i had a thought today. well after we had a discussion which seemed to agree the urban geurrilla warfare attacks on troops were okay and not terrorism maybe we should carry on from that.
was 9-11 on moral equivalent to dresden/hiroshima and nagasaki?
Printable View
i had a thought today. well after we had a discussion which seemed to agree the urban geurrilla warfare attacks on troops were okay and not terrorism maybe we should carry on from that.
was 9-11 on moral equivalent to dresden/hiroshima and nagasaki?
i do not think niether were moral. Morality is becoming a short issue anymore. With so many people thinking in purley numbers, the wrong choices are often made.
I say this because the Atomic attacks were based on rough estimates of how many of us would die fighting an old fashioned gun blazin war. The numbers made the attack look alright, but I really don't think enough thought was put into the effects of the attack. It was a down right mistake, as most wars end.
9/11 was kind of a kick in the nutts. A suprise attack aimed directly at key points. A very affective, and indeed stratigic attack. Do I think it was wrong? Hell yes. I think if they would have left the twin towers out, thier effect on the US populace would be a lot lower, and thier attack would have been more ... legitamate (purly for a lack of a better word atm :) ) I also think that most warfare is just wrong. Killing people whom don't agree with you is just theeasiestlaziest and most immoral way to solve a problem.
Bipper
Yes, since both dresden and the dropping of the atmoic bomb were morally reprehensible acts of murder, just like 9/11 was.Quote:
was 9-11 on moral equivalent to dresden/hiroshima and nagasaki?
They both had very similar goals, to cripple their opponent. The bombs were aimed at Japan's industrial sector to prevent more military equipment from being made while 9-11 was aimed at the financial sector of the US; its "military equipment for expansion" in this day and age if you will.
While one was true military and one figurative military, they were viewed as the same from the attackers' point of view.
Also, who's morals are we talking about here? Whlie someone in the US or Japan that lost someone in their respective attacks thinks that these were morally reprehensible acts, Those on the other side thought that they were doing good and bettering their world and the world of others with their actions. It's all about perspectives.
Yes, they were close. Well, I might argue that the first atomic weapons test was less morally reprehensible. No one, and I do mean NO ONE, truly understood what atomic weaponry was capable off. They didn't, couldn't possibly, realize what it meant to unleash the power of nuclear flame. They saw it on paper, they saw it on maps, but their minds could not have comprehended what they were about to do.
There was no such excuse for the second bomb.
They tested the A bomb before they used it. They knew how mass it was, and the destruction it was capable of. At least short term.
Bipper
I don't know if there was any way to test the after-effects of the bomb.
It doesn't matter if there was a way to test the after affects of the A-bomb because there was no excuse for the second world war. The A-bomb was just a peice of world war 2, and WW2 itself should have never happenend. There is no excuse for war, and there is no excuse for terrorism. The world wars, 9/11, the holocaust.. none of this should have happened.
I do completley agree with this. Every word. War is stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by nik0tine
That's all very sweet and idealistic, but it's not exactly America's fault they got pulled into a war they couldn't win any other way.
Is anybody blaming them?
I'm going to get shouted at for this but there has been a conspiracy 9/11 was planned by America.
There is no way in hell 9/11 was moral, right or neccesary.
the second world war was needed. it would have been worse to have the japs enslave asia and have germany enslave europe. but attacking the civillian population was bad.
but maybe attacking the civillian population is the only way to win some wars. ww2 was ended in asia purely because of the bombs. the chances are if we had dropped those bombs in 1944 the war would have ended then. the bomb was that destructive that no other factor was important in japan's surrender.
it possibly saved lives.
now people bitch and moan about the folk who danced around on 9-11 and being happy about it. how many people celebrated that bomb? celebrating in death is not new. and isn't limited to non-western countries.
the case of hiroshima and nagasaki is also very odd. they were never bombed at all during the war. they weren't truly important. no military base. they were large cities but weren't doing much. but so were many others that were bombed. they were lightly defended as well and industrial so why did noone think to bomb them?
because the bomb was on it's way. and there would be no way to see it's total destructive power if we had already leveled the city before hand. it was a testing ground in the most gruesome way possible.
and it was never about japans industry it was military terrorism. it was saying to japan "see what we can do? now surrender or we kill another hundred thousand" and they didn't surrender so we did it again and were basicly saying "surrender or we kill more and more and more civillians,. we have a weapon that can kill you in your hundreds of thousands, now surrender" and faced with that threat japan did.
9-11 basicly was the same threat on a lower scale. it was showing us what they can do and will continue to do.
and with that comparison can you really say that one was right and the other wrong?
good point but these "Terrorists" arent doing it for freedom reasons they are doing it for control and selfish wants, they want a muslim world and will continue killing and killing untill they get there own way if not stopped.
they actually want a islamic middle east. world control isn't on the agenda. the ideal is for the middle eastern countries to follow the same format as iran (not afghanistan). also things like palestine and chechnya are there two but that much is obvious.
these people know fine well what is achieveable and what isn't. and fighting for an unacheivable aim whould be rather silly.
they have aims and goals like the ira and basque fighters did.
I think what everyone meant is that the reasons for the war itself weren't needed, i.e. Germany shouldn't have tried to invade anyone to begin with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
Also, "japs" is a very derogatory slang term, please don't use it.
sorry point taken.
WW2 can actually be seen as a continuation of WWI. The conditions after the first war, (i.e. the Treaty of Versailles) greatly contributed to Hitlers rise to power. I don't think 9-11 is the same as Hiroshima and Nagasaki, though. We were already at war, and an invasion of Japan would have been a bloodbath. The A-bomd could conceivably be seen as the lesser of two evils. 9-11 was just evil.
9-11 was just a continuation of a war. and it's a war that was killing people and maybe if the us had pulled out of suadi and other countries then maybe there would have been less blood.
not my view but a possible one.
AgreedQuote:
Originally Posted by bipper
Also I agree that they did not fully comprehend the ramifications of nuclear weapons. Ever watch Atomic Cafe? Though this was post WWII and into the Cold War, they still advertise for kids to hide under tables when the siren went off indicating a nuclear attack. Also the US was training military officers to come in after a nuclear attack to kill the survivors. At least according to this documentary. It really shows a lack of information concerning the after affects of a nuclear attack.
The Atom Bomb and 9/11 are both rather different evils. I don't like either of them, but there is still a difference. The Atom bomb was almost necessary for us to win WWII, though the civilian casualties were far worse than the 9/11 casualties, thus it ended so many innocent lives. 9/11, however, was completely unpredictable (Though They say that the government was given some clues), and served a different purpose; to start a war, not to end one. It really doesn't matter which was worse. They were both horrible and tragic acts, and neither of them should have happened. Sadly, there is nothing we can do to change that. All we can do now is try to insure that nothing like it ever happens again.
I admit, I'm a bit of a conspiracy theorist (Mainly when it comes to the JFK assassination) but I don't believe this is true. However, I do believe that Bush is trying to protect Saudi Arabia even though it is very likely (Some even say obvious) that they were connected to the attack.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoden
It wouldn't surprise me considering how much money their family has tied up in business with Saudi Arabia.Quote:
Originally Posted by TurkSlayer
Exactly why I think he is protecting them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying Mullet
We didn't dance about it. My grandmother started crying, sixty years later, about the bombs. Painting the picture of the Americans reveling in death is hardly a fair thing to do. We can debate the morality of the issue all we want, but if it was self-protection, then I have no problem with it. One thing that we cannot try to do is compare the reactions of the Americans with the atomic bomb and the reactions of the Islamo-Fascists in the Middle East. They are not even close to the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
Funny, becuase most Americans don't feel threatened whatsoever. OK, you're right. They got us that one time. Then we went on full attack. If there is one thing I am proud of being an American it's that I won't sit idly by and fear an unknown evil as if the universe is out to get us. I was willing to fight. We, the collection of individuals known as the American people, are ready to fight.Quote:
9-11 basicly was the same threat on a lower scale. it was showing us what they can do and will continue to do.
Even if you are against America, if you really support the sort of tragedy as 9/11, then I think you should check yourself. It's probably not healthy.
There has been? I've always thought that Bush and his administration may have known it was coming, and that they intentionally allowed it to happen so they could have an excuse to do what they felt needed to be done in the world.Quote:
I'm going to get shouted at for this but there has been a conspiracy 9/11 was planned by America.
No, the second world war was not needed. Had Hitler not invaded europe and the japs invade asia it would have been fine, now wouldn't it? Unless you think hitler and the japanese were justified in their invasions then you cannot in any way think that WW2 was justified.Quote:
the second world war was needed. it would have been worse to have the japs enslave asia and have germany enslave europe
Evil Begets Evil. Good deeds open a window to evil eyes.
This was an old saying I was told in fourth grade (Navajo I think). It makes a ton of sense as no matter how good your intentions, evil will spawn off of them.
People want to worship, and wish to be left alone from rival religions. This comiled with old feuds and unrested differences create many of the worlds conflicts. IT has since day one.
This forum holds a lot of evidence to different ideals colliding. It just never really ends well.
No, the second world war was not needed. Had Hitler not invaded europe and the japs invade asia it would have been fine, now wouldn't it? Unless you think hitler and the japanese were justified in their invasions then you cannot in any way think that WW2 was justified.[/QUOTE]Quote:
Originally Posted by nik0tine
Point was that the retaliation to Hitler and the Japanese was needed. To condemn every party involved in the war for simply being involved is a flawed idea. And it would come across to some that by condemning the war, they are condemning even the parties who were justified in fighting, even if their actions during the fighting were deserving of condemnation.
hachifusa millions flocked onto trafalgar square at vj. after we had just nuked two cities. and times square.
http://www.evanderputten.org/vjday.jpg
and there's a a famous photo of a couple kissing that day too.
http://www.contrasto.it/img/timessquare258_img.jpg
not exactly the sombre mood one would expect after you wipe out a few hundred thousand people. seems many people were happy.
i never said at all in this thread that i supported 9-11. i was just trying to put it in context of other world events.
You have twisted that sitaution to a horrible, horrible degree. They weren't celebrating because they had nuked Japan, they were celebrating because the war was over.
i know why they were celebrating. but that war was ended by the nuking of two cities. that was not taken into consideration and there does not seem to be an air of concern about the fact that that was done. yes the war was over. but for that we had just killed a few hundred thousand innocents. and noone gave a damn.
When those pictures were taken, we hadn't bombed Japan, yet. That was at V-Day, which happened to be about six months previous.
SRY U LOSE
Oh, I love that picture of the couple. The 40s were so cool...in a aesthetical sense, of course. Long live Humphrey Bogart.
Ahem...
Ahem...are you sure they don't feel threatened? Because as far as I know, people have gotten paranoid since 9-11. How many times have I heard from people in the States things such as "I am for the PATRIOT act, I believe I can give up some liberties to defend my life". That is not feeling threatened? When I was in New York, in the subways there were warning for us to "report any suspicious activity". And I think I do not need to insult your intelligence bombing you with examples, because you, living as you live in the United States, probably have more examples of citizen paranoia than me.Quote:
Funny, becuase most Americans don't feel threatened whatsoever. OK, you're right. They got us that one time. Then we went on full attack. If there is one thing I am proud of being an American it's that I won't sit idly by and fear an unknown evil as if the universe is out to get us. I was willing to fight. We, the collection of individuals known as the American people, are ready to fight.
hate to tell you hachifusa that the date the sailor photo was taken in 14 august 1945.
the story of the couple can be found here.
http://www.nwc.navy.mil/museum/VJDaySailor/
be very sure of what you say before you tell me i lose.
Right, because you know they're only kissing because America dropped some nukes on Japan. Not because this sailor hasn't seen this girl in several months. No, not at all. We were just happy to have killed some innocent civillians back then. Yep.
actually the story goes that he had went around kissing all the girls in the street. there was nothing in particular about this girl. the photographer Alfred Eisenstaedt says
"running along the street grabbing any and every girl in sight", he later explained. "Whether she was a grandmother, stout, thin, old, didn't make any difference. I was running ahead of him with my Leica looking back over my shoulder... Then suddenly, in a flash, I saw something white being grabbed. I turned around and clicked the moment the sailor kissed the nurse." Eisenstadt was very gratified and pleased with this enduring image, saying: "People tell me that when I am in heaven they will remember this picture."
and he wasn't an on duty sailor either. he was in new york. on duty sailors would have been still out in the pacific.
so there we have a man being hysterically happy after his country just wiped out two cities.
Edited to emphasize singularity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
Maybe that guy's order to go out to the pacific had been canceled due to the bombs being dropped and then end of the war soon coming. I would have been pretty insanly happy that I don't have to go back out to war. For all we know he just got done in the Atlantic.
well since he was a line of men behind him and the other pictures show a whole sea of folk. and there are many more besides.
but the point is this. that is okay to celebrate after military victories. like the bombs. or 9-11 if that's your view.
There's also a pretty solid possibility that these people were celebrating the end of the war - not the bombings, necessarily. I know I'd be pretty excited if a long, bloody war just ended. I'm pretty sure these people were thinking "Thank God I don't have to go fight and die in the war now!" rather than "smurf yeah! We just killed aload of dirty japs! Yee-haw!"
Also, the pictures were taken on VJ-Day, which was several days after the bombings. If these people were celebrating on the day we dropped the bomb, you might have a point.
of course they were celebrating the end of the war.
the end of the war was solely brought around by the nuking of two cities.
but they were not celebrating that.
so lets bring this around again.
the people who celebrated on 9-11. were celebrating for the same reason as that man. it was either the beginning or end of a war. depending on how optimistic you were. they had just their pearl harbour. a strategically perfect attack (a statistical failure but that's not for now). now whether you viewed it as an end of beginning depended on how you felt at the time.
many would have seen it as a knockout blow. if the attack had been completed (there were more planes) and if it had been statistically perfect (it only killed something like 95% of potential victims) then by all means it could have been the end. if al qaeda had managed to wipe out 200,000 people that day which was a possibility then who knows how we may have reacted. certainly differently.
and if you view it as a start of a war. celebrating the start of a war is not unheard of. after the declaration of the first world war there are stories of huge queues for the sign up.
i think it's just about time we put 9-11 and all images in relation in context of history.
You say they were celebrating the end of the war. They were not jumping for joy that we killed people. We were jumping for joy because of the relief that it is now over. Everyone can come back home and no one else has to die.
Compare that with 9/11/2001 where they were jumping for joy that they killed people with the expectations to kill more.
Quite different on every level. Stop being so delusional and prejudice against the USA.
Can I have your children, ed?
Yes you can ;) :kiss:
At risk of pointing out the obvious, we are not at war with Saudi. They want us there.Quote:
9-11 was just a continuation of a war. and it's a war that was killing people and maybe if the us had pulled out of suadi and other countries then maybe there would have been less blood.
Unfortunatly, people do overreact.Quote:
Ahem...are you sure they don't feel threatened? Because as far as I know, people have gotten paranoid since 9-11. How many times have I heard from people in the States things such as "I am for the PATRIOT act, I believe I can give up some liberties to defend my life". That is not feeling threatened?
Exactly. The bombs were seen as the only way to end the war without sending more Americans to their deaths. I for one would have been dancing with them at the end of a brutal war. (well, had I been alive at the time. :D )Quote:
You say they were celebrating the end of the war. They were not jumping for joy that we killed people. We were jumping for joy because of the relief that it is now over. Everyone can come back home and no one else has to die.
Sorry, Cloud. I admit I was totally drunk when I made that last post.
But, it's true that some Americans are quite paranoid, especially those that celebrate one of the most destructive documents ever made in the United States (ironically called the "Patriot" act) but the grand majority of us aren't towering in fear because of the world events, no.
And I don't think Cloud is implying that we celebrated the deaths of the Japanese, but rather that the majority of us didn't see it as major a tragedy as it was. I am telling you this once more, Cloud - most of us did not enjoy it. Like I said, my grandmother cried. My grandfather said that when he saw the cities (they didn't know about radiation control, then) right after the destruction it was one of the most horrifying views in his life. The people were happy because the long, bloody war was finally over, and peace and freedom could reign again (at least until the conservatives championed for McCarthy and the liberals started on their new projects like "enviornmentalism" and hippie-dom).
dln. saudi want us there. al qaeda don't they are very unhappy about it and was the greatest contributing factor in al qaeda becoming a terrorist group (saudi shunned al qaeda for the americans during the first gulf war and so putting americans on holy soil).
but the question still remains. are they morally comparable? did america perform an evil as great as 9-11. or were al qaeda doing nothing more than america had done 60 years before on a far larger scale?
Since I'm way too lazy to read this entire thread, I'll just point out my views from the initial post.
9/11 started a war. Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended one. There's a bit of difference there. Hiroshima and Nagasaki, while admittedly atrocities, wound up saving hundreds of thousands of lives that would have been lost in prolonged fighting. 9/11 just killed hundreds of innocents, and didn't even try to do anything to hamper our military strength, resulting in nothing more than thousands of innocent lives being lost, and the deaths of thousands more in the battles from then on. They are hardly equitible.
Don't forget that the goal of 9/11 was to cripple the US financially, not millitaristically(is that a word?). The US is "invading" their culture with American culture and one way they view stopping this is to remove the US's worldwide business power.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyblade
They are very different when you look at them from the US's point of view, but that's because the US was attacker for one and attackee for the other. When you look at it from the view point of those attacking, they aren't very different. The US placed a strategic strike to stop Japan from any world domination and Al-Qaeda and/or whomever placed a strategic strike to stop the US from any world domination. As far as 9/11 is concerned to those that coordinated the attacks, those people in the twin towers were soldiers attacking their culture and beliefs.
First, I believe 'militaristically' is a real word, but I suspect 'militarily' would be more apt there. Anyway, short English point over, that's probably the nub of the matter there Mr. Mullet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying Mullet
But yes, it seems as though some people believe it easier to cripple the businesses who are 'invading' - and remember 9/11 did cause a fairly significant loss of confidence in the stock markets for awhile - rather than actually simply resisting the businesses in a more sensible way (Ie not buying their stuff.).
That's all I'm getting into on the matter.
Yeah, the 9/11 attacks were one hell of an opening strike. The difference is: it only pissed us off. Don't forget, there was an opening attrocity for our battle with Japan- Pearl Harbor. Granted, our assistance of the (re)creation of Israel was an attrocity in it's own right- and that's why so many of the Islamic world hate us so passionately.
They had justifications, we had justifications. The only real difference between 9/11 and the Hiroshima/Nagasaki attacks: our strategy worked, theirs didn't. Hence: ours saved lives (and it DID save lives in the long run)- theirs not only failed, it started a war. I wonder how the atomic bombings would have been looked at if all it did was create a rallying cry, a martyr-style attrocity, instead of crushing the Japanese will to fight.
Could you elaborate on this, and why you think that it is an atrocity please?Quote:
Originally Posted by udsuna
Wrong. I will say again, 9/11 started a war. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were an attempt to end the war. Even had they been unsuccessful, there is a difference. 9/11 can in no way be construed as an attempt to end a war or save lives, because there was no war until their attack.Quote:
Originally Posted by udsuna
You don't kill hundreds of people simply because you don't like the way they do business.
That depends upon your point of view. To those that orchestrated the attacks the war on their culture has been going on for years, so this could be seen as an attempt to stop it. I'm not arguing whether or not it was effective, rather the reasons for it. Again, when you look at it from the attackers point of view it is very similar. You keep looking at one from an attacker's standpoint and another from an attackee's standpoint. I guarantee you that those people that lived in Hiroshima and Nagasaki that didn't want anything to do with the war have the same view on the bombs as you do with 9/11.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyblade
Uh... do your homework. Millions of (entirely innocent) Islamic peoples living in Jerusalum and the surrounding area were forcefully removed from their homes. Ugly acts of violence on both sides. Many died. Not something Israel brags about- oh, they LOVE to talk about how they "took back" their holy land after a thousand or so years of exile- but they try to avoid the details on how they did it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyblade
And they COULD construe 9/11 as an act of war, if not to end the war, then at least to retaliate. As far as (fundamentalist) Islam is concerned: the war hasn't ended since the day they lost Jerusalum. And America is the obvious target- they view the Westerner/infidel/whatevers as a gang against them. Making the USA biggest bully of the bunch. The one you have to take down in order to make the others back off. Of course, they then got torn to shreds, but that's an entirely different story.
I think I'd liken the 9/11 attacks to the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
Not really. In WW2, America wasn't doing anything but sitting there merily in her own home. Well, not so merily, but still not doing anything. (actually, not true, we WERE actively opposing axis powers, just not openly- but that's another issue).
Before 9/11, we were grinding the arabic world under our heels, whether were did it directly or not. They retaliated, and caught us with our pants down, but it WAS retaliation. Maybe undeserved (that's for debate) but definately not unprevoked.
Yes, it was like Pearl Harbor- but not what most believe Pearl Harbor to be.
and here's a question about saving lives.
if i say to the us government tomorrow. "abondon your policy on africa or i bring down the empire state building" and the us government refuses. and then i bring down the empire state building. have i commited a crime close to the bombs or 9-11?
and what about dresden? didn't end anything.