Subject:
|
Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 17 Oct 2001 03:42:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
522 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> It's easy to use words like "cowardly" in such situations - were the pilots
> flying the planes which dropped the bombs "cowardly"? No they were following
> orders (they may have even volunteered). Was Truman "cowardly" then - he
> wasn't prepared to go drop them bombs himself?
Let's not blur the issue here. What was cowardly about the Sept 11 terrorism
was that it took no courage to hijack civilian aircraft during peacetime and
steer helpless civilian passengers into buildings. That's hardly the same as
the US dropping bombs during war on a nation that had declared war on the US.
> It's also easy to use phrases like "wartime solutions". Has not bin Laden
> declared war on the US (http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/ladin.htm)?
You're stating, in effect, that if I declare war on New Jersey, it is morally
acceptable for me to kill thousands of innocent New Jersey residents. Whether
or not bin Laden has declared war on us, we had not, as of the 11th, entered
into war with him. Japan, in 1941, declared war on us, and we in turn
responded to that declaration.
> I say again, whether or not it was a "solution", whether or not it was
> "necessary", whether or not Japan (at the time) was as evil empire, the act of
> dropping the bombs on civilian cities (knowing it would cause great death and
> destruction, and with reports that the radiation would probably also cause
> much more pain) was still terrorism.
But you're still not answering the question. Terrorism, in the sense that
you're using it, becomes a blank check of a term, since you're allowing
yourself to avoid moral judgments by invoking a buzzword. So I'll ask you
plainly: do you feel that the Sept 11 suicide bombing, in which civilians (in a
nation that was not at war) were used as missiles is morally equivalent to the
death of civilians in a nation that had declared war on its enemy, during a
time when Japan was certainly aware of the war?
Dave!
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
| (...) I don't view the terrorists as cowards. They may well have been deluded, but they were not cowards. The answer to Ross's Truman question is "no". Although, Truman did not drop the bomb personally, he is responsible for that action. It could be (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
| (...) Yes, let's not blur the issue-- what part does being cowardly have in being a terrorist? Let's say they flew their own planes into our buildings. No longer a terrorist action? I don't think whether they/we were cowardly or not is really (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
| (...) how (...) It's easy to use words like "cowardly" in such situations - were the pilots flying the planes which dropped the bombs "cowardly"? No they were following orders (they may have even volunteered). Was Truman "cowardly" then - he wasn't (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
133 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
