War

QNX Newsgroups (Archives) qdn.public.qnxrtp.advocacy
161

“Rennie Allen” <RAllen@csical.com> wrote in message
news:64F00D816A85D51198390050046F80C9C8DA@exchangecal.hq.csical.com…

The difference between Hiroshima, and the WTC isn’t frigg’n rocket
science. One was the ENDING act of a war that was STARTED by the
country of which Hiroshima was a part; the other was the STARTING act of
a new war.

The SIMILARITIES between the two isn’t frigg’n rocket science either.

Once a war is STARTED, INNOCENT people are going to DIE.
This sucks bigtime. If you don’t like it (the fact that innocent people
die during war), then you should not be defending people (or countries)
who START wars, or criticizing those who END wars.

I can criticize those who end wars all I friggin want, you have no right to
tell me not to. You can tell me my argument is hogwash and unjustified -
hell you can call it stupid for all you want. I, honestly, don’t really
care. Did the USA have to bomb a friggin CIVILIAN CITY to make a point to
the Japanese GOVERMENT and EMPEROR??!?!?!?! They didn’t have to bomb it at
all. Their public reasoning, at the time, for dropping the bomb wasn’t the
true motive.

Would I like to have
seen W.W.II end without Hiroshima or Nagasaki ? You bet (and I believe
that it could, and should have ended without either of these events);

So now YOU are criticizing what I was not alloud?

am I going to criticize the country who, while defending itself from
aggression, used the nuclear bomb to END the war ? No, I have no moral
justification to do so, based on my fundamental belief that nations (and
individuals) have a right to do whatever they themselves deem necessary
to defend themselves from aggressors

So you’d have no problem with America nuking Afghanastan? The end result
may be the same - but the means of getting there would be against MY moral
justification.

The U.S. has suffered a lot of national guilt over Hiroshima and
Nagasaki (this is as it should be - it has made a better nation), but
the guilt is not over whether the right to use the bomb existed (this
is without question), but whether the need to use the bomb existed. I
have never heard anyone (prior to today) suggest that the U.S.
(specifically Harry Truman, since he essentially made the decision) were
cowards for using the bomb to end W.W.II (although many have
-rightfully- questioned whether the decision was sound, in retrospect).

I was not calling anyone a coward - I was simply trying to convey that his
definition of “coward” was incorrect.

If Hitler had one the war the same way, do you think the Nazi’s would
still be agonizing over whether they actually needed to use the bomb,
or whether they could have done something that cost fewer human lives ?

Who cares? This is completely besides the point.

I don’t. Could I entertain the characterization of Hitler as a coward ?
You bet, since he would have been killing innocent people in order to
finish a war that he STARTED (in order to get HIS WAY).

The definition of coward does not fit the context you use it in. A coward
is someone who “shows fear in the face of danger or pain”. Someone who
kills innocent people to get his way is not a coward, by definition. Low
moral standards, perhaps… but you can’t label someone a coward for
sacrificing his life by flying a plane into a building.

I already told you I don’t want to debate American’s very
questionable/hypocritical foreign policies or her hypocritical history. I
already said these attacks were unjustified and that she has my
condolences - and my assistance, if required.

162

Because the Palestinians initiated the terror attacks on the Israelis
?

And what are the reasons for them doing so? Could they be justified?
Or is any attack of any nature disagreeable with you? Oh wait… only the
attacks undertaken by your country are acceptable and just, in the name of
God.

163

“Rennie Allen” <RAllen@csical.com> wrote in message
news:64F00D816A85D51198390050046F80C9C8DD@exchangecal.hq.csical.com…

You seem to be mixing the concept of nuclear fusion, and nuclear
synthesis. According to what I have read, synthesis is comprised of the
set of reactions that produce elements heavier than iron. These
reactions yield less energy than they consume (thus producing heavy
elements, and proving to be really sucky for bombs, which in general
should produce more energy than they consume > :wink:> .

I did not know proper term and I did not know that term ‘synthesis’ was
already taken for something else. So I used it as it seemed to be generic
enough to describe the process.

What I implied (and it was deliberately implied) that you were
“forgetting”, was that Russia lost a substantial competition. You had
implied that Americans always seem to “forget” that Russia was first out
of the gate. Well, if you watch a horse race, you probably don’t
remember who was first out of the gate, it’s who crosses the finishing
line that is memorable.

So you consider sending man on the Moon a ‘finish line’? That would be
rather modest goal. I actually thought of it as ‘out of gate’ event, just
different gate. Amd finish is not even in sight yet :wink:

And if you have higher goals in mind, then why so much pride in being first
on Moon? Sorry Rennie, you are being totally unreasonable here. Americans
just can’t come to terms with the fact they were beaten, so they cope with
it using ‘selective education’ and ‘selective memory’. That’s all what it
is.

Huh ? You think that when there is a genocidal maniac killing people by
the truckload, and you decide your gonna take him out, that you should
give him weapons and fuel (just to make it a fair fight). That Igor, is
the most insane statement I have ever heard.

I did not say you should haven given him weapons and fuel. I said
Yugoslavia as country was denied right to self defense, by UN embargo on
weapons/fuel export to them.

Your argument is pathetic Igor. We all know that once a war starts
innocent people are going to die. Less people died because the U.S.
undertook the action, than if it did not.

So you’re applying ‘statistical value’ to lives of innocent people. That
makes previous arguments about upholding value of human life quite pathetic.

You also can’t deny there are dual standards in US foreign policy. Why
does
not US bomb Israel for systematic openly admitted killings of
palestinians?

Because the Palestinians initiated the terror attacks on the Israelis
?

May be that’s because they were uprooted from their homes and had to flee
when Israel was formed in the first place? You realize, nobody asked their
opinion when UN resolution creating Israel was issued? So who’s initiated
what?

Israel responds to Palestinian acts, with restraint, not wholescale
genocide, it is easy to see the difference.

Definition of restraint is very subjective. Looking at numbers of killed
palestinians and israelis, one may doubt that there’s sufficient restraint.
Israeli policy of ‘tracking and killing’ whomever they want is heavily
criticized by whole world, including even US. I don’t know another state in
the world which openly kills people without any kind of trial. However US
does not go further than just criticizing, isn’t that strange?

This is an interesting point. May be you are right, although I suspect
case
with India was considerably simpler. It was classical colony, and
Britain
had no rights there other than colonial rights. Israel can’t just
‘free a
colony’. I suppose Britain would not conceede so easily if India
demanded to
make East London their capital.

Nonsense. Israel was clearly willing to trade land for peace, if it

Israel is not willing to trade Jerusalem for peace, not even East Jerusalem.
That was major obstacle to the peace deal. You’re very quick to label my
statements as ‘nonsense’ and ‘insane’, before giving them proper
consideration. I was just making an analogy.

wasn’t for radical elements of the Palestinian community there would be
a Palestine today (granted it wouldn’t be the same as the original
Palestine, and sure, the Palestinians are entitled to all of their
land back, but the bottom line is they’d be a lot better off).

Problem is, they don’t want Pelestine without East Jerusalem. They’ll
rather fight for another 50 years. They already conceeded half of their
original land when Israel was created. They already conceeded West Jerusalem
(Jerusalem was not part of Israel according to UN resolution, it was
occupied later). I can quite understand they don’t want to conceede any
more.

I can see this kid, being ignored, not killed.

Well I already told about my life experiences and yes I can see him killed,
in some societies. It makes me wonder how all the mass shootings in US
schools were possible if you can’t see that kid killed in US …

  • igor
164

Gary Dike wrote:

care. Did the USA have to bomb a friggin CIVILIAN CITY to make a point to
the Japanese GOVERMENT and EMPEROR??!?!?!?! They didn’t have to bomb it at
all. Their public reasoning, at the time, for dropping the bomb wasn’t the
true motive.

Sorry, Gary, I can’t let this slide. I get the strong impression
that you oppose any use of nukes; so be it, but don’t let that
muddy your arguments. The Western Allies fighting in the Pacific
were facing an enemy who had demonstrated its tenacity and
ferociosness defending even remote islands in the Pacific. The
concensus was that subduing the Japanese on their homeland using
traditional methods would involve hundreds of thousands of deaths
on both sides, including lots of civilans - if not from bullets
then from famine and disease.

Here was a way to cut the war short and save many Allied and
Japanese lives; nevertheless the decision was not made lightly.
Many modern historians agree on that (don’t ask me to name them,
I don’t remember).

Richard

165

“Richard R. Kramer” <rrkramer@kramer-smilko.com> wrote in message
news:3BA545B7.A9CC8681@kramer-smilko.com…

Gary Dike wrote:
care. Did the USA have to bomb a friggin CIVILIAN CITY to make a point
to
the Japanese GOVERMENT and EMPEROR??!?!?!?! They didn’t have to bomb it
at
all. Their public reasoning, at the time, for dropping the bomb wasn’t
the
true motive.

Sorry, Gary, I can’t let this slide. I get the strong impression
that you oppose any use of nukes; so be it, but don’t let that
muddy your arguments. The Western Allies fighting in the Pacific
were facing an enemy who had demonstrated its tenacity and
ferociosness defending even remote islands in the Pacific. The
concensus was that subduing the Japanese on their homeland using
traditional methods would involve hundreds of thousands of deaths
on both sides, including lots of civilans - if not from bullets
then from famine and disease.

Here was a way to cut the war short and save many Allied and
Japanese lives; nevertheless the decision was not made lightly.
Many modern historians agree on that (don’t ask me to name them,
I don’t remember).

If US wanted to just subdue Japan, it would be enough to simply blow
Fujiyama mountain or some smaller island or anything with high symbolic
value. Any large military installation would be just as good for
demonstration of power. That, followed by an ultimatum to surrender or be
subject to further nuclear bombing on cities would subdue them just as well.
However, US chosen civilian cities to make an example. I think it was
nothing else but a cynical way to test effects of nuclear bomb on large
number of human targets. They wanted material for statistical studies, so to
speak. And the excuse (being in a justified war) was just too good to miss.

The fact that 2 cities were bombed also speaks for itself. One would still
be enough to demonstrate the power. So why another one? To show them you
have more than one bomb? It would be rather dumb for japs to assume you made
only one bomb and wasted it on a city with no military/strategic value,
don’t you think? What I think is, one bomb was made of uranium and another
of plutonium and they simply wanted to test both.

I don’t know at which level the decision about targets was made, Truman
probably just authorized the use of the nukes (correct me if I am wrong).
But choice of targets was the single most cynical and inhuman decision in
history, that’s what I think.

Rennie used an analogy with somone killing a robber with rifle. That analogy
treats whole country as ‘robber’ failing to recognize that there’s civilian
population, which is not really guilty, not all of it anyway. Any decent
country does not fight with civilian population, war or not. So how about
another analogy: someone keeps shooting into your windows from an apartment
building across the street. Sure you’re violated. Does it mean you have
right to choose an arbitrary apartment in that building and blow using
cannons, along with all people living there and around? That would probably
make an example …

  • Igor
166

Rennie Allen <RAllen@csical.com> wrote:

The tragedy was worse than New York, almost certainly. The difference
is, that Slobodan Milosovic killed those people, not the United States.

This is simply not true.

Andy

167

Nobody seems to follow-up, but Hiroshima and Nagasaki had a
shipbuilding facility, which was of course primary used for building
naval ships (all industrial facilities were military at the times tho).

I heard that US would further nuke Tokyo if Japan didn’t surrender by
these two.

And lots of US citizens thought it was a Good Deed. You’ll be surprised
many japanese also agrees with it – maybe by the over-paranoiac anti-war
education since.
(This doesn’t mean I think it was a Good Deed; I don’t qualify to
discuss that)

kabe

168

andy@microstep-mis.com wrote:

Rennie Allen <> RAllen@csical.com> > wrote:

The tragedy was worse than New York, almost certainly. The difference
is, that Slobodan Milosovic killed those people, not the United States.

This is simply not true.

It is like somebody said: The USA killed the peoples in New York,
not the terrorists. Though the attack is reaction to USA actions, the
sentence is false, I hope you agree.

169

Gary Dike wrote:

“Rennie Allen” <> RAllen@csical.com> > wrote in message
news:> 64F00D816A85D51198390050046F80C9C8BC@exchangecal.hq.csical.com> …
This is an important point. I for one, do not wish to paint the Moslem
community with any kind of brush; OTOH, while Yasser Arafat was visibly
shaken by the events, but I do not necessarily attribute this to his
pacifist nature (since he is cleary not a pacifist), but rather to his
realization, that this will set back his cause by decades, and that his
political future is in grave doubt (the people dancing in the streets
are simply too ignorant to realize that they have just been shafted by
Osama).

Agreed.
The world changed Tuesday - not for the better IMHO. We are at the
“beginning of history” today, a quote from a great article I read in the
Ottawa Sun from Saturday’s edition. The events that unfold over the next
couple of months - and years - will no doubt be scrutinized in the future,
and studied, much like the previous two world wars. I’m only 24, and
haven’t lived through anything of this magnitude before.

“Beginning of history” NONSENSE.

You’re of the age that has had “Social Studies” in school instead of history
(at least in US and I assume also there). Did the world change last Tuesday?
Yes! For the worse? No! I remember Pearl Harbor and certainly the world
changed then but did it change for the worse? Not by a long shot! It spelled
the beginning of the end of that particular stage in the on-going clash of
civilization versus barbarians.

Then, not four airplanes but entire nations had been hijacked by charismatic
lunatics bent on destroying freedom to establish dictatorial control of major
portions of the globe. Before Pearl Harbor, the prospects for civilization
were bleak, after Pearl Harbor, the Axis was virtually finished; though it
would take four years and millions of casualties (including 250,000 US
citizens killed and a proportionate number of Canadian citizens relative to
population, ) to realize it.

WW-II was not the beginning of the civilization vs. barbarian struggle nor was
it the end. We are now entering the next stage. To give just one example,
in the stage focusing on slavery, the American Civil war, at Antietem there
were 22,000 Americans killed in one day. The number killed in NY, VA and PA
were large but not this large. The number that will be killed here in US and
abroad in the upcoming stage will dwarf those of last Tuesday before it’s
done.

Nevertheless, civilization is in much better shape than ever before for this
round.

170

This is a good point. And a very interesting one to me.

Usually, when there is a terrorist attack somewhere, there will be several
groups jumping up and claiming “We did that and this is what we want”. I
don’t think even a lunitic terrorist kills people for the sake of killing
people. They kill people because they have a point, however disturbed, that
they want to make.

Yet, no one, worldwide, is claiming responsibility for this. I was
wondering if perhaps this attack was magnatudes more successful then they
ever thought possible. Certainly, everyone knows that if they claim
responsibility for this action, they will be retaliated against to the
extream.


“Miguel Simon” <simon@ou.edu> wrote in message
news:3BA20EA7.F0355298@ou.edu…

A coward is a person that does not put a name/face behind their actions
with the intent of fleing responsibility and avoid possible
confrontation in an open way. Moreover, a coward is a person that hurts
innocent people to get their way. For example, the Jap. attack to Pearl
Harbor was wrong and it was an infamy, but you could argue that it was
not a coward act (i.e. the soldiers did not know that war had not been
declared yet).

171

“Bill Caroselli (Q-TPS)” <qtps@earthlink.net> wrote:

This is a good point. And a very interesting one to me.
[…]
Yet, no one, worldwide, is claiming responsibility for this. I was
wondering if perhaps this attack was magnatudes more successful then they
ever thought possible. Certainly, everyone knows that if they claim
responsibility for this action, they will be retaliated against to the
extream.

I concur. Now all of them are quick to say “It wasn’t me! It wasn’t me!”.
Even the sworn enemies of the U.S. are suddenly getting very friendly
(according to their norm of “friendly”). Sheez…

[…]

172

“Mario Charest” <mcharest@nowayzinformatic.com> wrote in message
news:9nucd3$mej$1@inn.qnx.com…

Anyone interested in giving a new kick start to this thread,
I got a few ideas > :wink: > Anyone wanting to tell me to shut up
is welcome to do so.

Ok then so here goes; I will use few words to give maximum
number of possible interpretation (don’t dare guessing what
I’m thinking )

  • Target was called WORLD Trace Center.

  • Of all the video of the incident, the most heard words were:
    “holly shit”, what’s so holly about shit?

  • What does “God Bless America” means?

  • I know very little people that will ask themselves if they
    have possibly done something wrong after receving a slap
    in the face.

  • Describe God’s current feeling

  • Democracy == Dictature by the majority: Anyone has anything better then
    democracy to offer?

  • Who’s God is the best one?

  • To what degree are you keeping your mouth shut to not
    offend anyone?

173

Mario Charest wrote:

  • Democracy == Dictature by the majority: Anyone has anything better then
    democracy to offer?

Democracy is a very poor system of government, not so much per se but because
of where it always leads, viz., dictatorship. It is very rare in the modern
world, IIRC, Switzerland is the only current democracy. The Greeks invented
both the word and the system of government “democracy”. They found it badly
lacking and abandoned it. It is pretty much irrelevant today though our
massively ignorant media keep talking as if it were widespread.

174

Igor Kovalenko wrote:

“Richard R. Kramer” <> rrkramer@kramer-smilko.com> > wrote in message
news:> 3BA545B7.A9CC8681@kramer-smilko.com> …


Gary Dike wrote:
care. Did the USA have to bomb a friggin CIVILIAN CITY to make a point
to
the Japanese GOVERMENT and EMPEROR??!?!?!?! They didn’t have to bomb it
at
all. Their public reasoning, at the time, for dropping the bomb wasn’t
the
true motive.

Sorry, Gary, I can’t let this slide. I get the strong impression
that you oppose any use of nukes; so be it, but don’t let that
muddy your arguments. The Western Allies fighting in the Pacific
were facing an enemy who had demonstrated its tenacity and
ferociosness defending even remote islands in the Pacific. The
concensus was that subduing the Japanese on their homeland using
traditional methods would involve hundreds of thousands of deaths
on both sides, including lots of civilans - if not from bullets
then from famine and disease.

Here was a way to cut the war short and save many Allied and
Japanese lives; nevertheless the decision was not made lightly.
Many modern historians agree on that (don’t ask me to name them,
I don’t remember).


If US wanted to just subdue Japan, it would be enough to simply blow
Fujiyama mountain or some smaller island or anything with high symbolic
value. Any large military installation would be just as good for
demonstration of power. That, followed by an ultimatum to surrender or be
subject to further nuclear bombing on cities would subdue them just as well.
However, US chosen civilian cities to make an example. I think it was
nothing else but a cynical way to test effects of nuclear bomb on large
number of human targets. They wanted material for statistical studies, so to
speak. And the excuse (being in a justified war) was just too good to miss.

The fact that 2 cities were bombed also speaks for itself. One would still
be enough to demonstrate the power. So why another one? To show them you
have more than one bomb? It would be rather dumb for japs to assume you made
only one bomb and wasted it on a city with no military/strategic value,
don’t you think? What I think is, one bomb was made of uranium and another
of plutonium and they simply wanted to test both.

I don’t know at which level the decision about targets was made, Truman
probably just authorized the use of the nukes (correct me if I am wrong).
But choice of targets was the single most cynical and inhuman decision in
history, that’s what I think.

Such alternative targets were considered and rejected on the basis

that the Japanese government would not take the threat seriously.
As it was, the first bomb was not sufficiently compelling. Another
factor in the desicion had to be the very limitied (two?) bombs
available.

Rennie used an analogy with somone killing a robber with rifle. That analogy
treats whole country as ‘robber’ failing to recognize that there’s civilian
population, which is not really guilty, not all of it anyway. Any decent
country does not fight with civilian population, war or not. So how about
another analogy: someone keeps shooting into your windows from an apartment
building across the street. Sure you’re violated. Does it mean you have
right to choose an arbitrary apartment in that building and blow using
cannons, along with all people living there and around? That would probably
make an example …

Come on, Igor. You get high marks in my book for inciciveness,
but this is a bit of a nonsequitur, yes?

  • Igor
175

“Richard R. Kramer” wrote:

Such alternative targets were considered and rejected on the basis
that the Japanese government would not take the threat seriously.

And how did they figure that? I can’t imagine a government dumb enough
to not take a threat like that seriously. Any assessment of possible
actions of another party is subjective. When you’re looking for an
excuse to test a fundamentally new weapon, you’re likely to come up with
‘proper’ assessment.

As it was, the first bomb was not sufficiently compelling. Another
factor in the desicion had to be the very limitied (two?) bombs
available.

I don’t believe US made formal demand to surrender after the first bomb.
Neither they gave japs enough time to assess damage and recognize the
threat. Put yourself into position of japanese government. You get
strange reports that a whole city was demolished by one blast. Given
that nuclear bomb was a secret weapon, you probably would not believe
until you get confirmation from the site. Which was impossible to get
quickly due to destruction of all communication facilities. It would
take you few days to send inspectors who would file reports and only
then you’d truly understand what just happened.

Meanwhile US dropped another bomb after few days, without any warning or
demand.

Come on, Igor. You get high marks in my book for inciciveness,
but this is a bit of a nonsequitur, yes?

Granted, all analogies are flawed, more or less. However I will maintain
that civilian casualties during fight between armies is one thing and
deliberate killing of civilians to scare the enemy is another
fundamentaly different thing. First is unfortunate side effect. Second
is barbarism.

Assuming US justification of nuclear bombing, I can easily imagine bin
Laden (or whoever it was) thinking: ‘hmm, it will be hard to subdue US
on their own homeland. probably hundreds of thousands of civilian
casualties. let’s save some lives and subdue them by exemplary killing
of few thousands first’.

The difference with nuclear bombing is, it killed hundreds of thousands
and doomed generations to come to suffer from long term consequences.
And pilots did not have to sacrifice their lives. They in fact did not
know exactly what they’re doing, which was amoral thing on its own.
Masterminds behind WTC bombing at least had guts to convince actual
executors they will be doing ‘right thing’ and convince them to die
doing it. US did not bother with ‘convincing’ part. I have doubts many
pilots would agree to fly if they were told in advance ‘you are going to
kill few hundreds of thousands of civilians in this mission, mostly
women, children and elders’. If you want an example of true cowardness,
that was it - to send someone who is sworn to serve and does not even
know what he’s doing to kill innocent people.

  • igor
176

Been doing a lot of reading here, and I’m confused as to Igor’s stance on
things. He seems to have a different side to pretty much anything that is
said, or at least be critical of it. However, anyone can do that. I could
question any decision that any government has done. This attribute is not
unique to Igor however, there are others here who I’ve tangled with and came
out with a better understanding of their position (ie. Mario), but what is
unique is the extent to which he puts down the USA. I would go so far as to
say that he almost flag-waves as hard as the Americans, the flag of Russia.
The comparison of America to Russia has come up and Igor seems to . . . . i
hate to say this as i may have read this wrong, like Russia better. Is this
true Igor? Russia’s technology was very good, but wasn’t this built on the
backs of the common man? They starved, their aspirations crushed, they
suffered cold for lack of energy for heat, vacations to a far away place
were not allowed . . . tell us how much better USA is than Russia at least
for perspective then. I don’t mean to be vindicative, but i’m sure its
occured to others, it has to me more than once, why don’t you go back then?
Why do you go to a country you find as hipocritical, bullying etc.?

I want to stress though, that i do like you, and you haven’t offended me,
its a free and open discussion, as the country is. I’m just curious. BTW,
if you don’t like it in the USA, come up to Canada, the climate is similar
to Russia (depends where you are), the streets are safe, the people are
friendly, and the quality of life is pretty good. You won’t get as rich as
you would in the US, you’ll probably not be able to afford a Lexus (there
are quite a few of those around however), but if you’re satisfied with an
Intrepid, your happiness factor will probably exceed that of someone similar
in the US. Oops, i did it. Flagwaving for Canada.

Maybe i’m just way off topic. That could be. If so, sorry. Just give us a
short line then on your background then Igor.

Maynard

177

“Bill Caroselli (Q-TPS)” wrote:

Yet, no one, worldwide, is claiming responsibility for this. I was
wondering if perhaps this attack was magnatudes more successful then they
ever thought possible. Certainly, everyone knows that if they claim

I agree. The terrorist must be a bit surprised by their disgraceful
success. They perhaps thought that they had a (1/x, x >= 4) chance to do
some damage. :frowning:

Miguel.

responsibility for this action, they will be retaliated against to the
extream.

–

my opinions are mine, only mine, solely mine, and they are not related
in any possible way to the institution(s) in which I study and work.

Miguel Simon
Research Engineer
School of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering
University of Oklahoma
http://www.amerobotics.ou.edu/
http://www.saic.com

178

“Mario Charest” <mcharest@clipzinformatic.com> wrote in message
news:9o57s2$2u5$1@inn.qnx.com…

“Mario Charest” <> mcharest@nowayzinformatic.com> > wrote in message
news:9nucd3$mej$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …

Anyone interested in giving a new kick start to this thread,
I got a few ideas > :wink: > Anyone wanting to tell me to shut up
is welcome to do so.


Ok then so here goes; I will use few words to give maximum
number of possible interpretation (don’t dare guessing what
I’m thinking )

  • Target was called WORLD Trace Center.

  • Of all the video of the incident, the most heard words were:
    “holly shit”, what’s so holly about shit?

  • What does “God Bless America” means?

I wonder also (for most people). I know what it means for me.
The United States was formed by a group of men who were
escaping religious persecution. This nation was based on Christian
principles. Our founding fathers did not wish to see religion kept
out of government, but the opposite - keep the government out
of religion. Our founding fathers knew how important it was to have
God in our government. God had His hand on the formation of this
nation and I pray that God will continue to bless America.
I also pray that God will bless this entire world.

  • I know very little people that will ask themselves if they
    have possibly done something wrong after receving a slap
    in the face.

  • Describe God’s current feeling

I can not presume to know God’s current feeling, but from what I know
of him, I would say that he is very sad. God sent his only Son into this
world so that ALL people would inherit eternal life. We are all His
creation - we are all the same in His eyes.
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23)

It bother’s me to see so many people crying out for revenge. I do think
that we need to protect ourselves and the rest of the world from events
like this happening again, but Jesus said
But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate
you,
bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you (Luke 6:27,28)
There is a difference between punishment and revenge.
Punishment is a means of correction so that the same action is not repeated.
We need to punish the act but love the person. (That is much easier to say
than to do)

  • Democracy == Dictature by the majority: Anyone has anything better then
    democracy to offer?

The US is not a Democracy rather it is a Republic.
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html

  • Who’s God is the best one?

The One that created the universe (including us).
The One who took on the form of a man and was
sacrificed to pay for the sins of man (His creation).

Whether you belive it or not, there are many gods on this Earth,
but only one true God. The God of the Bible.
If I choose to not believe in gravity does that mean that it doesn’t
exist.
It takes more faith to believe that the world was created out of
completely random events than it does to believe that it was
created by Almighty God.

  • To what degree are you keeping your mouth shut to not
    offend anyone?

-Glenn Sherman

179

<kabe@sra-tohoku.co.jp> wrote in message news:9o48f8$624$1@inn.qnx.com…

Nobody seems to follow-up, but Hiroshima and Nagasaki had a
shipbuilding facility, which was of course primary used for building
naval ships (all industrial facilities were military at the times tho).

I heard that US would further nuke Tokyo if Japan didn’t surrender by
these two.

And lots of US citizens thought it was a Good Deed.

Of course they did - they were still pissed about Pearl Harbour.

180

You’re of the age that has had “Social Studies” in school instead of
history

No… wrong.

Did the world change last Tuesday?
Yes! For the worse? No!

So the killing of 5000 is a good thing?

I remember Pearl Harbor and certainly the world
changed then but did it change for the worse? Not by a long shot! It
spelled
the beginning of the end of that particular stage in the on-going clash of
civilization versus barbarians.

Ahhh…

Then, not four airplanes but entire nations had been hijacked by
charismatic
lunatics bent on destroying freedom to establish dictatorial control of
major
portions of the globe. Before Pearl Harbor, the prospects for
civilization
were bleak, after Pearl Harbor, the Axis was virtually finished;

Pearl Harbour was hardly the turning point of the war - it simply signaled
the end of neutrality for the States.

though it
would take four years and millions of casualties (including 250,000 US
citizens killed and a proportionate number of Canadian citizens relative
to
population, ) to realize it.

Actually, you can include the two previous years when we WERE involved in a
war.

WW-II was not the beginning of the civilization vs. barbarian struggle nor
was
it the end. We are now entering the next stage. To give just one
example,
in the stage focusing on slavery, the American Civil war, at Antietem
there
were 22,000 Americans killed in one day. The number killed in NY, VA and
PA
were large but not this large. The number that will be killed here in US
and
abroad in the upcoming stage will dwarf those of last Tuesday before it’s
done.

Why must this whole “barbarians vs civlization” centre around American
history? There has been a flourishing civilization in the Middle East for
THOUSANDS of years.

Nevertheless, civilization is in much better shape than ever before for
this
round.

Uh huh.