Was Hiroshima an act of terrorism?

Dutch Uncle said:
Good link but those leaflets were dropped after Hiroshima. FWIW, I don't give a fuck if leaflets were dropped or not. No leaflets or other warning was given about Pearl Harbor, Bataan, Corregidor, Nanking, etc. The Japanese started that war and the US finished it. I'm good with it.
Click to expand...

So, anytime we can end a war by targeting civilians, we should?
 
BartenderElite said:
So, anytime we can end a war by targeting civilians, we should?
Click to expand...

No, but if it's all we have left to end the war, then yes. What strategy would you have proposed? A tersely worded letter and a pink pussy hat march outside the Japanese embassy?

From Earl's thread which banned dissenting comments:
BartenderElite said:
Or we'll commit a terrorist act against your civilians?
Click to expand...

It wasn't terrorism, but thanks for slamming all the United States soldiers, sailors and Marines giving their lives to fight an aggressor responsible for shockingly brutal acts against humanity. An aggressor which still refuses to admit they forced captive Korean and Chinese women to become sex slaves.

Liberal attacks against the United States, especially against the United States military, without giving context to the times and the situation, are why I have never voted for a Democrat President and I most probably never will.

These are the people you defending against "terrorism":

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-rape-of-nanking
To break the spirit of Chinese resistance, Japanese General Matsui Iwane ordered that the city of Nanking be destroyed. Much of the city was burned, and Japanese troops launched a campaign of atrocities against civilians. In what became known as the “Rape of Nanking,” the Japanese butchered an estimated 150,000 male “war prisoners,” massacred an additional 50,000 male civilians, and raped at least 20,000 women and girls of all ages, many of whom were mutilated or killed in the process.

Pictures NSFW or children: https://allthatsinteresting.com/rape-of-nanking-massacre
victims-along-qinhuai-river.jpg

japanese-soldier-holding-head.jpg
bodies-on-the-stairs.jpg
three-year-old-child.jpg
 
Last edited:
I never slam soldiers or our military. I slam politicians.

Politicians decided to drop that bomb. Which was absolutely a terrorist act. If you want me to join you in saying all Japanese civilians were evil to justify that decision, I will not.
 
BartenderElite said:
I never slam soldiers or our military. I slam politicians.

Politicians decided to drop that bomb. Which was absolutely a terrorist act. If you want me to join you in saying all Japanese civilians were evil to justify that decision, I will not.
Click to expand...
How many of our soldiers would you have let die in the invasion of Japan?
Because Japanese geography did not provide many invasion beaches, the Japanese organized a strong defense, particularly at Kyushu. Over 10,000 aircraft of various types and sizes were prepared as kamikaze aircraft. Underground networks of bunkers and caves stored food, water, and thousands of tons of ammunition. 2,350,000 regular soldiers and 250,000 garrison troops were deployed, 900,000 of which were stationed in Kyushu by Aug 1945. 32,000,000 militia, in other words all males between the age of 15 and 60 and all females between 17 and 45, were given the task to supplement the regular military; their weapons include everything from antique bronze cannons to Arisaka rifles, from bamboo spears to Model 99 light machine guns. Perhaps the eeriest fact was that after the war the United States discovered even children were trained to become suicide bombers when necessarily, strapping explosives around their torsos and rolling under the treads of American tanks. "This was the enemy the Pentagon had learned to fear and hate", said Dan van der Vat, "a country of fanatics dedicated to hara-kiri, determined to slay as many invaders as possible as they went down fighting". Although there was a strong dovish movement in Tokyo to end the war by seeking a conditional surrender, Ketsu-Go (Operation "Decision") continued to move forth, aiming to cause as much casualty as possible in order to sway American popular opinion. If they could cause more casualties than what the American people could accept, they thought, Japan might have a chance at negotiating for an armistice.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
BartenderElite said:
I never slam soldiers or our military. I slam politicians.

Politicians decided to drop that bomb. Which was absolutely a terrorist act. If you want me to join you in saying all Japanese civilians were evil to justify that decision, I will not.
Click to expand...

How many of our soldiers and Japanese would you have let die in the invasion of Japan?


400,000 to 800,000 plus US soldiers ?

1 million ...3 million plus Japanese ?




350,000 to 500,000 civilians killed in Germany to stop Hitler!

Snowflake.. I guess u wanted Hitler to continue his assault on the world killing millions upon millions
 
Last edited:
BartenderElite said:
I'm not a military strategist.
Click to expand...
Right then you aren't qualified to say it was an act of terrorism then.

I just think America should stand for something greater. As soon as we adopt the tactics of those we condemn, we are at their level. There is no way around that.
Click to expand...

During WWII virtually everyone in Japan was a member of the milita. They were even manufacturing rifles in private homes.

https://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?b...raphy did not,thousands of tons of ammunition.

Because Japanese geography did not provide many invasion beaches, the Japanese organized a strong defense, particularly at Kyushu. Over 10,000 aircraft of various types and sizes were prepared as kamikaze aircraft. Underground networks of bunkers and caves stored food, water, and thousands of tons of ammunition. 2,350,000 regular soldiers and 250,000 garrison troops were deployed, 900,000 of which were stationed in Kyushu by Aug 1945. 32,000,000 militia, in other words all males between the age of 15 and 60 and all females between 17 and 45, were given the task to supplement the regular military; their weapons include everything from antique bronze cannons to Arisaka rifles, from bamboo spears to Model 99 light machine guns. Perhaps the eeriest fact was that after the war the United States discovered even children were trained to become suicide bombers when necessarily, strapping explosives around their torsos and rolling under the treads of American tanks. "This was the enemy the Pentagon had learned to fear and hate", said Dan van der Vat, "a country of fanatics dedicated to hara-kiri, determined to slay as many invaders as possible as they went down fighting". Although there was a strong dovish movement in Tokyo to end the war by seeking a conditional surrender, Ketsu-Go (Operation "Decision") continued to move forth, aiming to cause as much casualty as possible in order to sway American popular opinion. If they could cause more casualties than what the American people could accept, they thought, Japan might have a chance at negotiating for an armistice.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Dutch Uncle said:
No, but if it's all we have left to end the war, then yes. What strategy would you have proposed? A tersely worded letter and a pink pussy hat march outside the Japanese embassy?

From Earl's thread which banned dissenting comments:


It wasn't terrorism, but thanks for slamming all the United States soldiers, sailors and Marines giving their lives to fight an aggressor responsible for shockingly brutal acts against humanity. An aggressor which still refuses to admit they forced captive Korean and Chinese women to become sex slaves.

Liberal attacks against the United States, especially against the United States military, without giving context to the times and the situation, are why I have never voted for a Democrat President and I most probably never will.

These are the people you defending against "terrorism":

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-rape-of-nanking
To break the spirit of Chinese resistance, Japanese General Matsui Iwane ordered that the city of Nanking be destroyed. Much of the city was burned, and Japanese troops launched a campaign of atrocities against civilians. In what became known as the “Rape of Nanking,” the Japanese butchered an estimated 150,000 male “war prisoners,” massacred an additional 50,000 male civilians, and raped at least 20,000 women and girls of all ages, many of whom were mutilated or killed in the process.

Pictures NSFW or children: https://allthatsinteresting.com/rape-of-nanking-massacre
victims-along-qinhuai-river.jpg

japanese-soldier-holding-head.jpg
bodies-on-the-stairs.jpg
three-year-old-child.jpg
Click to expand...

And how did killing the civilians do anything but add more victims? Like I said in the other discussion.
If this is proper retaliation than what can we complain about 9/11. We probably equivocally Pearl Harbored the middle east many times over.
Click to expand...
 
BartenderElite said:
Only military strategists can identify terrorism?
Click to expand...
Well apparently there is a difference be between the two and Hiroshima was a military target and Nagasaki was a manufacturing center for war ships and munitions. So I'll leave it to the military strategist to decide if it was a military target or not. News Flash!!! They decided they were military targets and blew them up.
 
Crocodile said:
And how did killing the civilians do anything but add more victims? Like I said in the other discussion.
Click to expand...

Have you ever studied philosophy or ethics? Consider this moral dilemma: The Trolley Problem
There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options:

  1. Do nothing and allow the trolley to kill the five people on the main track.
  2. Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.

330px-Trolley_Problem.svg.png
If you are the President of the United States in a war that has cost the planet 70M lives and is killing over 300 Americans on average every day, do you risk killing up to 200,000 people in order to save a million people on both sides? Option 1 or option 2 from the example? Do nothing or intentionally kill people to save 5 times as many lives?

I'd pull the lever and save lives. YMMV
 
Last edited:
Crocodile said:
And how did killing the civilians do anything but add more victims? Like I said in the other discussion.
Click to expand...

350,000 to 500,000 civilians killed in Germany to stop Hitler!

Most of the sane world is OK with that or Hitler would have continued his rampage on the world killing millions upon millions
 
ExpressLane said:
Well apparently there is a difference be between the two and Hiroshima was a military target and Nagasaki was a manufacturing center for war ships and munitions. So I'll leave it to the military strategist to decide if it was a military target or not. News Flash!!! They decided they were military targets and blew them up.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Not only is BartenderElite calling American servicemen terrorists, but he's defending a brutal genocidal regime against "terrorists".

https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP3.HTM
From the invasion of China in 1937 to the end of World War II, the Japanese military regime murdered near 3,000,000 to over 10,000,000 people, most probably almost 6,000,000 Chinese, Indonesians, Koreans, Filipinos, and Indochinese, among others, including Western prisoners of war. This democide was due to a morally bankrupt political and military strategy, military expediency and custom, and national culture (such as the view that those enemy soldiers who surrender while still able to resist were criminals).

WTF, Elite? I thought Liberals liked to send the US military in to kill dictators like Gaddafi? Why are you showing favoritism to the Japanese Empire, an empire as brutal as Nazi Germany? Why are you defending facism, brutality and genocide from "terroist attack"?

2graru.jpg
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Agreed. Not only is BartenderElite calling American servicemen terrorists, but he's defending a brutal genocidal regime against "terrorists".

https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP3.HTM
From the invasion of China in 1937 to the end of World War II, the Japanese military regime murdered near 3,000,000 to over 10,000,000 people, most probably almost 6,000,000 Chinese, Indonesians, Koreans, Filipinos, and Indochinese, among others, including Western prisoners of war. This democide was due to a morally bankrupt political and military strategy, military expediency and custom, and national culture (such as the view that those enemy soldiers who surrender while still able to resist were criminals).

WTF, Elite? I thought Liberals liked to send the US military in to kill dictators like Gaddafi? Why are you showing favoritism to the Japanese Empire, an empire as brutal as Nazi Germany? Why are you defending facism, brutality and genocide from "terroist attack"?
Click to expand...

That's pathetic dishonesty, Dutch.

I just feel bad for you. Politicians aren't soldiers, and regimes aren't civilians.

I'm not going to continue this w/ you. You will keep lying about my position.
 
God forbid anyone take a principled stand that the ends don't always justify the means, and that it's not acceptable to incinerate whole cities.

Somehow, you align with evil if you don't support that.
 
Last edited:
Dutch Uncle said:
Have you ever studied philosophy or ethics? Consider this moral dilemma: The Trolley Problem
There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options:

  1. Do nothing and allow the trolley to kill the five people on the main track.
  2. Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.

330px-Trolley_Problem.svg.png
If you are the President of the United States in a war that has cost the planet 70M lives and is killing over 300 Americans on average every day, do you risk killing up to 200,000 people in order to save a million people on both sides? Option 1 or option 2 from the example? Do nothing or intently kill people to save 5 times as many lives?

I'd pull the lever and save lives. YMMV
Click to expand...

Another way to put it


If we knew we could bomb all the 9/11 Terrorist and OBL while at a meeting in Afghanistan thus saving the 3000 killed in NYC...but in the process 300 civilians would be killed...would u support it?

Any sane person would say YES
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top