Why Islam is disrespected

[Borscht]

Hiroshima! How clever. Are you going to claim next that the residents of Hiroshima were the only civilians killed in WWII?

Why would I ?

Someone asked to reminded of where the US has deliberately targeted civilians, and I helped 'em out.

Sheesh, last time I try to be a nice guy.

 

[*******]

Did you mention the part where the industrial base had been broken up by bombing and moved into the cities scattered about the population hidden as best as possible?

Kinda like the radicals 'n mosques set of strategies that we currently have to deal with?

By the end of the, this is cute, I got this from one of Ish's Arabic leaning articles, European Civil war period of 1914-45, the Western powers had bled themselves dry and needed to put a quick end to the period of warring in order to heal up for the next period of warring, which, thankfully, knock on wood, never went nuclear and whose remnants we are dealing with now...

 

[Ishmael]

Did you mention the part where the industrial base had been broken up by bombing and moved into the cities scattered about the population hidden as best as possible?

Kinda like the radicals 'n mosques set of strategies that we currently have to deal with?

By the end of the, this is cute, I got this from one of Ish's Arabic leaning articles, European Civil war period of 1914-45, the Western powers had bled themselves dry and needed to put a quick end to the period of warring in order to heal up for the next period of warring, which, thankfully, knock on wood, never went nuclear and whose remnants we are dealing with now...

History is such a malleable product. I've seen it bent and twisted into a million different shapes.

Ishmael

 

[Gringao]

You're nuts.

I live in Japan. Did you notice that while you coming up with that nonsense?

Reality check for the foolish Gringao...
If the USA had even tried by any action, regardless of what may or may not have been written on a bit of paper, to remove the Emperor from his position, the war would've continued. If they'd made any attempt to do so after the surrender, the war would've started again immediately, and even Truman knew this.

The USA only had one more nuclear bomb to use, and that was it. They would've had to fight the entire Japanese population at the time, not just the Army.

Let's get this straight:

The Japanese government sends representatives to the USS Missouri to surrender unconditionally. These representatives sign documents that say exactly that, including provisions that place the Emperor in a subordinate position to the Allied occupation and subject to its every dictate. In fact, retention of said Emperor has been the one sticking point in said surrender...the victors refuse to commit to it. And you claim that no one thought there was the possibility of Hirohito getting sent off to a remote island? And you think I'm nuts?

And now it seems that even you see that there weren't any non-combatants. If an invasion of Japan would have found us fighting "the entire Japanese population at the time, not just the Army," is that not a tacit admission that we killed potential combatants, not civilians, with the bombs?

 

[Lovelynice]

Let's get this straight:
The Japanese government sends representatives to the USS Missouri to surrender unconditionally. These representatives sign documents that say exactly that, including provisions that place the Emperor in a subordinate position to the Allied occupation and subject to its every dictate. In fact, retention of said Emperor has been the one sticking point in said surrender...the victors refuse to commit to it.
And you claim that no one thought there was the possibility of Hirohito getting sent off to a remote island? And you think I'm nuts?

Yes, you're nuts.

You've demonstrated it enough times to make it completely obvious that you have no understanding of how the world really works.

Also, the documents that you linked to, don't have the Imperial Seal on them. The actual original documents do.

And now it seems that even you see that there weren't any non-combatants.

Not at all. You're now trying to make up stories about what I did and didn't say. Are you always so divorced from reality that you have to resort to making up stories about what I say?

What is this focus that you seem to have on me that you need to create fiction abouit what I have said?

If an invasion of Japan would have found us fighting "the entire Japanese population at the time, not just the Army," is that not a tacit admission that we killed potential combatants, not civilians, with the bombs?

Again, that is not what I said...and you are making things up about what I said.

To be absolutely clear; I have said, if the USA had attempted to actively remove the Emperor from his position, the war would've continued. Removing the Emperor from his position is not, and never has been the same thing as Japan surrendering. The Japanese government could agree with the surrender, but not with the Emperor's removal from his office. Despite what may, or may not have been written on a piece of paper, the USA did not attempt to remove the Emperor from his position. In fact, during the post-war era, even in the first days, weeks, months, and years, armed Japanese soldiers still continued to guard the Imperial Palace even during the occupation.

Also, going by your insane logic about kililing eventual combatants not civilians, then why shouldn't we just start wiping out potential criminals by killing their grandparents?

Face it. The US military deliberately targeted civilians and civilian installations and you have dodged around trying so very hard not to admit the blatantly obvious fact that this is true, just like the deliberately ignorant fool that you are.

 

[Ishmael]

Japanese surrender documents along with autorization documents.

Ishmael

 

[Borscht]

. . . And now it seems that even you see that there weren't any non-combatants. If an invasion of Japan would have found us fighting "the entire Japanese population at the time, not just the Army," is that not a tacit admission that we killed potential combatants, not civilians, with the bombs?

I don't know anything about the terms of the Japanese surrender, but you are starting to sound frightningly like Dr Strangelove.

Your real name ain't Rumsfeld, is it ?

 

[Lovelynice]

Japanese surrender documents along with autorization documents.

Ishmael

Ishmael, those documents have already been posted and came up lacking. No signatures on them, but they do show that the original documents, the real ones, must have the Imperial Seal on them.

Gringao has been unable to show that the documents that he has linked to are the real valid ones, because none of the those that he has linked images of, have the Imperial Seal like the original one should (and does).

They wouldn't stand as credible supporting evidence in a court case.

 

[Ishmael]

It was the fanaticism exposed in this article that led to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Fanatics

Ishmael

 

[Lovelynice]

It was the fanaticism exposed in this article that led to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Fanatics

Ishmael

No it wasn't.

It was the intent by the government of the USA that led to Hiroshima & Nagasaki.

Ishmael, are you now trying to play that childish game of "But they made me do it!" ....because this isn't the playground, and we aren't in kindergarten anymore. The rest us have become adults, but maybe you haven't.

 

[MaidenHeart]

Fanatics

Ishmael

Oh neat! It seems the Japanese don't have that AWOL problem that the US military gets in excess. Nobody gave those Japanese soldiers orders about the Japanese surrender so thay kept right on being soldiers.

Not many American soldiers have that much sense of duty. I hear that they keep going AWOL all the time.

 

[sigh]

History is such a malleable product. I've seen it bent and twisted into a million different shapes.

Ishmael

This coming from a guy who uses an article about two octogenarian ex-Japanese soldiers found living on an island in the Phillipines to explain an historical event of cataclysmic import.

There's nothing wrong with reexamining history, Ishmael. Especially when it relates to war, the version that's first told is almost certain to be twisted to favor the victors. Questioning such stories isn't necessarily revisionist. It makes sense to do so.

On the other hand, Japan's apparent inability to recognize their place and responsibilities in that struggle needs to be reassessed as well. The war is six decades behind us. Why can't we be honest about it yet?

 

[Lovelynice]

On the other hand, Japan's apparent inability to recognize their place and responsibilities in that struggle needs to be reassessed as well. The war is six decades behind us. Why can't we be honest about it yet?

Hey, newsflash! The Japanese have apologized again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again....

EIGHTEEN TIMES

Japan isn't going to keep apologizing forever and forever and wouldn't be fair to require them to do so.

What about some apologizing from the USA for the firebombings of Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo, and the dropping of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

 

[sigh]

Hey, newsflash! The Japanese have apologized again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again....

EIGHTEEN TIMES

Japan isn't going to keep apologizing forever and forever and wouldn't be fair to require them to do so.

What about some apologizing from the USA for the firebombings of Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo, and the dropping of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

I used the word apparent in recognition of the fact that I see this from a completely American perspective, mostly through reports of American media.

Chill. Try to note that I asked for a balanced view of the war. Clearly that's not what we have yet.

And I didn't ask for an apology. That would be stupid, seeing that most (by far) of those directly involved are now dead. Why ask for apologies from their grandchildren?

 

[Ishmael]

This coming from a guy who uses an article about two octogenarian ex-Japanese soldiers found living on an island in the Phillipines to explain an historical event of cataclysmic import.

There's nothing wrong with reexamining history, Ishmael. Especially when it relates to war, the version that's first told is almost certain to be twisted to favor the victors. Questioning such stories isn't necessarily revisionist. It makes sense to do so.

On the other hand, Japan's apparent inability to recognize their place and responsibilities in that struggle needs to be reassessed as well. The war is six decades behind us. Why can't we be honest about it yet?

And what's to re-evaluate sigh? The decision was made to drop the first bomb on Hiroshima. Why not Tokyo? Perhaps because we knew that Japan would be easier to handle in the post war period if there was a central government in place.

The second bomb on Nagasaki was dropped because of a lack of response from the Japanese government. We had no intelligence in place to tell us that the reason was that they really hadn't fully digested what had happened at Hiroshima. Nagasaki was probably totally unecessary. But we didn't know that.

In the end it was probably the right decision to use the bomb on Hiroshima. Historians can debate that forever, but historians don't fight wars and the purpose of war is to so reduce your adversary that the have neither the resource or will to inflict damage on you. Wars of attrition are for fools and an invasion of the Japanese homeland had all the earmarks of being just that. The Okinawa experience was all we had to go by in that regard.

If you look at the war in Europe vs the war against Japan in terms of casualties on both sides, Japan got off easy.

Ishmael

 

[Lovelynice]

I used the word apparent in recognition of the fact that I see this from a completely American perspective, mostly through reports of American media.

Chill. Try to note that I asked for a balanced view of the war. Clearly that's not what we have yet.

It's alright, I might sound angry, but I'm not. That's the problem with the internet...no facial images and voice tone, no way to see real expressions and body movements.

I agree that balance would be a wonderful thing. Instead, we have "Let's hit each other with arguments"....sad, but it can be more fun at times.

 

[MaidenHeart]

In the end it was probably the right decision to use the bomb on Hiroshima.

I seriously doubt that.

 

[Beco]

I seriously doubt that.

why do you say that?

 

[MaidenHeart]

why do you say that?

Having read this thread, and having the ability to check what has been said, it's apparent that the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not at all necessary to win the war nor to force a Japanese surrender.

They were also war crimes.

The government leaders of the USA already knew that Japan was ready to surrender BEFORE dropping the A-Bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima, so the excuse that they were saving more lives by the mass murder of 350,000 civilians is patently false.

Those trying to push the argument that it was necessary have been simply repeating the same excuse as if by repeating it that they will sound more convincing, but they don't.

I've come across this same excuse on other forums, other sites, and in the end it always results in the same thing; a few people who are always the same kind that act as Bush apologists and Muslim haters also keep pushing the same pile of rubbish.

Then they get their asses handed to them by others who know more history and are less biased about their sources.

At the end of the day, they always lose the argument.

Same thing happens when they bring up the Nick Berg video being a real live beheading and try to claim it was done by Muslim extremists. They get their asses handed to them. Everytime.

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

One rule for the USA, a different rule for Japan? Where's the USA's admittance that the dropping of nuclear weapons on cities was wrong?

Thanks for taking the time to respond to me thoroughly. I don't want to get into a historical debate on prewar American-Japanese history. I'm sure you can get quite enough of that from others on this thread.

I think your feelings are absolutely valid. In 1995, Smithsonian (America's most prestigious national museum) put up an exhibit commemorating the 50th anniversary of the atomic bomb and American veterans groups protested against the balanced perspective in the exhibit and applied political pressure to get the museum to remove language suggesting a critical perspective on the bombing. We weren't ready then and we probably aren't now.

Such is American politics. It was only during the Presidency of Bill Clinton that the American government apologized for slavery and our country's long history of mistreating the blacks. In the South, the heart of of slavery 140 years ago, he was roundly ridiculed for this ("What's the point of the President apologizing for something 140 years ago. We've apologized enough!" would have been one of the politer things said.)

And there have been various other official apologies since. And guess what? There's still lots of anger in the black community (although much of what they're angry for is mistreatment since slavery, so it's not a perfect analogy). Likewise with the Jews. I guess one way of looking at this is that maybe apologizing doesn't mean much! I mean what are a few words going to do after annhilating cities? But what else are future generations able to do? We certainly can't change the actual events of the past, but we can (and do, as in this thread) sure distort our memories of them via history.

Winners tend to write history and they tend to believe that their winning justifies their positions (as if God had granted them victory because of moral superiority). America has been a huge winner in its history and tends to assume that this is because the superiority of its values and its behaviors. It asks for apologies all around. (It's almost as if many of us are saying "You Japanese should be grateful we dropped the for the atomic bomb on you! After all, we got rid of your tyrants, rebuilt your economy, gave you true democracy..."). We have big moral blindspots, obviously.

I didn't mean to suggest in my previous post that you shouldn't be upset and want more justice. Your feelings are valid... which brings me to my favorite of all subjects. Emotions. You say you're not angry about this, but why else do internet battle so fervently? You certainly have some strong negative emotion. Not being inside your head, I don't know what the emotions are, but I suspect they're playing a much greater role in your beliefs than you believe. You might like to take a look at how your feelings influence your thinking. (I'm a psychiatrist, so what else would I say? )

I'm not sure how we can get America to come around. Our people are insular and don't often consider alternative perspectives (or at least not seriously). Maybe Japanese could invade our bulletin boards en masse and post Hiroshima and Nagasaki photos and threads complaining about this? Consciousness raising? I just learned Mark Twain said "Travel is fatal to prejudice." How about a huge "class trip" to Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Any ideas what we might do? What sort of American acknowledgement or apology would satisfy you? How would you know that "enough was enough"?

 

[sigh]

They are killing for Allah everywhere on an almost daily basis. It is a very violent culture, if you hadn't noticed.

A violent culture? Well, yes, the extremists of Islam are violent, I won't argue against that, but let's put things into perspective. In 2004, the most violent year for terrorism ever, these statistics show that some 10,300 acts of terrorism resulted in just under 5000 deaths. That's total acts of terrorism, by the way. The stats didn't break down to acts of Islamic terrorism, but it's okay. Call it close enough. Without a doubt it's pretty horrible and does reflect a culture of violence.

On the other hand, these FBI statistics are pretty chilling too. During 2003 (the most recent complete report available), nearly 1.4 million violent crimes were committed in the United States alone, 16,500 being murder or negligent manslaughter.

In a given year, even with crime declining in the States and terroism at its peak, there were more than three times as many deaths due to violent crime in the United States, than deaths due to all forms of terrorism, by all groups (Islamic or not), in the entire world.

Now I understand that this isn't exactly comparing apples to apples, but if you want to talk about a violent culture, be careful not to look too closely at our own back yard. True, for the most part we don't kill for Christianity anymore, but I think that's mostly because the majority of us don't have that strong of a faith anymore. Someone in here said we'd "evolved" beyond killing for God, but it can't be denied that we're still killing. The gods we kill for just aren't found in a religious text is all.

Violent culture indeed.

 

[2ndSight]

Very good educated post, sigh.

 

[ImpWizard]

AGAIN?!

I thought you said goodbye last time?

Oh yeah, and you still lost.


A bunch of idiots; Gringao, Ishmael, Stuponfucious, Miles, and NONE of them could deny one simple fact;
The US military deliberately attacked noncombatants and civilian installations.

I bet you had fun shoving it down their throats though.

 

[Gringao]

Japanese surrender documents along with autorization documents.

Ishmael

She says they're not the real Instrument of Surrender documents, Ish. Even though I linked to that site you did as well as the photographed copies at the National Archives and even another site with a more legible copy, all of which contained exactly the same text. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt, buddy.

 

[Gringao]

Yes, you're nuts.

You've demonstrated it enough times to make it completely obvious that you have no understanding of how the world really works.

Also, the documents that you linked to, don't have the Imperial Seal on them. The actual original documents do.

My driver's license doesn't have my family crest on it, either. Is it still valid?

You are free to post the real, actual text of the Instrument of Surrender document, LN. I suspect you're going to have fun finding some other verbiage related to that even, however.

Not at all. You're now trying to make up stories about what I did and didn't say. Are you always so divorced from reality that you have to resort to making up stories about what I say?

What is this focus that you seem to have on me that you need to create fiction abouit what I have said?

I cut and pasted the words from your post, LN. If you wish to repudiate what you wrote, then say so.

Again, that is not what I said...and you are making things up about what I said.

To be absolutely clear; I have said, if the USA had attempted to actively remove the Emperor from his position, the war would've continued. Removing the Emperor from his position is not, and never has been the same thing as Japan surrendering. The Japanese government could agree with the surrender, but not with the Emperor's removal from his office. Despite what may, or may not have been written on a piece of paper, the USA did not attempt to remove the Emperor from his position. In fact, during the post-war era, even in the first days, weeks, months, and years, armed Japanese soldiers still continued to guard the Imperial Palace even during the occupation.

Also, going by your insane logic about kililing eventual combatants not civilians, then why shouldn't we just start wiping out potential criminals by killing their grandparents?

Face it. The US military deliberately targeted civilians and civilian installations and you have dodged around trying so very hard not to admit the blatantly obvious fact that this is true, just like the deliberately ignorant fool that you are.

Let's be clear: you said that an invasion of Japan would have had the Allies fighting not just the Imperial Army, but the entire population of Japan. Are you not yourself conscripting the Japanese People into the rank of combatant?