NationStates Jolt Archive

Swilatia, you just don't get it. While it is a tragedy that so many die every year in Africa, that is a result of the constant in fighting going on there. When the Tsunami hit, the United States sent the 7th fleet to the area. They used the vast kitchens aboard their aircraft carriers to make bread for the people who survived, and used their generators to de-salinate, and then bottle water for the people.

9/11 was a direct, deliberate attack against a civillian structure with no millitary value. On that day, a group of mad men took a plane ful of innocents and turned it into a weapon. 9/11 was the biggest case of mass murder in the history of the planet. In less then four hours, 4 thousand people died. Not even Hitler could match that brutal effeciency.

That is why we remember, that is why we wage war against those responsible. That is why we seek to build a memorial.
So have you not heard of the nukes the US dropped on Japan killing 100x that of 9/11?

Maybe because more than 3,000 innocent people died. Maybe because more people died on that day than died in the attack on Prearl Harbor. Maybe...

I'm a bit annoyed by it.

So have you not heard of the nukes the US dropped on Japan killing 100x that of 9/11?

It was total war. The bloodiest war in human history. The people of Japan were ready and willing to die for their Emperor, just so long as they'd get a shot at American troops, even if it was with a pointy bamboo stick. To save as many American lives as possible the Japanese had to be shown that they can die for their Emperor, but in total futility.

We didn't ask for that war, but they gave it to us, whether we liked it or not, and they gave it with the full support of their population.

It was total war. The bloodiest war in human history. The people of Japan were ready and willing to die for their Emperor, just so long as they'd get a shot at American troops, even if it was with a pointy bamboo stick. To save as many American lives as possible the Japanese had to be shown that they can die for their Emperor, but in total futility.

I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing the point that 9/11 was the worst, deadliest attack in history which it wasnt. Not even close.

So have you not heard of the nukes the US dropped on Japan killing 100x that of 9/11?

Not as many as the firebombing of Tokyo.

I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing the point that 9/11 was the worst, deadliest attack in history which it wasnt. Not even close.

The worst, deadliest attack in American history. Not since Antietem had more Americans died on this continent in violence.

The worst, deadliest attack in American history. Not since Antietem had more Americans died on this continent in violence.

There it is. This is signif. because AMERICAN people died.

There it is. This is signif. because AMERICAN people died.

Not just Americans. Germans, Venezuelans, Hondurans, Nigerians, Peruvians, Ghanans, Frenchmen, Chinese, Italians, Bangledeshi, Britons and scores of others died. All innocent. All at the hands of cowards who were incapable of doing anything but striking at those who could not have a chance to strike back before they died.

So have you not heard of the nukes the US dropped on Japan killing 100x that of 9/11?

There is a difference. In Japan, we were striking at legitamte military targets. Nagaskai was a factory town, and Hiroshima was a naval shipyard. In those instances, we had no knowledge of just how bad these attacks were going to be. Truman dropped them assuming it would be a high-yield warhead. We had only tested a single weapon in our history before the attack. Was it a tragedy, yes, but if we had invaded, it would have ended in the total genocide of the Japanese people.

9/11 was mass murder for murder's sake. That is why it is the greatest tragedy in our history.

Not just Americans. Germans, Venezuelans, Hondurans, Nigerians, Peruvians, Ghanans, Frenchmen, Chinese, Italians, Bangledeshi, Britons, Pakistani and scores of others died. All innocent.

Was this like a connector flight that went to all of those countries to pick up passengers before crashing into a building or are you referring to immagrants or are you talking about what happened after the event?

So have you not heard of the nukes the US dropped on Japan killing 100x that of 9/11?

Yep. Saved over 1 million American lives and perhaps 3-5 million Japanese.

However, you might note that the nukes were dropped after four years of conflict and the amazingly, outrageously bloody siege of Okinawa.

You'll kindly note that the US didn't nuke Kyoto or Tokyo due to their cultural significance. The Jihadists had no such prohibition.

Was this like a connector flight that went to all of those countries to pick up passengers before crashing into a building or are you referring to immagrants or are you talking about what happened after the event?

People from dozens of nations worked in the World Trade Center. They where all killed either in the initial crash, or when gravity brought the towers down.

Enough with the body count dick-waving. Goddamn it.

Was this like a connector flight that went to all of those countries to pick up passengers before crashing into a building or are you referring to immagrants or are you talking about what happened after the event?

These were people, private citizens of these countries I listed, who were working in the World Trade Center when the planes crashed into the buildings. They died in the towers. This was the World Trade Center, after all.

Yep. Saved over 1 million American lives and perhaps 3-5 million Japanese.

However, you might note that the nukes were dropped after four years of conflict and the amazingly, outrageously bloody siege of Okinawa.

You'll kindly note that the US didn't nuke Kyoto or Tokyo due to their cultural significance. The Jihadists had no such prohibition.

No, they didn't bomb Tokyo because the firbombing had wrecked so much of it it was dropped off the list.

Enough with the body count dick-waving. Goddamn it.

You are right. It has nothing to do with body count. It has everything to do with an attatck on soverign territory. :mad:

No, they didn't bomb Tokyo because the firbombing had wrecked so much of it it was dropped off the list.

No, the Emperor was in Tokyo, if he died, the Japanese people would have never surrendered.

These were people, private citizens of these countries I listed, who were working in the World Trade Center when the planes crashed into the buildings. They died in the towers. This was the World Trade Center, after all.

Makes sense then.

Not just Americans. Germans, Venezuelans, Hondurans, Nigerians, Peruvians, Ghanans, Frenchmen, Chinese, Italians, Bangledeshi, Britons and scores of others died. All innocent. All at the hands of cowards who were incapable of doing anything but striking at those who could not have a chance to strike back before they died.

The people who carried out the 9/11 operation may have been a lot of things, but cowards is not one of them. A coward does not fly themselves into a building knowing they are going to die, that takes balls.

The people who carried out the 9/11 operation may have been a lot of things, but cowards is not one of them. A coward does not fly themselves into a building knowing they are going to die, that takes balls.

All it takes to do that is stupidity. Nothing more, nothing less. Seventy two virgins my ass.

Yep. Saved over 1 million American lives and perhaps 3-5 million Japanese.

However, you might note that the nukes were dropped after four years of conflict and the amazingly, outrageously bloody siege of Okinawa.

You'll kindly note that the US didn't nuke Kyoto or Tokyo due to their cultural significance. The Jihadists had no such prohibition.

Cultural significance? what the fuck difference does that make? They still killed untold innocents with their nukes regardless of what city it was.

Cultural significance? what the fuck difference does that make? They still killed untold innocents with their nukes regardless of what city it was.

But they weren't American, so it's alright.

The people who carried out the 9/11 operation may have been a lot of things, but cowards is not one of them. A coward does not fly themselves into a building knowing they are going to die, that takes balls.

If they'd engaged in open combat with the American military, or even the police they wouldn't be cowards. If they'd gone after those who could fight back they wouldn't be cowards. They didn't. They took hostages on planes, and told the passengers and crew that their demands must be met, and once they were they'd be let off the plane. Only problem: They never made any demands. They lied, outright to the innocent people on those planes. Then they moved to strike, not at a target that could defend itself at the last second, but against undefended, unguarded towers. They were afraid of the strong, so they attacked the weak, the unprotected. Scum.

They thought they'd be rewarded because they killed those they thought were infidels. They thought that in heaven they'd be receiving 72 virgins.

There were many people who displayed tremendous valour on that day. They ran up into the burning buildings to save others, they were injured and wounded, yet they ran back up into the inferno to save others, they fought against the hijackers on Flight 93 so that they might not be able to wreak more destruction.

Didn't we drop leaflets warning of impending doom?

But they weren't American, so it's alright.

oh yeah, I forgot. yay nationalism:rolleyes:

Cultural significance? what the fuck difference does that make? They still killed untold innocents with their nukes regardless of what city it was.

The people of Japan rejoiced at the war. They sent their sons and brothers to fight, and kill Americans. They benefitted from the torture and suffering innocents experienced under the fist of the Japanese rule across East Asia. Hardly innocent.

If they'd engaged in open combat with the American military, or even the police they wouldn't be cowards. If they'd gone after those who could fight back they wouldn't be cowards. They didn't. They took hostages on planes, and told the passengers and crew that their demands must be met, and once they were they'd be let off the plane. Only problem: They never made any demands. They lied, outright to the innocent people on those planes. Then they moved to strike, not at a target that could defend itself at the last second, but against undefended, unguarded towers. They were afraid of the strong, so they attacked the weak, the unprotected. Scum.

There were many people who displayed tremendous valour on that day. They ran up into the burning buildings to save others, they were injured and wounded, yet they ran back up into the inferno to save others, they fought against the hijackers on Flight 93 so that they might not be able to wreak more destruction.
How do you know all that went on in the plane?

The people of Japan rejoiced at the war. They sent their sons and brothers to fight, and kill Americans. They benefitted from the torture and suffering innocents experienced under the fist of the Japanese rule across East Asia. Hardly innocent.

I guess nobody is innoscent. We all had grand parents and parents who fought in war.

Then they moved to strike, not at a target that could defend itself at the last second, but against undefended, unguarded towers. They were afraid of the strong, so they attacked the weak, the unprotected. Scum. Not to interrupt your jingoism here, because it is so much fun to read, but you might do well to remember that they considered themselves at war with American culture and specifically with the US's internationally influental institutions. Which is precisely why their targets were the WTC, the Pentagon, and the White House. They were after high value targets they saw as dangerous and powerful. Just so you know, since the whole "understand your enemy" bit doesn't seem to flow your way.

How do you know all that went on in the plane?

What kind of question is that? We've got a decent enough picture. We know that they never radioed Cleveland Center, we know they never radioed any American position. They never made any demands.

I guess nobody is innoscent. We all had grand parents and parents who fought in war.

Over time guilt is absolved. I would never hold a German or Japanese fellow responsible for the actions of his forbears. I'm holding the Japanese responsible for the actions of their contemporaries.

Not to interrupt your jingoism here, because it is so much fun to read, but you might do well to remember that they considered themselves at war with American culture and specifically with the US's internationally influental institutions. Which is precisely why their targets were the WTC, the Pentagon, and the White House. They were after high value targets they saw as dangerous and powerful. Just so you know, since the whole "understand your enemy" bit doesn't seem to flow your way.


You're right. Those hijackers, boy were they courageous! That took guts to kill thousands of innocent, unaware, unarmed civilians! The bravery...ugh, I think I just creamed my pants.

They benefitted from the torture and suffering innocents experienced under the fist of the Japanese rule across East Asia. Hardly innocent.

They benefited by fighting far flung wars, ending up on meal rations and becoming malnutritioned, stretching all resources thin for a logrolling military, and in the end having their national economy basically reduced to rubble? Yeah, sounds like real benefits to me. :headbang:

What kind of question is that? We've got a decent enough picture. We know that they never radioed Cleveland Center, we know they never radioed any American position. They never made any demands.

I'm not too well read on the subject. Was there any recordings of what went on inside the plane?

You're right. Those hijackers, boy were they courageous! That took guts to kill thousands of innocent, unaware, unarmed civilians! The bravery...ugh, I think I just creamed my pants.

I never claimed they were courageous, though I do so enjoy you trying to stuff words in my mouth.

Not to interrupt your jingoism here, because it is so much fun to read, but you might do well to remember that they considered themselves at war with American culture and specifically with the US's internationally influental institutions. Which is precisely why their targets were the WTC, the Pentagon, and the White House. They were after high value targets they saw as dangerous and powerful. Just so you know, since the whole "understand your enemy" bit doesn't seem to flow your way.

I perfectly understand my enemy, and I understand why they targeted those targets. And their rationale is cowardly. In their eyes, their rationale was just. Would you stand up and say that their rationale was just?

The people of Japan rejoiced at the war. They sent their sons and brothers to fight, and kill Americans. They benefitted from the torture and suffering innocents experienced under the fist of the Japanese rule across East Asia. Hardly innocent.

By that logic I can say not a single person that was killed in 9/11 was innocent. They were materialistic, greedy, fat slobs that benefited from the death's of untold numbers of muslims that died at the hands of America throughout the years. They also supported the war machine that is America and stood side by side as she committed unspeakable crimes. The people of America rejoiced at the war on terror and sent their sons to die fighting muslims on their land. So by your logic Jihad against America is ok.

I never claimed they were courageous, though I do so enjoy you trying to stuff words in my mouth.

When you rejected my statement that they were cowards, you just as well said so.

Over time guilt is absolved. I would never hold a German or Japanese fellow responsible for the actions of his forbears. I'm holding the Japanese responsible for the actions of their contemporaries.

But is my grandfather responsible for some of the deaths during world war II even though you don't believe that my generation is?

I never claimed they were courageous, though I do so enjoy you trying to stuff words in my mouth.

No, you defended the moron who called them brave.

By that logic I can say not a single person that was killed in 9/11 was innocent. They were materialistic, greedy, fat slobs that benefited from the death's of untold numbers of muslims that died at the hands of America throughout the years. They also supported the war machine that is America and stood side by side as she committed unspeakable crimes. The people of America rejoiced at the war on terror and sent their sons to die fighting muslims on their land. So by your logic Jihad against America is ok.

The US is not morally equivalent to the Japanese of World War II, the US is not morally equivalent to the totalitarian aspirations of Islamist militants in the Middle East. Moral Equivalency is dead, and it has been for a long time.

The US is, and has been acting in it's own defense.

How does being materialist and fat make one a horrible person?

You want a war machine? A war machine is a barracks state like what we see in Iran, like what we saw in Iraq. The US is by no means a war machine.

Would you stand up and say that their rationale was just?

I won't claim their rationale was just, because I don't think it was, but the point is that they honestly believed this. They truly believed that they were doing what was best for the world by attacking the WTC, which to me is far more disturbing. When people get this fanatic, one has to worry.

But is my grandfather responsible for some of the deaths during world war II even though you don't believe that my generation is?

The aggressors were responsible for the deaths in World War II, but you are not.

I perfectly understand my enemy, and I understand why they targeted those targets. And their rationale is cowardly. In their eyes, their rationale was just. Would you stand up and say that their rationale was just?

Well, USA is a big wealthy country that can fund for lots of soldiers and weapons. And is currently at war with a less well off country. Is that a cowardly fight?

I'm not too well read on the subject. Was there any recordings of what went on inside the plane?

No, because the black boxes were destroyed, and the transmitters were shut off. But we can safely assume that if the people on the planes knew what they were headed for, they would have fought back, because even if they failed to overpower the highjackers, they'd still die. Much as what happened on Flight 93, when the passengers learned of what happened elsewhere.

Well, USA is a big wealthy country that can fund for lots of soldiers and weapons. And is currently at war with a less well off country. Is that a cowardly fight?

No. The US is acting in a defensive nature. Classical defense it is not, but responding to a perceived threat, it is.

The US is not morally equivalent to the Japanese of World War II, the US is not morally equivalent to the totalitarian aspirations of Islamist militants in the Middle East. Moral Equivalency is dead, and it has been for a long time.
I forgot the US was superior to all others :rolleyes:

The US is, and has been acting in it's own defense.
sure it has
How does being materialist and fat make one a horrible person?
because they fill their life with greed and physical things instead of is important in life

You want a war machine? A war machine is a barracks state like what we see in Iran, like what we saw in Iraq. The US is by no means a war machine.
name the country currently occupying 2 nations and has bases in countless others.

No, you defended the moron who called them brave.

Actually, what I did was dispute Andaluciae's referring to the terrorists as cowards. My reason, as I said, being that, in the terrorists' mindsets, they were acting against what they deemed US agression and had specifically targeted buildings that they believed were propagating US power abroad. It was a horrible reasoning, but they believed it absolutely. This tends to contradict the image of the coward, being the guy who runs away from fights.
Also, in no way did I call them brave.

A nice try though.

No, because the black boxes were destroyed, and the transmitters were shut off. But we can safely assume that if the people on the planes knew what they were headed for, they would have fought back, because even if they failed to overpower the highjackers, they'd still die. Much as what happened on Flight 93, when the passengers learned of what happened elsewhere.

Then you don't know how well armed they were. Maybe they crashed the plane with their bare hands. That seems like a fair fight to me.

name the country currently occupying 2 nations and has bases in countless others.

In fairness, occupying Afghanistan was a legitimate war. I was, and still remain, steadfast opposed to the Iraq war, but invading Afghanistan was perfectly reasonable.

I forgot the US was superior to all others :rolleyes:

So, is the barbaric practice of female circumcision acceptable? Is the execution of homosexuals acceptable? Is the execution of those who show even the slightest religious dissent acceptable? Is it acceptable to kill hundreds of thousands just because they practice a different brand of Islam? If it is, then we're morally equivalent.

sure it has
Not even worthy of a response.

because they fill their life with greed and physical things instead of is important in life
And you have some insight into what is important that they did not?


name the country currently occupying 2 nations and has bases in countless others.
The US maintains a military presence in many countries at the request and permission of the local governments. The US military has been a force for stability for the past half century. It held back Soviet Communism in Europe and Asia, it drove the invading armies of Iraq from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, it is currently aiding governments around the world in their own struggles with Islamist extremism.

In fairness, occupying Afghanistan was a legitimate war. I was, and still remain, steadfast opposed to the Iraq war, but invading Afghanistan was perfectly reasonable.

Take over an entire country for the sake of finding a single man?

So, is the barbaric practice of female circumcision acceptable? Is the execution of homosexuals acceptable? Is the execution of those who show even the slightest religious dissent acceptable? Is it acceptable to kill hundreds of thousands just because they practice a different brand of Islam? If it is, then we're morally equivalent.

That sh!t has nothing to do with the war.

Actually, what I did was dispute Andaluciae's referring to the terrorists as cowards. My reason, as I said, being that, in the terrorists' mindsets, they were acting against what they deemed US agression and had specifically targeted buildings that they believed were propagating US power abroad. It was a horrible reasoning, but they believed it absolutely. This tends to contradict the image of the coward, being the guy who runs away from fights.
Also, in no way did I call them brave.

A nice try though.

They were cowards. Their ideology was full of cowardice. They sought to kill those who could not fight back. They attacked without warning, spoke lies to countless innocents, and murdered countless more. That is cowardice.

That sh!t has nothing to do with the war.

You're challenging my assertion that moral equivalency is irrelevant. I'm proving that point right. They strive to fill the world with these things, we fight to hold back their goals.

You're challenging my assertion that moral equivalency is irrelevant. I'm proving that point right. They strive to fill the world with these things, we fight to hold back their goals.

I do not believe that that is their goal.

They were cowards. Their ideology was full of cowardice. They sought to kill those who could not fight back. They attacked without warning, spoke lies to countless innocents, and murdered countless more. That is cowardice.

*sigh* And again, in their mindset they viewed all Americans as agressors, specifically those working in the Trade Center and in DC. To them, none of the people were innocent. They believed that, hence their minds weren't exactly filled with cowardice when they killed all those people. Cowardice doesn't fit the bill.

Take over an entire country for the sake of finding a single man?

You're a fool if you don't understand the conflict in Afghanistan.

Al Qaeda, the organization that was responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001, was in Afghanistan. It was receiving the patronage of the Taliban government, which was openly aiding their presence in the country. The US demanded that they cease supporting Al Qaeda, and hand over those who were responsible for the attacks. They did not. In fact, they did quite the opposite, they stood alongside Al Qaeda, and offered further support. That is why we 'invaded' Afghanistan. If it can even be called that. The vast bulk of the forces were Afghan Northern Alliance soldiers, equipped by the US, but Afghans all the same.

*sigh* And again, in their mindset they viewed all Americans as agressors, specifically those working in the Trade Center and in DC. To them, none of the people were innocent. They believed that, hence their minds weren't exactly filled with cowardice when they killed all those people. Cowardice doesn't fit the bill.

Were the Americans aggressors though? Are you going to give creedence to their ideology? I'm saying that their view was invalid.

This, this is why we're better. This is why our cause is just. We can say these things, we can disagree freely without fear of consequence. We can hold unpopular beliefs. We can call ourselves evil, at no personal consequence. To say that those who died at the hands of our enemies deserved it. This is why we are good, this is why we are just.

My point is made. Goodnight.

May God, Allah, Buddha, the Goddess, or just plain ordinary luck keep you, that you might live out your days in peace.

You cannot do that and think that the US should ever be allowed to rest for one minute in happiness afterwards, after what it did.

You could say the same of Japan after the various atrocities committed by them in, among other places, China and Malaysia. Those including genocide, abuse of POWs, mass rape, medical experimentation on prisoners and extensive use of forced labour. Does that mean Japan deserved the firebombing of Tokyo? Does the North Vietnamese use of hideous booby-traps, along with torture of American prisoners and genocide directed at South Vietnamese collaborators [including the murder of 2,800 South Vietnamese in the Hue Massacre, with another 1,946 never accounted for] mean they deserved to be bombed with Agent Orange?

Every country has a plentiful supply of skeletons in its closet. If we go by your insane logic, no country in the world should ever be allowed one minute of peace or happiness, and all atrocities can be justified because the nation in question did bad stuff once.

It doesn't work like that.

Then perhaps it is time to try something new?

That's what the Russians, Cambodians and Chinese said. What if the 'something new' turns out to be a thousand times worse?

Because they need to remind everyone why their pathetic war could be justified.


thats funny...woohoo...you callously dismiss the coldblooded murder of thousands of innocents,at the hands of batshit insane fundies....and then upon reflection...accuse bush(who i despise) of being equally evil...just to make a cheap political point...sounds like your as bad as what your pointing your crooked little finger at...jerk

oh and my uncle died there...and i wont forget...and i hope you never suffer like my family has.

as usual..you equate innocents killed in a war by accident..not intent....with calculated murder of innocenents...you may want to consider taking logic classes interspersed with your apparently anti american poly sci crap.

dumbass

It doesn't take over my life. It's a day to be remembered and respected, just like Pearl Harbor or any other major day in American history; I don't think of terrorism when I get on a plane, and I'm not afraid to travel where I want when I want. 9/11 was a reminder that we are part of a larger world, and there are people out there who hate us and our way of life and are willing to murder innocent civilians to achieve it; it was hardly the first shot of the war or the end of some pre 9/11 "belle epoque" but rather a reminder that Islamic extremism was alive, is alive, and will be alive well in to the future.

9/11 was a disasterous tragedy, but we do need to move on; I think the most encouraging sign is the beginning of the new skyscrapers at the WTC site. The US and the city of New York have come back economically strong and optimistic about the future, and I think that is a true sign that the goals of the hijackers have been thwarted.

couldnt of said it better my self you dont see people freaking out or complaining when some one says remember the Alamo or Remember Pearl Harbor its just we dont want to forget all those people that died for no other reason than that some ratical people didnt like our way of life.

When people refer to the US "holding back the forces of communism", then there's a small point that need to be made.

The US pretty much created the whole situation.

Oh the Russians were the other major power and I'm sure they didn't help, but the Cold War was almost entirely fabricated by the US as an excuse to shun and openly oppose Russia. However, the Russians didn't really appreciate the treatment and pushed back. Result: the world almost hits a shooting nuclear war, and hundreds of people are arrested on suspician of being communist. Ever heard of Mccarthyism? A huge witch-hunt for communists, which put a lot of innocent people in jail because they'd once been to a political rally when they were a student. Yea, great job America.

Oh the Russians were the other major power and I'm sure they didn't help, but the Cold War was almost entirely fabricated by the US as an excuse to shun and openly oppose Russia.

The fact that the leader of Russia was a genocidal dictator and the greatest mass-murderer in history obviously being no good reason to shun and oppose his government. Right?

Ever heard of Mccarthyism? A huge witch-hunt for communists, which put a lot of innocent people in jail because they'd once been to a political rally when they were a student. Yea, great job America.

Let's compare this to the stellar record of human rights in the Soviet Union, where dissidents were murdered, tortured and put in forced labour camps by the millions. Yeah, Cold War America was so much worse than that.

No. The US is acting in a defensive nature. Classical defense it is not, but responding to a perceived threat, it is.
Acting on a perceived threat is, simply put, stupid!

If someone looks at you funny and you perceived that as a threat, and you attack that person, it's called assault, not defense.

That's the problem with pre-emptive strikes. You got to make sure your "defensive" move is actually justified.

Which, in the case of U.S. vs Iraq, is not given. Especially not when trying to link 9/11 with Iraq...

When people refer to the US "holding back the forces of communism", then there's a small point that need to be made.

The US pretty much created the whole situation.

Oh the Russians were the other major power and I'm sure they didn't help, but the Cold War was almost entirely fabricated by the US as an excuse to shun and openly oppose Russia. However, the Russians didn't really appreciate the treatment and pushed back. Result: the world almost hits a shooting nuclear war, and hundreds of people are arrested on suspician of being communist. Ever heard of Mccarthyism? A huge witch-hunt for communists, which put a lot of innocent people in jail because they'd once been to a political rally when they were a student. Yea, great job America.

Such (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulak) a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctors'_plot) nice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag) place. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge)

Guess what,folks? Its the day after 9/11, five years later.

And we are still bothered by it.

Its not going away because some self-important, pompous twats think it should.

And we are still bothered by it.

Its not going away because some self-important, pompous twats think it should.
“We”?

“We”?

Whomsoever is bothered by it.

“We”?

Yeah- "We". Mincing words while missing the point ?

We doesnt represent you? You arent still bothered by what happened on 9/11?

Acting on a perceived threat is, simply put, stupid!

Yeah, I mean, if you thought there was a gas leak in your house because you thought you could smell gas, it would be totally stupid of you to get out of your house and call the fire service. You'd be far better being sure by waiting until your house exploded and proved there was a gas leak before doing anything.

Right?

Yeah- “We”. Mincing words while missing the point ?

We doesnt represent you? You arent still bothered by what happened on 9/11?
Not any more so than any other loss of life, and a lot of that has been happening recently. If your still deeply affected by the events of that day to such an extent, then you really need a long chat with someone. Unless your one of the relatively few people who’s relations or friends were killed that day; even if you are, you do them a disservice by not getting on with your life.

Yeah, I mean, if you thought there was a gas leak in your house because you thought you could smell gas, it would be totally stupid of you to get out of your house and call the fire service. You'd be far better being sure by waiting until your house exploded and proved there was a gas leak before doing anything.

Right?

At least i would not have a employee of mine spray harmless gas smell into my house in order to have an excuse to call the fire service. And if the gas smell was so far away that it could never hurt my safety, but instead that of a friend living closer to it i'd call him to act upon that information and be cautious.
Your analogy is broken and hundreds of people are dead because the far off USoA felt threatened by a queer look Saddam gave them.

Such (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulak) a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctors'_plot) nice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag) place. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge)

Yep, a real paradise on Earth.

[/sarcasm]

Yeah- "We". Mincing words while missing the point ?

We doesnt represent you? You arent still bothered by what happened on 9/11?

So nice of you to speak for the general population of NS general....

Well if this happened in your own backyard, you'd think differently. Personally, it'll take a while before we forget about 9/11.

Because most people have the attention span of a small soap dish. They need a reminder, so that we can insure that this tragedy never happens again.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
Life of Reason, Reason in Common Sense, Scribner's, 1905, page 284

That's why.

Yeah, I mean, if you thought there was a gas leak in your house because you thought you could smell gas, it would be totally stupid of you to get out of your house and call the fire service. You'd be far better being sure by waiting until your house exploded and proved there was a gas leak before doing anything.
Right?
"Listen! Do you smell something?" (Sorry, too good a Ghostbuster quote not to use here! :D)

But no. That analogy is faulty.

First of all, it's not your house. It's not even your neighborhood. Neither your city, nor your country.
Secondly, that additive to gas that gives it that particular smell is very distinctive, but you can't smell anything, because there is nothing to smell, and in addition to that, you're not there to do the smelling, and if you were, you don't even have a nose to do any smelling.
And thirdly, while you went ahead and called the FD to check on the leak, they told you that they couldn't find any trace of that smell you thought you smelled. But you called ACME construction anyway to tear down the complete block, just to make sure.
And when the neighborhood asks you what that was all about, you present them with a broken gas pipe that you damaged yourself to show some support for your faulty claim while still holding the sledge hammer.

Now that is an analogy that's working! So wake up and smell the roses... :p

Not any more so than any other loss of life, and a lot of that has been happening recently. If your still deeply affected by the events of that day to such an extent, then you really need a long chat with someone. Unless your one of the relatively few people who’s relations or friends were killed that day; even if you are, you do them a disservice by not getting on with your life.


Who said "deeply affected"? You did. I said "bothered".

You're the one trying to inflate the dramatics.

Relatively few people? Are you trying to be a jackass ?

So nice of you to speak for the general population of NS general....

I wasnt speaking for the general population of NS-I was speaking for the people whom are still bothered by 9/11.

Like the thousands that visited ground zero yesterday. Like the estimated 25,000 per month that drive out to Shanksville,Pa-in the middle of nowhere-to pay their respects.
Like the millions that watched the names read at the memorial ceremony...

You know-the vast majority of humans that arent pre-occupied with trying to look hip and cool be purporting to be bored and unaffected.

11/9 was bad.
A murderous attack on random victims for no reason by a bunch of criminals.

But it's hard to feel sorry for the yanks when they've allready murdered more than 10 times the number of people in having their pointless blind vengeance in random foreign countries.
It's even harder to feel sorry for you guys when your president "honors" those you lost that day by claiming these pointless invasions are "a struggle for civilisation". Bush got a free Reichstag out of this one, didn't he?

As for the grieving, t-shirts, weird emotional-porn and tugging on heartstrings wankery, I don't mind...It's across the pond from me.

Edit: Correction: London bombings, 11/7/03. Dammit, I'm really off tonight...

Yo, it was the 7th of july as in 7/7/05. Talk about gettin the year wrong. Twit

You know-the vast majority of humans that arent pre-occupied with trying to look hip and cool be purporting to be bored and unaffected.

Nah. I think that vast majority of humans carried on as per usual yesterday (without trying to look "hip" and "cool".)

I'm not bored of it. I'm wasn't affected by it, nor am I today. I'm not particularly bothered about what happened then, nor am I bothered about the anniversary.

Other occurances are more important to me.

Nah. I think that vast majority of humans carried on as per usual yesterday (without trying to look "hip" and "cool".)

I'm not bored of it. I'm wasn't affected by it, nor am I today. I'm not particularly bothered about what happened then, nor am I bothered about the anniversary.

Other occurances are more important to me.

Glad to hear it.

Cultural significance? what the fuck difference does that make? They still killed untold innocents with their nukes regardless of what city it was.

Because it showed the US wanted to end the war by attacking MILITARY targets, not destroy the Japanese and their way of life.

Innocents are killed in total war. That's why it's total. No, I'm not happy about it. No, it's not a good thing.

But 9/11 is infiinately more tragic. Can you see why? Becuase if they could, the Jihadists would happily kill *everyone* that disagrees with their way of life.

Take over an entire country for the sake of finding a single man?

We learned from last time: we didn't get Pancho Villa when we didn't take over Mexico. And he was the last terrorist to attack American soil before Osama.

Because it showed the US wanted to end the war by attacking MILITARY targets, not destroy the Japanese and their way of life.

Innocents are killed in total war. That's why it's total. No, I'm not happy about it. No, it's not a good thing.

But 9/11 is infiinately more tragic. Can you see why? Becuase if they could, the Jihadists would happily kill *everyone* that disagrees with their way of life.

The US targeted civilians who were near the military hubs of the country with nukes. Those who carried out 11/9 were targeting civilians in the military(pentagon), economic(2towers), and political(capital building) hubs of the country. The only difference between the attacks were that far more people were killed in the US bombings.

We learned from last time: we didn't get Pancho Villa when we didn't take over Mexico. And he was the last terrorist to attack American soil before Osama.
You learned what exactly? Just please tell me. You lerned to let it be?
(and like fuck he was)

You learned what exactly? Just please tell me. You lerned to let it be?
(and like fuck he was)

You can't catch a guy if he can roam the countryside at will.

He wasn't a terrorist? Please explain his 1916 attack on Columbus, New Mexico.

The US targeted civilians who were near the military hubs of the country with nukes.

Both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs hit the CENTER of the cities, and had a 1 mile blast radius. The WHOLE of both cities were major war industries, given Japanese cottage arms industrial practices.

BTW, these same civilians that worked in arms industries? The same factories that the British, Germans, Japanese and Americans all attacked in each other's countries during the war with conventional munitions?

Those who carried out 11/9 were targeting civilians in the military(pentagon), economic(2towers), and political(capital building) hubs of the country. The only difference between the attacks were that far more people were killed in the US bombings.

Hmm.
Did the US airforce kidnap Japanese citizens and tie them to the bombs to attack the targets?
How was the open field in PA a valid target?
What about the Capitol? It wasn't even attacked!
The attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were to end a war. The 9/11 attacks were to start one. Or, rather, wake the US up to the fact that the Jihadists have been at war with the US for 30 years.

The only thing of note is that your moral equivilance is reprehensible.

I strongly urge you to read "War's End" by Charles W. Sweeney. He was the only man on both bombing missions, and therefore has a unique perspective on them.

Not to interrupt your jingoism here, because it is so much fun to read, but you might do well to remember that they considered themselves at war with American culture and specifically with the US's internationally influental institutions. Which is precisely why their targets were the WTC, the Pentagon, and the White House. They were after high value targets they saw as dangerous and powerful. Just so you know, since the whole "understand your enemy" bit doesn't seem to flow your way.
Nor does logic to you.


They were scum who didn't have the balls to go after someone who could fight back, and nothing more. They were cowards!

When people refer to the US "holding back the forces of communism", then there's a small point that need to be made.

The US pretty much created the whole situation.

Oh the Russians were the other major power and I'm sure they didn't help, but the Cold War was almost entirely fabricated by the US as an excuse to shun and openly oppose Russia. However, the Russians didn't really appreciate the treatment and pushed back. Result: the world almost hits a shooting nuclear war, and hundreds of people are arrested on suspician of being communist. Ever heard of Mccarthyism? A huge witch-hunt for communists, which put a lot of innocent people in jail because they'd once been to a political rally when they were a student. Yea, great job America.
Get lost, come back only after you find proof to back this bullsh!t up. (I.e. Never come back.)

They were scum who didn't have the balls to go after someone who could fight back, and nothing more. They were cowards!

Ah yes, the old 'terrorists are cowards' quip. Same was said of guerilla fighters. Same was said of air pilots. Same was said of artillerists. Same was said of archers. I guess for people like you, its always cowardice unless one is dressed up in fur cloths and bashing people on the head with a wooden bludgeon. MANLY!

But no. That analogy is faulty.

No, you're just committing the Extended Analogy fallacy to make it so. Read this.

Main Entry: anal·o·gy
Pronunciation: &-'na-l&-jE
Function: noun
1 : inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will prob. agree in others
2 a : resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike : SIMILARITY b : comparison based on such resemblance

I wasn't saying the situations are precise analogs as you claim, merely that in this case acting on a percieved threat [you think you smell gas] is actually the wisest course of action. You claimed 'Acting on a perceived threat is, simply put, stupid.' This simply isn't true. If you see a bunch of mean-looking guys in an alley, you don't go down there to see if they'll beat you up, you find another way to get home. If you smell gas, you don't wait until your house explodes before you do anything about it. Acting on the basis of a percieved threat is often by far a better course of action than waiting for it to become an actual one, by which time it may be too late for you to act.

In the case of Saddam, if you see a lunatic dictator who has in the past both had weapons of mass destruction and been perfectly willing to deploy them against defenceless civilians in his own nation, is known to have armed terrorists in the past, and has made many statements calling for the downfall of the United States, it's hardly unjustified to want to get rid of him before he actually has the means to try anything.

Ah yes, the old 'terrorists are cowards' quip.

Well, by and large the reason terrorists are called cowardly is because a terrorist attack is aimed at simply causing death and confusion [hence why it's called 'terror'ism] with no greater objective, or at least not one that can reasonably be accomplished by such means, in mind. This means the terrorist is likely to target areas where his enemy is defenceless and where his attack will cause maximum horror and devastation over a target that would, say, actually limit his enemy's ability to do whatever it's doing that pisses him off. This means he will always go for non-combatants, because they're less able to fight back.

To be honest, a mode of warfare that purely targets non-combatants and has no greater purpose than causing death, fear and confusion among them is cowardly. At least at Dresden or Hiroshima the bombing was an attempt to force an enemy to surrender; I sincerely doubt bin Laden thought for one moment that America would surrender to him after 9/11, or after the first WTC bombing in 1993, for that matter.

Both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs hit the CENTER of the cities, and had a 1 mile blast radius. The WHOLE of both cities were major war industries, given Japanese cottage arms industrial practices.

BTW, these same civilians that worked in arms industries? The same factories that the British, Germans, Japanese and Americans all attacked in each other's countries during the war with conventional munitions?
Your making the case that its ok to bomb civilian areas if they have strategic value. Guess what, the 2towers and pentagon had value too.


Hmm.
Did the US airforce kidnap Japanese citizens and tie them to the bombs to attack the targets?
How was the open field in PA a valid target?
What about the Capitol? It wasn't even attacked!
er, the Capitol building was the target of the plane that went down in PA smart one.

The attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were to end a war. The 9/11 attacks were to start one. Or, rather, wake the US up to the fact that the Jihadists have been at war with the US for 30 years.
30 years? really? says who

Your making the case that its ok to bomb civilian areas if they have strategic value. Guess what, the 2towers and pentagon had value too.

No, I'm making the case that the US bombing was done to STOP a war, the 9/11 attacks were to start/escalate one.

er, the Capitol building was the target of the plane that went down in PA smart one.

May have been. The Pentagon was likely a secondary target -- most expect they wanted the White House.

30 years? really? says who

...I made this post awhile back... 1983 wasn't the 1st attack either.

• 1983 April 18 U.S. Embassy Bombing in Beirut, Lebanon kills 63
• 1983 September 23 Gulf Air Flight 771 is bombed, killing all 117 people on board
• 1983 October 23 Marine Barracks Bombing in Beirut kills 241 U.S. Marines. 58 French troops from the multinational force are also killed in a separate attack.
• 1985 TWA Flight 847 hijacking
• 1985 October 7 - October 10 Achille Lauro cruise ship hijacking by Palestinian Liberation Front, during which passenger Leon Klinghoffer is shot dead.
• 1985 EgyptAir Flight 648 hijacked by Abu Nidal group, flown to Malta, where Egyptian commandos storm plane; 60 are killed by gunfire and explosions.
• 1986 TWA Flight 840 bombed on approach to Athens airport; 4 Americans, including an infant, are killed.
• 1986 April 6 the La Belle discotheque in Berlin, a known hangout for U.S. soldiers, was bombed, killing 3 and injuring 230 people, for which Libya is held responsible. In retaliation, the US bombs Libya in Operation El Dorado Canyon and tries to kill dictator Qaddafi.
• 1986 Pan Am Flight 73, an American civilian airliner, is hijacked; 22 people die when plane is stormed in Karachi, Pakistan.
• 1988 Pan Am Flight 103 bombing (Lockerbie). The worst act of terrorism against the United States prior to September 11, 2001.
• 1989 Avianca Flight 203 bombed over Colombia
• 1993 February 26 World Trade Center bombing kills 6 and injures over 1000 people
• 1993 Failed New York City landmark bomb plot
• 1993 Mir Aimal Kansi, a Pakistani, fires an AK-47 assault rifle into cars waiting at a stoplight in front of the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters. Two died.
• 1994 December 11 A small bomb explodes on board Philippine Airlines Flight 434, killing a Japanese businessman. Authorities found out that Ramzi Yousef planted the bomb to test it for his planned terrorist attack.
• 1995 Operation Bojinka is discovered on a laptop computer in a Manila, Philippines apartment by authorities after an apartment fire occurred in the apartment.
• 1995 Bombing of military compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
• 1996 June 25 Khobar Towers bombing
• 1997 A terrorist opened fire on tourists at an observation deck atop the Empire State Building in New York City, killing a Danish national and wounding visitors from the United States, Argentina, Switzerland and France before turning the gun on himself. A handwritten note carried by the gunman claimed this was a punishment attack against the "enemies of Palestine".
• 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya, killing 225 people and injuring more than 4,000.
• 1999 Ahmed Ressam is arrested on the United States-Canada border in Port Angeles, Washington; he confessed to planning to bomb the Los Angeles International Airport as part of the 2000 millennium attack plots
• 1999 Jordanian authorities foil a plot to bomb US and Israeli tourists in Jordan and pick up 28 suspects as part of the 2000 millennium attack plots
• 2000 The last of the 2000 millennium attack plots fails, as the boat meant to bomb USS The Sullivans sinks
• 2000 October 12 USS Cole bombing kills 17 US sailors
• 2001 September 11, 2001 attacks kill almost 3,000 in a series of hijacked airliner crashes into two landmarks: the World Trade Center in New York City, New York, and The Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia. A fourth plane crashes in Somerset County, Pennsylvania.
• 2001 Paris embassy attack plot foiled
• 2001 Richard Reid, attempting to destroy American Airlines Flight 63, is subdued by passengers and flight attendants before he could detonate his shoe bomb
• 2002 Singapore embassies attack plot foiled
• 2002 June 14 attack outside U.S. Consulate in Karachi
• 2002 Kidnapping and murder of journalist Daniel Pearl
• 2002 October 12 Bali car bombing of holidaymakers kills 202
• 2003 Riyadh Compound Bombings - bombings of United States expat housing compounds in Saudi Arabia kill 26 and injure 160. Al-Qaeda blamed
• 2003 Casablanca Attacks in Casablanca, Morocco leaves 41 dead. The attack involved 12 bombers and 5 targets. The targets were "Western and Jewish". Attack attributed to a Moroccan al-Qaeda-linked group
• 2003 Canal Hotel Bombing in Baghdad, Iraq kills 22 people including the top UN representative, Sergio Vieira de Mello
• 2003-2004 In response to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Iraqi insurgency in that country stage dozens of suicide bombings, kidnappings and several beheadings targeting Iraqi, Coalition and humanitarian targets. Attacks on some coalition forces may not be terrorist attacks under Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions which gives lawful combatant status to non-uniformed guerrillas resisting foreign occupation if they display arms openly. As neither the US or Iraq have signed this protocol it is not applicable to attacks on US forces.
• 2003 October 15 - A bomb is detonated by Palestinians against a US diplomatic convoy in the Gaza Strip killing three Americans
• 2004 May 29 Al-Khobar massacres--Islamic terrorists kill 22 people at an oil compound in Saudi Arabia.
• 2004 December 6 Suspected al Qaeda-linked group attacks U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, killing 5 local employees.

...I've not updated it to today.

-snip-
You forgot the Iran hostage crisis.

You forgot the Iran hostage crisis.

Yeah. There is actually a lot missing from that list. :(

Yeah. There is actually a lot missing from that list. :(

I think a complete list would be too long for Jolt to handle. The servers would probably crash and knock the forums down for a week :D

I think a complete list would be too long for Jolt to handle. The servers would probably crash and knock the forums down for a week :D

Yeah, probably true. Especially if you consider it against the Democratic world and not just the US.

Yet, like the Holocaust or the Apollo Moon landings, some will deny.

Your making the case that its ok to bomb civilian areas if they have strategic value. Guess what, the 2towers and pentagon had value too.

You should probably familiarise yourself with what the other option was in that case. Bear in mind the total death toll estimated for Hiroshima and Nagasaki is around 214,000.

The allied invasion of Japan, Operation Downfall, was scheduled for November 1st 1945. A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost between 1,700,000 and 4,000,000 American casualties, including 400,000–800,000 fatalities. The same study estimated Japanese fatalities at between five and ten million.

The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were terrible, but the only other alternative for forcing Japan's surrender would have killed 23 times as many Japanese at very least. Operation Downfall would also have had some seven nuclear bombs at its disposal if the two drops on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had not occurred; therefore, even if Japan had surrendered immediately after their use, casualty figures would still have been far higher.

The allied invasion of Japan, Operation Downfall, was scheduled for November 1st 1945. A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost between 1,700,000 and 4,000,000
American casualties, including 400,000–800,000 fatalities.

Really? Because General Marshall believed the invasion of Kyushu would "not cost us in casualties more than 63,000 of the 190,000 combatant troops estimated as necessary for the operation."

Or the fact that even Eisenhower disagreed with the numerical terms also: " I voiced to him [Stimpson] my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives." Eisenhower, Mandate for Change p.380

U.S. leaders guessed before Hiroshima was A-bombed that American invasion deaths would be between 20,000 - 46,000.

See historian Barton Bernstein's article "A Postwar Myth: 500,000 U.S. Lives Saved" Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, June/July 1986

All in all, it's surmised that Stimson's office pulled the number from his ass after the bombs were dropped due to the need to justify a multi-billion dollar project to the US public, on top of the huge moral wrangling that went on after.

[/off topic]

Really? Because General Marshall believed the invasion of Kyushu would "not cost us in casualties more than 63,000 of the 190,000 combatant troops estimated as necessary for the operation."

Or the fact that even Eisenhower disagreed with the numerical terms also: " I voiced to him [Stimpson] my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives." Eisenhower, Mandate for Change p.380

U.S. leaders guessed before Hiroshima was A-bombed that American invasion deaths would be between 20,000 - 46,000.

See historian Barton Bernstein's article "A Postwar Myth: 500,000 U.S. Lives Saved" Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, June/July 1986

All in all, it's surmised that Stimson's office pulled the number from his ass after the bombs were dropped due to the need to justify a multi-billion dollar project to the US public, on top of the huge moral wrangling that went on after.

[/off topic]
All I can say is that the defence plan for the home islands was lovingly entiled 100 Million Deaths with Honor by the Japanese high command.

All I can also say is that the Emperor Showa and other Japanese who lived in (and through) that period have noted that while the bombs didn't force Japan to surrender, it provided the perfect excuse for the Japanese government to surrender without causing the collapse of the Imperial Government and (more importantly to their minds) the Imperial Throne.

No, many Japanese were more than willing to fight and they had not reached the point of uncondtional surrender yet.

All I can say is that the defence plan for the home islands was lovingly entiled 100 Million Deaths with Honor by the Japanese high command.
Ah yes. The fanciful military elitists. I blame the influence of Yamagata despite the good it did early on within the Imperial Army. Considering the forces in the field were pretty much autonomous (like the Kwantung Army for instance), the leaders and troops may not have always seen eye to eye on the bigger picture. Anyway, it's kinda hard to fight when your diet has been basically grass for several weeks.... or a single small bowl of brown rice per day if you're a soldier.


All I can also say is that the Emperor Showa and other Japanese who lived in (and through) that period have noted that while the bombs didn't force Japan to surrender, it provided the perfect excuse for the Japanese government to surrender without causing the collapse of the Imperial Government and (more importantly to their minds) the Imperial Throne.

Which is the greatest irony of all. No unconditional surrender followed by 2 bombs followed by conditional surrender.

No, many Japanese were more than willing to fight and they had not reached the point of uncondtional surrender yet.
Not doubting they weren't willing. Being able is another argument.

Ah yes. The fanciful military elitists. I blame the influence of Yamagata despite the good it did early on within the Imperial Army. Considering the forces in the field were pretty much autonomous (like the Kwantung Army for instance), the leaders and troops may not have always seen eye to eye on the bigger picture. Anyway, it's kinda hard to fight when your diet has been basically grass for several weeks.... or a single small bowl or brown rice per day if you're a soldier.
You're confusing the high command with the mid-level officers. The Mid-levels were even MORE fanatical than their superiors (note the aborted attempt to secure the Emperor Showa and destroy the recording made by lieutenants and captains).

Which is the greatest irony of all. No unconditional surrender followed by 2 bombs followed by conditional surrender.
What conditions? Japan accepted the Postdam decleration and accepted the athority of SCAP. Now as soon as SCAP showed up the government did its absolute best to keep the Imperial Throne intact and the Showa Emperor out of any criminal trials, but these were never givens and were noted as major worries at the time.

Not doubting they weren't willing. Being able is another argument.
Didn't stop them before. While no one can know just how many people would have died on either side, the Battle of Okinawa and what happened there gives credience to the idea that major, major fatalities on the Japanese side probably would have happened. Given some of the things I have seen and the people I have talked to here in Japan, I am sure that we would have to have almost de-populated Japan to get it to stand down.

You're confusing the high command with the mid-level officers. The Mid-levels were even MORE fanatical than their superiors (note the aborted attempt to secure the Emperor Showa and destroy the recording made by lieutenants and captains).
True.

What conditions? Japan accepted the Postdam decleration and accepted the athority of SCAP. Now as soon as SCAP showed up the government did its absolute best to keep the Imperial Throne intact and the Showa Emperor out of any criminal trials, but these were never givens and were noted as major worries at the time.

MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur's reaction to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan: "...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign."

William Manchester, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512.


Didn't stop them before. While no one can know just how many people would have died on either side, the Battle of Okinawa and what happened there gives credience to the idea that major, major fatalities on the Japanese side probably would have happened.
Maybe, maybe not. Even one of the greatest 'hawks' of all time (General LeMay) said in an interview:
"LeMay: The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb.
The Press: You mean that, sir? Without the Russians and the atomic bomb?

. . .

LeMay: The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all."


Given some of the things I have seen and the people I have talked to here in Japan, I am sure that we would have to have almost de-populated Japan to get it to stand down.

Maybe.

MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur's reaction to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan: "...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign."

William Manchester, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512.
I told them that I supported the Foreign Ministry's proposal (acceptance of the Potsdam Decleration). Hiranuma's revision of the Foreign Ministry's orginal draft, concerning the phrase "The position of the emperor in national law" was accepted, but later proved to be a mistake. In any case, this meeting decided to accept the Potsdam Decleration based on my decision and aranged to send a telegram through Switzerland and Sweden... The main motive behind my decision at the time was that if we... did not act, the Japanese race would perish and I would be unable to protect my loyal subjects. Second, Kido agreed with me on the matter of defending the kokutai (Imperial line). If the enemy landed near Ise Bay, both Ise and Atsuta Shrines would immediately come under their control. There would be no time to transfer the sacred treasures (regalia) of the imperial family and no hope of protecting them. Under these circumstances, protection of the kokutai would be difficult. For these reasons, I thought at the time that I must make peace even at the sacrifice of myself.
-Emperor Showa, Showa tenno dokuhakuroku, Terasaki Hidenari, goyogakari nikki pp. 125-26
(Taken from Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan by Herbert P. Bix)

Someone apparently forgot to inform the Emperor that there was conditions, because HE thought he had orded non-conditional surrender.

Maybe, maybe not. Even one of the greatest 'hawks' of all time (General LeMay) said in an interview:
"LeMay: The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb.
The Press: You mean that, sir? Without the Russians and the atomic bomb?

. . .

LeMay: The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all."

I think the term is perhaps inappropriate, but the atomic bombs and the Soviet entry into the war are, in a sense, gifts from the gods. This way we don't have to say that we quit the war because of domestic circumstances. I've long been advocating control of our crisis, but neither from fear of an enemy attack nor because of the atomic bombs and the Soviet entry into the war. The main reason is my anxiety over the domestic situation. So, it is rather fortunate that we can now control matters without revealing the domestic situation.
-Rear Admrial Yonai Mitsumasa, Commander, Yokosuka Naval Base

It didn't end the war in the way that American school textbooks like to claim, but it provided the excuse, the reason, for the Japanese government to step down. It was a needed event in that it allowed the governement to save face. Even the keeper of the Privy Seal thought that it was useful in providing a reason that would allow the Imperial Throne to continue without the collaspe seen in Germany.

Maybe.
Very possibly. I've met old ladies who remember drilling with bamboo spears in junior high during the war. They were prepapred to either try and kill a GI or try and kill themselves. Many children had already been evauated into the mountains for fear of invasion (there's a former camp not too far from my home in central Nagano). They were prepared to go down fighting.

Really? Because General Marshall believed the invasion of Kyushu would "not cost us in casualties more than 63,000 of the 190,000 combatant troops estimated as necessary for the operation."

That's Operation Olympic, which was only half of Operation Downfall. You forgot Honshu.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff estimated that a 90-day Operation Olympic would cost 456,000 casualties, including 109,000 dead or missing, with roughly the same again for the other stage, Coronet. Nimitz's staff estimated 49,000 casualties in the first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea. A study done by Gen. MacArthur's staff in June estimated 23,000 in the first 30 days and 125,000 after 120 days. When these figures were questioned by Gen. Marshall, MacArthur submitted a revised estimate of 105,000, in part by deducting wounded men able to return to duty

Marshall was taking a best case scenario based on the operation going like the battle of Luzon. The bigger, and likely more realistic figures are based on the casualty rate during the battle of Okinawa. Leahy, based on this, predicted a 35% casualty rate. Herbert Hoover, in memorandums submitted to Truman and Stimson, also estimated 500,000–1,000,000 fatalities, and these were believed to be conservative estimates.

All in all, it isn't looking good for MacArthur's figures, given he was basing them purely on a battle against a weak Japanese force that was short on artillery, transport, armour, and other modern equipment, purely because he happened to have won it. You might also note that regardless of this, there was really no way in hell that less than 214,000 Japanese would have died.

You should probably familiarise yourself with what the other option was in that case. Bear in mind the total death toll estimated for Hiroshima and Nagasaki is around 214,000.

The allied invasion of Japan, Operation Downfall, was scheduled for November 1st 1945. A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost between 1,700,000 and 4,000,000 American casualties, including 400,000–800,000 fatalities. The same study estimated Japanese fatalities at between five and ten million.

The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were terrible, but the only other alternative for forcing Japan's surrender would have killed 23 times as many Japanese at very least. Operation Downfall would also have had some seven nuclear bombs at its disposal if the two drops on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had not occurred; therefore, even if Japan had surrendered immediately after their use, casualty figures would still have been far higher.
I can understand why the US drop the bombs, and I have mixed feelings about it personally. But the reason I brought the bombings was because someone made the claim that 9/11 was the worst attack in history. Its just flat out wrong.

That's Operation Olympic, which was only half of Operation Downfall. You forgot Honshu.

Well, I was taking it that the earliest date possibel for an invasion would be November (as said by the military themselves at the time). Is that typhoon season? If it is, that may hinder any invasion plan a bit. If not, that still left 4 months of a siege the Japanese military, economy and general population had to survive for before any Allied action - at the very earliest.

Couple that with swift and successful Soviet moves against the remaining Japanese Imperial forces on mainland Asia, before invading from the Northern islands, you can see why I'd (for the first and only time in my life) agree with LeMay and his "two weeks" assessment.

I wasn't taking it that the US would invade the entire country alone, more in line with actions in Germany. Soviets from the North, U.S. from the South.


The Joint Chiefs of Staff estimated that a 90-day Operation Olympic would cost 456,000 casualties, including 109,000 dead or missing, with roughly the same again for the other stage, Coronet. Nimitz's staff estimated 49,000 casualties in the first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea. A study done by Gen. MacArthur's staff in June estimated 23,000 in the first 30 days and 125,000 after 120 days. When these figures were questioned by Gen. Marshall, MacArthur submitted a revised estimate of 105,000, in part by deducting wounded men able to return to duty

This is big question I suppose. Casualties meaning purely dead, or "out of action". Because I'd believe the "out of action" numbers being that high, but not the dead.

Marshall was taking a best case scenario based on the operation going like the battle of Luzon. The bigger, and likely more realistic figures are based on the casualty rate during the battle of Okinawa. Leahy, based on this, predicted a 35% casualty rate. Herbert Hoover, in memorandums submitted to Truman and Stimson, also estimated 500,000–1,000,000 fatalities, and these were believed to be conservative estimates.

Their back had been broken after Okinawa and the islands leading up to the mainland. I can well see why the assumption would be made for the figures of the home island based on the experiences of Iwo Jima, Okinawa, et al but though they may well have been willing to, being able to fight is another argument.

Also [bolded], now you say 'fatalities' and not 'casualties'. Which is it? Because again, the 1,000,000 figure is hotly contested because of this confusion over terminology.

You might also note that regardless of this, there was really no way in hell that less than 214,000 Japanese would have died.
Undoubtedly, but at the time that was of no concern in ending the war and saving G.I's lives.

Well, I was taking it that the earliest date possibel for an invasion would be November (as said by the military themselves at the time). Is that typhoon season?
The very tail end of it, but by that point in time most typhoons swing well south of the home islands and are considerably weaker than they are right now.

Couple that with swift and successful Soviet moves against the remaining Japanese Imperial forces on mainland Asia, before invading from the Northern islands, you can see why I'd (for the first and only time in my life) agree with LeMay and his "two weeks" assessment.
Again, the Japanese disagree with you and LeMay. The plan was, if possible, to pull into the Japanese Alps. Japan is a very mountain'y country. Aprox 75% is up or down and they know how to hide in it.

They were preparing for invasion, the question on the minds of the high command was how to lose the war without losing the Imperial Throne with it due to domestic pressures. THAT'S why the bombs came as a godsend for them because it provided just that excuse.

I can well see why the assumption would be made for the figures of the home island based on the experiences of Iwo Jima, Okinawa, et al but though they may well have been willing to, being able to fight is another argument.
They still had stockpiles of gas, oil, and ammunition for the home islands' defence. They had well over 2,000 planes, most of which were to be used in kamikaze strikes against troop transports. They had a number of human guided bombs and still had troops on the home islands, AND were training the population to resist to the last man. This isn't something that can be brushed aside saying that they were defeated, they KNEW they were defeated, it didn't matter. What mattered was to keep gambare until the very last man. How many of the general population would do so, or regular troops is something that we will (thankfully) never know. But Okinawa showed that a signifcant number would, enough to drive any invader crazy with worry if the girl approching you was going to try and stab a knitting needle into your eye (standard advice for junior high school girls). Having to kill said girls, or watching women and children kill themselves would also seriously lower the moral of the troops (see Okinawa and the suicide cliffs).

In fact, this is shown in the first 6 weeks of the occupation where American troops kept expecting the Japanese to start a gurrila campaing and stayed close to base, nervously clutching their guns; and the Japanese expected the Americans to start rapping everything that moved and killing babies. For the first 6 weeks, Americans reported seeing very few, if any, women and children because they were all hiding in the hills. It took a while (and a lot of chocolate) before both sides relaxed and realised the war was over and the healing (which took even longer) could begin.

But the reason I brought the bombings was because someone made the claim that 9/11 was the worst attack in history. Its just flat out wrong.

It's the worst attack in the US' own history, however. And it's still not an adequate comparison, unless you seriously think bin Laden thought he had the capability to stage an amphibious invasion of the entire United States but went with 9/11 because he thought it would make America surrender to him.

There's really no comparison; as has been said, one was about ending a war, the other was just about randomly killing a lot of Americans.

Their back had been broken after Okinawa and the islands leading up to the mainland. I can well see why the assumption would be made for the figures of the home island based on the experiences of Iwo Jima, Okinawa, et al but though they may well have been willing to, being able to fight is another argument.

I recall talk of Japan's back being broken before Okinawa too, however. And the same talk about Berlin by the Soviets and Stalingrad by the Nazis. You don't plan military operations based on the best case scenario, things like Market Garden and the Battle of Mogadishu happen if you do.

Undoubtedly, but at the time that was of no concern in ending the war and saving G.I's lives.

It was, however, my original point. It may have been terrible that the two bombs were dropped, but given more Japanese would have died if they hadn't been, the nuclear attacks were actually the better option.