germany even until the end. I personally don't think so becauase of the bushido code but you never know? Either way, many more would have died.



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by tkmelb
Well if thread has achieved anything, it has proven how some Americans see the rest of the world.

I have always been very pro -US however it does get harder everyday.

It seems most in this forum think that WW2 start with the bombing of Pearl Harbour. Just because the US didn't enter until 41 doesn't mean the Japanese weren't causing terrible atrocities already against other western countries.


We were sending help in the form of materials and the fighting tigers.


Australia has always been there to support the US. While we do not have the population we certainly do provide the strategic position.


You are excactly right. Australia has always backed the US even in the Vietnam war. We have forgotten the Aussies that died in that fight. Not right at all and if I could I would fix it but I cant. Just remember that this American knows the hardships of Australians against nazis, Japanese, North koreans...

Always remember, the US does love Australia, otherwise how do you explain Crocodile Dun Dee and Crockodile hunter and such?

[edit on 11-8-2006 by notbuynit]



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by notbuynit

Originally posted by tkmelb
Well if thread has achieved anything, it has proven how some Americans see the rest of the world.

I have always been very pro -US however it does get harder everyday.

It seems most in this forum think that WW2 start with the bombing of Pearl Harbour. Just because the US didn't enter until 41 doesn't mean the Japanese weren't causing terrible atrocities already against other western countries.


We were sending help in the form of materials and the fighting tigers.


Australia has always been there to support the US. While we do not have the population we certainly do provide the strategic position.


You are excactly right. Australia has always backed the US even in the Vietnam war. We have forgotten the Aussies that died in that fight. Not right at all and if I could I would fix it but I cant. Just remember that this American knows the hardships of Australians against nazis, Japanese, North koreans...

Always remember, the US does love Australia, otherwise how do you explain Crocodile Dun Dee and Crockodile hunter and such?

And you know, if Australia was ever attacked, the US would be behind her. No question regardles of any leftists popaganda,.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join