You're a fucking jackass. I'm gett really pissed off with everyone saying America sucks because it DOESN'T. The media is stupid and portrays everything wrong. There has NEVER been a murder or rape in my town. Deaths, yeah, duh, but no one has ever been murdered or raped.

And you ever realize that Germany alone killed over 6 million in ONE INCIDENT? Way more than who died in Hiroshima/Nagasaki! And NO ONE is proud of the bombs, but we had to otherwise we would have lost the war against Japan. Up until that point, we were losing. Had we not dropped the bombs, MILLIONS of our people would have been killed. Way more than the bombs killed.

Oh, you need to re-check your information. Only 200,000 Japanese people died from both bombs. Not half a million. Do your math right.

Killing more than 50 million innocent? I don't think so. Yes, innocent people die, but that is part of war, and it's not always done out of hostility. Sometimes it's an accident, sometimes it's a sacrifice.

I'm assuming you've failed all of your math classes.

---------- Post added at 07:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:23 AM ----------

And call it 9-11: that's the term Americans gave it, it's the way to pronounce the incident. I don't care if you write the day as 11-9, but call the incident 9-11 because that's what it is.

my post was deleted!!

---------- Post added at 10:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:39 AM ----------

i guess someone just couldn't stand that i actually had a GOOD ARGUEMENT.

I apologize for having my own opinion and facts to support it.

---------- Post added at 10:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:40 AM ----------

Mmk. I'll just post again.

America does not attack innocent civilians! Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military bases! We aim for the military, not innocent people. And only 200,000 Japanese people were killed in the bombs, not half a million like you're saying.

Americans aren't proud of killing innocent people, but we attacked military bases. If we intended to kill tons of civilians, we would have attacked Tokyo.

artemis_samhain wrote:

my post was deleted!!

---------- Post added at 10:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:39 AM ----------

i guess someone just couldn't stand that i actually had a GOOD ARGUEMENT.

I apologize for having my own opinion and facts to support it.

---------- Post added at 10:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:40 AM ----------

Mmk. I'll just post again.

America does not attack innocent civilians! Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military bases! We aim for the military, not innocent people. And only 200,000 Japanese people were killed in the bombs, not half a million like you're saying.

Americans aren't proud of killing innocent people, but we attacked military bases. If we intended to kill tons of civilians, we would have attacked Tokyo.

Have you calculated further radiation poisoning into your casualties? Casualties refer to not only the dead, but also to the injured.

Secondly, yes, America does attack innocent civilians. While the first two bombs were not direct civilian attacks, apparently you forgot that America issued another warning stating that they would be attacking Tokyo next, and that over the course of months they would repeatedly bomb Japan until it was rendered uninhabitable. What a great way to attack military bases and to undermine the Japanese war effort: bomb the shit out of the entire island until they're all dead.

Some say to-may-to, some say to-mar-to.

I've been puzzling over this for quite a while now, and this is what I think I think (no repeat typo there). On an international/national scale, I go forth with some trepidation about what it is that I'm saying, and say that they were just. Awful things have been done by the US in the past that have simply not been flagged up like the antics of Nazis or Soviets. Even Israel, a taboo to criticise, has a good following and is well aware of prominent haters (But then perhaps it's because it's surrounded by them, I don't know.) But the US never really had to reap the bad seeds that it had sowed until 11th September 2001. In that sense, there was justice.

But...

Justice has an inherent value, but that value becomes nullified if there is not some external good in it's administration. Essentially, there's no good in justice if the world does not actually become a better place because of it, usually because said justice has stopped the wrong that it is dealing with from being perpetrated again.
In that sense, any possible sense of justice in the World Trade Centre attacks became practically redundant, because these attacks then gave many Americans a false sense of pretext permit the 'resolution' of a problem that they saw as People Hating Our Freedoms Bla Bla. Of course, if they'd understood their history, they would have eaten humble pie at the funerals, but they didn't. Call shame on them for it or don't, it was the WTC attacks that just ended up, like the circle of violence so often does, creating more wrong in such undertakings as the Iraq War.

You can support the WTC attacks as ideal national justice (I think the issue of whether the individuals deserved their fate is just that, individual on a 2974 by 2974 basis that none of us can really discuss), but you can't support them as effective justice. You can't beat sight into a blind man.

artemis_samhain wrote:

And you ever realize that Germany alone killed over 6 million

Nazi Germany, actually.

Wrong answer.

I guess so. I admit, that was a inappropriate.

Anyone who claims America won the war is foolish; let them bask in their ignorance.

You'd be surprised how many people really think that.

Since Japan learned of what happened in less than 24 hours, they had another two days to surrender to the allies. They didn't. The Potsdam Declaration was still ignored, and even though the Emperor and the Japanese government were reviewing a conditional surrender, they made no such contact with the United States (if I am wrong on this please point me to where I can read about it). Therefore, the United States took the silence as a disagreement of the Declaration, just as the Japanese ignored it before Hiroshima.

I'm not wholly familiar with the interaction between Japan and the United States between the two bomb droppings, but I am pretty sure that the Japanese people were having a conflict within themselves. They had to deal with both the atomic bomb and the Soviet invasion, and within the government, opinions were divided. Hence, amidst this confusion, I don't believe they had time to communicate with the United States. Nevertheless, I still don't believe the second bomb was necessary at all (refer to other thread).

The attack was symbolic just as the attacks on Hiroshima were. It depends on how you want to form the symbolism and what you want it to stand for.

Well, for me, the World Trade Centers stood for the economy of America, the Pentagon for the military. I don't see how Hiroshima's attack could be symbolic. What was it, a port city? No, that was Nagasaki. Anyway, my point is that for me, 9/11 symbolizes an attack on American evils.

Do you mean the State Department, because that's the government and I wouldn't consider that to be the "people".


I am equally as outraged, but this is once again done by the State Department. The government heavily censors what comes out of war zones. Stories of rape are quickly buried and kept hushed up, for obvious reasons.

Naw, I meant by the people. Wasn't there this one incident when a soldier was let off because people protested or something? In any case, there were people who applauded when the soldier's sentence was lessened, which really disgusts me.

As just mentioned, the media is heavily censored. It really is, and it's fucking pathetic. The horrible things that go on in the wars both in the present and in the past stay buried either permanently, or for a very long time to which nothing can be done about it.

Aren't there any liberal news sources in the States? Anyway, if I'm capable of being aware of world issues today, I'm pretty sure the rest of America could too.

This is one of the reasons why I think the 9/11 attacks were a false-flag operation, because they certainly didn't open the eyes of the American public. If anything, it closed them. Shortly after the attacks, Bush's approval rating skyrocketed into the 90s. People were waving around American flags left, right and centre. The level of patriotism hadn't been higher since Pearl Harbor. I even remember purchasing a "United We Stand" t-shirt that had the Canadian and American flags crossed. Even I fell into the patriotic trap.

And, of course, stereotypes against not only Muslims, but brown people in general, flourished. If the 9/11 attacks were truly done by Osama bin Laden or another Middle Eastern terrorist organization, they shot themselves in the foot because they just enraged Americans even more. They weren't "teaching them a lesson" or anything like that at all. It literally backfired on them. Or, maybe, the government knew what how the public would react, and set in motion events that have led to two more illegal wars.

Simply put, the 9/11 attacks did nothing but further bolster the American resolve and stereotypes. It worked for the Americans, not against them.

Indeed. I guess rather than shock the American people into realizing what was going on between America and the rest of the world, the media and the general ignorance of the population twisted the attack and used it as propaganda against the terrorists, assuming that it wasn't state-funded terrorism. It's funny, though. Usually, even animals can recognize intimidation and fear, two of the most primal emotions. When animals are scared, they realize what's going on. But with America, when they're intimidated and shocked by this incident, they don't open their eyes, but rather they charge blindly into the fire. Even animals have better decision-making than the American population.

It's an ethical/moral question without an answer. The question comes down to a common phrase, "Does the end justify the means?". I'm not familiar with the Red Scare, but I plan on reading on it when I finish this post. But one I am familiar with, and I believe is on the same track as what you're talking about, is when the Americans rounded up 110,000 Japanese-American citizens in America and threw them into internment camps. I'll just simply say that was wrong. It was illegal, uncalled for and unjustified (in fact, part of my signature is in reference to that incident). All the people involved should be put on trial.

I was actually referring to the Red Scare and Joseph McCartney, where alleged Communists were rounded up and jailed. None of the authorities had substantial proof that someone was affiliated with communism. In fact, the entire Red Scare was synonymous to the Cultural Revolution: a chance to grab power and backstab friends. The point I was trying to make was that since we don't know who's going to be a rapist soldier and who's not, isn't it safer to just scare them all? Personally, I don't think so, but since America has used such tactics before, it should be alright to feed them their own medicine, no?

The Potsdam Declaration was ignored before the first bomb was dropped, and after. The Emperor and the Japanese government were reviewing a conditional surrender but had not contacted the United States.

Also, when you invade other countries, as Japan did to China and surrounding Asian nations, if you end up losing, then you best be prepared to be occupied. That's part of the "that's what you get" when you lose a war that you start. Happened to Germany, too. As for the other conditions, the Japanese people were to keep their government. The "criminal" government officials were to be removed. How to do determine that is anyone's guess. I don't think demilitarizing is such an unreasonable request. I mean, they did try to take over southeast Asia, did they not? They were aggressors and needed to be tamed. Whether they were in pieces or not is nothing something anyone wanted to risk. Germany was in pieces, too, before she rose up and nearly conquered Europe.

I guess they could have had negotiations done to satisfy both parties, but the Americans only gave the Japanese 3 days to fix everything: the division of the government, the bomb, and the Soviet invasion. Pretty hectic. If they gave a week, I would've been more satisfied.

I'm done feeding Sasha, I don't give a fuck what he thinks. I disagree, but I have no intrest in proving him wrong or changing his opinions. I'm too pissed off to care anymore.

artemis_samhain wrote:

I'm done feeding Sasha, I don't give a fuck what he thinks. I disagree, but I have no intrest in proving him wrong or changing his opinions. I'm too pissed off to care anymore.

Er, because he ripped your flawed argument apart?

It's OK. Nobody can create sound arguments in heated debates the first time around. Practice makes perfect.

Second, he was responding to DIG. Your post is too insignificant to be heeded with interest.

Lastly, if you truly didn't care about this, you wouldn't reply. Of course, you do care and you will reply to this post.

Hard to tell when half of the posts get deleted before anyone sees them

That's awesome. Make sure to tell someone who cares.

---------- Post added at 12:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:20 PM ----------



yeah seriously

artemis_samhain wrote:

That's awesome. Make sure to tell someone who cares.

Thus proving my point that you care. Why do you even bother replying to me?

Because I have nothing better to do. So I'll just entertain you by continuing to reply.

artemis_samhain wrote:

I'm done feeding Sasha, I don't give a fuck what he thinks. I disagree, but I have no intrest in proving him wrong or changing his opinions. I'm too pissed off to care anymore.

Yeah, he deleted a lot of mine, even though they're completely relevant. I'll be surprised if this one doesn't get deleted.

Still here so far :eek:

artemis_samhain wrote:

Still here so far :eek:

:eek:

Amazing ;o

Sad that this very thread is contaminated with them.

They were conflicted amongst themselves in that the Japanese army didn't like the idea of a total, unconditional surrender. As for the Soviet invasion, that occurred on the morning of August 9, 11 hours before the second bomb had dropped. The prime and foreign ministers of Japan recognized the situation immediately and wanted to end the war, but senior officials in the Japanese Army downplayed the Soviet invasion of Manchuria and insisted on letting it play out. It was the Japanese generals, not the government officials, who wanted to amend the Potsdam Declaration and add three additional conditions (their own disarmament, no occupation and trial of war criminals). The government just wanted the Emperor's position secured.

Wait, wasn't the military in control of the government back then? In any case, assuming that you are correct and that the government was divided into the army vs the politicians, it still reinforces the fact that chaos in the Japanese government compounded with the atomic bomb and the Soviet invasion resulted in too little time to clear up the mess.

Now, assuming the Postdam Declaration was amended and submitted to the Unitd States, do you think they'll accept? Or would they refuse the conditional surrender?

Something else I forgot to reply to in my previous post: I recently learned as well that the United States had planned dozens more atomic bombs. Upon learning this I was incredibly disgusted and appalled because it probably would have destroyed the nation, and been a lot closer to a holocaust, as Sasha tried to make an argument for. I suppose in one sense we can be grateful the Japanese surrendered after only two, and didn't wait for five or six.

It was implicitly stated that they either surrender or face completely obliteration. It would have really rendered the entire island a fallout zone.

You can make the symbols whatever you want. They don't have to tied to a building or a city, just like how the President always likes to say things like, "attacks on American freedoms". That's just a symbolic interpretation of an event. In any case, the atomic bombings of Japan could be a symbolic display of power, for example.

Not a very admirable symbol, no? But considering how the Cold War was just around the corner, it's understandable. Sad that Japan had to be the victim of the display of power.

There may have been, but I don't know. And I have no doubts the details of the case were modified when released to the public.

Regardless of the details released to the public, the public was still in unanimous support of reducing the soldier's crimes even though if it were committed by a non-American, he would have been tarred and feathered. Hence, going back to our original topic of 9/11, I believe civilian deaths were semi-justified since their apathy and ignorance is a crime as well.

Oh, there are plenty of "liberal" news sources in the United States, but they're all controlled by the government in one form or another. Americans are alerted to world issues, but they're seen through the eyes of the American government and corporations first.

There are thousands of Americans who don't know that Osama bin Laden was a former associate of the CIA, that Al Qaeda was funded and trained by Americans (as Sasha described in greater detail previously in this thread). There are people who are not aware that on the morning of 9/11, government officials were having breakfast with Osama's brother in Washington. These sort of things are kept under wraps. They're available, but you'd have to go looking to find them. Also, you are a lot more educated than the average person, and therefore are aware of a lot more. It's a pity more people cannot be better educated. Instead, the United States government would rather increase the budget on defence. Hmmm, I wonder why...

I never knew that they had breakfast with Bin Laden :O Indeed, how the American government spends the majority of its budget on national defense rather than on health care and education (isn't Obama fixing this?) is rather hilarious. And the Americans brag about how almighty their military might is when their healthcare and education...:rolleyes:

As I said, it's an ethical/moral question. Basically you're saying they're guilty until proven innocent. That's a slippery slope because it opens all kinds of doors that quite possibly shouldn't be opened. At any rate, it is the policy within the United States and I am sure many other countries that people are innocent until proven guilty, since no man is born guilty.

Unfortunately, throughout history, it has been the case of guilty until proven innocent. The Spanish Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, the Red Scare, the Cultural Revolution...that's reality. And that's what America does to most alleged suicide bombers and etc. So my question is, if America uses such tactics to arrest people and wage wars, shouldn't it be OK to do the same to America, like in the case of 9/11? Attack the Pentagon and hope to strike down a few guilty for the price of the many innocent? Personally, I feel not, but that's how America rolls, so they shouldn't be in any position to counter.

I agree; three days wasn't sufficient to draft up a conditional surrender, but I also think they should've just surrendered outright after the first atomic bomb and negotiated afterward. Whether they thought they were getting the ass-end of the stick or not would be the least of their worries if they wanted to protect their people and nation.

But if they had surrendered immediately, it would have been under the Postdam Declaration and that they would've been under the mercy of the Allies. And let's not forget the Japanese culture: it is dishonorable to surrender and preferable to commit seppuku and die on the battlefield.

I apologize if I come off as pro-American or justifying their actions; I'm not. In fact, if we were to talk in person and share a beer, we'd probably find that we agree on most things.

I dislike beer. I prefer cocktails, Long Island Iced Tea being my favorite by far.;)