no they were punished for their own actions.

Now how about my question? - I think its a relevant one.

no i think I'll wait till you answer my question first FD.

Enough evasion.

Why isn't it relevant?

You've been trying to corner me on the general principle of supporting an atrocity(s) and the seeming incompatibility of supporting peace and tolerance at the same time for years. So why can't I do the same? Is it that you are scared of sounding like a hypocrite?

Its a simple question, yes or no - do you support the slaughter of 10s of thousands of innocents at Hiroshima? Do you think such a stance can be consistent with having a general stance for peace and tolerance?

I think it can be - what do you think?

freediver wrote on Aug 7^th, 2015 at 2:38pm:


FD's only response so far to this question of mine, which of course is a spineless evasion.

And yet, even when you put it like this, Muhammad's actions seems a lot better - executing POWs compared to the deliberate mass slaughter of civilians... hmmm

Despite it being spineless evasion, you do give a hint of your position - "to bring an end to a war"... suggests that the means justified the ends no? And this gets to the crux of why this comparison is relevant to your topic: you and the other Hiroshima apologists have a justification which allows you to claim your peace and tolerance credentials and not be inconsistent. I disagree that Hiroshima was anything but cold, calculated terrorism - but I don't begrudge FD and his ilk to believe otherwise, and at the same time be a sincere advocate for peace and tolerance. Its just a different point of view. Similarly, muslims too can believe the actions of Muhammad were justified, and at the same time claim their peace and tolerance credentials with sincerity. And the point about this topic is that rather than accept that he has a different point of view and that it is possible for people with differing points of view to be equally sincere in their advocacy for peace and tolerance - instead FD uses this for just more ammunition to try and demonstrate how sinister and wholly *IN*sincere he is: "ooh look this is how the devious muslim justifies the slaughter of unarmed jews".

For someone who now claims that muslims *CAN* have beliefs different to his own and still be sincere about peace and tolerance (in another thread) - you certainly don't act like it FD.

Please! Enough with the tap-dancing, gentlemen! 

Its a simple question FD - at least I thought so.

Who'd have thought answering it would be such an exercise in mental gymnastics?

Lets break it down then. First part: do you support the decision to nuke Hiroshima?

You didn't answer the question FD.

Do you support it or not?

Yes or no.