The Science of Genocide

numan

What! Me Worry?
Mar 23, 2013
2,125
241
130
'
The Science of Genocide

On this day in 1945 the United States demonstrated that it was as morally bankrupt as the Nazi machine it had recently vanquished and the Soviet regime with which it was allied. Over Hiroshima, and three days later over Nagasaki, it exploded an atomic device that was the most efficient weapon of genocide in human history. The blast killed tens of thousands of men, women and children. It was an act of mass annihilation that was strategically and militarily indefensible. The Japanese had been on the verge of surrender. Hiroshima and Nagasaki had no military significance. It was a war crime for which no one was ever tried....
"What are we to make of a civilization which has always regarded ethics as an essential part of human life [but] which has not been able to talk about the prospect of killing almost everyone except in prudential and game-theoretical terms?" Oppenheimer asked after World War II.
A little late to think about that, Oppie -- you great, big genius boobie.
A rational world, a world that will protect the ecosystem and build economies that learn to distribute wealth rather than allow a rapacious elite to hoard it, will never be handed to us by the scientists and technicians. Nearly all of them work for the enemy.
All attempts to control the universe, to play God, to become the arbiters of life and death, have been carried out by moral idiots. They will relentlessly push forward, exploiting and pillaging, perfecting their terrible tools of technology and science, until their creation destroys them and us.
emphases added
.
 
upload_2017-10-1_21-10-8.jpeg



I can think of a few things that are as effective, if not more so, than a nuclear weapon to commit genocide.

*****SMILE******



:)
 

Attachments

  • upload_2017-10-1_21-8-32.jpeg
    upload_2017-10-1_21-8-32.jpeg
    5.5 KB · Views: 52
'
The Science of Genocide

On this day in 1945 the United States demonstrated that it was as morally bankrupt as the Nazi machine it had recently vanquished and the Soviet regime with which it was allied. Over Hiroshima, and three days later over Nagasaki, it exploded an atomic device that was the most efficient weapon of genocide in human history. The blast killed tens of thousands of men, women and children. It was an act of mass annihilation that was strategically and militarily indefensible. The Japanese had been on the verge of surrender. Hiroshima and Nagasaki had no military significance. It was a war crime for which no one was ever tried....
"What are we to make of a civilization which has always regarded ethics as an essential part of human life [but] which has not been able to talk about the prospect of killing almost everyone except in prudential and game-theoretical terms?" Oppenheimer asked after World War II.
A little late to think about that, Oppie -- you great, big genius boobie.
A rational world, a world that will protect the ecosystem and build economies that learn to distribute wealth rather than allow a rapacious elite to hoard it, will never be handed to us by the scientists and technicians. Nearly all of them work for the enemy.
All attempts to control the universe, to play God, to become the arbiters of life and death, have been carried out by moral idiots. They will relentlessly push forward, exploiting and pillaging, perfecting their terrible tools of technology and science, until their creation destroys them and us.
emphases added
.







Yet another load of horse poo. The two bombs saved well over one million Japanese civilian lives. This is well known. Only historical revisionists, and unethical people, like you, ignore the very well known history.
 
Genocide - the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group. Sorry bub, but bombing a city, no matter how big the bomb, does not fit the definition of genocide. Research first, then you wouldn't embarrass yourself.
 
th


Viruses designed to deliberately target a specific group/clan of people; for instance all Australian aborigines, the Amish, or any other specific group/clan; would be a genocidal weapon.

*****SMILE*****



:)
 
'
The atom bombs were NOT necessary to ensure a Japanese surrender, and American "leaders" knew that very well !!!

Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
The bombings as war crimes


"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan."
----Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet
.
 
'
The atom bombs were NOT necessary to ensure a Japanese surrender, and American "leaders" knew that very well !!!

Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
The bombings as war crimes


"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan."
----Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet
.
 
Better them than us. I dont care if we had to throw everyone of those SOB's in a volcano. They picked it..eat shit.
 
th


Viruses designed to deliberately target a specific group/clan of people; for instance all Australian aborigines, the Amish, or any other specific group/clan; would be a genocidal weapon.

*****SMILE*****



:)

Anything for Redskin fans?
 
'
Was the Atomic Bombing of Japan Necessary?

The question of military necessity can be quickly put to rest. "Japan was already defeated and dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary." Those are not the words of a latter-day revisionist historian....They are the words of Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe and future president of the United States.
Eisenhower knew, as did the entire senior U.S. officer corps, that by mid 1945 Japan was defenseless....
As a result of the naked futility of their position, the Japanese had approached the Russians, seeking their help in brokering a peace to end the War. The U.S. had long before broken the Japanese codes and knew that these negotiations were under way, knew that the Japanese had for months been trying to find a way to surrender....
...the virtually unanimous and combined judgment of the most informed, senior, officers of the U.S. military is unequivocal: there was no pressing military necessity for dropping the atomic bombs on Japan.
emphases added
.
 
'
Was the Atomic Bombing of Japan Necessary?

The question of military necessity can be quickly put to rest. "Japan was already defeated and dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary." Those are not the words of a latter-day revisionist historian....They are the words of Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe and future president of the United States.
Eisenhower knew, as did the entire senior U.S. officer corps, that by mid 1945 Japan was defenseless....
As a result of the naked futility of their position, the Japanese had approached the Russians, seeking their help in brokering a peace to end the War. The U.S. had long before broken the Japanese codes and knew that these negotiations were under way, knew that the Japanese had for months been trying to find a way to surrender....
...the virtually unanimous and combined judgment of the most informed, senior, officers of the U.S. military is unequivocal: there was no pressing military necessity for dropping the atomic bombs on Japan.
emphases added
.
please read some history
there were some Japanese that didn't want to surrender AFTER the bombs
trying to ''find a way'' to surrender is not the same as surrendering
 
'
The Science of Genocide

On this day in 1945 the United States demonstrated that it was as morally bankrupt as the Nazi machine it had recently vanquished and the Soviet regime with which it was allied. Over Hiroshima, and three days later over Nagasaki, it exploded an atomic device that was the most efficient weapon of genocide in human history. The blast killed tens of thousands of men, women and children. It was an act of mass annihilation that was strategically and militarily indefensible. The Japanese had been on the verge of surrender. Hiroshima and Nagasaki had no military significance. It was a war crime for which no one was ever tried....
"What are we to make of a civilization which has always regarded ethics as an essential part of human life [but] which has not been able to talk about the prospect of killing almost everyone except in prudential and game-theoretical terms?" Oppenheimer asked after World War II.
A little late to think about that, Oppie -- you great, big genius boobie.
A rational world, a world that will protect the ecosystem and build economies that learn to distribute wealth rather than allow a rapacious elite to hoard it, will never be handed to us by the scientists and technicians. Nearly all of them work for the enemy.
All attempts to control the universe, to play God, to become the arbiters of life and death, have been carried out by moral idiots. They will relentlessly push forward, exploiting and pillaging, perfecting their terrible tools of technology and science, until their creation destroys them and us.
emphases added
.







Yet another load of horse poo. The two bombs saved well over one million Japanese civilian lives. This is well known. Only historical revisionists, and unethical people, like you, ignore the very well known history.

it also probably saved the Japanese people from the hell that would have been "North Japan and South Japan" had we needed Soviet Help to finish them off via a conventional invasion.
 
'
Was the Atomic Bombing of Japan Necessary?

The question of military necessity can be quickly put to rest. "Japan was already defeated and dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary." Those are not the words of a latter-day revisionist historian....They are the words of Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe and future president of the United States.
Eisenhower knew, as did the entire senior U.S. officer corps, that by mid 1945 Japan was defenseless....
As a result of the naked futility of their position, the Japanese had approached the Russians, seeking their help in brokering a peace to end the War. The U.S. had long before broken the Japanese codes and knew that these negotiations were under way, knew that the Japanese had for months been trying to find a way to surrender....
...the virtually unanimous and combined judgment of the most informed, senior, officers of the U.S. military is unequivocal: there was no pressing military necessity for dropping the atomic bombs on Japan.
emphases added
.

Do you just quote other people or can you form your own opinion on things.

And hindsight is always 20/20, what Truman saw (and I am not a fan of Truman in general) was a country ready to go down fighting and willing to take as many GI's, Sailors, and Marines with them as possible.
 
'
Was the Atomic Bombing of Japan Necessary?

The question of military necessity can be quickly put to rest. "Japan was already defeated and dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary." Those are not the words of a latter-day revisionist historian....They are the words of Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe and future president of the United States.
Eisenhower knew, as did the entire senior U.S. officer corps, that by mid 1945 Japan was defenseless....
As a result of the naked futility of their position, the Japanese had approached the Russians, seeking their help in brokering a peace to end the War. The U.S. had long before broken the Japanese codes and knew that these negotiations were under way, knew that the Japanese had for months been trying to find a way to surrender....
...the virtually unanimous and combined judgment of the most informed, senior, officers of the U.S. military is unequivocal: there was no pressing military necessity for dropping the atomic bombs on Japan.
emphases added
.





Yes. It was. Dropping the two bombs saved at least a million Japanese, and was instrumental in keeping the country together as a whole.
 
'
Was the Atomic Bombing of Japan Necessary?

The question of military necessity can be quickly put to rest. "Japan was already defeated and dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary." Those are not the words of a latter-day revisionist historian....They are the words of Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe and future president of the United States.
Eisenhower knew, as did the entire senior U.S. officer corps, that by mid 1945 Japan was defenseless....
As a result of the naked futility of their position, the Japanese had approached the Russians, seeking their help in brokering a peace to end the War. The U.S. had long before broken the Japanese codes and knew that these negotiations were under way, knew that the Japanese had for months been trying to find a way to surrender....
...the virtually unanimous and combined judgment of the most informed, senior, officers of the U.S. military is unequivocal: there was no pressing military necessity for dropping the atomic bombs on Japan.
emphases added
.

Do you just quote other people or can you form your own opinion on things.

And hindsight is always 20/20, what Truman saw (and I am not a fan of Truman in general) was a country ready to go down fighting and willing to take as many GI's, Sailors, and Marines with them as possible.




No. numan is a cut and paste parrot. He has been shown the links many times over but he still likes to bash his head against the wall. It is well known that the Japanese weren't going to surrender. The experience we had on Saipan where the Japanese civilian population committed mass suicide was the first real glimpse of the Japanese all or nothing mindset. The leadership basically ordered the Japanese on Saipan to win, or die.

It was the philosophy of madmen and numan simply can't believe that a leader would be so crass as to do that. He still thinks that the authoritarian dictators really do care about their people when it is quite clear that they actually despise them.
 
The world went crazy. The prevailing theory was that you can force a monstrous regime to surrender if you keep killing civilians. Unfortunately the theory worked. It should be noted that British genocide murdered an approx. one million five hundred thousand Irish during the 'great famine" and they weren't even at war.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top