My reaction to the outrage of 9/11
12 Sep 2010, 1:13 pm
Horus wrote:
I didn't even need to open this thread as ruevyn's thoughts about 911 were rather predictable.
After all...this isn't surprising coming from a man who thinks that MORE women and children should've suffered and died in the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings. If remember correctly.....ruevyn stated that 99% of the Japanese population at the time should've been killed off. All because the Japanese weren't punished enough to satisfy his sadistic, crude and irrational lust for revenge. I only hope he wouldn't be critical of any Vietnamese, Cambodian, Laotian, American Indian, Nicaraguan, etc... people if they wished the same sort of genocidal sadism on American Citizens.
After all...this isn't surprising coming from a man who thinks that MORE women and children should've suffered and died in the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings. If remember correctly.....ruevyn stated that 99% of the Japanese population at the time should've been killed off. All because the Japanese weren't punished enough to satisfy his sadistic, crude and irrational lust for revenge. I only hope he wouldn't be critical of any Vietnamese, Cambodian, Laotian, American Indian, Nicaraguan, etc... people if they wished the same sort of genocidal sadism on American Citizens.
Especially ironic given that Pearl Harbour was 100% preventable. (As a walkover for the Japanese that is, not as an attack in itself.) USA overreacting because they got caught out in their own stupid mistake? Just a bit.
_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]
12 Sep 2010, 1:54 pm
skafather84 wrote:
Jono wrote:
Those who died in Twin Towers have nothing to do with military activities abroad.
As ruveyn pointed out, through taxes: we're all guilty. Beyond that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Tower
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Tower
That's a lot of economic industry work going on.
Under the Geneva Convention, there is a clear distinction between civilians and combatants. The deliberate targeting of civilians is against the rules of war, or at least against the Geneva Convention.
12 Sep 2010, 2:04 pm
greenblue wrote:
Jono wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
2946. More people than died at Pearl Harbor. If America could cook up an A-bomb an use it because of an attack that killed less than 3000 people imagine what they will do the Next Time, when Jihadis will set of a nuclear bomb or a dirty radiological bomb.
Japan had intent to invade the country. This is a disorganized group of freedom fighters who turned their attentions away from the USSR and focused them on the USA. They are no more an invading force now to us than they were then to the USSR. That you fail to comprehend this basic fact shows how out of touch you are. Again, you're a sap.
Al-Qaeda had intent to commit the 9/11 atrocity and freedom fighters do not deliberately target civilians. If they do, they're terrorists and murderers.
They don't target civilians, deilberately, yes, but they should realise that civilians casualties are a great possibility, even recently in history, I remember some reports regarding bombings towards Irak military zones, that there were few civilians killed and wounded, as a result american bombings, yes I very small number, but still, so that is always a possibility to happen and they should know about it, it is just that one way or another they likely would justify the actions and probably they could put the blame to the ones they attack rather. Civil casualties from the Hiroshima a-bombing was something that they surely should have realised, even if civilians weren't the target, I could say that what could happen to civilians in that city at the time wasn't much, or any, of their concern.
It is inevitable that some civilians will be killed if bombs are dropped on a particular area. With regards to putting the blame on the ones they attack, there are cases where the enemy puts military bases and operations in amongst civilians in order to use them as human shields. That's as much against the Geneva Convention as the deliberate targeting of civilians. I'm not certain but I thought that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were in fact not open cities but had military bases and operations in them and that their bombing might of been within bounds of the Geneva Convention at the time.
12 Sep 2010, 2:58 pm
Jono wrote:
I'm not certain but I thought that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were in fact not open cities but had military bases and operations in them and that their bombing might of been within bounds of the Geneva Convention at the time.
The only open city in Japan during the Pacific War was Kyoto. Kyoto was very quickly removed from the possible target list for the A-bomb. It was judged that bombing Kyoto would only harden Japanese attitudes towards surrender. Good call.
ruveyn
12 Sep 2010, 4:10 pm
Jono wrote:
It is inevitable that some civilians will be killed if bombs are dropped on a particular area. With regards to putting the blame on the ones they attack, there are cases where the enemy puts military bases and operations in amongst civilians in order to use them as human shields. That's as much against the Geneva Convention as the deliberate targeting of civilians. I'm not certain but I thought that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were in fact not open cities but had military bases and operations in them and that their bombing might of been within bounds of the Geneva Convention at the time.
There were bombings towards cities on japan prior to the atomic bombings by the US, in which there were civilian casualties, even if civilian population was not the primary target, I believe it would not have mattered in the end. One thing, as ruveyn stated, in the US the japanese were considered sub-humans or beasts, so I don't know if that may have something to do with it, so much as not caring about "subhumans" being killed, or if it was somehow propaganda or something more related to US civilian population's view on them.
wikipedia wrote:
The United States strategic bombing of Japan took place between 1942 and 1945. In the last seven months of the campaign, a change to firebombing tactics resulted in great destruction of 67 Japanese cities, as many as 500,000 Japanese deaths and some 5 million more made homeless.
The issue is that the air raids, the atomic bombings and other things that the allies did in the war (ie raping of japanese women by the allies during the occupation of japan, as well as the raping of german women by the soviets which were never tried), very much look to be contrary to the Geneva and Hague Conventions, which was supposed to impose limits on what they were able to do to solve conflicts.
_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?
12 Sep 2010, 8:17 pm
greenblue wrote:
There were bombings towards cities on japan prior to the atomic bombings by the US, in which there were civilian casualties, even if civilian population was not the primary target, I believe it would not have mattered in the end. One thing, as ruveyn stated, in the US the japanese were considered sub-humans or beasts, so I don't know if that may have something to do with it, so much as not caring about "subhumans" being killed, or if it was somehow propaganda or something more related to US civilian population's view on them.
The war between the U.S. and the Japanese empire was a war between two of the most racist nations in the world. Each side demonized the other.
ruveyn
13 Sep 2010, 3:12 pm
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
greenblue wrote:
Nuke the planet out of orbit, that is actually the only way to be 100% sure.
Actually, if we were to utilize osmium mass drivers, a type of artificial meteorite, and target only unpopulated areas within visual/driving distance of population centers in certain countries that harbor people like Osama, perhaps it would be a way of "show of force" without casualties involved. After prolonged orbital bombardment, I think that such people might get the point that it's just not cool to mess with us or our friends. As long as the targeting and guidance systems of the kinetic energy mass drivers are accurate, which would not be too difficult provided that since the 80's we could have two missiles hit precisely the same target location sequentially, there would need not be fatalities involved.
If you're set on using comic book science, Superman and Batman probably could do a neater job.
Orbital bombardment is far from comic book science. Give a sufficient mass of high density material enough potential energy and let it transfer to kinetic: you don't even need any type of explosives upon impact, and radiation is not an issue either.
Since the USA is well overstocked with ICBMs why bother to herd interplanetary garbage for effect. You're right up there with ruveyn in believing in genocide to solve your problems. Why not use the tools readily available?
I don't want to kill them or affect the planet with radiation. Bombardment of unpopulated desert areas between cities with mass drivers would present minimal loss of life, or potentially even none if done properly with guidance systems and surveillance to make certain there is no life in the area of effect prior to bombardment. There is a huge difference between bombarding uninhabited soil and genocide. Genocide is mass murder of people indiscriminately. Bombardment of uninhabited soil alone is just blasting dirt to get a point across to people who are still going to be alive rather than well done.
I commend you on your Christian mercy but considering how innocents have been massively and randomly murdered by the so-called smart (but uniformly misdirected) weapons now in use throughout the Middle East I sincerely doubt genocide would be excluded from your plans. The reactions to demonstrated force from the Battle of Britain down to the present wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been pretty uniformly further violent reaction and blowback. Jesus advised to turn the other cheek and, although it got him crucified, it does have certain positive effects. After all, if he hadn't been crucified, where would Christianity be today? But, as a Christian, I assume you should be aware of Jesus' advice.
Actually, the reason Jesus was crucified is because he did not deny the accusation of being the King of Israel in front of either the Sanhedrin, Herod, or Pilate. The reason Jesus let Himself die was for the redemption of all of humankind, as per whoever would accept His atonement for their sins, He died as the ultimate sacrifice.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
|
OCD reaction or just a normal human reaction?
in Bipolar, Tourettes, Schizophrenia, and other Psychological Conditions |
24 Jul 2013, 1:11 pm |
| More outrage from Family Guy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
16 Feb 2008, 7:33 pm |
| Outrage: Kid chained up with dog in China |
15 Aug 2011, 2:16 pm |
| fake outrage over VA situation |
04 Jun 2014, 7:05 am |
