General Debate 2 October 2014

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment156

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (156)

Login to comment or vote

Rufus

Kea: “I have to wonder at you Lucy. Some Christians skip the nasty stuff in the bible and focus on the brotherhood of mankind and peace. They oppose war and conflict. They respect other faiths, at least those with the same god.

But not you. You go for the old testament stuff. I do not think you would have liked Jesus very much.”

Kea, you obviously don’t read much of what Jesus said.

Jesus is the most divisive figure in history.

He did not come to respect other faiths, or be happy families with those who reject Him. Read Matthew 10:35.

Jesus himself said he didn’t come to abolish the Law (Old Testament stuff), but to fulfil it.

The theology is weak in this one.

But as you were. Troll on.
2 5
Log in to Reply
Report
October 2, 2014 2:54pm
Kea

Lucy I read your link and what I found disgusted and sickened me to the core. As it would any decent person.

The Catholic Holocaust of Nagasaki—“Why, Lord?”

by Brother Anthony Josemaria
Description:
The witness of the Catholics of Nagasaki shows God’s providence in the darkest of times. Brother Anthony Josemaria recounts this inspiring story.

On August 9, 1945, God’s inscrutable providence allowed an atomic bomb named “Fat Man” to be dropped from a B-29 into the heavily populated city of Nagasaki. The epicenter of the blast was the Urakami district, the heart and soul of Catholicism in Japan since the sixteenth century. My purpose in this article is to share an insight into God’s purpose in allowing this horrible event

They go on to describe “Catholics” as the victims of this horror show.

What a sick and depraved woman. Words fail me.
0 5
Log in to Reply
Report
October 2, 2014 3:02pm
Kea

Rufus:

“Jesus himself said he didn’t come to abolish the Law (Old Testament stuff), but to fulfil it.”

Thanks for that. Every time I have quoted that passage it has been refuted and I have been attacked by hysterical christian hordes. But now we have a “christian” backing me up.

So lets start stoning non-virgin brides on their fathers doorstep, killing service workers on Sundays and naughty kids shall we ?
0 4
Log in to Reply
Report
October 2, 2014 3:05pm
stephieboy

Kea, all I asked is the source of the alleged quote by Eisenhowser .

Please oblige.!

All I’m saying is that both the Ukraine and Russia have Ultr Nationalistic neo nazi groups and is not a phenomena peculiar to the Ukraine as your sources and you try to suggest..A bit of a problem in Eastern Europe as well.
2 2
Log in to Reply
Report
October 2, 2014 3:28pm
tom hunter

@Shawn Herles – and now Stephieboy

Eisenhower’s opinion was, assuming it is being accurately reported ….

It is, though I’ve not done a Google search and am relying on my copy of The Making of The Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes, who won the Pulitzer Prize for that work. On page 688 he has the full quote from Eisenhower, which was his recollection of being briefed about the Bomb by Henry Stimson, Secretary of War:

The cable was in code, you know the way they do it. “The lamb is born” or some damn thing like that. So then he told me they were going to drop it on the Japanese. Well, I listened, and I didn’t volunteer anything because, after all, my war was over in Europe and it wasn’t up to me. But I was getting more and more depressed just thinking about it. Then he asked for my opinion, so I told him I was against it on two counts.

First, the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon. Well… the old gentleman got furious. And I can see how he would. After all, it had been his responsibility to push for all the huge expenditure to develop the bomb, which of course he had a right to do, and was right to do. Still, it was an awful problem.

The notes state this quote comes from an article called Ike on Ike, published in Newsweek magazine on Nov. 11, 1963, p 108.

However, the Rhodes book also contains another quote from another imminent warrior:

We regarded the matter of dropping the [atomic] bomb as exceedingly important. We had just gone through a bitter experience at Okinawa [the last major island campaign, when the Americans lost more than 12,500 men killed and missing and the Japanese more than 100,000 killed in eighty-two days of fighting].

This had been preceded by a number of similar experiences in other Pacific islands, north of Australia. The Japanese had demonstrated in each case they would not surrender and they would fight to the death… It was expected that resistance in Japan, with their home ties, would be even more severe.

We had had the one hundred thousand people killed in Tokyo in one night of [conventional] bombs, and it had had seemingly no effect whatsoever. It destroyed the Japanese cities, yes, but their morale was not affected as far as we could tell, not at all. So it seemed quite necessary, if we could, to shock them into action…

We had to end the war; we had to save American lives.

That’s General George C. Marshall – Eisenhower’s boss and the man who appointed him to his role in Europe.

Maybe we should we listen to him?

Or perhaps we should listen to this guy – Paul Fussell:

“An American cultural and literary historian, author and university professor….He is best known for his writings about World War I and II,[1] which explore what he felt was the gap between the romantic myth and reality of war; he made a “career out of refusing to disguise it or elevate it”.

Also a combat veteran of WWII. You can read his famously eloquent 1987 article on the atomic bombing of Japan here (PDF).

These are all subtle and nuanced arguments about the atomic bombing of Japan, but if one wanted to engage in a different style of debate – say an inflammatory style designed simply to demonstrate one’s wonderful ethical self – then a quote can be found that fits the purpose perfectly:

Arthur T. Hadley said recently that those for whom the use of the A-bomb was “wrong” seem to be implying:
“that it would have been better to allow thousands on thousands of American and Japanese infantrymen to die in honest hand-to-hand combat on the beaches than to drop those two bombs.”
5 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 2, 2014 3:34pm
Kea

stephieboy, the POINT is that Obama is not supporting neo Nazi groups in Russia.

And give up your tiresome game of asking for “sources” then attacking the source. I did provide a source, for all its worth. If you were genuine then you would Google it yourself and check the claim, just as I do when you make claims. But you are not genuine.

Frankly I am over you religious bigots. You are a cancer on humanity. Reading that filth from Lucy’s link really drove it home how diseased and intellectually crippled you are.
0 9
Log in to Reply
Report
October 2, 2014 3:35pm
Rufus

Kea, your objections have been raised by many over the last 2000 years. There are answers to your objections, if you’re interested in furthering your understanding.

You do not know what you’re talking about, and you have no desire to learn.

I value your claim to tolerate all religions, although I doubt you and I share the same understanding of what that means.

Troll’s gonna troll.
7 2
Log in to Reply
Report
October 2, 2014 3:39pm
Kea

I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender, and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon.

On his stated opposition to the use of the atomic bomb against the Japanese at the end of World War II, as quoted in Newsweek (11 November 1963)

Note this page has a disputed and a misattributed section. This quote is confirmed and is widely reported from countless credible sources.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower#Misattributed
0 3
Log in to Reply
Report
October 2, 2014 3:41pm
Rufus

BTW love your hysterical Christian hordes and describing me as a “christian”.

You’re so like Nasska (may his tortured soul rest in peace)

LOL
3 2
Log in to Reply
Report
October 2, 2014 3:41pm
Kea

(may his tortured soul rest in peace)

Yours won’t if I am wrong
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
October 2, 2014 3:45pm
Gulag1917

Ramping up the Alert: The Terror Threat in Australia
http://www.globalresearch.ca/ramping-up-the-alert-the-terror-threat-in-australia/5401109
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
October 2, 2014 3:52pm
Rufus

Kea, you profess to be rational, reasonable, fair and tolerant.

Your actions on here are more often the complete opposite.

And you wonder why people don’t like you.
5 1
Log in to Reply
Report
October 2, 2014 3:53pm
waikatogirl

Kea, did you and Judith have the same grandparents? Just asking as Judith was the same fed bullshit by her grandparents. As she said a few weeks ago

Said in a caring way 😉
5 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 2, 2014 4:00pm
Kea

“And you wonder why people don’t like you.”

Rufus, No I do not. I neither seek nor want the approval of ignorant god-addled bigots.

Every claim I make I back up, though the information is freely available to all. The most extreme hysteria I illicit comes from quoting reliable sources that do not support religious inspired bias.
0 3
Log in to Reply
Report
October 2, 2014 4:01pm
waikatogirl

Kea, did you and Judith have the same grandparents? Just asking as Judith was the same fed bullshitya out the Japs by her grandparents. As she said a few weeks ago

Said in a caring way 😉

Needless to say, use of atomic bombs on anyone is abhorrent
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 2, 2014 4:02pm
waikatogirl

Kea, did you and Judith have the same grandparents? Just asking as Judith was fed the same bullshit about the Japs by her grandparents. As she said a few weeks ago

Said in a caring way 😉

Needless to say, use of atomic bombs on anyone is abhorrent
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 2, 2014 4:04pm
Rufus

“So lets start stoning non-virgin brides on their fathers doorstep, killing service workers on Sundays and naughty kids shall we ?”

Kea,

Jesus said,

* of the adulterous woman “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” John 7 / 8

* on breaking the Sabbath “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath”

* of children “And they were bringing children to him that he might touch them, and the disciples rebuked them. But when Jesus saw it, he was indignant and said to them, “Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.” And he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands on them”

and “But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea. ”

What was your objection again?
6 1
Log in to Reply
Report
October 2, 2014 4:06pm
Kea

Kill People Who Don’t Listen to Priests

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

Kill Witches

You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

Kill Homosexuals
“If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.” (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

Kill Fortunetellers

A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

Death for Hitting Dad

Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

Death for Cursing Parents

1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)

2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

Death for Adultery

If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

Death for Fornication

A priest’s daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

Death to Followers of Other Religions

Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)

Kill Nonbelievers

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

Kill False Prophets

If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, “You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord.” When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)

Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God

Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. “The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him.” (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

Kill Women Who Are Not Virgins On Their Wedding Night

But if this charge is true (that she wasn’t a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father’s house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)

Kill Followers of Other Religions.

1) If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)
1 10
Log in to Reply
Report
October 2, 2014 4:19pm
Shunda barunda

And yet Kea, Christians around the world just don’t do any of that do they.

It seems that Jesus might be real after all, there must be something that stops them.
7 2
Log in to Reply
Report
October 2, 2014 4:21pm
waikatogirl

Keep life simple:

-Live and let live – as long as they are not trying to influence anyone else

-Mind your own business and don’t judge others (except leftie odd balls)

-Stay away from arseholes
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 2, 2014 4:27pm
Kea

Shunda barunda (2,980 comments) says:
October 2nd, 2014 at 4:21 pm
And yet Kea, Christians around the world just don’t do any of that do they.

It seems that Jesus might be real after all, there must be something that stops them.

Then they are not following the clear words of the bible.

As Rufus pointed out to me today. About the only truthful thing he has said this afternoon.

“Jesus himself said he didn’t come to abolish the Law (Old Testament stuff), but to fulfil it.”
1 2
Log in to Reply
Report
October 2, 2014 4:28pm
Shunda barunda

As I understand it, God didn’t want to give them the law in the first place, it was the fear of the people that made them request it. Jesus obviously has a different ideal about what “fulfill” actually means.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 2, 2014 4:33pm
tom hunter

Shunda

I think you’ve seen enough of my comments to know that I’m not indulging in a stupid flame war when I ask the following question, so here it is …

You’ve a fairly strong Christian faith so are probably knowledgeable enough to tell me how Fundamentalist Christians – those who believe that every word in the Bible is written by God – manage to believe that and yet avoid following the proscriptions in things like Leviticus in the Old Testament?

I ask because I have never had an interest in theology but am curious as to how Fundamentalist Christians get around this issue compared to Fundamentalist Muslims dealing with the Koran, Hadith’s, etc.

It seems to me that the answer to the question goes to the heart of whether Islam can undergo something like the Reformation?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 2, 2014 4:35pm
Don the Kiwi

Kea.

Once again you are proving yourself to be an irrational anti- Christian bigot, who runs off quoting scripture to prove your point that you believe all Christians are as terrible as the radical jihadist muslims.

But you have a major problem – every quote you gave is from the Old Testamaent. As Rufus pointed out above, the Old Testament – particularly in relation to the posts that you present – has been fulfilled and therefore has been done away with.

You would do much better to quote from the New Testament, and allow the quotes to talk for themselves, without you putting your own manaiacal spin on them.

Stick to secular topics – non religious ones – because that’s where you make sense a worthwhilr contributions.

FYI – from now on, whenever you get involved in religious topics and start spewing youe bile over other commenters, I will report your comments as abusive.
5 1
Log in to Reply
Report
October 2, 2014 4:39pm
Scott Chris

that it would have been better to allow thousands on thousands of American and Japanese infantrymen to die in honest hand-to-hand combat on the beaches than to drop those two bombs

Couple of questions:

1) Would it have been necessary for thousands of American and Japanese infantrymen to die in honest combat had America nuked an uninhabited Japanese island to demonstrate their destructive capability?

2) What is the moral difference between nuking Hiroshima and hypothetically invading Hiroshima and beheading every man, woman and child?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 2, 2014 4:48pm
Kiwi Dave

Quite possibly, Kea, the A bomb wasn’t dropped on Catholic (or any other kind of) Nazis because the war in Europe finished two months before the first bomb was ready for testing. Eisenhower might have been even unhappier had the USAF dropped Little Boy on occupied Germany.

Immediately prior to the nuclear attacks and the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, the Japanese war cabinet and Hirohito were not prepared to make peace on terms acceptable to the United Nations (withdrawal of all forces from occupied territories, demilitarization, democratization); immediately after, half the cabinet were prepared to surrender, half still wanted to fight a bloody battle so costly to the invading forces that the U.S. and its allies would negotiate a peace leaving the Japanese military and big corporations still in control of Japan.

The Eisenhower quotation you’ve cited suggests that he had little understanding of the fighting in the Pacific.
2 1
Log in to Reply
Report
October 2, 2014 4:59pm
Black with a Vengeance

Lawyer on drugs charges loses name suppression
http://wwithtuff.co.nz/national/crime/10572517/Lawyer-on-drugs-charges-loses-name-suppression

This guy is going to get the hardest slap on the wrist with a wet bus ticket ever!!!

He may even lose his job…poor wee man.
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 2, 2014 5:05pm
Don the Kiwi

Scott Chris.
4.48 pm.

“1) Would it have been necessary for thousands of American and Japanese infantrymen to die in honest combat had America nuked an uninhabited Japanese island to demonstrate their destructive capability?”

That’s actually a pointless question Scott.

Even after the two bombs had been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the military refused to surrender, and wanted to continue with the conflict. Most of the Japanese population had been turned into a massive militia, and for the allies to invade would have been a massive loss of life – many predicted at the time 1.5 million allied casualties, and as many as 15 million Japanese.

It took the intervention of Emperor Hirohito to overule the military commanders and force them into surrender.

The use of the bombs saved millions of lives. You want to check out those cities today – they are thriving throbbing cities; compare them with Detroit in the USA.

There’s your answer.
5 1
Log in to Reply
Report
October 2, 2014 5:06pm
tom hunter

Couple of questions:

Scott, I’m not noted on this blog for being brief but even such questions as these are too much for GD or perhaps any thread. I suggest you get hold of The Making of The Atomic Bomb and Max Hastings Nemesis, which both have entire chapters devoted to the reasoning (both rational and emotional) that led to the decision to drop the atomic bomb.

However, to try and briefly respond:
1) This actually was discussed, but the scientists, military brass, diplomats and politicians involved thought that such a demonstration would simply be ignored by the Japanese leadership. The Scientific Panel of the Interim Committee, containing men such Oppenhiemer, Fermi, Lawrence, Compton – not unintelligent men, not men given to bloodthirstiness – could conceive of no such demonstration.
I’m sometimes a little surprised that this question continues to be asked, given the historical fact that dropping the bomb on an actual city did not cause an immediate surrender.

2) None. But then I don’t see any moral difference between the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and the conventional bombing of Tokyo on the night of March 10, 1945, an attack that killed perhaps 120,000 people in one night, in a firestorm even greater than that of Dresden but nowhere as well known.

Perhaps all that is left in judging the people of another time and place is this quote from Richard Rhodes:

In 1945 Life magazine was the preeminent general-circulation magazine in the United States. It served millions of American families for news and entertainment much as television a decade later began to do. Children read it avidly and reported on its contents in school.

In the last issue of Life before the United States used the atomic bomb a one-page picture story appeared, titled, in 48-point capitals, A JAP BURNS. Its brief text, for those who could tear their eyes away from the six postcard-sized black-and-white photographs showing a man being burned alive long enough to read the words, savored horror while complaining of ugly necessity:

When the 7th Australian Division landed near Balikpapan on the island of Borneo last month they found a town strongly defended by Japanese. As usual, the enemy fought from caves, from pillboxes, from every available hiding place. And, as usual, there was only one way to advance against them: burn them out. Men of the 7th, who had fought the Japs before, quickly applied their flamethrowers, soon convinced some Japs that it was time to quit. Others, like the one shown here, refused. So they had to be burned out.

Although men have fought one another with fire from time immemorial, the flamethrower is easily the most cruel, the most terrifying weapon ever developed. If it does not suffocate the enemy in his hiding place, its quickly licking tongues of flame sear his body to a black crisp. But so long as the Jap refuses to come out of his holes and keeps killing, this is the only way.

In a single tabloid page Life had assembled a brutal allegory of the later course of the Pacific war.

But really, read those two books.
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
October 2, 2014 5:30pm
Rufus

Kea “As Rufus pointed out to me today. About the only truthful thing he has said this afternoon.

“Jesus himself said he didn’t come to abolish the Law (Old Testament stuff), but to fulfil it.””

1. What else have I said that wasn’t truthful?

2. You don’t really understand what Jesus meant by “fullfilling the Law”. But then you’re not really interested.

You also show no understanding of historical, religious, textual context.

You judge people from another culture, from another time, by your own post-modern, liberal western standards.

But then this is not something new – it’s been pointed out many times before.

If you were a bronze age middle eastener, you would have no problems with anything you read in the OT, because that was how things were done in those days . Different times, different way of doing things.

The problems modern people have with Islam is that we, of the West, no longer cut people’s heads off when we disagree with them. Islam has in many respects not moved on from the “cutting people’s heads off” times.

A clash of civilisations, a clash of norms.
4 2
Log in to Reply
Report
October 2, 2014 5:35pm
Rufus

In fact, if you were the average Muslim living in non-western societies or african / papua new guinean etc – you probably wouldn’t have a problem with the OT – because, believe it or not, many cultures today still have no problem with wiping out other tribes, cutting off of heads, etc.

Which is why the soft, liberal west is getting such a rude awakening – shock horror! – there’s people who play by different rules!
3 2
Log in to Reply
Report
October 2, 2014 5:39pm
Kea

What ignorance, racism and religious bigotry can do to your mind folks:

The Eisenhower quotation you’ve cited suggests that he had little understanding of the fighting in the Pacific.

“Dwight Eisenhower – then Supreme Commander of all Allied Forces, and the officer who created most of America’s WWII military plans for Europe and Japan – said:

The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”

If only he had, Kiwi Dave, to advise him 😕
0 6
Log in to Reply
Report
October 2, 2014 6:01pm
tom hunter

… and the officer who created most of America’s WWII military plans for Europe and Japan – said:

“and Japan”. Whoever wrote that apparently never picked up a history book on WWII.

Eisenhower had nothing – nothing – to do with the plans in the Pacific war. Nimtz. McArthur. Any of these ringing a bell?

🙄
5 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 2, 2014 6:25pm
stigie

Oh good, dinner time…back to it later if you want girls and boys !~
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 2, 2014 6:48pm
Kiwi Dave

Kea, historians point out that the Japanese government and the military were not prepared to surrender on terms acceptable to the United Nations. US intelligence knew this from reading Japanese diplomatic traffic.

Eisenhower was not responsible for US forces in the Pacific. Those who were responsible had seen ferocious Japanese resistance recently on Peleliu and Okinawa and heavy losses in infantry and naval vessels. Recent intelligence had revealed to them that Japanese home forces were much stronger than previously suspected and that the invasion would be much bloodier and more uncertain of success than first thought.

Your difficulty here is not that I, Kiwi Dave, military non-expert disagree with Eisenhower, but that many in high command in the Pacific and the US with rather more knowledge (allowing for the fog of war)of the theatre disagreed with this judgement.
4 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 2, 2014 6:51pm
OneTrack

The other problem with Kea’s supposition is that, if the Japanese were already prepared to surrender, why didn’t they immediately do it on August 7th.
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 2, 2014 6:55pm
Kea

tom hunter, so the Supreme Commander of all Allied Forces had “nothing – nothing” to do with the Pacific war ?

All so you can feel smug about Japanese house wives and kids dying hideous deaths.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8QY5gt1weE
0 3
Log in to Reply
Report
October 2, 2014 6:55pm
OneTrack

kea – “tom hunter, so the Supreme Commander of all Allied Forces had “nothing – nothing” to do with the Pacific war ?”

So, if he was the Supreme Commander, why did he allow the bomb to be dropped.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 2, 2014 6:56pm
Kea

OneTrack, it is not my supposition. It was a statement by the Supreme Commander of all Allied Forces.

Why the lies ?
0 3
Log in to Reply
Report
October 2, 2014 6:56pm
OneTrack

Kea, and if he was right, why didn’t the Japanese immediately surrender after the first bomb. If you are correct about what Eisenhower said, then it sounds like he was wrong.
4 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 2, 2014 6:59pm
cha

Any of these ringing a bell?

Yup.

What’s going on here?

I fear we are witnessing the “death of expertise”: a Google-fueled, Wikipedia-based, blog-sodden collapse of any division between professionals and laymen, students and teachers, knowers and wonderers – in other words, between those of any achievement in an area and those with none at all.

http://thefederalist.com/2014/01/17/the-death-of-expertise/
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 2, 2014 7:04pm
Scott Chris

The Scientific Panel of the Interim Committee, containing men such Oppenhiemer, Fermi, Lawrence, Compton – not unintelligent men, not men given to bloodthirstiness – could conceive of no such demonstration.

Maybe, but not wholeheartedly and not without subsequent soul-searching if Oppenheimer’s example is anything to go by. One of the most interesting biographies I’ve read is called “American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer” by Kai Bird (Author), Martin J. Sherwin.

It seems some are of the opinion that the subsequent doubts expressed by Oppenheimer over the morality of the A-bomb drops led to his persecution by McCarthy and company so perhaps the united front presented by those great minds was to a certain degree coerced.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 2, 2014 7:05pm
Scott Chris

I’m sometimes a little surprised that this question continues to be asked, given the historical fact that dropping the bomb on an actual city did not cause an immediate surrender.

I’m not surprised there was no immediate surrender assuming there were no Japanese generals on hand in Hiroshima or Nagasaki to witness the destruction whereas a staged demonstration of an A-bombs power to a pre-selected audience, maybe even Hirohito himself may have led to a faster capitulation. Who knows.

But I also understand that the decisions made in 1945 were executed within the moral context of that time. The main objection I have in regard to those bombings is people of our own era continuing to lionize such drastic measures.
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 2, 2014 7:19pm
tom hunter

All so you can feel smug about Japanese house wives and kids dying hideous deaths.

Chuckle. Yes sweetie, you’re so morally pure, as are your examples!

Let me introduce you to the Firebombing of Dresden, – which happened under the leadership of the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe – one Dwight D Eisenhower. Lots of house wives and kids being burnt to death there on his watch.

But hey, that was in February 1945 – maybe he’d had second thoughts by August?

Oh, and by the way, just because I enjoy rubbing your nose in your cherry-picked idiocy, let me repeat what Eisenhower himself said in that full quote about the the atom bombing of Japan:
Well, I listened, and I didn’t volunteer anything because, after all, my war was over in Europe and it wasn’t up to me.

From his lips to your ears Kea.
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 2, 2014 7:26pm
Kea

OneTrack, nice try to move the goal posts. The claim I responded to, was Eisenhower had nothing to do with the Pacific war. An absurd and outright lie.

Asking me about his thinking processes is rather silly and has nothing to do with what I reported.
0 3
Log in to Reply
Report
October 2, 2014 7:28pm
Kea

tom hunter, what on earth has the fire bombing of Dresden got to do with refuting my view of nuking Japanese house wives and kids ? It was another disgraceful Allied action against a defeated foe. Even the men doing it felt terrible and said so in numerous interviews. If anything it reinforces my point.

You war mongers make me sick. Especially gutless cowards hiding safely on the bottom of the world like a tick on a pig arse.
1 6
Log in to Reply
Report
October 2, 2014 7:35pm
cha

Good but not up to bad lip reading NFL.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6BsMzc9mMs
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 2, 2014 8:13pm
Shunda barunda

I think you’ve seen enough of my comments to know that I’m not indulging in a stupid flame war when I ask the following question, so here it is …

You’ve a fairly strong Christian faith so are probably knowledgeable enough to tell me how Fundamentalist Christians – those who believe that every word in the Bible is written by God – manage to believe that and yet avoid following the proscriptions in things like Leviticus in the Old Testament?

Firstly, I’m not sure others would say I do have a strong Christian faith, at least not those that are church goers, because quite frankly I can’t stomach “church” much any longer.

I think the reason the law is not followed is because the gospel fundamentally redefines the way those scriptures are interpreted, so even the most bloodthirsty fundamentalist Christians can not claim to adhere to the gospel and undertake the punishments for sin detailed in the law. The New testament is full of passages that describe the inadequacy of the law to bring about real change in a persons life, Jesus did not revoke the intention of the law, just acknowledged that it was wholly insufficient to bring about the desired positive changes in an individual The focus of even fundamentalist Christians is on “grace” not judgement, however, even though the brutality of the judgements of the law has been revoked, some churches still manage to create strict codes of conduct that have little basis in the gospel. Basically, you could say that Christians use the new testament to interpret the old testament as far as “sin” and “judgement” are concerned.

I ask because I have never had an interest in theology but am curious as to how Fundamentalist Christians get around this issue compared to Fundamentalist Muslims dealing with the Koran, Hadith’s, etc.

Simple really, Jesus was a revolutionary prophet that emphasized love, grace, and passive resistance, he held deep beliefs that Judaism as it was was wholly insufficient, it was too brutal, and not in character with what his “Father” had intended for humanity.
Islam in a sense is a copy of Christianity, except their prophet does not advocate love, grace, and passive resistance, in fact quite the opposite. Christianity emphasizes life, Islam emphasizes glory in death.

It seems to me that the answer to the question goes to the heart of whether Islam can undergo something like the Reformation?

The problem is they don’t accept they need a revolution, it is a religion that is driven primarily by fear, and anything or anyone different to status quo gets ruthlessly stamped out. Malcolm X being the best example in a western context, he moderated his views, and was brutally murdered because of it.
2 1
Log in to Reply
Report
October 2, 2014 8:37pm
wat dabney

“And yet Kea, Christians around the world just don’t do any of that do they.”

Exactly. Meaning they’re not actually Christians at all.

They, and you, are fakes who no more follow Biblical teachings than any atheist does.
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
October 2, 2014 8:37pm
Johnboy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay

Ma kinda man! 🙂
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
October 2, 2014 8:46pm
Johnboy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTlbhcksugk
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
October 2, 2014 8:52pm
Pete George

Labour has sent a “please behave” letter to members – Phil Quinn calls it Orwellian.

And “rather than make this leadership issue more corrosive than it already is” lprent has pulled a post at The Standard at the request of party secretary Tim Barnett.

I understand the intent but how far are Labour going requesting withdrawal of online posts or comments? How balanced will compliance be?

Labour try to moderate members’ and blog behaviour
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 2, 2014 8:57pm
Scott Chris

Good but not up to bad lip reading NFL.

Like the zombie bits.

Ever wondered what Carl Orf’s ‘O fortuna’ is all about?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIwrgAnx6Q8
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 2, 2014 8:57pm
hj

stephieboy (2,801 comments) says:
October 2nd, 2014 at 10:34 am

Hj, thus we seem to agree that diversity is welcome as per the evolution and development of Christchurch’s ethnic diversity and multicultural make up.Similar to Aucklands more accelerated one and I’d have to say no ones complaining except perhaps by a small pocketful of the usual racists and bigots .
……
No I don’t agree. Correct/Incorrect was Spoonley’s view.
No wonder I was getting down ticks. It pays to make yourself extremely clear.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 2, 2014 9:16pm
hj

@ Stephieboy
kenen Malik is critic of multiculturalism but believes in open borders.
Like James Dann and his supporters on Public Address.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 2, 2014 9:22pm
tom hunter

You war mongers make me sick. Especially gutless cowards hiding safely on the bottom of the world like a tick on a pig arse.

Clap…… clap…… clap.

As even the dimmest observer (well almost the dimmest) can see, the connection is that the firebombing of women and children occurred in both Dresden and Hiroshima (and Tokyo, and half a hundred other cities in WWII), there is nothing uniquely morally different between them, only the technology, and that the guy who had Dresden occur on his watch, really is in no position to posture about hitting them with that awful thing.

Even the men doing it felt terrible

Some of them might have – afterwards – you can read Fussell’s article for some examples. The vast majority were of the same opinion as this RAF bomber crewman recorded in 1943:

If you couldn’t get the kraut in his factory, it was just as easy to knock him off in his bed, and [if] granny Schicklgruber next door got the chop, that’s hard luck.

I did like the following piece of huffing and puffing rhetoric:

An absurd and outright lie.

History books say no! Hell, even Wikipedia says no!

So, if he was the Supreme Commander, why did he allow the bomb to be dropped.

Shhhh OneTrack. It’s more fun when they’re confused by the maze they built themselves.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 2, 2014 11:24pm

More comments:

‹
1
2

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« How Labour could pay for its leadership ballot

Advice for new MPs »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Highlights

The Kiwis are fleeing
Inflation by term
Houston we have a problem
Our immunisation disaster

Never miss a post

Email Address

Links

Breaking Views Update: Week of 14.4.24
Breaking Views
A who's who of New Zealand's dodgiest companies
No Right Turn
"Under a better Resource Management system [sic], there would be no need for fast-track approval processes."
Not PC
Marxist Economics Is Dumb
Utopia
Can taxpayers be confident PIJF cash was spent wisely?
Point of Order
Daily review 19/04/2024
The Standard
Word of the day
Hompaddock
Scottish Skullduggery
No Minister
Again, hate crimes are not necessarily terrorism.
Kiwipolitico
Te Papa gutlessly cower to Chief Culture Censor Paul Goldsmith
The Daily Blog
Despair - construction consenting edition
Offsetting Behaviour
RACIST ADVERTISING
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
Is the state coming for churches?
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
Super Rugby Predictions for Week 9
Stats Chat
Coalition Promises
NZCPR
Tougher than that
Croaking Cassandra
ABs stripped of 2011 title after try disallowed
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz

editor@kiwiblog.co.nz

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d