September 11th

[DevonDeathTrip 2,358]

Should just say the Indians were not killed for THEIR meat, rather to clear their land to raise McDonalds cows.

[Josco 49]

Should just say the Indians were not killed for THEIR meat, rather to clear their land to raise McDonalds cows.

So basically Ray Croc was a mass murderer?

[Harvester Of Souls 40]

Do you really believe that there is a moral equivalence between Bush and Bin-Laden?

Tricky question that. Both believe they are the answer to the world's problems. Both have no objection to killing innocents to further their own aims and both claim to have god on their side. Both have made their personal fortune in dealing arms and oil and both have a hatred of Saddam Hussein.

 

Take religion and the obvious physical differences away and they could be the same person.

 

NB: The cynics would also mention Arbusto Energy, where the Bush family's major investor was none other than Salem Bin Laden, Osama's older less hardline brother.

[Tuber Mirum 125]

Relativising the extent of the loss doesn't make it any easier for those who have lost people in any conflict.

 

If Bruno Brimley really has suffered in this way we should empathise with him.

 

But still not forget the unfortunate fact that a few thousand people getting killed has never been an unususal occurrence in human history. Whether one event puts another into the shade generally depends on how much coverage it gets on television.

 

When I heard about the attacks in 2001, I was shopping in Walmart. I won't say what my first thought was, when I saw the second plane crash on 20 TVs at once in the TV department, but my second thought was an awareness that my own habits and prejudices, not to mention political apathy were as much a contributory factor to what had happened as those of any American or Arab.

 

After that, I never went to WalMart again.

[themaninblack 2,112]

Ahem, excuse me but aren't we on a forum for a site which monitors famous people who are going to snuff it? This website is the fulcrum of morbid curiousity at the very least, so its double standards to whine about distastefulness. If you want taste, this isn't the site for you....

[Guest Mr Magoo]

I hate to spoil a good Spart-ish rant but when exactly has the US deliberately set out to kill over 3,000 non-combatants to make a "political" point?  I agree that US/UK intervention has indirectly led to plenty of civilian deaths but I think "putting 9/11 in the shade" is wildly over-stating the case. 

The mushroom clouds from Nagasaki & Hiroshima would have put 9/11 in the shade.

 

While I agree that the first bomb may have been necessary to end the war in Japan without the loss of millions of allied troops fighting hand to hand with the fanatical Japanese, was it necessary to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians three days later with the second? Why were the Japanese not given time to consider their position, and surrender? Given a few more days would they not have come to the same conclusion that they did after the second one was dropped?

 

What was the point of the second bomb if not to make a political point?

 

Modern hatred of the global domination by the West particulary that of the US started after WW2, and a lot of it was to do with Palestine, but the fires of hatred have continued to be fueled by the self serving actions of western governments ever since.

 

While I would side with the US in their fight against the terrorists, only and idiot could fail to see the motivation behind these terrorist acts. They believe they are fighting a war to rid the world of an evil force and so do we. It all depends on which side of the fence you are on doesn't it.

 

There is no such thing as good or evil in this world, it all comes down to defending your own interests and survival off the fittest. The Americans and us Brits have done far worse than 9/11 over the years defending our own interests, it should come as no surprise that we are now experiencing the blowback.

 

For those involved in 9/11 it was a tragedy, for the civilians of Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Mai Lai, and Iraq it is a tragedy too.

 

Fighting for what you see as your way of life is human nature, but he who lives by the sword dies by the sword.

 

9/11 was a tragedy but we all have blood on our hands from the sins of our fathers.

 

These terrorists are against our way of life for sure. Hunt the f***kers down and kill them by all means, but don't tell me the west is Snowhite

 

Have a happy day

[Windsor 2,233]

What was the point of the second bomb if not to make a political point?

The second bomb had to be dropped because it was used as an ultimatum. The Americans probably had every faith that the Japanese would surrender if threated with a second bomb. But unfortunately they were wrong. This left America with no choice but to drop the second bomb. If they did not the Japanese would have seen it as a weakness and continued the war.

 

The Americans and us Brits have done far worse than 9/11 over the years defending our own interests, it should come as no surprise that we are now experiencing the blowback

I do not recall any event where by British or American forces killed 3000 innocent civilians during peace time. Indeed we have done some awful things in the past but nothing quite as unfair as that. For example, we treated the peoples of the Raj badly only because the were rebellious buggers (and because it was acceptable at the time). There was ofcourse rape and abuse but that was officially carried out by individuals.

 

I'm probably going to regret this post...

[Wastrel 1]

I do not recall any event where by British or American forces killed 3000 innocent civilians during peace time.

You must remember that as far as Al Qaeda and it's offshoots are concerned, they consider themselves to have been at war with the USA ever since America stationed troops in Saudi Arabia. So in their mindset the 9/11 attack was NOT a peacetime assault.

[Guest Mr Magoo]

The second bomb had to be dropped because it was used as an ultimatum. The Americans probably had every faith that the Japanese would surrender if threated with a second bomb. But unfortunately they were wrong. This left America with no choice but to drop the second bomb.

The first atomic bomb fell Aug. 6, 1945, on Hiroshima. Hirohito and the military knew about that city's destruction later that day, but were paralyzed by indecision.

 

Hirohito did not meet with his supreme war council until about 11 a.m. Aug. 9, within minutes of when the second bomb fell on Nagasaki.

 

Three days between the bombs? If the Americans were simply looking for a surrender they would have given the Japs more time than three days.

 

There were obviously other political agendas like sending a message to the soviets. Or perhaps simply having spent billions of pounds on the project the military wanted to test the second bomb out as well! Don't forget, the first bomb was a Uranium bomb, the second was a Plutonium bomb, far more powerfull, the reason there were less casualties in Nagasaki was that the second bomb was off target due to cloud cover, but even with an obscured target the bomb was dropped anyway.

 

Perhaps the Americans knew full well after the first bomb, and with the Russians tapping at the door that surrender "WAS" imminent but they wanted a "Live" test of the Plutonium bomb before Japan surrendered and they then wouldn't have an excuse to try out the superior plutonium bomb for real.

 

3 days - I think I smell a rat

[Windsor 2,233]

Hirohito did not meet with his supreme war council until about 11 a.m. Aug. 9,

 

Well if I were him I would have gotten my finger out of my arse and done something earlier.

[Guest Mr Magoo]

The meeting was delayed until the return of the Hiroshima survey party and the compilation of their report. Bear in mind that nobody had ever seen the effects of an atomic bomb before so inital reports probably were not taken as seriously as they should have been by the war council, bit like how it took George Bush a few days to get his finger out over New Orleans

[Guest Mr Magoo]

Lucky for Bush that Katrina didn't do a u-turn and come back 3 days later too

[Windsor 2,233]

bit like how it took George Bush a few days to get his finger out over New Orleans

At least Bush took the blame, unlike good old Hirohito.

If I'm not mistaken Hirohito blamed everyone else for starting the war and got off with it.

[Guest Mr Magoo]

I think he is saving that line for use later

[Magere Hein 1,400]

In this thread I don't want to go into Hiroshima and Nagasaki and their political and moral implications. Vietnam gives a much clearer picture about the willingness of a western power to sacrifice the lives of its own soldiers and foreign civilians for a rather abstract political idea.

 

There is no such thing as good or evil in this world, it all comes down to defending your own interests and survival off the fittest.  The Americans and us Brits have done far worse than 9/11 over the years defending our own interests, it should come as no surprise that we are now experiencing the blowback.

Most of us understand good and evil quite well in our own lives. Most of us live moral lives and almost always do the Right Thing. What worries me is that those mechanisms break down when we do things for a Greater Goal. Apparently moral implications don't count when we're dealing with collective values.

 

I fail to understand how killing and maiming people is better when it's done for a Good Cause than when it's done for some private reason. I don't care whether that Good Cause is ideology, religion, economy or raison d'etat. In this respect there's little difference between all-out war between states, insurrection, freedom struggle and terrorism.

 

regards,

Hein

[Harvester Of Souls 40]

The second bomb, dropped on Nagasaki, was another test. It was dropped for one reason and that was to show how it effects human beings. As the war was very close to it's end (especially after the first one) it was purely for research purposes and as it was war time, human experimentation could be brushed away as a legitimate assault on the enemy.

 

You can almost hear the commentary from behind US lines.... "Dude! That Was Awesome!"... followed by high 5's and pepsi.

[Guest IYG]

Actually the way I was taught in History by a very radical professor is that the first bomb was to show the world that the US has so much power and also partly to end the war (though Japan would have surendered eventually anyway).

 

The second bomb however wasn't aimed at Japan, it was aimed again for the world and especially Soviet Russia to see that not only does the US have so much power as the Atom bomb, they also have more than one.

 

Now lets all try and remain civil and not get too much out of hand here. If you won't be nice, I'll delete the entire thread. So be kind, rewind.

[VileBody 11]

Yeah, fair enough - this is getting a bit "sixth-form-debating society". Sorry for stoking the flames.

 

Back to stepping on the fingers of celebs clinging on to life...tee hee....

[Tuber Mirum 125]

Actually the way I was taught in History by a very radical professor is that the first bomb was to show the world that the US has so much power and also partly to end the war (though Japan would have surendered eventually anyway).

 

The second bomb however wasn't aimed at Japan, it was aimed again for the world and especially Soviet Russia to see that not only does the US have so much power as the Atom bomb, they also have more than one.

 

Now lets all try and remain civil and not get too much out of hand here. If you won't be nice, I'll delete the entire thread. So be kind, rewind.

Does anyone think this thread is getting contentious or out of hand?

 

I was pretty trepidacious when I saw ff had started this thread, yet on the whole we seem to all be being quite grown-up and sensible about the whole thing.

 

Perhaps such a small close-knit organisation of heavily-armed, like-minded individuals as Deathlist.net doesn't represent a wide enough spectrum of viewpoints for there to be a real barney about politics.

 

Thank goodness.

[Josco 49]

I was pretty trepidacious when I saw ff had started this thread, yet on the whole we seem to all be being quite grown-up and sensible about the whole thing.

 

Perhaps such a small close-knit organisation of heavily-armed, like-minded individuals as Deathlist.net doesn't represent a wide enough spectrum of viewpoints for there to be a real barney about politics.

 

Thank goodness.

Trepidacious, fantastic word.

 

Reading this thread I have found the respondents to be generally good natured, not out of hand really. Besides, I never knew that much detail about the 2nd bomb, but with consideration it sounds eminently plausible.

[Guest IYG]

I didn't say they were out of hand but these things do tend to get out of hand sooner or later.

 

Carry on pip pip.

[Cowboy Ronnie 78]

Looking at WW2 more broadly, one might argue that the Japanese were hardly the most level-headed bunch to be dealing with in terms of negotiating a surrender. They chose to attack Pearl Harbor at exactly the worst moment for their buddies Germany, who in December 1941 were in the middle of being bogged down in Stalingrad. Bringing the US into the war against the Hun, which surely would have been foreseeable, doesn't seem like the cleverest thing to have done. With the benefit of hindsight I agree dropping the 2nd A-bomb does seem unnecessary, but the theories that it was done to send a mesage to the Soviets or whatever are just that - theories espoused by political science professors. We'll probably never know the exact rationale, but one thing I heard once makes a lot of sense - the most obvious explanation for anything is the most likely one. Japan had given no signs of surrendering despite the US moving inexorably towards defeating them militarily, and had a reputation as being particularly vicious fighters. Anyone hear of the kamikaze, the original suicide bomber? The US had already sacrificed plenty of troops, and took a decision that they thought would end the war quickly, which it did. Maybe if they'd had 20 A-bombs they could have demonstrated their power some more by blowing up a few battalions of Japanese troops or whatever. But I believe they only had the two at the time.

 

Let's not forget all the good the US did during the war. They could have just decided to take on Japan and leave Europe to the Germans. But they didn't, they got stuck in and I don't think many would argue D-Day etc. would have been a virtual impossibility without US involvement. Maybe they should have got involved before 1941, but today every time the US does anything it gets accused of sticking its nose where it doesn't belong, so it seems you can't win either way. The US is far, far from perfect, and it's shame W is such a clown, but it ain't all bad.

[Guest Mr Magoo]

I don't want to belittle the sacrifice made by the USA in Europe during WW2 but it is a fact that the USA did not declare war on Hitler, it was actually the other way round, true the Americans had been supplying the UK with aid and had even been escorting British supply ships across the Atlantic, a move that cost them several losses of Navy ships to u-boat attacks . However despite this continuing provocation by Hitler the majority of the Americans saw this as a European war and had no desire to get involved, after all they had their own war in the pacific to deal with. Roosovelt continued to refuse to declare war on Germany nor directly participate in action against the Nazis. It was Hitler's unilateral declaration of war against the USA that brought the USA into the war against Germany, a decision that demonstrated Hitler's crass stupidity when it came to military tactics.

The Americans did not fight against Germany to save Europe, they did so to protect their own interests, with German development of the A-Bomb and the Jet engine under way it was probably just as well for them that they did.

 

This is not an anti American rant, if I was an American at the time I probably wouldn't have wanted to become involved too, but the aid given to the UK in WW2 was done in their own interests and at a price. Britain signed up to huge loan agreements witht he USA to pay for all the aid being sent our way, infact the UK still owes the US about £500 million in unpaid war debts even today.

 

It's all very well to take the moral high ground but at the end of the day most countries do only what is in their own interests. I do agree with the earlier point that individuals tend to try and lead decent lives but we still remain components of organisational structures called countries, that like the "Monsters from the Idd" in the film "Forbidden Planet" can cause untold death and destruction, perhaps against our individual wills but still however being done "By the people for the people".

 

If we sign up for democracy and allow governments to represent us, do we not share some of the blame in our collective responsibility relating to our governments actions?

 

[Guest Guest]

Physician heal thyself

Unregistered guest: Screw thyself (preferably into the nearest lightbulb socket while standing in a bucket of water.)

Happy now Mr Fascist?

[Guest Mr Magoo]

I fail to understand how killing and maiming people is better when it's done for a Good Cause than when it's done for some private reason. I don't care whether that Good Cause is ideology, religion, economy or raison d'etat. In this respect there's little difference between all-out war between states, insurrection, freedom struggle and terrorism.

I totally agree, all political social and economic collectives are comprised of groups of individuals all fighting to maintain their own interests, there are big groups of individuals called countries and there are small groups of individuals such as the 9/11 bombers.

 

The West are quite happy to support killing by small groups of individuals when it suits their purposes such as the "Contras" in Nicuragua or the Mugahadeen in Afghanistan, in these cases we call them freedom fighters. When small groups of individuals do things against our interests we call them terrorists.

 

To me the world is just an eternal sea of conflicts, we all want more than are fair share of the world's resources and there aint enough to go round, we will always have to oppress someone in order to maintain our own interests and way of life, whether we do it at the individual level or at the collective level. To maintain these interests we will normally have to use force.

 

I am not against Bush, the war in Iraq, killing terrorists or anything else, I want to maintain my way of life. I just understand the cost of doing it and know that innocent people will die, but hey thats how the world works.

 

I am not going to stand up and say by doing that, we are so good and the other guys are so bad.

 

We were born into a world that was created/evolved on the basis of creatures killing one another for food and survival, I just can't see how that concept can change in a finate world with an ever growing population. I wish we all could live in peace and there was enough of everything for everyone but in reality we are always going to have to fight for what we want at the epense of other people, and sometimes the "Other People" are going to fight back.