Jimmy Carter Praises Arafat

[Gustav32Vasa]

This is BS. Surrender does not entail this level of submission, and the U.S. troops would never have behaved so barbarically.

Can I ask again how could a very brain-washed Japanese population know about the civility of western troops? Probably they truly believed that the alternative to fight would be the slaughter, and that I think was BS point.

It's irrelevant, really, what they thought. What matters is that the moment they determine to fight U.S. troops, and take up weapons to do so, they become legitimate targets. Moreover, the fact that everywhere U.S. troops had previously enountered Japanese civilians they had taken an active part in defense, plus the fact that U.S. intel indicated weapons were being issued to Japanese civilians and they were being formed into units that would fight, gave the U.S. military every reason to regard Japanese civilians as legitimate targets.

So if a civilian carries a weapon they are free targets?

[Aaron]

Another irrelevent knee-jerk reaction to critisism of the US government, what a surprise.

You have still yet to offer any alternatives to what actually happened. What would Truman have to do for him not to be a terrorist in your eyes?

As a sidenote you evidently have no idea how war works, or the laws governing it.

[Colonel Olrik]

The actions of a president, who in a time of total war, made a difficult choice and took the course he believed would end the war, and cost the fewest lives in the end (both American and Japanese), are not similar to a terrorist who is guilty of kidnapping and murder, instigating violence, and walking away from the Oslo accords and launching another campaign of violence, despite the fact that the accords were an unprecedented diplomatic victory (showing that Arafat was interested in neither peace with Israel or diplomacy; but only in getting all he wanted by any means necessary, even violence).

The situations are not equal. Then again, the world is not black and white. What do you suppose were Arafat's options? There's a reason violent attacks on the civilian population have been used by desperate groups since forever, and it's the same reasoning behind the atomic bombings. It terrorizes the population into submission. It's not even a matter of religion, IRA and ETA never striked me as muslims.

As for the Oslo accords, of course it would be an unprecedented diplomatic victory. It would also be, if you examine them, not reasonably enough.

edit: added "into submission"

[Elfdart]

Not even Harry Potter with all the magic in the world could turn this projection into "killing legitimate millitary targets".

What are you trying to say here?

Not relevant. You can't escape it, it's not going anywhere; killing innocents on purpose is terrorism. There WERE innocent civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, another inescapable fact.

I'm going to spell it out for you.The Japanese civvies became legitimate military targets once they became involved in the fighting. The Japanese government was arming them in preperation for an invasion

Do you have any idea how the Geneva Conventions and Laws of War work? If civilians engage in combat then they become illegal combatants and legitimate targets.

Only those civilians who actually take up arms are legitimate targets, unless you subscribe to the doctrine of Col. John Chivington, who said "Nits grow into lice."

[Aaron]

So if a civilian carries a weapon they are free targets?

In order to be a legitimate target they either have to be a soldier or a terrorist/illegal combatant. An illegal combatant carries a weapon but wears no uniform, or carries any ID. However just carrying a weapon does not make you a target. You have to be engaging the other side with that weapon. Other wise it would be open season on police in war zones.

[Aaron]

Only those civilians who actually take up arms are legitimate targets, unless you subscribe to the doctrine of Col. John Chivington, who said "Nits grow into lice."

How does this change our arguement? The Japanese civilians were being armed and formed into units. They took up arms, and were ready to fight. Ergo they are targets.

[Perinquus]

Come off it. He's making a bullshit attempt to equate the actions of Harry Truman with the actions of Yasser Arafat.

Learn to read, asshole. I never equated their actions with each other. I equated them to the word "terrorism".

Oh, I see. You don't equate them with each other. You just equate them both with a third term. And that doesn't, in any way equate them with each other. No. Not at all.

You know, maybe you can rationalize and fool yourself with bullshit like this. You're not fooling anyone else.

The actions of a president, who in a time of total war, made a difficult choice and took the course he believed would end the war, and cost the fewest lives in the end (both American and Japanese), are not similar to a terrorist who is guilty of kidnapping and murder, instigating violence, and walking away from the Oslo accords and launching another campaign of violence, despite the fact that the accords were an unprecedented diplomatic victory (showing that Arafat was interested in neither peace with Israel or diplomacy; but only in getting all he wanted by any means necessary, even violence).

Another irrelevent knee-jerk reaction to critisism of the US government, what a surprise.

No, another irritated response to a stupid argument attempting to put Harry Truman on the same moral plane as a terrorist shitbag like Yasser Arafat.

[BoredShirtless]

It's irrelevant, really, what they thought. What matters is that the moment they determine to fight U.S. troops, and take up weapons to do so, they become legitimate targets. Moreover, the fact that everywhere U.S. troops had previously enountered Japanese civilians they had taken an active part in defense, plus the fact that U.S. intel indicated weapons were being issued to Japanese civilians and they were being formed into units that would fight, gave the U.S. military every reason to regard Japanese civilians as legitimate targets.

What about the babies, the old folks, and the people who opposed the Emperor? Where they armed too? Would they have fought?

[Perinquus]

Come off it. He's making a bullshit attempt to equate the actions of Harry Truman with the actions of Yasser Arafat.

Learn to read, asshole. I never equated their actions with each other. I equated them to the word "terrorism".

Oh, I see. You don't equate them with each other. You just equate them both with the same term. And that doesn't, in any way equate them with each other. No. Not at all. X = 1000, and Y = 1000. But X and Y are not the same. Up is down. Black is white.

You know, maybe you can rationalize and fool yourself with bullshit like this. You're not fooling anyone else.

The actions of a president, who in a time of total war, made a difficult choice and took the course he believed would end the war, and cost the fewest lives in the end (both American and Japanese), are not similar to a terrorist who is guilty of kidnapping and murder, instigating violence, and walking away from the Oslo accords and launching another campaign of violence, despite the fact that the accords were an unprecedented diplomatic victory (showing that Arafat was interested in neither peace with Israel or diplomacy; but only in getting all he wanted by any means necessary, even violence).

Another irrelevent knee-jerk reaction to critisism of the US government, what a surprise.

No, another irritated response to a stupid argument attempting to put Harry Truman on the same moral plane as a terrorist shitbag like Yasser Arafat.

[Colonel Olrik]

Oh, I see. You don't equate them with each other. You just equate them both with a third term. And that doesn't, in any way equate them with each other. No. Not at all.

Think fuzzy, not black and white.

Terrorism ={0,1}, 0 = white dove, 1 = Bin Laden

You can say Truman =0.3 and Arafat = 0.6, you're still equating both to terrorism and not equating them to each other

[Aaron]

What about the babies, the old folks, and the people who opposed the Emperor? Where they armed too? Would they have fought?

Do you have any idea what life was like in Japan in that era? Loyalty to the Emperor was absolute, they beleived he was descended from the Gods. There may have been an opposition to him but I've never seen any proof of it. They would have been executed anyways.

The old folks, in Japan they were being armed and were expected to fight too. Just like the German Volksguard in Germany but without uniforms or firearms.

The babies, I will conceed that they are innocent. But they most likely would have been killed during the invasion or killed by their parents like at Okinawa.

[BoredShirtless]

Oh, I see. You don't equate them with each other. You just equate them both with a third term. And that doesn't, in any way equate them with each other. No. Not at all.

so I guess my left arm is equal to my right arm, because they are both equal in mass, huh? Idiot.

No, another irritated response to a stupid argument attempting to put Harry Truman on the same moral plane as a terrorist shitbag like Yasser Arafat.

Do yourself a favour and learn to read, then buy a dictionary.

[BoredShirtless]

The babies, I will conceed that they are innocent.

Thanks, concession accepted.

[Aaron]

Thanks, concession accepted.

Yeah but you'll just ignore the fact that they would have been killed regardless of the course of action chosen by Truman.

[Perinquus]

It's irrelevant, really, what they thought. What matters is that the moment they determine to fight U.S. troops, and take up weapons to do so, they become legitimate targets. Moreover, the fact that everywhere U.S. troops had previously enountered Japanese civilians they had taken an active part in defense, plus the fact that U.S. intel indicated weapons were being issued to Japanese civilians and they were being formed into units that would fight, gave the U.S. military every reason to regard Japanese civilians as legitimate targets.

What about the babies, the old folks, and the people who opposed the Emperor? Where they armed too? Would they have fought?

Now you are attempting to paint the U.S as unjust because of the large amount of collateral damage that was done. Killing the civilians who couldn't fight along with the ones who could.

Poor lad. Apparently, someone, somewhere along the line told you that life was fair. The just would never be punished with the unjust. Bad things aren't supposed to happen to good people.

Greetings stranger. Allow me to welcome you to earth. Here, on this unfortunate world, we are sometimes faced with the necessity of choosing the lesser of two evils - a situation that does not appear to happen on whatever world you come from.

Of course, lots of innocent people were killed. Many of the victims were little children who had never harmed anyone. Many others were old people who'd have had difficulty killing a housefly, much less an armed soldier or marine. This was an awful tragedy. Truman was very well aware that people like this would be killed, but he made the decision to drop the bomb anyway, because even with all this horror, it was still the less costly, less horrible course to take. Not only would more Americans be killed, but more Japanese - killed in air raids, artillery barrages, by enraged troops being shot at by civilians, in the famine and disease that inevitably accompany the devastation of warfare, etc.

Truman was able to make this decision because unlike you, he didn't demand impossible to meet standards of morality. He lived in the real world. He made what appeared to be the least objectionable choice available to him. A third option that restricted the damage of war only to the actual, weapon carrying combatants, did not exist. A fact you appear not to recognize.

[Colonel Olrik]

And all that, Perinquus, doesn't change the fact that the bombing successfully terminated the war by terrorizing the japanese into submission. What course of action would you have taken if you were in Arafat's shoes? Talk nicely to the Israelis will they kick you in the nuts and generally don't care?

[Aaron]

And all that, Perinquus, doesn't change the fact that the bombing successfully terminated the war by terrorizing the japanese into submission. What course of action would you have taken if you were in Arafat's shoes? Talk nicely to the Israelis will they kick you in the nuts and generally don't care?

Actually it only terrorized the Emperor. The military was quite willing to fight on and completely destroy Japan in the process.

[HemlockGrey]

And all that, Perinquus, doesn't change the fact that the bombing successfully terminated the war by terrorizing the japanese into submission. What course of action would you have taken if you were in Arafat's shoes? Talk nicely to the Israelis will they kick you in the nuts and generally don't care?

I think he should have accepted the Oslo Accords. Yeah, they were a totally shit deal, but at least he would have gained official statehood, and that would have given Palestine at least some official status and strengthend its bargaining position and its PR with some of the rest of the world.

[frigidmagi]

What course of action would you have taken if you were in Arafat's shoes? Talk nicely to the Israelis will they kick you in the nuts and generally don't care?

Military resistence does not require blowing up Pregent women walking in the park or schoolchildren on a school bus. Stop trying to paint this has black and white.

[Colonel Olrik]

And all that, Perinquus, doesn't change the fact that the bombing successfully terminated the war by terrorizing the japanese into submission. What course of action would you have taken if you were in Arafat's shoes? Talk nicely to the Israelis will they kick you in the nuts and generally don't care?

Actually it only terrorized the Emperor. The military was quite willing to fight on and completely destroy Japan in the process.

Some of the military. I'm pretty sure the sane ones became well aware that their country was facing the eminent risk of being scratched off the map, all their loved ones dead. Terrorizing people works.

[Aaron]

Some of the military. I'm pretty sure the sane ones became well aware that their country was facing the eminent risk of being scratched off the map, all their loved ones dead. Terrorizing people works.

Well it may have scared some of them. But the ones that called the shots were willing to go down in flames. The only reason they surrendered was because the Emperor ordered them too. And the only reason they obeyed was because they worshiped him.

[BoredShirtless]

Life is tough Perinquus? That's the most pathetic and irrelevent reason anyone on this thread has tried offering. It doesn't change the fact that nuking innocent civilians on purpose is a terrorist act, try again.

[frigidmagi]

That's the most pathetic and irrelevent reason anyone on this thread has tried offering.

No what's Pathetic is you demanding evidence and when you're given it changing gears and running to a different thread.

[Colonel Olrik]

What course of action would you have taken if you were in Arafat's shoes? Talk nicely to the Israelis will they kick you in the nuts and generally don't care?

Military resistence does not require blowing up Pregent women walking in the park or schoolchildren on a school bus. Stop trying to paint this has black and white.

His options to resist militarly are greatly handicapped by Israel's tanks and aircraft, not that they didn't try some times.

[Aaron]

Life is tough Perinquus? That's the most pathetic and irrelevent reason anyone on this thread has tried offering. It doesn't change the fact that nuking innocent civilians on purpose is a terrorist act, try again.

We have already established that the majority of the Japanese civil populace were illegal combatants and therefore legitimate targets. Truman took the option that would cost theleast lives on either side. All these points are established facts, and the fact that you refuse to accept them makes you either an idiot or some idealist with no basis in reality.