Salman Rushdie knighted, muslims threaten violence

Post Reply New Topic

Eisenhower fought in the European theater. He knew little, if anything, about the war in the Pacific, since he had other things on his mind. My grandfather fought in the Pacific front. Before the A-bomb was dropped, Japan was preparing for a long war on their homeland. Women and children were preparing to use guerrilla tactics against us. Japan did not surrender after Hiroshima was destroyed. Japanese military leaders later said that the only reason they surrendered after Nagasaki was because they thought we had more nukes that we were going to drop.

If you claim that you are better informed than General Eisenhower was who was alive at the time and in charge and had all the means to inform himself of what was going on and was fully confident to make that statement you will permit me to have rather strong doubts that you know what you are talking about.

I wouldn't listen to Eisenhower when he was talking about the war against the Japanese any more than I would Bull Halsey if he were talking about the war against the Germans.

Eisenhower was fighting against Nazis, not Kamikazes. The Okinowa experience was enough to disabuse any rational soul that the Japs would be "reasonable". The Japs were expecting to go one on one against American troops using sharpened bamboo pikes. If we had not used nukes, it would have been an invasion in which a million or more Allied troops would be killed or injured and 10 to 20 million Japanese killed. Ironically the A-bombs saved Japanese lives. And for you pinko stinkos who are appalled by nuclear weapons, more people were killed in the fire raid on Tokyo (in 1945) than by two A-bombs. About 125,000 Japs toasted to charcoal briquettes. One and a half million people were de-housed and 16 square miles of Tokyo utterly consumed by fire. (the Japs like to live in wood and paper houses. How convenient).

Truman, by the way, authorized the use of poison gas against the Japs. If the A-bomb had not worked we would have used nerve gas and other chemical agents against those bastards. It would have been an ugly end to an ugly war.

ruveyn

I agree with your point that the only warfare Palestinians have a chance at is asymmetric warfare, and by that I mean I'm simply noting the reality*, the facts on the ground, which is that Israel is supported by military aid and has disproportionately stronger firepower at its disposal. It's not possible to have a 'fair fight' when one side is armed with IEDs and the other has helicopter gunships, warplanes that deliver widespread payloads of bombs over civilian populations, and tanks and infantry and supplies of white phosphorous and flechette shells and focussed lethality munitions/dime weapons.

*By noting the reality of the 'asymmetric' warfare, I'm not condoning the use of such methods by either side, I'm personally strongly in favour of a peaceful settlement and a two-state solution along the 1967 borders. And for the record, casualties on either side sadden me.

And so I disagree with your assertion that the only alternative is extermination by the Muslims. I think if you engaged in discourse with Muslims (instead of assuming you know what they *all* believe and what their intentions are), then you'd probably be surprised to learn that it's a very small minority who hold quite extremist views. Just as the vocal Zionist extremist minority among the Jewish community are often heard the loudest, most Muslims would know that their views aren't representative of the majority, they know that more moderate Jewish opinions are in the majority.

It also saddens me that you see things in such black and white terms. There are a heck of a lot of shades of grey in between, y'know. It really isn't as simple as all Muslims want to exterminate Jews and vice versa. For the most part, I think people just want to go to work, buy their groceries, eat their meals, for their children to go to school in safety, and that applies for people in both communities.

Since you were about nine years old at the time and Eisenhower was a trained military man thoroughly informed about all fronts at the time your uninformed bloodthirsty BS hardly impresses me. Nor am I impressed by your aesthetic appreciation of the delightful disintegration of over two hundred thousand civilians by the two atomic bombs.

Last edited by Sand on 10 Mar 2009, 1:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Funnily enough, I'm living in a country on the Arabian peninsula that voluntarily hosts two US military bases, i.e. it's an ally, it isn't occupied by US forces.

And who, precisely, should have been nuked right off? The Iraqis and Afghans? You do know, don't you, that the justification for the invasions, the revenge for 9/11 is spurious?

American Airlines Flight 11
Hijackers: Mohamed Atta al Sayed (Egyptian), Waleed al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian), Wail al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian), Abdulaziz al-Omari (Saudi Arabian), Satam al-Suqami (Saudi Arabian).

United Airlines Flight 175
Hijackers: Marwan al-Shehhi (from the United Arab Emirates), Fayez Banihammad (from the United Arab Emirates), Mohand al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian), Hamza al-Ghamdi (Saudi Arabian), Ahmed al-Ghamdi (Saudi Arabian).

American Airlines Flight 77
Hijackers: Hani Hanjour (Saudi Arabian), Khalid al-Mihdhar (Saudi Arabian), Majed Moqed (Saudi Arabian), Nawaf al-Hazmi (Saudi Arabian), Salem al-Hazmi (Saudi Arabian).

United Airlines Flight 93
Hijackers: Ziad Jarrah (Lebanese), Ahmed al-Haznawi (Saudi Arabian), Ahmed al-Nami (Saudi Arabian), Saeed al-Ghamdi (Saudi Arabian).

[source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_hijackers ]

And would you mind telling me what your reaction would be if I, as a Muslim, said that we should have nuked the Israelis right off, while lacking in conventional weapons, someone should have got a dirty bomb and used it?*

I'm sure you would find such hate speech to be objectionable and anti-semitic.

* For the record, I don't actually believe that, and wouldn't wish that on anyone, I was just saying it hypothetically to try to make ruyveyn realise how objectionable his opinions are. I do wonder about the mental gymnastics that can be working in your brain, when hate speech directed towards Jewish people is anti-semitism and therefore totally abhorrent, while at the same time you're spouting some quite vile opinions about another group of people based on their faith, i.e. Muslims.

I'm a Muslim, and I'm left wondering what have I ever done to you, that you would hate me so much, when we've never met, I've never said or done anything against you, personally, or against Jewish people and/or Israelis collective? I'm baffled as to why you can say such vicious and venomous things when there are real people on the end of those sentiments, the very vast majority of whom are peaceful, law abiding citizens.

What you're saying is actually quite dehumanising. You seek to dehumanise and make their humans 'the other', not like us.

Y'know 'their humans' also have mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, classmates or colleagues, friends, who love and cherish them, and who would mourn for them.

We're all individual human beings with a right to life, of equal value, regardless as to whether they have a faith or none.

The Enemy is Them. We are Us. Got it? If someone starts a war against us we own their a**. If thine enemy smite thee on thy cheek decapitate him and defecate down his neck.

The Enemy who starts a war against is IS a demon.

ruveyn

No. I don't get it. What about American Muslims? Are they 'them' or 'us'?

I'm a British Muslim. The UK has traditionally been an ally of the US and vice versa. Am I one of 'them' or one of 'us' to you?

Practically the same attitude the Israelites and Muslims have against eachother and what do have? Nothing but a HUGE body count of those who had nothing to do with the making of the wars in the first place.

Might want to pick better words or words less harsh to those who may fit the profile but not the character.

Collateral damage is one of the misfortunes of modern war. C'est dommage. Sh*t happens. When the come to make war on you, you first concern is your own side, not the "innocent" civilians of the other side.

In the 2nd word war over a million civilians were killed in air attacks (mostly bombing). Now who is to blame? The side that started it or the side that responded to being attacked? If the Allies ever showed compassion for civilians you can bet the Nazis and the Japs would have lined their roofs with baby carriages and cribs. Sir Arthur (Bomber) Harris said: The Germans have sown the wind and in due course they will reap the whirlwind.

Right on Bomber Harris!

The Japs bombed Pear Harbor without warning so will burned them down and burned them out. One bad turn deserves at least ten in return. For an eye, take the entire head and half the torso.

ruveyn


ruveyn

Any Muslims who are able to live peacefully I would include in "us." You are one of "them" only if you advocate assassinating Rushdie, or otherwise acting violently against the West.

Any sincere advocate of peaceful co-existence is "Us."

All others are "Them."

Ah, so you can not counter the factual points I make, so you resort to a combination of ad hominem and argument from authority.

Look, Eisenhower was a legitimate authority in discussions about the European war, but he had absolutely nothing to do with the war against Japan. He was not "in charge" at all against Japan. If you want to cite a general from that era, cite Macarthur. Ike had no more intimate expertise on the Pacific front than anyone else (myself included) and in fact he probably had less than I do because I have 60 years of retrospect and historical perspective to form my view.

There is no ad hominem involved but you are correct about the argument from authority.You are a nineteen year old with no obvious military experience and a great distance in time from the incidences under question. I agree that Eisenhower spent his time in the European theater but he was a man of great military experience and to casually brush him off as being totally unaware of anything going on in the Pacific theater by your authority seems to me to be extremely extraordinary. He was also a man of great integrity and held the office of president of the United States where he could obviously obtain information which you may or may not have but you are setting yourself up against somebody of deep background and understanding. Frankly I do not think Eisenhower would make such a vital statement without thoroughly informing himself of the circumstances. You are asking me to accept your authority over Eisenhower's. Since I must choose an authority under those conditions, you don't have the ghost of a chance.