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?
the legitimacy of 9-11
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 the
easiestlaziest 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.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.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.
LET THE HAMMER FALL
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.
LET THE HAMMER FALL
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.
Posting Permissions
