Muzlim rubbish

[eric]

Originally posted by Man of 1951
Yeah they were cheering similar to the cheering all over america when the atomic bomb was dropped on hiroshima. America cheered because they saw the end of the WWII....they cheered in the mid east because they saw the end of american intervention in there countries.

Did we forget Pear Harbor ?

I think this is a little different than intervention.

 

[Man of 1951]

Originally posted by eric
Did we forget Pear Harbor?

intervention of other countries has resulted in thousands of deaths, read some of the Battalions trained by CIA in central and south america which raped, murdered, mutilated and decapitated thousands of innocent people.

yeah first off Pearl Harbour was a tragedy, but it was a military base unlike 2 actual cities......and 2,403 dead versus 350,000 dead and generations of cancer victims.

Originally posted by jimnyc
I'm not afraid to admit it, and I could care less if the whole board disagrees with me at this point. After 9/11 I find it really hard to like or have any sympathy whatsoever for ANY of them. If Hiroshima happened over there in 10 minutes I would sleep like a baby tonight.

Well jimnyc thats the difference between moral and immoral people. You wish for others what you call tragic when i happens to you. And i consider you in the same boat as osama and his buddies who feel the same towards their enemy.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Man of 1951
Well jimnyc thats the difference between moral and immoral people. You wish for others what you call tragic when i happens to you. And i consider you in the same boat as osama and his buddies who feel the same towards their enemy.

Only I'm not strapping bombs to myself to express my feelings!

If disliking the 'people' that took the lives of 3,000 of our citizens and hoping for a bit of retribution makes me immoral in your opinion, so be it!

As Gloria Gaynor sang, "I will survive"

 

[eric]

I dont know if you are aware of the alternative to dropping the bombs. It was the invasion of mainland Japan. The Japanese would commit suicide before surrendering. Estimates of casualties were in the millions, if an invasion would have to take place.

We also have to keep in mind that when this took place there was a different mindset towards war. Lets take a look at Germany. We bombed civilian populations on purpose, so as to upset the manufacturing process. The political correctness we see today, just did not exist.

Again, I admit America is no saint, but show me a nation that has gained so much power so quickly, yet used it so wisely. All nations have skeletons in their closets, the question is do they learn from the past. Considering America is only 227 years old, I think we done damn good compared to the rest of this globe.

 

[janeeng]

Hey Man of 1951, by any of chance, you related to spillmind? or for that matter, maybe your are him, who knows, you like to swallow worms too!!!! sure have alot in common.

 

[Dan]

And as far as Timbo goes, keep in mind we Christian executed him, promptly. We did not cheer him as they do over there.

So... they're all cheering because their following out their leader's requests, and yet they are all also very grateful to us for (presumably) killing their leader? Something doesn't add up here.

 

[eric]

Dan, when I said cheering I was not only talking about Iraq.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Dan
So... they're all cheering because their following out their leader's requests, and yet they are all also very grateful to us for (presumably) killing their leader? Something doesn't add up here.

Dan, why have you not replied to my post in reference to yours (About McVeigh killing in protest of the government and expecting to go to heaven for doing so)?

 

[Man of 1951]

Originally posted by eric
I dont know if you are aware of the alternative to dropping the bombs. It was the invasion of mainland Japan. The Japanese would commit suicide before surrendering. Estimates of casualties were in the millions, if an invasion would have to take place.

Actually buddy, military analysts estimated that if no atomic bomb had been dropped the war still would have been over within a month or so from the japanese surrendering.

Also, after Hiroshima Japan was beginning to surrender by meeting with military generals to stop hosilities, but Nagasaki was nuked before it could be done. Also, Japan had agreed to surrender, just not unconditionally surrender, all they wanted was for their emperor to still rule. After the bombs were dropped, they unconditionally surrendered, but the US said its ok, their emperor could still rule. Does that make sense to you? My source is a book called "Rogue Nation" by Peter Scowen, whose sister worked at one of the WTC buildings, and got out just in time. I truly recommend that you read that book.

jimnyc:
Disliking the people who took the lives of 3000 people does not include a religion or any race, just the seperate group of ppl who actually conducted it. You are implying all brown or muslim ppl are responsible which is far from the truth. In fact Iranians held candles in the streets mourning the tragedy against human life....i didn't see that in the media, and apparently niether did you.

 

[NightTrain]

1951, I have to disagree here. This Peter Scowen ADMITS his book is a work of journalism, not of history.

Taken from : http://www.montrealmirror.com/ARCHIVES/2003/041703/books2.html

First published in Quebec as the bestseller, Le Livre noir des États-Unis, Scowen wrote this book after his sister, Amy, narrowly missed being killed in the World Trade Center. It is a passionate indictment of the attitude and behaviour of the Bush administration before and after the tragedy, backed up by a primer in the atrocities of U.S. foreign policy since Hiroshima.
First published in Quebec as the bestseller, Le Livre noir des États-Unis, Scowen wrote this book after his sister, Amy, narrowly missed being killed in the World Trade Center. It is a passionate indictment of the attitude and behaviour of the Bush administration before and after the tragedy, backed up by a primer in the atrocities of U.S. foreign policy since Hiroshima.

As Scowen describes it, Rogue Nation is a work of journalism, not of history. To mainstream readers it may be a relief, since it is less self-righteous than many other books accusing the U.S. of self-righteousness. But sophisticated lefties will crave more substance.

Scowen's strongest argument is that the "War on Terrorism" is primarily an excuse to advance the neo-conservative, neo-imperialist foreign policy of the Bush administration. Even if one doesn't believe this is the primary intention behind the recent attack on Iraq, anyone who isn't ready to be vigilant about how America exploits this victory is dangerously naïve. If Rogue Nation accomplishes anything, it will be in educating people on this point.

His weakest argument is that the war will cause more terrorism, and further endanger U.S. citizens like Amy Scowen. He reasons, like many people, that terrorism follows naturally from impotence and resentment.

But if this is were true, what stopped the Japanese, Vietnamese, North Koreans, Nicaraguans, Chileans and Guatemalans from taking up box cutters? Do they hate Americans less than the Middle East does? Have they suffered less? Or are Arab Muslims innately terrorist and likely to be more so according to the degree of their resentment?

I would look to more traditional historical texts, I'm pretty sure young Scowen would love the world to believe the USA had Japan whipped - it most certainly was winning the war, but the hardest, bloodiest part was the actual invasion of Japan. There, US troops would have been fighting men, women & children who were all feverishly training to repel the invasion that everyone knew was coming.

My grandfather was a Marine on Okinawa & won the Purple Heart there. He had some incredible stories, and let me tell you - no one was looking forward to the invasion. Everyone knew that the hardest part was going to be when they actually invaded the mainland of Japan.

Eric is correct in that the estimates were in the millions of casualties. The bomb was the correct thing to do to save lives, when you look at the big picture.

 

[Man of 1951]

Its funny, throughout WWII america lost zero civilian casualties, and about 300,000 military men. To stop more military people casualties it was deemed the good thing, to wipe out (instantly, thus discluding long term effects) 300,000 civilian Japanese lives. This is hypocrisy, these are people, human beings, it doesn't matter if they are japanese or any other race, they are people who were eradicated.

"The commander of the bombing raids, General Hap Arnold, was asked in June 1945 when he thought when the war would end, he said September or October 1945, because by then the Allies would have run out of industrial targets to bomb. While Japan was being constantly bombed, a naval blockade was strangling Japan's ability to import oil and other vital materials and its ability to produce war materials."

http://www.k12.nf.ca/gc/SocialStudies/whist3201/World History/HancottBeecroft/main.htm

Japan would have surrendered quite soon if the atomic bomb was not dropped. Tell me how many Japanese civilian lives are worth the life of an american civilian? The dropping of the atomic bombs was one of the greatest tragedies in human history. Historical people like the general believed the war would have ended soon, similar to what Scowen said. And Scowen himself had quotes many of the info he has, so although it was journalistic, it doesn't mean it goes without facts.

 

[Spirit_Soul]

Man of 1951 , I understand why you are saying these things, but that was war (WWII) and America had no choice.

In a war, you try to look at the best interest of your people. America was looking for the best interest of its people.The Japanese themselves are not saints, they raped and murdered about 100000 chinese women and children . This is called the rape of Nanking.

I think it is preposterous to say that America was the bad guy in the war. America did not support the Japanese brutal expansion into China. So, it made diplomatic attempts to stop them, then they attacked America.

It was not America's fault, we tried to save the chinese.

If you want to talk about America's nuclear bomb, how do you justify the rape of 5 year old girls in Nanking?

I am not saying that the Japanese civilians deserved it, but if America did not launch the atom bomb over them, then the Japanese would have continued to conquer and destroy the world with the notion of Japanese supremacy.

So, do not bring the past to find the dirt because most of America's history is pretty clean from 1900 to 1960.

Every country in the world has something from the past which is wrong. Like the killing of Native Americans in USA.

The British--- Omg I don't even want to go there.

The Chinese --- the crazy emperors themselves.

The Indians(South east Asia)-- The killing of Hindus and the wars between hindus and muslims where the common people died .

The Turks-- Enslavement...


We can go on like this forever . Every one has something wrong with them in their past. It is not due to the country, but because of the immoral leaders in their countries.

What we need to do here is focus on the present and prevent the terrible things from happening again.

Please, do not belittle yourself by bringing the past into the discussion, that just corrupts everything .

It is better for us to discuss and stay in the present and defeat the racist views of people not just in words, but also through our actions... that can alone save America.

 

[eric]

Well said Spirit !

 

[5stringJeff]

Man... did I ever miss out over the weekend!

Regarding Tim McVeigh, it's been said already, but McVeigh did not claim to be doing the work of God while killing 168 innocents - he was just pissed off at the gov't. There's not way to stretch that into making him a 'Christian terrorist.'

Regarding dropping the bomb... you have to understand that there was no stigma against atomic weapons in 1945 like there is today. The U.S. had been firebombing German and Japanese cities throughout WWII. The atomic bomb was considered to be a more efficient way to firebomb - which turned out to be absolutely true.
By the way, someone posted that there was a big difference between Pearl Harbor (bombing military bases) and Hiroshima/Nagasaki (civilian population centers). I've said it before and I'll say it again, civilians who participate in a war effort are legitimate targets under Just War Theory. So to destroy two war industry centers (Hiroshima/Nagasaki), both factories and their workers, is not against any laws of war - in fact, that was much of the premise behind firebombing. Obviously, many innocents died as well, which is why there is now such a stigma (and rightly so) against using nukes.

Jeff

 

[eric]

Jeff, I could not agree with you more. My parents were in Germany during WWII, my Mom lived there, and my Dad who lived in Latvia was grabbed off the street by the German army. Mom's city was bombed constantly, and not with precision weapons either, but as you said civilians who participate in the war efforts are legitimate targets, and I can tell you the Daimler plant my grandfather worked in was manufacturing military hardware. The idea of bombing cities was not to see how many people we can kill, but rather to interrupt the manufacturing process, and it worked.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by jimnyc
A quote from Timothy McVeigh's defense psychiatrist:

"Tim did not talk about God to me at all. I believe that he did have some religious training. But it was not an issue in his decision to bomb the Murrah Building."

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/community/DailyNews/chat_mcveigh0330.html

Maybe he believed he was going to heaven, but "because he saw the government as an evil that he was helping to destroy" is QUITE a stretch.

Your "theory" would be more credible if McVeigh actually believed in heaven to begin with:

"Now awaiting death, McVeigh says he is unafraid, that he doesn't believe in heaven and hell. 'If I'm wrong then I'll adapt, improvise and overcome,' he says. 'But if there is a hell, then I'll be in good company with a lot of fighter pilots who also had to bomb innocents to win the war."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/mcveigh/story/0,7369,488270,00.html

It's always best to do a bit of research before throwing out silly assertions.

Dan? You still there? I'm curious as to your response to this!

 

[Man of 1951]

Spirit_Soul

The thing is, if we don't learn from the past, how can be better ourselves in the future? Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn't happen to long ago. The reason why i brought the nuclear bombs into this was because i was furthering my point that no one is perfect......many/some people on this board blamed all muslims and arabs for what happened 9/11 and believe that they should all be killed and punished for what happened. The fact is no country is perfect and no race or religion can be blamed for what happened. I also brought the atomic bombs into this was because someone was saying that all the people who were seen cheering on TV for what happened 9/11 should be killed/punished, and i said that some americans cheered the tragedy of the atomic bombs just as some arabs and muslims cheered the attack on 9/11.

Originally posted by Spirit_Soul

If you want to talk about America's nuclear bomb, how do you justify the rape of 5 year old girls in Nanking?

I am not saying that the Japanese civilians deserved it, but if America did not launch the atom bomb over them, then the Japanese would have continued to conquer and destroy the world with the notion of Japanese supremacy.

The point is that you can't justify the rape of 5 year old girls in Nanking (and yes i have read about all the stuff that happened there, pretty disturbing stuff), just the same that you can't justify the atomic bombs being dropped. Two wrongs don't make a right. Also, I'd like to disagree when you said that "if america did not launch the atom bomb over them, then the Japanese would have continued to conquer and destroy the world with a notion of Japanese supremacy". If you read my earlier posts, and check the sources you'll see that military generals, when asked when the war would be over in June, they said that they believed the war would be over by september because the Japanese were greatly weakening, and the blockade of oil supplies have made many of their military equipment utterly useless. So had the atom bombs not been dropped, thus saving the lives of 300,000 people who died instantly, and the more thousands of lives who died because of cancer/genetic problems, the war would still have been over by roughly september. With this in mind, was dropping the bombs really necessary?

And i disagree with you about bringing the past into things. Yes all nations have blood on their hands, but my point is that many past events are similar to current events, thus we can learn from those events and see how to react to the events that are currently happening. Bring the past into topics and learning from them is a necessity for nations and people to grow and learn from the mistakes made in the past.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by Man of 1951
"The commander of the bombing raids, General Hap Arnold, was asked in June 1945 when he thought when the war would end, he said September or October 1945, because by then the Allies would have run out of industrial targets to bomb. While Japan was being constantly bombed, a naval blockade was strangling Japan's ability to import oil and other vital materials and its ability to produce war materials."
...
Japan would have surrendered quite soon if the atomic bomb was not dropped. Tell me how many Japanese civilian lives are worth the life of an american civilian? The dropping of the atomic bombs was one of the greatest tragedies in human history. Historical people like the general believed the war would have ended soon, similar to what Scowen said. And Scowen himself had quotes many of the info he has, so although it was journalistic, it doesn't mean it goes without facts.

While Hap was a great man, he was also an Air Force (then Army Air Corps) man, which is going to lead to quite a bit of bias on his part.
I seriously doubt that the Japanese would have surrendered in three months without an invasion. The Japanese were quite fanatical about defending their homeland (as anyone would be) and could have easily kept the nation fed for a few months. The industrial capacity of Japan would be destroyed, to be sure, but they were not going to give up without a fight. Look at the ferocity they showed on Iwo Jima and Okinawa!
Now to look at things from a purely empirical point of view, estimates of loss of life in an invasion of Japan were around one million. So the 300,000 lost in Hiroshima and Nagasaki (again, this is strictly a numbers game) was about 700,000 less. Was it a tragedy? Absolutely. But see my earlier post about the reason that the a-bomb was used in the first place.

 

[spillmind]

man o 1951:

i would suggest not going down to his level. this is the only way he wins. by bringing you down with name calling, insults, racism, various signs of frustrations.

the guy CAN'T usually debate intelligently, so this is where he resorts to. want a perfect example of this guy's hypocrisy?


i see him post stuff like this:

(after various links)
'No problem at all!

The World Health Organization has stated in the past that Iraqi documents uncovered since the end of the war suggest that up to 5 million Iraqis were executed or died in prison under Hussein's government.

Of course only certain numbers can be substantiated at this time, but the list is getting larger almost daily. As they find more mass graves and verify missing persons you'll finally see the catastrophic numbers.'

what a kind hearted philanthropist!

and the turns around and says stuff like:

'You like the boobies in my picture? Wish you had some huh? Sucks to have nothing but them smelly, hairy beasts around you, doesn't it! Damn, no wonder you cover their faces!

Seriously, just kidding about picking on the women. I hate all you scumbags.

Let me change that, don't wanna generalize about all you dirty brown people. I only hate 99.9% of you! Didn't Cassius Clay convert? He was cool. The rest of you still suck!'

give em enough rope, and....

not much to say to this jim, except your same old tired, reaching insults... *yawn*

 

[Man of 1951]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
I seriously doubt that the Japanese would have surrendered in three months without an invasion.

To tell you the truth, that arguement is useless, General Hap was in the Air force (btw what kind of bias does that give??) and im sure (without offence) that he knew more of the situation then what you just said.
Second, sure an invasion would have resulted in the loss of many lives, but then again it still wouldn't have been necessary because Japan would have surrendered before the invasion was initiated. Also, the atomic bombs broke many international rules of using poisonous weapons during war, which atomic bombs are categorized because of the radiation.

Originally posted by gop_jeff
The Japanese were quite fanatical about defending their homeland (as anyone would be) and could have easily kept the nation fed for a few months.

My point exactly...a few months......then when a country goes without any food, or any useful supplies to keep them fighting the war they would have surrendered....within a 'few months' thus avoiding the loss of the hundreds of thousands of lives from the atomic bombs.