Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological achievements

Glenn Jacobs wrote:

Actually Nanking wasn't much different from the rest of Japanese occupied
China, Korea and other areas. Recall that the Japanese used Chinese
Prisoners of War for bayonet practice for their troops. Japanese troops
were required to kill prisoners of war to get them ready for killing on the
battlefront. Japanese Army Officers were required to behead Chinese
Prisoners of War to toughen them up.

Until the 1970's when it was finally discontinued, the South Koreans
had a postage stamp dipicting a Japanese soldier tossing an Korean
infant up in the air and ctaching it on his bayonnet.

--
Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service) (dot) com

"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.

"weary" wrote:

"Matt Wiser" wrote
in message
news:3fdb5db4$1@bg2....

"Sunny" wrote:

"Polybus"
wrote
in message
. com...
Peter Kuznick,
Professor of History and Director, Nuclear
Studies Institute, American
University

Kevin Martin
Executive Director, Peace Action

Daniel Ellsberg
Author, Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and
The
Pentagon Papers

Questions :
1. Do the three retards listed above,
condone
the cross posting to the
groups listed ?
2. Does Peter Kuznick really study History
(or only his version of it)?
3. Do any of the three realise that there
was a World War on at the
time?
4. What would you have suggested, at
the
time, as the means to subdue a
fanatical enemy, that had proved to demonstrate
acts of barbarism that are
still wondered at?




They all seem to think that if we had talked
nicely to the Japanese,
they
would have surrendered. Not bloody likely.
There was a war on, a major
invasion
planned of Kyushu in November, and ANY MEANS
to prevent the bloodbath of
American, British, and yes, Japanese lives
and END THE WAR ASAP is a
viable
option. If that means incinerating two, three,
or however many Japanese
Cities
by the bombs carried by the 509th's B-29s,
so be it.

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?



Absolutely not. The rules of war, written or othewise, have changed. Saddam's
use of WMD was in violation of the 1925 CBW Treaty, which Iraq had signed.

As for Al-Queda, that was an act of terrorism and war, and anyone who committs
such acts deserves death. No mercy, no quarter, no questions asked. Comparing
Hiroshima/Nagasaki to 9/11 is like apples and oranges. I had a grandfather
who would've been in Kyushu for the invasion-his unit was heading from England
thru Suez to Australia, then up to the Marianas and Okinawa to Japan. They
had just gotten their shots for the Pacific when the bombs fell. They knew
then they were going home alive and two years sooner. Enough said.

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

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

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

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

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

Apologies for the length of this one; I've left a lot in for context.
(And removed rec.arts.movies.current-films, rec.food.cooking and
rec.travel.air to avoid excessive off-topicness.)

In article ,
john wrote:

On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:22:48 -0800, Steve Hix
wrote:

In article ,
john wrote:

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 19:07:03 -0800, Steve Hix
wrote:

In article ,
john wrote:

Maybe you could share with us the name of the newspapers you believe
might also answer the questions you raised in an article about Iraqi
unemployment.

You might also share with us the names of the TV news outlets you
follow for reliable news coverage. It might be telling.

It may be more telling that you can't seem to conceive of getting you
news other than predigested (and from a very narrow range of sources,
judging from previous comments).

Ever thought of going to primary sources?

Please share with us your "primary sources".

The same sources that various news agencies resort to; FBI, Department
of Justice stats, CDC, CIA open publications, etc. etc. etc.

The problem with the news sources that you brought up (the same as any
other secondary source) is that they have to pick and choose from the
huge mass of available data, and select what they're going to include in
their releases. The selection process is where the bias effects show up.

I doubt that the major news agencies have any conscious, organized
conspiracy in operation...but they certainly tend to see the world in
roughly the same way. They make assumptions before looking at the data,
and toss out whatever doesn't fit their world view right from the
beginning. If you're depending on them for your information, then you're
necessarily lacking information that might actually better describe
what's happening.

And, apparently, you don't even know that that is what is happening.

Could al-jazera TV be one of you primary sources?

No, Al Jazira is a secondary source. It's one that I look in on
periodically, along with BBC, CNN, FoxNews, ABC, Pacifica, Reuters,
Pravda, Moscow Times, Iraqi sources, Arab Times, Kuwait Times, The Daily
Star (Lebanon), L.A. Times, etc etc etc. Those are all secondary sources.


Mr. Hix:

You are so full of ****.

Good start, John! And ad hominem is so much easier than a real argument,
isn't it?

There are probably hundreds of news items whose subject material you
don't have a primary source to research.

True enough. However, there are a *lot* of primary sources that are
easily accessible. There's no need to blow them off, is there?

Your list of secondary sources is also a joke.

Why, because you don't agree with their positions, or because you hadn't
thought to look around? The list above is not exhaustive, by any means,
just representative.

How many of these secondary sources do you consult BEFORE you believe
an article?

None or more. Depends on the article.
Do you believe an article when you find it has a bias towards your way
of thinking?

Not necessarily, no.

I read the columns of a lot of syndicated columnists. These columnists
cover the left wing and the right wing. I know that and know their
biases.

How nice for you. Still sounds more than a little sparse. But if that's
all you want, fine.

For you to state that the prestigious newspapers I mentioned are too
biased for you to believe anything you read in them does a great
disservice to the excellent reporters who work for these newspapers.

As it happens, john, that is not what I said. Re-read the context above.
Or have someone read it to you, slowly if necessary.

I didn't say that I didn't beleive anything that they publish.

I said that the list you provided was insufficient to get a broad and
correct view of current events.

They (necessarily, given time and space limitations) must pick and
choose what they publish. Fine, so does any other news source.

The problem is that they, without really thinking about it, throw out a
lot of potential content. "If it bleeds, it leads" is not merely a
cliche, it really describes what happens.

An example:

Around December 10, there was an anti-terrorist demonstration put on by
residents of Baghdad. All sorts of political groups, from Communists on
the left all the way as far right as Iraqi politics goes these days;
tribal groups, university and high school students, labor unions, etc.
were represented. Somewhere between 3,000 to 10,000 people marched.

Peacefully. There was no violence by marchers, no violence against
marchers.

The demonstration was witnessed by major news organizations; reporters
and photographers were there.

The western news organizations blew it off. They did not report it, in
most cases, at all. In a couple of cases, it was reported on nearly a
week later. (During the same period, they gave frontpage notice of a
much smaller anti-Coalition demonstration; about 500 strong.)

Why one and not the other?

It's not like it should have been a surprise, since there had been
discussion about the planned demonstration on the web from various
Iraqis.

Here's one of them:

http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/arch...ngiraq_archive.
html#107107940577248802

You would never have known that it was planned, nor that it happened, by
relying on your favored news sources.

If they missed something as obvious as this, what else are they missing?

If they're focusing on bad news in Iraq, which they clearly are, and
mostly ignoring any good news, which other sources do cover, how do you
expect to know what's really going on there?

How can you assume you know what's happening elsewhere in the world?

It's not possible to know everything about everything, nobody could
realistically claim otherwise; but it is certainly possible to know much
more about things you might consider important than what you get from
the usual suspects.

But if that's what floats your boat, kewl.

Just don't be surprised if someone disagrees with you...and has
information to back up their argument that you've never seen.

Expect it to happen more an more as time passes.

"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.

"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

"B2431" wrote in message
...
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.

What is the relevance of who started a war when
the idea of saving servicemens lives is an issue. Besides, it was a war
where the US actively assisted Iraq.