On this ground, zero tolerance

[iamrefreshed]

Your first statement was irrelevant as I have never talked about the numbers killed in the Occupied Territories; thats just you attributing something to me that I never said. Your question was irrelevant because the number of murders on one side doesn’t justify murder on the other. You either support bombing Muslim daycare facilities or you don’t and your no comment stance is a strong indicator that you do.

Whatever you say

When did you stop beating your wife?

 

[iamrefreshed]

Your first statement was irrelevant as I have never talked about the numbers killed in the Occupied Territories; thats just you attributing something to me that I never said. Your question was irrelevant because the number of murders on one side doesn’t justify murder on the other. You either support bombing Muslim daycare facilities or you don’t and your no comment stance is a strong indicator that you do.

It would appear that your abilities at discussion/debate are extremely limited. You consistently resort to strawmen or ad hominem attacks.

I suggest you study up a bit so you don’t look quite so silly all the time.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Your attempt at introducing Muslim day care bombings is a strawman.

 

[Redratfish]

When did I bring up the number of deaths as it relates to the Occupied Territories?

It doesn’t matter how many were killed on either side. Do you think 9/11 justifies bombing a daycare facility?

Ok I’ll be the jerk. Before I answer, do you think going to war against Japan in WWII was justified?

When we were attacked by Japan, the following were killed.
•US Navy 2,008 KIA
•USMC 109 KIA
•US Army 218 KIA
•Civilians 68

On 9/11 the following were killed

World Trade Center
2,605
American 11
87
United 175
60
Pentagon
125
American 77
59
Shanksville United 93
40
Total 2,976

We declared war on Japan after we we attacked and around 2,500 men (and thats rounding up). We went island to island, and many a horrible thing was done to many of the populations. From friendly fire, to rape. Do you think that it was justified? Do you think we should not have gone to war because those things would have happend? If you do, then you probably should be speaking German, and you disgrace any veteran who died in WWII.

We lost nearly 3,000 men on 9/11, same question, should we go to war? If not, why was it better to go to war against Japan, even when we lost 500 less men? Yes, horrible things have happend, missed predator strikes, and civillian’s death. Just like any other war.

War is hell. Now, some of you are going to go off and say “well thats not a good reason.” Bull ****. All of the males in my family have seen combat. Its hell. Plain and simple. You see things, and do things that your not proud of, but at the end of the day, the only thing keeping you sane is the fact that you can tell youself, “Well, it is how it is. Its hell.”

So, now to your question. Do I think 9/11 justifies bombing a daycare facility?

**Yes. Yes I do. I also support that we used the nuclear bombs to stop WWII. **

Now, my question: Do you think all the daycares that were destroyed when we dropped the atom bomb were justified?

 

[Zatzat]

Ok I’ll be the jerk. Before I answer, do you think going to war against Japan in WWII was justified?

When we were attacked by Japan, the following were killed.
•US Navy 2,008 KIA
•USMC 109 KIA
•US Army 218 KIA
•Civilians 68

On 9/11 the following were killed

World Trade Center
2,605
American 11
87
United 175
60
Pentagon
125
American 77
59
Shanksville United 93
40
Total 2,976

We declared war on Japan after we we attacked and around 2,500 men (and thats rounding up). We went island to island, and many a horrible thing was done to many of the populations. From friendly fire, to rape. Do you think that it was justified? Do you think we should not have gone to war because those things would have happend? If you do, then you probably should be speaking German, and you disgrace any veteran who died in WWII.

We lost nearly 3,000 men on 9/11, same question, should we go to war? If not, why was it better to go to war against Japan, even when we lost 500 less men? Yes, horrible things have happend, missed predator strikes, and civillian’s death. Just like any other war.

War is hell. Now, some of you are going to go off and say “well thats not a good reason.” Bull ****. All of the males in my family have seen combat. Its hell. Plain and simple. You see things, and do things that your not proud of, but at the end of the day, the only thing keeping you sane is the fact that you can tell youself, “Well, it is how it is. Its hell.”

So, now to your question. Do I think 9/11 justifies bombing a daycare facility?

**Yes. Yes I do. I also support that we used the nuclear bombs to stop WWII. **

Now, my question: Do you think all the daycares that were destroyed when we dropped the atom bomb were justified?

Bombing daycares and killing children is barbaric. The fact that you think America has the right to bomb daycares is frightening…indeed.

 

[pete_29]

Bombing daycares and killing children is barbaric. The fact that you think America has the right to bomb daycares is frightening…indeed.

When has the United States ever intentionally bombed a daycare?

 

[Zatzat]

When has the United States ever intentionally bombed a daycare?

I never said America intentionally bombed a daycare. Did you not read redratfishLs post? He is of the opinion that because of 9/11, America is justified in bomb ing daycares.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Now, my question: Do you think all the daycares that were destroyed when we dropped the atom bomb were justified?

First of all, I was reffering to the pipebombing of a Mosque and adjoining Muslim daycare facility in Cincinnati, Ohio in 2005 not dropping an atom bomb on Japan over 60 years ago. In terms of the atom bomb; no, I don’t believe it was or is morally justifiable.

 

[Zatzat]

First of all, I was reffering to the pipebombing of a Mosque and adjoining Muslim daycare facility in Cincinnati, Ohio in 2005 not dropping an atom bomb on Japan over 60 years ago. In terms of the atom bomb; no, I don’t believe it was or is morally justifiable.

History has shown that dropping the two atom bombs was unneccesary, as Japan was nearing defeat.

 

[iamrefreshed]

For those interested in reading about the Cincinnati mosque bombing compared to 9/11 as brought up here as a strawman…

Still No Arrests In 2005 Mosque Bombing

No One Injured In Attack

wlwt.com/news/22020552/detail.html

 

[Aquinas62]

History has shown that dropping the two atom bombs was unneccesary, as Japan was nearing defeat.

People who say that have the benefit of hindsight without the responsibility of having to make that call, Do you think that the decision to use those weapons was made lightly? I don’t think so. but as you say, Japan was nearing defeat.

That may be true, as there would have only been a few million more deaths before they surrendered, the vast majority of those would have been Japanese civilians. I remember one of my fathers friends talking about surviving the ETA (European theater of operations) only to probably die in the upcoming invasion of Japan.The bombs were dropped, the war soon ended and he went home. He went on to have 5 children after the war. multiply this result by a million times. Now, I ask you, in his case, and many others like his, was ending the war using the Nukes justified? Also I ask you, if they were not used, do you really think they would have never been used in the past 65 years? Maybe the bombings had two purposes, to end the war, and to discourage the next world war by showing just how terrible nuclear weapons are. I hope that God has a beautiful place in heaven for Harry Truman, the man who had to make that terrible call.

 

[Lypher]

IMHO, Bombing Japan was justified. We would have lost too many men… I have visited the tunnels in Okinawa and lived on Honshu for two years… The Atomic bomb was bad, but we killed more people in the fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo.

The above being said, hurting Christians (Or any other innocent person) because they look like Muslims, and then trying to justify that behavior is like trying to justify an abortion after a rape… Just plain and simply wrong and again IMHO stupid.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Now, I ask you, in his case, and many others like his, was ending the war using the Nukes justified?.

No, it wasn’t justified. Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz (Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet), Fleet Admiral William Leahy (Chief of Staff), General Douglas MacArthur, and even General Dwight Eisenhower all believed that the blockade and conventional bombings were enough to achieve Japanese surrender by the end of the year even without a ground invasion and opposed the use of the atomic bomb. They also had no qualms expressing that opposition before the bombs were dropped.

 

[Aquinas62]

No, it wasn’t justified. Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz (Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet), Fleet Admiral William Leahy (Chief of Staff), General Douglas MacArthur, and even General Dwight Eisenhower all believed that the blockade and conventional bombings were enough to achieve Japanese surrender by the end of the year even without a ground invasion and opposed the use of the atomic bomb. They also had no qualms expressing that opposition before the bombs were dropped.

Again that is easy for you to say, living in relative safety 65 years after the fact. I will have to research the above statements regarding Nimitz and the other leaders mentioned above, as you may be correct. But I will say this… Not one of those people mentioned would have had to land on any beaches, so it is easy for them to speak theoretically. Also if they really think a ground invasion wouldn’t have been necessary, why were detailed invasion plans drawn up with casualty estimates of 1 million plus on the US side?

 

[Aquinas62]

This article states what my position is, Hiroshima was justified, but I am not too sure about Nagasaki.

socialissues.wiseto.com/Articles/FO3020630237/

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Again that is easy for you to say, living in relative safety 65 years after the fact…

It has nothing to do with living 65 years after the fact. Dropping those bombs was pure evil.

But I will say this… Not one of those people mentioned would have had to land on any beaches, so it is easy for them to speak theoretically.

First of all, it wasn’t really theory considering the fact that even Prince Fumimaro Konoe, during interogation, testified that, atom bomb, invasion or not, the Emperor would not have allowed resistance beyond Decemeber of 1945. Besides, the “theories” of those men are what got them command of our Allied forces and won the war.

Also if they really think a ground invasion wouldn’t have been necessary, why were detailed invasion plans drawn up with casualty estimates of 1 million plus on the US side?

The United States had many contingencies during WWII. None of the supreme commanders of the Allied forces believed that an invasion was necessary but the option was made available just in case.

 

[Aquinas62]

It has nothing to do with living 65 years after the fact. Dropping those bombs was pure evil.

That is your opinion, I think that those men scheduled to go to the PTO after VE day would have disagreed with you. I don’t believe Harry Truman was evil. I think letting the war go on longer than necessary would have been much more evil.

 

[Aquinas62]

First of all, it wasn’t really theory considering the fact that even Prince Fumimaro Konoe, during interogation, testified that, atom bomb, invasion or not, the Emperor would not have allowed resistance beyond Decemeber of 1945. Besides, the “theories” of those men are what got them command of our Allied forces and won the war.

The United States had many contingencies during WWII. None of the supreme commanders of the Allied forces believed that an invasion was necessary but the option was made available just in case.

True enough, but what I said still stands… Maybe Truman didnt know the Japanese would have surrendered, and if he had known,. the bombs would never have been used.

Honestly, I have no respect for your argument You make it sound as if the decision was made lightly, without any thought behind it. it is easy to make decisions if you know all future outcomes, or exactly what the enemy is thinking. again, I also can’t help but think that part of that “evil argument” is another manifestation of “Blame America First” Amerikka is evil" line of thought.

 

[scipio337]

Right. Japan was so ready to surrender, it took a second bomb and only under the condition that Hirohoto remained Emporer. As the descendent of a Marine who lost his life at Iwo Jima, it was a necessary evil.

Nimitz, MacAurthur, Eisenhower, et al protesting is a revisionist myth:

Professor of history Robert James Maddox wrote that “Another myth that has attained wide attention is that at least several of Truman’s top military advisers later informed him that using atomic bombs against Japan would be militarily unnecessary or immoral, or both. There is no persuasive evidence that any of them did so. None of the Joint Chiefs ever made such a claim, although one inventive author has tried to make it appear that Leahy did by braiding together several unrelated passages from the admiral’s memoirs. Actually, two days after Hiroshima, Truman told aides that Leahy had ‘said up to the last that it wouldn’t go off.’” “Neither MacArthur nor Nimitz ever communicated to Truman any change of mind about the need for invasion or expressed reservations about using the bombs. When first informed about their imminent use only days before Hiroshima, MacArthur responded with a lecture on the future of atomic warfare and even after Hiroshima strongly recommended that the invasion go forward. Nimitz, from whose jurisdiction the atomic strikes would be launched, was notified in early 1945. ‘This sounds fine,’ he told the courier, ‘but this is only February. Can’t we get one sooner?’” “The best that can be said about Eisenhower’s memory is that it had become flawed by the passage of time.” “Notes made by one of Stimson’s aides indicate that there was a discussion of atomic bombs, but there is no mention of any protest on Eisenhower’s part.”

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

…it was a necessary evil.

I thought Catholic teaching rejects the idea of a necessary evil.

Nimitz, MacAurthur, Eisenhower, et al protesting is a revisionist myth:

The only revisionism comes from those who deny the truth; that all of those commanders opposed the use of the atomic bomb against Japan. Feel free to read the memoirs for yourself in addition to the Strategic Bombing Survey Report.