Not sure honestly. Don’t know my capacity for revenge. If he had a plan to kill me, I don’t know. Could be an empty threat. If i seen his plans though, I’d know how to protect myself, so that seems kind of silly.
you either forgot, or never learned your history…don’t you remember the US firebombed the whatever out of Tokyo well before choosing to nuke 'em as a last resort? Do you know how many people were killed during those times? And they still refused to surrender.
Who do people think they are to decide what would have happened if “X” happened? Dude…WW2 almost went the other way, do you realize what the world would have been like if the Axis had won?
[QUOTE=“konan;487339”]
Eye for an eye…It’s in the Bible too, right?![/QUOTE]
So you are deflecting answering the question?
[QUOTE=“wigglez;487342”]
Not sure honestly. Don’t know my capacity for revenge. If he had a plan to kill me, I don’t know. Could be an empty threat. If i seen his plans though, I’d know how to protect myself, so that seems kind of silly.[/QUOTE]
Lol … Not if his plans are to stalk you and stick a knife in your back when you least suspect… Or plant a bomb to take you out… If he is hell bent on doing that, you can’t prevent it without taking him out.
Presumption is mother of all fu%/ups. That’s probably what the extremist lunatics think they are doing by killing American kids…And arms dealers just keep rubbing their hands while we argue like this.
Not at all…
[QUOTE=“konan;487349”]
Not at all…[/QUOTE]
So you believe in an eye for an eye…
Never said that.
[QUOTE=“konan;487339”]
Eye for an eye…It’s in the Bible too, right?![/QUOTE]
Yeh you did… Right here. You said that wasn’t a deflection so then there isn’t another way to take that comment then as your belief.
Still, a warning shot would have been nice rather then to just melt and burn with radiation people of two cities…They wanted to test those bombs on as many people as possible…
You meant that question a certain way, but turn it around and wonder how some poor fellow who’s lost his loved ones in Iraq feels and then watches George W Bush land on an aircraft carrier and says “mission accomplished.” I’m just pointing out that the points of view we have, that we call reasonable, can be turned around and also expressed by many other people in the world who feel that they’re victims. I can’t imagine how I would feel if that happened to me, so the best way I can defend against it is to try to get other people who are similar to me, to see that as people, most of us are all the same. Let’s start electing people who think globally and care about other peoples kids, and perhaps the world will care more about ours.
[QUOTE=“konan;487358”]
Still, a warning shot would have been nice rather then to just melt and burn with radiation people of two cities…They wanted to test those bombs on as many people as possible…[/QUOTE]
The US did a live fire test … “The trinity test” … There was no mystery what it would do to people , so that thought is entirely invalid. The Japanese knew we had a working bomb… And had tested it… That was the warning shot.
[QUOTE=“Hogarste;487361”]
You meant that question a certain way, but turn it around and wonder how some poor fellow who’s lost his loved ones in Iraq feels and then watches George W Bush land on an aircraft carrier and says “mission accomplished.” I’m just pointing out that the points of view we have, that we call reasonable, can be turned around and also expressed by many other people in the world who feel that they’re victims. I can’t imagine how I would feel if that happened to me, so the best way I can defend against it is to try to get other people who are similar to me, to see that as people, most of us are all the same. Let’s start electing people who think globally and care about other peoples kids, and perhaps the world will care more about ours.[/QUOTE]
Having an “open mind” is how the two Boston bombers got radicalized and brainwashed… At some point there has to be basic admittance of right and wrong.
The allies perceived the act of bombing of cities as an equal reaction to the bombing of London and other cities. You asked me what I think of these acts. I’ve got nothing to give you but facts, sorry.
[QUOTE=“konan;487365”]
The allies perceived the act of bombing of cities as an equal reaction to the bombing of London and other cities. You asked me what I think of these acts. I’ve got nothing to give you but facts, sorry.[/QUOTE]
Right… And how is that different then perceiving precision drone strikes as an equal reaction to terrorists bombing embassies, buildings, cities, public sporting events?
Add to that, drone strikes are not targeting children, whereas terrorists are.
If a cop fires a warning shot at the police range and then travels 20 miles to your house arrest you…Can he write in the report that he fired a warning shot before shooting you for evading arrest- for example?
[QUOTE=“konan;487367”]
If a cop fires a warning shot at the police range and then travels 20 miles to your house arrest you…Can he write in the report that he fired a warning shot before shooting you for evading arrest- for example?[/QUOTE]
Cops don’t shoot warning shots for one… And if a cop sends you a video expressing his intent to arrest you or he’s gonna break your door in… Whose fault is it if your door gets broken in if you don’t surrender?
I totally agree with this statement. So how about we agree to this:
Killing the innocent is always wrong. It was wrong on 9/11, and in Boston, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Nagasaki, in Hiroshima, in nightclubs in Israel, in Lebenon, in refugee camps, etc. Let’s agree that killing innocent people is always wrong.
How about saying that oppression is also wrong, whether it’s the US supporting govornments who oppress their people but send us oil or other commodities, whether it’s the Taliban’s disgracefull record against women and others, etc. I totally think your point is a good one. If we agree that we’re going to look at the actions themselves rather then the justifications given for them, imagine the step forward that would be.
Does anyone think that in similar circumstances we’d use nuclear weapons today as we did in Japan? I can’t imagine that we would, which answers the question of whether we should have or not. I do not fully remember my history, but wasn’t the deal with Japan the fact that they refused to have the Emperor stand down, but was otherwise willing to surrender
My original statement was that I moan every kids death the same. No more, no less. Terrorists could be religious sociopath lunatics that need to be captured and trialed in courts and not targeted with huge bombs at weddings full of children and women in Yemen, or anywhere else. I’m pretty sure your government now has the same jurisdiction to target you with the drone at your wedding without a trial of any sorts…You cool with that?
[QUOTE=“Hogarste;487377”]
Does anyone think that in similar circumstances we’d use nuclear weapons today as we did in Japan? I can’t imagine that we would, which answers the question of whether we should have or not. I do not fully remember my history, but wasn’t the deal with Japan the fact that they refused to have the Emperor stand down, but was otherwise willing to surrender[/QUOTE]
Absolutely we would… The only alternative was a much more destructive ground campaign which would inflict greater casualties then the bomb drop. The choice of dropping a bomb will always be made under those circumstances.