Nagasaki had it coming

[9sublime]

Every time an American civillian is killed in the name of any kind of war, be it between country and country or a Jihad or whatever, the US media condemns it.

But as soon as America are the ones killing the civillians, its fine is it? When that many innocent civillians die, its on par with terrorism. Plain and simple.

 

[Castle]

Every time an American civillian is killed in the name of any kind of war, be it between country and country or a Jihad or whatever, the US media condemns it.

But as soon as America are the ones killing the civillians, its fine is it? When that many innocent civillians die, its on par with terrorism. Plain and simple.

I'm not sure I see it that way. I've seen much of the American media place blame on our aggressive policy against terrorism as the cause for our casualties both civilian and military. While I absolutely hate to see the numbers stack up, I've not seen an alternative strategy to combat terrorism that makes sense to me. I would like to stress the word "combat" as our complacency of the past has proven to be ineffective to say the least.

The difference for me is intent. How do you avoid civilian casualties in a conflict like this? If the intent is to inflict civilian casualties then yes, it smacks of terrorism. If getting to the terrorists requires the risk of collateral damage then what? Raise the white flag? I don't think so.

It is not fine with me ANY time an American, Brit, Aussie, etc is killed as a result of terrorism. I will not however, subscribe to the notion that doing nothing about it will be better for all of us in the long run. Do you not believe that there must be swift consequences when Americans and Brits alike are targets?

-Castle

 

[9sublime]

The difference for me is intent. How do you avoid civilian casualties in a conflict like this? If the intent is to inflict civilian casualties then yes, it smacks of terrorism. If getting to the terrorists requires the risk of collateral damage then what?

-Castle

A nuclear bomb is hardly something that carries a risk of collateral damage is it? The intent was to obliterate an entire city, predominantly civillians. That smacks of terrorism, and you seem to know it.

 

[Castle]

A nuclear bomb is hardly something that carries a risk of collateral damage is it? The intent was to obliterate an entire city, predominantly civillians. That smacks of terrorism, and you seem to know it.

If we were not at war with a country whos intent was our complete destruction, I may consider your slant. If Japan had not initiated the war in the Pacific, I might reconsider mine. The intent was NOT to obliterate a city but to force Japan to consider surrender sooner rather than later. I suspect you know this. If harsh language would have delivered the same results, I expect we would have passed on the bomb. You dont agree?

-Caste

 

[9sublime]

At least Japan had the decency to attack Pearl Harbour, a military target.

Its no slant to say that America attacked two civillian areas, with no intent on trying to avoid collateral damage and avoid killing innocent civillians in order to terrorize Japan into giving up on the war.

Its no slant, its the truth.

 

[Castle]

At least Japan had the decency to attack Pearl Harbour, a military target.

Its no slant to say that America attacked two civillian areas, with no intent on trying to avoid collateral damage and avoid killing innocent civillians in order to terrorize Japan into giving up on the war.

Its no slant, its the truth.

You gotta be kidding me! Did you say decency! I'll give you this one back if you'd like to try it again. What was decent about the way Japan handled their Pacific campaign.

Unless you are completely unaware of Japans conduct during the war, I am surprised that you would attempt to use that word at all.

In order to get out of this revolving door, I'll finish my point with this. IT WAS ALL OUT WAR. OUR JOB WAS TO WIN IT! WE DID! THEY DIDN'T! Why is this complicated? The US will always be criticized for what it does or does not do. Then it will be criticized for how it did or did not do it.

-Castle

 

[9sublime]

IT WAS ALL OUT WAR. OUR JOB WAS TO WIN IT! WE DID! THEY DIDN'T!

-Castle

I believe the terrorists have the same mentality. Win at all costs, targeting millions of civillians indiscrimantly.

Japan may have been very cruel fighters to the American army, especially the POW's, but as a general rule at least they went for the people who could fight back.

I stand by my comment that what America did to Nagasaki and Hiroshima was far more of a cowardly terrorist attack than what Japan did on Pearl Harbour.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

I believe the terrorists have the same mentality. Win at all costs, targeting millions of civillians indiscrimantly.

The terrorists don't really care if they win, so long as they achieve their martyrdom.

 

[9sublime]

I'm pretty sure thats an opinion and that they do have other goals such as the West and Capitalism falling and everyone converting to Islam.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

I'm pretty sure thats an opinion and that they do have other goals such as the West and Capitalism falling and everyone converting to Islam.

You're right, that is their goal but I honestly don't believe that is their driving motivation.

 

[SW85]

When you go into a war, you expect the enemy (if you regard it to have any sense of decency, which America claims itself to have) to attack your soldiers and strategic military points. Not nuking primarily civillian cities with long lasting radioactive materials that will have dire and extended consquences.

Please. Invading armies have been sacking cities and putting innocent people to the sword since the time immemorial. No major power has ever done otherwise to my knowledge (including America at the time). What one national leader says in public does not somehow void more than a century of American history.

And keep in mind nukes were regarded merely as very large explosives at the time -- it was not seen as much worse to nuke a city than to pummel it with conventional explosives, which was what we had been doing to them constantly up to that point (and what their allies had been doing to ours).

The history of war is written by the winners - but that doesn't mean their actions were moral or ethical.

So?

Ah, the old "might makes right" argument. I guess by that logic it would be perfectly acceptable to hack someone's computer or burn their house down in order to win a debate over the internet that has dragged on for too long. It would get them to stop, wouldn't it?

What are you, eight years old? This was WW2, not an internet debate.

And in this case, might ended the war with fewer casualties than the alternative, so yes, it did make right.

 

[Castle]

I believe the terrorists have the same mentality. Win at all costs, targeting millions of civillians indiscrimantly.

Ah, so you will stop short of halting the advance of Islamic terrorism if it requires an "at all cost" mentality. If I'm a terrorist leader, thats exactly what I want the rest of the infidels to think.

Japan may have been very cruel fighters to the American army, especially the POW's, but as a general rule at least they went for the people who could fight back.

Not true at all. The Pacific war was not confined to America and Japan. Read up on what the Japanese military did to the civilian population of other Asian countries.

I stand by my comment that what America did to Nagasaki and Hiroshima was far more of a cowardly terrorist attack than what Japan did on Pearl Harbour.

.......and I stand by my comment that the US did what was necessary to put an end to the war and by doing so, reduced overall casualties significantly as opposed to a longer and more costly all out invasion of Japan.

-Castle

 

[9sublime]

Definition of a terrorist attack: the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear

What happened in Nagasaki: the calculated use of violence against civilians in order to attain goals that are political in nature; this is done through wiping out an entire city.

 

[Castle]

Definition of a terrorist attack: the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear

What happened in Nagasaki: the calculated use of violence against civilians in order to attain goals that are political in nature; this is done through wiping out an entire city.

So, in your mind, just about every war ever waged was an act of terrorism? Knowing full well that civilians would be killed, these wars were faught anyhow.

Terrorism is the wilful destruction of people (civilians) and/or property by people or organizations not acting on behalf of an established government. Just because you do not agree with the actions of an established government does not mean you can interchange the terms war and terrorism to suit your needs. This also applies if you do agree with a groups actions against a government.

Yes, Sometimes the difference between war and terrorism is nothing more than a technicallity but there are differences.

-Castle

 

[9sublime]

So, in your mind, just about every war ever waged was an act of terrorism? Knowing full well that civilians would be killed, these wars were faught anyhow.

No. Dropping a bomb on two civillian cities in full knowledge that every single person in it would die immediatly or get cancer from radiation posioning is an act of terrorism.

Terrorism is the wilful destruction of people (civilians) and/or property by people or organizations not acting on behalf of an established government.

Then why did you go after Saddam Hussein in a war on terror? As the ruler of a government, according to your defenition, anything he or his government did cannot be terrorism.

Just because you do not agree with the actions of an established government does not mean you can interchange the terms war and terrorism to suit your needs.-Castle

The bomb was a wilful destruction of civillians and their property. I think you are the one interchanging terms.


-Castle[/QUOTE]