ClumsyMonkey.net

this is terrorism.

145,000 dead in Hiroshima alone by the end of 1945.

innocent civillians.

that's ugly.

We're also supposed to forget that ever happened, remember?

only in america. and im sure japan remembers.

and all the death being passed on to the next generation...

that is so horrible

they remember, and now they are a neighbor to a mad man with nukes. from what i read on the yahoo thing, they are recently torn about this situation. some want a nuclear arsenal in Japan most don't. Being the only victims of a nuclear detonation, anything they can tell us is something we need to take into consideration.

but by no means is this terrorism, it was war.

They should get over it, it happened over 50 years ago....

right Alan?

Isn't the intentional targeting of civilian centres a war crime under the Geneva Convention? If so, then it's terrorism, and not shielded by the disgusting excuse of "war".

happeningfish wrote:Isn't the intentional targeting of civilian centres a war crime under the Geneva Convention? If so, then it's terrorism, and not shielded by the disgusting excuse of "war".

You're right. They targetted the center of the city at a time when school children gathered there. Whether they knew that or not is up for debate.

War or terrorism? It doesn't matter. It's still tragic.

what happned there was an atrocity, look how badly North America took 9/11 and hiroshima was about 10000X worse, not to mention it was passed down through generations

happeningfish wrote:Isn't the intentional targeting of civilian centres a war crime under the Geneva Convention? If so, then it's terrorism, and not shielded by the disgusting excuse of "war".

By today's standards it is, not by 1940's standards.

For it was the residential "schools" that constituted the death camps of the Canadian Holocaust, and within their walls nearly one-half of all aboriginal children sent there by law died, or disappeared, according to the government's own statistics.
These 50,000 victims have vanished, as have their corpses - "like they never existed", according to one survivor. But they did exist. They were innocent children, and they were killed by beatings and torture and after being deliberately exposed to tuberculosis and other diseases by paid employees of the churches and government, according to a "Final Solution" master plan devised by the Department of Indian Affairs and the Catholic and Protestant churches.
With such official consent for manslaughter emanating from Ottawa, the churches responsible for annihilating natives on the ground felt emboldened and protected enough to declare full-scale war on non-Christian native peoples through the 20th century.
The casualties of that war were not only the 50,000 dead children of the residential schools, but the survivors, whose social condition today has been described by United Nations human rights groups as that of "a colonized people barely on the edge of survival, with all the trappings of a third-world society". (November 12, 1999)
http://www.nexusmagazine.com/canada.html

Was this war? Do you remember? Does this make all Canadians bad and evil? Do I even have the right to bring this up? The first colonists did the same thing to the American Indians. My point, "before you accuse me, take a look at yourselves" All nations have done terrible things. That doesn't make all the people of that nation bad people. I'm just sick of this Anti-American sentiment.

It's ideologies and intolerance like that which perpetuates hate and violence.

Yeah, there are a lot of Point of view issues.

On one side there is terrorism. To the other side there are Freedom Fighters.
On one side there is tragedty and loss, to the other side it's Success.

odd isnt it.

i hate harry truman. so much.

sandsleeper wrote:i hate harry truman. so much.

I suppose you would have made a better decision...

Yeah, I am pretty sure any rational person in Truman's position would have accepted Japan's terms of surrender. And on top of that, if he still felt it necessary to drop those bombs, then he probably should have chosen a better place than two major civilian cities in Japan that has no military relevence at all, except for the fact they were near water. Maybe dropping bombs on a place that some sort of military connection would have been a better place.

So all in all, I think my fucking cat could have made a better decision than Truman. That is all.

It's like if someone dropped a couple of bombs on California. Would that be taken as a logical action on the part of the enemy?

Nice try guys, but Nagasaki and Hiroshima were military targets.

http://archive.tri-cityherald.com/BOMB/bomb16.html

Also, Japan certainly did not surrender before the first bomb. The second one is debatable.

http://www.info.tampere.fi/a/amuri/tyot/Hiroshima.htm

read up.

You guys who think you know what its like to be president during a World War watching over thousands upon thousands of deaths that show no signs of ending should read this too:

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepubli ... n0727.html

stlloki wrote:For it was the residential "schools" that constituted the death camps of the Canadian Holocaust, and within their walls nearly one-half of all aboriginal children sent there by law died, or disappeared, according to the government's own statistics.
These 50,000 victims have vanished, as have their corpses - "like they never existed", according to one survivor. But they did exist. They were innocent children, and they were killed by beatings and torture and after being deliberately exposed to tuberculosis and other diseases by paid employees of the churches and government, according to a "Final Solution" master plan devised by the Department of Indian Affairs and the Catholic and Protestant churches.
With such official consent for manslaughter emanating from Ottawa, the churches responsible for annihilating natives on the ground felt emboldened and protected enough to declare full-scale war on non-Christian native peoples through the 20th century.
The casualties of that war were not only the 50,000 dead children of the residential schools, but the survivors, whose social condition today has been described by United Nations human rights groups as that of "a colonized people barely on the edge of survival, with all the trappings of a third-world society". (November 12, 1999)
http://www.nexusmagazine.com/canada.html

Was this war? Do you remember? Does this make all Canadians bad and evil? Do I even have the right to bring this up? The first colonists did the same thing to the American Indians. My point, "before you accuse me, take a look at yourselves" All nations have done terrible things. That doesn't make all the people of that nation bad people. I'm just sick of this Anti-American sentiment.

It's ideologies and intolerance like that which perpetuates hate and violence.

yes, this should always be remembered. we cant hide something like this in the past. it is one of the most horrible things that has ever happened in my province, along with the japanese war camps during WW2. we are still trying to help right the horrible, horrible things that were done to innocent people doing both of these times, but of course, this doesnt even close to undo the damage caused by these terrible crimes.

just like i'm not saying every american is a terrible person for the atomic bombs, not every canadian is a horrible person for this. i wasnt even alive when this happened, but it is up to my generation to learn from the past and move forward.

^ Face it, no matter where we're from, our ancestors had to do some fucked up shit to get the land. Stlloki, ever hear of something called the Trail of Tears? I can tell you what that is, if you'd really like me to. Face it, we all had to kill people and force them off the land before we claimed it as ours, and that's just how shit happens.