Israel forced to apologise over offensive Hiroshima comments

It beggars belief that this representative of neoZionism- the most obsequious and sympathy-wringing shyster club on earth- should have the temerity to attack the Japanese for commemorating a national disaster. He may have been forced to apologise but this episode will be recalled every time that some empathy-seeking ethnic cleanser resurrects the Holocaust for justification of his crimes.

 

Yep, you can be almost certain of that. It's only after the media highlight the nature of repugnant comments like this and thus expose the mendacity of these kinds of shysters, do they then feel compelled to "apologise".

 

That's rather silly to say. Don't you have land that you got from your own self sense of self righteousness?

 

Um... His comments weren't wise, but it is true that we didn't bomb Japan for the heck of it.

We wanted an unconditional surrender.

We could have accomplished the same and killed far more people had we just continued to firebomb Japan. Instead, we opted for 2 nuclear blasts, which although deadly, killed less people in the long run than another firebombing campaign.

The weapon of choice was also for the purpose of showing the Soviets the kind of power we had. We had seen them grow aggressive in Eastern Europe as the war winded down, and this gesture was meant as a warning.

 

In truth, that was its only purpose.

 

If that was the case, then why didn't the Japanese surrender?

 

Neo-Zionists scumbags love to be ironic.

The Holocaust made Israel.

 

Please read this:

www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/...esponse-media-alert-the-bbc-on-hiroshima.html

 

None of that changes the fact that they didn't surrender.

As a result, they paid dearly for it.

 

Ok, semantics aside, you didn't read it....Fine.

 

I did. And I understand the point of what Zinn and others are suggesting. The bombings weren't necessary from an invasion aspect, but Japan was in no position to negotiate.

My sympathy for the Japanese is very limited given what they did to China and the Philippines.

It's the same way I have very little sympathy for the Germans.

If you engage in a world war, you're at the mercy of your enemy. If you don't surrender when given the chance, you will suffer. We didn't win WW2 out of morality. We won because we were just as willing to kill civilians as the enemy was.

That's part of why we don't do as well with occupations. We're fretting over drone strikes when the enemy has no crisis of conscience.

You don't win with a sense of mercy or by trying to win hearts and minds. You win by total domination and fear.

It's why war is something that should be avoided at all costs. Once the door is open, brutality rules the day.

 

I'm not questioning the stated American justifications for the bombing of Hiroshima predicated on what was perceived as power projection, merely your suggestion that the Japanese hadn't effectively surrendered prior to the said bombing. I agree with the premise of the article, namely that the formal narrative reinforcing the idea that somehow America had no option other than to bomb an intransigent Japan, is a false one.

 

If you don't formally surrender, you haven't "effectively" surrendered.

 

Your comment understood within the overall context of a defenceless city within a country that "in all probability prior to 1 November 1945 ....would of surrendered even if the atomic bombs would not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated", I think, if you don't mind me saying so, amounts to semantic nit-picking.

 

And I think Zinn, despite being correct about some things, has a penchant for apologism of anything in opposition to the U.S. (as do a lot of posters here).

Japan did plenty of its own pillaging of defenseless cities, so they had it coming.

 

Well, 500,000 civilians paid dearly.

- - - Updated - - -

Zionists don't like anyone else hogging their persecution limelight.

 

Yes, just like thousands paid dearly during the Rape of Nanjing.

 

Oh, ok. The defence of my country, right or wrong. I don't understand it, but I "get" it.

 

Was that the japanese military or civilians?

 

Doesn't matter. In total war, civilians are fair targets.

 

Was that the japanese military or civilians? Do you know why Hiroshima and Nagasaki were purposely left off as bombing targets? If they were legitimate military targets they should have been on them. But they were left intact so Truman could make a much bigger splash in terms of civilian casualties when he dropped the bombs...which was planned months in advance...for no other reason then to send the Russians a message.

The war was over, everyone knew it, including the japanese who had been soliciting surrender terms for months. Their only sticking point was the arrest of their Emperor and family for war crimes trials. Every other term of surrender had been agreed to.

The dropping of the A bombs on Hiro and Nag were crimes against humanity and a stain on this nations history.

And guess what? In the end Truman didn't insist on the arrest of Hirohito and his family anyway. Because that was never the purpose of dropping the bombs.

 

You mean like these?



Because that's exactly what we did in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

No, that's not what I'm getting at. I'm not defending my country. I'm defending the strategy from a logical viewpoint.

I'm not a nationalist at all, but I understand why the decision was made.

Dropping the bombs on Japan made sense from a strategic perspective. If I had been given the same authority with the same situation, I would've done the same myself.

Why? Because it worked.

It was the most practical move to make, and you can be sure that if the tables were turned, Japan would have done the same to us.

 

War crimes are purely subjective to begin with.

We all know that all they are is essentially a spoil of war. As a victor, you have the luxury of charging your enemies with crimes that you may have committed equivalents of.

It's all a sad joke, but that's just how humanity is.

The bombing of Japan wasn't a stain anymore than slavery or the genocide of Native Americans. We've tread this territory before, and we'll likely do it again, but at least with the Japan bombings, there was more of an upside strategically.

You'd be hard pressed to find any major country today that hasn't committed some sort of genocide in the last hundred years or so.

 

Sure. And because of that, it's why we should stay out of the affairs of other countries for the most part.

Even if a genocide is occurring somewhere, no major power has the moral high ground to intervene.

Of course, that won't stop us from being hypocritical, since we unfortunately have a world police mentality.