0
   

Roman Catholic Bishop Wants Everyone to Call God 'Allah'

 
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Nov, 2007 03:42 am
Steve, I'm sure you mean also to include the people of Hamburg who died in the British firebombing (more casualties than Hiroshima BTW).

Part of the urgency was also a growing fear of Soviet intentions in Manchuria and Japan itself. We were aware of the buildup of Soviet Forces in the Far East and very concerned about the aftermath if the Soviets were given too much time.

In addition we suffered very heavy casualties in the invasions of both Iwo Jima and Okinawa. (We lost more ships in that campaign than in the three previous years fighting them - mostly to the Kamakizes.) An invasion of the main island - or even a close naval blockade would almost certainly have yielded the same result.) War has a momentum of its own, and the Japanese had certainly done all they could to sow a whirlwind. On the heels of the killing that had been going on across the world for a decade this wasn't much of an addition.

Finally, everyone involved understood that it was only a matter of time before the Soviets had their own bomb - whether we dropped ours or not. Our Manhattan Project was, of course just a continuation of the British Tube Alloys project, and a cadre of the British scientists from that one carried on in Los Alamos. It turned out that one of them, a Soviet spy, named Klaus Fuchs, gave the critical details to the Soviets, even as the bombs were being readied for Japan.

Pity and sadness may be more useful emotions on Remembrence day than self-rigteous indignation.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Nov, 2007 05:38 am
When I said I will remember all those who died in war, that includes all those who died in war. If you think thats self righteous indignation so be it.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Nov, 2007 07:14 am
Klaus Fuchs was an interesting character. He was a man of high principle, who detested the nazis and fled his native Leipzig to England. Like many scientists working on Tube Alloys and then Manhattan, his nightmare was that Germany would find a short cut to the atom bomb. Fuchs was also a naive idealist who believed in a communist utopia but would explain (so he thought) to Stalin where the Soviet Union had gone wrong. He thought the knowledge of the bomb should be shared between the allies and not belong to the US and Britain alone. Accordingly he passed on almost the entire design of the implosion weapon to an American Harry Gold in Santa Fe hence to a Soviet spy network. Consequently Stalin already knew all about the weapon when Truman confided to him at Potsdam.

Fuchs went back to England and became a leading figure with the Atomic Energy Authority at Harwell. However he became increasingly uncomfortable because of his wartime activities and he was finally pursuaded to confess to passing on documents by a friend who also happened to be Head of Security. He somehow thought that would be the end of the matter and he would be allowed to continue his work at Harwell.

At his subsequent trial (held in secret) he gave a full account of the information he passed on to Gold. Fuchs always maintained that he acted according to his conscience. He made a full confession even though he was told to expect the maximum sentence which he presumed was execution. But he passed on information to an ally not an enemy and he was sentenced to 14 years(?) jail. On release he went back to E Germany and became a leading figure within the DDR nuclear industry.

Fuchs treatment is in contrast to the fate of his American contact. Gold lead to Greenglass and then to Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. The Rosenberg's trial was a farce. Ethel in particular had no idea of what she was caught up in. She was executed along with her husband in a climate of anti communist hysteria. In the words of Jean Paul Satre she was the victim of "a legal lynching which leaves a smear of blood on an entire nation". But then of course JPS was French.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sun 11 Nov, 2007 12:45 pm
Steve 41oo wrote:
oralloy wrote:
We relented on the phrase "unconditional surrender" in the Potsdam Proclamation before the bombs were dropped. All that was required was the "unconditional surrender of Japan's armed forces".


unconditional surrender means unconditional surrender, without terms or conditions. If Japan has to surrender unconditionally but the Japanese ask for a guarantee that the Emperor would not be touched, thats a condition and its is not therefore unconditional surrender.


You are aware of the fact that we did not give Japan that condition, and they ultimately surrendered without that condition??

(As well, they only asked to surrender with that condition after both A-bombs had already been dropped on them.)



Steve 41oo wrote:
Unconditional surrender makes for no guarantees whatsoever. You seem to have a mental block in your ability to understand this.


Nope. No mental block. "Unconditional surrender" seems to mean many things to many people.

The Potsdam Proclamation was a list of conditions was it not?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sun 11 Nov, 2007 01:54 pm
vikorr wrote:
Quote:
You misunderstand the selection criteria. They included the density in their calculations because they needed to flatten a large area of significance in order to make Japan fully realize the power of the bombs being dropped on them.

They of course knew that they'd be killing civilians, but the main point was to flatten something big.


Oralloy, let me put it this way - in my eyes, your interpretation is displaying a very selective interpretation to the objectives, the selection criteria, and wilful blindness to Trumans own view of the outcome of the bombings....for to me there isn't a shread of doubt that civilians (along with military installations) were targetted.

Given Trumans own words, civilians could quite arguably have been the main target.


If we were targeting civilians, why did we drop leaflets on the cities a few days before we bombed them, warning the civilians to flee because we were about to bomb?

Seems rather counterproductive.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Nov, 2007 04:48 pm
Steve 41oo wrote:
Fuchs treatment is in contrast to the fate of his American contact. Gold lead to Greenglass and then to Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. The Rosenberg's trial was a farce. Ethel in particular had no idea of what she was caught up in. She was executed along with her husband in a climate of anti communist hysteria. In the words of Jean Paul Satre she was the victim of "a legal lynching which leaves a smear of blood on an entire nation". But then of course JPS was French.


JPS was also an ugly little toad who never quite gave up his admiration for the benefits of Soviet style socialism - despite a mountain of evidence that indicated otherwise. He also managed to live through the Nazi occupation of WWII without ever disturbing his tranquility or his self-righteous belief in his superiority to the lesser beings around him. A thoroughly contemptable little man, and hardly the sort whose endorsement you should be trotting out now.

The Rosenbergs knowingly engaged in a secret espionage project, passing enormously important national secrets to the Soviets, and getting paid well for their services. Their actions created grave dangers for the world and helped the Soviets impose a generation of tyranny on the nations of Central Europe. They were found out and tried in a court of law and convicted - and all based on a body of facts that have since been amply verified by historians on both sides of the divide. This was no farce. I find it quite remarkable that you remain so blind to these well-established truths.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Nov, 2007 04:36 am
But the Rosenbergs only passed on the information...and to an ally of the United States during WW2. It was Fuchs who stole it and understood its importance. And while he went on to pursue a prestigious career the wife of a communist sympathiser in the US was sentenced to the electric chair, for doing little more than being the wife of a communist sympathiser.

I dont believe Fuchs was the only leak from the Manhattan Project btw.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Nov, 2007 01:16 pm
Steve 41oo wrote:
But the Rosenbergs only passed on the information...and to an ally of the United States during WW2. It was Fuchs who stole it and understood its importance. And while he went on to pursue a prestigious career the wife of a communist sympathiser in the US was sentenced to the electric chair, for doing little more than being the wife of a communist sympathiser.

I dont believe Fuchs was the only leak from the Manhattan Project btw.


Fuchs wasn't the only one, however he accounted for the overwhelming majority of the significant nuclear weapons information and damage that resulted. Had he been tried in a U.S. court, he too would have been executed - and properly so in my view.

The trial of the Rosenbergs established clearly the active roles of both Julus and Ethyl Rosenberg in managing a network of agents in extracting and passing nuclear weapons information to the Soviets - and all done in knowing defiance of U.S. law. Under the law it is the act of treachery or treason - and not the motivation for it - that is punishable.

Throughout those years the British Diplomatic and intelligence services were rather thoroughly penetrated by long-term Soviet agents. Some of them like Kim Philby for example, reached very senior positions and did grave damage to our vital interests during a very dangerous period. They very likely had a role in protecting Fuchs. Though there are many areas in which the British can justly claim great accomplishments during the late struggle, this is not one.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Nov, 2007 09:20 am
Ethel Rosenberg was not even charged with treason. That is why I contrasted her punishment with that of Fuchs. When you said "late struggle" do you mean WW2 or the cold war with the Soviet Union? You are right that the British secret services were thoroughly penetrated. It centred around Cambridge in the 1930s where bright young idealists, horrified by the rise of fascism in Europe where groomed by Soviet Intelligence. There were at least 4 who rose to senior positions, Philby, McLean, Burgess and Cairncross. I'm not sure if they protected Fuchs (how often do my fingers make an embarrassing typo there Embarrassed ) but no doubt they would have done so if they could.
0 Replies
 
brangyet
 
  0  
Reply Sat 5 Apr, 2014 07:39 am
@pstewart,
This is not a big deal to be pondering about. In my state - Kaduna and all the 19 Northern states in Nigeria where the Catholic Mass is celebrated in Hausa Language, we all refer to God as Allah period. We pray: ya Alhah mai iko ka yi mana jinkai (Oh God almighty have mercy on us) and he has been answering our prayers. Also in my native dialect we call God Kazah. we should all give God the deserving respect and stop the nonsensitive of our self- acclaim righteousness. God is God! There is no two ways about it. Call him whatever name that you feel pleases you, all He cares is your royalty and obedience. Peace to you all!
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  0  
Reply Sun 6 Apr, 2014 03:06 pm
@Baldimo,
I call god nonexistent.. maybe not the shortest name but it is the most accurate.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Apr, 2014 04:42 pm
@Krumple,
I can picture this with the pope going one more step.

(be aware I'm a sardonic person. I like him but see him walking as wisely as he can on foofoo, and not thinking of it as foofoo but a compilation to believe in)
0 Replies
 
MSIP
 
  0  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2016 06:49 am
@Baldimo,
it's not like that if you are Christian so you can't read others Holy books !




so Im inviting you to read the Holy "Qur'an" .you will find every answer !
0 Replies
 
MSIP
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2016 06:52 am
@Baldimo,
and I want clear that there are 99 names of God .you can call God by 99 names . so I call Gold as "Allah " . it's beautiful name
manden
 
  0  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2016 08:03 am
@MSIP,
only that you don't know , who God is !

How you call your idol , is e q u a l !
MSIP
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Mar, 2016 11:43 am
@manden,
o man ! I not believe the idol as God !
0 Replies
 
kk4mds
 
  2  
Reply Mon 29 May, 2017 10:52 am
@muslim1,
Why do Christians use the word Gott, Бог, Dieu, Dios, Gud, Duw, ο Θεός, etc? It is because that is the word for god in their language. In Arabic, it is Allah. Arab speaking Christians also use the word Allah.

In other words, it is a non-issue. What word you use just depends on the language that you speak.
0 Replies
 
camlok
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 May, 2017 11:23 am
@Baldimo,
Gee, you were fomenting hate way back in 2007, Baldimo. All based on a huge set of lies.

And you, of the faithful, still don't feel used.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 May, 2017 11:54 am
@Baldimo,
I call him the Flying Spaghetti Monster and no one will tell me to fine tune the naming!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2017 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/19/2017 at 11:19:34