Hiroshima - US State Terrorism to end WWII

[Hermes]

Have you lost your bloody mind...?

I have relatives that landed at Iwo and Okinawa. If you think the casualties at Hiroshima and Nagasaki are an atrocity, I could only imagine your opine on the other option that would have inevitably ended the war.

More civilians died in Dresden than Hiroshima. You are free today because of the sacrifices of free men forced to defend their freedom., and should not second guess the actions of those who were dying by the thousands daily at that point in time.

You should rail against those who forced the free world to sacrifice a generation of their young, not the savages that had to eventually be delt with.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Hermes You should rail against those who forced the free world to sacrifice a generation of their young, not the savages that had to eventually be delt with.

Oh, please! This isn't a topic for unsupported opinion. The rules of war forbid targeting civilians. If that's what happened at Hiroshima, the US must own up to its crime. Expediency is no excuse for an escalation of the barbarity of the conflict. Do you not agree that atomic attacks are an escalation? There was no military objective in the city. It was pure terror and now that the US is a terror target, it doesn't feel so good, huh? Cosmic payback is a mother....

[Hermes]

>> Oh, please! This isn't a topic for unsupported opinion. The rules of war forbid targeting civilians.

There are no "rules of war", there are those who live and those who die. It is a quaint notion that places those who think a "rule" will protect them from a bomb or a bullet. Did the "rules" apply to the civilian population of Manchuria...?

>> If that's what happened at Hiroshima, the US must own up to its crime.

Hiroshima was not a crime, it was a valid target.

>> Expediency is no excuse for an escalation of the barbarity of the conflict.

Expediency and escalation are what resolves conflict and allows people to live in peace. Barbarity is a byproduct of any war, in the past, present or future.

>> Do you not agree that atomic attacks are an escalation? There was no military objective in the city.

I do not agree. At the time japan was arming their entire civilian population to repel an imminent invasion that would have resulted in a million dead on both sides. And we still would have won. Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved lives. Get a grasp of numbers and the reality of what was happening at that point in time.

>> It was pure terror and now that the US is a terror target, it doesn't feel so good, huh? Cosmic payback is a mother....

If we were using terror as a wepon, why today do we not control Japan as a colony. If we are so bad, why did we emerge victorious and hand back all of our conquered territory to the indigenous populations...? In one sense, I will grant you, it was "terror". The terror placed into the heart of the agressor who would not cede when defeated. We are so evil, but Japan was willing to place women and children on the beaches to repel a mechanized assault and a naval barrrage the likes of which we thankfully did not have to see.

Regarding the US being a target of terror, so what. This country has been targeted by every nitwit ideology since we signed the Declaration of Independence, and we will be target as long as we allow a civilian population to dictatepolicy to goveernment.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Hermes There are no "rules of war"

So anything goes in warfare, according to Hermes? No Rules? Poison gas, rape, give no quarter, medical experimentation on prisoners, genocidal extermination? Pretty crude, but at least we know where ya' stand, man.

Quote by: Hermes Hiroshima was not a crime, it was a valid target.

Based upon what criteria? Does that mean that the World Trade Center was a vaild target?

Quote by: Hermes we will be target as long as we allow a civilian population to dictatepolicy to goveernment.

Well, then! Let's just get us some of that good ol' martial law/dictatorship and fergit this damn Republic nonsense! Then we can get off the target list, huh?

[Hermes]

>> So anything goes in warfare, according to Hermes? No Rules? Poison gas, rape, give no quarter, medical experimentation on prisoners, genocidal extermination? Pretty crude, but at least we know where ya' stand, man.

It is not me who wrote history, or the "rules" you seem to believe exist.

>> Based upon what criteria? Does that mean that the World Trade Center was a vaild target?

Apparently it was to some. The difference with 9/11 and WWII is that those in the WTC were not in any way acting out in a hostile manner against any enemy, real or percieved. The towers were full of people who thought they were going to work, did not plan any hostility to anyone, and surely did not plan to die that day.


>> Quote by: Hermes
we will be target as long as we allow a civilian population to dictate policy to government
Well, then! Let's just get us some of that good ol' martial law/dictatorship and fergit this damn Republic nonsense! Then we can get off the target list, hu

You are irrational. Do you comprehend the difference between a democratic republican form of government and a dictatorship...?

Are you a child..?

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Hermes he towers were full of people who thought they were going to work, did not plan any hostility to anyone, and surely did not plan to die that day.

Sorta like the folks of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945?

Quote by: Hermes You are irrational. Do you comprehend the difference between a democratic republican form of government and a dictatorship...? Are you a child..?

I come across a irrational to you? Well, maybe, but my irrationality has a certain rationale, heh.

I am a child in certain respects, too! But I debate like a man, and delight in repartee, so I am glad you showed up today to argue with me...

Anyhow war does have rules, ones the US has agreed to. If there was no intention to abide by the rules, why did they sign the treaties? And why does the Army put them in a manual? http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj.../fieldman.html

As to the difference between a Republic and a dictatorship, little do you know that the line is very blurry in present day America: Declared State of Emergency in USA since 1933?

[monty of ll]

Hermes-Were you asking me if I lost my bloody mind? If so then my response to you is no, my mind is quite sound. If you have a serious argument to put forward then please join in and I believe that most will respect your opinion. If not then we probably don't need the personal insults.

[righthand]

Quote by: Hermes Sorry for the double post, it will not happen again. Sorry for the double post, it will not happen again.

Not only do you double post as above, you post

maintaim = maintain sorry, I cant find the spell checker.

If you had ANYTHING worth while posting then we might be interested in if you can spell. It's obvious your on some quota of postings for some personal gratification.
1.

>> So anything goes in warfare, according to Hermes? No Rules? Poison gas, rape, give no quarter, medical experimentation on prisoners, genocidal extermination? Pretty crude, but at least we know...

2.

maintaim = maintain sorry, I cant find the spell checker

3.

He is lucky he only got 15 months. He should be shot. He won't however, as we have to deal with the press and his wife's letters to the editor. As far as I am aware the military is voulantary,; if...

and you served abroad where???? voulantary is spelt wrong too. Obviously something that you are not interested!
4.

>> Oh, please! This isn't a topic for unsupported opinion. The rules of war forbid targeting civilians. There are no "rules of war", there are those who live and those who die. It is a quaint...

5.

Sorry for the double post, it will not happen again. Sorry for the double post, it will not happen again.

6.

Have you lost your bloody mind...? I have relatives that landed at Iwo and Okinawa. If you think the casualties at Hiroshima and Nagasaki are an atrocity, I could only imagine your opine on the...

7.[quote] Is the UN retarded...? No. Complicit.
8.

Have you lost your bloody mind...? I have relatives that landed at Iwo and Okinawa. If you think the casualties at Hiroshima and Nagasaki are an atrocity, I could only imagine your opine on the

9.

Good question. What prisoners...?

10.

>> The powerful elites of this world want ever-increasing authority, possessions and mastery over the proles. The war is one of aggression by the wealthy against the workers and "little...

DO NOT CONFUSE QUANTITY WITH QUALITY.

I don't know if what you are doing is called 'trolling' but I see what you are doing as SCUTTERING. The practice of splattering of crap, often containing brain matter, to cover as wide an area as possible.

YOU ARE OUT OF YOU DEPTH ON A SERIOUS THREAD. GET LOST.

Yes, there are times we need a mindless nut to allow us show what we know, but your scutters are fouling up serious threads. I suggest that if feel any further scutters coming on that you return to 'class warfare' thread where you might be needed to tell about your class. If you had any 'smarts' - and I've seen no evidence to believe this - but if you did, it would have been smart NOT to have scuttered on a few threads. You may have got away with this on other threads but with your typical bad luck you scuttered on threads that I started and so remain interested.

I have not the time but in the pubic good I will if necessary follow you around this forum. Mine will not be thoughtless one liners. This is the heavily censored version that I'm posting. I AM ABSOLUTELY AGAINST POSTING AND ALSO USING ' REPORT ABUSE'.

I know that this post is longer than what you are used to, but it's all about you, so maybe you have gotten this far.

As georgie porgy said "Bring it on". Looking forward to NOT hearing from you, but anytime?

[Liminus]

Well I hope I'm not alone when I say I have no idea what that last post (from Right Hand) was all about, what was your point? Quote:

" I AM ABSOLUTELY AGAINST POSTING"

??????????Then don't post anything????????????

Anyway, just wanted to make something clear, quote from Hermes:

The difference with 9/11 and WWII is that those in the WTC were not in any way acting out in a hostile manner against any enemy, real or percieved.

Well actually Hermes, from a poor man's point of view the people in those towers represented the largest concentration of economic warmongers in the world. Come on, it's no secret that Western economic policies cause untold havoc and misery in poorer parts of the world.
And combine that with the fact that another plane flew into the pentagon you have an obvious retaliation against military and economic centres of power. The hijackers were all Saudis, the oppressive, torturing Saudi government is kept in power through oil and arms deals with the US.

I know this is getting off topic but I just wanted to make that point.

[righthand]

Quote by: Liminus righthand " I AM ABSOLUTELY AGAINST POSTING" ??????????Then don't post anything???????????? I know this is getting off topic but I just wanted to make that point.

This is what the sentence was "I AM ABSOLUTELY AGAINST POSTING AND ALSO USING ' REPORT ABUSE'."

Need I explain further?

If you only read half a sentence then nothing will make sense to you. Now go back to my post and read__ it__ very__very__ very__ slowly ,_ _three__ times . If__ you__ still__do__not__comprehend ,__sorry , _big__word, _understand ,__ then __I'll__ explain__in__ four__letter__words. __ Is__that__ clear__ to__ you ,__ O K .

After you reply to me and then you 'report abuse' that is an example of "I AM ABSOLUTELY AGAINST POSTING AND ALSO USING ' REPORT ABUSE'." Still not clear? Moderators have more to be doing than patching up little boy's scratches after the little boy has insisted in playing with the big boys. It's usually the same little boys that get scratched.

These little boys are often involved in SCUTTERING, which is the practice of splattering of crap, often containing brain matter, to cover as wide an area as possible. They also think that Quantity=Quality. It's a little boy ego thing.

[Nono]

OK, monty, I've read your link. My remarks:

- The Stimson quote (which I have no reason to doubt) doesn't count since whether an invasion of Japan would have been indescribably bloody didn't really depend on the availability of neat strategic bombing targets. Those had been lacking on Okinawa too, which didn't prevent it from being hell, especially for the civilian population by the way.

- "Some other factors figured into the decision to use the atomic ... " One would be a fool to doubt that.

- "Racism was at work." What??!! Now they gotta be kidding us there! Racism? Among homo sapiens? C'mon! (Also, can one find more splendid examples of racists than the Japanese themselves? Not that that has any bearing on the rightness or wrongness of H&N of course.)

In short, your link is an opinion piece. The author thinks that the Japanese (i.e. the militarist warlords) now wanted peace and their only condition was to retain the emperor. The author offers no evidence for this opinion.

Do I believe that Truman was morally incapable of dropping the Bomb needlessly? No.
But I've yet to be convinced (for the reasons I stated earlier) that the alternative was a neat little Japan-initiated capitulation with one sole condition.

The problem here is a lack of solid evidence. It's sort of like the JFK assassination: there's enough conjecture about to keep us in doubt for centuries, and we may well never know for sure. For one thing there's the question of who, really, was running Japan. (Think about the Hisatsune Sakomizu quotation. Why did he say that? Was he drugged? A simple vendido?) We know that Hitler was in charge in Germany right to the last (God help the Germans). The situation in Japan, from what I've heard, was far less clear-cut.

The conventional view is that H&N shocked the emperor into relocating his balls. I think this rather plausible given everything else that had gone down in East Asia in the previous 15 years.

[Sean]

Righthand,

Do not insult users like that, and if you do not use the report abuse feature and respond in this way in the future then we will either have to issue another warning or a suspension depending on the situation. Recognize and improve. No matter what you think about a contribution to the topic you have no right to insult him and harm the thread by adding such things to it. First warning.

DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS WARNING WITHIN THIS POST (USE PRIVATE MESSAGE OR THE SITE OPERATIONS FORUM!!!!!)

[Hermes]

>> These little boys are often involved in SCUTTERING, which is the practice of splattering of crap,

There is plenty of crap being splattered around this hole in the ether. That is why I am here. If this forum only permits the crap to be thrown in one direction then get me tossed. Then you can all agree with each other and learn and share nothing.

Why only exchange opinion with those you agree with...?

Anyhow, I like nasty leftists; they are amusing and sometimes entertaining. I used to be one, so I understand.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: righthand Hiroshima - US State Terrorism to end WWII

Dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, had (at least) the following points :
- limit and/or stop Russia on its pro-communistic ambitions over Europe
- check the latest military weapons in real environment
- victorious party dictates conditions

It was a political decision, while military was eager to "test" its new weapon.

[monty of ll]

Nono, you said: "- The Stimson quote (which I have no reason to doubt) doesn't count since whether an invasion of Japan would have been indescribably bloody didn't really depend on the availability of neat strategic bombing targets."

You can think what you like about what Stimson said but to just say it doesn't count is a little foolish IMO. In any case I mentioned it as an aside and it's not of primary importance. Telling me that an invasion 'would have been indescribably bloody' indicates to me that you don't understand the intent of the comments between Stimson and Truman. Or if you do, you are attempting to turn it into something totally irrelevant.

You said: "Some other factors figured into the decision to use the atomic ... " One would be a fool to doubt that.

These random statements by you are confusing at best. First because one can't discern which are your words because of your careless use of quotes. And second because it has nothing to do with the discussion between you and I over my contention that the U.S. had the eventually agreed upon terms for surrender in hand before the bombs.

You said: "- "Racism was at work." What??!! Now they gotta be kidding us there! Racism? Among homo sapiens? C'mon! (Also, can one find more splendid examples of racists than the Japanese themselves? Not that that has any bearing on the rightness or wrongness of H&N of course.)"

When you begin a post by addressing me, don't put in quotes statements that I didn't make. I said nothing of the sort as above. In fact I said nothing about 'racism' at all. This reallly appears more than anything else, that you are attempting to fill cyberspace with random words completely off topic to our discussion.

You said: " In short, your link is an opinion piece. The author thinks that the Japanese (i.e. the militarist warlords) now wanted peace and their only condition was to retain the emperor. The author offers no evidence for this opinion."

No, it is much more than an opinion piece and it is one of many links that I can produce that raise the same issue. To hear you even suggest that it is an opinon piece leads me to believe that you are not even discussing the same contentions that I suggest form a part of the actual history of the surrender terms. Perhaps you can say that the claim is false but you sure as hell can't say it's opinion!

You said: " Do I believe that Truman was morally incapable of dropping the Bomb needlessly? No.
But I've yet to be convinced (for the reasons I stated earlier) that the alternative was a neat little Japan-initiated capitulation with one sole condition."

You have stated no 'reasons earlier' that rebut the claim it was indeed a matter of 'capitulation with one sole condition' as you choose to put it. All you have done is attempt to obfuscate the question and offer opinion with no corroboration of your views whatsoever.

You said: " The problem here is a lack of solid evidence." etc.....................

More of your deliberate attempts to change the subject away from the question at hand. Need I remind you what that is? I'm not in the least interested in entertaining the idea that 'who' was running Japan had anything at all to do with this issue of the Japanese only needing reassurance on maintaining their emperor to surrender and end the war. Do you in any way imagine that it could???

You said: "The conventional view is that H&N shocked the emperor into relocating his balls. I think this rather plausible given everything else that had gone down in East Asia in the previous 15 years."

You should save your crude attempts to sideline the real issue for someone that is interested in that topic. This is just another instance of avoidance of the real issue at question. And that my friend appears to be the substance of your argument so far. Frankly I see no reason to continue to pursue this question with you until you present something of more substance than your 'is not, is not' claims, which IMO hold no water. .

[Matt W]

Hermes - read post # 72 by Sean - consider that to apply to yourself as well. Stay on-topic and do NOT insult other posters.

Do not respond to me within this thread. PM myself or Sean if you have any questions.

[righthand]

Monty You said: " Do I believe that Truman was morally incapable of dropping the Bomb needlessly? No. But I've yet to be convinced (for the reasons I stated earlier) that the alternative was a neat little Japan-initiated capitulation with one sole condition."

Is the same question "Do I believe that Truman was morally capable of dropping the Bomb purposely? Is the answer still "No" because I'm not clear about "But I've yet to be convinced that the alternative was a neat little Japan-initiated capitulation with one sole condition."

Monty You said: "- "Racism was at work." What??!! Now they gotta be kidding us there! Racism? Among homo sapience? C'mon! (Also, can one find more splendid examples of racists than the Japanese themselves? Not that that has any bearing on the rightness or wrongness of H&N of course.)"

Pre-WWII English notion that the Japanese were half blind, couldn't see in the dark, no stamina, bad soldiers and on and on. Reality, for jungle warfare there were no better. A solder on a bike could cover huge distances. They didn't need spoon feeding like most armies. Take the US intelligence factor our of the equation and it may well have been a different war. Then BOMBS have have been the only savour. Yes, yes the Japanese were racist too. Are not all militarist regimes. If the shoe fits...

Monty More of your deliberate attempts to change the subject away from the question at hand. Need I remind you what that is?..You should save your crude attempts to sideline the real issue for someone that is interested in that topic. This is just another instance of avoidance of the real issue at question. And that my friend appears to be the substance of your argument so far.

I'm going to have to get lessons from you. NoNo at least was debating allowing you to state your case.

Others are only interested to racking up some posting quota. Is there some prize for the number of posting that no one has told me about? Seriously, what's going on? Pity the forum doesn't prevent 'quick reply' with a time gap to prevent SCUTTERING? What is 'trolling' exactly?

[monty of ll]

righthand- The first two quotes in your post #77 above are Nono's, not mine. The third quote is mine and I called Nono's attempt to sideline the issue crude because it was. If you review the paragraph to which I responded, you may understand the reason.

IMO Nono doesn't want to address the issue because in all of his post to me he gives only this to rebut my contention that the peace was signed with Japan on the terms that Japan was in agreement with before the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Nono said: " In short, your link is an opinion piece. The author thinks that the Japanese (i.e. the militarist warlords) now wanted peace and their only condition was to retain the emperor. The author offers no evidence for this opinion."

And I say once again to both you and Nono, if it could be called anything the last thing that is should be called is an opinion piece. Furthermore, the author does offer evidence to say that Japan had indeed agreed to the allied terms with the exception of it's insistance of maintaining it's emperor. That's what this is about and I would be delighted to discuss the issue with you fruther. Perhaps we can find more corroborating evidence of the facts.

[PatrickHenry]

I don't know if these documents will help the discussion of the Japanese surrender: http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1945/450729a.html

However, I consider the thesis proven that the US used its military to terrorize Japan into surrender as opposed to the final military defeat which could have been brought about by conventional means.

[righthand]

Quote by: monty of ll righthand- The first two quotes in your post #77 above are Nono's, not mine. The third quote is mine and I called Nono's attempt to sideline the issue crude because it was. If you review the paragraph to which I responded, you may understand the reason. IMO Nono doesn't want to address the issue because in all of his post to me he gives only this to rebut my contention that the peace was signed with Japan on the terms that Japan was in agreement with before the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nono said: "In short, your link is an opinion piece. The author thinks that the Japanese (i.e. the militarist warlords) now wanted peace and their only condition was to retain the emperor. The author offers no evidence for this opinion." And I say once again to both you and Nono, if it could be called anything the last thing that is should be called is an opinion piece. Furthermore, the author does offer evidence to say that Japan had indeed agreed to the allied terms with the exception of it's insistence of maintaining it's emperor. That's what this is about and I would be delighted to discuss the issue with you further. Perhaps we can find more corroborating evidence of the facts.

You're right of course and very clumsy of me .If you look back on #79. yesterday 08:18 am was it, you will see that it was very difficult to follow when it was you when NoNo. I should just have just attributed all the sensible points to you.

All this is a big learning curve for me. There were so many mantras that I previously accepted readily. I have learnt with every utterance of this administration to reverse it to exactly the opposite and examine it from the reverse perspective. This has not come naturally to me as no matter life's hard experiences, I'm still inclined to expect the best of people. I may come across sometimes as disillusioned. This is due to so many other mantras of the US being false. Can I simply say that the system you now in the US IS DESIGNED FOR CROOKS NOT HONEST MEN. So crooks will prosper and honest men fail. And your administration want to export that abroad!!!

I can understand the simple neo-cons better now. They were fed a diet of rubbish and lies that seemed to hold up. Like people of simple faith, there never was a thought process in their accepting of their political faith. As it tumbles, they lash out, not at those that sold them the LIES but to the messengers of truth. With you, I am preaching to the converted so no more needs be written. It's just that the odd word that you and I write might invade a thick skull and flicker on a tiny light.