D-Day

Post Reply New Topic

this reminds me of a quote:

"There?s a worm in the street, you walk by it. Does the worm know that you think you?re smart? The worm has no concept of your smarts. Because you?re that much smarter than the worm. So the worm has no idea that something smart is walking by it. Which makes me wonder whether we have any concept?if a super species walked by us. Maybe they?re uninterested in us because we?re too stupid for them to even imagine having a conversation. You don?t walk by worms and go ?Gee I wonder what the worm is thinking.? This is just not a thought that you have! So one of the best pieces of evidence for why we haven?t been visited by aliens is that they have actually observed us, and concluded there is no intelligent sign of life on earth."

you know whats worse
the firebombing killed more people in tokyo than both atom bombs

the firebombing does not just make a bunch of little fires
they all combine into one massive pillar of flame with winds in excess of 100mph sucking everything into the fire its an unimaginable horror that happened.

people are so quick to demonize the nazis yet ignore the fact that the allies were doing the same dam things

Such things were done because the Japanese people refused to rise up against their military and tell them to surrender. The Japanese idea of never surrendering cost them dearly. At any time they could have stopped the fire bombing, it's not like they hung out the white flag and the USA kept killing them. I urge you to watch the footage on Youtube of the USA Marines taking Okinawa. It was beyond brutal. Ever wonder why you don't see any USA Marine red cross?? The Japanese would shoot them first in defiance of the Geneva Convention. The Japanese deserved their demonization.

250,000 Japanese civilians deserved to die because they didn't rebel against their military??! !!

And when did the Jews or the English "hang out the white flag"? Was the Blitz justified because the English would not surrender to the Germans? Was the Holocaust justified because the Jews and others did not effectively rise up against the Germans?

We nuked Japan because in 1945 that was the best available option to put that matter to rest. They didnt have the luxury of time traveling to 2014 to look at it historically, then go back to 1945 and decide. Really gotta love how some people shitpick and criticized historically significant actions based on modern day knowledge and standards.

japan tried to surrender multiple times before the nukes dropped but the united states was not having it they wanted a complete unconditional surrender

I only know of an offer of surrender the Japanese government had asked the USSR to transmit to the USA, without knowing of the secret deals between Stalin and Roosevelt to get the Soviet union involved with the war against the Empire. So you can imagine how well that message was passed on.

The least you could do is read Wiki. Quote :
"On July 26, Allied leaders issued the Potsdam Declaration outlining terms of surrender for Japan. It was presented as an ultimatum and stated that without a surrender, the Allies would attack Japan, resulting in "the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland". The atomic bomb was not mentioned in the communiqué. On July 28, Japanese papers reported that the declaration had been rejected by the Japanese government. That afternoon, Prime Minister Suzuki Kantarō declared at a press conference that the Potsdam Declaration was no more than a rehash (yakinaoshi) of the Cairo Declaration and that the government intended to ignore it (mokusatsu, "kill by silence"). The statement was taken by both Japanese and foreign papers as a clear rejection of the declaration. Emperor Hirohito, who was waiting for a Soviet reply to non-committal Japanese peace feelers, made no move to change the government position."

Read history, not revisionist propaganda.

Interesting conversation. Allow me to add a few (probably very unpopular) thoughts.

Something doesn't sit right with me whenever these anniversaries of major conflicts roll around, for some reason. Perhaps it's the over glorification of war that gives me a queasy feeling in my gut. I understand and respect the sacrifices that were made, but we are prone embracing such a black and white perspective when we honor the fallen.

Let's face it, folks: every country that participated in that horrific conflict we call WW2 was guilty of war crimes ? period, end of story. It doesn't matter who started it or who were the worst baddies, it was a monumental display of what humans slaughtering each other in large numbers. It's what we do best, after all, isn't it? There are no ?good guys? and ?bad guys? in most wars; just ?bad guys?, ?really bad guys,? and really, really bad guys.?

I might be more sympathetic to this ?over glorification? of carnage if the U.S. has lived up to its new role as a world super power following WW2, but we quite honestly didn't. We've represented ourselves as the beacon of freedom, justice, and democracy all over the globe, but consistently betray those values when it suits our purposes. Our entire history is as ugly as gangrenous wound, from the systematic genocide of the indigenous people of North America to the enslavement of Africans.

Our constitution is a great document, but we have yet to live up to its ideology.

But everything I just said could apply to most nations. No matter how noble the intentions of a nation may be, we will never realize our potential to be just and fair until there is a radical awakening of the human consciousness. We're still a petty, violent race capable of great barbarity. I'd like to see that fact addressed whenever we commemorate great battles.

I'm really not a very good American, I'll admit. But that's because I no longer have a patriotic bone in my body. I see patriotism as just one more way for those in power to subjugate the masses and get them to do their bidding. Wave a flag, play some inspiring songs, and off we go to another war for another justifiable conflict in the name of freedom all things good and righteous. Oh, yeah, and let's toss God in the mix, as well. After all, he's smiling down on us! God Bless the Industrial Military Complex!

Digest this quote from a very wise man and you'll understand why I've come to feel the way I do:

?When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European, or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence. So a man who is seeking to understand violence does not belong to any country, to any religion, to any political party or partial system; he is concerned with the total understanding of mankind.?
― Jiddu Krishnamurti

This will sound cheesy, but I would describe myself as a man who is seeking to understand violence. And, as an Aspie, my biggest problem in life has been that I feel no allegiance to any 'tribe'. Many animal species live in social groups, and many survive as individuals except during the ritual necessities of sexual reproduction. Many animal species engage in violence, especially between males - and it is mainly about reproduction and evolution.

Jiddu Krishnamurti's quote (and I have to say that I have no idea who he or she is) demonstrates to me that he or she is reluctant to accept the possibility that, in the greater scheme of things, 'mankind' is not a superior species. Democracy is a very good idea indeed, but it will always be trumped by strength.

It doesn't sound cheesy, at all. In fact, you pretty much described the way I've felt my entire life. Yes, animals engage in violent behavior. But unlike animals, I believe we have the capacity to change that behavior. At least, it appear to be the case in individual cases. Whether the entire species is capable of radical change, I don't know. I'm probably as skeptical as you, to be brutally honest.



Well, I think he certainly believed we had potential to be a better species.

A little bit of background on Krishnamurti:

He was was raised by the Theological Society to be a sort of New World teacher -- or messiah, if you will -- because as a young boy, because theosophist Charles Leadbeater believed he had special gifts. As a young man, he rejected that position because his thinking had evolved to the point that he no longer believed in the position for which he being groomed. In the years that followed his rejection of the society, he went through a very startling transformation that was both psychologically and physically painful. He then spent the rest of his life speaking to audiences in an attempt to shed the conditioning that keeps human in such a violent state. He never wanted to be a guru, or anything like that; merely a vehicle to open people's minds.

Of course, toward the end of his life he might have thought it had all been in vain. He confided in some of his closest friends that he wasn't sure whether anybody had even "the foggiest notion" what he was trying to impart.

I highly recommend reading some of his books because he was truly a remarkable man, in my opinion. Perhaps a good start would be his biography written by Pupul Jayakar.

So many books to read, and so little time! Only today, I picked up from the library 'The Righteous Mind' by Jonathan Haidt because somebody on this forum recommended it.

I have just finished reading 'A Rough Ride to the Future' by James Lovelock (who originated the idea of Gaia). It's a slim volume, written by a 93-year-old with a very large ego and a still-clear mind. There is quite a lot of scientific detail, but it is not necessary to be a scientist in order to follow the arguments. The book tells a lot about the man himself, and is loaded with all sorts of very surprising ideas about evolution, the future prospects of our planet and the potential/responsibilities of our species. The author is a very long way from being a conventional green warrior, and his prognosis is surprisingly positive, with some very down-to-earth ideas about the practicalities of dealing with climate change. The book is thought-provoking on several levels, and at times entertaining - the occasional 'joke' comes from nowhere and takes the reader by surprise. The writer has a very youthful understanding of the potential of the internet, whilst also being something of an expert in the scientific uses of computers.

As an ADHD sufferer, it took me a long time to get through this book but I am glad that I didn't give up. My daughter is an urban planner, and is not averse to the philosophical ramblings of people like me and James Lovelock. I am thinking of buying the book for her birthday present - how Aspie is that?

I have had issue with reading and suspect I might have a touch of ADD. If a book doesn't hold my attention -- say the writing is mediocre or just plain bad -- I sometimes won't get through it. 'A Rough Ride to the Future' sound intriguing, I may just check that one out. Happy reading!