Oh, they care about it very much. It's how they get new recruits.
How could US drop the a-bomb on Civilians?
- Thread starter aaqucnaona
- Start date
Really? A group that burns people alive gets new recruits by claiming a moral high ground in their fight?
you do realize the japanese constitution prohibits the aquiring of nuclear weaponery?
i doubt that. the countries that have nukes aren't going to just hand them over to crazies. if as your suggesting a country with access to nukes would sell or give a nuclear weapon to a terror group Pakistan would have done it already. personally i find the fears of nukes getting into the hands of a terror org overblown
Hence #2.
Don't forget they don't want recruits with high morals, they want the disenfranchised sadistic scum of the human race.
Yeah, that sums it up.
Right. But history has shown plenty of examples of our bestest friends becoming the crazies. Remember, we used to support Saddam Hussein with military intelligence and arms against the Iranians, and of course we gave billions in arms to the Mujahideen terrorists. They, of course, became Al Qaeda. So far we have been smart enough to not give nukes to those people - but with nuclear weapons becoming more commonplace that won't last.
That's religion for you.
Just to put things in perspective here. We have two opposing sides of war. One is an almost tribal group of religious guided people who are guided by religious believes and the wish to retain their own land and resources. On the other side we have a highly civilized society of people and a group of countries who have technological superiority and are led by ideals of "what is good for society" such as "liberty" and etc.
ISIS: uncivilized mainly, use barbarian tactics to get their point across (such as burning of the militants)
USA: civilized highly, use undercover secretive unhumane tactics to get things done (Guantanamo Bay, Drone Strikes, Bribing, etc.)
In terms of media, how do they compare?
ISIS: limited resources, highly aggressive campaigns needing to get their point across, media does not get across to everyone
USA: high number of resources, daily filtering of content from unwanted sources or perspectives
So when it comes to a nuclear strike killing civilians by USA and its who knows how many covert operations of overthrowing of regimes USA does not like...ISIS does not even come close to the evilness.
Barbarians (ISIS) vs Evil backstabbing Liars (USA)
Who is moral here?
Military pilot burning in a cage vs Torture of Guantanamo Prisoners
what do you think?
ISIS: uncivilized mainly, use barbarian tactics to get their point across (such as burning of the militants)
USA: civilized highly, use undercover secretive unhumane tactics to get things done (Guantanamo Bay, Drone Strikes, Bribing, etc.)
In terms of media, how do they compare?
ISIS: limited resources, highly aggressive campaigns needing to get their point across, media does not get across to everyone
USA: high number of resources, daily filtering of content from unwanted sources or perspectives
So when it comes to a nuclear strike killing civilians by USA and its who knows how many covert operations of overthrowing of regimes USA does not like...ISIS does not even come close to the evilness.
Barbarians (ISIS) vs Evil backstabbing Liars (USA)
Who is moral here?
Military pilot burning in a cage vs Torture of Guantanamo Prisoners
what do you think?
remember USA is supporting UAE, while silencing its financial ties to the 9/11 operation.
After all right now is not good time to think of UAE ties to Al Quida.
It was less than 72 hours - less than 48 since the first government investigator had flown over the hill and seen what was left of Hiroshima - for the sane Japanese officials (who had already prepared an offer of surrender, which the US had already refused to even listen to) to turn the hardcore generals who thought they were facing an American Nanking.joe said:
So the persuasions of the sane took only a few days, and were successful. Pity we didn't give them those few days before we incinerated all those children, eh?joe said:
If it would have taken them a full month, after being informed in May of that year that the US had nukes and all their demands for evidence met, to realize what they faced and overrule the crazy couple of generals - that's still a war shortened by three months, and no multiple mass incinerations of schoolchildren fermenting in the US subconscious. Also, that might have forestalled the Soviet land grab - caught Stalin less ready. That would have made the Cold War a bit easier in the Pacific, as it turned out. All our delays and prolongations of the war and secret surprise plans to burn schoolchildren wholesale for shock value just gave the Soviets - our real target of influence - more time to prepare.
It would have been a great benefit to not have been self-justifying evildoers, and have that forbearance on our record, eh? Even if we had been actually forced, by three months of informed Japanese intransigence in the face of clear and straightforward evidence provided between May and August, to nuke a city full of civilians on August 6, the offer would have been on the table for the world to see. And for us to remember with pride.
The only secret we needed to hand over was that we had built them, and they worked, and they exploded like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trinity_Test_Fireball_16ms.jpg That's what we handed over when we dropped the thing on Hiroshima. We didn't need to drop it on a city full of people to hand that secret over, probably. If it turned out that we did, we could have then.spidergoat said:
We didn't even have to tell them which submarine was going to put the thing in Tokyo harbor, They couldn't stop the delivery of one bomb, by any method, and they knew it.
Sure. Right here in this thread we have people claiming the moral high ground for killing a third of a million noncombatants by burning them to death.
I'm reasonably certain that no one in here has killed a third of a million people, so that doesn't seem like a reasonable comparison. Nor should a comparison be necessary. Either ISIS is or isn't claiming a moral high ground: that's a fact regardless of if anyone else ever has.
Anyway, I've heard their moral justifications are loose at best, and secondary to plain old ancient tribalism.
Either way, though, intelligent people should be capable of making logic-based judgements on the morality/immorality of ceratin actions: not all claims of moral high ground are equal.
Sure, because we stopped a war that would have killed many more.
Oh, and you have proof the US is silencing anything untoward with respect to al Qaeda? The UAE is also supporting the US. It works both ways. The US has military bases in every gulf state. It is mutually beneficial. Is there a problem with that? The UAE government certainly isn't responsible for 9/11.
What’s with all the “ehs”, are you Canadian, eh? We didn’t have nukes in May of that year. That is one good reason not to tell Japan we had them…minor detail. Another, is you don't tell the enemy what you are doing and the weapons you are developing. That's called stupid. The general American public didn't know anything about the nuclear bombs before they were used on Japan. And Japan had a nuclear bomb program. If we told them we had it, what do you think any enemy would do? They would go look for it.
Two, you like to gloss over the facts which are not consistent with your ideology. Here are the unpleasant facts once again, even after two nuclear bomb detonations and repeated warnings, and days discussing the matter, Japan wasn’t ready to surrender. And you think that if we had told Japan a few months earlier that we had nuclear bombs when we didn’t, Japan would have surrendered. Dude, we dropped and detonated the bombs wiping out two cities and they weren’t ready to surrender. Per my previous post on the matter, the deciding factor was a captured and tortured American pilot who told Japanese interrogators that the US had 100 nuclear bombs and Tokyo was next. You live in la la land friend. On this and other topics you just ignore reality. If you don’t like the facts you just ignore them.
that's just wishful thinking and a rather specious argument
It's a valid argument and a humanitarian one. Two bombs vs. another D-day.
And I am reasonably sure that no one here has incinerated anyone intentionally.