Islamic Discussion Thread ٣

[Alsheb]

There was nu justification for the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Just like there was none for the invasion of Iraq or the targeting of civilians by takfiri terrorists. It's just unjustified in any case.

[Islamic Government]

There was nu justification for the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Just like there was none for the invasion of Iraq or the targeting of civilians by takfiri terrorists. It's just unjustified in any case.

But Russia and Assad have plenty of justifications to kill Sunni women and children, right?

[FelrikTheDeleted]

An "enraged populace" is not a relevant factor in a war. However, if you kill enough they could make pressure on their governments to stop the military involvement in Muslim lands.

It depends, in the case of attacking the populace as ISIS does at this moment, a enraged populace could end up with a want for more fighting, angry at Islam, angry at the Muslim people, angry at the Middle East, all things that people are currently angry with. Perhaps if they were enraged with the US government then they could pressure them into stopping. There are a lot of factors to support of wars abroad, too many to get into (At least for myself).

Were Americans "enraged" when America started the First Gulf War in the early 1990s?

The First Gulf War was a coalition formed in response to Iraq's invasion, annexation and violation of Kuwaits sovereignty (Whether this was justifiable is debatable). Being enraged is usually what drives the approval of a war abroad, I find; it isn't everything however.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Anyhow, I've grown bored of this argument; I shall take my leave.

[Kubumba Tribe]

Assalamu 'Alaikum wa RaHmatullahi wa Barakatihuh! I'm baaaaaaack.

[Lavochkin]

There was nu justification for the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Just like there was none for the invasion of Iraq or the targeting of civilians by takfiri terrorists. It's just unjustified in any case.

Umm yes there is very good justification for Hiroshima and Nagasaki:

- Thousands of Americans would have died from an invasion of Japan.
- Millions of Japanese would be dead
- The Japanese infrastructure and economy would be ruined for decades in a total invasion.
- The Japanese would lose all pride if they lost completely
- The U.S would have even less sympathy to Japan.
- Japan would also most likely been invaded by the Soviets, who are much more brutal than Americans or their nukes.
- Japan would most likely be split like Germany after the war.
- Japan would be less wealthy and prosperous than they are today if we destroyed their entire country, instead of destroying their two cities.

However I can't really justify the Iraq War so I'll give you that.

[Eol Sha]

There was nu justification for the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Just like there was none for the invasion of Iraq or the targeting of civilians by takfiri terrorists. It's just unjustified in any case.

Umm yes there is very good justification for Hiroshima and Nagasaki:

- Thousands of Americans would have died from an invasion of Japan.
- Millions of Japanese would be dead
- The Japanese infrastructure and economy would be ruined for decades in a total invasion.
- The Japanese would lose all pride if they lost completely
- The U.S would have even less sympathy to Japan.
- Japan would also most likely been invaded by the Soviets, who are much more brutal than Americans or their nukes.
- Japan would most likely be split like Germany after the war.
- Japan would be less wealthy and prosperous than they are today if we destroyed their entire country, instead of destroying their two cities.

However I can't really justify the Iraq War so I'll give you that.

I think only reasons one, two, maybe six, and seven are the only real justifications for the Hiroshima and Nagasaki as far as war-time considerations go. The others are all 20/20 hindsight and reasons four and five don't even make sense since the point of war is to break your enemy's will to fight.

[Lavochkin]

Umm yes there is very good justification for Hiroshima and Nagasaki:

- Thousands of Americans would have died from an invasion of Japan.
- Millions of Japanese would be dead
- The Japanese infrastructure and economy would be ruined for decades in a total invasion.
- The Japanese would lose all pride if they lost completely
- The U.S would have even less sympathy to Japan.
- Japan would also most likely been invaded by the Soviets, who are much more brutal than Americans or their nukes.
- Japan would most likely be split like Germany after the war.
- Japan would be less wealthy and prosperous than they are today if we destroyed their entire country, instead of destroying their two cities.

However I can't really justify the Iraq War so I'll give you that.

I think only reasons one, two, maybe six, and seven are the only real justifications for the Hiroshima and Nagasaki as far as war-time considerations go. The others are all 20/20 hindsight and reasons four and five don't even make sense since the point of war is to break your enemy's will to fight.

How does 3 not make sense? In what world do you think Japan would not be touched if America invaded Japan, including the Soviets. Do you notice how Russia, who was invaded in WWII got completely obliterated, while America, who only had Alaska and some of their territories invaded, practically lived through WWII untouched and became a superpower at the end?

4. If you knew Japanese culture, they are very prideful in their nation and their Emperor. If they gave every last ounce of their will and still lost, they would never forgive themselves.

5. You do know American interned thousands of Japanese-Americans just because they were Japanese. I don't think it's a far stretch to say we would have done worse if our war with Japan went on longer.

6. Ask the millions of raped, tortured and enslaved Germans and Poles if the Soviets are nice people.

Yes the point of war is to break the others will to fight. But if you can do that (as we did) without losing more men, resources and rewards then you have to, why should you?

But this has nothing to do with Islam so I digress.

[Eol Sha]

I think only reasons one, two, maybe six, and seven are the only real justifications for the Hiroshima and Nagasaki as far as war-time considerations go. The others are all 20/20 hindsight and reasons four and five don't even make sense since the point of war is to break your enemy's will to fight.

How does 3 not make sense? In what world do you think Japan would not be touched if America invaded Japan, including the Soviets. Do you notice how Russia, who was invaded in WWII got completely obliterated, while America, who only had Alaska and some of their territories invaded, practically lived through WWII untouched and became a superpower at the end?

4. If you knew Japanese culture, they are very prideful in their nation and their Emperor. If they gave every last ounce of their will and still lost, they would never forgive themselves.

5. You do know American interned thousands of Japanese-Americans just because they were Japanese. I don't think it's a far stretch to say we would have done worse if our war with Japan went on longer.

6. Ask the millions of raped, tortured and enslaved Germans and Poles if the Soviets are nice people.

Yes the point of war is to break the others will to fight. But if you can do that (as we did) without losing more men, resources and rewards then you have to, why should you?

But this has nothing to do with Islam so I digress.

Reason three doesn't make sense in terms of how to justify in 1945 using the atom bombs. It may make some sense nowadays, although I think it's less relevant than the ones I identified as the primary justifications for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but I don't think the Allied leaderships was all that interested in not destroying Japan's industrial capability. If it meant ending the war sooner than using the atom bombs, they would have gone ahead with the invasion. Japanese industry be damned.

I'm well aware Japanese culture places alot of importance on pride, honor, and standing. Needless to say, I don't think the Allies really cared about how much damage invading Japan would have done to the nation's national psyche. If it meant ending the war sooner then they would have invaded. The same applies, although admittedly less so, to the "sympathy" argument. I said reasons four and five were "20/20 hindsight" for a reason. You can use them to justify the bombings. I just think they're far less important than reasons one, two, six, and seven.

There's a reason why I said reason six is a solid reason for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Although, I think the beginning part of reason six, a Soviet invasion and subsequent partition of Japan, was more present in the minds of the Allied leadership, namely Truman, than the rape and pillaging perpetrated by Soviet soldiers in Europe.

[Alsheb]

There was nu justification for the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Just like there was none for the invasion of Iraq or the targeting of civilians by takfiri terrorists. It's just unjustified in any case.

Umm yes there is very good justification for Hiroshima and Nagasaki:

- Thousands of Americans would have died from an invasion of Japan.
- Millions of Japanese would be dead
- The Japanese infrastructure and economy would be ruined for decades in a total invasion.
- The Japanese would lose all pride if they lost completely
- The U.S would have even less sympathy to Japan.
- Japan would also most likely been invaded by the Soviets, who are much more brutal than Americans or their nukes.
- Japan would most likely be split like Germany after the war.
- Japan would be less wealthy and prosperous than they are today if we destroyed their entire country, instead of destroying their two cities.

However I can't really justify the Iraq War so I'll give you that.

None of that justifies the deliberate massacre of civilians.

[Uxupox]

Umm yes there is very good justification for Hiroshima and Nagasaki:

- Thousands of Americans would have died from an invasion of Japan.
- Millions of Japanese would be dead
- The Japanese infrastructure and economy would be ruined for decades in a total invasion.
- The Japanese would lose all pride if they lost completely
- The U.S would have even less sympathy to Japan.
- Japan would also most likely been invaded by the Soviets, who are much more brutal than Americans or their nukes.
- Japan would most likely be split like Germany after the war.
- Japan would be less wealthy and prosperous than they are today if we destroyed their entire country, instead of destroying their two cities.

However I can't really justify the Iraq War so I'll give you that.

None of that justifies the deliberate massacre of civilians.

Would millions of dead be more suitable?

[Alsheb]

There was nu justification for the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Just like there was none for the invasion of Iraq or the targeting of civilians by takfiri terrorists. It's just unjustified in any case.

But Russia and Assad have plenty of justifications to kill Sunni women and children, right?

Difference being that there is no deliberate targeting of women and children by Syrian forces, contrary to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, two civilian targets that were specifically chosen with full knowledge of their lack of military importance.

Also, the idea that people are targeted in Syria for being Sunni is laughable, as the majority of the Syrian Arab Army consists out of Sunnis as well. And lastly, this is a civil war that was initiated by the "rebels" back in 2011, in which the Syrian army is doing nothing less than taking back territory that was captured by terrorist forces in the past five years.

[Alsheb]

None of that justifies the deliberate massacre of civilians.

Would millions of dead be more suitable?

If they are soldiers? Definitely.

Also, Japan didn't surrender because of the nukes. They surrenderd because they know an invasion was upcoming and that they would lose to a combined invasion of Soviets and Americans. Notice how the Japanese surrender came almost immediately after the Soviet liberation of Manchuria, whereas months of ever increasing bombings of civilian targets by US bombers had not caused them to relent.
Lastly, the second nuclear bombing, the one of Nagasaki, was entirely uncalled for, as American diplomatic channels had already received a call for surrender negotiations right after Hiroshima. High command basically decided to level Nagasaki for the sake of experimentation with a different type of nuclear weapon.

[Uxupox]

Would millions of dead be more suitable?

If they are soldiers? Definitely.

Also, Japan didn't surrender because of the nukes. They surrenderd because they know an invasion was upcoming and that they would lose to a combined invasion of Soviets and Americans. Notice how the Japanese surrender came almost immediately after the Soviet liberation of Manchuria, whereas months of ever increasing bombings of civilian targets by US bombers had not caused them to relent.
Lastly, the second nuclear bombing, the one of Nagasaki, was entirely uncalled for, as American diplomatic channels had already received a call for surrender negotiations right after Hiroshima. High command basically decided to level Nagasaki for the sake of experimentation with a different type of nuclear weapon.

What a completr hipocrisy your statement is.

[Eol Sha]

Would millions of dead be more suitable?

If they are soldiers? Definitely.

Except it wouldn't have been just soldiers. The majority of casualties would have been civilians and far more of them would have ultimately died before the war ended than died in the twin bombings.

[Oil exporting People]

None of that justifies the deliberate massacre of civilians.

Except that wasn't the intent, as both cities had valid military targets. Nagasaki, if I'm remembering correctly, had an IJN Naval shipyard while Hiroshima was a major supply base for the Imperial Japanese Army.

If they are soldiers? Definitely.

Except they weren't going to be. The Japanese were in the process of forming several million civilians into impromptu militias, and were fully prepared to utilize the same tactics upon their population as was seen on Okinawa.

Also, Japan didn't surrender because of the nukes. They surrenderd because they know an invasion was upcoming and that they would lose to a combined invasion of Soviets and Americans. Notice how the Japanese surrender came almost immediately after the Soviet liberation of Manchuria, whereas months of ever increasing bombings of civilian targets by US bombers had not caused them to relent.

Partially correct at first, and then you went fully off the rails with the Soviet and bombing comment. By the time the Japanese surrendered, the Red Army had yet to reach Korea and it took them two weeks after the official Japanese surrender for them to complete operations in the Kuriles while the Japanese were abundantly aware of the lack of Soviet heavy lift capacity for sustaining an invasion. As for the bombings, that and the submarine blockade by the US is probably what did the most to enforce a Japanese capitulation. Going into the fall, the Japanese rice crop had failed and USAAF was making increasingly effective assaults upon remaining transportation networks to the point the Japanese realized they were facing a starvation winter and then the complete collapse of Japanese civilization by the following summer. Murderous bastards the IJA were, but even they for the most part realized cannibalism on a mass scale against their own wasn't a viable strategy going on into 1946.

Lastly, the second nuclear bombing, the one of Nagasaki, was entirely uncalled for, as American diplomatic channels had already received a call for surrender negotiations right after Hiroshima. High command basically decided to level Nagasaki for the sake of experimentation with a different type of nuclear weapon.

No, that's a complete lie and you damn well know it. That "peace offer" was on the terms of Status Quo Antebellum or in other words, a white peace. By 1945 the crimes of the Imperial Japanese state were too much and far too much blood had been shed to make that a viable offer. Furthermore, as late as August 14th, hardliners attempted a coup to force the continuation of the conflict.

[Alsheb]

If they are soldiers? Definitely.

Also, Japan didn't surrender because of the nukes. They surrenderd because they know an invasion was upcoming and that they would lose to a combined invasion of Soviets and Americans. Notice how the Japanese surrender came almost immediately after the Soviet liberation of Manchuria, whereas months of ever increasing bombings of civilian targets by US bombers had not caused them to relent.
Lastly, the second nuclear bombing, the one of Nagasaki, was entirely uncalled for, as American diplomatic channels had already received a call for surrender negotiations right after Hiroshima. High command basically decided to level Nagasaki for the sake of experimentation with a different type of nuclear weapon.

What a completr hipocrisy your statement is.

Care to elaborate what exactly is hypocritical about it in your eyes?

[Gondolaulus]

Assalamu 'Alaikum wa RaHmatullahi wa Barakatihuh! I'm baaaaaaack.

Wa aleykum salaam! How are you?

[Kubumba Tribe]

Assalamu 'Alaikum wa RaHmatullahi wa Barakatihuh! I'm baaaaaaack.

Wa aleykum salaam! How are you?

Great, now that I can be back on NS, AlHamdulillah!

[Gondolaulus]

Wa aleykum salaam! How are you?

Great, now that I can be back on NS, AlHamdulillah!

Nice to see you around again bro.

[Uxupox]

What a completr hipocrisy your statement is.

Care to elaborate what exactly is hypocritical about it in your eyes?

The soldier comment. Both the United States and Japanese armed forces were full of conscripts and since when is a civilian's life worth more than a soldier? Aren't all people equal?

[Mahdistan]

Honest question for Islamic Government; assuming you're an ISIS supporter (a pretty safe assumption, I think), how do you justify the massive losses you've incurred in Iraq and Syria? Do you believe that the caliphate is simply unable to to retake the two states, or do you still think they have a chance of winning?

[Mahdistan]

Care to elaborate what exactly is hypocritical about it in your eyes?

The soldier comment. Both the United States and Japanese armed forces were full of conscripts and since when is a civilian's life worth more than a soldier? Aren't all people equal?

This is starting to become a threadjack...

[Mahdistan]

Assalamu 'Alaikum wa RaHmatullahi wa Barakatihuh! I'm baaaaaaack.

Wa alaykum salaam!

[Mahdistan]

Also, by chance, I saw that Ghuraba Al-Khorusani is back. If you're reading this, I'd hope that you come back; we could use more reasonable debaters here.