ill
Superstar
anyone having trouble accessing site via laptop?
Servers have been fukked up for me all day. Sometimes I get through and its quick, other times it takes 5 min to get on the main page.
anyone having trouble accessing site via laptop?
Servers have been fukked up for me all day. Sometimes I get through and its quick, other times it takes 5 min to get on the main page.
They fukked up Tokyo pretty bad too. White phosphorus, napalm, everything. That gets forgotten because of the two A-bombs. But the firebombing of Tokyo was the most destructive conventional air bombing of a civilian area in history.
It's funny, I remember my school teachers saying it was the more humane choice because a ground invasion would've killed more. Got older, did my own research and found out that was all bullshyt. Japan was already ready to surrender. Russia was about to move in and it was a wrap for them. It was totally unnecessary and done just to project power.
look at the thread title![]()
I can't get to this site on my computer so I have to get by with my iphone. I had started wanting to make one title, I was distracted and by the time I came back I had another way I wanted to make the title. I caught it but it was too late and I can't edit![]()
lol...no you didn't. Saying Japan started it, Japan is racist, Japan committed horrible war crimes against China, and your parrot-like repetition about how black people shouldn't care about non-white other races has nothing to do with whether or not the bombing of Tokyo and the two nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were horrific, unjustifiable war crimes.
@VMR glad to see at least some people on this board can think logically and not nitpick bullshyt to spin ideas to back their outrageous statements.
Its like some of these dudes never took a history class.
No, you're wrong. The Japanese had already been talking about surrender conditions for like a year prior. You know we broke their codes and actually intercepted messages where they were internally discussing surrender negotiations right? Their ambassador to Russia had been given instructions on negotiating surrender. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey even said they would've surrendered without the bombing:I knew someone in here would bring this up. This is a myth that needs to stop. Even from firsthand there is a big glaring elephant in the room that makes this sketchy. If they were "ready to surrender", wouldn't they have done it after the bombing of Hiroshima? There were 3 days between the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and the one dropped on Nagasaki.
Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated
No, you're wrong. The Japanese had already been talking about surrender conditions for like a year prior. You know we broke their codes and actually intercepted messages where they were internally discussing surrender negotiations right? Their ambassador to Russia had been given instructions on negotiating surrender. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey even said they would've surrendered without the bombing:
http://chnm.gmu.edu/loudountah/activities/pdf/Excerpt-Truman13.pdf
The U.S. just insisted on unconditional surrender. They wanted to get rid of Hirohito. He was a holy figure to the Japanese, God himself on Earth. So the U. S. committed genocide rather than allow the Emperor to stay in power.
The thread title is "What the United States did to the Japanese was worse just as bad as Hitler did to Jews." Ignoring the mangling of the English language, the basic premise is apparent. Pointing out that Truman was racist on his part was only tangential. Regardless, "they're racist too" is inconsequential to the premise of the thread.But the threadstarter didn't just mention war crimes, the first sentence in the post said the us was racist, how is it a non sequitur if I point out that the japan we were racist also?
Using your logic, maybe you need to ask why the threadstarter brought up the fact that the us was racist, or maybe you should point out that the nazis being racist is also irrelevant
What logic are using to say the question of morality is one sided, if the Americans committed war crime how is the Japanese committing war crimes not relevant in judging the morality, I'm not following that
You are either retarded are maybe you misread the post and thought it was some technical question about whether the us committed war crimes, but the threadstarter was making an overall moral argument so therefore it is very much relevant what actions the Japanese committed to initiate the conflict, how is it not relevant that during the same time Americans were allegedly committing war crime against the Japanese, the Japanese themselves were committing war crimes again the Chinese and Koreans?
Japanese actions and self defense are directly related to the question of morality of American bombings
Nah, you're just putting words in his mouth and you have an axe to grind about the issue of black peoples' allegiances or lack thereof with other races, as you've made abundantly clear in like 1,000 other threads. You were just looking for a reason to get on your soapbox.And as far as the racial thing, it isn't relevant to the question of war crimes but it is relevant to the tone of the OP and the unstated suggestion that black people have to be in he front lines fighting "racism", so my point isnt a non sequitur, it's responding to the unstated premise
If you're some jingoistic neocon warmonger. Rational people understand that Truman nuked Japan to project power and send a message to the world, mostly to the U.S.S.R. It had nothing to do with breaking down Japan to their very last compound or any of that nonsense you're talking. Japan was toast. The nukes had a lot more to do with the Soviet Union then it did Japan. Japan was a jobber before the heavyweight title bout.that isnt saying anything, surrender wasnt enough, for more than just racist or bloodthirsty reasons
the whole entire Imperial Japan had to be eliminated, it was not acceptable for the japanese to surrender and for Imperial Japan to survive, which is essentially what the japanese generals wanted, the surrender had to be unconditional to make sure Imperial Japan was destroyed to its very last compound
The thread title is "What the United States did to the Japanese was worse just as bad as Hitler did to Jews." Ignoring the mangling of the English language, the basic premise is apparent. Pointing out that Truman was racist on his part was only tangential. Regardless, "they're racist too" is inconsequential to the premise of the thread.
For one Truman was racist as fukk
This sentence doesn't make any sense. Japanese war crimes are not relevant to the justification of U. S. war crimes. The point I am making is the war could've been won without these massive terror actions against civilian populations. If you think committing war crimes against civilian populations should be countered with more war crimes against civilian populations born out of some distorted extrapolation of "an eye for an eye" then I think you have an extremely juvenile mentality.
Again, this a juvenile argument. You and this Ill guy's logic is pathetic. The Japanese military committed war crimes against the Chinese and Korean civilian populations, so therefore...the U. S. is justified in committing war crimes against the Japanese population? That is retarded. This is the same line of reason that would justify September 11th. "The U.S. supports murderous dictatorships, kill Iraqis, and Israeli war crimes against civilians by proxy, so therefore we're right to kill U.S. civilians."
The only thing that is relevant the Japan bombing question is, was it necessary or not to win the war. I would argue that the firebombing of Tokyo and the nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not needed to win the war. If you disagree, that's a different argument. But this shyt about "they committed war crimes too" is stupid.
No it isn't. Japanese men, women, and children living in cities didn't rape Nanking. The Japanese military did. As long as people keep thinking like you, humanity can never improve.
Nah, you're just putting words in his mouth and you have an axe to grind about the issue of black peoples' allegiances or lack thereof with other races, as you've made abundantly clear in like 1,000 other threads. You were just looking for a reason to get on your soapbox.
If you're some jingoistic neocon warmonger. Rational people understand that Truman nuked Japan to project power and send a message to the world, mostly to the U.S.S.R. It had nothing to do with breaking down Japan to their very last compound or any of that nonsense you're talking. Japan was toast. The nukes had a lot more to do with the Soviet Union then it did Japan. Japan was a jobber before the heavyweight title bout.