Japan marks 76th anniversary of Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombings

[MinTrut]

Where did you say that it was wrong that the Japs incinerated the Americans at Pearl Harbor?

Is that the topic?

Must I condemn the murder of Abel as well?

Your logic is...

...flawed.

 

[MinTrut]

Japan was in no way trying to surrender

False.

Emperor Hirohito had some sense but his generals were war nuts

Nonsense.

The population had been told arriving American soldiers would torture, rape, murder the civilians and civilians were trained to fight as soldiers with crude household weapons .

Typical propaganda seen prior to invasions; meaningless otherwise.

All of Japan would fight to the death

Utter nonsense being used to justify extreme terrorism.

 

[MinTrut]

Ending a war and saving lives makes it okay.

The war was ending; it was not okay.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Is that the topic?

Must I condemn the murder of Abel as well?

Your logic is...

...flawed.

Yes it is. You can't say what America did was wrong and ignore what Japan did that started it all.

Why don't you condemn it?

 

[MinTrut]

Yes it is.

Incorrect.

Why don't you condemn it?

Why don't you address the topic?
____________________

This is a good time to point out that I understand how difficult it is for people to address the ugly truth of these horrendous acts.

I see people struggling to defend the indefensible, and in the process becoming unwitting - and unintentional - apologists for terrorism of ALL kinds.

For my part, I don't care who commits horrendous acts like this; such acts are ALWAYS wrong.

Whether committed by Hitler, Hirohito, Truman or bin Laden; Johnson or Nixon or Pol Pot or Mao.

ALWAYS wrong.

But I understand how deeply indoctrinated people are, and to face the reality that the *Good War* was one pocked with terrorist acts like this is a painful and difficult matter to grapple with.

I wish all here well in the intellectual and moral challenge that any serious conversation about this topic entails, whether solitary/internal or involving many voices.

 

[Concerned American]

Is that the topic?

Must I condemn the murder of Abel as well?

Your logic is...

...flawed.

Have you ever heard of retribution? The Japanese were far from being innocent victims. It is improper to try to white wash this event from either side. There is plenty of blame to go around.

 

[MinTrut]

Have you ever heard of retribution?

An eye for an eye; the blinding of the world, yes.

The Japanese were far from being innocent victims.

The innocent are innocent, but acts such as this are never acceptable.

It is improper to try to white wash this event from either side.

Concur entirely; Japan committed horrendous atrocities as well.

There is plenty of blame to go around.

Indeed.

 

[AZrailwhale]

They wanted peace BEFORE the bombs, and their single condition was met AFTER.

No bombs, & it would have been as well.

The Japanese government didn't want peace. The unofficial feelers were from a peace party that never wanted to go to war and was totally out of power. The Japanese proposals were a return to status quote ante December fifth 1941. No occupation of Japan, Japan to keep Korea, occupied China and Manchuria. No war crimes trials. Whatever disarmament there was to be would be under Japanese control with no international supervision. The existing Japanese government to stay in power. The Emperor to stay on the throne with his power intact. The Philippines to be a demilitarized zone with the Japanese enforcing that. What part of that do you find acceptable coming from a country already defeated and starving? No, the Japanese government wasn't at all interested in surrendering.

 

[AZrailwhale]

You cant speak for Jesus

Eisenhower was not in the Pacific theater so his opinion is merely that

just his opinion

Ike turned a blind eye to the troops under his command murdering every member of the SS they could get their hands on. If he had been commanding the war against Japan he would have been no nicer. Ike had no complaints about the firebombing of Dresden that killed more civilians than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. Kiera's also prepared to send SAC to bomb Soviet civilians in the Cold War

 

[MinTrut]

The Japanese government didn't want peace.

False.

The unofficial feelers were from a peace party that never wanted to go to war and was totally out of power.

Japan was desperate to surrender in the face of Allied might.

The Japanese proposals were a return to status quote ante December fifth 1941.

They wanted one thing, and got it.

No occupation of Japan, Japan to keep Korea, occupied China and Manchuria. No war crimes trials. Whatever disarmament there was to be would be under Japanese control with no international supervision.

Wasn't going to happen and they knew it.

The existing Japanese government to stay in power. The Emperor to stay on the throne with his power intact.

Retaining the emperor, yes - this was the one thing they could not bend on, and they did not.

The Philippines to be a demilitarized zone with the Japanese enforcing that.

Wasn't going to happen and they knew it.

What part of that do you find acceptable coming from a country already defeated and starving?

Irrelevant question; proposals in negotiation are not conclusive.

No, the Japanese government wasn't at all interested in surrendering.

False; they were beaten & they knew it.

 

[MinTrut]

Ike turned a blind eye to the troops under his command murdering every member of the SS they could get their hands on.

Interesting claim.

If he had been commanding the war against Japan he would have been no nicer.

Speculation.

Ike had no complaints about the firebombing of Dresden that killed more civilians than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.

More US terror - what's your view on this?

Kiera's also prepared to send SAC to bomb Soviet civilians in the Cold War

Did this happen?

Do you think Ike lacked moral authority and/or was a bad president?

The bottom line is that you're defending acts of horrendous terror, and I just can't do that - sorry!

 

[Concerned American]

More US terror - what's your view on this?

It was a declared war in response to an imperialistic aggressor nation.

 

[MinTrut]

It was a declared war in response to an imperialistic aggressor nation.

My question pertained specifically to Dresden.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Interesting claim.

Speculation.

More US terror - what's your view on this?

Did this happen?

Do you think Ike lacked moral authority and/or was a bad president?

The bottom line is that you're defending acts of horrendous terror, and I just can't do that - sorry!

Then you are a coward. In war distasteful things are often necessary. As much as I disagree with everything you post and with as much contempt as I have for you, I hope you never have to learn that lesson. With your attitudes, it will either shatter your psyche, or turn you into a conscienceless monster.

 

[Concerned American]

My question pertained specifically to Dresden.

My response was appropriate.

 

[MinTrut]

Then you are a coward.

You've just lost the debate, but we can carry on nonetheless.

In war distasteful things are often necessary.

This is likely how bin Laden felt, and how he justified his terrorism against what he called "The Great Satan."

As much as I disagree with everything you post and with as much contempt as I have for you,

You're bombing the ruins of your loss, but carry on.

I hope you never have to learn that lesson.

And I hope you're never the victim of the kind of horrendous terrorism which people like Truman, bin Laden and yourself favor.

With your attitudes,

You're going for the hat trick of loss...

it will either shatter your psyche,

Hat trick achieved!

or turn you into a conscienceless monster.

Projection?

 

[MinTrut]

My response was appropriate.

So you're pro-war crime?

Disappointing, but I understand that this topic is extremely difficult for many to grapple with.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

I'm sure you don't, but that's just more derailing/trolling on your part.

Trolling/derailing ad hominem.

I accept your concession thereby.

I'm not conceding anything, I don't agree with your opinions on this, and that's exactly what they are, opinions.

 

[Concerned American]

So you're pro-war crime?

Disappointing, but I understand that this topic is extremely difficult for many to grapple with.

So, pray tell, are you an anarchist or a Buddhist.

 

[MinTrut]

I'm not conceding anything,

Okay.

I don't agree with your opinions on this,

Clearly, but I understand that it's a lot to work through, and I genuinely wish you well if you ever seek to do so.

and that's exactly what they are, opinions.

Indeed, and grounded in basic decency/morality.

Q: When is terrorism okay?

A: Never.