Was Hiroshima an act of terrorism?

Micawber said:
Semantic. You've made the correct and practical decision but not a moral one. You could subdue the axe dude. Killing people is immoral. You disagree. I accept that.
In your hypo I simply label your decision as "correct" assuming no alternative not involving killing exists. If you wish to make it even more extreme I will simply persist in my
position involving semantic distinction. It's a thou shalt not kill sort of thing.
Click to expand...

Who says killing is immoral? By what authority do you think it's immoral to kill a human but not an ant? A rat? A Chimp or porpoise?
 
Micawber said:
The seemingly insoluble solution is achieved by understanding that morality, correctness and practicality are not the same.
Click to expand...

Morality is an inherent function of any decent person, correctness implies obeying the rules of others and practicality is dependent upon both of the former.

Those that know that the bombings were acts of terrorism and mass murder are moral people. Those that believe it was ' correct ' are just the followers of orders and incapable of moral judgment- such as the Nazis of Nuremberg.

Morality can be taught and transferred- but not by incinerating men, women and children by the hundreds of thousands. These victims were civilians and no threat to the evil cowards that killed them remotely.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Who says killing is immoral? By what authority do you think it's immoral to kill a human but not an ant? A rat? A Chimp or porpoise?
Click to expand...

You're a lying nuke-head. Nobody is going to waste their energies attempting to teach you morality. Fuck off and stamp on something.
 
moon said:
You're a lying nuke-head. Nobody is going to waste their energies attempting to teach you morality. Fuck off and stamp on something.
Click to expand...

Translation: As usual, I'm just an ignorant socialist. Morality is whatever Chairman Mao said it was.

No worries, moonpie. One day you'll find out for yourself. :)
 
Cancel 2020.1 said:
Pretty straightforward question. Thoughts?
Click to expand...

It's a fairly stupid question to be quite honest. I always tell morons who think the USA was immoral for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, perhaps Japan should not have started a global war and committed atrocities.

Of course, in moron land, it would have been far better to invade Japan and lose almost a million allied soldiers in the process.

I have the same answer for morons who claim that the allies acted immorally when they bombed Dresden. If you don't want your cities bombed, don't start world wars. It's really that simple.
 
Micawber said:
“We burned to death 100,000 Japanese civilians in Tokyo — men, women and children,” Mr. McNamara recalled; some 900,000 Japanese civilians died in all. “LeMay said, ‘If we’d lost the war, we’d all have been prosecuted as war criminals.’ And I think he’s right. He — and I’d say I — were behaving as war criminals.”

“What makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?” he asked. He found the question impossible to answer.
Click to expand...

I guess Japan shouldn't have started a world war and committed atrocities right? :palm:
 
Anvil Kasseri said:
That is incorrect. There was no behind the scenes deal.



Japan was free to surrender at any time. We'd have been happy to accept their surrender before the A-bombs were dropped.



Appeals to authority are a logical fallacy.

That said, can you point out any place where their views differ from anything that I said?



Kokura Arsenal and Niigata perhaps. But Nagasaki was difficult to find using the radar guidance that our nighttime conventional raids needed to direct their planes.

And all the Japanese soldiers who were killed at Hiroshima probably would have taken cover had they known that a large conventional raid was headed their way.

Additionally we would have lost the ability to use nukes to try to scare the Japanese government into surrendering.

Besides, what is so special about conventional weapons that we would prefer them over nukes?



A show of strength designed to intimidate the government of Japan into surrendering.



They had already seen what they could do. We conducted the Trinity test before dropping A-bombs on Japan.



That is incorrect. History really did happen.



"Japan's Longest Day" was written by Japanese historians.



Got any evidence of that?



Got any evidence of that?
Click to expand...

:clap:

:thumbsup:
 
Micawber said:
The seemingly insoluble solution is achieved by understanding that morality, correctness and practicality are not the same.
Deciding to save 100,000 of your own from the consequence of the immoral decision of your enemy to kill them by killing 100,001 of your enemy is a practical decision and the right decision if it works.
But it is also an immoral decision.
Click to expand...

Stupid analogy. :palm:

Micawber said:
Killing people on purpose, even one, is immoral. Everyone who kills on purpose is immoral in that instant. Now let's get past that
and decide which is correct.
Click to expand...

So in order to follow this moronic logic, when we were attacked at Pearl Harbor we should have done NOTHING and allowed Japan to invade our allies countries and commit atrocities; that would have been the moral decision.

You are the definition of moron snowflake. :palm:
 
Micawber said:
Poor sailor. So inconsequential. Nobody listens to him. Everyone blocks him.
Click to expand...

How was his question inconsequential? Because you say so? Is abortion morally okay to you snowflake? I will understand your desperate effort to avoid the question. You're a dishonest low IQ lying leftist loon who wallows in self induced hypocrisy. :palm:
 
I guess no one sees the slippery slope that so many of these borderline justifications can lead to.

Really, civilians are fair game anytime, w/ the logic being put forth here.

Is that what kind of nation we want America to be?
 
BartenderElite said:
That's how you morally justify incinerating thousands of civilians?

Interesting.
Click to expand...

Is moral to make a decision that results in millions more deaths? Did we start the global war Nazi Germany and Fascist Japan started? Like I said; it is a moronic proposition to suggest that bombing cities is immoral to end a global conflagration that killed millions thanks to the acts of these nations.

How do you morally justify abortion? :palm:
 
BartenderElite said:
I guess no one sees the slippery slope that so many of these borderline justifications can lead to.
Click to expand...

What slippery slope? :palm:

BartenderElite said:
Really, civilians are fair game anytime, w/ the logic being put forth here.
Click to expand...

There you go with the lie filled strawmen. It's really very simple; if you don't want your cities bombed and nation destroyed, don't start a global conflict. How is this rocket science to America hating dunces like you?

It's kind of like the FALSE narrative of BLM; if you don't want to get beaten or shot by the cops, comply with their requests and if you think you have a grievance file it. Only morons think that fighting with the cops and running away makes good sense.

BartenderElite said:
Is that what kind of nation we want America to be?
Click to expand...

Would we even be a nation had we allowed the Nazi's and Japanese to continue to invade their neighbors? See above if you are still stupid and confused.
 
Truman kept some cities from being fire bombed. Why? He and the military wanted to see what the bombs would do to a pristine city. It was a test and an experiment. It was going to happen no matter what.
 
Nordberg said:
Truman kept some cities from being fire bombed. Why? He and the military wanted to see what the bombs would do to a pristine city. It was a test and an experiment. It was going to happen no matter what.
Click to expand...

It also ended the war. In Texas we call that a "Twofer!"
texas-flag2a.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top