Home | Community | Message Board

Reliable Spores
Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds, Feminized Cannabis Seeds   North Spore Bulk Substrate, North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  [ show all ]
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 25,806
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 6 hours, 24 minutes
Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in WWII?
    #2950340 - 08/01/04 12:37 AM (17 years, 1 month ago)

VVVVV
Did they deserve it?
You may choose only one
No.
Yes.


Votes accepted from (07/31/04 02:00 AM) to (No end specified)
You must vote before you can view the results of this poll



--------------------
(•_•)
<) )~  ANTIFA
/ \
\(•_•)
( (>    SUPER
/ \
(•_•)
<) )>    SOLDIERS
  / \


Don't vibe my harsh, bro.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineAncalagon
AgnosticLibertarian

Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1,364
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in WWII? [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #2950343 - 08/01/04 12:39 AM (17 years, 1 month ago)

Just to clarify, is this wording specifically how you wanted it? 'Japan Deserve' as opposed to 'Should the US have', correct?


--------------------
?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.?
-Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 25,806
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 6 hours, 24 minutes
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in WWII? [Re: Ancalagon]
    #2950398 - 08/01/04 12:57 AM (17 years, 1 month ago)

Yes.


--------------------
(•_•)
<) )~  ANTIFA
/ \
\(•_•)
( (>    SUPER
/ \
(•_•)
<) )>    SOLDIERS
  / \


Don't vibe my harsh, bro.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisiblepB0t
I'm a teapot
Registered: 04/25/03
Posts: 2,556
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W *DELETED* [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #2950587 - 08/01/04 02:07 AM (17 years, 1 month ago)

Post deleted by pB0t

Reason for deletion: .



Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineZahid
Stranger
Registered: 01/21/02
Posts: 4,779
Last seen: 16 years, 11 months
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in WWII? [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #2950602 - 08/01/04 02:10 AM (17 years, 1 month ago)

The nuke attacks on Japan were blatant acts of terrorist activity.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineJesusChrist
Son Of God
Registered: 02/19/04
Posts: 1,459
Last seen: 9 years, 13 days
If you fuck with the Bull, you get the horn. [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #2950714 - 08/01/04 02:48 AM (17 years, 1 month ago)

My question is, Did Hitler deserve it? As Marge Schott has demonstrated, he was good in the begining and he built a lot of highways. Maybe we shouldn't have carpet bombed the German cities which took a greater toll.

The firebombing of Tokyo was more devestating than Hiroshima or Nagasaki. The Empire of Japan itself committed worse attrocities that that in the rape of Nanking. They had killing contests published in Japanese newspapers. Think about how classy that is. The man who won killed the most Chinese in one day, and they all counted. Women, children and elderly. They all counted. He killed well over a hundred of them going for the title. I am sure a lot of proud men that day wanted to claim a close second.

I wonder why some of you guys never consider the possiblities of what the world would be like if the Japs had won. What about if Adolf Hitler could have pulled it off? Think of the world under Supreme Soviet Command. All those options suck, and the way the world is today is clearly the best option for freedom.

It may be my first suspension, but Japan attacked the USA you pansies. Either grow a pair or relegate yourselves to the sidelines and be quiet about it. Sisies.


--------------------
Tastes just like chicken


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: If you fuck with the Bull, you get the horn. [Re: JesusChrist]
    #2950768 - 08/01/04 03:07 AM (17 years, 1 month ago)

The Empire of Japan itself committed worse attrocities

What the fuck have women and kids in Hiroshima got to do with nanking? Does this mean your mother should be vaporised for the rape and torture the american soldiers are dishing out to Iraqis?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleFloydian
veteran
Registered: 05/14/00
Posts: 1,022
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: pB0t]
    #2950850 - 08/01/04 04:11 AM (17 years, 1 month ago)

DOOD! your avatar is HOT SHIT!!!


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineMystiq_Shaman
x.o.

Registered: 07/10/04
Posts: 404
Loc: North Calotte
Last seen: 16 years, 11 months
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #2951099 - 08/01/04 07:39 AM (17 years, 1 month ago)

of course not. but it was probably the best way to stop the japanese


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleRevelation

 User Gallery

Registered: 08/04/01
Posts: 6,135
Loc: heart cave
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: Mystiq_Shaman]
    #2951139 - 08/01/04 09:19 AM (17 years, 1 month ago)

By July, the Japanese were making frantic efforts to end the war, approaching the U.S. with peace proffers that were subsequently rejected. The Japanese were willing to do anything short of an unconditional surrender to get the war finished; their primary concern was maintaining the emperor's status.

Despite these ongoing bids for peace, Truman was convinced that only an unconditional surrender would be sufficient. On July 21, he gave the order that the U.S. Army should employ atomic weapons against the Japanese.



70,000 dead in an instant, more than 90% civilians. Nearly 70,000 more were injured, most with hideous burns and radiation poisoning. Hundreds of thousands die over the coming years from radiation poisoning.

I don't quite see how anyone could try to justify the bombing of Hiroshima.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleLoki
Ferret Farmer
Trans-male User Gallery

Registered: 02/10/04
Posts: 18,286
Loc: Zone ate
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: Revelation]
    #2951145 - 08/01/04 09:27 AM (17 years, 1 month ago)

  :thumbup:


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisibledownforpot
Stranger
Male
Registered: 06/25/01
Posts: 5,715
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #2951357 - 08/01/04 12:26 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

FIrst you all have to think of what would happen with a land invasion.  Every single civilian would fight the American troops, all of them would to the death.  They were brainwashed into thinking that if they are captured, they would be tortured to death.  Any1 remember how hard it was to take the Islands around Japan?  How fucking hard it was to capture live Japs cause they ussualy faught to their death.

Hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of Japanese would have to be slaughtered.  And yes, children and women were expected to fight too.  If I was an American soldiers during that time I would vote for the land invasion, it would be open hunting on every Jap. :frown:

So which one is better?  Nuke or land invasion?  I pick invasion just for the the hunting permit.


--------------------



http://www.myspace.com/4th25


"And I don't care if he was handcuffed
Then shot in his head
All I know is dead bodies
Can't fuck with me again"


Edited by downforpot (08/01/04 12:43 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #2951441 - 08/01/04 12:50 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

no.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineJesusChrist
Son Of God
Registered: 02/19/04
Posts: 1,459
Last seen: 9 years, 13 days
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: Revelation]
    #2951651 - 08/01/04 02:01 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Revelation said:
Truman was convinced that only an unconditional surrender would be sufficient.




That is the way the game was played. If you attack us you will be defeated. The only acceptable option is victory, complete victory. The best deterent to war is when other countries know we mean business.

Think about our policy since then. We fought in Korea, but we didn't fight to win. Today, the despot that we allowed to remain in power threatens us and our allies with nuclear weapons.

We fought in Vietnam, but we didn't fight to win. We lost that war and we lost international credibility. After the communists took over Vietnam and Cambodia, millions of people were slaughtered. That region still suffers the wounds of that conflict. If you compare that country to countries that we have liberated, the worst thing that could have happened to them is winning a war against us.

We fought the first Gulf War against Sadaam, but we didn't fight to win. He then gassed his own people, and then systematically starved them while he built palace after palace. We ended up having to go back in a decade later.

Our record of fighting wars not to win sucks. It never accomplishes anything. Had we let Japan off with anything less than an unconditional surrender I doubt that they would be the worlds second biggest economy with one of the highest standards of living known to man.

And just on the face of it, I don't like the principle of letting the other guy off the hook. If some nation makes us deploy our kids half way accross the world, they should know out front that they have an ass kicking coming to them when we get there. No way we should have let the Japanese go when we had them on the defensive. The only time you take your hand off of the throat of your opponent is when you go to get a better grip.

More Japanese died in the firebombings of Toyko than in Hiroshima. A land invasion would have been a full scale slaughter. You pick your poison, but war is never pretty. We didn't start it, but we sure as hell did end it. Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.

I think some of the fellow travelers on this board are most bothered by the fact that we might actually win the war in Iraq. George Bush has gone on record that the only acceptable outcome is victory. That is the way I see it as well.


--------------------
Tastes just like chicken


Edited by JesusChrist (08/01/04 02:23 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisibledownforpot
Stranger
Male
Registered: 06/25/01
Posts: 5,715
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #2951772 - 08/01/04 02:30 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

Very well said.

Zahid, what the fuck are you talking about? Terrorist attack?


--------------------



http://www.myspace.com/4th25


"And I don't care if he was handcuffed
Then shot in his head
All I know is dead bodies
Can't fuck with me again"


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisiblevampirism
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 8,120
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: JesusChrist]
    #2951777 - 08/01/04 02:31 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

Unconditional surrender isn't the only way to win. Getting the other side to refuse to fight and offer a peace treaty IS actually a viable alternative.

Hell, if we're going all the way, why not kill every single living thing in the evil opponent's country? That'll really tell em we mean business.

You can't win some wars without killing everyone on the other side. Iraq for example - winning it means slaughtering their entire people, leaving only the docile. Those wars are not worth fighting


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisibledownforpot
Stranger
Male
Registered: 06/25/01
Posts: 5,715
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: vampirism]
    #2951804 - 08/01/04 02:36 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

How do you think wars were won for the past 1000 years? Do you actually think that leaders targeted armies? They massacred the civilians because the civilians are the heart of nation.

Japan wanted their Emperor to stay in power. US wanted Japan to admit that the Emperor did not have divine power. They were never going to surrender and the only way was to invade or bomb the shit out of them with either more firebombs or few nukes. I choose the nukes. Least number of casualties.


--------------------



http://www.myspace.com/4th25


"And I don't care if he was handcuffed
Then shot in his head
All I know is dead bodies
Can't fuck with me again"


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisiblevampirism
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 8,120
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: downforpot]
    #2951865 - 08/01/04 02:48 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

UHH, wtf??
Yes, they DID target armies. There used to be huge armies roaming around and fighting, and if your army died you lost. Civilians have been massacred only in about the last 300 years or so


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineScarfmeister
Thrill Seeker
Registered: 10/31/02
Posts: 8,127
Loc: The will to power
Last seen: 2 years, 2 months
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: vampirism]
    #2952414 - 08/01/04 05:24 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

There is always some asshole defending the use of nukes. I just cant believe what i am reading. They NUKED civilians!!!! HELLO????????

Nothing short of imminent defeat could warrant use of nukes. And then only if the alternatives would be more devastating.


--------------------
--------------------
We're the lowest of the low, the scum of the fucking earth!


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisibledownforpot
Stranger
Male
Registered: 06/25/01
Posts: 5,715
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: vampirism]
    #2952459 - 08/01/04 05:31 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

Genghis Khan killed every civilian in one battle because of TACTICAL reasons. I did a research paper on him and there were times when both sides had large amounts of troops and the only way to win was to massacre the civilian population.

Shroomnoob, should the US have invaded Japan instead of dropping nukes?


--------------------



http://www.myspace.com/4th25


"And I don't care if he was handcuffed
Then shot in his head
All I know is dead bodies
Can't fuck with me again"


Edited by downforpot (08/01/04 05:33 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineZahid
Stranger
Registered: 01/21/02
Posts: 4,779
Last seen: 16 years, 11 months
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: downforpot]
    #2952520 - 08/01/04 05:43 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

downforpot said:
Very well said.

Zahid, what the fuck are you talking about? Terrorist attack?




Bombing cities = terrorism.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisibledownforpot
Stranger
Male
Registered: 06/25/01
Posts: 5,715
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: Zahid]
    #2952774 - 08/01/04 06:24 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

First of all the world needs to stop labeling every attack done by militants as a terrorist action. Second of all the bombing of cities was mandatory for both sides in world war 2. It was used to destroy industrial areas and force the leaders to surrender.


--------------------



http://www.myspace.com/4th25


"And I don't care if he was handcuffed
Then shot in his head
All I know is dead bodies
Can't fuck with me again"


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #2952851 - 08/01/04 06:37 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Morrowind said:
Civilians have been massacred only in about the last 300 years or so


  :lol: :lol: I suggest you read a history book....


As far as the bomb goes,  most of the people didnt "deserve" it...but it did save lives and infrastructure on both sides.  Id like to point out that in the thread about if the US and the victims deserved 9/11, many people wrote that the victims wernt really innocent because they were part of the great satan that has murderous policies... thats the view i have towards Japan.  The majority of the civilians did support the rape of nanking...the majority of civilians did support the genocide they perpetrated across china and the pacific.  Theres was a whole society that was driven by racism (much like Germany).  They were not like Iraq or even Stalin's Russia where they people didnt support the ruler's fanatic ideas. 

The mistake America made was we left Hirohito....would we have left Hitler in power if he didnt kill himself? Hell no!


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: downforpot]
    #2952877 - 08/01/04 06:43 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

Just because an action was thought to be a strategic neccessity for victory in war does not mean that all those who were victims of the action deserved it. To say that the bombing of cities was mandatory for both sides in world war 2 is highly debateable, as not all bombings concentrated on industrial targets nor were all undertaken out of strategic necessity. Tell us, why was it necessary for the Germans to bomb Rotterdam?


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: downforpot]
    #2953039 - 08/01/04 07:28 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

downforpot said:
Genghis Khan killed every civilian in one battle because of TACTICAL reasons. I did a research paper on him and there were times when both sides had large amounts of troops and the only way to win was to massacre the civilian population.





vlad tepes did the same to 40,000 to 100,00 people, many of which he disemboweled and hung from pikes along roads... most of the people that he did this to were his own countrymen this was somethign that aided him in winning several battles as the people attacking would become quite ill and be unable to fight... was this simply looking for a tactical advantage or was it done for the amusement of this man...

Quote:

Vlad usually had a horse attached to each of the victim?s legs and a sharpened stake was gradually forced into the body. The end of the stake was usually oiled and care was taken that the stake not be too sharp, else the victim might die too rapidly from shock. Normally the stake was inserted into the body through the buttocks and was often forced through the body until it emerged from the mouth. However, there were many instances where victims were impaled through other body orifices or through the abdomen or chest. Infants were sometimes impaled on the stake forced through their mother?s chests. The records indicate that victims were sometimes impaled so that they hung upside down on the stake.

Vlad Tepes often had the stakes arranged in various geometric patterns. The most common pattern was a ring of concentric circles in the outskirts of a city that was his target. The height of the spear indicated the rank of the victim. The decaying corpses were often left up for months. It was once reported that an invading Turkish army turned back in fright when it encountered thousands of rotting corpses impaled on the banks of the Danube. In 1461 Mohammed II, the conqueror of Constantinople, a man not noted for his squeamishness, returned to Constantinople after being sickened by the sight of twenty thousand impaled Turkish prisoners outside of the city of Tirgoviste. This gruesome sight is remembered in history as "the Forest of the Impaled."

Thousands were often impaled at a single time. Ten thousand were impaled in the Transylvanian city of Sibiu in 1460. In 1459, on St. Bartholomew?s Day, Vlad III had thirty thousand of the merchants and boyars of the Transylvanian city of Brasov impaled. One of the most famous woodcuts of the period shows Vlad Dracula feasting amongst a forest of stakes and their grisly burdens outside Brasov while a nearby executioner cuts apart other victims.

Although impalement was Vlad Dracula?s favorite method of torture, it was by no means his only method. The list of tortures employed by this cruel prince reads like an inventory of hell?s tools: nails in heads, cutting off of limbs, blinding, strangulation, burning, cutting off of noses and ears, mutilation of sexual organs (especially in the case of women), scalping, skinning, exposure to the elements or to wild animals, and burning alive.

No one was immune to Vlad?s attentions. His victims included women and children, peasants and great lords, ambassadors from foreign powers and merchants. However, the vast majority of his victims came from the merchants and boyars of Transylvania and his own Wallachia.

Many have attempted to justify Vlad Dracula?s actions on the basis of nascent nationalism and political necessity. Many of the merchants in Transylvania and Wallachia were German Saxons who were seen as parasites, preying upon Romanian natives of Wallachia. The wealthy land owning boyars exerted their own often capricious and unfaithful influence over the reigning princes. Vlad?s own father and older brother were murdered by unfaithful boyars. However, many of Vlad Dracula?s victims were also Wallachians, and few deny that he derived a perverted pleasure from his actions.

Vlad Dracula began his reign of terror almost as soon as he came to power. His first significant act of cruelty may have been motivated by a desire for revenge as well as a need to solidify his power. Early in his main reign he gave a feast for his boyars and their families to celebrate Easter. Vlad was well aware that many of these same nobles were part of the conspiracy that led to his father?s assassination and the burying alive of his elder brother, Mircea. Many had also played a role in the overthrow of numerous Wallachian princes. During the feast Vlad asked his noble guests how many princes had ruled during their lifetimes. All of the nobles present had outlived several princes. None had seen less then seven reigns. Vlad immediately had all the assembled nobles arrested. The older boyars and their families were impaled on the spot. The younger and healthier nobles and their families were marched north from Tirgoviste to the ruins of his castle in the mountains above the Arges River. The enslaved boyars and their families were forced to labor for months rebuilding the old castle with materials from a nearby ruin. According to the reports they labored until the clothes fell off their bodies and then were forced to continue working naked. Very few survived this ordeal.

Throughout his reign Vlad continued to systematically eradicate the old boyar class of Wallachia. Apparently Vlad was determined that his own power be on a modern and thoroughly secure footing. In the place of the executed boyars Vlad promoted new men from among the free peasantry and middle class; men who would be loyal only to their prince.

Vlad Tepes? atrocities against the people of Wallachia were usually attempts to enforce his own moral code upon his country. He appears to have been particularly concerned with female chastity. Maidens who lost their virginity, adulterous wives and unchaste widows were all targets of Vlad?s cruelty. Such women often had their sexual organs cut out or their breasts cut off, and were often impaled through the vagina on red-hot stakes. One report tells of the execution of an unfaithful wife. Vlad had the woman?s breasts cut off, then she was skinned and impaled in a square in Tirgoviste with her skin lying on a nearby table. Vlad also insisted that his people be honest and hard working. Merchants who cheated their customers were likely to find themselves mounted on a stake beside common thieves.




Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: Zahid]
    #2953053 - 08/01/04 07:34 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Zahid said:
Quote:

downforpot said:
Very well said.

Zahid, what the fuck are you talking about? Terrorist attack?




Bombing cities = terrorism.




the US cavalry attacked villages of many indian nations slaughtering thousands of people, men, women, children, dogs and ponies... this was brough about by the Hitler of america, Andrew Jackson, a total of 6 million people died at his hands some are entire nations of people, the Biloxi people being one of them... this equates to terrorism as well but instead of being tried for the crimes even in a posthumus manor he it celebrated by having his face printed on US currency.

America = Terrorism... its the way of this government and it always has been.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: JesusChrist]
    #2954500 - 08/02/04 01:57 AM (17 years, 1 month ago)

We fought in Vietnam, but we didn't fight to win.

You sure napalmed and bombed millions of people to death. A helluva lot more Vietnamese died than US soldiers. People are still dying horrendous deaths in Vietnam thanks to the US chemical warfare.

We fought the first Gulf War against Sadaam, but we didn't fight to win. He then gassed his own people

Go read a history book man. You've got everything ass backwards. The gassing at Halabja was in 1988.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleRavus
Not an EggshellWalker
 User Gallery

Registered: 07/18/03
Posts: 7,991
Loc: Cave of the Patriarchs
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: JesusChrist]
    #2954664 - 08/02/04 02:39 AM (17 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

We fought in Vietnam, but we didn't fight to win. We lost that war and we lost international credibility.




We lost credibility because we went in in the first place. Did you notice all the protests and the cultural revolution? The drafts? The killing of thousands of US soldiers, and many more Vietnamese innocents? Pulling out was the smartest decision we made in that war, because we shouldn't have even gone in

Quote:

We fought the first Gulf War against Sadaam, but we didn't fight to win. He then gassed his own people, and then systematically starved them while he built palace after palace. We ended up having to go back in a decade later.





We didn't have to go in at all. We now learn we didn't have a valid reason for going in, as many of us suspected all along, and still many other countries far worse than Iraq, some with actual nuclear weapons, are completely free from the US. Sudan has much more atrocities right now than Iraq has had a decade ago, and yet we don't deal with them, and it's doubtful we're going to either. The US shouldn't be the police of the world, and when we try with Iraq (if you call it trying) we get one of the smallest bullies on the playground, who already has a broken arm, while other ones walk behind our backs with guns drawn

Quote:

And just on the face of it, I don't like the principle of letting the other guy off the hook. If some nation makes us deploy our kids half way accross the world, they should know out front that they have an ass kicking coming to them when we get there. No way we should have let the Japanese go when we had them on the defensive. The only time you take your hand off of the throat of your opponent is when you go to get a better grip.




The leaders still in position after the war don't suffer from this sort of behavior. It's the lower and middle classes who are always historically the springs, and they receive the blows and casualities from sanctions, bombings, all the other "kicking the ass" that we do. Usually the leaders are either dead, captured or left alone by then

Quote:

I think some of the fellow travelers on this board are most bothered by the fact that we might actually win the war in Iraq. George Bush has gone on record that the only acceptable outcome is victory. That is the way I see it as well.




Haha, win! Depends on your definition of win I guess. We now learn we haven't even got a valid reason for going into Iraq, every reason we say is either false or is refuted simply because one of Iraq's neighbors in the region is much much worse for that reason, yet we've lost over a thousand US soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians' lives. While before Iraq didn't have much noticeable terrorism, now it's a haven for terrorists wanting to get a shot at the US military and slaughter some soldiers, and we create more every day with our actions in the region

Though Bush was right about one thing. Iraq is a front of the War on Terror. The sad part about it, though, is that that's because we've made it one


--------------------
So long as you are praised think only that you are not yet on your own path but on that of another.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleCJay
Dark Stranger
 User Gallery

Registered: 02/02/04
Posts: 931
Loc: Riding a bassline
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: downforpot]
    #2955475 - 08/02/04 11:04 AM (17 years, 1 month ago)

Personally I think trying to moralise war is a big problem. Like this current melee - remember it was to be the first war without civillian casualties etc? A morally high war fought out of the sphere of the innocent downtrodden Iraqi. That made the gulliable folks back home feel a little better. So far how many Iraqi civillians have died?

The events of war are by definition immoral. War means suspension of human rights and normal law.

After wars there is always this thing where the winning side hauls up a load of the enemy for 'war crimes'. I don't get it, how can one side say the other has broken the rules of war. War means anything goes: War means rape, kill, torture, destroy, overwhelm in any way possible by any means possible. How can one side bomb the living hell out of the other, then pull the other side up for doing the same thing except somehow they did it illegally?

Sure we may be disgusted by their behaviour, but what massacres have we committed?

This is why when we knew there was a war starting out in the desert a couple of years ago we knew these things were to be necessary ingredients.

We didn't want this for the sake of a sham.

The Japanese definitely didn't deserve it, but then how many people caught in a war ever did deserve it? The poor and the innocent are sent as troops (or can only wait as civillians) to die, while the paranoid megolamaniacs sit in their safe citadels punching the air with glee as they move their toysoldiers across the map in front of them. The megolamaniacs probably don't even equate their toy soldiers with real people.

Generally speaking, they are a club - the ruling elite of the globe. That's why the Allies agreed not to bomb the Reichstag, and the Germans not to bomb the British Houses of Parliament, while the poor of those nations lost everything. The further you are from the hub of the club, the worse your treatment gets.

These people make everything into a war - drugs, crime, terror etc. Then we need them to fight it for us....wars with no end that fortify the position of the leaders.

And yes, the nukes dropped on Japan were a massive terrorist attack.

What was going to happen was going to happen, if however the USA and UK had acted differently in the 1920s, helping Germany recover it's honour and rebuilding the country, then Hitler would most probably never have been and WW2 would not have happened.

It was avoidable, just like this war.

Stop the war


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleCJay
Dark Stranger
 User Gallery

Registered: 02/02/04
Posts: 931
Loc: Riding a bassline
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: downforpot]
    #2955520 - 08/02/04 11:15 AM (17 years, 1 month ago)

for those of you out there that do not understand the word terrorism:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Oxford English dictionary definition:

"Terrorism - the use of violence for political aims or to force a government to act, esp because of the fear it causes among the people."

---------------------------------------------------------------------

The nukes dropped on Japan accurately fit that definition.


Pick up a dictionary, it's there.....or have Orwellian antics in your neighbourhood already changed the word's definition to suit the rulers? I'm sure they couldn't have changed all the dictionaries that quick....have they just brainwashed you into accepting their definition?


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisibledownforpot
Stranger
Male
Registered: 06/25/01
Posts: 5,715
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: CJay]
    #2955597 - 08/02/04 11:43 AM (17 years, 1 month ago)

What was the purpose of bombing Berlin?


--------------------



http://www.myspace.com/4th25


"And I don't care if he was handcuffed
Then shot in his head
All I know is dead bodies
Can't fuck with me again"


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: CJay]
    #2956250 - 08/02/04 02:42 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

Re-defining "Terrorism" to include acts of war in the past sounds Orwellian to me. By that definition every act of war since the begining of civilization has been "terrorism". I dont buy it.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: DieCommie]
    #2956276 - 08/02/04 02:46 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

I you've ever lived as a civilian through a war you might not say this. My wife's aunt is coming in a couple of weeks, she was a little girl in Rotterdam when the Germans bombed it, I'll ask her opinion.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: Evolving]
    #2956392 - 08/02/04 03:10 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

Hey everyone has there own definition and variation of meanings, on many words...

To me Terrorism and War are too very different things. Terrorism is usually aggression by non-uniformed people vs civilians and War is aggression by uniformed people vs civilians or soldiers. Of course any definition is going to have ambiguity...

Consider the definition of war - A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, cities, or parties.

So by that definition acts of "terrorists" could very well be interpreted as "war".


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: DieCommie]
    #2956518 - 08/02/04 03:40 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
Terrorism is usually aggression by non-uniformed people vs civilians...



The Bush administration seems think that those who target the U.S. military are terrorists...

Quote:

... and War is aggression by uniformed people vs civilians or soldiers.



I've seen the qualification of 'uniformed' before used to exclude perpetrators of organized violence from the definition of 'terrorists.' Why should uniforms make a difference? If a gang all wears blue bandanas, baggy jeans, blue plaid Pendleton shirts and white under shirts I guess they couldn't be considered terrorists regardless of their actions because of their uniforms...

and if jihadists all start wearing the same uniforms?

Similarly, I've seen the organized violent actions of states excluded from the definition of terrorism, merely because the actors were operating under the auspices of a government as official government agents. Minus the uniforms and being employed by an established state, what is the qualitative difference? What is the moral difference? Why does dressing alike and following the orders of a government provide legitimacy to barbarism?


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: DieCommie]
    #2956715 - 08/02/04 04:22 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

I like Peter Ustinovs definition best - "War is the rich mans terrorism, terrorism is the poor mans war".


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: Evolving]
    #2956747 - 08/02/04 04:34 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

I understand all of your points. I should clarify that just because there is a clear difference between terrorism and war neither is inherently legitimate or barbaric. There have been legitimate and barbaric acts of each. There is no inherent moral difference between terrorism and war, im sorry if i gave that impression off... Each act needs to be viewed and analyzed according to its own situation and your/my own interpretation.

Labeling the atomic bombing is "terrorism" or "war" isnt a good way to defend or denounce either. Whatever it was, many of the Japanese did not deserve it so i voted no. But I do think it was the proper thing to do.

Quote:

Alex123 said:
I like Peter Ustinovs definition best - "War is the rich mans terrorism, terrorism is the poor mans war".


That makes some sense, and then by this definition all of the major players in WW2 were waging war not terrorism.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: DieCommie]
    #2956785 - 08/02/04 04:47 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

Not sure. You'd surely have to call the germans behaviour in Poland and the Eastern Front terrorism. Things like the bombings of Dresden and London were pure terrorism too.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: CJay]
    #2956801 - 08/02/04 04:51 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

Oxford English dictionary definition:

"Terrorism - the use of violence for political aims or to force a government to act, esp because of the fear it causes among the people."


the use of violence for political aims = terrorism?

i don't think so. that would make every action in every war (including even defensive violence) an act of terrorism. just because a definition is in the dictionary doesn't mean that the writer thought it through 100%. hell, there are over 200,000 words in the oxford english dictionary.

i would define terrorism as such:

an act of terrorism is an attack on civilians intended to cause most of its damage indirectly through instilling fear in members of the populace.

for example: terrorists did not attack the world trade center because this alone would damage our economy and cause chaos. it was intended to cause fear with the idea that that fear was far more powerful than the actual attack. were it destroyed by an earthquake, the effect of its destruction would be much less significant.

terrorists did not bomb trains in spain because a couple lost trains would damage spain in any significant way. the goal was not to kill people and destroy trains. it was to cause fear. the fear was the force behind of most of the attack's affect. if the trains had been destroyed by an accident, the effect wouldn't have been nearly as significant.

not all intentional attacks on civilians are terrorist acts. what makes a terrorist attack a terrorist attack is not only its intended recipients, but the extent to which fear is intended to be a factor in the damaging affects of the attack. if the act is intended to cause its real damage indirectly through intilling fear, it is a terrorist attack. if civilians are intentionally targetted for other purposes (such as everything ranging from purely genocidal intentions to "practical military necessity"), it is not.

before anyone jumps on me for defending the practice of intentionally harming civilians, let me say that i am not. i am only stating that not all instances of this can be correctly labelled as "terrorism". this doesn't reduce their moral severity.


Edited by mushmaster (08/03/04 03:59 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: Xlea321]
    #2956809 - 08/02/04 04:52 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

"War is the rich mans terrorism, terrorism is the poor mans war".

so whether an attack is an act of terrorism or not depends not on the act, its recipients, and intended affects, but rather on how much money the aggressor has?  :smirk:

ok then.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: ]
    #2956846 - 08/02/04 05:01 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

the use of violence for political aims = terrorism?

No, read the full definition.

that would make every action in every war (including even defensive violence) an act of terrorism

No it wouldn't. How can shooting at soldiers who have come to destroy your town and kill everyone in it be considered an act of "terrorism"?

it was intended to cause fear with the idea that that fear was far more powerful than the actual attack.

They picked the world trade center for what it represented and they attacked at 8.45am rather than 2pm in the afternoon when it would've been busier. If they'd wanted simply to create fear they'd have picked the Superbowl.

not all intentional attacks on civilians are terrorist acts.

Which intentional attack on civilians wasn't a terrorist attack?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: ]
    #2956850 - 08/02/04 05:02 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

so whether an attack is an act of terrorism or not depends not on the act, its recipients, and intended affects, but rather on how much money the aggressor has?

No you missed the point entirely. Think about it for a while.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: DieCommie]
    #2956855 - 08/02/04 05:04 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
... many of the Japanese did not deserve it so i voted no. But I do think it was the proper thing to do.



I'm inclined to agree with you, I think Truman saw the bombings as a strategic neccessity for victory in war. The war in the Pacific was much more brutal than in Europe, the enemy's soldiers had shown themselves to be disciplined and tenacious fighters as well as merciless and fanatical (Kamikazes anyone?). To invade and occupy the Japanese mainland was not a prospect that was looked upon as something that would be easy. My guess is that Truman's decision was based on his first duty to the American citizens (soldiers included), to keep them alive and safe and to end the war decisively.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: Xlea321]
    #2956945 - 08/02/04 05:24 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

No, read the full definition.

i have read the full definition. it states:

"Terrorism - the use of violence for political aims or to force a government to act, esp because of the fear it causes among the people." (italics mine)

according to this definition, using violence for political aims or to force a government to act is an act of terrorism. while the definition includes a part about causing fear amongst the people, and i agree that this is essential for any definition of terrorism, this one does not require that an act of violence be intended to cause fear amongst a civilian population, or even be an attack against civilians at all, to be considered terrorism. it is therefore, in my view, incomplete.

How can shooting at soldiers who have come to destroy your town and kill everyone in it be considered an act of "terrorism"?

it cannot, which is an example of why the oxford english dictionary's definition is incomplete. because this is a use of violence for poltical ends (the goal is to force a government to abandon its plans to invade and destroy your town) according to the oxford english dictionary's definition, it is an act of terrorism. you and i can both see that it is not.

They picked the world trade center for what it represented and they attacked at 8.45am rather than 2pm in the afternoon when it would've been busier. If they'd wanted simply to create fear they'd have picked the Superbowl.

i disagree. i believe the intent of the attack was to create fear. the fear caused by the attack certainly did more damage than the attack itself.

Which intentional attack on civilians wasn't a terrorist attack?

according to your assessment of the goals of 9/11, and my definition of terrorism, the 9/11 attack on the twin towers was not.

but here's a better example... genocide, considering its goals, is usually not terroristic. the aggressor is not intending to use fear as a weapon. he wants the "undesirables" dead, not merely afraid. hitlers "final solution" wasn't a terrorist action. he wanted certain civilians dead, plain and simple. he wasn't trying to use fear as a weapon. he just wanted to kill them.

please consider my definition a little more thoroughly. i feel as though you haven't a good understanding of it nor important objections to it. basically what i'm saying is that "terrorism" isn't a blanket description to apply to all intentional attacks against civilians, but it refers to only certain acts, depending on their motives. i understand that "terrorism" is an emotionally charged word and that this may cloud debate on the issue, but really... what's wrong with my defintion?


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: Xlea321]
    #2956983 - 08/02/04 05:33 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

I like Peter Ustinovs definition best - "War is the rich mans terrorism, terrorism is the poor mans war".

i understand the quote, but it's not a definition of terrorism except in that it alludes to the idea that terrorism is really no different from war.

warfare is not necessarily terrorism however, and terrorism not necessarily warfare. whether an act is terrorism, warfare, both, or neither depends not on the wealth of the aggressor but the intended victims and intended results.

there is probably more than one way to read this quote. why not tell what it means to you?


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineThe_Red_Crayon
Exposer of Truth
Male User Gallery

Registered: 08/13/03
Posts: 13,673
Loc: Smokey Mtns. TN Flag
Last seen: 4 years, 4 months
Re: If you fuck with the Bull, you get the horn. [Re: JesusChrist]
    #2957228 - 08/02/04 06:27 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

Japan in WWII had commited horrible attrocities. Way worse than the germans did and thats saying something. including live dissections of u.s. pilots. http://www.centurychina.com/wiihist/germwar/uspow.htm

When the Japanese had reached their zenith in 1942 it had left many civilian casualties in their wake including the beheading of many innocent women and children. Since the Japanese commited so many atrocities it was very hard for them to cover it up.

Including reports of officers who threw babies in the air to catch them and impale them with their sabres. Starving of prisoners, disease testing, Raping of women, Torturing of POWS.

War is hell.


Edited by The_Red_Crayon (08/02/04 06:27 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisibledownforpot
Stranger
Male
Registered: 06/25/01
Posts: 5,715
Re: If you fuck with the Bull, you get the horn. [Re: The_Red_Crayon]
    #2957314 - 08/02/04 06:56 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

I totaly forgot about that, Red Crayon. They packed bombs full of fleas that had some disease in them and then they dropped them over China, probably around Manchuria.


--------------------



http://www.myspace.com/4th25


"And I don't care if he was handcuffed
Then shot in his head
All I know is dead bodies
Can't fuck with me again"


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleCJay
Dark Stranger
 User Gallery

Registered: 02/02/04
Posts: 931
Loc: Riding a bassline
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: ]
    #2959218 - 08/03/04 09:15 AM (17 years, 1 month ago)

If the Twin Towers had fallen in a natural earth quake it would have had nothing to do with terrorism or war, it would have been an 'Act of God' (as they are known - whether God exists or perpetrates these events is another matter. But that is the accepted term of description)

If terrorism is simply attacking civillians, what about the attempted attack on the USS The Sullivans? They weren't attacking civvies then. And how about that hit on the PEntagon? By your definition these are not terrorist acts.

And how about the USS Cole? "On Thursday, October 12, 2000, 17 young lives were taken in a terrorist attack on the USS Cole, docked in the port of Yemen to take on fuel. Seventeen sons and daughters gave their life on that day. All of America grieves with the families."
Military target - not civillians - by your definition these guys are fighting a war (which you define as non-terrorism). They cannot be terrorists.

And there are plenty more cases like this....


It's not like some guy just sat down yesterday and said 'oh I know I'll write something called the Oxford dictionary' and made a whole load of cock-ups. A team of editors from the world's oldest and most established university produce this.

Perhaps what people should actually be doing is qualifying their use of the word terrorism with suitable adjectives, yet appreciating that terrorism is actually a very broad concept.

Perpetrating aggressive, offensive War seems to me to be terrorism writ large. Consider the aims and the rhetoric of terrorist groups:

"Irish America fulfilled certain functions. They supplied guns, weapons, war material and financial and moral support. It was obvious to me personally that if we were going to prosecute a war , we would have to have the right weaponry with which to do it." McGeough (IRA weapons aquisitioner)

And what about Al-Qaeda - isn't their whole thing about 'jihad' (holy war)?

When a nation, or group, is at war with another, creating fear amongst the populace is a major asset in the fight, and crucial to reducing enemy morale.

Hence 'shock and awe' (doubtlessly a metaphor for the word 'terror' - u can look up the 3 words 'shock' 'and' 'awe' in the dictionary if you need to)

'Shock and awe' was meant to firstly scare the living shit out of the USA's terrorist opposition, but on a wider scale it actually scared the shit out of the population of the world at large. A massive act of calculated terrorism which has left the world chilled to the bone and filled with the fear of America, America's present political aims achieved through violence, forcing the governments of the world to act - in this case to act in support or at the very least supplication. Remember if you aren't with them...You are against them.
And don't disagree with the daddy.


Even under your definition:

The CIA's covert coup d'etat of a democratic leader in Iran 1953, replacing him with a dictator. Did they wear uniforms? Terrorism? Another dictator created; great while he licks US government butt.

JFK sending 'freedom fighters' into Cuba - leading the world to the Cuban missile crisis - terrorism?

Ronnie's counter-terrorists like the 'grim reapers, uniforms? terrorism?


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleCJay
Dark Stranger
 User Gallery

Registered: 02/02/04
Posts: 931
Loc: Riding a bassline
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: ]
    #2959323 - 08/03/04 10:04 AM (17 years, 1 month ago)

:guns: :sniper:

I do agree that terrorism is an emotionally charged and debatable word. And the use and definition of words is an evolving process.

When it comes to defending yourself against killers in your town, it comes down to immediate survival. The war may have political intent, but one's immediate self defence does not. It only has one aim - survival. That is the aim of defensive violence committed upon maurading intruders. Politics comes a far second. However through fending them off you could always be described as terrorising the maurauders I suppose.

(Especially if you went beyond the realms of purely responsive defensive violence after driving them from your homestead, formed a political campaign of sorts - since this then would be considered action and politically purposeful aggression - and hunted them down, killing them in a grizzly manner - hmmm, is that kind of what the GWB administration is doing?).

War and Terrorism contain aspects of each other, but are clearly not exclusively identical. Otherwise there would be only one word.

However there is little that is more terrifying in this world then war, and since terror is the basis of terrorism, I think it's safe to say the populace of both sides is terrorised.


After reading those examples of the Japanese disecting live pilots and throwing babies onto sabres - well that's pretty f**kin scary shit, especially when one knows they are gung ho suicide bombers (kamikazes)too......If I was an American in those days these kind of things would have created terror in me, as the prospect does for me now.

I just think we cannot draw a solid line between the acts of militants and the acts of governments when similar acts are used to similar effect and both sides claim to be fighting 'wars'.

I am actually now very interested to find a Complete Oxford dictionary, rather than the Advanced Learners edition that just happened to be sat next to me at work when I made the post. I'm sure in that there will be greater definition and possible variables...I'll let you know if I do look it up. Having said that, this basic definition is given in the edition I used because it is the hub of the meaning of the word, and to me it shows that terrorism is a word that does not mean simply small bands of militant people attacking civillians.

Words, words - they trap us and they free us and none say exactly what we are trying to express. The feelings go beyond.

But it's fun trying, learning and discussing.

Thanks for making me think guys



:sun: :sun: :sun:


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineJesusChrist
Son Of God
Registered: 02/19/04
Posts: 1,459
Last seen: 9 years, 13 days
Re: If you fuck with the Bull, you get the horn. [Re: The_Red_Crayon]
    #2959848 - 08/03/04 12:31 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

Boy was that disturbing to read. Wow. The people in Abu Garib don't know how nice that had it. I lived in Japan for 6 years. They have a very unique cultural mindset to say the least.


--------------------
Tastes just like chicken


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineEdwardTheGreat
The Wanderer

Registered: 06/15/04
Posts: 10
Loc: Somewhere In Time
Last seen: 17 years, 28 days
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: downforpot]
    #2960194 - 08/03/04 03:00 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

Fine, downforpot and Jesus Christ.

By your logic it is acceptable to kill innocent people with brutal weapons. Therefore, by the same logic, the attacks on 9/11 were also acceptable means of warfare, as will be any future attacks. The Saudi terrorists were, and are still waging a war on the United States. If attacks like these are justified, then why not also use chemical and biological weapons? Heck, if we are going to do that, lets throw the Geneva Convention out the window and torture captive prisoners.

If you can justify the use of atomic weapons on civilian populations, what else are you willing to do?

My view on all of this is complete pacifism.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: EdwardTheGreat]
    #2960430 - 08/03/04 04:05 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

EdwardTheGreat said:
If you can justify the use of atomic weapons on civilian populations, what else are you willing to do?


Anything to protect freedom.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: DieCommie]
    #2960480 - 08/03/04 04:15 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

Anything to protect freedom.

anything?


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineJesusChrist
Son Of God
Registered: 02/19/04
Posts: 1,459
Last seen: 9 years, 13 days
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: EdwardTheGreat]
    #2960481 - 08/03/04 04:16 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

Edward, you are great.

I think that a land invasion would have been more costly to both sides. I am not alone in that belief. What we did arguably saved lives. If we had complete pacifism, we never would have stopped the Japanese or Hitler. Lets all get together, hold hands and sing kumbaya! The Greatest Generation changed the world for the better. The freedoms that you enjoy today are the result of the sacrifice of millions of Americans along the way.


--------------------
Tastes just like chicken


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleCJay
Dark Stranger
 User Gallery

Registered: 02/02/04
Posts: 931
Loc: Riding a bassline
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: EdwardTheGreat]
    #2963163 - 08/04/04 06:23 AM (17 years, 1 month ago)

well said


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleCJay
Dark Stranger
 User Gallery

Registered: 02/02/04
Posts: 931
Loc: Riding a bassline
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: DieCommie]
    #2963167 - 08/04/04 06:25 AM (17 years, 1 month ago)

You mean anything to protect your beliefs


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleCJay
Dark Stranger
 User Gallery

Registered: 02/02/04
Posts: 931
Loc: Riding a bassline
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: JesusChrist]
    #2963174 - 08/04/04 06:30 AM (17 years, 1 month ago)

Don't be so sure - once we were in the war it had to go that way, but the path of humanity needen't travel that way.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleCJay
Dark Stranger
 User Gallery

Registered: 02/02/04
Posts: 931
Loc: Riding a bassline
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: JesusChrist]
    #2963181 - 08/04/04 06:37 AM (17 years, 1 month ago)

If it is justifiable for the USA (or any nation/group) to commit hideous acts of violence in the name of their beliefs, then that justification must also be applied to the other. For within their world - like yours - those beliefs are worth doing anything to protect.

The fact is it would be good if everyone across the board of belief systems woke up a bit and realised that these beliefs are relative, and treated each other respectfully.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: CJay]
    #2963509 - 08/04/04 10:42 AM (17 years, 1 month ago)

You mean anything to protect your beliefs

no, not really. while i don't agree with what he said, "freedom" does not equate to "beliefs". being enslaved, killed, tortured, or persecuted is a little more than a violation of one's "beliefs".


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisibledownforpot
Stranger
Male
Registered: 06/25/01
Posts: 5,715
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: EdwardTheGreat]
    #2963708 - 08/04/04 12:11 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

EdwardTheGreat, I changed my mind. I'm for the land invasion now. Anything for a licence to kill Japs.


--------------------



http://www.myspace.com/4th25


"And I don't care if he was handcuffed
Then shot in his head
All I know is dead bodies
Can't fuck with me again"


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: downforpot]
    #2963730 - 08/04/04 12:20 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

Try and get away from seeing people as sterotypical racial groups. There are some very nice "japs".


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisibledownforpot
Stranger
Male
Registered: 06/25/01
Posts: 5,715
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: Xlea321]
    #2963746 - 08/04/04 12:24 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

The point I'm trying to make is that the US troops would have to have killed large numbers of Japanese civilians because they were going to fight with the Japanese army.


--------------------



http://www.myspace.com/4th25


"And I don't care if he was handcuffed
Then shot in his head
All I know is dead bodies
Can't fuck with me again"


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleCJay
Dark Stranger
 User Gallery

Registered: 02/02/04
Posts: 931
Loc: Riding a bassline
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: ]
    #2963815 - 08/04/04 12:52 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

The perception of the definition of freedom as: Being able to exist in a democratic society and within the system it creates; seems a releative statement to me. You must be a slave to that system to exist within it - hence you are not truly free.

You are not even allowed to smoke a spliff - you are not truly free.

You are at a stage of the evolution of social systems, which may offer more freedom than some other social systems, but in large part enslaves you, just like all the other social systems.

This social system is what you believe in and call 'freedom'


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: CJay]
    #2963818 - 08/04/04 12:54 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

Just because there are different degrees of freedom does not make it subjective.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleCJay
Dark Stranger
 User Gallery

Registered: 02/02/04
Posts: 931
Loc: Riding a bassline
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: silversoul7]
    #2963834 - 08/04/04 01:03 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

I agree - but can you objectively say that existance in the USA is one of true freedom?

You are not free to do as you wish - you are a prisoner of the laws/rules of the system (and the way GWB is going the restrictions are getting greater and greater)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: CJay]
    #2963857 - 08/04/04 01:11 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

CJay said:
I agree - but can you objectively say that existance in the USA is one of true freedom?



Of course not. I don't think anyone here is saying that. But to protect what freedoms you have is still protecting freedom.

Quote:

You are not free to do as you wish - you are a prisoner of the laws/rules of the system (and the way GWB is going the restrictions are getting greater and greater)



As is John Kerry. We are on a path which will not be stopped by either of the major parties.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds, Feminized Cannabis Seeds   North Spore Bulk Substrate, North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* How to handle terrorists
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Phred 5,493 63 02/20/04 08:21 PM
by TheOneYouKnow
* USA HAS GONE CRAZY - TERRORIST ATACKS!!!!!
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )
MAIA 13,480 143 09/12/11 01:34 PM
by wood_stones
* Can Terrorists Build the Bomb? trendalM 936 1 02/18/05 11:28 PM
by automan
* Arab states condemn decapitation, support nuking Florida afoaf 895 7 05/13/04 05:57 PM
by afoaf
* Nuke Mecca
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )
Great_Satan 5,891 142 01/16/05 02:29 AM
by SoopaX
* Terrorists look for a path TO peace - but the path IS peace
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )
spacedragon 8,306 148 06/21/04 08:26 AM
by st0nedphucker
* U.S. will use NUKES!
( 1 2 all )
Humidity 1,958 27 12/26/02 11:40 AM
by djamor
* Japan: A model for foreign policy?
( 1 2 all )
Tao 1,880 27 10/02/04 06:47 AM
by mr crisper

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
4,216 topic views. 0 members, 4 guests and 10 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic | ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2021 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.09 seconds spending 0.039 seconds on 21 queries.