I just explained it. See our involvement in the region during the cold war era. We kept people in power who shouldn't have been simply because they supported us and not the Russians. We kept them in power by using a secret police to arrest and silence those who opposed. We taught them how to carry out acts of terrorism and supplied them with the means to do it.

I am by no means a historian just a fan of history and it's been a while since I studied any of this so I forget a lot of the details but there are numerous accounts much more detailed than mine.

One particular one I really wish I could remember but I can't remember it well enough to even tell it. It was pretty appalling though and essentially amounted to us letting some people die when they were asking for our help.

The point is there are reasons why certain middle eastern sects have a resentment for America

Obviously this doesn't justify anything they did (like 9/11), I'm just saying. It's out there....these people didn't spin a globe and close their eyes(Coming to America style) and point and stop on America and choose to start attacking them.

All that may be true, but is that why we were attacked?

How is the United States to blame?

ALook, I suppose that Hitler believed he had reasons for hating and destroying Jews. So what? Everyone thinks he has reasons.

some people might consider the Revolutionary War as a "just" war.

I think most revolutionaries isn't stupid enough to say let's wage an unjust war, and it's merely propaganda to call wars "just".

Imo many revolutionary wars gets out of hand, and the revolutionaries are just as bad as the oppressors.

Could you be a bit more specific? Which revolutionary wars?

The interference in the middle east by western business ventures over the last one hundred years is easily verifiable. The west has actively destabilizerd the region since before it invented the borders of today's modern states.

Western corporations have been unscrupulous in the area. Including the early pillaging of Iranian oil supplies by the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (what you call BP today)

The Twin towers held offices of many of the most pervasive of all American corporations.

If a bunch of bad guys are in one place, then we make sure to blow that place up. So do our enemies.

I was referring to The American War of Independence or The American Revolutionary War or The Revolutionary War. I guess I forgot that this forum includes non-Americans and I didn't think that there are probably more than one war with the "revolutionary" title

...

I dont want or expect vengeance but I do require justice. Those Bombs were an horrendous answer to a cruel war.

... The Bombing of Japan was an act intended to cut short an expensive war. If you cant see why America had a valid reason, then my explaination has fallen on deaf ears.

...

And you call it "justice" to blow up civilian children to atone for the sins of their elders?

---------- Post added 04-07-2010 at 08:57 AM ----------



The reasons for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not simply to cut short an expensive war, but also to test the effectiveness of the new technology. The U.S. wanted "virgin" targets (i.e., previously unattacked cities) so that they could see exactly what damage was done by the new bombs. And so they selected nonmilitary targets, because the military targets that were within range had already been attacked. That is why the U.S. was able to send lone planes that did not meet with anti-aircraft fire, as they were not military targets and were therefore undefended. So the U.S. used Japanese civilians as lab rats to test the bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There is and can be no justification for this sort of thing, and it is ridiculous that anyone attempts to justify such atrocities.

Pyrrho;149196 wrote:

And you call it "justice" to blow up civilian children to atone for the sins of their elders?

---------- Post added 04-07-2010 at 08:57 AM ----------



The reasons for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not simply to cut short an expensive war, but also to test the effectiveness of the new technology. The U.S. wanted "virgin" targets (i.e., previously unattacked cities) so that they could see exactly what damage was done by the new bombs. And so they selected nonmilitary targets, because the military targets that were within range had already been attacked. That is why the U.S. was able to send lone planes that did not meet with anti-aircraft fire, as they were not military targets and were therefore undefended. So the U.S. used Japanese civilians as lab rats to test the bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There is and can be no justification for this sort of thing, and it is ridiculous that anyone attempts to justify such atrocities.

Dont take my posts out of context ,I never said the bombings were an act of revenge or justice, did I ?

You claim what you like about the bombings , I just don't agree with you.

Was there justification in rape and murder on a scale unimaginable in China by the Japanese. Is it the scale of civilian deaths or the manner of their killing. I would be really interested in your answer.

You have certainly implied that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of justice. I am quite sure that many others reading this have thought that that was your meaning; would you like a poll to test this idea? If you do not think that they were acts of justice, please say so explicitly.





I claim that they were unjust. Are your words to be taken to mean that you think they were just? In which case, why the pretend offense at the suggestion that you believed what you now say you believe?





Why do you jump from the idea that it is wrong to kill civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to the idea that it is okay to kill civilians in China? Why do you not make a more natural jump from the idea that I disapprove of killing Japanese civilians to the idea that maybe I disapprove of killing any civilians?

Two wrongs do not make a right. No matter what the Japanese government and military did, that does not justify doing bad things to civilians. If a man is a murderer and rapist, that does not make it right or okay to rape and murder his family. His family is not the rapist murderer; he is, and so he is the one who bears the responsibility, not other people.

The reasons for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not simply to cut short an expensive war, but also to test the effectiveness of the new technology. The U.S. wanted "virgin" targets (i.e., previously unattacked cities) so that they could see exactly what damage was done by the new bombs. And so they selected nonmilitary targets, because the military targets that were within range had already been attacked. That is why the U.S. was able to send lone planes that did not meet with anti-aircraft fire, as they were not military targets and were therefore undefended. So the U.S. used Japanese civilians as lab rats to test the bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There is and can be no justification for this sort of thing, and it is ridiculous that anyone attempts to justify such atrocities.

Yes, it is interesting how many people believe that two wrongs make a right. Especially when one considers the fact that the civilians at Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not have much say in whether or not there was even going to be a war. But people find it easy to lump others together, as if they formed some monolithic whole. Strangely, most people don't like it when they themselves get blamed for what others do who are thought of as being connected with them in some way, but often they do not mind doing this with others.

I have heard they very much wanted to warn off Russia and prevent a Russian invasion of Japan. I don't know enough history to say whether Japan would be another North Korea right now if that had happened though.

But Pyrrho, not everyone makes the distinction between justify and excuse. I didn't in my first post either.



But the word "right" is vague. Something that isn't "right" can be the "right thing to do".

If you can point out where I even hinted at revenge or justice I would be grateful. I said they were an act of war to bring the conflict to an abrupt end. Just, has nothing to do with expediency in war, its not a moral objective, war.

Who said what was right? I asked you question, I did not comment on my reasoning why I asked the question, did I? Just answer the question, please.

Whats right in war? morals of war are defined by convention. Whats right in war is inexcusable in peace. The greater good, the way to win. War is a bloody affair it cant be sanitized.

The idea that civilians are somehow separate from the nation, in time of war, seems fallacious to me. After all even the simple farmer is assisting the war effort. The benefits of victory will be enjoyed by all.

But the distinction between justify and excuse is an important distinction. You justify some action if you think it was the right thing to do (even it it did not seem so) and you justify it (if you can) by trying to show it was the right thing to do.

I don't see how what isn't right can be the right thing to do. Can you offer an example of that?

You keep bringing up the word "revenge". Please point out where you imagine I have stated anything about you believing it was "revenge".

You have hinted that the bombings were justified in a few posts, such as post 18. The first paragraph in that post reads exactly like what one might expect from someone trying to justify the bombings. Posts 9 and 56 also appear to be attempts at justification.

Post 43 suggests that we ought not care about the suffering inflicted upon the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


Now, please answer my question: Do you think that bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was just or not? If you would simply answer the question, we need not guess and speculate based upon hints in your posts.

We have made a few rules about war, but you are right, war will remain a bloody affair that can only be justified in the context of the greater good.

Morals and a sense of honor have a place in war, but the greater good must outweigh all. It would have been a tragedy to allow Hitler to win because we were too "moral" to do what was necessary.

The idea that civilians are somehow separate from the nation, in time of war, seems fallacious to me. After all even the simple farmer is assisting the war effort. The benefits of victory will be enjoyed by all.

I agree that it's important. But it's also important to know that when someone says it was justified, they may mean excused.

As in, it isn't right to run someone over with a trolley, but when the other option is running over 5 people then running over 1 is the right thing to do; it's the correct decision. The right answer to a math problem is the correct answer. The right decision is the correct decision. Moral right is a different matter.