Whats the difference between people who carried out the attacks on Hiroshima(6 aug 1945) and Nagasaki and those who did on 7/7 and 9/11
I was hearing to comments of an eyewitness on BBC he describes
" i saw a boy copletely naked, he had no skin and his nails were falling off from the
ends of his fingers, i was not sure if i was looking at a human being"
Now lets hear the “BUT FACTOR” from americans
Re: 8/6, 7/7 and 9/11
Americans dropped bombs on Japan to stop a war, and it saved lives
Muslims crashed planes into buildings to start a war, and now blow up trains, planes and automobiles on a daily basis (killing mostly other muslims btw) to prolong the war and the killing
Re: 8/6, 7/7 and 9/11
can't see much of a difference really. they're warped. all of em.
Re: 8/6, 7/7 and 9/11
You either want democracy and freedom to shape the future of the world (8/6) or radical Islamists (7/7, 9/11 and too many other dates to post here).
Re: 8/6, 7/7 and 9/11
Hiroshima saved millions of lives of asians and americans. Islamic terror only takes life. huge difference…it’s all good though…you start it..we will finish it. As Kaleem says, “come and get it”. :soldier:
Re: 8/6, 7/7 and 9/11
I’ll always defend Hiroshima and nagasaki, because I believe that the right to use nuclear weapons is a legitimate right of all nations including Pakistan and Iran.
The simple difference is that the attacks on Hiroshima and nagasaki destroyed the following military targets.
Hiroshima
Imperial Japanese Army Fifth Division HQ
Field Marshal Hata’s 2nd General Army Headquarters
Hiroshima Army Ordnance Supply Depot
Kure Naval Shipyard
Nagasaki
Mitsubishi Heavy Arms Plant
Mitsubishi Ordnance Plant
Mitsubishi Shipyards
Whilst on 9/11 one can concede that the attack on Washington DC targetted only an entirely military facility, in neither the attacks on New York or on London were any sites of military significance endangered.
Re: 8/6, 7/7 and 9/11
Additionally, the Laws of war state, as laid down in the 1907 Hague Convention which is still effective today
*25 The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited. *
*26 The officer in command of an attacking force must, before commencing a bombardment, except in cases of assault, do all in his power to warn the authorities. *
*27 In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes. *
Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were well defended with extensive anti-aircraft batteries, due to their military significance to the Japanese war effort.
The bombings were an aerial assault so no warning was needed under the laws of war.
All steps that were possible, that is to say none at all, were taken to spare these kinds of buildings from the effect of the bombardment.
Article 25 is the key difference. Whilst you can argue that what was done to New York and London was an "assault", both cities did not have defences in place at the time o the attacks.
Re: 8/6, 7/7 and 9/11
The attack on Japanese was carried out to inflict civilian casualty to stop attacks on Americans, thereby breaking the back of the Japanese by inflicting mass devastation…
The attack on Americans (If done by Muslims to begin with) was carried out to inflict civilian casualty to stop attacks on Muslims using whatever means necessary to inflict damage…
The reasons were the same, however the terrorist attacks on Japan had a far far greater number of civilian dead…
The result sought may have been the same however the methods were different…
Re: 8/6, 7/7 and 9/11
so basically laws of war allow bombarding of civilians whether or not they were “defended” (or measures in place)!
Re: 8/6, 7/7 and 9/11
Basically, no.
If a city has defences in place then it can be attacked. Having defences transforms it into a military target. In the case of Hiroshima, there were anti-aircraft guns in the town to defend it against bombers.
If a city is disarmed, then it is a war crime to attack it.
Re: 8/6, 7/7 and 9/11
Its “NO” only in case of a city without defenses, not otherwise… so if a city has some defense in place other party has permission to bombard irrespective of where the bomb falls and the results of the bomb (nuclear reaction).
Did Nagasaki have defenses too?
Re: 8/6, 7/7 and 9/11
Where, exactly, were Americans attacking muslims in september of 2001? Are you referring to the McDonald’s and Starbuck’s in mecca?
Re: 8/6, 7/7 and 9/11
Both cities had anti-aircraft defences.
Under the laws of war in 1945, if a city has defences, it could be attacked so long as "buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected" were not deliberately targetted. The populations of defended cities were not covered.
That is why German naval officers were prosecuted for war crimes against civilians ships after world war 2, but not a single German air force officer was ever prosecuted for bombing cities, even bombing residential districts of cities.
In 1949, the laws of war were amended to prohibit the deliberate targeting of civilians, given the experiences of both sides in World War 2 of having their defended cities bombed with heavy civilians casualties.
Still, even the 1949 rules themselves do not outlaw the usage of nuclear bombs.
As long as it cannot be proven that the use of a nuke was specifically to kill civilians rather than completely destroy multiple military facilities in a single strike, then the user of a nuke can get away with it.
Nukes are a way to destroy all military facilities within the blast zone with minimal risk to the attacker. If civilians choose to live within the blast radius from such military facilities, rather than evacuate at the start of the war, then they become collateral damage.
Nuclear weapons, and their usage, are the right of all countries. They provide a highly effective means to simultaneously neutralise many many militarily significant sites with a single, difficult to prevent, strike.
It is in the vested interest of certain nations prevent nuclear weapons from proliferatin, because their due their nature nuclear arms are an equaliser in war between a powerful nation and a weaker one.
And it is these vested interests of powerful countries that has led to the creation of such a powerful propganda lobby against nuclear warheads.
We should not be repulsed by nukes and their usage. We should, instead, embrace them.
Re: 8/6, 7/7 and 9/11
^^ You are without a doubt the reincarnation of Dr. Strangelove. 
Re: 8/6, 7/7 and 9/11
^^ No MV, only ak47 has that level of love for his missle.
But you are ignoring a vital similarity. The US was not at war with either Islamic militants or Japan until our homeland was attacked.
And, the Japanese and the Islamo-Facists both adopted suicide attacks as they became more desperate.
think about it.
Re: 8/6, 7/7 and 9/11
I used to think that way too. But aKKK47 only knows that his short range missile explodes and he wants to make it explode as often as possible. MadSci knows why it explodes and seems to recognize that a little self restraint is required and would responsibly limit the number of explosions.
Umm…are we talking about the same thing here? Have I mixed this thread up with the one dealing with Maddy’s nipples?
Re: 8/6, 7/7 and 9/11
No offence to you (since you are merely a well-informed messenger) the laws of war in 1945 sound like a load of horse$hit. One may expect every city to have some sort of defences, and that by definition makes them a lawful target of aerial bombing. Any bombs falling on museums, hospitals or schools can then easily be classified as non-deliberate (or what’s called as “collateral damage”). Technically, if you want to save a city from enemy bombing, you remove all the anti-aircraft weaponary from there, with the risk that your opponent will attack it anyway, and you are left to drag them through the fairly toothless and inane War Crimes Tribunal for years to come. Not to mention that your city, which you wanted to save, is reduced to rubble, anyway. Whoever thought of such “laws of war” must be awarded a Nobel Dumbness Prize.
Re: 8/6, 7/7 and 9/11
[quote]
Americans dropped bombs on Japan to stop a war, and it saved lives
[/quote]
The Japanese fleet in pacific (the battle of Midway) was decimated, they had lost for all practical purposes, american military was all but ready to invade Tokyo. The war was over for all practical puposes before these nuclear weapons were dropped on those cities.
Re: 8/6, 7/7 and 9/11
Try Palestine and Iraq…
Re: 8/6, 7/7 and 9/11
Not to sidetrack this fascinating discussion regarding “laws of war” …what a oxymoron. Anyway Stu, you do know about the no fly zone dont you? You do remember one of the documents released recently that stated that US increased the frequency and range to lure Saddam into war. You do know that US supplies arms and technology to Israel and it is primarily used against muslims, dont you? Should I go on or these examples suffice?