Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological achievements

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."

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.

In short it is my opinion you made a rather poor analogy.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"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.

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

"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

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 11:42:40 GMT, "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

And it is clear that you think that they are right. They are not, and we will
hunt them down.


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

That's what AQ thinks of the USA.

Once again, you think that they are right. You are either massively
mis-informed or you simply hate the US. In either case, welcome to my
kill file.

Al Minyard

"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 11:42:40 GMT, "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

And it is clear that you think that they are right. They are not, and we
will
hunt them down.

An irrational conclusion from what I wrote, but what I expect from you.



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

That's what AQ thinks of the USA.

Once again, you think that they are right.

And once again an irrational conclusion.

You are either massively
mis-informed or you simply hate the US.

Actually I'm just stating or summarising what is in the public
domain regarding statements by AQ.

In either case, welcome to my
kill file.

Tell someone who cares.

A very mature response to hearing bad news - shoot the messenger.

"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. In case you forgot:
Pearl Harbor's treachery was rewarded at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 9-11's treachery
has been partially rewarded with the Taliban who sheltered AQ and OBL reduced
to a low-level insurgency. And OBL and his inner circle (those still alive
and free) running for their worthless lives. AQ will be harder to kill. But
killed they will be: no quarter given. They didn't give any to the airline
passengers and crew on 9-11. So why should they expect any when they are
found and given one chance to give up? If they do give up-military tribunal
for violating the laws and customs of war, followed by either a needle or
noose. If they don't... well, KIA works for me.

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

"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" 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!

From: "weary"


"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.

Neither of us mentioned Kuwait, we said Iran.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired