Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological achievements

"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.

"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

"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 11:39:57 GMT, "weary" wrote:


a major arsenal, a chemical plant (that happened to be producing
mustard
gas and cynagen chloride agents), an air base, rail facilities, and so
on.

All of which could have been destroyed by conventional means.


Like the 16 sq miles of tokyo was in March 1945 perhaps ?

No. Do try to follow the thread. Back up a couple of lines and you
can read that the previous correspondent tried to justify the bombing
of Hiroshima on the grounds that there were military and industrial assets
in the city. However the aiming point was a bridge in a mainly residential
area and the assets were only lightly damaged. The incendiary raids
on Tokyo deliberately targetted civilians, not military or industrial
assets.


With military targets located in the cities, the cities were legitimate
targets.
The difference between the 1945 nuclear strikes and 9-11 is that in
1945,
there was a WAR ON that had to be brought to an end by whatever means
necessary.

But you deny others the same right.


Of course, to allow idiots like you to sleep safe at night.

Bad news - it isn't working, if we are to believe the number
of heightened terror alerts. Besides, I have never asked nor do I
want my government to kill civilians so that I can sleep safe
at night. As a matter of fact, if I knew that is what my government
was doing, I would not sleep safe at night.

"Matt Wiser" wrote in message
news:3fe70de0$1@bg2....

"weary" wrote:

"Matt Wiser" wrote
in message
news:3fe49de1$1@bg2....

"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.




For weary: I'm the one who stated that however
many cities had to be
destroyed
by the 509th's B-29s. Military targets WERE
located in said cities.
Hiroshima
had the 2nd General Army HQ, a Railroad line
and depot, a airfield and
port
facility, and a division's worth of troops
garrisoned there. Nagasaki:
Mistubushi
aircraft works, a torpedo factory, port facilities
and related
infrastructure,
an air base, etc. Kokura (would've been hit
on 9 Aug if not for
weather)had
a major arsenal, a chemical plant (that happened
to be producing mustard
gas and cynagen chloride agents), an air base,
rail facilities, and so on.

All of which could have been destroyed by conventional
means.

With military targets located in the cities,
the cities were legitimate
targets.
The difference between the 1945 nuclear strikes
and 9-11 is that in 1945,
there was a WAR ON that had to be brought
to an end by whatever means
necessary.

But you deny others the same right.

If that meant destroying cities to prevent
two invasions of the Japanese
Home Islands, so be it. What would you rather
risk: several B-29 aircrews
on the missions, or 766,000 soldiers and Marines
in the U.S. 6th Army
hitting
the beaches of Kyushu on or after 1 November?
Not to mention the American
and British aircrews and sailors directly
supporting the invasion.
Al-Queda
started the war on terror on 9-11 with a massacre.

No they didn't . The war was declared by OBL
in 1995, IIRC.

They may have started
the war, but we'll finish it.



You still haven't answered the question: drop the bomb or invade.

False dichotomy. There are were many major US players, both military and
civilian who wanted to use a third option, diplomacy, to end the war.
The Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that the Japanese would have
surrendered without the use of the bombs before November.

"weary" wrote in message
...
Which doesn't answer my question about a country saving lives of its
servicemen by using WMD. It seems that some regard the use as OK
if their side does it but bad if the other side does it.



From a Pratt and Whitney ad in the October 2001 issue of "Air Force
Magazine".

THERE IS NO SECTION TITLED,
"THE UNFAIR USE OF TECHNOLOGY"
IN THE GENEVA CONVENTION.

Tex Houston

"Gregory Baker" wrote in message
nk.net...


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?

Actually, he did in the war against Iran; however, this absolute right
was tempered by international treaties on the laws of war which restrict
the use of poison gases in combat, to which Iraq was a signatory. He
used mustard gas, a blister agent, against Iranian forces. However, the
Hussein regime did not have the right to use nerve gas on civilians in
rebellion. Firstly, there were other, less drastic means to suppress
any demonstrations, as any competent army will use. The use of nerve
gas on Shiites and Kurds was to spread terror. Secondly, under the 1954

Are you sure of this date? The latest I can find is dated 1949 with
additional Protocols in 1977.

Geneva conventions, internal wars and their combatants also fall under
the same restrictions as international wars. The blanket prohibition
against using poison as a weapon applies. Any tribunal will be right to
try Saddam and his assistants for the use of this weapon.

Did Al-Qaeda have the same right to deliberately target civilians in
their
war with the USA, specifically WTC?

No. Al-Queda is not a state and as such cannot declare war.

Online see Wikipedia:
"is any conflict involving the organized use of arms and physical force
between

countries or other large-scale armed groups. "

Other dictionaries Support the notion that war does not necessarily involve

countries.

GWB described Sept 11 as "war" and subsequently declared war

on terrorism. The US had previously declared war on crime and drugs.

Al-Queda
is a combination of private persons united by ideology. They don't fall
under the 1906 Hague Convention definition of legitimate combatants, nor
under the 1954 Geneva Convention extension of these rules.

The United
States actions against al-Queda fall into the category of suppression of
criminals or pirates, not warfare between states. The acts of September
11 were by international law murder, not warfare.

Gregory Baker

From: "weary"


Besides, I have never asked nor do I
want my government to kill civilians so that I can sleep safe
at night. As a matter of fact, if I knew that is what my government
was doing, I would not sleep safe at night.


Tell ya what, get the bad guys to move their military targets away from
civilian populations and the civilians will stop dying. That is true for all
countries and organizations including the U.S. and Al Quaida.

Your insistance that civilians were deliberatly targeted in Hiroshima and
Nagasaki would only hold water if the military targets were no where near
civilian population centers.

I ask again, how would YOU have taken out the military targets in Nagasaki and
Hiroshima without harming civilians.

As a Jew I take offense at your comparing Dachau to Hiroshima. Many thousands
of humans died there, not just Jews, but I have been there and have seen the
grave markers.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 00:58:16 GMT, "weary" wrote:


All of which could have been destroyed by conventional means.


Like the 16 sq miles of tokyo was in March 1945 perhaps ?

No. Do try to follow the thread.

Your laughable attempt at evasion is noted. You claimed that

"All of which could have been destroyed by conventional means."

I am asking you to tell us how.

Back up a couple of lines and you
can read that the previous correspondent tried to justify the bombing
of Hiroshima on the grounds that there were military and industrial assets
in the city.

He didn't have to try. The military and industrial assets in Hiroshima were
well documented.

I ask you like I've asked all the other revisionists. Tell us how *you*
would have targeted these facilities and these facilities using the
technology of the period.

However the aiming point was a bridge in a mainly residential
area and the assets were only lightly damaged.

ROFLMAO! Like all those who blindly regurgitate indoctrination, I bet you
cannot name a single one.


The incendiary raids
on Tokyo deliberately targetted civilians, not military or industrial
assets.

It targeted the distributed nature of the japanese war industry which was
turning out the means to kill millions of Chinese in 10s of thousands of
back yard workshops up and down the kanto plain.

If you had even a modicum of clue on the topic, you would be aware of that.


With military targets located in the cities, the cities were legitimate
targets.
The difference between the 1945 nuclear strikes and 9-11 is that in
1945,
there was a WAR ON that had to be brought to an end by whatever means
necessary.

But you deny others the same right.


Of course, to allow idiots like you to sleep safe at night.

Bad news - it isn't working,

The opinion of uninformed idiots doesn't count. Especially those who claim
that military targets in hiroshima managed to escape unscathed.


greg


--
Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland.
I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan.
You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide.

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 01:03:40 GMT, "weary" wrote:



False dichotomy. There are were many major US players, both military and
civilian who wanted to use a third option, diplomacy, to end the war.

Oh really.

Name them with references.




greg

--
Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland.
I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan.
You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide.

Subject: Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological
achievements
From: (B2431)
Date: 12/27/03 8:48 PM Pacific

As a Jew I take offense at your comparing Dachau to Hiroshima. Many thousands
of humans died there, not just Jews, but I have been there and have seen the
grave markers.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

I entered Dachau a few days after it was liberated and before it was cleaned
up.I still have the bad dreams.



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer