Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Well here is something that may have some relevance.

St. Augustine tells the story of a pirate captured by Alexander the Great, who asked him "how he dares molest the sea." "How dare you molest the whole world?" the pirate replied: "Because I do it with a little ship only, I am called a thief; you, doing it with a great navy, are called an Emperor."

At 3/1/08 03:24 AM, arcansi wrote:

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.

Well I guess Operation Desert Storm doesn't count. And We have been shipping supplies to Israel. My Bullshit Detector is going off.

I gotta say, I agree with the OP, especially is you couple all of the US bombings of Japan together--if you add the people killed in the napalm raids on the Japanse cities (keep in mind, each and every one of their cities was built entirley out of wood and paper), and you more than double the death toll.

But when it comes right down to it, it's just fucking war. War sucks, and in my opinion, we are currently the prime aggressors, due more to lackluster tacticians thatn anything else.

Are people actually bitching about the bombings of Japan by using 9/11? Fucking ridiculous.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki happened during war but ONLY as a retaliation to an attack. We were not at war but preparing ourselves to be ready if we needed. 9/11 was an attack on us as well.

If you want to complain about how terrible the U.S government was for dropping the bombs then you have no argument. The EMPIRE of Japan was going through China raping,killing and harming civilians while trying to conquer the country. Japan was planning an attack on Pear harbor, and executed said plan killing thousands of Americans who were off guard and not hostile to Japan.

When you look at what the U.S did it seems more justified. although we did drop bombs on "civilians" we were reacting to the things that japan had done. we also made a promise to stop if Japan would surrender. They did not.

what exactly makes it more justified for us to attack their civilians? it was the only way to protect our allies, stop the destruction that japan was causing and end the war.

9/11 and the bombings on japan can be summarized with the following
"WTH!" -- followed by retaliation-- "PWNAGE"

At 3/1/08 11:37 AM, morefngdbs wrote: But I find comparing the 9/11 attack with the bombing of Hiroshima & Nagasaki to be similar to comparing grapes with coconuts...

Dissimilar as they are, the sobering comparison was the whole point of the discussion via OP's LINK.

That point was raised in an effort to explain to a new "political generation" of 13 to 18 y/o's (arcansi stepping in as classic case ;-) ..that War is Hell, ..War has Targets, ..Targeting Civilans isn't the exclusive providence of Terrorists, and ..America pretty much set the standard for using Terror Weapons (WMD) to achive Victory.

Historical thou it is, it's relevant enough and recent enough to put some perspective into the whole "outrage and hate" felt by these young Patriots who think of 9-11 as the only crime against civilians in their short existence.

..by dropping nuclear bombs [on Japanese cities], the U.S. actually saved lives.

..or by dropping 1 nuke within sight of Tokyo (out to sea) with 1 days warning for reporters and cameras to witness it, could have saved even more.

9/11 was a terror attack.
but they chose to attack [WTC] a symbol of American Pride.

Symbol of Pride in American eyes, or a Symbol of Domination in the eyes of those who did it? That's the question.

Iraqi's used to feel great Pride, even under Saddam. For all the bad he did, he stood up to America's rhetoric by voicing Iraq's opinion on the world stage, he built Palaces of great elegance and displayed them on TV, he oversaw Iraq raise it's standard of living to one of the highest in the middle east, and on the whole he put down dissent and stopped rival factions slaughtering each other (albeit, by torture and fear of death). Sure, he had the occasional war against it's his neighbours (Iran, Kuwait), but heck, even America fully supported one of those.

Pride (ofcourse combined with propaganda) is a powerful tool for good OR bad. For every country it raises up the spirits of it's own people, it tears another apart.

Judging by subsequent events (the provocation of 2 as yet unfinished Wars.. a growing sense of chaos in middle east) ..then as you say, Pride could well have been the target.

The question remains; how should you then respond when someone attacks (mainly) your Pride, if only in order to provoke an overzealous or misguided retaliation?

.

Japan invaded Australia.

They knew full well as soon as they set foot in this country that the allies would bite back.

And yes you can argue America went to the middle east, but it was, at the very least, good intentioned; that is, they went there with the goal of helping, but Japan did it to win the war.

At 3/1/08 01:08 AM, ImFromMars wrote: 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.

There is also decades of time between the two events and the dropping of the bombs probably saved more lives because it made war between two great, and advanced powers unimaginably unthinkable that the 20th Century did not see another massive war such as WWI & WWII.

At 3/1/08 01:36 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: 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.

We do not indiscrimately bomb civilian areas; we have a strict ROE (Rules Of Engagement) that tells commanders what they can and cannot bomb. Furthermore, if bombing in a civilian area is a military necessity we have precision guided bombs that reduce the probability of collateral damage. Furthermore, we do things that minimize loss of personnel while maximizing material capability. In other words, we bomb targets at night or other times where there are the fewest people around to get hurt or killed.

Are we always successful? No. Do commanders/soldiers/sailors/marines/arim en fuck up and make bad decisions? Yes. Is it systematic? No. Is it perfect? No, but it sure as hell is better than it was in the 1940s...

At 3/1/08 07:10 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Japan invaded Australia.

LOL. And they're still invading Australia 'til today.

Invasion is a bit strong. They invaded China and Korea wickedly. But only people in Darwin were really put directly at risk on Australian soil (that actually died from bombing i mean). Let's face it, from Darwin to next major city is perhaps few thousand kms, though pretty arid terrain.

Plenty of distance for Australian "dad's army" and "boy's brigade" conscripts to ambush them. Technically Japan was overstretched going down to Australia. Equally doubtful that the American mainland was ever likely to be a target for Japanese ground invasion as some people seem to suggest.

At 3/1/08 07:10 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Japan invaded Australia.

As said, they really didn't. They bombed some of the coast cities, blocked trade, and kinda pretended to patrol the seas around it, but that's it.

They knew full well as soon as they set foot in this country that the allies would bite back.

We didn't really care too much--at the very least, it was the last thing on our agenda, far behind the war on the European front.

And yes you can argue America went to the middle east, but it was, at the very least, good intentioned; that is, they went there with the goal of helping, but Japan did it to win the war.

None too educated, but I'll give you credit for trying.

At 3/1/08 03:24 AM, arcansi wrote:

But anyways, the USA had never attacked the middle east once before 9/11.

*Cough*

At 3/2/08 12:00 AM, LordJaric wrote:

At 3/1/08 03:24 AM, arcansi wrote:

But anyways, the USA had never attacked the middle east once before 9/11.

*Cough*

OOO!!!!
Do we get to blame 9/11 on saddam now?

At 3/1/08 01:41 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: The person who posted that is a complete idiot.

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

The Gunfox post was pretty dumb too though.

It basically parlays the guilt of the Japanese military into the guilt of the Japanese citizens by saying that if the Japanese military kills citizens, it's ok for other people to kill citizens in retaliation, because killing citizens is wrong.

A better argument might be that there is no strategic or other gain from acts of terrorism, it's just killing for the sake of hate. At least in the case of the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings, there was something at stake, and the purpose was right, even if the methods were wrong.

At 3/1/08 11:40 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: Oh, and wasn't Iraq in violation of multiple UN charters?

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

Yes. Iraq under Sadaam Hussein was in violation of many U.N. sanctions, tossing out weapons inspectors, killing over hundreds of Khurds by means of poison gas, starting a war with Iran, invading Kuwait ( a coalition of nations including the US kicked his ass out), and the list goes on. We were in the right in opening a humongous can of whoop-ass on his pathetic Republican Guard, read, Republican Guard PUSSIES, and liberating Kuwait from the iron grip ofa maddog tyrant and his demonic sons.

At 3/1/08 09:44 AM, polym wrote: BECAUSE TALKING IN CAPS DOESN'T MAKE ME LOOK LIKE A 3 YEAR OLD.

BECAUSE ITS SO BAD TO TYPE IN CAPS

right?

At 3/1/08 11:40 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: Oh, and wasn't Iraq in violation of multiple UN charters?

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

Yes, they were, as are most countries in the world. Would you think it justified for for example China to bomb the hell out of US because of the war in Iraq, the numerous rapports on torture, and renditions?

At 3/2/08 12:40 AM, parallax10 wrote:

At 3/1/08 11:40 AM, LazyDrunk wrote:

Yes. Iraq under Sadaam Hussein was in violation of many U.N. sanctions, tossing out weapons inspectors, killing over hundreds of Khurds by means of poison gas, starting a war with Iran, invading Kuwait ( a coalition of nations including the US kicked his ass out), and the list goes on. We were in the right in opening a humongous can of whoop-ass on his pathetic Republican Guard, read, Republican Guard PUSSIES, and liberating Kuwait from the iron grip ofa maddog tyrant and his demonic sons.

Well in all fairness, the dictator of Kuwait isn't exactly what I would call a fountain of sunshine and puppies but I do agree that Saddam needed an ousting although in my opinion that should always be the work of the people, not an outside liberator. U.S. did the right thing but under the wrong pretexts.

And on topic, Nagasaki and Hiroshima were definitly needed. In my History class, we read up on letters from Japanese taking about keeping sharpened bamboo sticks handy in case the Americans landed. Thats civilians readying themselves to fight which is never a good thing for an invader. If that isn't enough to show how determined the Japs were, we did have to nuke them TWICE. One city was not enough to convince them that giving was the better idea.

also the japan bombings wernt just bombings, days and even years after the explosion people still suffered the effects the radiation, caused genetic mutations, new born children died who were born outside of ww2 due to mutation from their parents. And not just two buildings were destroyed an entire city was torn to the ground.

At 3/5/08 02:59 PM, HairyFreak wrote: also the japan bombings wernt just bombings, days and even years after the explosion people still suffered the effects the radiation, caused genetic mutations, new born children died who were born outside of ww2 due to mutation from their parents. And not just two buildings were destroyed an entire city was torn to the ground.

You should cry for the ones who suffered in mainland Asia around that time, also Operation Downfall could've been worst.

At 3/1/08 01:41 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: The person who posted that is a complete idiot.

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

Are you kidding me, Gunfox sounds like a freaking racist psychopath. He claims that the Germans were morally superior to the Japanese because their acts of random killing were more methodical. He tries to downplay the Holocaust, saying:

"Hitler had military and political goals for everything he did. They systematically invaded and shoved their enemies into work camps. The German people supported the war effort, but were by no means die-hard about it. Many of them began to realize that the war was frivolous and a terrible thing. It is why reconstruction (on the allied side) went so well and had so little resistance movements launched against the military forces."

Wait, wtf? Is he seriously claiming that there was a significant Japanese insurgency following WW2? Anyone who knows anything about history knew that both nations gave up their militaristic systems following WW2, and to this day have been peaceful, maintaining only small defense forces. In fact, this casts even more doubt on the blind assumption that Japanese fanaticism was significantly more extreme then German fanaticism. If it was really true that the Japanese people would fight in the streets, die in the streets, attack like Kamikazes forever, etc., it wouldn't make sense that the Japanese were little more resistance than the Germans of US occupation. And yet, that's what happened.

Frankly, I think the whole thing about Japanese fanatacism is made up for two reasons:

1. To justify attacks on civilian populations
2. As an excuse to avoid prosecuting war criminals like Emperor Hirohito

Let me make my position clear:

-It doesn't matter if it makes occupation easier, the mass slaughter of innocent civilians is wrong. There is no situation that justifies it

I think that 9/11 was terrible, and of course, less significant than the civilian massacres of WW2, but that doesn't mean that 9/11 should be considered any less tragic.

At 3/1/08 05:19 PM, Sp10x wrote:

If you want to complain about how terrible the U.S government was for dropping the bombs then you have no argument. The EMPIRE of Japan was going through China raping,killing and harming civilians while trying to conquer the country.

And it makes sense to blame Japanese civilians for this tragedy, why? It would be like an Iraqi person killing you, and saying, "The American army killed some civilians, so I'm going to kill you".

How is a Japanese person, a little kid, an elderly person, with no say in their military dictatorship, responsible for what their nation's soldiers are doing in China?

At 3/5/08 04:49 PM, Al6200 wrote:

How is a Japanese person, a little kid, an elderly person, with no say in their military dictatorship, responsible for what their nation's soldiers are doing in China?

How were all those who lost their lives in Pearl Harbor responsible for the US policy of isolation?

At 3/5/08 06:00 PM, n64kid wrote:

At 3/5/08 04:49 PM, Al6200 wrote:

How is a Japanese person, a little kid, an elderly person, with no say in their military dictatorship, responsible for what their nation's soldiers are doing in China?

How were all those who lost their lives in Pearl Harbor responsible for the US policy of isolation?

Just because A does something bad to B, doesn't mean that B doing the same thing to A is okay.

At 3/5/08 06:37 PM, Al6200 wrote:

Just because A does something bad to B, doesn't mean that B doing the same thing to A is okay.

Where's the retribution?
To quote Fat Tony, "I don't get mad, I get stabby."

i think by now we can all agree that both bombings weren't good decisions.

here's the difference:

9/11 ->
crazy pissed off arabs go postal and kill people. happens in smaller doses in colleges around the US at least once a year (note: crazy applies only to these shitheads, not arabs in general)

hiroshima/nagasaki ->
crime against HUMANITY by a world leader, intentionally targeting 2 high density CIVILIAN targets, causing massive corporeal, finantial, agricultural and enviromental damage both to the country and the people who have no part in the war.

AT LEAST the 9/11 arabs aimed for economical instability and not a new record in kills.

i do not condone either. but there is NO argument here. an indiscriminate NUCLEAR assault on any country is far worse than any large scale bombing on specific targeg areas.

At 3/5/08 08:20 PM, podgerodge wrote: i think by now we can all agree that both bombings weren't good decisions.

here's the difference:

Please read the post by Elfer.

Lets compare shall we? A planned military strike with disiplend pilots vs. a bunch of pissed of muslums who hijacked a few plans and crashed them in buildings. What to you think is going to do the most damage?

At 3/5/08 09:01 PM, slackerzac wrote: Lets compare shall we? A planned military strike with disiplend pilots vs. a bunch of pissed of muslums who hijacked a few plans and crashed them in buildings. What to you think is going to do the most damage?

Read post by Elfer.

Again

At 3/1/08 07:10 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Japan invaded Australia.

My grandfather defended Australia from the Japanese during the Coral Sea battle. Did they actually invade with troops? I had thought that they had never landed troops in Australia.

At 3/5/08 08:20 PM, podgerodge wrote: i think by now we can all agree that both bombings weren't good decisions.

Well, yes. The US should have constrained its atomic bombing campaigns to military targets, or at least relevant industrial/logistical targets.

9/11 ->
crazy pissed off arabs go postal and kill people. happens in smaller doses in colleges around the US :at least once a year (note: crazy applies only to these shitheads, not arabs in general)

Al-Queda isn't just a gang of pepped up psycho little kids, they're a very well structured and maintained organization, and 9/11 required a LOT of planning.

I don't see how that makes the crime any better or worse though.

hiroshima/nagasaki ->
crime against HUMANITY by a world leader, intentionally targeting 2 high density CIVILIAN targets, :causing massive corporeal, finantial, agricultural and enviromental damage both to the country and :the people who have no part in the war.

Nagasaki was a naval base, but Hiroshima was a city. Nagasaki was justified, Hiroshima was not.

AT LEAST the 9/11 arabs aimed for economical instability and not a new record in kills.

Ummm... Both of the motives were relatively similar - to take away the enemy's ability to fight.

Bin Laden wanted to take away America's ability to influence the Middle East to secure oil and support Israel, the US wanted to take away Japan's capacity to stop American

i do not condone either. but there is NO argument here. an indiscriminate NUCLEAR assault on any :country is far worse than any large scale bombing on specific targeg areas.

Who cares how specific or large it was? The fact is that both were bombings against innocent civilians, in an attempt to oppose a military policy that the victims could not have influenced in any way.

Military targets are different.