Islam: Is it inherently Evil?

[luutzu]

Ok so you think the Japanese surrender had nothing to do with a second Japanese city being destroyed by a nuclear weapon with the threat the third one would drop on Tokyo, but instead then surrendered because the Russians invaded a city thousands of kilometres away on e mainland?

I think you are streaching there.

I don't think you can say that Japan would have eventually surrendered in a bloodless victory, you are streaching there also.

I can't see the USA needing any further reason for them to decide to drop the nuke than not wanting to lose anymore troops than they already had in 3 years of fighting in Europe and the pacific.

When given the option to use this "special bomb" of course the high command would use it, I mean they had been attacking full force for so long already, adding some extra gasoline to the fire wouldn't have seemed to bad

Remember that 200 to 500K death prevented you quoted?

How is that number anywhere near possible when the US lost 416,800 during the entirety of WW2?

Are they saying that if it weren't for the two nukes, the US would have doubled their losses to about 1Million military personnel?

Not possible. Not when Japan was being ringed in on all four seas; has no Navy or airforce.

Look at above map showing Japanese cities being firebombed and its est. percent damaged.

Minimum around 25%, all the way to to 85%.

I didn't even know Japan had that many cities... but now, imagine if you're one of the warlords in Tokyo... you've seen report of firebombs and statistics of destruction... would you just surrender the moment a second nuke dropped? Because you don't want any more damage to Japan's cities?

The entire country is pretty much grazed to the ground.


----

It's not so much that Stalin took Manchuria, and Mongolia and other Japanese colonies that shook the Japs. But it's having two powers vying for your mainland now that push them to surrender to one.

Keep the country unified and intact geographically. Have it divided and it'll be lost forever.

It's the same reason why Mao didn't listen to Stalin and settled for half of China but went all the way. It keeps the empire, whatever is left of it, in tact and be rebuilt one day.

Same reason why Ho Chi Minh didn't settled for just the North. I'm pretty sure the US would leave the North alone if he'd just stay there. But history aside, the South has more fertile land than the more barren North. And he risked the destruction of both to reunite it.

 

[luutzu]

Bombing civilians is a war crime isn't it ?

It's not a war crime if the Allied does it. True story.

A sure-fire defence for the Nazi at Nuremberg was that if they can show evidence that what they're charged with were also carried out by the Allied, they can get off.

Heard that quite a few US senior officers were called up to testify whether they or the Allied did such and such... if so, it's not a war crime.

Hence, firebombing of civilian centres was never charged because the Allied did more of it.

 

[luutzu]

 

[luutzu]

War and Propaganda

 

[noco]

It's not a war crime if the Allied does it. True story.

A sure-fire defence for the Nazi at Nuremberg was that if they can show evidence that what they're charged with were also carried out by the Allied, they can get off.

Heard that quite a few US senior officers were called up to testify whether they or the Allied did such and such... if so, it's not a war crime.

Hence, firebombing of civilian centres was never charged because the Allied did more of it.

Who started the war in the Pacific?.....The offenders got all they asked for in defense so how could it be a war crime?
The Japanese caused misery to millions of people.

 

[Value Collector]

Remember that 200 to 500K death prevented you quoted?

How is that number anywhere near possible when the US lost 416,800 during the entirety of WW2?

Are they saying that if it weren't for the two nukes, the US would have doubled their losses to about 1Million military personnel?

Not possible. Not when Japan was being ringed in on all four seas; has no Navy or airforce.

View attachment 70044


View attachment 70045

Look at above map showing Japanese cities being firebombed and its est. percent damaged.

Minimum around 25%, all the way to to 85%.

I didn't even know Japan had that many cities... but now, imagine if you're one of the warlords in Tokyo... you've seen report of firebombs and statistics of destruction... would you just surrender the moment a second nuke dropped? Because you don't want any more damage to Japan's cities?

The entire country is pretty much grazed to the ground.


----

It's not so much that Stalin took Manchuria, and Mongolia and other Japanese colonies that shook the Japs. But it's having two powers vying for your mainland now that push them to surrender to one.

Keep the country unified and intact geographically. Have it divided and it'll be lost forever.

It's the same reason why Mao didn't listen to Stalin and settled for half of China but went all the way. It keeps the empire, whatever is left of it, in tact and be rebuilt one day.

Same reason why Ho Chi Minh didn't settled for just the North. I'm pretty sure the US would leave the North alone if he'd just stay there. But history aside, the South has more fertile land than the more barren North. And he risked the destruction of both to reunite it.

You have to include the amount of Japanese lives saved as well, the USA were not going to be the only side with people dying.

I mean do you think Japanese people were not already dying in the conventional bombing and the fire bombing? If that bombing campaign went for another 12 months how many would have died.

Also look at the death toll of the soviets, do you think the Japanese fighting to the death over 12 months would not have taken large losses in battle?

So you have to include all the Japanese that would have died in the continued conventional bombing campaign + those Japanese that would have died in continued sea and land battles + the Soviet, USA, Australian etc troops that would have died.

It would add up to a large number, who knows how long things would have dragged out, if any one is to blame for the deaths it's the Japanese for starting the war, and not surrendering sooner.

 

[Value Collector]

Bombing civilians is a war crime isn't it ?

Yes and no, back then rules had a lot of grey area, basically you could bomb anything provided the destruction of the target would assist in the military defeat of the enemy, so as long as there was some military reason the target was chosen it was ok.

But, heroshima was an army depot town and Nagasaki was an industrial town, both would have been considered genuine targets.

 

[SirRumpole]

Yes and no, back then rules had a lot of grey area, basically you could bomb anything provided the destruction of the target would assist in the military defeat of the enemy, so as long as there was some military reason the target was chosen it was ok.

But, heroshima was an army depot town and Nagasaki was an industrial town, both would have been considered genuine targets.

I think the same effect could have been achieved by dropping the bomb over a relatively uninhabited area.

The destructive potential would have been obvious, and the Japanese would have surrendered because they had no defence against it and no way to retaliate.

Dropping the bomb on civilians was just bloody mindedness imo.

 

[Value Collector]

The point of the bombing was to take out the army depot and the industrial area, it wasn't a mindless bombing of civilians.

 

[SirRumpole]

The point of the bombing was to take out the army depot and the industrial area, it wasn't a mindless bombing of civilians.

That was the excuse. The reason was to show Japan that the US had an indefensible weapon. It was not necessary to kill tens of thousands of civilians to do that.

 

[Jorgensen]

I think the same effect could have been achieved by dropping the bomb over a relatively uninhabited area.

The destructive potential would have been obvious, and the Japanese would have surrendered because they had no defence against it and no way to retaliate.

Dropping the bomb on civilians was just bloody mindedness imo.

As I understand it,the Russians were heading for Japan with a million strong army.They were ready to invade and would beat the the Americans to Japan.The US were not as prepared.The A bombs changed the time line.
Besides Japan would have rather surrendered to the US than the Russians.The Russians had a blood debt to recover from Japan,after their defeat by the Japanese in the Russo-Japanese in the early 1900s.Not many Russian prisoners,if any, made it home after being captured.
Speilberg makes mention of the Russian army heading for Japan in the movie "Empire of the Sun"

 

[noco]

Bill Shorten is cuddling up to the Muslims by condemning Israel....He needs the votes of 500,000 Muslims here in Australia...what a traitor.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...e/news-story/d9196871d41f0d441004f1c40be11f6a

 

[SirRumpole]

Bill Shorten is cuddling up to the Muslims by condemning Israel....He needs the votes of 500,000 Muslims here in Australia...what a traitor.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...e/news-story/d9196871d41f0d441004f1c40be11f6a

Traitor to who ? Israel-Palestine is none of our business.

 

[Value Collector]

That was the excuse. The reason was to show Japan that the US had an indefensible weapon. It was not necessary to kill tens of thousands of civilians to do that.

So you don't think dropping the "special bomb" was just a natural extension of their already extensive bombing campaign?

 

[noco]

Traitor to who ? Israel-Palestine is none of our business.

He is a traitor to the Australian people......Israel is very much our business....It is the only democracy in the ME and Shorten does not believe they should exist so he is favoring the rogue organization Hamas....Hamas want to destroy every Israeli......Hamas is an Islamic terrorist organization......So Shorten is virtually backing Hamas to gain the Muslim vote in Australia.
But it is quite funny in Western Australia, where the head Mufti is instructing Muslim to give their vote to the Greens and not Labor all because Hanson has done a deal with the Liberals.

 

[SirRumpole]

So you don't think dropping the "special bomb" was just a natural extension of their already extensive bombing campaign?

I don't think that killing civilians was justified when there are other options.

Why do you ?

 

[luutzu]

You have to include the amount of Japanese lives saved as well, the USA were not going to be the only side with people dying.

I mean do you think Japanese people were not already dying in the conventional bombing and the fire bombing? If that bombing campaign went for another 12 months how many would have died.

Also look at the death toll of the soviets, do you think the Japanese fighting to the death over 12 months would not have taken large losses in battle?

So you have to include all the Japanese that would have died in the continued conventional bombing campaign + those Japanese that would have died in continued sea and land battles + the Soviet, USA, Australian etc troops that would have died.

It would add up to a large number, who knows how long things would have dragged out, if any one is to blame for the deaths it's the Japanese for starting the war, and not surrendering sooner.

Come on man, not even the Japanese warlords care for their Japanese civilians. And as that map showing the firebombing and extensive damages illustrate, neither did the Allied care for Japanese civilians.

Is there a difference whether the civilians are killed with firebombs or got killed with a nuke?

So it's absurd to think that the Allied calculate how two nukes, killing over 200,000 civilians immediately, is better for the civilians they don't have to kill later. That's just warped logic.


And it's a false choice between either nukes or street fighting.

The Allied does not need to destroy Japan city by city, well they were already doing that... but like I said, Japan is surrounded by sea and there's no canoe.

So Japan would starve, if they haven't already by that time... and will eventually fall onto itself.

Yes, it'll take time and I'm not saying that that's a nice way either. But it is a heck of a lot nicer than nuking them to speed up their surrender.

So if we accept all the rationale that's given as true, it still does not make sense as being the lesser of two evils. Heck, there are other lesser evils to do without losing any more American lives... like bombing raids over cities with no airforce and a few guns without any ammo.

---------

So there was never a need to send the troops into Japan's mainland anymore. That will have save any lives from street combat. Solved.

MacArthur might, though I doubt it, but he might copy Eisenhower in Europe and let the Soviets fight their way to Berlin. Sacrificing Soviet troops my tens of thousands for the honor of taking Berlin.

Though to be fair, his ego asides, MacArthur and US command might have learnt from Berlin that if the Soviets get to Tokyo, they'll also demand half the booties and grab whatever technologies and scientists they could too. And their master plan is to have Japan as a complete, unsinkable carrier for US confrontation of a future China [in case Generalissimo Chiang fail].

Anyway, there is a lot more to the nukes than the saving lives business.

Fact that it's the main, if not only, reason we're told tells you something. Fact that the Soviets play no role in possibly forcing Imperial Japan to surrender tells you the Cold War demand the Soviets to be useless, no-good, godless commies who played no part in getting rid of Hitler and Imperial Japan.

It's propaganda... a dangerous one at that.

Dangerous because it give us precedent that now and again, we got to nuke some folks... Like Obama says, we tortured some folks, ain't that normal?

 

[luutzu]

He is a traitor to the Australian people......Israel is very much our business....It is the only democracy in the ME and Shorten does not believe they should exist so he is favoring the rogue organization Hamas....Hamas want to destroy every Israeli......Hamas is an Islamic terrorist organization......So Shorten is virtually backing Hamas to gain the Muslim vote in Australia.
But it is quite funny in Western Australia, where the head Mufti is instructing Muslim to give their vote to the Greens and not Labor all because Hanson has done a deal with the Liberals.

Yea, most of the Israelis would love you there noco. Well... actually they won't because you're not a White Jew so they'll probably kick you out then steal your home [because according to some ancient Ottoman empire law, if people are not on their land for over 18 months, it mean they're not using it so it belong to the state ]

Nation of law and order, alright.

Want to know how far that law goes in taking "terrorist" land? So the Israelis take a certain area... then for safety and security, they have to clear a radius around the new settlement. Can't be too close to terrorist snakes right?

Then those "vacant" security land soon enough became land of the state of Israel. Then since they own it, what's a country to do but let its people live on it.

Then of course you'd need to clear more land around that new cleared land.

See how if you dress in a suit, have a well dressed and well groomed military, call yourself a democracy, and get to do shiet like that?


and oh yea... our Turnbull reckon it is unfair for a "one-sided" UN resolution condemning Israel land grab as illegal under International Law.

One sided in that it's the ENTIRE WORLD against one country.

Talk about turning common sense upside down to win favours and votes.

 

[luutzu]

Who started the war in the Pacific?.....The offenders got all they asked for in defense so how could it be a war crime?
The Japanese caused misery to millions of people.

It's a war crime because you're hitting civilian targets noco.

There's talks of the two nukes hitting military-industrial centres... I really don't believe that. I mean, Japan had been bombed with tonnes and tones of explosives prior to the nukes.

You'd think that all major military-industrial centres would have already been on those hit list.

So while we all know the horrible things Imperial Japan did, hitting "industrial" cities that also wipe out 200,000 civilians in two hits... their crimes justifies our crimes?

I guess it does.

 

[noco]

Yea, most of the Israelis would love you there noco. Well... actually they won't because you're not a White Jew so they'll probably kick you out then steal your home [because according to some ancient Ottoman empire law, if people are not on their land for over 18 months, it mean they're not using it so it belong to the state ]

Nation of law and order, alright.

Want to know how far that law goes in taking "terrorist" land? So the Israelis take a certain area... then for safety and security, they have to clear a radius around the new settlement. Can't be too close to terrorist snakes right?

Then those "vacant" security land soon enough became land of the state of Israel. Then since they own it, what's a country to do but let its people live on it.

Then of course you'd need to clear more land around that new cleared land.

See how if you dress in a suit, have a well dressed and well groomed military, call yourself a democracy, and get to do shiet like that?


and oh yea... our Turnbull reckon it is unfair for a "one-sided" UN resolution condemning Israel land grab as illegal under International Law.

One sided in that it's the ENTIRE WORLD against one country.

Talk about turning common sense upside down to win favours and votes.

So you are anti Israeli and pro Hamas......Well I guess that is your opinion which you are entitled to...Hamas are a terrorist organization and even hate the President of Palestine.

You seem to have forgotten the 1976 six day war waged against Israel by Egypt and the adjoining Muslim states of Palestine......Mushi Dyann was a very smart Israeli General and his intelligence operation was far to good for his Muslim invaders.......He humiliated them and in doing so took over the Golan Heights, the West Bank and the Gaza strip.

I say serves them right for attacking in the first place and it has stuck in the Palestinian's gizzet ever since.