One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.......really?

[Villan Of The North]

I agee that it's an atrocity but I feel no shame for it as I bare no responsibility for the actions of the leaders of another country before I was born.

 

[OnMeHeadFred]

BodyButter - 8/12/2013 03:37

villainatplay - 8/12/2013 03:19

david-avfc - 7/12/2013 16:05

What would you guys count the atomic bombs in WW2?

Personally I think that's the worst terrorist attacks in human history.
The intention was to kill as many civilians as possible - is that not extreme terrorism?
Even worse is that Americans still talk about it as some sort of heroic act.

Slightly more to the point: Freedom fighter - some one who fights to improve their/others lives; terrorist - someone who intentionally harms civilians to make a point

The atomic bombs were used because the US commanders did not want to be fighting a costly war of attrition, potentially on two fronts against the soviets as well. As the Japanese were the aggressor in the Pacific, and lets not forget thats what they were, they had become legitimate targets.

Both bomb sites were of huge strategic value because they were industrial centres. The Japanese armed forces under the emperor were fanatical and would not have accepted surrender on any terms, save the threat of complete annihilation. The atomic bombs were a last resort, used to abruptly end the conflict and preserve allied lives, which is exactly what they did. They were not used just to kill as many civilians as possible.

People forget just how inhumane and barbaric the Japanese were before and during WW2. Im not saying the use of ultimate force in the form of atomic bombs was fair, but it was justifiable at the time.

In the context of the wider argument, what the americans did at hiroshima and nagasaki was never an act of terrorism, it was an act of war, a justifiable use of force designed to finish a hideously expensive waste of life and resources, excessive yes, but theres no such thing as a mild fission bomb, sadly its all or nothing.

The Japs were considering surrender before the first bomb was dropped and the Americans knew this. They offered to surrender after the first atomic bomb was dropped and the Americans rejected it.

The atomic bombs dropped on Japan were dropped because the Americans wanted a live test of their power and to scare the Russians. They didn't save any lives. It's an atrocity which we should all be ashamed of.

This!

 

[villainatplay]

BodyButter - 8/12/2013 03:37

villainatplay - 8/12/2013 03:19

david-avfc - 7/12/2013 16:05

What would you guys count the atomic bombs in WW2?

Personally I think that's the worst terrorist attacks in human history.
The intention was to kill as many civilians as possible - is that not extreme terrorism?
Even worse is that Americans still talk about it as some sort of heroic act.

Slightly more to the point: Freedom fighter - some one who fights to improve their/others lives; terrorist - someone who intentionally harms civilians to make a point

The atomic bombs were used because the US commanders did not want to be fighting a costly war of attrition, potentially on two fronts against the soviets as well. As the Japanese were the aggressor in the Pacific, and lets not forget thats what they were, they had become legitimate targets.

Both bomb sites were of huge strategic value because they were industrial centres. The Japanese armed forces under the emperor were fanatical and would not have accepted surrender on any terms, save the threat of complete annihilation. The atomic bombs were a last resort, used to abruptly end the conflict and preserve allied lives, which is exactly what they did. They were not used just to kill as many civilians as possible.

People forget just how inhumane and barbaric the Japanese were before and during WW2. Im not saying the use of ultimate force in the form of atomic bombs was fair, but it was justifiable at the time.

In the context of the wider argument, what the americans did at hiroshima and nagasaki was never an act of terrorism, it was an act of war, a justifiable use of force designed to finish a hideously expensive waste of life and resources, excessive yes, but theres no such thing as a mild fission bomb, sadly its all or nothing.

The Japs were considering surrender before the first bomb was dropped and the Americans knew this. They offered to surrender after the first atomic bomb was dropped and the Americans rejected it.

The atomic bombs dropped on Japan were dropped because the Americans wanted a live test of their power and to scare the Russians. They didn't save any lives. It's an atrocity which we should all be ashamed of.

I would love to know your sources for this.

Prior to the first bombing, the Japanese high command were given a chance to surrender via the Potsdam declaration but ignored it. Again, after the bombing on the 7th August, they were given an warning by President Truman that they would be hit again and then overwhelmed by land forces, but chose not to believe it. On both occasions, there was no contact, only silence.

Following investigation by their own scientists the following day, they knew that an atomic device was used on Hiroshima but decided that the allies did not have a stockpile and could only use at most two more devices on the Japanese mainland. They concluded that this was an acceptable risk, despite the Soviet Union declaring war the day before.

There was no communication from Japan with the Americans and no notification of a surrender until 14th August, four days after the second device was dropped on Nagasaki when Emperor Hirohito made his capitulation announcement by radio.

The Americans had wanted a public demonstration of the weapon, but rated the chances of a successful test at 50/50 so could not take a risk. It was deemed a more viable option to chance a direct use over Japan with the option of denying it ever happened should it have failed. The Russians already knew of the bombs existence because their spies had witnessed the Trinity test and the Americans knew this.

I think you should learn a little more about the subject before making wild claims. I have no fondness for the Americans and I certainly dont think that the bombing was the right thing to do but the fact is that it prevented a long drawn out conventional war where the death toll could have been into the millions.

 

[david-avfc]

Wasn't the second one dropped a few days after the first? The Japs didn't have time to realise what was going on. This was a completely new and unheard of weapon, by the time they had got out there worked out what had happened the next one had been dropped. The first one can be argued for but the second one, in my opinion, was unnecessary.

I'm never convinced by the 'it would save millions of lives' argument, I don't know where he statistics come from but I expect it's from an American source(s) which are driven by an agenda to justify what they did. I expect those figures include what would have happened if they dropped fire bombs instead, which were actually worse isn't a defence because it still involves intentionally targeting civilians.

Also USSR had invaded in the north and captured Manchuria and some Island's so they were close to surrendering anyway

 

[david-avfc]

thefacehead - 7/12/2013 18:47

Good post that villainatplay, a very fair answer and the realisation of the horrors of war.

Without meaning to sound like a child but the Japanese started it when they attacked Pearl Harbour. That could be argued as a terrorist attack on a country who were not, at that point, involved in fighting the 2nd World War directly. Japan had their reasons, they felt the inevitability of US involvement and decided to strike first. In fact even after the attack the Americans were at first only interested in revenge and war against Japan only for Hitler to foolishly declare war on the US thus involving them completely in the second World War Two (as Abe Simpson would say).

I'm sure America would have been involved in the war in the main eventually anyway but there act against Japan was the final act of war, not a war they started and therefore the dropping of the bomb can never be described as an act of terrorism IMO, another possible motive may have been to discourage further World Wars by the flexing of their military muscles.

We live in a very different world these days.

Targeting a Military base to weaken the oppositions military strength (Japan probably assumed US would join sooner or later anyway) is not comparable to targeting innocent civilians.

BodyButter - 8/12/2013 03:37
The atomic bombs dropped on Japan were dropped because the Americans wanted a live test of their power and to scare the Russians. They didn't save any lives. It's an atrocity which we should all be ashamed of.

I agree that the Americans just wanted to use it. The fact the second one was just 3 days after, IMO proves that. The Japanese could not have reacted that quickly and the Americans knew they couldn't hit back so what was the point apart from showing the world 'look a what we can do if you piss us off'

 

[CDX_EIRE]

Villan Of The North - 6/12/2013 10:26


Take Northern Ireland for example, I'm pretty sure the IRA and their supporters would argue that they were fighting an oppressor but they would also probably agree that they used terror tactics. A case could be made for using these tactics in Northern Ireland but how can they possibly justify the attacks on civilians on mainland UK?

If I were to guess Id say they would use the 'eye for an eye argument' they would go back to the days when the whole country was occupied and us the likes of the Croke Park massacre by the Black and Tans... You should read up on it if you havnt heard because thats why England playing Ireland in the Rugby at Croke Park so significant...

Some people do still support the IRA and their cause... Not me you can keep the North Iv no need for it I dont want those problems... ITs all in the past Ireland and the UK need to be allies now like we have been the last 20 or so years... Millions Im sure from the UK have some form of ancestry from Ireland and then there is the likes of me who visit the UK support their teams and work for their companies or in their cities...
I wish the North would get it fucking act together...

 

[thefacehead]

david-avfc - 8/12/2013 19:56

Wasn't the second one dropped a few days after the first? The Japs didn't have time to realise what was going on. This was a completely new and unheard of weapon, by the time they had got out there worked out what had happened the next one had been dropped. The first one can be argued for but the second one, in my opinion, was unnecessary.

I'm never convinced by the 'it would save millions of lives' argument, I don't know where he statistics come from but I expect it's from an American source(s) which are driven by an agenda to justify what they did. I expect those figures include what would have happened if they dropped fire bombs instead, which would have been just as bad.

Also USSR had invaded in the north and captured Manchuria and some Island's so they were close to surrendering anyway

You are looking at it like it is the world today. They didn't have CNN to tell them that the Russians had invaded, yes they had intelligence but let's not forget that this war was fought a long time ago in a very different world. Saying the US dropped the bomb PURELY to show their military muscle is anti USA propaganda BS in my opinion. And comparing terrorist attacks to acts made in the single most important war in human history is pathetic attention seeking!

 

[villainatplay]

david-avfc - 8/12/2013 20:06

thefacehead - 7/12/2013 18:47

Good post that villainatplay, a very fair answer and the realisation of the horrors of war.

Without meaning to sound like a child but the Japanese started it when they attacked Pearl Harbour. That could be argued as a terrorist attack on a country who were not, at that point, involved in fighting the 2nd World War directly. Japan had their reasons, they felt the inevitability of US involvement and decided to strike first. In fact even after the attack the Americans were at first only interested in revenge and war against Japan only for Hitler to foolishly declare war on the US thus involving them completely in the second World War Two (as Abe Simpson would say).

I'm sure America would have been involved in the war in the main eventually anyway but there act against Japan was the final act of war, not a war they started and therefore the dropping of the bomb can never be described as an act of terrorism IMO, another possible motive may have been to discourage further World Wars by the flexing of their military muscles.

We live in a very different world these days.

Targeting a Military base to weaken the oppositions military strength (Japan probably assumed US would join sooner or later anyway) is not comparable to targeting innocent civilians.

BodyButter - 8/12/2013 03:37
The atomic bombs dropped on Japan were dropped because the Americans wanted a live test of their power and to scare the Russians. They didn't save any lives. It's an atrocity which we should all be ashamed of.

I agree that the Americans just wanted to use it. The fact the second one was just 3 days after, IMO proves that. The Japanese could not have reacted that quickly and the Americans knew they couldn't hit back so what was the point apart from showing the world 'look a what we can do if you piss us off'

Both bomb sites were legitimate military targets. Hiroshima had a large army base and Nagasaki, although not the primary target, was a massive industrial centre, a back up target that was used due to poor weather over the intended site. The Japanese had their own atomic program which was quite advanced at the time and had scientists who knew exactly what had happened, within two days of the first blast.

 

[david-avfc]

thefacehead - 8/12/2013 20:17
You are looking at it like it is the world today. They didn't have CNN to tell them that the Russians had invaded, yes they had intelligence but let's not forget that this war was fought a long time ago in a very different world. Saying the US dropped the bomb PURELY to show their military muscle is anti USA propaganda BS in my opinion. And comparing terrorist attacks to acts made in the single most important war in human history is pathetic attention seeking!

It's called a debate - how is that 'pathetic attention seeking'? I could easily say your post is 'pathetic attention seeking' because that comment has come completely out of nowhere and is a unnecessarily over the top reaction to someone else's point of view, just because you don't agree with it.


And a country would know if they had been invaded, radio, telegram, phone, what about the ancient Greek myth where the guy ran the marathon to inform the leaders they had been invaded? There's no way the Japanese didn't know they had been invaded by Russia.

 

[thefacehead]

david-avfc - 8/12/2013 20:35

thefacehead - 8/12/2013 20:17
You are looking at it like it is the world today. They didn't have CNN to tell them that the Russians had invaded, yes they had intelligence but let's not forget that this war was fought a long time ago in a very different world. Saying the US dropped the bomb PURELY to show their military muscle is anti USA propaganda BS in my opinion. And comparing terrorist attacks to acts made in the single most important war in human history is pathetic attention seeking!

It's called a debate - how is that 'pathetic attention seeking'? I could easily say your post is 'pathetic attention seeking' because that comment has come completely out of nowhere and is a unnecessarily over the top reaction to someone else's point of view, just because you don't agree with it.

Sorry but the your whole way of life is shaped by the decisions made in that war, some were not easy but let's get something right here mate, for all our faults, for all the USA's faults, we were really fighting against evil in the second world war and your new world analysis of a war fought over 60 years ago is pathetic, I stand by my comments.

If you want to compare terrorism to starting wars then look to Vietnam, this is when the USA tried to flex their military muscle and show the world that they were not to be messed with.

There's no debate on this issue, you are completely wrong. :13:

 

[villainatplay]

david-avfc - 8/12/2013 19:56

Wasn't the second one dropped a few days after the first? The Japs didn't have time to realise what was going on. This was a completely new and unheard of weapon, by the time they had got out there worked out what had happened the next one had been dropped. The first one can be argued for but the second one, in my opinion, was unnecessary.

I'm never convinced by the 'it would save millions of lives' argument, I don't know where he statistics come from but I expect it's from an American source(s) which are driven by an agenda to justify what they did. I expect those figures include what would have happened if they dropped fire bombs instead, which were actually worse isn't a defence because it still involves intentionally targeting civilians.

Also USSR had invaded in the north and captured Manchuria and some Island's so they were close to surrendering anyway

The Japanese high command were prepared to fight to the last man/woman/child, indeed children were taught from a very early age that the protection of Japan and its Emperor were of paramount importance and it was honorable to die for the imperial cause. The Americans knew all this, so were left with little choice.

Russia had declared war on the same day as the first bomb was dropped, so this only became important after the first bombing, and the Russians initially were only interested in retaking territory lost in the 1930s. The war didn't end there until several days after the second bomb had been dropped, and even then many japanese soldiers fought to their deaths rather than surrender.