D
devoutchristian
Guest
Just like certain other powers made the decision that their mass murder was worth it to “solve the Jewish problem”.
Never surrendering unconditionally.
- Status
S
SAVINGRACE
Guest
Exactly, that’s what I am talking about.
No I think you will find it’s Never Surrender, nothing to do with conditions, which was why the surrender of WWII brought such deep shame on the soul of their military because it carried conditions. The Japanese soldier was trained to fight till the end or commit suicide if ever captured. They were trained to die for their Emperor and Honor. This was based on the ancient code of Bushido (Victory or Death).
Surrender was inconceivable, as a surrendered soldier was considered both dead and dishonored. Suicide was considered a perfect means of atoning for mistakes in this life. This philosophy applied also to aircraft pilots, admirals and ship captains. Hence kamikaze pilots. It was considered most honorable to be destroyed with your vessel. . Ship captains would tie themselves onto the bridge so they would not accidentally float free. Other officers would be assigned to be sure that the Emperor’s portrait sank with the ship so as not to be captured.
To Japanese warriors, honorable death was far more important than long life. The honorable dead were considered to be minor gods.
In the cases I outlined in my initial answer it doesn’t matter what you or I think. The person/persons making the decision to overeat or deliberately affect others with AIDS or bomb civilians has to deal with the consequences of that decision, whatever reason/s they had to justify it.
D
devoutchristian
Guest
F
Fairwinds
Guest
source? make it a prime source. I don’t want to see another opinion from another revisionist historian. find a source (you won’t) from the imperial government that shows japan “practically begging the Allies to accept a surrender.” you won’t, but this lie has been repeated too many times to ignore.
and read (apparently for the first time) the potsdam declaration, which demanded the unconditional surrender of imperial military forces (an immediate end to the fighting), but otherwise offered very fair terms on social, economic and post-war conditions.
you know you can’t make up stuff without someone calling you on it.
D
devoutchristian
Guest
What level of proof would you accept?
D
devoutchristian
Guest
F
Fairwinds
Guest
show me the prime source documents from the Japanese government that support these claims.
do you know what prime source means?
that’s not a rhetorical question. seriously, that’s not a rhetorical question.
F
Fairwinds
Guest
the article misstates the USSBS.
(emphasis added)
what documents show that the Japanese government told the Allies they were “begging to surrender” in early August, '45, as you put it?
do you understand what the reference to “air supremacy over Japan” means in this context? the air force was burning out Japanese cities with conventional firebomb raids every week. a single bomb was the equivalent of a big raid, there were conventional bombings that were more destructive, so you (I mean a rational reader) has to see this comparison for context. the atomic bombings shortened the war by two months. if Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been subjected to conventional raids (with possibly a negligible difference in the number of casualties), another five or six cities would have been bombed out, while fighting continued in China (which had been averaging something like 150,000 dead per month for 12 years) and in the Pacific, and southeast Asia.
maybe these additional casualties appeal to you as better options than the a-bombs.
united states stragetic bombing survey, summary report, pacific war
D
devoutchristian
Guest
You still haven’t stated what level of proof you will accept. And no, I don’t believe that crimes against humanity are morally justified based on the type of weapon used.
F
Fairwinds
Guest
you’re speaking about Japanese medical experiments on Allied POWS?
I said I’d accept prime source documents showing that the imperial government offered to surrender to the Allies in early August, '45.
ProTip: Japan was not at war with the USSR before the first atomic bombing.
I’m still waiting.
T
tonyrey
Guest
F
Fairwinds
Guest
a fireman who goes into a burning building to save a victim.
this isn’t rocket science.
U
Usagi
Guest
Um, the sorts of diseases you are likely to get from your sexual practices are the sort that are passed on almost exclusively to future sexual partners.
If your prospective sitters or adoptive parents are going to be having sex with the children, that pretty much disqualifies them whether they have a communicable disease or not!
Usagi
D
devoutchristian
Guest
I didn’t claim that a formal offer of surrender came from the Japenese government.
B
Bradski
Guest
We might find some common ground there. Although I’m sure there’d be some differences: gay atheist who is anti-abortion, non-drinker and votes Republican v Christian who is pro-choice and enjoys a few beers and votes Democrat?
I’m sure you could ask them if they smoked or did (other) drugs, but you seem particularly interested in one aspect:
So let’s see how you would respond to a couple who, during the course of the adoption interview, somehow mention the fact that they ‘practise anal sex privately and habitually’. But only with each other, or course. They are, after all, happily married. Now you have some information about them, so would you, on that basis, allow the adoption to go ahead?
T
tonyrey
Guest
T
tonyrey
Guest
E
epan
Guest
It’s a risk/benefit calculation.
Soldiers do it. Physicians do it. Politicians do it. Pilots do it. Policeman do it. Parachutist, animal trainers, racing drivers, SCUBA divers… it is a very long list.
The largest example that comes to my mind of intentional endangerment everyone by nuclear weapons development and stockpiling, with the objective of preventing nuclear war. It is well known, that we have come close to launching, on one side or the other, more than once.
Another one, is the pollution that each of us creates when we act as consumers in our industrialized society.
How about the parent who dies younger than otherwise, from the stress of working to support a family?
The challenge is to have the moral clarity to make the analysis. A suicide bomber, very definitely intends to endanger his/her life, and the lives of others. In my view, any intentional killing of noncombatant civilians is immoral. However, there are plenty of people who applaud the behavior as being for the good.
Another more difficult problem for me morally, is that of collateral damage. Assuming, for the moment, that a war is just, then if one fights that war, one knows that innocent people will be harmed. Targeting is more accurate than it has ever been before, and a good deal of time is spent for planned attacks to minimize innocent loss. But nothing is perfect, and mistakes in judgement or perception do occur.
T
tonyrey
Guest
With a prayer for your safety…
E
epan
Guest
In fact, some STD’s can be transmitted by virtually any skin to skin contact. Most people who are infected with an STD are unaware that they are infected. Others are blood borne, and more difficult to transmit. And then, there are all the other diseases which we transmit to each other…
In the context of this thread, and physical contact with another person may put your own health at risk.
- Status