Bombing of Japan vs. 9/11

[ImFromMars]

---LINK---

This link compares the WW2 bombings of Japan to 9/11, and I must say I believe this to be pretty valid. He claims that 9/11 is insignificant in comparison to the bombings.

The casualties of Japan were roughly 72 times that of 9/11. And the target of both cases were for the most part innocent of doing anything.

Read up the link before you post though, I understand I could stick there, although I am curious to see the discussion in a smaller space of people... Such as here.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

The issue is that whereas the effect of the nukes was to stop war (whether or not it was necessary or not is irrelevent), whereas 9/11 was JUST to cause collateral.

I do find it Ironic that Bush pre-emptively bombed Iraq civilian areas (again, whether or not it was necessary or right is irrelevant), where as the Japanese pre-emptively bombed (/divebombed) a purely military target and was vilified.

Some war tactic is always dishonorable, until we need to use it.

[cellardoor6]

The person who posted that is a complete idiot.

What the user "Gunfox" said in response basically put him in his place.

[SadisticMonkey]

Japan deserved it, America did not.

[arcansi]

We were at war, and we saved the lives of the allies. But 9/11 was against a country at peace, and did nothing but start a war.

bombing in japan = end of war
bomging in 9/11 = start of war

[ImFromMars]

At 3/1/08 02:02 AM, arcansi wrote: We were at war, and we saved the lives of the allies. But 9/11 was against a country at peace, and did nothing but start a war.

bombing in japan = end of war
bomging in 9/11 = start of war

The thing I see though is that like, was it really worth thousands upon thousands of innocent lives, who maybe didn't even agree with their gov. at the time? Of course it is not ethical, but was it imperative that all these innocent people had to die.

[JudgeDredd]

At 3/1/08 01:54 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Japanese women and children deserved it, America's yuppy business district (and Pentagon) did not.

Fixed!

[JudgeDredd]

At 3/1/08 02:02 AM, arcansi wrote: boming in Pearl Harbour (US Military Pacific Stronghold) = start of war.
2 nukes on japanese cities = end of war

bombing in 9/11 = start of war
America's retaliation = start of World War 3

Fixed x 2.

[Earfetish]

At 3/1/08 02:02 AM, arcansi wrote: We were at war, and we saved the lives of the allies. But 9/11 was against a country at peace, and did nothing but start a war.

We'd been firing missiles into the Middle East for ages before 9/11, and invading their countries and building military bases and supporting Israel. I'm sure many people over there thought that the West made the first move and 9/11 was retaliation. Not that they supported it, but they understood it.

And, as JudgeDredd said, it was the WTC and the Pentagon that got attacked. And yes, it was fucking disgusting, and I can't justify it at all, but if you're pissed off at Western Imperialism then a the World Trade Centre and the military headquarters seem like reasonable targets.

Although 9/11 sucked and we need to kill Al Qaeda.

The 'was Hiroshima and Nagasaki justifiable' argument is going to go on long after we're dead (so long as it's not in a nuclear winter). My personal feeling is, not at all. But I'm not Emperor Hirohito and it's not 1945, so I don't know. It is correct that far more innocent people died, far more women and children, and it wasn't a targeted attack, it was 'drop this motherfucker on a city and cause as much death and destruction as possible'.

But both seem like cold and callous acts to me. But 9/11 was far more focussed.

[arcansi]

At 3/1/08 03:03 AM, Earfetish wrote:

At 3/1/08 02:02 AM, arcansi wrote: We were at war, and we saved the lives of the allies. But 9/11 was against a country at peace, and did nothing but start a war.

We'd been firing missiles into the Middle East for ages before 9/11, and invading their countries and building military bases and supporting Israel. I'm sure many people over there thought that the West made the first move and 9/11 was retaliation. Not that they supported it, but they understood it.

And, as JudgeDredd said, it was the WTC and the Pentagon that got attacked. And yes, it was fucking disgusting, and I can't justify it at all, but if you're pissed off at Western Imperialism then a the World Trade Centre and the military headquarters seem like reasonable targets.

Although 9/11 sucked and we need to kill Al Qaeda.

The 'was Hiroshima and Nagasaki justifiable' argument is going to go on long after we're dead (so long as it's not in a nuclear winter). My personal feeling is, not at all. But I'm not Emperor Hirohito and it's not 1945, so I don't know. It is correct that far more innocent people died, far more women and children, and it wasn't a targeted attack, it was 'drop this motherfucker on a city and cause as much death and destruction as possible'.

But both seem like cold and callous acts to me. But 9/11 was far more focussed.

u think 9/11 is justified right? No, there arent words to describe how unjustified it was. America had never fired a single missle into the middle east before 9/11, and i dont beleive we have launched one since then. Of course we have bombed terrorist strong holds SINCE, but its been Isreal thats been launching missiles at other middle eastern countries launching missiles at it. And since isreal is the most stable country, theyre the ones we support.

[JudgeDredd]

At 3/1/08 03:11 AM, arcansi wrote:
u think 9/11 is justified right? No, there arent words to describe how unjustified it was. America had never fired a single missle into the middle east before 9/11..

And you were like 5 years old when 9-11 happened, right?!

[jitterman]

im with gunfox .(scroll down in the link to see his comments)

[arcansi]

At 3/1/08 03:20 AM, JudgeDredd wrote:

At 3/1/08 03:11 AM, arcansi wrote:
u think 9/11 is justified right? No, there arent words to describe how unjustified it was. America had never fired a single missle into the middle east before 9/11..

And you were like 5 years old when 9-11 happened, right?!

ur point? doesnt mean the facts are invalid. Yeah i was in NY when it happened, dont think i saw it though... Cant remember... But anyways, the USA had never attacked the middle east once before 9/11.

[stafffighter]

At 3/1/08 03:24 AM, arcansi wrote:
ur point? doesnt mean the facts are invalid. Yeah i was in NY when it happened, dont think i saw it though... Cant remember... But anyways, the USA had never attacked the middle east once before 9/11.

The middle east is a geographical region, not a singular political entity. We'd done a bunch of shit in the general area. We had some of our best fights with the Russians there. We had another war in Iraw that 90's comics made snarky remarks about. But that group that attacked us, yeah they were just being bad guys

[zoolrule]

arcansi, you are an ignorant dumb fool, sorry.

[arcansi]

At 3/1/08 03:29 AM, stafffighter wrote:
The middle east is a geographical region, not a singular political entity. We'd done a bunch of shit in the general area. We had some of our best fights with the Russians there. We had another war in Iraw that 90's comics made snarky remarks about. But that group that attacked us, yeah they were just being bad guys

remember we liberated Afganistan and supplied their millitias with munitions to fight the Russians with. And now its come back to bite is in the rear.... We shouldve done it ourselves! O_o

[arcansi]

At 3/1/08 03:30 AM, zoolrule wrote: arcansi, you are an ignorant dumb fool, sorry.

and i hope u can prove that. otherwise that makes u an ignorant dumb fool.

[JudgeDredd]

At 3/1/08 03:24 AM, arcansi wrote: ... But anyways, the USA had never attacked the middle east once before 9/11.

No, not once. A shit load of times.

Directly, and indirectly.

Not to mention crazy ass food and medicine sanctions...

What sort of attacks are we talking about? A bullet in Saddam's head for 30 Mil. or decade upon decade upon decade of war?

[Earfetish]

At 3/1/08 03:11 AM, arcansi wrote: America had never fired a single missle into the middle east before 9/11

http://www.indianexpress.com/res/web/pIe /ie/daily/19980822/23450504.html

You can blame Clinton for 9/11 if you like.

They did more shit than that, that was just the easiest one to find.

[arcansi]

At 3/1/08 03:38 AM, JudgeDredd wrote:

At 3/1/08 03:24 AM, arcansi wrote: ... But anyways, the USA had never attacked the middle east once before 9/11.

No, not once. A shit load of times.

Directly, and indirectly.

Not to mention crazy ass food and medicine sanctions...

What sort of attacks are we talking about? A bullet in Saddam's head for 30 Mil. or decade upon decade upon decade of war?

sanctions are not attacks, they are punishments that dont nessecarily kill, we dont cut off food in case if youve read about our sanctions. We mostly cut off luxuries, (eg entertainment goods, electronics, american goods, toys etc., cloth) but we do not cut off food. That would violate international law, established by the un. And u cannot put sanctions on a country without the UNs approval.

We have not fought the middle east for decades and decades, theyve been killing eachother since biblical times. We havnt attacked them, that would go against the UN, which if u didnt know WE established. America fights for peace, the Middle East fights for fanatacism.

[stafffighter]

At 3/1/08 03:32 AM, arcansi wrote:

At 3/1/08 03:29 AM, stafffighter wrote:
The middle east is a geographical region, not a singular political entity. We'd done a bunch of shit in the general area. We had some of our best fights with the Russians there. We had another war in Iraw that 90's comics made snarky remarks about. But that group that attacked us, yeah they were just being bad guys

remember we liberated Afganistan and supplied their millitias with munitions to fight the Russians with. And now its come back to bite is in the rear.... We shouldve done it ourselves! O_o

Yeah i remember that you clever little monkey. In pointing that out you just admited that we were in the area stirring up shit.

"I love this moment so much I want to have sex with it" Dr. Perry Cox M.D

[JudgeDredd]

At 3/1/08 03:44 AM, arcansi wrote: sanctions are not attacks,

You're quite right, sanctions only affect the young, poor, and elderly, who can't fight wars.

they are punishments that dont nessecarily kill,

O..kay.

we dont cut off food in case if youve read about our sanctions.

I thought it was called "food for oil" program.. thank god they had something you needed so bad.

We mostly cut off luxuries, (eg entertainment goods, electronics, american goods, toys etc., cloth)

but we do not cut off food. That would violate international law, established by the un.

No, you traded with the Iraqi establishment.

And u cannot put sanctions on a country without the UNs approval.

Pardon?

We have not fought the middle east for decades and decades, theyve been killing eachother since biblical times. We havnt attacked them, that would go against the UN,

The whole war in Iraq is against the U.N's founding Charter; "prohibits any nation from using force against another. The charter allows for only two exceptions to this rule: when force is required in self-defense (Article 51) or when the Security Council authorizes the use of force to protect international peace and security ...nethier of which we're observed.

which if u didnt know WE established the [UN].

Oh, i see. ^That explains it.

America fights for peace, the Middle East fights for fanatacism.

War for Peace. Yeah, i got that part already.

.

[homor]

ecxept THEY attacked US first, and there wasn't a any other way for us to win against them.

[homor]

At 3/1/08 03:34 AM, arcansi wrote:

At 3/1/08 03:30 AM, zoolrule wrote: arcansi, you are an ignorant dumb fool, sorry.

and i hope u can prove that. otherwise that makes u an ignorant dumb fool.

STOP FUCKING USING "U" AND "UR"

THIS IS A SOMEWHAT INTELIGENT FORUM MADE FOR POLITICAL DEBATE AND YOU'RE TALKING LIKE A FUCKING 3 YEAR OLD.

IT'S NOT CUTE, NOR IS IT FUNNY, JUST STOP IT.

[The-evil-bucket]

If America did not drop the atomic bomb on Japan, there would have been an invasion.

Do you understand how many lives it would have cost if the US had invaded the Japanese mainland? Do you understand that we are talking about invading a country where "banzai" attacks, where hundreds charge, armed sometimes with nothing more than sharpened sticks, are considered a great honor? Do you realize that nearly every Japanese would have fought the invaders?

At that time, the Japanese mindset was that you should fight to the death. Conventional warfare would have killed more people than those bombs even came close to killing. Do you realize that hundreds of thousands of civilians would have willing commited a suicide attack on the invaders?

The atomic bomb saved millions, and ended the largest war ever fought. The 9/11 attacks started a war.

[polym]

At 3/1/08 08:25 AM, homor wrote: STOP FUCKING USING "U" AND "UR"

THIS IS A SOMEWHAT INTELIGENT FORUM MADE FOR POLITICAL DEBATE AND YOU'RE TALKING LIKE A FUCKING 3 YEAR OLD.

IT'S NOT CUTE, NOR IS IT FUNNY, JUST STOP IT.

BECAUSE TALKING IN CAPS DOESN'T MAKE ME LOOK LIKE A 3 YEAR OLD.

[KeithHybrid]

There is a chief difference between the bombing of Japan and the 9-11 attacks.

The bombing of Japan was a response to aggressive action taken by an opposing army. They hit first, we hit back (and hard).

The 9-11 attacks were unprovoked.

[morefngdbs]

At 3/1/08 10:17 AM, KeithHybrid wrote: There is a chief difference between the bombing of Japan and the 9-11 attacks.

The bombing of Japan was a response to aggressive action taken by an opposing army. They hit first, we hit back (and hard).

The 9-11 attacks were unprovoked.

;
In your opinion they were unprovoked, it is obvious that to other people , they felt they had provocation.
IF they did not feel that way, it wouldn't have been attacked , now would it?

But I find comparing the 9/11 attack with the bombing of Hiroshima & Nagasaki to be similar to comparing grapes with coconuts... besides the fact they are both edible & the fruit from different plants
they are not similar.

You only need to look into what was happening during the war in the Pacific to realise that by this terrible action of dropping nuclear bombs, the U.S. actually saved lives, because the toll of conventional warfare with Japan would have decimated that Nation as well as possibly crippling the U.S. as well. Instead of tens of thousands dying, hundreds of thousands would have died.

9/11 was a terror attack.
They wanted to show the American people that they could be harmed at home.
Doesn't matter who did it, or why they felt they were justified or not to do it. They wanted to send a message of America isn't safe. They probably could have killed way more people by say bombing/crashing into a Stadium full of people during a sporting event for example...but they chose to attack a symbol of American Pride, New York City & its massive financial centre . The World Trade centre's massive twin towers was a natural target with that agenda.

this of course is only My Opinion

[LazyDrunk]

If Japan had utterly destroyed our navy, what would've stopped them from an invasion of Hawaii, then the west coast?

Sanctions aren't acts of war, they are the "step 2" in a three step process called diplomacy.

An act of war is attacking financial and industrial targets, as well as military defense targets. The act is supposed to cause mass demoralization among the populace, incapacitate the infrastructure and generally fuck up their way of life.

Some of you guys are starting to sound rather faggish.

[LazyDrunk]

Oh, and wasn't Iraq in violation of multiple UN charters?

I'll come back if this question isn't answered tonight.