View Single Post
  #2  
Old December 29th 03, 06:14 PM
Matt Wiser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"weary" wrote:

"Matt Wiser" wrote
in message
news:3fe70e02$1@bg2....

"weary" wrote:

"Alan Minyard" wrote
in message
.. .
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:08:15 GMT, "weary"
wrote:


"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "weary"

Do you think Saddam Hussein had the

same
right to use WMD to save the
lives of Iraqi servicemen while fighting
Iran and internal rebellion?
Did Al-Qaeda have the same right to

deliberately
target civilians in
their
war with the USA, specifically WTC?

If Saddam hadn't invaded Iran there

would
not have been a need to
defend
"Iraqi
servicemen."

Complaints about his use of WMD relate

to
uses considerably pre-dating
his invasion of Kuwait.


As for the attacks on the WTC there

was
no military value there. An
argument
could be made for the strike on the

Pentagon
being a military attack.

Nagasaki and Hiroshima each had valid

military
targets within the
cities.

The odds are that there were Reservists

in
the WTC at the time of the
attack.
The poster I was replying to advocated

using
"ANY MEANS" to end the war.
He also wrote "If that means incinerating
two, three, or however many
Japanese Cities
by the bombs carried by the 509th's B-29s,
so be it." He made no mention
of
destroying military assets. His choice

of
words clearly states that the
destruction of
cities was what would produce a Japanese
surrender, not destruction of
military
assets.



Destruction of Japan, by whatever means

possible,
was warranted.

That's what AQ thinks of the USA

The
barbarity of their military was an abomination,
and it was continuing
daily

That's what AQ thinks of the USA.

in China, Korea, etc. If incinerating every
building in Japan would
have ended the war, it would have been

completely
justified.

The only thing that the US did that was

"wrong"
was not hanging the
******* Hirohito from the nearest tree.

Al Minyard



So why do you apologize for them? Dropping

the bombs and 9-11 were two
different events under vastly different circumstances.


That your opinion, and point out where I apologised
for them.
My opinion - supported by facts - is that there
are similarities,
deliberately targetting civilians, especially
with regard to Hiroshima.


In case you forgot:
Pearl Harbor's treachery was rewarded at Hiroshima

and Nagasaki.

If you think an attack without a declaration
of war is "treachery", do
your sums and see how many times the US has
declared war in the
conflicts it has been involved in since WW2.


9-11's treachery
has been partially rewarded with the Taliban

who sheltered AQ and OBL
reduced
to a low-level insurgency.


AQ believe that US treachery in supporting Israel
inits oppression
of the Palestinians was rewarded by Sept 11.
It is apparently news
to you but others can hate as strongly as you,
and be as ruthless as
your government in targetting civilians.

rant snipped



Weary, I said it before and I'll say it again: How would you have destroyed
the miltiary and industrial targets located in Japanese Cities? If not the
B-29 fire raids, what? Daylight precision bombing had poor results over Japan
due to winds (Jet Stream) and opposition from flak and fighters. The Navy's
fast carriers are busy supporting Okinawa, so using TBMs and SB2Cs in dive
and glide bombing is out.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military cities: military HQs were located there,
there were port facilities, airfields, a division-sized garrison in Hiroshima
and a brigade's worth in Nagasaki. Legitimate military targets. Add to that
the military-related industries and that makes each more of a target. (This
includes the cottage industry common in Japan at the time) As LeMay said,
the only way to do it was low level fire raids at night. He knew there would
be heavy civilian casualties, but felt it had to be done. A demonstration
was out of the question for a number of reasons, techinical, political, and
practical. Invasion brings heavy American, British, and Japanese loss of
life. Bombing and Blockade will take up to 18 months to work. Truman has
(according to the info he had at the time) those choices. What do YOU do
in his place? I know what I'd do. Drop the bomb and end the war ASAP.
Comparing Hiroshima with 9-11 is apples and oranges. Different context, circumstances,
etc. I can see you as OBL's defense atty. when (not if) he's caught. Good
luck keeping him away from the needle or the noose.

Posted via
www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!