Page 43 of 63 FirstFirst ... 3339404142434445464753 ... LastLast
Results 631 to 645 of 943

Thread: Was Hiroshima an act of terrorism?

  1. #631 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    136,609
    Thanks
    46,754
    Thanked 68,633 Times in 51,921 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,506 Times in 2,463 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AssHatZombie View Post
    only jew brainwash victims confuse anti zionism with antisemitism.
    Only antisemitics make a big deal about it.
    God bless America and those who defend our Constitution.

    "Hatred is a failure of imagination" - Graham Greene, "The Power and the Glory"

  2. #632 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    71,685
    Thanks
    6,597
    Thanked 12,131 Times in 9,660 Posts
    Groans
    14
    Groaned 504 Times in 477 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch Uncle View Post
    Only antisemitics make a big deal about it.
    wrong again, jewsniffer.

  3. #633 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    53,527
    Thanks
    252
    Thanked 24,569 Times in 17,095 Posts
    Groans
    5,280
    Groaned 4,575 Times in 4,254 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anvil Kasseri View Post
    Killing civilians was not the point. The point was to kill soldiers and destroy military headquarters (Hiroshima), and destroy war industry (Nagasaki).
    The point was to see what the abomb would do to a pristine city. Several Japanese cities were not bombed like Tokyo was. They were saved as test targets. I read about Hiroshima residents who thought the gods were being protective of their city because it wasn't bombed. They did not know what was in store. It wasn't god saving them.
    If they wanted to end the manufacturing of Hiroshima, they could have done it much earlier. But they allowed it to keep producing. America had other plans for them.

  4. #634 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    26,116
    Thanks
    694
    Thanked 5,043 Times in 3,907 Posts
    Groans
    85
    Groaned 1,697 Times in 1,555 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch Uncle View Post
    There was no law. Humane people try to minimize the loss of human life and to human suffering. However, as "the Trolley Problem" points out, it reaches a point of doing some undesirable things for the greater good.
    It's definitely against international law to target civilians. Maybe it wasn't a law at the time, but WWII did happen after international law became a thing.

    Doesn't the LW ideology include weighing the good of the many versus the good of a few?
    Sure, but as I mentioned earlier, the war was all but won when America dropped the a-bombs.
    The Allies also did a lot of morally gray things when fighting the Nazis, which maybe one could defend, but there is no defending the terrible things done to Germans after the war was over.

  5. #635 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    136,609
    Thanks
    46,754
    Thanked 68,633 Times in 51,921 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,506 Times in 2,463 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by StoneByStone View Post
    Sure, but as I mentioned earlier, the war was all but won when America dropped the a-bombs.
    The Allies also did a lot of morally gray things when fighting the Nazis, which maybe one could defend, but there is no defending the terrible things done to Germans after the war was over.
    That's not true. You'd be guessing. What if the carnage lasted nother year? Do you know the nation almost went bankrupt fighting that war? Do you really think the best strategy was to keep spending money while tens of thousands of soldiers risked their lives waiting for Japan to surrender? How would you feel of your loved ones were killed because our national leadership had a weapon to end the war but thought it wasn't proper etiquette to use it?
    God bless America and those who defend our Constitution.

    "Hatred is a failure of imagination" - Graham Greene, "The Power and the Glory"

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Doc Dutch For This Post:

    Anvil Kasseri (08-09-2020)

  7. #636 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    26,116
    Thanks
    694
    Thanked 5,043 Times in 3,907 Posts
    Groans
    85
    Groaned 1,697 Times in 1,555 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch Uncle View Post
    That's not true. You'd be guessing. What if the carnage lasted nother year? Do you know the nation almost went bankrupt fighting that war? Do you really think the best strategy was to keep spending money while tens of thousands of soldiers risked their lives waiting for Japan to surrender? How would you feel of your loved ones were killed because our national leadership had a weapon to end the war but thought it wasn't proper etiquette to use it?
    I'd say it's at least most likely that dropping the a-bombs was unnecessary since Japan was unable to continue the war even before the bombs were dropped. And maybe I'm wrong here, maybe Japan would have mustered up what little they had left to launch another big attack on America. But that's the logic people always use when defending excessive violence. It's the logic dictators use to kill people who question them. It's the logic America used to put their own citizens in camps during the war.
    Hindsight is 20/20, but if I had to guess, I'd say it was completely unnecessary to attack Japan that way during that point in the war.

  8. #637 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    136,609
    Thanks
    46,754
    Thanked 68,633 Times in 51,921 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,506 Times in 2,463 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by StoneByStone View Post
    I'd say it's at least most likely that dropping the a-bombs was unnecessary since Japan was unable to continue the war even before the bombs were dropped. And maybe I'm wrong here, maybe Japan would have mustered up what little they had left to launch another big attack on America. But that's the logic people always use when defending excessive violence. It's the logic dictators use to kill people who question them. It's the logic America used to put their own citizens in camps during the war.
    Hindsight is 20/20, but if I had to guess, I'd say it was completely unnecessary to attack Japan that way during that point in the war.
    On that point I disagree. When it comes to life and death go for the surer thing.

    Yes, Hindsight is 20/20. Woulda, coulda, shoulda.
    God bless America and those who defend our Constitution.

    "Hatred is a failure of imagination" - Graham Greene, "The Power and the Glory"

  9. #638 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    57,788
    Thanks
    35,476
    Thanked 50,287 Times in 27,095 Posts
    Groans
    22
    Groaned 2,975 Times in 2,692 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by StoneByStone View Post
    It's definitely against international law to target civilians. Maybe it wasn't a law at the time, but WWII did happen after international law became a thing.



    Sure, but as I mentioned earlier, the war was all but won when America dropped the a-bombs.
    The Allies also did a lot of morally gray things when fighting the Nazis, which maybe one could defend, but there is no defending the terrible things done to Germans after the war was over.
    The strategic goal was not to simply get Japan to surrender or to stop fighting.

    The goal was to coerce them into unconditional surrender, subjugate them, occupy them, dismantle their military dictatorship, force a pacifist constitution on them, and turn what was a historic aggressor nation into a pacifist nation which abides by international standards of conduct.

    By those standards, the strategic objectives of Fdr and Truman were remarkably successful.

    It is almost impossible to coerce a major nation-state into accepting subjugation, military occupation, and wholesale dismantling of their government. It is not going to be accomplished by blockade and embargo.

    Hitler found that out the hard way in Soviet Russia. He brought extraordinary pain and suffering to Russians, but they refused to allow military occupation and subjugation.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Cypress For This Post:

    Anvil Kasseri (08-09-2020)

  11. #639 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    20,426
    Thanks
    1,794
    Thanked 11,073 Times in 6,783 Posts
    Groans
    888
    Groaned 1,829 Times in 1,694 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch Uncle View Post
    So if we dropped a nuke on a military barracks placed in the middle of a city, we're good?
    Is that what Hiroshima was?

    We have veered off from intellectual honesty in this discussion constantly on this thread.

    Talk about what we did.

  12. #640 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    20,426
    Thanks
    1,794
    Thanked 11,073 Times in 6,783 Posts
    Groans
    888
    Groaned 1,829 Times in 1,694 Posts

    Default

    Does anyone realize the slippery slope we're on if we accept killing civilians if it shaves time and loss off of a conflict?

  13. #641 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    136,609
    Thanks
    46,754
    Thanked 68,633 Times in 51,921 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,506 Times in 2,463 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BartenderElite View Post
    Is that what Hiroshima was?

    We have veered off from intellectual honesty in this discussion constantly on this thread.

    Talk about what we did.
    Perhaps you have. I'm still trying to figure out your stance.

    In the middle of a war, it's the responsibility of the leadership to save lives but successfully end the war ASAP. The US did exactly that.
    God bless America and those who defend our Constitution.

    "Hatred is a failure of imagination" - Graham Greene, "The Power and the Glory"

  14. #642 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anvil Kasseri View Post
    The justification for the A-bombs was that they reduced Japan's ability to resist our invasion.



    That is incorrect. The point was to reduce Japan's ability to resist our invasion.
    66 Japanese cities were targeted before Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So.if they were so important why weren't they firebombed like Tokyo and many other cities?

  15. The Following User Groans At cancel2 2022 For This Awful Post:

    Nomad (08-10-2020)

  16. #643 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    20,426
    Thanks
    1,794
    Thanked 11,073 Times in 6,783 Posts
    Groans
    888
    Groaned 1,829 Times in 1,694 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch Uncle View Post
    Perhaps you have. I'm still trying to figure out your stance.

    In the middle of a war, it's the responsibility of the leadership to save lives but successfully end the war ASAP. The US did exactly that.
    Pretty much every conflict could be ended early by targeting civilians.

  17. #644 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    136,609
    Thanks
    46,754
    Thanked 68,633 Times in 51,921 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,506 Times in 2,463 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grajonca View Post
    66 Japanese cities were targeted before Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So.if they were so important why weren't they firebombed like Tokyo and many other cities?
    Lots of Japanese targets, so little time.
    God bless America and those who defend our Constitution.

    "Hatred is a failure of imagination" - Graham Greene, "The Power and the Glory"

  18. #645 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    136,609
    Thanks
    46,754
    Thanked 68,633 Times in 51,921 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,506 Times in 2,463 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BartenderElite View Post
    Pretty much every conflict could be ended early by targeting civilians.
    Could be but it hasn't. Why do you think it was then and why only Islamic terrorists target civilians now?

    BTW, today is the anniversary of Nagasaki. Japan didn't surrender until the 15th but the US was out of bombs but that was classified.

    If the Japanese were about to fall anyway, why not surrender on the 7th? The 10th? Why risk a third US bomb by waiting almost a week?
    God bless America and those who defend our Constitution.

    "Hatred is a failure of imagination" - Graham Greene, "The Power and the Glory"

Similar Threads

  1. What if its not terrorism?
    By Jarod in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 141
    Last Post: 05-28-2016, 09:09 AM
  2. Obama acts presidential and visits Hiroshima
    By Lumberjack in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-10-2016, 11:40 PM
  3. Terrorism
    By Beefy in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 12-11-2009, 04:52 PM
  4. Terrorism
    By Beefy in forum In Memoriam
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 12-11-2009, 04:52 PM
  5. Replies: 30
    Last Post: 10-16-2009, 08:31 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •