"Matt Wiser" wrote in message
news:3ff06fa6$1@bg2....

"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?

Conventional bombing.

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.

Where do get this nonsense from? The Strategic Bombing Survey states -
"Bombing altitudes after 9 March 1945 were lower, in both day and night
attacks. Japanese opposition was not effective even at the lower altitudes,
and the percentage of losses to enemy action declined as the number of
attacking planes increased. Bomb loads increased and operating losses
declined in part due to less strain on engines at lower altitudes. Bombing
accuracy increased substantially, and averaged 35 to 40 percent within 1,000
feet of the aiming point in daylight attacks from 20,000 feet or lower."