BackAgain
Neutronium Member & truth speaker #StopBrandon
Oh give it a rest.Hardly.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Oh give it a rest.Hardly.
So? It was not yet post 1945 at the time."The international law of armed conflict has evolved considerably since 1945, and an attack like that against Hiroshima would be illegal today. It would violate three requirements of the law of armed conflict codified in the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions: to not intentionally attack civilians (the principle of distinction); to ensure that incidental damage against civilians is not excessive compared to the direct military advantage gained from an attack against a lawful target (the principle of proportionality), especially where, as here, the value of the identified military targets in Hiroshima was modest; and to take all feasible precautions to minimize collateral damage against civilians (the precautionary principle)."
Hiroshima and the Myths of Military Targets and Unconditional Surrender
Every year, in early August, new articles appear that debate whether the dropping of the atomic bombs in 1945 was justified. Earlier this month, the 75th anniversary of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks, was no exception.www.lawfareblog.com
No thanks.Oh give it a rest.
Do you agree with the terms of the International law of armed conflict?So? It was not yet post 1945 at the time.
/——/ Then you understand the Japanese mindset of that time.I've read far more history books of all kinds than you've ever read anything.
No really. You’re often right about many things. But you're way off base in this one.No thanks.
The ones now in existence? Kind of irrelevant.Do you agree with the terms of the International law of armed conflict?
I do, and it was not the cartoon stereotype some seem to think./——/ Then you understand the Japanese mindset of that time.
In what way?No really. You’re often right about many things. But your way off base in this one.
Do you agree with those principles?The ones now in existence? Kind of irrelevant.
Yeah, the Russians abided by that in Ukraine. Bill Clinton and NATO abided by that in Yugoslavia. What good is a fucking law with no enforcement?Do you agree with the terms of the International law of armed conflict?
Your position is the claim that the bombings didn’t save lives. You’re very much mistaken. Of course it did. No less tragic and horrifying. But still. It is effectively certain that it saved maybe over a million lives.In what way?
Over 200,000 people, mostly civilians, killed is "saving lives"? Are you insane?Your position is the claim that the bombings didn’t save lives. .....
NO, it isn't..... It is effectively certain that it saved maybe over a million lives.
Fuck you for wishing the Japanese could have continued their rapes and murders of civilians even a second longer, let alone the years you demand.How about fuck you for dragging the good name of The United States of America through the mud by trying to paint us as being at the same level of moral turpitude as the Axis Powers. We're better than that.
Combatants, shitforbrains. 200,000 combatants.Over 200,000 people, mostly civilians, killed is "saving lives"? Are you insane?
No, just let them rape and murder for as long as they wish.I don't see anyone rationalizing, justifying, or excusing war crimes committed by the Japanese military.
I have never said anything even remotely like that, you lying sack of shit. You just revealed your utter lack of character. What a disgrace.Fuck you for wishing the Japanese could have continued their rapes and murders of civilians even a second longer...
95% civilians.Combatants, shitforbrains. 200,000 combatants.