Which is the worst atrocity: 9/11 attack or Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings? - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14844124
Can everyone please stop apologizing for two very traumatic events that are both equally horrifying? How can any of you measure which one of these events is "worse" than the other. For the victims of Hiroshima and 9/11, these events were the most biggest and worst events of their lives. And all of you are sitting here, in your stupid armchairs, assuming the audacity of judging which of these events of human suffering is "worse".
#14844129
Bulaba Jones wrote: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.



It was lack of resources that slowed down the war effort of both Germany and Japan, particular lack of oil. Bombing cities wasn't necessary.

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.


It didn't shatter the moral of the civilian population. It had the opposite effect, as did the Luftwaffe bombing of London. What it did do for the Western allies was give them something to point at when Stalin asked them what they were doing to help.

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.


The civilian causalites were in the millions. There would have been far less casualties if deliberate bombing of civilians had been avoided.

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.


That is a weak attempt at justification on moral grounds. The ruling party was fascist but the civilians who got bombed were not. As to teaching the Germans and a Japanese a lesson, had the treaty of Versailles been less punitive then WWII wouldn't have happened. It was the Marshal plan and MacArthur in Japan who built a lasting peace by being much more reasonable than the people who drew up the treaty of Versailles.


B0ycey wrote: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.


You are correct in saying if these atrocities had not happened, the conventions to prevent such things would not have been written. What was done was wrong and we can now only learn about what happened and do what can be done to prevent it in future. It is the only moral attitude one can adopt on the subject of these bombing campaigns.

However, it isn't the case that a weapon will be used if developed in a war. Australia was developing biological weapons of mass destruction in WWII. Those weapons weren't used. After the war the technology was used in an attempt to eliminate rabbits (an introduced pest), which worked reasonably well. I am greatly relieved these weapons were not release on human targets.



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.


Again, the punitive excuse. "Learned'em good 'n proper". That is no justification for killing many thousands of people who had no say over nor even support their government and it's policies.

I draw your attention to the fact that I am not condemning America (though @anarchist23 is doing that). There were other nations doing the same thing. It is not a question of condemnation of America, but rather at issue is that dropping nukes on cities is wrong. I suspect much of the defensiveness, and the drive to justify what happened, is an attempt to hide the shame of American and British posters on this thread. It is best to simply agree nuking cities is wrong and should not happen again.
#14844131
This is a shit thread, and it really should have ended at this post:

mikema63 wrote:If we are going to measure "atrociousness" like this than neither is the most devastating. Regular bombing campaigns in WW2 killed more people than the atoms bomb, and every estimate of a direct invasion of Japan was so high that the atomic bombs look like pin pricks.

9/11 was bad. War is bad. Famine is bad. Genocide is bad.

We are in a world where bad things abound.
#14845970
The worse atrocity? Comparing the two.

Japanese civilians knew full well that they were in a war. Their civilian industries were all converted to the war effort long so they were fair game. The civilians of 9/11 were never informed of their being in a war in the same manner or method.

The rebuilding of the two cities that were leveled by the atomic devices was delayed. However the war ending in 1945 allowed the Japanese to start rebuilding the rest of their nation. Had the bombs not been dropped, the war would have likely lasted well beyond 1945.

If anything; the bombs were merciful ends to a nation that deserved no mercy whatsoever. We should have turned it into a penal colony.
#14845980
The first two atomic bombs were relatively harmless and they were nothing more than large incendiary bombs to incinerate an entire city, only intended to scare Hirohito and his henchmen into submission. If another nuclear device is going to be dropped on Pyongyang, the US should use the Hiroshima-size bomb, which would prevent North Korea from vanishing from the map.
#14845992
4cal wrote:If anything; the bombs were merciful ends to a nation that deserved no mercy whatsoever. We should have turned it into a penal colony.

Ah so you believe in collective guilt and punishment? What about all the members of primitive tribes, who have carried out the most terrible atrocities? In less heirarchical, less complex tribal societies a much larger percentage of the nation are involved in the decision making process than in an advanced industrial dictatorship like early twentieth century Japan. Japanese seem to be recognised as honorary White people and therefore get to share in the genocidal hated normally directed towards WIGs (White Infidel, Gentiles).
Last edited by Rich on 24 Sep 2017 02:44, edited 1 time in total.
#14846024
Rich wrote:Ah so you believe in collective guilt and punishment? What about all the members of primitive tribes, who have carried out the most terrible atrocities? In less heirarchical, less complex tribal societies a much larger percentage of the nation are involved in the decision making process than a an advanced industrial dictatorship like early twentieth century Japan. Japanese seem to be recognised as honorary White people and therefore get to share in the genocidal hated normally directed towards WIGs (White Infidel, Gentiles).


We were comparing two events that barely have a comparison except for high instant body counts.

Not sure why you're bringing up other human episodes but rest assured that it would be a VERY close call if you were to add up the body counts from every terrorist attack and compare that to the body counts from State sanctioned wars fought in the name of religion.
#14846034
4cal wrote:Not sure why you're bringing up other human episodes but rest assured that it would be a VERY close call if you were to add up the body counts from every terrorist attack and compare that to the body counts from State sanctioned wars fought in the name of religion.

I was thinking of native Americans, the tribes of Pagan Africa and the tribes of New Guinea. No ones ever been able to explain to me why its Ok to celebrate the exploits of the Apache but not SS Totenkopf, apart from an unconscious hatred (often self hatred) of White people. Obviously I wouldn't be keen on Totenkopf rampaging through my local neighbourhood, but the same goes for the Apache.
#14846042
Rich wrote:I was thinking of native Americans, the tribes of Pagan Africa and the tribes of New Guinea. No ones ever been able to explain to me why its Ok to celebrate the exploits of the Apache but not SS Totenkopf, apart from an unconscious hatred (often self hatred) of White people. Obviously I wouldn't be keen on Totenkopf rampaging through my local neighbourhood, but the same goes for the Apache.


Sorry. I must have missed the days we celebrate Apache aggression. Does Hallmark make a card about it?
#14846104
4cal wrote:Sorry. I must have missed the days we celebrate Apache aggression. Does Hallmark make a card about it?


:lol:

I had forgotten about this thread. It's another one where Rich came on, said something really stupid, and had no way to back himself out of it. You'll note the last thing he cowardly replied to me was done in a way that it wouldn't alert me that he addressed me, and it was him telling everyone that he was so stupid that it was impossible for him to understand why a slaughter that took place on 9/11 would be compared to another event on 9/11:

Rich wrote: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.


You will forgive me for pointing out the irony that Rich has to quadrouple down on explaining why he is so ignorant that he cannot understand context of bringing up another 9/11; and then when explaining another of his stupid ideas has to immediately respond by throwing out "native Americans, the tribes of Pagan Africa and the tribes of New Guinea [and the] SS Totenkopf" to see if anything sticks in distracting everyone about saying something stupid again.

Anyway 4Cal, you'll note most people ignore Rich. He's obviously the kind of guy that would accidentally step in dog shit and when you commented about it would refuse to admit he made an error, and instead start smearing dogshit all over himself--to help explain how much he loves dog shit and stepped in it on purpose.

I should roll my eyes and ignore him like everyone else, but I'm consistently intrigued at the lengths he'll go to in order to protect his precious feelings. I obviously had no idea he would keep pretending he was so stupid (which he's not) as to not understand why I would say a massacre in 1649 happened before a massacre on 1973 :lol:
#14847396
The Immortal Goon wrote:I should roll my eyes and ignore him like everyone else, but I'm consistently intrigued at the lengths he'll go to in order to protect his precious feelings. I obviously had no idea he would keep pretending he was so stupid (which he's not) as to not understand why I would say a massacre in 1649 happened before a massacre on 1973 :lol:

Ah but you didn't just say it happened before 1973.
The Immortal Goon wrote: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:

You said it was the first 9/11. You finally seem to have to defined what you mean by a "9/11". A massacre occurring on September the eleventh. So I repeat, even after you have defined it, it was not the first 9/11. It seems to be a claim you no longer wish to defend, but seem to want to evade by throwing around personal insults.
#14847420
Rich wrote:Ah but you didn't just say it happened before 1973.


Here you go, Rich. Since you seem to be having a lot of difficulty with this concept, maybe a song geared will help:



Let me know if you keep having trouble. I think you'll be able to understand this if you try hard enough :)
#14859632
B0ycey wrote:Rich, stop embarrassing yourself and go back to check the dates of these events. Perhaps the date defines these events.

I did, did you? Because I would expect anyone whose not a complete ignoramus when it comes to dating and chronology to be aware that there were two candidates for 9/11 in Europe in 1649. Most of Europe was using the Gregorian calender but in Ireland and the rest of British territory they were still using the Julian. The article doesn't tell us by which calender.

I was trying to pin down Immoral Goon's definition in order to minimise his wiggle room. Anyway there were massacres after the Battle of Stirling Bridge on the 11th September 1297, so that in itself is enough to assert Immortal Goons absurd claim.

@The Immortal Goon reminds me of the importance of context. I couldn't agree more. And the context to the alleged excesses at Drogheda was the struggle against Papist terror. I'm certainly critical of the way Cromwell treated the Catholics, he was far, far too lenient. The Catholic Church was a terrorist organisation. Cromwell should have dealt with the Catholics in the same tender hearted way that Stalin dealt with the Kulaks or Trotsky dealt with the Kronstad sailors.
#14859641
Rich wrote:I was trying to pin down Immoral Goon's definition in order to minimise his wiggle room. Anyway there were massacres after the Battle of Stirling Bridge on the 11th September 1297, so that in itself is enough to assert Immortal Goons absurd claim.


Take a look at the context I made my reply. If you're having difficulty, maybe watch that video again ;)

Rich wrote:The Immortal Goon reminds me of the importance of context. I couldn't agree more. And the context to the alleged excesses at Drogheda was the struggle against Papist terror. I'm certainly critical of the way Cromwell treated the Catholics, he was far, far too lenient. The Catholic Church was a terrorist organisation. Cromwell should have dealt with the Catholics in the same tender hearted way that Stalin dealt with the Kulaks or Trotsky dealt with the Kronstad sailors.


Now Rich, why don't you try looking at the context of what I wrote instead of the context of your feelings?
#14859752
Rich wrote:I did, did you? Because I would expect anyone whose not a complete ignoramus when it comes to dating and chronology to be aware that there were two candidates for 9/11 in Europe in 1649. Most of Europe was using the Gregorian calender but in Ireland and the rest of British territory they were still using the Julian. The article doesn't tell us by which calender.


Bloody hell rich, why have to decided to bring up a debate that died a few months back. :lol:

Anyway, if this is your defence then it is actually irrelevant. The date remains the same depending on the calendar you use. It just that the Earth might not be the same part of orbit that's all. So what? Should we not call it 'The Easter rising' because Easter changes date each year? :lol:

Just admit you didn't realise the dates before you responded to TIG orginally and move on...
#14861910
Here is the ultimate proof that the nuking of two cities was worse: Imagine if two American cities had been nuked instead of that one building complex being demolished by the CIA.

Much worse.

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

The "Russian empire" story line is inve[…]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]