Originally posted by smw6869that's sort of like saying all republicans are gay because there are gay republicans. and also that my experience and wisdom says there are no heterosexual republicans. they despise the opposite sex.
Maybe the remaining 43% aren't Rebublicans, but they are either independents or not registered. My many years of experience and wisdom says that there ain't no liberal Dems in the Military. Military service is not part of their beliefs. They dispise the military.
G.
- Joined
- 21 Jul 06
- Moves
- 99097
Originally posted by SMSBear716Surely the question is not whether Dresden was more 'evil' than Nagasaki or Hiroshima, or even whether different people were more innocent.
Fine... I'll surrender the point so you don't get so fixated on it. Else next we will be debating what 'is' is :-)
The whole of the debate is whether the Japanese killed in Hiroshima were 'more inoocent' than the ones killed in Dresden, or during the siege of Warsaw when the Germans invaded.
A few here want us to believe they achieved some sort of ...[text shortened]... who died in Hiroshima, Dresden or Warsaw it didn't matter much, they would still be dead.
The point is that both were terrible, criminal acts targeting civilians. How can you not see that?
Someone in this thread even compared Pearl Harbour to Nagasaki and Hiroshima as like for like... that is ridiculous. Think about it, I shouldn't need to explain it.
And for the record, Japan and the States would have come head to head at some point without PH... the Japanese were merely trying to get in a pre-emptive strike.
I can't be bothered to say more, as I'm too tired; but the lack of compassion shown by some in this thread has truly disheartened me. Good night.
Originally posted by HumeAWell said. Especially the last paragraph.
Surely the question is not whether Dresden was more 'evil' than Nagasaki or Hiroshima, or even whether different people were more innocent.
The point is that both were terrible, criminal acts targeting civilians. How can you not see that?
Someone in this thread even compared Pearl Harbour to Nagasaki and Hiroshima as like for like... that is ridiculous. ...[text shortened]... the lack of compassion shown by some in this thread has truly disheartened me. Good night.
Originally posted by wormwoodIf you understand how the LIBERAL Dems. think, you would understand that THERE ARE NO LIBERAL DEMS WHO WOULD VOLUNTEER FOR MILITARY SERVICE PERIOD. Then again, who could blame them with a nut lie Bush in office.
that's sort of like saying all republicans are gay because there are gay republicans. and also that my experience and wisdom says there are no heterosexual republicans. they despise the opposite sex.
G.
Originally posted by HumeADear Mr. Hume A. Your post was not undressing my post, but i thought i would give my two cents on the subject.
Surely the question is not whether Dresden was more 'evil' than Nagasaki or Hiroshima, or even whether different people were more innocent.
The point is that both were terrible, criminal acts targeting civilians. How can you not see that?
Someone in this thread even compared Pearl Harbour to Nagasaki and Hiroshima as like for like... that is ridiculous. ...[text shortened]... the lack of compassion shown by some in this thread has truly disheartened me. Good night.
You are not the only one to have the morals to know that killing innocent people is criminal. Everyone Knows That. You are correct.
What you don't seem to grasp is: IT DON"T MEAN NOTHING in war. Just trying to make you see the reality of this dung heap of a society.
You are right. War and killing is wrong. Now you can take your nap.
Trust me, everything will be the same in the morning. Dream happy dreams and everyone will be happy. Yes indeed.
G.
Originally posted by rhbnext in line is iran and pakistan 😉
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0XPQ/is_1998_June_29/ai_50189912
"The listing of victims in this way began in 1952, and up until last year, 202,118 names had filled 69 books"
God Bless America
i doubt iran will be but pakistan needs political realinment before the whole thing hits the fan. this will be the only length of time that i dearly hope their "president" isn't assasinated. things are looking grim over there atm. so lets hang our heads in a moment of silence for prayers and to see if our shoes need to be tied!
Originally posted by SMSBear716People are still dying today because of the nuclear bombings of Japan.
Too bad we had to use the second one on Nagasaki, we could have threatened the Russians with it if they didn't withdraw out of Eastern Europe. Think how much suffering that would have eliminated in the years that followed.
As for collateral damage. Let's wipe out the Earth. After all, a large proportion of people on it are evil and corrupt.
1 edit
Originally posted by HumeASo targeting the military installations doesn't count in your book? Question did dropping the bomb save lives on boths sides in the final accounting?
Surely the question is not whether Dresden was more 'evil' than Nagasaki or Hiroshima, or even whether different people were more innocent.
The point is that both were terrible, criminal acts targeting civilians. How can you not see that?
Someone in this thread even compared Pearl Harbour to Nagasaki and Hiroshima as like for like... that is ridiculous. the lack of compassion shown by some in this thread has truly disheartened me. Good night.
Ths discussion reminds me of a movie out a few years ago. Swordfish.
John Travolta plays a interesting character who on the surface seems to just be a very crafty/innovative thief.
But there is a interesting question he asks during the course of the flick. He asks the 'good guy' in the movie this
If you had to sacrifice the lives of 20,000 innocents (men women and children) but you were 100% guranteed to cure all diseases forever, would you do it?
I ought to post a thread asking that question here and see the responses. I think it would be illuminating indeed.
And yes, I would do it. Wouldn't you?
Originally posted by SMSBear716hitler thought he would solve all problems for humanity by exterminating the population he deemed weak, and by supressing the strong under a totalitarian rule. now, despite of how we evaluate his plan, from his viewpoint he was doing the equivalent of "killing 20 000 innocents for a panacea". the thought works identically with the concept of "proletarian dictatorship."
So targeting the military installations doesn't count in your book? Question did dropping the bomb save lives on boths sides in the final accounting?
Ths discussion reminds me of a movie out a few years ago. Swordfish.
John Travolta plays a interesting character who on the surface seems to just be a very crafty/innovative thief.
But there is a int ...[text shortened]... sponses. I think it would be illuminating indeed.
And yes, I would do it. Wouldn't you?
the bottom line is this: killing an innocent is murder. killing 20 000 innocents is mass murder. rationalizing it away won't change a thing. and if that's the case, should the people responsible for it actually take the responsibility of what they did? or can just you buy moral absolution? it can't be both ways, even though it would make things a lot easier. especially when we're talking about mass murder of innocent people.
Originally posted by SMSBear716Would you hand pick the innocents?
So targeting the military installations doesn't count in your book? Question did dropping the bomb save lives on boths sides in the final accounting?
Ths discussion reminds me of a movie out a few years ago. Swordfish.
John Travolta plays a interesting character who on the surface seems to just be a very crafty/innovative thief.
But there is a int ...[text shortened]... sponses. I think it would be illuminating indeed.
And yes, I would do it. Wouldn't you?
1 edit
Originally posted by wormwoodCan you buy moral absolution? Is it like purchasing carbon credits?
hitler thought he would solve all problems for humanity by exterminating the population he deemed weak, and by supressing the strong under a totalitarian rule. now, despite of how we evaluate his plan, from his viewpoint he was doing the equivalent of "killing 20 000 innocents for a panacea". the thought works identically with the concept of " things a lot easier. especially when we're talking about mass murder of innocent people.
How did Hitler get in here? You avoided my question We are talking a 100% sure fire guarantee that no one would suffer or die again from any disease ever again... this excludes accidental death, suicide old age, etc. Millions of children wouldn't die from the diseases that plague this planet. They wouldn't suffer from disease ... isn't 20,000 innocents worth that?