Correct me if I am wrong, but you are advocating the murder (Japan) of 1/2 million civilians without even TRYING to use an alternative (mine) strategy first?
The two state solution fate
- Thread starter iceaura
- Start date
- Status
Correct me if I am wrong, but you are advocating the murder (Japan) of 1/2 million civilians without even TRYING to use an alternative (mine) strategy first?
Are you seriously asking me to prove that I'm not a supporter of Apartheid and Nazism?
First prove to me that you have stopped eating babies for breakfast.
I don't recall saying that it was ever acceptable to demonize anyone. One can recognize that peace isn't going to work out in a particular case without then abandoning one's intellectual integrity to the expediencies of conflict.
I'm already famous, after only a few posts on the topic? Man, this is going better than I expected...
Some day I might get around to writing a comprehensive guide to how my ideas would apply to various historical conflicts (but probably not). In the meantime, I'm content to have presented them as they apply to the topic of this thread. I am not interested in going on a tangent about historical conflicts, particularly when said tangent is clearly designed as a distraction and a pretense for personal aspersions.
If you have any direct criticisms of my take on the conflict in question, then by all means present them. Otherwise, don't bother.
I don't see the relevance of the quoted material to your questions. Who are "the others," and what is it that they are supposed to qualify for?
Any others. You decide the criteria which confers these maxims as ideal or not. So what are the criteria you use to dismiss any group from these considerations? And what makes Israel qualified to be assessed by them?
For simplicity, we can pick one:
"Placing unrealistic preconditions on negotiation is the classic method of refusing to negotiate "
Why is there a different standard for Israel and South Africa ?
For simplicity, we can pick one:
"Placing unrealistic preconditions on negotiation is the classic method of refusing to negotiate "
Why is there a different standard for Israel and South Africa ?
That is a very good question.
Are you really so dense that you don`t think this was one of the options that was presented to truman? Are you really so stupid that you don't think it was weighed with the upmost seriousness? Of course it was!!! Remember, what was needed was a demonstration so shocking that it would change the kamakazi mindset of the japanese and force hirohito to immediately and unconditionally surrender. Truman chose not to pursue the “harmless demonstration” idea because it could quite easily lead to a situation that is more horrible by many orders of magnitude than the decision he took. I’ll give you two examples.
One is that the demonstration bomb could quite easily have failed to explode giving the japanese a feeling that the A-bomb wasn’t yet a reliable weapon. Secondly, even if the bomb did explode, the fact that the americans didn’t use it on the japanese right away would have been interpreted according to japanese culture as a sign of weakness in truman.
In both cases, the risk would be that the japanese would be emboldened in a way that would end up requiring more - perhaps many more - than one or two japanese cities be bombed before the japanese finally surrendered. Not only would this mean many more deaths, but using many A-bombs might make the idea of using only a few seem more acceptable in future conflict. There was also a fear that the american leadership are only human and would at some point been unable to continue the bombing and instead order the invasion of mainland japan in which case the lives that we're supposed to be saved by the atom bomb would end up being lost. More generally, the sheer horror of the aftermath would surely have had psychological and moral consequences on the entire world of a nature that would be difficult to predict and a severity that would be difficult to exaggerate.
Last edited:
So your saying that jews support genocide and that this is obviously true? The sheer number of posts you make in this forum, and probably other forums as well, indicate that you have a lot of free time on your hands. So I'm guessing you don't work. Is this because you suffer from a psychological disorder? Virulent and self-confessed antisemites such as yourself often suffer from the kinds of psychological difficulties in which their hatred and insensitivity are so profound that they can do and say the most horrible things in a completely disaffected way, very much like hitler, and very much like you.
At this point in time I will resort to rudeness. Shut up you clueless little twat! There, I feel better.
Since it's standard historical fact, you can find it in virtually any book on the subject. But a much more interesting read that has the same information plus an exhaustive list of references is The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes. You'll also enjoy it because the lead scientists in making the bomb were all jewish, though I suppose you'll use this to blame japan on the jews. Even today they dominate many subfields in physics. I wonder what it is about jews that makes them so good at physics? Ah well, question for another thread.
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
Correct me if I am wrong, but you are advocating the murder (Japan) of 1/2 million civilians without even TRYING to use an alternative (mine) strategy first?
it wasn't done to make the japanese surrender it was to show the soviets we went business and the 2 targets hit did have military reasons for being hit.
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
SAM you couldn't call it if you saw it throught a 2.12-MICRON Telescope.
Clearly, the way to resolve the presence of an illegal outpost is to build a bigger illegal settlement.
And of course these continual land grabs that have been occurring since 1948 give fuel to the conflict, and justify further resistance. Borrowing (or rather, stealing) from Peter to pay Paul is a shortsighted political device.
- Status