2
   

we say terrorists kill innocent people...

 
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Aug, 2006 06:17 pm
Merry Andrew wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Merry Andrew wrote:
But I would suggest that the Islamic militants are equally able to formulate arguments of why the destruction the World Trade Center was not only justified but, in the final analysis, a humane act.

For example?


Hell, I'm not going to argue the pros of this. I don't believe it's true. That's for the Islamists to argue. Conversely, I wouldn't expect a Japanese survivor of the attack on Hiroshima to convincingly argue our American position. I'm saying that such an argument probably could be made. And knocked down. Just as our arguments can be knocked down.

When the Palestinians to detonate a bomb in an Israeli marketplace, I'm sure they can rationalize it, but only a madman would put it into the same category as an army's attack on enemy troops.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Aug, 2006 06:21 pm
Merry Andrew wrote:
I'm saying that such an argument probably could be made. And knocked down. Just as our arguments can be knocked down.


I hope you don't think that your lies and childish insults amount to knocking down an argument.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Aug, 2006 06:24 pm
Jason Proudmoore wrote:
oralloy wrote:

I posted only facts.


The fact that only exists in your twisted imagination.


I'd point out that if "the fact only existed in my imagination" you'd have no trouble disproving it, and would not have to resort to childish insults, but it seems obvious that with your lack of intelligence you'd still have trouble, so nevermind.

Go play in the road or something.
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Aug, 2006 06:25 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
Merry Andrew wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Merry Andrew wrote:
But I would suggest that the Islamic militants are equally able to formulate arguments of why the destruction the World Trade Center was not only justified but, in the final analysis, a humane act.

For example?


Hell, I'm not going to argue the pros of this. I don't believe it's true. That's for the Islamists to argue. Conversely, I wouldn't expect a Japanese survivor of the attack on Hiroshima to convincingly argue our American position. I'm saying that such an argument probably could be made. And knocked down. Just as our arguments can be knocked down.

When the Palestinians to detonate a bomb in an Israeli marketplace, I'm sure they can rationalize it, but only a madman would put it into the same category as an army's attack on enemy troops.


Oh, I agree with you, Brandon. The two actions are not in the same category. But the point is that both can be rationalized by the perpetrator as excusable and even laudable.

As to Orallay's carping on the fact that Nagasaki was a major arms-production complex, so what? The fact remains that it was an industrial city, full of civilian workers, some of whom couldn't have given damn less about the ambitions of Hirohito or Tojo or any other warlord. The Islamists could just as glibly claim that the people killed in the WTC disaster were "colateral damage", that the target was the building, not the people. Essentially, that's what you're saying about Nagasaki, that we targetted the arms factories, not the people who worked there. Why isn't it cool for AlQaeda to claim the same?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Aug, 2006 06:28 pm
Merry Andrew wrote:
The Islamists could just as glibly claim that the people killed in the WTC disaster were "colateral damage", that the target was the building, not the people. Essentially, that's what you're saying about Nagasaki, that we targetted the arms factories, not the people who worked there. Why isn't it cool for AlQaeda to claim the same?


Because they openly admit that they intentionally target civilians.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Aug, 2006 06:32 pm
oralloy wrote:
Merry Andrew wrote:
The Islamists could just as glibly claim that the people killed in the WTC disaster were "colateral damage", that the target was the building, not the people. Essentially, that's what you're saying about Nagasaki, that we targetted the arms factories, not the people who worked there. Why isn't it cool for AlQaeda to claim the same?


Because they openly admit that they intentionally target civilians.


Also, I don't say the civilians at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were collateral damage. The bombs were too indiscriminate for that.

I merely say that the bombs were not targeted at civilians.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Aug, 2006 06:35 pm
Jason Proudmoore wrote:
So what? What's your point?


It bugs you when facts get posted, doesn't it?


    [quote="oralloy"]the purpose of the Nagasaki bomb was to destroy large arms-production complexes on the outskirts of Nagasaki.[/quote] Before December 7th, 1941, Pearl Harbor had been regarded as immune to torpedoes, because the water was too shallow for them to operate in. Japan had to devise entirely new torpedo technology in order to hit Pearl Harbor. It just so happens that the Mitsubishi Ordnance Works, one of those arms-production complexes on the outskirts of Nagasaki, was the place that invented, designed, and built those torpedoes. There's Karma for ya. :D
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Aug, 2006 06:44 pm
Uh oh, better hide! Here come some more facts! Laughing


FACT: Hiroshima was Japan's largest military town.

FACT: Hiroshima's large military districts held tens of thousands of combat troops.

FACT: Hiroshima held the military headquarters in charge of the defense of the southern half of the Japanese home islands.
0 Replies
 
Jason Proudmoore
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Aug, 2006 06:48 pm
oralloy wrote:

I'd point out that if "the fact only existed in my imagination" you'd have no trouble disproving it, and would not have to resort to childish insults, but it seems obvious that with your lack of intelligence you'd still have trouble, so nevermind.


You seem to not understand the English language very well…I haven't just disproved your nonsensical argument, but I have put it in ridicule…if you don't understand this, I'd be more than happy to point it out for you.

You seemed to have clung to the term "childish insults" too much that you rely on it to make a point. I don't know about you, but I use definitions to describes or define what I perceive in regards to appearance and actions. If you like to take valuables from people, for example, you're a thief…if you love pain, you're either a sadist or a masochist…or both; and if you see things (or clowns) that aren't there, and or pull out incoherent arguments and believe them to be valid even thought they're not…you're delusional, crazy, or both.

If you think that I have trouble debunking your ridicule argument, reread the above paragraphs…and if you think I don't make any sense…you either have mental problems, are in denial of the facts, or your bravado of intellectual fallacies won't make you take a much needed rest.

oralloy wrote:

Go play in the road or something.


And stop having fun with you…no way!
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Aug, 2006 06:48 pm
If there had been a nuclear war between us and the Soviet Union, and a Soviet warhead exploded directly over the Pentagon, would anyone try to pretend it was aimed at the civilians of Washington DC???
0 Replies
 
Jason Proudmoore
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Aug, 2006 06:51 pm
oralloy wrote:
Jason Proudmoore wrote:
So what? What's your point?


It bugs you when facts get posted, doesn't it?


Not at all…but keep with the nonsense.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Aug, 2006 06:52 pm
Jason Proudmoore wrote:
oralloy wrote:

I'd point out that if "the fact only existed in my imagination" you'd have no trouble disproving it, and would not have to resort to childish insults, but it seems obvious that with your lack of intelligence you'd still have trouble, so nevermind.


You seem to not understand the English language very well…I haven't just disproved your nonsensical argument, but I have put it in ridicule…


No, you've ridiculed it without even beginning to disprove it.

Since it is reality, you couldn't disprove it even if you were intelligent.

Since you are stupid, you couldn't disprove it even if it were false.

It doesn't take brains to simply ridicule without making a point, so that is what you do.
0 Replies
 
Jason Proudmoore
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Aug, 2006 07:02 pm
oralloy wrote:
Jason Proudmoore wrote:
oralloy wrote:

I'd point out that if "the fact only existed in my imagination" you'd have no trouble disproving it, and would not have to resort to childish insults, but it seems obvious that with your lack of intelligence you'd still have trouble, so nevermind.


You seem to not understand the English language very well…I haven't just disproved your nonsensical argument, but I have put it in ridicule…


No, you've ridiculed it without even beginning to disprove it.

Since it is reality, you couldn't disprove it even if you were intelligent.

Since you are stupid, you couldn't disprove it even if it were false.

It doesn't take brains to simply ridicule without making a point, so that is what you do.


What the hell do you mean? Can you at least write something that would make sense?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Aug, 2006 07:05 pm
Jason Proudmoore wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Jason Proudmoore wrote:
I haven't just disproved your nonsensical argument, but I have put it in ridicule…


No, you've ridiculed it without even beginning to disprove it.

Since it is reality, you couldn't disprove it even if you were intelligent.

Since you are stupid, you couldn't disprove it even if it were false.

It doesn't take brains to simply ridicule without making a point, so that is what you do.


What the hell do you mean? Can you at least write something that would make sense?


Sorry. I'm not inclined to dumb things down to your level.
0 Replies
 
Jason Proudmoore
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Aug, 2006 07:07 pm
oralloy wrote:
If there had been a nuclear war between us and the Soviet Union, and a Soviet warhead exploded directly over the Pentagon, would anyone try to pretend it was aimed at the civilians of Washington DC???


If the Soviet Union knew that there were innocent people around the premises of the Pentagon, and there was no doubt that these innocent people would perish if the bombs were dropped there, the bombs would also be "aimed" at those innocent civilians...do you want to produce more silly scenarios?
0 Replies
 
Jason Proudmoore
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Aug, 2006 07:09 pm
oralloy wrote:
Jason Proudmoore wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Jason Proudmoore wrote:
I haven't just disproved your nonsensical argument, but I have put it in ridicule…


No, you've ridiculed it without even beginning to disprove it.

Since it is reality, you couldn't disprove it even if you were intelligent.

Since you are stupid, you couldn't disprove it even if it were false.

It doesn't take brains to simply ridicule without making a point, so that is what you do.


What the hell do you mean? Can you at least write something that would make sense?


Sorry. I'm not inclined to dumb things down to your level.


Was that one of your facts...or one of your silly scenarios?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Aug, 2006 07:19 pm
There is a pleasant discussion going on in "soc.history.war.world-war-ii" right now on USENET. Moderation is a large factor in that pleasantness.

I wonder if Craven has ever considered having some moderated forums here on A2K.....

Oh well. I'll check back later to see if there are any intelligent people to talk to.
0 Replies
 
najmelliw
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Aug, 2006 01:38 am
oralloy wrote:
Uh oh, better hide! Here come some more facts! Laughing


FACT: Hiroshima was Japan's largest military town.

FACT: Hiroshima's large military districts held tens of thousands of combat troops.

FACT: Hiroshima held the military headquarters in charge of the defense of the southern half of the Japanese home islands.


If your reasoning is correct, then you must have a good motive as to why the US of A decided to drop an atomic bomb, having tested them earlier and so clearly aware of the scale of destruction these would cause, rather then normal bombs? Why not simply carpet the military districts with bombs? That would have kept more civilians alive.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Aug, 2006 02:16 am
najmelliw wrote:
If your reasoning is correct, then you must have a good motive as to why the US of A decided to drop an atomic bomb, having tested them earlier and so clearly aware of the scale of destruction these would cause, rather then normal bombs?


They dropped the bombs in the hopes that the extreme power of the bombs would shock the Japanese government into surrendering.



najmelliw wrote:
Why not simply carpet the military districts with bombs?


Because that would have failed to shock the Japanese government with the extreme power of the A-bombs.



najmelliw wrote:
That would have kept more civilians alive.


So?
0 Replies
 
Doktor S
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Aug, 2006 12:11 pm
This whole dialogue has consisted of very little besides semantical gymnastics and moral posturing. The arguments all share the property of assuming an objective scale of 'right vs wrong' is in play .
Those of us that realize such things as 'right and wrong' are born of subjective perspective chuckle quietly to ourselves.
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 © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 11/01/2024 at 05:24:29