Equitist wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 10:31pm:


And the REAL history gets worse

The USA likes to spread the propaganda that the nuking of these Japanese cites ended the war which is laughable and just spinned history as written by the victors.

The actuals events are very interesting. Japan had surrended several days before the bombings - BUT not soley to the USA but to one of the USA's allies in the war - namely the Soveit Union.

The USA demanded a surrender ONLY to the USA and under the terms they stipulate.

The other question one can ask is WHY didnt the USA drop a bom on Berlin? WOuld that have ended the war too?

These were civilian targets - the number 1 and number 2 war crimes of the last century were the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - classice text book defintion of a terrorist act (as defined by the USA military manuals).

I mean for people in here to be apologists for these atrocites is not only appaling but a testament to the effectiveness of Western propaganda since the war ended.



 

salad in wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 7:55am:


As was London, during the Blitz, and Dresden, in the retalitory bombings, and Sydney during the minisub attack...

It was a WAR.....

Nagasaki 'may' have been unnecessary, but alas, we'll never know...However, the atomic bombings DID end the war, and save a lot of lives...on both sides...

I always have a a laugh when those ignorant of history condemn the use of nuclear weapons on Japan.

The US had planned an invasion of the Japanese home islands beginning in November 1945. After the experience of the fanatical Japanese resistance (civilian as well as military) in the island hopping campaign, it was estimated that allied casualties would exceed one million in the opening stages of this campaign, and it may take until 1948 to achieve final victory. When the nuclear option was presented it was seized upon as a way to end the war with minimal casualties on both sides, which it did.

You can read a brief summary here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

Belgarion wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 2:59pm:


Well of course you laugh

You refuse to accept (or perhaps understand) such a simple ethic as the Pinciple of Universality.

You also classify the worth of poeple based on the melanonin content of their epidermal covering or other superficial genetic traits.

I think I uderstand where you are coming from now

cheers

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 3:59pm:


Let me summarise your position - the nuking of civilian cities in Japan IS NOT a terrorist attack but the bombing of the US Navy sitting in Pearl Harbour is?

lol

Have you looked up a typical definition of what terrorism is yet? These sound familiar to you? Or do you apply them in a very selective manner?

"...the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature....through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear."

"Terrorism is the use or threat of action which is violent, damaging, or disrupting, and is intended to influence the government or intimidate the public and is for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause"


Perhaps ladies and gentlement may consider educating himself as some point in the future (for the first time)