19 Mar 04
As we all remember, on September 11th, 2001, 19 terrorists hijacked 4 planes and crashed them into both towers of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania. Nearly 3,000 people died. Much of the world condemned the attacks as vile examples of terrorism.
Now go back some 56 years.
On the night of March 10-11, 1945, 334 U.S. B-29s, under the direction of General Curtis LeMay, dropped 1,700 tons of incendiary explosives on Tokyo, Japan (a city of little military value). 16 square miles of the city were burned and over 100,000 civilians died in a massive firestorm.
Is there any significant difference between the two? In both cases aircraft were used to inflict a maximum number of civilian casualties on a hated enemy. The circumstances in both are different, but the bottom line is that both sides deliberately targeted civilians for extermination. If one party is guilty of terrorism, then why isn't the other?
The difference is that the U.S. got to write the history books after WWII. If the U.S. had lost the war, it is certain that General LeMay (and possibly others) would have been tried for war crimes. The fact that he wasn't tried as a war criminal is because the U.S. got to decide what constituted a war crime in the first place. Since we had bombed civilian targets on a massive scale during the war, we decided that that didn't constitute a war crime anymore.
19 Mar 04
Hi Rob,
It depends who is claiming the moral high ground doesn't it?
There is an argument that had they not dropped both atomic bombs a land invasion would have claimed many more lives (American soldiers & Japanese civilians)
While you are on the subject, what about allied firebombing of Dresden, Hamburg Tokyo etc..during WW2.
19 Mar 04
Originally posted by rwingettThe US were a country at war. If anything they are guilty of War Crimes/Crimes against Humanity, not Terrorism. It's a matter of definition. Al Q can never be held on War crimes charges as they are Terrorists.
As we all remember, on September 11th, 2001, 19 terrorists hijacked 4 planes and crashed them into both towers of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania. Nearly 3,000 people died. Much of the world condemned the attacks as vile examples of terrorism.
Now go back some 56 years.
On the night of March 10-11, 1945, 334 U.S. B- ...[text shortened]... on a massive scale during the war, we decided that that didn't constitute a war crime anymore.
19 Mar 04
Originally posted by nook7This would not stand up in Court! (though it's never going to go to court though is it, funny that...)
Hi Rob,
It depends who is claiming the moral high ground doesn't it?
There is an argument that had they not dropped both atomic bombs a land invasion would have claimed many more lives (American soldiers & Japanese civilians)
While you are on the subject, what about allied firebombing of Dresden, Hamburg Tokyo etc..during WW2.
19 Mar 04
Originally posted by rwingettOne thing that is different in the two situations is that I seriously doubt that the news of that time (in WW2) carried live coverage of the event and the horror that ensued. Ask anyone on the street who Curtis LeMay is and they won't be able to tell you. Ask them who Muhommad Atta is and they will know. I am not saying this is right, but what happens to us is more important than what happens to them.
As we all remember, on September 11th, 2001, 19 terrorists hijacked 4 planes and crashed them into both towers of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania. Nearly 3,000 people died. Much of the world condemned the attacks as vile examples of terrorism.
Now go back some 56 years.
On the night of March 10-11, 1945, 334 U.S. B- ...[text shortened]... on a massive scale during the war, we decided that that didn't constitute a war crime anymore.
19 Mar 04
Originally posted by kirksey957You raise a good point, perhaps if we (in general) had a little more understanding, history would not keep repeating itself.
One thing that is different in the two situations is that I seriously doubt that the news of that time (in WW2) carried live coverage of the event and the horror that ensued. Ask anyone on the street who Curtis LeMay is and they won't be able to tell you. Ask them who Muhommad Atta is and they will know. I am not saying this is right, but what happens to us is more important than what happens to them.
19 Mar 04
2 edits
Originally posted by rwingettThe only word I can find that I disagree with is "guilty". We terrorized them no end. As they did to the people in the countries THEY invaded and terrorized. China, Burma, Phillipines etc... Do I agree with the all-out bombing campaign of the US as the war wound down? Yes... and no. As a human being it is difficult to swallow that much death and desrtuction. But. They did start the war by attacking us. Just as Al-Zawahiri started the war against us in the Beirut Barracks bombings by his organization, the Islamic Jihad. Now known as Al Quaida.
As we all remember, on September 11th, 2001, 19 terrorists hijacked 4 planes and crashed them into both towers of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania. Nearly 3,000 people died. Much of the world condemned the ...[text shortened]... war, we decided that that didn't constitute a war crime anymore.
The US was using "total war" to end the "total war" started by Germany and Japan. I don't think it is wrong to end a state of "total war" using any means possible IF YOU DIDN'T START IT. To NOT end a total war as soon as possible seems the greater crime. The decision to engage in all-out, total war was made by all the allies, and all the populations of those nations. You and I were not there, but you will find very few supporters of Hitler and Tojo in the WWII generations. Except Robert McNamara.
Just a word of warning though. Stay away from Robert McNamara's thinking. He has accomplished very little of it in his life time. His major claim to fame was in getting the troop build-up to over a half million men during his years as the architect of the Viet Nam war as Secretary of Defense. As you know. He has written this current book to try and reclaim some moral rectitude in the history books. Those of us who were soldiers or possible soldiers at the time of his insanity knew him for what he was. A sick... sick individual who more than anyone else designed the blueprint for failure that was Viet Nam.
I find it amusing that he would have the guts to hold moral court against Lemay! Quite amusing.
The best part of winning a war is that you do get to write the history books. And there is a good part, believe it or not. If the allies had lost, the bad guys would have won. If Hitler and Tojo were bad. The good news is that we won. Had the facists won... we wouldn't be having a chat on the internet.
Interesting subject. <edit> Removed the attack on Rob and Prad.
Remember... "Cause and Effect". The "cause" was the creation of total war by the facists. The "Effect" was the ending of total war by any and all means available by the innocent victims of the sneak attack. It is nice to set back and second guess, but keep in mind who started what. That helps.
Mike
19 Mar 04
Originally posted by nook7The victors write the history. Once America is not World #1, history will reflect a different attitude, based around the beliefs of the new #1. Im not being anti US here at all, it's just that sooner or later another country will take over, it's inevitable.
You raise a good point, perhaps if we (in general) had a little more understanding, history would not keep repeating itself.
19 Mar 04
Originally posted by StarValleyWyYou are correct about the Robert McNamara tie in. I just saw Fog Of War recently. I'm no fan of his, but he did raise a few interesting points.
The only word I can find that I disagree with is "guilty". We terrorized them no end. As they did to the people in the countries THEY invaded and terrorized. China, Burma, Phillipines etc... Do I agree with the all-out bombing campaign of the US as the war wound down? Yes... and no. As a human being it is difficult to swallow that much death and desrt ...[text shortened]... It is nice to set back and second guess, but keep in mind who started what. That helps.
Mike
I'm not trying to destroy the U.S. I'm merely trying to destroy the conception that we have a monopoly on truth and justice in the world.
I don't buy the argument that because the fascists started the war that it excuses any transgressions on our part, or that because they did things that were far worse that our crimes can be overlooked. The fascists were by far the more evil party during the war, but they did not have a total monopoly on evil.
I guess all I'm trying to say is that if we don't look at ourselves critically and take blame where blame is due, then I don't think it's likely that anyone will listen to us when we try to take the moral highground in the world.
19 Mar 04
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettWell said. The major reason I am starting over and trying to re-educate myself on the terror issue is that I have come to realize that the US is despised so badly around the world. I attributed it to a "jealous pique" or some such for many years. I am re-examining my positions. I am willing to take your post then as an exhortation to try and examine all sides of the current war. WWII was really fought in another time. Everything about it was different. I don't feel comfortable trying to judge those people by todays standards. I'll issue them a pass.
You are correct about the Robert McNamara tie in. I just saw Fog Of War recently. I'm no fan of his, but he did raise a few interesting points.
I'm not trying to destroy the U.S. I'm merely trying to destroy the conception th ...[text shortened]... sten to us when we try to take the moral highground in the world.
But... I will try to think about what you say here.
Mike
19 Mar 04
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI don't think the world despises the US totally. After 9/11 there was an immense feeling of sorrow around the world for the plight of those poor people who were so unjustly massacred. I remember watching people jump from the 20th floor to their deaths and felt the same disgust for these evil Maniacs as any American. Over here in Britain we used to have bombs going off quite regularly with the IRA, my father and my brother were within 50 metres of a bomb in our home town (which was hit 3 times) and let me tell you, i know how it feels!
Well said. The major reason I am starting over and trying to re-educate myself on the terror issue is that I have come to realize that the US is despised so badly around the world. I attributed it to a "jealous pique" or some such for many years. I am re-examining my positions. I am willing to take your post then as an exhortation to try and examine a ...[text shortened]... andards. I'll issue them a pass.
But... I will try to think about what you say here.
Mike
It is the American reaction that has caused so much contempt. It is when American polititians (Rumsfelt, yes i know i've spelt it wrong) announce to the world that America is the worlds 'policemen', the only country willing to stand up for truth and justice, etc...
This is just incorrect. The plain fact of the matter is the rest of the world cares just as much about truth and justice. When other Nations disagree with the US this is held up as some kind of Taboo. Any Nation expressing a difference in view, is condemmened as a 'traitor' to these things when they are generally showing distaine for the American aproach.
The Bush administration has shown complete disrespect to the World. The Kuoto agreement on global warming had been in place for 20 years when Bush pulled the US out of it. Many of the countries involved had gone to great lengths to meet the regulations on polution, implementing unpopular policies in thier own countries to do so. Bush arrives on the scene, having bought power with Oil money, and backs out, just like that. This showed total disregard for the rest of the world.
When Tony Blair stood by President Bush, he lost a lot of popularity here in the UK for this reason (amongst others but this thread will be encyclopedic if i list them all). Now, he committed troups to Afganistan, and then Iraq! The British people were totally oppossed to this war! Millions of people took to the streets in protest. I don't know how much of this made it into the US press, but when i watched CNN, you were NOT getting the full picture.
Now, after the war questions were raised about the Intelligence dossier that im sure we are all aware of. Mr Bush stood up infront of the world and blaimed British Intelligence for the cock up! This is after Tony Blair has risked his premiership on supprting Bush. TB came within a whisker of being ousted as a direct result of this stupid mans lack of consideration.
It just doesn't matter if it was the fault of British Intelligence. At the end of the day, President Bush has turned around to his biggest supporter and stabbed him in the back.
Before Blair aligned himself with the Bush administration, he was the most popular Prime Minister this country has ever seen! If your greatest friend and ally can't trust you, who can??
19 Mar 04
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI don't think the US is as widely despised as the media would have us believe. those holding anti-US sentiments are very vocal, and because of 9/11, very newsworthy.
Well said. The major reason I am starting over and trying to re-educate myself on the terror issue is that I have come to realize that the US is despised so badly around the world.
i think there are many more people around the world who would much rather live in the US than destroy it. with regard to your mention of 'jealous pique', i think this is an element - if you can see people with a much higher standard of living than yours on TV, but you have no hope of attaining what they have, it is unfortunately part of human nature that you quite probably would feel resentment toward them...
19 Mar 04
Originally posted by rwingettFor a start, people waging war in the name of a state, in uniform, are not terrorists. To say that they are stretches the definition of the term so as to make it vastly less useful.
As we all remember, on September 11th, 2001, 19 terrorists hijacked 4 planes and crashed them into both towers of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania. Nearly 3,000 people died. Much of the world condemned the attacks as vile examples of terrorism.
Now go back some 56 years.
On the night of March 10-11, 1945, 334 U.S. B- ...[text shortened]... on a massive scale during the war, we decided that that didn't constitute a war crime anymore.
Whether or not LeMay was guilty of a war crime is another matter. Tokyo was the Japanese capital, which makes it also the seat of the emperor, regardless of whather he actually resided there. both 'embodied' Japan. Hence, bombing it had the potential to positively affect the allied war effort, irrespective of of how much direct 'military value' it may have had in the sense of munitions factories etc. I think the term 'war crimes' has to be interpreted by the standards of the times - everyone bombed civilians in WW2 - Germany, Japan, Britain, the US - it was accepted practice. but horrors such as the Holocaust - that's a different matter.
These days, standards have changed, and the deliberate slaughter of civilians does constitute a war crime.