Subject:
|
Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 17 Oct 2001 13:28:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
518 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> 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.
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 argued (not by me) that he was cowardly *for*
dropping the bomb.
>
> > 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.
What ObL is doing is terrorism, not war. Calling it "war" is just what he
wants. Bush was wrong to give him that credibility.
Scott A
>
> > 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 is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
