The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine

Post Reply New Topic

You're still comparing the attack on Pearl Harbor to the nuking of two entire cities.

So you got nothing of what i was saying above.

*sigh* Then this is so useless.

I "got" every word. Those who sow the wind, will, in due course, reap the whirlwind.

ruveyn

So based on your logic, we can consider the 9/11 attacks were justified as a retalation for US' excessive military support for Israel which caused the death of many muslim civilians.

Hmmm, I am sure many fundie muslims have this view, and you sir are no really different of them.

Do you have a long beard btw?

Pearl Harbor is not on US mainland, right?, so I don't see the justification, other than the US declaration of war, unless your justification is personal, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you have you been affected by it more personally than other people living at the time, no (from your past posts if I remember correctly)? you may be personally justifying the bombings as a retaliation from the Pearl Harbor attack alone, but that doesn't make much sense, unless the US was so brutal, making them not being that much different from the Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan back then, if that was the case, that wouldn't surprise me though.

However, I doubt that, the US, currently (and oficially), can take any pride from it, aside from the ocasional idiot.


No invation but there were a lot of air raids against japanese cities before the atomic bombings though, hundreds of thousands of civilians killed as a result.

Last edited by blunnet on 22 Aug 2011, 7:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The usual justification given for the atomic bombings was ending the war. That makes more sense than revenge, but if they wanted to use nukes to scare the Japanese into ending the war, they didn't need to nuke two cities.

My personal opinionsis that the A-bombs were dropped on two cities out of a morbid curiosity about what these weapons would actually do compared to firebombing, and also to send a message out to the Soviets that the USA was willing and capable of doing that sort of thing - as well as to end the war. The USA had multiple motives.

That is what caused the 9/11 attacks, among many other things.

The attacks weren't the right thing to do but that's what happens.

Two things scared the Emperor into surrendering:;

1. Two cities nuked.
2. The Russians entered the war on Aug 8. I suspect that had as much to do with the surrender as did the A-bombing of two cities.

ruveyn

The Japanese were insane for surrendering. Any country that would use nukes against you is like Hitler and wants you dead anyways so you might as well fight on till the last man.

I nuke entire planets. Forget justification, it's just fun to watch cities burn.

Wow, that statement ignores history completely. So, according to you the USA bombed Japan into oblivion and there's not a single survivor left?

According to me the Japanese played Russian Roulette with their lives when they surrendered to the United States.

And the results were...?

Extremely good for Japan.

Once the Japanese learned to tread on the paths of peace they became very rich.

ruveyn

So, they should have carried on, with more of their cities being nuked and being invaded by two major powers, the Soviets and the Americans, which probably would have ended up with Japan being split in half with parts of it under brutal Soviet rule like North Korea. Hundreds of thousands more would have died on all sides. To add to that, the Japanese knew that the Americans would have been fairer to them than the Soviets.

The point was that the Japanese would be fighting both the Soviets at the northern end - the Soviets would have tried to invade the northern island of Hokkaido - and the Americans to the south looking at mainland Japan.

(I can see why you would have wanted it if you're an extreme, bloodthirsty communist (though unreprepared to do the fighting). If that had happened, the only thing to happen would have been more and more people dying on all sides and possibly Japan itself being invaded.

The Japanese surrendered, and as ruveyn says, became an extremely successful, prosperous and free nation for doing so. The Americans 'forgave' them surprisingly quickly for what they did. It was the best solution all round really.

The other point is this: would you prefer Japan to be like North Korea in its present state or like modern-day Japan? In fact, ask almost every single post-1945 Japanese.

Androbot is probably not aware that Harry Truman authorized the use of poison gas against Japan. If the U.S. had invaded -millions- and -millions- of Japanese civilians would have died in gas attacks. The soldiers would have had gas masks and protective suits. It would have been an utter disaster for Japan that could not have been mended for a generation.

So, if the U.S. had to invade and we did not have nuclear weapons we would have gassed the s.o.b.s and we would have killed many more.

The best outcome would have been for Germany to hold out another six months so we could have nuked Dresden. That would have sent a powerful message to both the Japanese and the Soviets. The idea of whupping Nazi Germany with the product of Jewish Physics is deliciously ironic. Making Nukes became a Jewish cottage industry in the U.S. in the early days of nuclear weapon development.

ruveyn

The Palestinians were NEVER, EVER ethnically cleansed. There are more now than there were in 1948 when Israel was declared a state. They breed quickly and numerously. In the medium run Israel is doomed because her natural birthrate is too low in comparison and immigration is not making up the difference. The Palestinians are out breeding the Israelis and will, in due course, over run them.

ruveyn