Loss of Honour

[emprworm]

yes it does ring a bell. and it rings a bell that no one really knew what a nuclear weapon would do in live combat either. and it rings a bell that now that the world knows what they are, and that today's nukes are far more devastating than "little boy" and "fat man" (the names given to those 2 nukes), there wont be any more being dropped by any democratic modern nation. The biggest bell of all is that crazy people like Hussein know what a nuke can do because of Hiroshima and that makes them want to use it all the more! But like I said, its not nukes that scare me. Its the bio's.

[Edric O]

Well, you'd think ONE bomb would have been enough to show the world what this new weapon could do... maybe they dropped the second one to make sure the first explosion wasn't just a random accident? ::)

(not to mention the fact that they actually TESTED it before using it on Hiroshima, so that makes 3 bombs)

I'm not accusing America of anything, since those were desperate times and the Japanese were MUCH worse. But there's a word for what hapened to Hiroshima and Nagasaki: genocide

Aren't bio weapons completely banned? And any idiot knows that bacteria don't respect national borders. If you use bio weapons, they WILL backfire.

[SurlyPIG]

I heard about that incident in WW1 emp. Apparently it began with one side rasing a symbol of Christmas from their trench, then the other side responding until it turned into dinner and some footie.

[Inoculator9]

Honor in the classical sense is letting someone go when you could kill them. Forgiveness and mercy inspire respect. Some of you say that there is no honor in war. Terrorists are without honor. A normal war that is fought justly and for the greater good is honorable. If some people die, but there are more lives saved then ended then it is worth it. European wars were honorable in the sense that everyone was given a chance. Even if the English or the French were fighting an uprising warnings would be sent. But these wars were fought for all the wrong reasons. These wars were fought because of a pitiful desire for more territory and more people to oppress. The wars between the Scottish and the English were honorable. The Scottish conducted themselves couragously and honorably. They fought for their homeland, not for foreign soil. The sought only to make lives for themselves in the land that was rightfully theirs. The English colonial wars were the worst. Fighting for deserts, and scraps of land, against people armed with spears and sharpened fruit. Destroying every single person except enough people to form a slave workforce. These wars were totally without honor.

Honor is the way you conduct yourself in war, or simply the way you treat the people around you.

[emprworm]

In all honesty Edric, I am not sure what to think about those bombs on Japan. It really is a valid question. On one hand I feel that they should not have been used, but on the other hand I do. I'm really caught in the middle. If you look at it from the time period that it took place: the world was in a very very delicate state. If you were to go back in time to WWII era and change just a few variables, this entire planet could be under a total dictatorship today and everything we know right now would be different. During WWII, the world was teetering on a thin wire- it could have easily, very easily gone the way of the Germans and the Axis. Yes, the bombs were tested, but no one really understood the full scope of using them in combat. no one really understood the magnitude of the aftermath and fallout such weapons would have years...decades later. Given the circumstances of the world at the time, the novelty of having a superweapon would seem strategic since it had the ability to end the war. If you look at the atrocities that Japanese soliders committed to POW's you will see some of the most inhumane acts ever committed on other people in all documented history of the world. So on one hand I can see why they were used, but on the other hand I condemn it. But my condemnation of them I think is due to hindsight. If I were to put myself in that place at that time, I'm not sure I would be so easily condemning of them. Now, however, I condemn them fully, save for only the utmost extreme circumstances of which are so remote, I truly do not worry about it.

[emprworm]

The wars between the Scottish and the English were honorable.

Now, I am going to admit, I am not up on my English history, but didnt England have the Tower of London in full operation during this time? If so, there is no honor in torture, and such tactics are despicable to the level of hell fire.

[TMA_1]

It says in James that war is sin. There is no honor in it. One of the great generals of the civil war said it perfectly "War is hell". There is no good in killing people. There is no honor to gain, not even fighting for your country. I believe war has to happen but that doesnt mean I like it to happen. War is hell.

[Inoculator9]

A valid point but I meant the Scottish were honorable. And I don't think the tower of london was being used for torture at the time. If I recall my history correctly it was originally the royal zoo.

[Edric O]

My primary objection to the way atomic bombs were used in WW2 is that they were dropped on civilians. Wouldn't they have had the same psychological effect if they had been dropped on, say, 2 very big military bases?

The atrocities commited by Axis officials were horrifying. IMO, in all of history, no human ever came as close to being the antichrist as Hitler did (except maybe Stalin). Axis leaders deserved no mercy. But innocent civilians should not have to suffer for the evils of their dictators...

[emprworm]

I have no argument with you. War is hell. But it is a biblical precedent to defend the rights of others. Aggression is always wrong. Defense is not. In fact, it is your moral duty to defend. If a mans home is agressed against, then he must defend it. If he does not defend, then that person will in part be responsible for those who die because of his sloth and apathy.

[Edric O]

An eye for an eye and the whole world will go blind...

[emprworm]

i think i can agree with that Edric. I'm not sure why those targets were selected but it seems they could ended the was w/o the needless deaths. To that I have shame for what this nation did. I am very thankful however, that the Japanese are one of the FEW nations in the entire world that love Americans. An american in Japan need not worry about being harrassed and humiliated. Great friends to have, even though they have plenty of reasons to hate us.

[Inoculator9]

Unfortuneately retaliation under most circumstances is necessary. It would be great if diplomats could resolve all our problems but an enemy that doesn't listen words of peace, needs to be taught a lesson. In extreme circumstances an eye for an eye is the only solution that works in the long run. But civilian deaths were totally unnecessary. But also the Japanese could have surrendered after the first bomb was dropped. They persisted even after an entire city was destroyed. Half of the deaths were caused by the Japaneses' refusal to surrender.

[emprworm]

that is a true point innocculator. We told Japan that more were on the way. Actually we only had 2. But we told them that we were gonna keep dropping them until they surrendered.

I think we could have chosen better targets instead of major civillian cities. That seems unnecessary. But thats all history now and the threat of any modern democratic society using nukes again is about zero, save for Isreal that might use them if the entire middle east converges on them and attacks them with chems/bios. If the middle east starts chemming and bio-ing Israel, I say to israel: just bomb mecca, wipe out the religion of Islam, and be done with it. The world would probably be way better off w/o that city. But thats just me.

[Inoculator9]

Of course we could have chosen better targets, military and industrial targets make more sense to me.

[Edric O]

Haven't you learned anything from history? You can't wipe out Islam, just like the Romans couldn't wipe out Christianity!

(not to mention you're advocating genocide and religion-cide...)

You call yourself a Christian and yet you don't seem to remember Jesus's teachings... turn the other cheek... Revenge is NOT the answer.

[Inoculator9]

Genocide against the Muslims would be worse the Nazis. There are more then a billion muslims in the world. But I think he just means blow up mecca. This would cause war with every Muslim country on Earth. Terrorists would surface everywhere. Also millions of people would convert to Islam after seeing their persecution.

[Edric O]

And the Muslims would win, no doubt about it. They have a great asset, one which guarantees their victory: fanaticism

Remember Dune?

"Ya Hya Chouhada!"

"For Muad'hib!"

Nothing can stop 1 billion Holy Warriors.

[exatreide]

2 billion. holy men.

[Edric O]

There aren't 2 billion Muslims in the world. And not every Muslim can fight... To be exact, it would be WAY less than 1 billion warriors. But it would still be enough to crush anything the Western World could muster.

[quoudam72]

You are sicking with your idiotic statements about bombing Mecca and wiping out Islam. That has to be one of the most uneducated posts I have seen at FED2K. What justifies bombing Mecca because it is the center for Islam and Muslims? You talk like Hitler speaking about the Jews, Klu Klux Klan members talking about African-Americans and European settlers talking about the Indians while trying to settle what would later become The United States of America. Your small mindness is only out weighted by your by lack of intelligence.

[Navaros]

We lost all honor in about 1960 by taking God out of the classroom where He should be and replacing God with immoral, evil, baseless propaganda and teaching the kids that it's ok to do whatever the Hell you want as long as it makes you feel good.

Of course getting rid of the Inquisition was also a major hallmark in the moral decay of mankind.

[exatreide]

Oh and so were the crusads.....oh well try it again...see how well it goes... :)

Nav that has to be the most Racist Neo Nazi statement i have ever heard. Are you sure your not from alabama? Let me guess you also want to bring back slavery?

[emprworm]

LOL! YOu guys TOTALLY mis-interpreted what I said. I am NOT suggesting to kill 1 billion people, oh man. That is barbaric. Cmon guys, I'm not THAT bad. Let me clarify:

quondam: lets talk reasonably here. maybe you can enlighten me. I dont see what Islam has done for this world other than subvert women, encourage hatred, and spawn violence. The only contribution I am aware of that Islam has made to the world is Algebra by Muhammad Musa al-Khwarizmi back in 825. That was very early in the days of Islam. Since then I can think of nothing the Muslim world has done for humanity. Millions of Muslims read only the Qur'an in their life, and that is all the education they will ever have. The freshmen class of Harvard probably has more total knowledge than the entire country of Iran. I know I may be wrong, that is why I want you to educate me. If you look at the statistical data issued by the department of state, the most dangerous countries to visit on earth are Muslim ones. Why is that? In nearly every Muslim country, they can legally execute non-Muslims. In Saudi Arabia it is a capital crime to revert from Islam. An atheist teacher was sentenced to death BY THE COURTS in Pakistan in August of 2000 just for telling his students that Muhammads parents were not Muslim. There are no synagogues in Arabia. Not one church. Not one hindu temple. These countries to me are the most bigoted countries on the planet, and I honestly cannot see what good they do. They build mosques all over the earth, but in return for everyone allowing them freedom to worship Allah, they forbid people from worshipping on their turf. This is what is called hypocrisy. I dont dislike the Muslim people, on the contrary, I suggested destroying Mecca simply because it would help them in the end. You see, Muslims believe that Allah himself protects the Ka'aba (not sure how much you know about Islam). They believe literally that no force on earth can destroy Mecca. So what I propose is that by destroying Mecca, once all the muslims of the world see that their religion is false, they will be set free and no longer follow a false religion. I'm not proposing killing people, just destroying the Ka'aba really. It sounds hateful to you, I know, but in my mind, I see it as helping them and saving many lives. think of all the wars that would end, once Islam is invalidated. Of course, if Islam is RIGHT, then theres NO WAY we could ever destroy the Ka'ba. What do you think?

And back to my question:

Sure they have oil, but that has nothing to do with Islam itself. I want to honestly know what has Islam the religion given humanity? I ask this not to be insulting, but in all sincerity. I really want to know. I am listening and ready to learn.

[Acriku]

A fact about the A-bombs, they did target, and hit, military compounds - the civilians that were killed were an unexpected effect. How can you say that we knew how powerful the A-bomb was? But power corrupts absolutely, and with that much power one can go nuts. But the hundreds of thousands of lives (not all civilians) were necessary to prevent millions of lives of everybody. Would you be able to live with yourself if you let hundreds of thousands die, thus killing a whole lot more?