Islam infested by extremists, cleric says

S7wede said:
The debate on the lives cost vs the lives saved by the use of the 2 nuclear devices dropped on Japan will rage on forever, but I tend to side with the lives saved. I also do not think that it constitutes a terrorist attack as the 2 countries were formally at war with one another. If you asked a japanese civilian if they were at war with the US, they would have said yes, if you asked a US civilian the same question it would be the same. Could the same be said in regards to civilians in most of the countries that have a proclivity of extremism?
Click to expand...

Indeed, while the deaths to civilians in Nagasaki and Hiroshima was very high, it was not significantly more that the Civilian deaths caused by the Firebombing of Tokyo (and Dresden). Like it or not, bombing war production facilities was considered acceptable in WW2, done by the Britain, US and Germany at various points (Japan didn't have the range to target mainland US). Calling it terrorism retroactively is a bit silly..
 
saturnz said:
military attacked a military base, not 100 000 plus civilians

but those details obviously does not matter to you, the fact still remains, the nuclears bombs were a terrorist attack
Click to expand...
Really? Bombing someone who you have been fighting for months?


Besides, the west gave the Japanese the option to surrender before they dropped the bomb.

On July 26, the United States, Britain, and China released the Potsdam Declaration announcing the terms for Japan's surrender, with the warning, "We will not deviate from them. There are no alternatives. We shall brook no delay." For Japan, the terms of the declaration specified:

the elimination "for all time of the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest"
the occupation of "points in Japanese territory to be designated by the Allies"
that the "Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku, and such minor islands as we determine," as had been announced in the Cairo Declaration in 1943.[3]
that "the Japanese military forces, after being completely disarmed, shall be permitted to return to their homes with the opportunity to lead peaceful and productive lives."
that "we do not intend that the Japanese shall be enslaved as a race or destroyed as a nation, but stern justice shall be meted out to all war criminals, including those who have visited cruelties upon our prisoners."
On the other hand, the declaration offered that:

"The Japanese Government shall remove all obstacles to the revival and strengthening of democratic tendencies among the Japanese people. Freedom of speech, of religion, and of thought, as well as respect for the fundamental human rights shall be established."
"Japan shall be permitted to maintain such industries as will sustain her economy and permit the exaction of just reparations in kind, but not those which would enable her to rearm for war. To this end, access to, as distinguished from control of, raw materials shall be permitted. Eventual Japanese participation in world trade relations shall be permitted."
"The occupying forces of the Allies shall be withdrawn from Japan as soon as these objectives have been accomplished and there has been established, in accordance with the freely expressed will of the Japanese people, a peacefully inclined and responsible government."

"We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction./QUOTE]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potsdam_Declaration

The Japanese government said:
f__k you.
Click to expand...
 
konfab said:
Really? Bombing someone who you have been fighting for months?


Besides, the west gave the Japanese the option to surrender before they dropped the bomb.
Click to expand...

did they warn them though that the bomb would be dropped?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki


Certain scholars and historians have characterized the atomic bombings of Japan as a form of "state terrorism". This interpretation is based on a definition of terrorism as "the targeting of innocents to achieve a political goal".
Click to expand...

note the very simple definition of terrorism, a question I've asked several times on this forum but people are so hesitant to answer
 
I would say that these "certain scholars and historians" are biased in one way or another against the United States and so anything they interpret would be suspect to scrutiny. When at peace it fits the criteria, but when both countries had already formally declared war on one another it does not. You can't escape that fact and nothing you can post will change it.
 
S7wede said:
I would say that these "certain scholars and historians" are biased in one way or another against the United States and so anything they interpret would be suspect to scrutiny. When at peace it fits the criteria, but when both countries had already formally declared war on one another it does not. You can't escape that fact and nothing you can post will change it.
Click to expand...


given that you have no credibility in your opinion whatsoever, I can't really take it seriously

atleast these people are academics who study these things, both of us have uninformed opinions

also we can maybe argue over whether it was terrorism or not, but the argument for the bombings is rather weak, and not just some historians and scholars think that
 
saturnz said:
did they warn them though that the bomb would be dropped?
Click to expand...
What parts of prompt and utter destruction are that ambiguous?

Certain scholars and historians have characterized the atomic bombings of Japan as a form of "state terrorism". This interpretation is based on a definition of terrorism as "the targeting of innocents to achieve a political goal".
Click to expand...
Was the bombing to finish WW2 a political or military goal? The whole operation was done in context of invading Japan, which would have cost thousands of lives anyway. It was utilitarianism at its simplest.
 
saturnz said:
given that you have no credibility in your opinion whatsoever, I can't really take it seriously

atleast these people are academics who study these things, both of us have uninformed opinions

also we can maybe argue over whether it was terrorism or not, but the argument for the bombings is rather weak, and not just some historians and scholars think that
Click to expand...

vice versa
 
saturnz said:
note the very simple definition of terrorism, a question I've asked several times on this forum but people are so hesitant to answer
Click to expand...

I'll answer... They targeted the means of military production, not specifically innocents. The four cities that where initially targeted Hiroshima, Kokura, Nagasaki, and Niigata, where all important sources of military production
 
Cray said:
I'll answer... They targeted the means of military production, not specifically innocents. The four cities that where initially targeted Hiroshima, Kokura, Nagasaki, and Niigata, where all important sources of military production
Click to expand...

lol @ targeted
 
Cray said:
Can you prove otherwise? Did the atom bombs destroy means of military production or not?
Click to expand...

Japan was mostly finished anyway.

Point is that if the US wanted to kill as many civilians as possible (as a terrorist would), they could have done far worse.
 
Cray said:
Can you prove otherwise? Did the atom bombs destroy means of military production or not?
Click to expand...

it didn't just hit its target now did it?

it was an indiscriminate bombing
 
saturnz said:
it didn't just hit its target now did it?

it was an indiscriminate bombing
Click to expand...

Considering the concept of smart bombing was half a century or more into the future, all bombs dropped in WW2 where pretty indiscriminate.
 
Cray said:
Considering the concept of smart bombing was half a century or more into the future, all bombs dropped in WW2 where pretty indiscriminate.
Click to expand...

well then it wasn't really targeted now was it
 
saturnz said:
well then it wasn't really targeted now was it
Click to expand...

So you either agree that the Nuclear bombs weren't terrorist attacks or you agree that every bomb that killed civilians in world war 2 was a terrorist attack, take your pick.
 
Cray said:
So you either agree that the Nuclear bombs weren't terrorist attacks or you agree that every bomb that killed civilians in world war 2 was a terrorist attack, take your pick.
Click to expand...

if it fits the definition of terrorism, then it is terrorism
 
If you won't acknowledge that the definition cannot be used to describe an act of war during wartime then it's pointless debating anything with you. Even the allied civilians who suffered the German Luftwaffe bombing and were genuinely terrified, do not classify it as terrorism. You are being intellectually dishonest.
 
S7wede said:
If you won't acknowledge that the definition cannot be used to describe an act of war during wartime then it's pointless debating anything with you. Even the allied civilians who suffered the German Luftwaffe bombing and were genuinely terrified, do not classify it as terrorism. You are being intellectually dishonest.
Click to expand...

well we are currently in the War against Terrorism

so I guess all actions in this war is not terrorism then either
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X