JOTD
-
Konstantin Vasserman wrote: Some sources say that Japan was already about to surrender anyway. Why did they wait for the SECOND a-bomb to go off then? Konstantin Vasserman wrote: why US did not just invite Japanese to a test of the A-bomb somewhere on the island to scare the s**t out of them Doesn't quite have the same effect, does it? Like I said above, it took 2 bombs to get them to surrender.
Jason Henderson
start page ; articles henderson is coming henderson is an opponent's worst nightmare * googlism *As I've said before, nothing is as black and white as some people want us to believe. Here is some quotes of people who think it was a mistake: http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm[^]
-
War is hell. If we hadn't dropped the nuke, the war would have gone on for much longer and more people would have lost their lives. The Allies did what was necessary. Michael The avalanche has started, it's too late for the pebbles to vote.
Michael P Butler wrote: more people would have lost their lives On both sides :( The tigress is here :-D
-
Konstantin Vasserman wrote: So is it your argument that it does not qualify to be called terrorist attack based on the fact that it was during war? Yes. As Michael said, war is Hell. Konstantin Vasserman wrote: Dictionary defines That is the first thing I did and why in my first post I said "If we are being literal" etc. If we are being literal then yes it was a terrorist act. But it was war. Lots of terrible decisions were made. Were the Russians terrorists for what they did to civilians? Pretty sure British infrantry men also killed civilians at times, sometimes even deliberatly. It was war.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaRoger Wright wrote: Using a feather is kinky; using the whole chicken is perverted!
We are arguing over the definitions of words rather than facts. It is pretty pointless...
-
Konstantin Vasserman wrote: Some sources say that Japan was already about to surrender anyway. Why did they wait for the SECOND a-bomb to go off then? Konstantin Vasserman wrote: why US did not just invite Japanese to a test of the A-bomb somewhere on the island to scare the s**t out of them Doesn't quite have the same effect, does it? Like I said above, it took 2 bombs to get them to surrender.
Jason Henderson
start page ; articles henderson is coming henderson is an opponent's worst nightmare * googlism *I agree with you, IMHO Japan had already lost the war and knew it, but didn't want to surrender, hoping causing heavy casualties to US armies when trying to land at the end of '45 and the begining of '46 (operations Olympic and Coronet). However I'm not sure it was the only reason to end the war the sooner. USSR had declared war to Japan the 8th of August, 3 months after the end in Europe, as promised at Yalta. I don't think Truman was pleased to see the soviets in China. I don't understand this fixation on the two atomic bombings. I don't see the difference between an A-bomb and standard incendiary bombs, just the number. RAF and USAF proved several times they could do much better than Hiroshima with conventionnal means (I'm thinking of Dresden and Tokyo)
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop
-
While on a propaganda tour George W. Bush visits a school where he explains his policy to the children. Afterwards he encourages the pupils to ask questions. Little Bob says:
_I have three questions:
- How did you win the election, though you lost the enumeration of votes?
- Why do you want to attack Iraq for no apparent reason?
- Don't you think, that the bomb on Hiroshima has been the biggest terroristic act of all the time?
_
At that very moment, the bell rings for the break, and all children run out of the class room. When they come back, President Bush asks them again for questions. Now Little Joe says:
_Mr. President, I have five questions:
- How did you win the election, though you lost the enumeration of votes?
- Why do you want to attack Iraq for no apparent reason?
- Don't you think, that the bomb on Hiroshima has been the biggest terroristic act of all the time?
- Why did the bell ring for break twenty minutes earlier than usual?
- Where is Bob?
_
Regards Thomas
Disclaimer:
Because of heavy processing requirements, we are currently using some of your unused brain capacity for backup processing. Please ignore any hallucinations, voices or unusual dreams you may experience. Please avoid concentration-intensive tasks until further notice. Thank you.Is this supposed to be a joke? It's just a political attack as far as I can tell.
-
benjymous wrote: Are you telling me that originally GWB spoke German? LOL Maybe he speaks German_ic_... ;) Regards Thomas Sonork id: 100.10453 Thömmi
Disclaimer:
Because of heavy processing requirements, we are currently using some of your unused brain capacity for backup processing. Please ignore any hallucinations, voices or unusual dreams you may experience. Please avoid concentration-intensive tasks until further notice. Thank you.Thomas Freudenberg wrote: Germanic... ic... :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: It works...ic!
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaRoger Wright wrote: Using a feather is kinky; using the whole chicken is perverted!
-
Konstantin Vasserman wrote: So is it your argument that it does not qualify to be called terrorist attack based on the fact that it was during war? Yes. As Michael said, war is Hell. Konstantin Vasserman wrote: Dictionary defines That is the first thing I did and why in my first post I said "If we are being literal" etc. If we are being literal then yes it was a terrorist act. But it was war. Lots of terrible decisions were made. Were the Russians terrorists for what they did to civilians? Pretty sure British infrantry men also killed civilians at times, sometimes even deliberatly. It was war.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaRoger Wright wrote: Using a feather is kinky; using the whole chicken is perverted!
Paul Watson wrote: Were the Russians terrorists for what they did to civilians Yes, they were. Paul Watson wrote: Pretty sure British infrantry men also killed civilians at times, sometimes even deliberatly So, it was a war crime. We've made History to be binary, the good and the bad fellows. If the bad fellows were that bad and more during WWII, the good weren't as perfect than explained later. It's logical, the winners are writing History, generally we have to wait at least for 50 years to see the historians make their job.
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop
-
As I've said before, nothing is as black and white as some people want us to believe. Here is some quotes of people who think it was a mistake: http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm[^]
Konstantin Vasserman wrote: _http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm\[^\]_ Amazing stuff. Has not changed my opinion though. Anyway, past is past, whatever the reason it was still a terrible thing. So was the very first bomb, the first bullet fired. This quote made me think though: "My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children" If the US had not used the a-bomb first. Then who would have? And don't tell me no one. Nobody could fully realise the true terror of the weapon until it had been used and used on a "real" target. Someone would have used it eventually, just to see. Not saying this is an excuse for the US to be first to stop others, it is just a thought. I am more amazed that they dropped the second bomb after seeing the effect of the first one. Anyway. Start a new thread if you really want to discuss this, then people far more well versed in these matters can argue with you. I still think it was war.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaRoger Wright wrote: Using a feather is kinky; using the whole chicken is perverted!
-
Michael P Butler wrote: We can blame George Bush for many things, but not that. I think (since I didn't write the Joke myself, but received it this morning and translated it from German to English), the mentioning of Hiroshima is not to blame GWB for that, but to show some people's reaction to any critics about American politics. Regards Thomas Sonork id: 100.10453 Thömmi
Disclaimer:
Because of heavy processing requirements, we are currently using some of your unused brain capacity for backup processing. Please ignore any hallucinations, voices or unusual dreams you may experience. Please avoid concentration-intensive tasks until further notice. Thank you. -
I gotta agree with Michael - the Hiroshima dig is disturbing, the joke would be much better without it.
---
Shog9 The siren sings a lonely song - of all the wants and hungers The lust of love a brute desire - the ledge of life goes under
Interesting how we both share a valid opinion but both got a low rating for it. Sometimes I wonder if I'm posting on Slashdot :-D Michael The avalanche has started, it's too late for the pebbles to vote.
-
While on a propaganda tour George W. Bush visits a school where he explains his policy to the children. Afterwards he encourages the pupils to ask questions. Little Bob says:
_I have three questions:
- How did you win the election, though you lost the enumeration of votes?
- Why do you want to attack Iraq for no apparent reason?
- Don't you think, that the bomb on Hiroshima has been the biggest terroristic act of all the time?
_
At that very moment, the bell rings for the break, and all children run out of the class room. When they come back, President Bush asks them again for questions. Now Little Joe says:
_Mr. President, I have five questions:
- How did you win the election, though you lost the enumeration of votes?
- Why do you want to attack Iraq for no apparent reason?
- Don't you think, that the bomb on Hiroshima has been the biggest terroristic act of all the time?
- Why did the bell ring for break twenty minutes earlier than usual?
- Where is Bob?
_
Regards Thomas
Disclaimer:
Because of heavy processing requirements, we are currently using some of your unused brain capacity for backup processing. Please ignore any hallucinations, voices or unusual dreams you may experience. Please avoid concentration-intensive tasks until further notice. Thank you. -
Konstantin Vasserman wrote: Some sources say that Japan was already about to surrender anyway. Why did they wait for the SECOND a-bomb to go off then? Konstantin Vasserman wrote: why US did not just invite Japanese to a test of the A-bomb somewhere on the island to scare the s**t out of them Doesn't quite have the same effect, does it? Like I said above, it took 2 bombs to get them to surrender.
Jason Henderson
start page ; articles henderson is coming henderson is an opponent's worst nightmare * googlism *Jason Henderson wrote: Doesn't quite have the same effect, does it? Besides that, we weren't entirely sure it would explode - we only had two of them. Wouldn't that have been embarrassing, trying to scare the hell out of an enemy with a dud? Nobody wants to read a diary by someone who has not seen the shadow of Bubba on the prison shower wall in front of them!
Paul Watson, on BLOGS and privacy - 1/16/2003 -
While on a propaganda tour George W. Bush visits a school where he explains his policy to the children. Afterwards he encourages the pupils to ask questions. Little Bob says:
_I have three questions:
- How did you win the election, though you lost the enumeration of votes?
- Why do you want to attack Iraq for no apparent reason?
- Don't you think, that the bomb on Hiroshima has been the biggest terroristic act of all the time?
_
At that very moment, the bell rings for the break, and all children run out of the class room. When they come back, President Bush asks them again for questions. Now Little Joe says:
_Mr. President, I have five questions:
- How did you win the election, though you lost the enumeration of votes?
- Why do you want to attack Iraq for no apparent reason?
- Don't you think, that the bomb on Hiroshima has been the biggest terroristic act of all the time?
- Why did the bell ring for break twenty minutes earlier than usual?
- Where is Bob?
_
Regards Thomas
Disclaimer:
Because of heavy processing requirements, we are currently using some of your unused brain capacity for backup processing. Please ignore any hallucinations, voices or unusual dreams you may experience. Please avoid concentration-intensive tasks until further notice. Thank you.Thomas Freudenberg wrote: the enumeration of votes BTW, how old are the kids in the joke? Enumeration is a big word, and is possibly ripe for a classic Bushism. :-D I wonder if GWB knows how big a joke he is to so many people? At least Clinton can look back with a wry sense of humour and admit he did a doff thing that was easy to make jokes about. A cigar is joke bait. But Bush seems deadly serious about everything, can't imagine him looking back and blushing at his Axis of Weasels idea.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaRoger Wright wrote: Using a feather is kinky; using the whole chicken is perverted!
-
I agree with you, IMHO Japan had already lost the war and knew it, but didn't want to surrender, hoping causing heavy casualties to US armies when trying to land at the end of '45 and the begining of '46 (operations Olympic and Coronet). However I'm not sure it was the only reason to end the war the sooner. USSR had declared war to Japan the 8th of August, 3 months after the end in Europe, as promised at Yalta. I don't think Truman was pleased to see the soviets in China. I don't understand this fixation on the two atomic bombings. I don't see the difference between an A-bomb and standard incendiary bombs, just the number. RAF and USAF proved several times they could do much better than Hiroshima with conventionnal means (I'm thinking of Dresden and Tokyo)
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop
KaЯl wrote: I don't think Truman was pleased to see the soviets in China. I agree, he didn't want the communists to gain more ground so he wanted to end it quickly. However, I think the idea of losing more American soldiers was what made up his mind. KaЯl wrote: I don't see the difference between an A-bomb and standard incendiary bombs I think history shows that the allied strategy of using incendiary bombs on civilian population centers did not achieve its intended purpose, destroying the enemy's will to fight. However, the use of the A-bomb (1 super incendiary bomb) did destroy the Japanese will to fight with ZERO American casualties. KaЯl wrote: they could do much better than Hiroshima with conventionnal means Hiroshima was one bomb. Tokyo, Dresden, etc. were thousands of bombs. I don't understand how this was better?
Jason Henderson
start page ; articles henderson is coming henderson is an opponent's worst nightmare * googlism * -
So is it your argument that it does not qualify to be called terrorist attack based on the fact that it was during war? Dictionary defines terror as violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands. It does not distinguish between war and peace... I guess any attack can be viewed as an act of terror, but there is a big difference IMO between dropping 2 A-bombs in the middle of cities full of people and attacking a naval base with conventional weapons...
The difference was that we were the victims of a terrorist act - Pearl Harbor - in a time when war was played by certain rules. The Japanese broke those rules, and declared a free for all. Hundreds of thousands were killed by the Bomb, but many more of our own would have died attempting a conventional invasion of Japan. Better theirs dead, than ours, was the reasoning at the time. Better still would have been for Japan to have never attacked at all - aggressors must bear the responsibility for their own acts. Nobody wants to read a diary by someone who has not seen the shadow of Bubba on the prison shower wall in front of them!
Paul Watson, on BLOGS and privacy - 1/16/2003 -
Jason Henderson wrote: Doesn't quite have the same effect, does it? Besides that, we weren't entirely sure it would explode - we only had two of them. Wouldn't that have been embarrassing, trying to scare the hell out of an enemy with a dud? Nobody wants to read a diary by someone who has not seen the shadow of Bubba on the prison shower wall in front of them!
Paul Watson, on BLOGS and privacy - 1/16/2003Roger Wright wrote: Wouldn't that have been embarrassing, trying to scare the hell out of an enemy with a dud? Indeed, imagine how embarrassed that chap in the cowboy suit who rode the bomb down would have been. Straddled to a bomb stuck into the side of some Japanese's pagoda. "Hi! It's a... errrr... happy new year!" probably would not have worked. That song was incredible Roger. Did you get my IM messages on it?
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaRoger Wright wrote: Using a feather is kinky; using the whole chicken is perverted!
-
Konstantin Vasserman wrote: Do you not agree? Not at present no, it was not a terrorist attack from what I know. Care to shed light on why you seem to think it was a terrorist attack?
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaRoger Wright wrote: Using a feather is kinky; using the whole chicken is perverted!
-
The difference was that we were the victims of a terrorist act - Pearl Harbor - in a time when war was played by certain rules. The Japanese broke those rules, and declared a free for all. Hundreds of thousands were killed by the Bomb, but many more of our own would have died attempting a conventional invasion of Japan. Better theirs dead, than ours, was the reasoning at the time. Better still would have been for Japan to have never attacked at all - aggressors must bear the responsibility for their own acts. Nobody wants to read a diary by someone who has not seen the shadow of Bubba on the prison shower wall in front of them!
Paul Watson, on BLOGS and privacy - 1/16/2003Roger Wright wrote: in a time when war was played by certain rules. What rules? Declaration of war? LOL. That rule was broken so many times that it was never really a rule in the first place. Roger Wright wrote: Better theirs dead, than ours, was the reasoning at the time. Yes. But some historians believe that peace could be achieved earlier and without A-bombs. Roger Wright wrote: Better still would have been for Japan to have never attacked at all - aggressors must bear the responsibility for their own acts. True.
-
Do you not agree?
-
As I've said before, nothing is as black and white as some people want us to believe. Here is some quotes of people who think it was a mistake: http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm[^]
Konstantin Vasserman wrote: nothing is as black and white as some people want us to believe seems to be a problem with Jason :cool:
It's a royal pain to watch a sex drugs and rock'n'roll design decay into an aids crack and techno implementation [sighist] [Agile Programming] [doxygen]
