[Bulaba Khan Jones]

What! You are joking, right? You are trying to argue that any things goes. This is not true in reality as there is conventions and laws which attempt to limit behaviour in war.

The Second World War happened over 70 years ago. War is, by definition, immoral, awful, ugly, etc. A lot of bad things happened. A lot of people died. Most of the people who died weren't even combatants.

You are severely misreading my comments on things that happened before most of us were born, and seeming to imply I am saying it's OK to indiscriminately slaughter civilians. I will rephrase what I'm saying, then.

During the war, each side killed civilians, deliberately. The killing of civilians, on countless occasions, was deliberate. It wasn't necessarily that each side, every single time, thought to themselves, "Say, let's bomb this area because there's civilians here, let's deliberately do that." An area had something valuable: factories, industry, railroads, other infrastructure, or even simply a relatively intact city that ought to be leveled to reduce the enemy's morale and their capacity to fight.

The functioning air force of each side engaged in the bombing of population centers. WWII became a total war.

That being said, the destruction we've seen in pictures and video of the explosions and the aftermath of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was akin to a single-serving intense carpet bombing of population centers. There were literally countless Hiroshimas and Nagasakis during WWII. There were literally countless towns, villages, and cities completely burned out, leveled, destroyed, and countless millions slaughtered.

The point is that there is nothing intrinsically worse about Hiroshima and Nagasaki than any of the other population centers the Allies and the Axis powers wiped out. In both cases, the destruction was instantaneous and the majority of the dead died in the first moments rather than a period of days, weeks, or months in other cases, but the suffering was as real, and the carnage as real, and the destruction and devastation as real as any other city wiped out during the war.

When a state of total war exists, it isn't necessarily right or wrong, but simply a matter of survival and winning the war at any cost. The USSR had to fight back against Nazi terror with an equal measure of total war in order to survive: the quicker they defeated the enemy, the quicker the war would be over, and a quick end to the loss of life.

The indiscriminate killing of civilians is of course, by definition, immoral. But, as I already said, we (and the other side) were already engaged in the bombing and destruction of whole cities. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were simply two more destroyed cities, and were simply two more such atrocities in a countless list of atrocities seen in WWII, committed by every side.

[mikema63]

I'm curios what you would have done fox, if you were in charge of the war?

Since you are so taken with the morality of these actions, what was the morally correct action?

[ThirdTerm]

The indiscriminate killing of civilians is of course, by definition, immoral. But, as I already said, we (and the other side) were already engaged in the bombing and destruction of whole cities. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were simply two more destroyed cities, and were simply two more such atrocities in a countless list of atrocities seen in WWII, committed by every side.

I think an act of war is not counted as an atrocity as a rule, whether it's Pearl Harbor or 9/11. But the Srebrenica massacre was condemned as a genocide because innocent civilians were ethnically cleansed, without the authorization of the Serbian government. The My Lai massacre is another example, in which a deranged commander ordered to kill few hundred villagers in the style of the Imperial Japanese Army. The Nanking massacre happened in a similar situation, in which a local commander ordered to execute all former soldiers in civilian clothing, totalling around 50,000, just for the sake of teaching them a lesson.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

Nagasaki, the yanks just wanted to see what would happen if the detonated a nuke befor it hit the ground

[foxdemon]

I'm curios what you would have done fox, if you were in charge of the war?

Since you are so taken with the morality of these actions, what was the morally correct action?

The Axis weren't defeated by aerial bombing against cities. They were beaten at Stalingrad, El Alamein, Guadalcanal and Midway. Those decisive victories were before the heavy bombardment of cities got into it's stride. So what did mass bombing of cities achieve? Victory was already inevitable. The nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a continuation of that aerial bombardment doctrine. Also observe the Luftwaffe had the RAF right where they wanted them until Hilter ordered them to switch from attacking airfields to attacking London.

That idea of bombing cities originated in the 1920's based on the idea air power alone could win wars. The concept is flawed and only resulted in vast numbers of unnecessary civilian deaths. So the answer @mikema63 , is not to bother with that doctrine. Note that the article from the Geneva convention that I quoted was developed in response to reflecting on what happened in WWII.

Rather than simply say "oh well, shit happens" and shrug, the appropriate position to take is to acknowledge that waging war against civilian population centres by using massive fires such as nukes, was based on flawed ideas, is of marginal military value, results in many needless deaths and thus can't be justified morally.

[Decky]

The German people voted for Hitler and by doing so they chose their fate. Right wing people talk a lot about personal responsibility but they never display any of it.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

The Axis weren't defeated by aerial bombing against cities. They were beaten at Stalingrad, El Alamein, Guadalcanal and Midway. Those decisive victories were before the heavy bombardment of cities got into it's stride. So what did mass bombing of cities achieve? Victory was already inevitable. The nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a continuation of that aerial bombardment doctrine. Also observe the Luftwaffe had the RAF right where they wanted them until Hilter ordered them to switch from attacking airfields to attacking London.

That idea of bombing cities originated in the 1920's based on the idea air power alone could win wars. The concept is flawed and only resulted in vast numbers of unnecessary civilian deaths. So the answer @mikema63 , is not to bother with that doctrine. Note that the article from the Geneva convention that I quoted was developed in response to reflecting on what happened in WWII.

Rather than simply say "oh well, shit happens" and shrug, the appropriate position to take is to acknowledge that waging war against civilian population centres by using massive fires such as nukes, was based on flawed ideas, is of marginal military value, results in many needless deaths and thus can't be justified morally.

This is an idealistic, naive, and simplistic view of the conflict. Yes, those battles were decisive. I'm of the opinion that Hitler was doomed the moment he attacked the USSR when he did: he didn't have the manpower or the resources to overwhelm the Soviets when he did. Those battles resulted in a great deal of loss of life and materiel, but it ignores the infrastructure and industry Germany had which allowed them to continue the fight as long as they did.

The German economy, as with the economies of Europe and much of the world, had switched into wartime mode. The bombing of Germany by Allied bombers helped to shorten the war and thus save countless more lives. By bombing German infrastructure, cities, industry and production, the German war machine was literally crippled more and more as time went on. In a state of total war between all sides, it came down to more than a romantic, silly view of war in which battles are gentlemanly and everyone obeys rules of conduct. The object of the war was to not simply win battles, but to absolutely crush the enemy's capacity to wage war, to demoralize him, and to make him surrender as fast as possible to save the lives of your soldiers, your people, and to prevent further loss to your nation's infrastructure, industry, and wellbeing.

The Soviet engagement of the bulk of Germany's military (90% of it) was going to succeed whether the Western Allies did much of anything. However, it would have taken longer, there might have been millions more dead, and more of the USSR might have been destroyed without the Allies thoroughly destroying German industry and cities. It ruined their economy over time, forced some units away from the Eastern Front, and shattered the morale of much of the civilian population.

Had the Allies not bombed the hell out of Germany and Japan, much of their industry, infrastructure, capacity and will to fight would have remained intact. The war would have dragged on longer, the Axis would have been less willing to surrender with their morale and cities intact, and the casualty toll of WWII would have been much higher.

In a state of total war against fascism, you either win or you lose. Trying to apply a romantic view of the righteousness of war conduct to things that happened 70 years ago doesn't make sense at all.

Further, responding in kind to Axis bombing of cities helped to avoid a repeat of the "stab in the back" bullshit the world saw in the aftermath of WWI, when most of Germany was untouched but they lost anyways. Had we refrained from bombing their cities and turning their country to ash, their defeat would not have been total and devastating. They would have ended up believing they weren't truly defeated. We saw this before, and there's no doubt this fact was lost on the Allies.

[B0ycey]

I think nobody on here agrees with the use of Nuclear weapons and would have perfered for Hiroshima and Nagasaki to have never happen. But you have to be wearing some serious rose tinted glasses to believe that whoever developed the first nuclear bomb wouldn't have used it during war time. The UN resolution was a result of it's power and destruction. Unless they were dropped, no such resolution could exist. The only thing we can take from this atrocity is to learn to never to use such weapons again.

As for Japan, they learnt the hard way to not provoke a war. Had they created the atomic bomb, they would have used it on America. So to condemn America is a bit silly. This was WWII we are talking about. Not tickle wars.

Also I agree with pretty much everything @Bulaba Jones has said on this issue.

[Rich]

That's the second 9/11. The first was in 1649.

Like the third 9/11, it was motivated by religious terrorists that took control of a country:

Stunning, absolutely stunning. That an seemingly intelligent person could say such at thing, and that other seemingly intelligent people lap it up up. How in God's name do you classify this as the first act of religious terrorism in history. What kind of warped perspective categorises Cromwell as a religious terrorist but completly white washes the Aztecs? Answer: a Cultural Marxist perspective.

And that's before we even get on to the Almohads and Josiah.

[The Immortal Goon]

Stunning, absolutely stunning. That an seemingly intelligent person could say such at thing, and that other seemingly intelligent people lap it up up. How in God's name do you classify this as the first act of religious terrorism in history.

Because I didn't say it was the "first act of religious terrorism in history."

Typical of rightwing crybabies, your feelings were hurt so you had to make up a new argument based on your precious fee-fees instead of any kind of objective reality.

Now back under your rock to sob it off, Rich. I'll see you the next time you crawl out and whine about something that is simple to disprove

[Rich]

Because I didn't say it was the "first act of religious terrorism in history.

You said it was the first 9/11. What defines a "9/11" according to your schema? What about this event had never been seen before in human history?

[The Immortal Goon]

Now Rich, did I say this? If you calm down and slow your breath and relax, you can start to sound out the words while you're reading them.

Let's start here:

What about this event had never been seen before in human history?

When you wipe away those tears and sound out every word, is this something that I actually wrote?

[Rich]

When you wipe away those tears and sound out every word, is this something that I actually wrote?

You said it was the first "9/11". By definition that means there had never been a "9/11" before in the whole of human history prior to the 1640s AD. So I ask again, what about these three events, the first "9/11", the second 9/11" and the third "9/11" (aka simply 9/11), is unique.

What about the first 9/11 was first? What about the first 9/11 had never happened before?

[The Immortal Goon]

You said it was the first "9/11". By definition that means there had never been a "9/11" before in the whole of human history prior to the 1640s AD. So I ask again, what about these three events, the first "9/11", the second 9/11" and the third "9/11" (aka simply 9/11), is unique.

What about the first 9/11 was first? What about the first 9/11 had never happened before?

I was going to wait to teach you a little bit about reading context when we got past applying a hysterical feeling to something that wasn't there.

The title of this thread includes, "9/11 attack or Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings"

Do you suppose that anarchist23 was talking about any attack that has ever occurred in any context on any day, time, or address that included the numbers 9 and 11? And do you think he was talking about a specific explosion or Hiroshima or Nagasaki or one in particular?

Skinster then mentioned the 1973 Chilean coup d'état. Why do you think that was? Can you think of a context for this comment?

Try not to get too emotional about it, really think about what may connect these things together.

Assuming you can do so without help (and I'll be happy to help if you have trouble ) this would be the context.

How might what I wrote (HINT: not what you feel like I wrote, but what I actually wrote) fit into this context? This can be tricky for people not out of grammar school, so don't be afraid to ask for help!

---

Or you realized that you embarrassed yourself again and are doing your best to just pretend that you're really slow to somehow alter that perception. Either way, let me know if you need any more help.

[Rich]

I was going to wait to teach you a little bit about reading context when we got past applying a hysterical feeling to something that wasn't there.

You seem to be the hysterical one or feigning it. You said this event was the first 9/11. Of course as it put the British in bad it was very popular with leftists and if you had said it a leftist safe space, a leftist echo chamber, you'd have got away with it. But once challenged your statement is shown to be empty, hence your attempt to personalise the argument. This is not about my feelings or yours, its about the fact that the events of 1640s were far from the first case of religiously motivated conflict.

Many Conservatives were hysterical after 9/11. I was not one of them. In fact I'm not a Conservative full stop. I've never condemned Al Qaeda for their tactics, only their goals.

[The Immortal Goon]

You seem to be the hysterical one or feigning it. You said this event was the first 9/11. Of course as it put the British in bad it was very popular with leftists and if you had said it a leftist safe space, a leftist echo chamber, you'd have got away with it. But once challenged your statement is shown to be empty, hence your attempt to personalise the argument. This is not about my feelings or yours, its about the fact that the events of 1640s were far from the first case of religiously motivated conflict.

I know, which is why I thought it might be easier for you to practice reading comprehension instead of going right to context—which is far more complicated.

Wipe those tears away, little buddy, and try reading my post again. Sound out the letters if it helps, or have an adult help you.

You'll note that I never wrote that the 1640s were "the first case of religiously motivated conflict." It was probably something that you just conjured up in your never-ending quest to convince everyone that you're a victim.

I've been trying to get other right-wingers to watch this to help teach them. Maybe you should too

Many Conservatives were hysterical after 9/11. I was not one of them. In fact I'm not a Conservative full stop. I've never condemned Al Qaeda for their tactics, only their goals.

[Rich]

You'll note that I never wrote that the 1640s were "the first case of religiously motivated conflict."

I note it and I note its irrelevance, as you've repeatedly failed to explain in what way it was a first. You said it was a first. How was it first? What defined these three events? You said it was the first 9/11.

Its plainly obvious that you hadn't really thought out why it was a first, because you haven't even been able to manufacture a rationale after the fact. Your statement like so many leftie statements sounds appealing to the the partisan but is without substance.

So lets reiterate, you said it was the first 9/11, the natural and reasonable inference is that by first you meant the first religiously motivated terror campaign. As you have totally and utterly failed to offer an alternative rationale or meaning for use of the word first, the inference that you were implying first campaign of religious terror remains the reasonable one.

[The Immortal Goon]

I note it [that TIG didn't actually write what I thought he did through my hysterics] and I note its irrelevance,

Actually, your accusation was not irrelevant--it was your entire argument

You said it was a first. How was it first? What defined these three events? You said it was the first 9/11.

Its plainly obvious that you hadn't really thought out why it was a first, because you haven't even been able to manufacture a rationale after the fact. Your statement like so many leftie statements sounds appealing to the the partisan but is without substance.

As mentioned, I was going to help you with the concept of context when you got your reading comprehension corrected. And I'm happy to do so now

Remember when I wrote:

I was going to wait to teach you a little bit about reading context when we got past applying a hysterical feeling to something that wasn't there.

The title of this thread includes, "9/11 attack or Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings"

Do you suppose that anarchist23 was talking about any attack that has ever occurred in any context on any day, time, or address that included the numbers 9 and 11? And do you think he was talking about a specific explosion or Hiroshima or Nagasaki or one in particular?

Skinster then mentioned the 1973 Chilean coup d'état. Why do you think that was? Can you think of a context for this comment?

Try not to get too emotional about it, really think about what may connect these things together.

Assuming you can do so without help (and I'll be happy to help if you have trouble ) this would be the context.

How might what I wrote (HINT: not what you feel like I wrote, but what I actually wrote) fit into this context? This can be tricky for people not out of grammar school, so don't be afraid to ask for help!

Why don't you try answering these questions? You can then share what you think the answers to them are, and we can all see how well your reading comprehension has improved. I'm sure I'm not the only one that would be willing to help teach you anything you may have been a little slow with understanding

After that, you should have a better idea about context and the questions you have about the context my statements were made in should be easier for you to understand for yourself!

[B0ycey]

You said it was a first. How was it first? What defined these three events? You said it was the first 9/11.

Rich, stop embarrassing yourself and go back to check the dates of these events. Perhaps the date defines these events.

[Rich]

Rich, stop embarrassing yourself and go back to check the dates of these events. Perhaps the date defines these events.

No its Immortal Goon who is embarrassing himself. By talking drivel and continuing to double down on it. Obviously September 11th 1649 was not literally the first September 11th, as September goes back at least to the Roman Republic. So if its not the literal first September the 11th in what way was it a first? The first September 11th that some people killed some other people? I don't think so. The first September 11th that some people massacred some so called civilians? Again I don't think so.

Why should the Siege of Drogheda be counted as a "9/11", but not the siege of Vilnius or the atrocities after the battle of Stirling Bridge. But seriously anyone who knows anything about history would realise that there were countless atrocities on September 11ths prior to 1649, its just we do not know the exact date they occurred or we do not have a record of them at all. In the medieval period there were whole wars that have been lost to history let alone the individual events that constituted them.