Japan marks 71st anniversary of Hiroshima atomic bombing

Not so, your argument excuses a war against civilians for the sole purpose of exterminating those same civilians with no military goal involved.

 

Nuh-huh. Your argument excuses a war against civilians etc. I just threw it back into your face with the race of the actors changed, to show your double standards for everyone to see (since you don't acknowledge them yourself).

My standards are that no military should harm an unarmed civilian ever. Jews, Japanese and Palestinians alike. Sounds quite clear to me.

 

This only means your disappointment will never end.

 

There a thin line between human nature and bestial nature. If we can't prevent the later from manifesting itself in spite of our efforts, we can at least denounce it when it happens instead of being proud of it.

 

Suppose the US agreed with you and did not ever harm a civilian during wartime..
How did WW2 turn out?

 

Not that much different than the version we know, actually.

All civilians killing during WWII were meaningless: Let's face it: It was just terror and many times it even backfired.

 

Really?
How did Germany and Japan lose the war, absent all US military actions that harmed civilians?

 

Hmmm... Actions on the actual battlefields, maybe?

 

wrong..

 

Spoken like someone with little knowledge of particulars.

How did the US destroy the Japanese ability to make war with out attacking Japan's strategic assets? It's maritime shipping assets?
How did the US force the Germans to retain a huge portion of its air force and heavy artillery to protect its strategic assets w/o attacking those strategic assets?
How did the US assist in the invasion of Normandy?

 

You said that Nazi Germany had justification to exterminate word Jewry, which at the time has no military and is composed of Civillians.

Your post:

""Well, the Jews in Germany did a couple of terrorism attempts on the Nazi party and international jewry did declare economic war on Germany. That, by today's standards, is all they needed to, well, eliminate them, ""

As I said, by your hateful belief Israel would be justified in running an extermination program against BDS and Palestinians so, obviously the is no such legal program to justify this nor was there ever.

 

That is 100% FACT!

 

Note an important word you are using: "Strategic asset".

A tanker requisitionned by the navy, a torpedo factory or an aerial base are unquestionnable strategic assets - they have no other purpose than direct war: A town surrounding a railway track isn't.

The destruction of Wilhelmshaven, Dresden and many other cities, German, Japanese or else, only had minor effects on the war effort. In fact, it costs much more than what it gave. The London bombings are another good exemple: They only brought a reinforcement of the British poeple's will not unlike what follows a terrorist attack - because that's basically what bombing helpless civilian areas are. IMO, "Bomber" Harris should have been executed at Nuremburg as one of the greatest war criminals of his times, in an era yet rich with other mass-murdering animals.

Like I've wrote, at its wider definition, "strategic assets" may even include the jews killed by Germany during that war or the 9-11 towers of late. It certainly does if the populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were. The sword cuts both ways.

 

...and are manned by civilians.
Your standard is that no military should harm an unarmed civilian ever.
If, as we assume, the US holds to this standard, the torpedo factory and oil tanker will go unscathed.

My questions remain unanswered.

 

Civilians serving in a military asset are fair targets: They are warned about it and they are often provided with some kind of defense drill or weapons to cope with the possibility. Old people and young kids are not.

 

as a fellow Jew, how can you agree with that statement when its 100% false???????????

 

Because I am honest and have researched this topic.

 

Moving the goalposts, eh? As I guessed.
When you said "My standard is that no military should harm an unarmed civilian ever" you clearly didn't really mean it.

 

Nice try but the quote is unedited so your words are justifying the Holocaust. Now, if you wish to say the Holocaust in which six million Jews and another five to six million other minorities were systematicly exterminated was nothing like collateral casualties of war as they were a civillian target and not a lilitary one so therefore nothing justifies it then please, just say you were wrong in posting this:

""Well, the Jews in Germany did a couple of terrorism attempts on the Nazi party and international jewry did declare economic war on Germany. That, by today's standards, is all they needed to, well, eliminate them""

P

 

Keyword: "Unarmed".

For me, a civilian working in a military environment is an auxiliary: There is no military structure without them, as you would know if you are a military.

Now stop pretending you are stupider than you are. That's most tedious.

 

It was headline news in 1933. Learn your history - save embarrassment.

 

headline? in which nationally recognized paper?

Der Sturmer???

LOL!!!!

 

London Times broke the story. I have posted the actual article a few times. You are well aware and trying to derail this thread.

 

The London Times?

prove it.

meanwhile, just cause some Jews in the USA decide to boycott Germany doesn't means all 18 million Jews worldwide did.

and it doesn't justify punishing the Jews of Germany, which is what the Nazis did.

 

Like I said: You did not really mean what you said.
The men on the tanker? Unarmed.
The men in the torpedo factory? Unarmed.
NOW you argue it is OK for the military to kill THESE unarmed civilians.