Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnaeThey nuked two ****ing cities lmao. Collateral damage, sure...
Like I said, those innocent civilians were collateral damage. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military type targets which were used in the Japanese war effort. The civilian deaths were unfortunate but they were not the intended targets.
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnaeWhy do you assume everyone you have a conversation with is trying to guilt you, troll you or enrage you? awebrow
Sorry Scribble, but if your intent is trying to make me feel guilty for what the Japs brought on themselves then you are going to fail miserably. You should just save yourself some time by giving it up because I guarabtee you that you will never obtain your goal.
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnaeGod, you're so touchy, lol
So you're ignorant and just trolling me now. Ok, good to know. Now I know not to waste anymore time arguing with a moron. 😉
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Obviously.... I mean, if some lone terrorist sets off a bomb for "Allah" or whatever in a major city that kills lots of innocent people then that would be a clear case of mass murder (though from the terrorist's pov it probably wouldn't be; he'd probably view himself as a hero).I don't put that in the same category as dropping bombs on an enemy whom you've warned to surrender or else you will use your secret weapon on them and they refuse to surrender. Especially after you've already used it one time and so they know you aren't bluffing and yet they still refuse to surrender.
Any deaths that result after that would be on their (the people who tefused to surrender) heads for sure.
The Japanese public were not enemy combatants. They were civilians. They were not "the enemy", nor was surrendering up to them.
You can argue that the bombings were justified til the cows come home, but it's still mass murder imo.
Originally posted by -Pr-Nah, Pr, you don't get it. The Japs were asking for it.
The Japanese public were not enemy combatants. They were civilians. They were not "the enemy", nor was surrendering up to them.You can argue that the bombings were justified til the cows come home, but it's still mass murder imo.
Originally posted by -Pr-
The Japanese public were not enemy combatants. They were civilians. They were not "the enemy", nor was surrendering up to them.You can argue that the bombings were justified til the cows come home, but it's still mass murder imo.
Are you blind? Or do have a problem with reading comprehension, dude? I have said multiple times already that the innocent civilians were not the US governments intended targets. Do you not know what collateral damage is? Both of those targets were used in the japanesee war effort. You and Scribble can keep ignoring this to the cows come home but it was not in any way mass murder no matter how much you two keep repeating it.
If it was mass murder (which it wasn't) then it was on the japanese government's head, not America's.
Maybe they shouldn't have picked a fight with the wrong country, get it? Again, they brought it on themselves. It's sad that so many innocent civilians were killed but again, they were not the primary targets. They just happened to be in the surrounding area. If the Japs wanna blame someone for what happened then they should blame themselves.
I'm done arguing this subject with moronic people who're intent on making me feel like shit because my country bombed a country that attacked us first while deceitfully pretending to be our friend.
Again, you both failed epically.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot... you support abortion from what I remember so you lecturing me on what murder is just makes me laugh, dude. Think maybe you are the one having a problem with what that word actually means. 😉
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnaeCool, gotcha. Totally makes sense. Dropping nukes on entire cities because there are some soldiers there isn't mass murder because it was the soldiers you were aiming for, and the civilians just happened to get in the way.
When you kill your enemy but innocents are also harmed or killed in the process that is not murder. That is collateral damage. Murder is when you intentionally and wrongly kill someone.It's so sad that I have to explain something so simple as that to a grown ass adult lol.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Murder.
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Those attacks were directed at enemies who refused to surrender. Any civilian casualties as a result of those were collateral damage.I'm not familiar with Dresden but those other examples you mentioned I would not classify as being mass murders. Mass killings, yes, but not murders.
Dresden is a city in Germany. In WW2 the Royal Air Force fire bombed it, killing 25,000 civilians.
The thing about the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is that the target wasn't the military installations, the goal was to show off the immense power of the new weapons developed. Similar firebombing had no positive effect on the war effort, which the allies knew, since the bombing of London by the Nazis only strengthened the resolve of the populace there as well.
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Are you blind? Or do have a problem with reading comprehension, dude? I have said multiple times already that the innocent civilians were not the US governments intended targets. Do you not know what collateral damage is? Both of those targets were used in the japanesee war effort. You and Scribble can keep ignoring this to the cows come home but it was not in any way mass murder no matter how much you two keep repeating it.If it was mass murder (which it wasn't) then it was on the japanese government's head, not America's.
Maybe they shouldn't have picked a fight with the wrong country, get it? Again, they brought it on themselves. It's sad that so many innocent civilians were killed but again, they were not the primary targets. They just happened to be in the surrounding area. If the Japs wanna blame someone for what happened then they should blame themselves.
I'm done arguing this subject with moronic people who're intent on making me feel like shit because my country bombed a country that attacked us first while deceitfully pretending to be our friend.
Again, you both failed epically.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot... you support abortion from what I remember so you lecturing me on what murder is just makes me laugh, dude. Think maybe you are the one having a problem with what that word actually means. 😉
I'm starting to wonder if there isn't an undercurrent of racism in your posts, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now. It's only fair. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were cities. Civilian targets. You desperately trying to blame Japanese citizens for being nuked only makes you look bad. Not them.
And like Jaden said, Dresden is a city too.
Actually, I'm pro choice. That isn't the same thing. Funny though, how you constantly spew bigotry and stupidity but try to take the moral high ground. That's not a good idea.
Originally posted by Artol
The thing about the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is that the target wasn't the military installations, the goal was to show off the immense power of the new weapons developed. Similar firebombing had no positive effect on the war effort, which the allies knew, since the bombing of London by the Nazis only strengthened the resolve of the populace there as well.
Yeah, they wanted to do that to but that was incidental to them targetting the places they chose to target.
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Yeah, they wanted to do that to but that was incidental to them targetting the places they chose to target.
I don't think so really, there's a fair amount of information about the process and what the deciders in the US knew and wanted, they had a couple different targets they considered, but it was not to hurt the war effort, since the United States had basically achieved supremacy by that time and Japan was on its last leg either way. Imo the real reason to do it was to end the war before the Soviet Union could enter it (which had previously been agreed to by the allies) and to send the message of the immense power the United States had developed, again, not to the Japanese per se, but to the Soviet Union. It was a display of dominance at the expense of 100 000 civilians, a very dark part of an already incredibly sad and tragic war, imo.
I mean it is a pretty common view, especially in the United States, the US curriculum on history is not that interested to frame itself in any sort of moral grey in this regard. It's similar to the UK and its education regarding the atrocities of the empire. Or also conversely the way that Japan has dealt with its atrocities in the Second World War, i.e. mainly ignore them, at least in schools. So I'm not really angry at people not knowing much about that unless they have an interest in history in one way or another.