Roe v. Wade: 42 Years in the Past

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
685

My father-in law once told me about when his hometown, Chiba, were I lived for several years, was firebombed in July 1945. He was five years old, and he remembers his grandmother bundling him up in a wet quilt and escaping the firestorm. Allied planes dumped nearly 900 tons of incendiary cluster bombs on the city centre, during the night of the Tanabata star festival, killing 1200 civilians.

Many of the city’s survivors, mostly women, old men and children, took refuge along the river, where they had during previous bombings, but my father-in-law’s grandmother decided against it, and it was a good thing she did. All of the survivors by the river were killed when they were strafed by machine gun fire from P51 fighters.

That is what collateral damage is.

686

I would recommend anyone with an interest in such things to visit the site of the first atomic bombing in Hiroshima. There is a museum there displaying photographs, life-size wax mannikins, and actual fragments of wall and pavement still bearing the etched shadows of the people incinerated by the initial flash.

Once you’ve done that, please watch a Japanese animated film called Hotaru no Haka, or in English, Grave of the Fireflies. It follows the lives of two children orphaned after the March 1947 firebombing of Kobe. Grave of the Fireflies - Wikipedia

I don’t expect anyone who does this to change his opinion of the strategic value or rectitude of incendiary or atomic attacks on civilians, any more than I imagine watching Silent Scream or visiting a site like Abortion pictures at different stages - ClinicQuotes will change the opinion of a staunch pro-abortionist.

But it might give him something to think about.

687

In his book on the subject,Paul Hamm makes the argument that,in effect,neither bomb was necessary…that Japan was ready to surrender. I’ve read several books on the subject including the military report on the bombings. One topic.Americans avoid is revenge. Personally, I believe this was definitely part of the decision to use the bomb. Did Japanese civilians deserve what happened to them? The Japanese military brutalized civilian populations wherever they went.

The Japanese believed themselves racially superior to the rest of Asia. They were also opportunists who took advantage of the.world situation to invade other countries and expand their empire. They raped women,murdered countless people,mutilated people,including slicing off genitals. They forced Korean and many other countries women into sexual slavery for the pleasure of their military. This is to list only a few of their atrocities…should their civilians suffer and be killed because of this? What was their governmentt and military attititude towards civilians of other countries and races?

I’ve answered some of that above. Frankly,I think Japan got what it asked for with its behaviour. They are fortunate that their own ideas of domination weren’t played out on them,as in occupation,exploitation,continual murder and brutality of their civilian population! is this moral? Well,maybe this is an advantage of not being a Christian,I don’t have to try to maintain a moral high ground. Confusion

688

And that narrative is completely false. It’s historical revisionism. I’ve studied The Second World War in depth and I can assure you the hard liners in the Japanese military were still holding out after the bombs. It was a close thing. Fortunately, the relatively less insane faction got the upper hand and convinced the Emperor to announce the war was over. Had this not happened, Japan would’ve fought to the last tooth and nail.

I don’t know why people keep asking these leading questions. No one is suggesting for a moment that civilians deserved to be bombed. That’s not the point. The point is the bombs were intended to save lives, both Japanese and American, because the military’s assessment was that a mainland invasion would lead to more than a million casualties.

The fact is, Japan took advantage of the European colonial powers’ absence. Only Japanese colonialism turned out to be not quite as benign as the Dutch or British.

689

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

Although it did get the job done there’s no way to really know if it saved more lives than it took.
[/quote]

Sure there is.[/quote]

How?

690

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
I would recommend anyone with an interest in such things to visit the site of the first atomic bombing in Hiroshima. There is a museum there displaying photographs, life-size wax mannikins, and actual fragments of wall and pavement still bearing the etched shadows of the people incinerated by the initial flash.

Once you’ve done that, please watch a Japanese animated film called Hotaru no Haka, or in English, Grave of the Fireflies. It follows the lives of two children orphaned after the March 1947 firebombing of Kobe. Grave of the Fireflies - Wikipedia

I don’t expect anyone who does this to change his opinion of the strategic value or rectitude of incendiary or atomic attacks on civilians, any more than I imagine watching Silent Scream or visiting a site like Abortion pictures at different stages - ClinicQuotes will change the opinion of a staunch pro-abortionist.

But it might give him something to think about.[/quote]

Thanks. Will check out those films.

691

[quote]pushharder wrote:
OK, I just returned from the theater after watching the documentary, Patterns of Evidence: Exodus.

Powerful film. Sheer coincidence that I saw it tonight. Never heard of it before 5pm.

Was going to start its own thread but decided to post here due to the last several pages of haggling about evidence, Bible stories, myths, science, scientism, falling away from one’s faith, looking for faith, etc.

It’s about the authenticity of the Exodus story in the Bible and the implications for Judaism and Christianity were that authenticity found wanting.

There are a few of you here like usmc, Beans, SM, Aragorn, and some others who wouldn’t be skeered to view a film that successfully challenges a lot of conventional archeological thinking. For the record I have no faith whatsoever that the Taunters will get anywhere close to this film; to do so would give them the cooties, I’m sure.

The group discussion after the documentary sounded out some things I’ve mentioned over and over again here on PWI about the Bible and faith.

What really struck me was viewing this film on the heel’s of reading Varq’s account of why he fell away from his faith, namely the mountains of purported “scientific and archeological evidence” that was just so overwhelming that a true thinking man really has no choice but to kick the Scripture to the curb and make up your own ideas about God, faith and the Bible.

See what you can do to watch it.[/quote]

The Exodus story,and also the story of Joseph,paint the Jews in a bad light regarding character. It re enforces streotypes about Jews being greedy and making heros out of minipulative and greedy people. Do we already agree on this or should I cite some examples? Disclaimer:I am not saying Jews are any of these things,just that they are portrayed that way in these stories

692

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

And that narrative is completely false. It’s historical revisionism. I’ve studied The Second World War in depth and I can assure you the hard liners in the Japanese military were still holding out after the bombs. It was a close thing. Fortunately, the relatively less insane faction got the upper hand and convinced the Emperor to announce the war was over. Had this not happened, Japan would’ve fought to the last tooth and nail.

I don’t know why people keep asking these leading questions. No one is suggesting for a moment that civilians deserved to be bombed. That’s not the point. The point is the bombs were intended to save lives, both Japanese and American, because the military’s assessment was that a mainland invasion would lead to more than a million casualties.

The fact is, Japan took advantage of the European colonial powers’ absence. Only Japanese colonialism turned out to be not quite as benign as the Dutch or British.[/quote]

Lets be clear about something,the bombs were intended to kill people. I think that when we highlight the argument for saving lives(and I understand that argument),that it distracts attention from the other motives of using the bomb. Some other very important factors include revenge,stopping the Soviets in their tracks and showing them who was boss,and establishing the USA as the dominant power in the world,among other things. Confusion

693

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]pabergin wrote:
Hey Varq,

I appreciate you taking time to discuss.[/quote]

My pleasure.

[quote]Understanding that the bible is imperfect man’s imperfect attempt to describe God, who goes beyond human comprehension and language, and the fact the entire bible perpetually fails to adequately discuss God (due to human imperfection):

How much importance do you assign to those old bible stories you’ve referenced?[/quote]

Old Bible stories? You mean The Creation? The Fall? The Deluge? The Sacrifice of Isaac? The Burning Bush? The Exodus from Egypt? The giving of the Law at to Moses at Sinai? Those old stories? Those are pivotal events in Judaeo-Christian mythology. I think they are terribly important to the people who believe them. How important are they to me? Well, obviously I don’t want them to go away, because so much of Western culture (artwork, music, literature) is intertwined with them (Shakespeare, for example, would be dreadfully impoverished if one were to remove all biblical references from the plays).

Joseph Campbell famously identified Star Wars as our culture’s modern myth.

Would I be misrepresenting Star Wars by emphasising the original trilogy? I mean, the new trilogy had a lot of neat special effects to impress jaded audiences, but it was pretty much a rehash of the originals, with tortured storylines to attempt to explain inconsistencies and answer questions raised by the first three films.

Even the original film in the Star Wars trilogy was a plagiarism of the old Japanese Kurosawa film Kakushitoride no San Akunin, as well as elements of Frank Herbert’s Dune series. It doesn’t make Star Wars any less powerful of a film, but it’s not exactly an original story.

The Star Wars franchise today has become a bloated, heavily revised and re-revised, over-merchandised leviathan, spawning hundreds of imitations, spinoff series and alternative storyline novels, thousands of fan fictions and videos, and billions of dollars in revenue. Sure, Lucas may have given a lot of money to charity, but charity does not absolve atrocity.

What I’m trying to say is, I think Joseph Campbell was more right than he could have known.[/quote]

Varq,

I think we’re on different pages. Probably the same book, though.

I’ll rephrase:

Above, you imply that you don’t believe Christian mythology to be historical fact. Now, if the Bible is inaccurate (historically), why quote it at all?

In another post you stated that God is many good things, just not the God of the Bible. To support your position, you quoted some passages where God demonstrates violence, etc. Now, since you believe the Bible to be inaccurate, isn’t it possible the portions you quoted are also inaccurate?

The source is inaccurate, imperfect.

About Star Wars: Never heard that one before, it’s interesting. Let’s see if anyone remembers it in 2000 years. Seems doubtful in our restless, fickle culture. But American culture is a discussion for another thread.

In other words, you established the Bible to be an invalid source of evidence (due to its imperfections) and then proceeded to quote the Bible as “evidence.” Although I could be mixed up. I hope I’m clear, sometimes I’m the only one who understands me.

EDITED

694

[quote]confusion wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

And that narrative is completely false. It’s historical revisionism. I’ve studied The Second World War in depth and I can assure you the hard liners in the Japanese military were still holding out after the bombs. It was a close thing. Fortunately, the relatively less insane faction got the upper hand and convinced the Emperor to announce the war was over. Had this not happened, Japan would’ve fought to the last tooth and nail.

I don’t know why people keep asking these leading questions. No one is suggesting for a moment that civilians deserved to be bombed. That’s not the point. The point is the bombs were intended to save lives, both Japanese and American, because the military’s assessment was that a mainland invasion would lead to more than a million casualties.

The fact is, Japan took advantage of the European colonial powers’ absence. Only Japanese colonialism turned out to be not quite as benign as the Dutch or British.[/quote]

Lets be clear about something,the bombs were intended to kill people. I think that when we highlight the argument for saving lives(and I understand that argument),that it distracts attention from the other motives of using the bomb. Some other very important factors include revenge,stopping the Soviets in their tracks and showing them who was boss,and establishing the USA as the dominant power in the world,among other things. Confusion
[/quote]

There was no element of “revenge”. On the contrary, the allies were extremely magnanimous with the Japanese. Far more so than the Germans. The Germans lost a great deal of territory, had millions of citizens relocated, and many war criminals tried and executed. By contrast, Japan got to keep their Emperor and there were hardly any war crimes trials at all. If memory serves me correctly, there was only one Japanese war criminal executed after the war. Literally millions of Japanese committed egregious war crimes in Manchuria and elsewhere and they got away with it. Hell, one of my distant relatives was a nurse who was ship wrecked after a Japanese attack and then they machine gunned her and the other nurses on the beach when they tried to surrender.

695

Yep. The atheist account of the early Israelites based upon archeological research suggests there was no violent conquest of Canaan; that it was a peaceful transition to a revolutionary new religion.

696

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]confusion wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

And that narrative is completely false. It’s historical revisionism. I’ve studied The Second World War in depth and I can assure you the hard liners in the Japanese military were still holding out after the bombs. It was a close thing. Fortunately, the relatively less insane faction got the upper hand and convinced the Emperor to announce the war was over. Had this not happened, Japan would’ve fought to the last tooth and nail.

I don’t know why people keep asking these leading questions. No one is suggesting for a moment that civilians deserved to be bombed. That’s not the point. The point is the bombs were intended to save lives, both Japanese and American, because the military’s assessment was that a mainland invasion would lead to more than a million casualties.

The fact is, Japan took advantage of the European colonial powers’ absence. Only Japanese colonialism turned out to be not quite as benign as the Dutch or British.[/quote]

Lets be clear about something,the bombs were intended to kill people. I think that when we highlight the argument for saving lives(and I understand that argument),that it distracts attention from the other motives of using the bomb. Some other very important factors include revenge,stopping the Soviets in their tracks and showing them who was boss,and establishing the USA as the dominant power in the world,among other things. Confusion
[/quote]

There was no element of “revenge”. On the contrary, the allies were extremely magnanimous with the Japanese. Far more so than the Germans. The Germans lost a great deal of territory, had millions of citizens relocated, and many war criminals tried and executed. By contrast, Japan got to keep their Emperor and there were hardly any war crimes trials at all. If memory serves me correctly, there was only one Japanese war criminal executed after the war. Literally millions of Japanese committed egregious war crimes in Manchuria and elsewhere and they got away with it. Hell, one of my distant relatives was a nurse who was ship wrecked after a Japanese attack and then they machine gunned her and the other nurses on the beach when they tried to surrender.[/quote]

We can agree.to disagree on that one. The reason we were fighting the war was for revenge,so…anyway,many Americans,and I believe Truman also,wanted the Japanese punished for what.they.did to us…Confusion

697

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Yep. The atheist account of the early Israelites based upon archeological research suggests there was no violent conquest of Canaan; that it was a peaceful transition to a revolutionary new religion.[/quote]

It’s not the atheist account, it’s the honest one. It’s the conclusion of the Jewish archaeologists commissioned by David Ben Gurion (telling them to “find the title deeds” to the land of Israel), but who ultimately failed to find any evidence of a mass Hebrew exodus from Egypt.

698

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Yep. The atheist account of the early Israelites based upon archeological research suggests there was no violent conquest of Canaan; that it was a peaceful transition to a revolutionary new religion.[/quote]

It’s not the atheist account, it’s the honest one. It’s the conclusion of the Jewish archaeologists commissioned by David Ben Gurion (telling them to “find the title deeds” to the land of Israel), but who ultimately failed to find any evidence of a mass Hebrew exodus from Egypt. [/quote]

You need to study up varqareeno and get right with Jesus. :slight_smile:

699

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
I would recommend anyone with an interest in such things to visit the site of the first atomic bombing in Hiroshima. There is a museum there displaying photographs, life-size wax mannikins, and actual fragments of wall and pavement still bearing the etched shadows of the people incinerated by the initial flash.
[/quote]

I’ve been. It was definitely an experience I’ll never forget.

700

Whoa shit! I am behind.