This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Unthinkable
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
375923
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Patty
My point is stop bloody trying to find a 3rd option in a phylosophical question it's like watching Sophie's Choice and saying ''I'd just shoot the Nazi's and use my jetpack to fly to safety with both children'' it's not the point of the question the question is would you torture children to save thousands of peoples lives
I personally wouldn't, but that's just me. Inducing the suffering of innocent people to save innocent people, seems to defy the purpose of protecting innocents from terrorism. Then, when it's terrorism condoned by the state it makes matters all the more complicated. It's really a catch 22, in my eyes.
Post by
Adamsm
I find it amusing that the events in the Middle East, where the Americans were attacking and bombing locations, dropping dumb bombs and the like, is seen as 'freedom fighting' to save the world from a 'threat'.... but when a Middle East country does it to the States, it's terrorism. Nothing like hypocritical terms to wage global warfare.
Post by
375923
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
I find it amusing that the events in the Middle East, where the Americans were attacking and bombing locations, dropping dumb bombs and the like, is seen as 'freedom fighting' to save the world from a 'threat'.... but when a Middle East country does it to the States, it's terrorism. Nothing like hypocritical terms to wage global warfare.
That is not hypocritical at all when the USA bombs buildings they are often occupied by terrorist forces who are fighting against them whereas the terrorists specificly bomb locations to kill as many innocent people as possible
Friendly fire isn't; several times during both Afghanistan and Iraq, schools and other civilians targets were hit by 'accident'. Of course, look at the biggest example of global terrorism, preformed by the US during World War 2; the bombing of two cities, full to the brim of civilians and people just trying to live their lives while a war raged on in Europe; unless suddenly the entire population of Hiroshima was all hidden ninja troops, right down to the poor babies who fired to death as nuke was dropped on them.
Post by
Patty
I find it amusing that the events in the Middle East, where the Americans were attacking and bombing locations, dropping dumb bombs and the like, is seen as 'freedom fighting' to save the world from a 'threat'.... but when a Middle East country does it to the States, it's terrorism. Nothing like hypocritical terms to wage global warfare.
Well, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Yasser Arafat
is a prime example.
Post by
375923
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
Hiroshima is a very poor example to bring up it was a diffrent time all together and also america probebly saved more people by dropping them anyway.I love comments like that, I really do. Do you know what would have saved more lives all through out World War 1 and 2? America not selling weapons and supplies to both Axis and Allies up until 'personal' tragedies made them 'come save the day'(a pair of American tourists on a boat sunk by a U-Boat and an attack on a naval base), and actually fight from the start in the war.
Of course, that could just be the Canadian in me... you know, the country that actually fought for real freedom from the start of both World Wars, as well as the country who always seems to get stuck cleaning up after the States decides to cause some global warfare.
And yes there are friendly fire casualty's in war that is innevitable and unintentional you can not compare that to specificly trying to kill thousands of people in a skyscraperYou can when a country hits a carpet bomb across a city scape, not caring what they strike; to your standard Iraq or Afghan, what the states did was just as bad as what Osama ordered to happen to the Towers. It's all about perspective after all.
Post by
Patty
Hiroshima is a very poor example to bring up it was a diffrent time all together and also america probebly saved more people by dropping them anyway.So, because it was a different time, it's alright to murder thousands of innocents? That very same justification could be used for all sorts of humanitarian crises, or it could be
tried
to - because it's a very flimsy argument.
The japaneise refused to surrender it is in their culture to die rather then surrender so the whole country doing so was completely unthinkable.Part of their old culture.
With the japaneise continueing to fight on the whole country was running out of supplies and people where starving to death.
By ending the war early by killing thousands of people the USA managed to prevent millions of people in japan dieing from famine.Um...do you have a source on that?
And yes there are friendly fire casualty's in war that is innevitable and unintentional you can not compare that to specificly trying to kill thousands of people in a skyscraperYou
can
, however, compare specifically trying to kill thousands of people in a skyscraper to killing hundreds of thousands in full cities. Both are viewed as terrorist acts as some, but seen as heroic deeds by others. The atomic bomb
was
extreme, you can't really get much more extreme than nuking a city.
Post by
375923
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
Hiroshima is a very poor example to bring up it was a diffrent time all together and also america probebly saved more people by dropping them anyway.I love comments like that, I really do. Do you know what would have saved more lives all through out World War 1 and 2? America not selling weapons and supplies to both Axis and Allies up until 'personal' tragedies made them 'come save the day'(a pair of American tourists on a boat sunk by a U-Boat and an attack on a naval base), and actually fight from the start in the war.
Of course, that could just be the Canadian in me... you know, the country that actually fought for real freedom from the start of both World Wars, as well as the country who always seems to get stuck cleaning up after the States decides to cause some global warfare.
Right because Europe had no way of making it's own weapons?
Also what has this to do with both Terrorism and Heroshima?That it more then likely wouldn't have happened had the States not played neutral for as long as they did, and decided to scare the hell out of the Japanese people by killing two cities with one of the worse weapons on the planet; how long till they decide to do the same thing to the Middle East? And go read a history text; it was well known that the United States of America stayed neutral and sold to both sides.
You can when a country hits a carpet bomb across a city scape, not caring what they strike; to your standard Iraq or Afghan, what the states did was just as bad as what Osama ordered to happen to the Towers. It's all about perspective after all.
That is a lie and an insult to the American soldiers who are fighting in iraq, the american military never carpet bombed city scapes randomly not caring who was killed in the cross fire they are always careful not to kill innocent people and rarely use bombs at all
Go read news stories from the time of the Afghan war and Iraq; you'll see it there. I don't insult the troops; they are brave for what they do, but I don't agree with what their country decides to do, where it's easier to just blow the hell out of something instead of trying to take prisoners... of course, considering GITMO, I wouldn't want to be taken prisoner by the States either: Nothing like State sanctioned torture.
Post by
375923
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Patty
So, because it was a different time, it's alright to murder thousands of innocents? That very same justification could be used for all sorts of humanitarian crises, or it could be tried to - because it's a very flimsy argument.
Yes you can millions of people were killed throughout history by diffrent countrys,That's my point. What's the difference between the Spanish Inquisition, Witch hunts and anti-semetic persecution and the atomic bombings? Thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people all died, that was the end-game. They were all innocent of any crimes. the japaneise themselves started the war with america and killed
millions
of people in their colonies in china with biological experimentations which are also considered weapons of mass destruction.Yes, and the allied countries have also killed millions. Britain has the blood of millions on its shoulder, so does America. It's not as simple as "Japan were evil because people died."
The damage done to Japan's infrastructure, combined with a severe famine in 1946, further complicated the Allied efforts to feed the Japanese POWs and civilians
Britain and Russia also had severe food shortages, by this point. Britain was certainly left crippled after WW2, and so was Russia. America fared better because its mainland was far from most of the conflict.
Post by
375923
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
Also in WWI it was not clear what side America should of joined at first until they did indeed try to get Mexico to invade America.Um... what? What comic history book did you read that in.
I want a link about that I doubt the USA killed half the people in friendly fire bombs then the terrorists killed intentionallyAgain, go read new stories about the Afghan and Iraq war.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Off-topic, but imo Austria-Hungary was the only good guy in WWI (only after Charles took the throne).
Post by
375923
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Patty
That it more then likely wouldn't have happened had the States not played neutral for as long as they did, and decided to scare the hell out of the Japanese people by killing two cities with one of the worse weapons on the planet; how long till they decide to do the same thing to the Middle East? And go read a history text; it was well known that the United States of America stayed neutral and sold to both sides.
The japaneise were not involved in WWI and they were only coincidently involved in WWII,
you also make the USA seem more powerful then they actualy are the USSR could of defeating the Germans in WWII without America's help and if the USSR were not involved or were defeated in WWII then the Germans could of defeating America.
Also in WWI it was not clear what side America should of joined at first until they did indeed try to get Mexico to invade America.They really couldn't have. From February 1937 to November 1938, Stalin authorised the execution of almost 39,000 army officers and 3,000 naval officers. Atleast 10% of Russia's population died between 1941 and 1945. Through Lend-Lease, 17% of the calorie intake by Red army troops was supplied by Americans. Of the 2,000 trains used by the Russians during WW2, over 1,900 were American. Equally, American 'jeeps' formed two thirds of all those used by the Red Army. (
Source
)
Post by
375923
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Patty
The US entered the war because the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.