BF2S Forums The West and Islamophobia: the New Anti-Semitism?

usmarine2007 wrote:

LaidBackNinja wrote:

They could have nuked any military base, but they chose to hit two civilian population centers. Draw your own conclusions.

Conclusion = Many many many more Innocent lives spared.

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

That is the biggest pile of crap I have ever heard.  I suppose some use heaven as a placebo for the fear of death; the Americans use "more lives saved" as one for their guilt.

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

LaidBackNinja wrote:

They could have nuked any military base, but they chose to hit two civilian population centers. Draw your own conclusions.

Conclusion = Many many many more Innocent lives spared.

That is the biggest pile of crap I have ever heard.  I suppose some use heaven as a placebo for the fear of death; the Americans use "more lives saved" as one for their guilt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Support wrote:

Those who argue in favor of the decision of the USA to have dropped the bomb center their argument around the theme that the bombings ended the war months sooner than would otherwise have been the case, saving many lives that would have been lost due to an impending invasion,[42] or were being lost due to continuing fighting.

While the death of US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, on April 12, 1945, marked a hopeful moment for the Japanese people, who were largely unaware of the inauspicious state of their war efforts owing to government propaganda, the German surrender of May 8 seemed to forbode certain defeat. In complete isolation, Allied forces controlled much of the globe. It could be presumed that it was only a matter of time before Russia reoriented her forces to declare war on Japan; Japan, at the time, still occupied territory it had won from Russia in the Russo-Japanese War.

Military, strategic, and technological superiority in the months leading up to the August 1945 atomic bombing seemed to indicate that Japan would have to surrender, but even beyond Victory in Europe Day, battle was fierce. The Battle of Okinawa, for instance, which had begun while Germany was still a trusted and steady Japanese ally, raged on well beyond the collapse of Germany, ultimately claiming 72,000 US casualties of whom over 12,500 were dead or missing, in addition to over 200,000 Japanese dead, at least half of whom were civilians. From the Allied standpoint, Japan seemed to have every incentive to surrender unconditionally, and yet Emperor Hirohito, regarded as a living deity for whom approximately 4,000 kamikazes laid down their lives, appeared culturally or politically unable to do so.

A nation historically suspicious of Western imperialism, Japanese military officials were unanimously opposed to any negotiations before the use of the atomic bomb.[citation needed] The rise of Japanese militarism in the wake of the Great Depression had resulted in countless assassinations of reformers attempting to check military power, such as those of Takahashi Korekiyo, Saitō Makoto, and Inukai Tsuyoshi, creating an environment in which opposition to war was itself a risky endeavor.

While some members of the civilian leadership did use covert diplomatic channels to attempt peace negotiation, they could not negotiate surrender or even cease-fire. Japan, as a Constitutional Monarchy, could only enter into a peace agreement with the unanimous support of the Japanese cabinet, a cabinet dominated by militarists of the Japanese Imperial Army and Navy, all of whom were staunchly opposed to surrender. A political stalemate developed between the military and civilian leaders of Japan, the military increasingly determined to fight despite all costs and odds. Many continued to believe that Japan could negotiate more favorable terms of surrender by continuing to inflict high levels of casualties on opposing forces, to end the war without an occupation of Japan or change of government.

Historian Victor Davis Hanson points to increased Japanese resistance, futile though it was, as it became obvious that Axis defeat was certain. The Battle of Okinawa showed this determination to fight on at all costs. More than 120,000 Japanese and 12,000 U.S. personnel were killed in this bloodiest battle of the Pacific theater, just eight weeks before Japan's final surrender. When the Soviet Union declared war on Japan on August 8, 1945, and carried out Operation August Storm, the Japanese Imperial Army ordered its ill-supplied forces in Manchuria to fight to the last man. Major General Masakazu Amano, chief of operations at Japanese Imperial Headquarters, stated that he was absolutely convinced his defensive preparations, begun in early 1944, could repel Allied invasion of the home islands with minimal losses.

According to some Japanese historians, after realizing that the destruction of Hiroshima was from a nuclear weapon, civilian leadership gained more traction in its argument that Japan had to concede defeat and accept the Potsdam Declaration. Even after the destruction of Nagasaki, the emperor himself needed to intervene to end a deadlock in the cabinet.

The peace faction seized on the bombing as decisive justification of surrender. Kōichi Kido, one of Emperor Hirohito's closest advisors, stated: "We of the peace party were assisted by the atomic bomb in our endeavor to end the war." Hisatsune Sakomizu, the chief Cabinet secretary in 1945, called the bombing "a golden opportunity given by heaven for Japan to end the war." According to these historians and others, the pro-peace civilian leadership was able to use the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to convince the military that no amount of courage, skill, and fearless combat could help Japan against the power of atomic weapons.

Supporters of the bombing also point out that waiting for the Japanese to surrender was not a cost-free option—as a result of the war, noncombatants were dying throughout Asia at a rate of about 200,000 per month.[citation needed] Firebombing had killed well over 100,000 people in Japan since February of 1945, directly and indirectly. That intensive conventional bombing would have continued prior to an invasion. The submarine blockade and the United States Army Air Forces's mining operation, Operation Starvation, had effectively cut off Japan's imports. A complementary operation against Japan's railways was about to begin, isolating the cities of southern Honshū from the food grown elsewhere in the Home Islands. "Immediately after the defeat, some estimated that 10 million people were likely to starve to death," noted historian Daikichi Irokawa. Meanwhile, in addition to the Soviet attacks, fighting continued in The Philippines, New Guinea and Borneo, and offensives were scheduled for September in southern China and Malaya.

The Americans anticipated losing many soldiers in the planned invasion of Japan, although the actual number of expected fatalities and wounded is subject to some debate. It depends on the persistence and reliability of Japanese resistance, and whether the Allies would have invaded only Kyūshū in November 1945 or if a follow up Allied landing near Tokyo, projected for March 1946, would have been needed. Years after the war, Secretary of State James Byrnes claimed that 500,000 "American" lives would have been lost, however in the summer of 1945,[citation needed] U.S. military planners projected 20,000–110,000 combat deaths from the initial November 1945 invasion, with about three to four times that number wounded. (Total U.S. combat deaths on all fronts in World War II in nearly four years of war were 292,000.)

The atomic bomb hastened the end of the Second World War in Asia liberating millions in occupied areas, including thousands of Western citizens; about 200,000 Dutch and 400,000 Indonesians ("Romushas") from Japanese concentration camps. Moreover, Japanese troops had committed atrocities against millions of civilians (such as the infamous Nanking Massacre), and the early end to the war prevented further bloodshed.

Supporters also point to an order given by the Japanese War Ministry on August 1, 1944, ordering the disposal and execution of all Allied POWs, numbering over 100,000, if an invasion of the Japanese mainland took place.[43]

Supporters of the bombings have argued that the Japanese government waged total war, ordering many civilians (including women and children) to work in factories and military offices and to fight against any invading force. Father John A. Siemes, professor of modern philosophy at Tokyo's Catholic University, and an eyewitness to the atomic bomb attack on Hiroshima wrote:

    "We have discussed among ourselves the ethics of the use of the bomb. Some consider it in the same category as poison gas and were against its use on a civil population. Others were of the view that in total war, as carried on in Japan, there was no difference between civilians and soldiers, and that the bomb itself was an effective force tending to end the bloodshed, warning Japan to surrender and thus to avoid total destruction. It seems logical to me that he who supports total war in principle cannot complain of war against civilians."[44]

Some supporters of the bombings have emphasized the strategic significance of Hiroshima, as the Japanese 2nd army's headquarters, and of Nagasaki, as a major munitions manufacturing center.

In his speech to the Japanese people presenting his reasons for surrender, Emperor Hirohito refers specifically to the atomic bombs, stating that if they continued to fight it would result in "...an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#Estimated_casualties_for_Downfall wrote:

As the U.S. military planners assumed "that operations in this area will be opposed not only by the available organized military forces of the Empire, but also by a fanatically hostile population",[6] high casualties were thought to be inevitable, but nobody knew with certainty how high. Several people made estimates but they varied widely in numbers, assumptions, and purposes — which included advocating for and against the invasion — afterwards, they were reused to argue for and against the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Casualty estimates were based on the experience of the preceding campaigns, drawing different lessons:

    * In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April, the figures of 7.45 casualties/1,000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities/1,000 man-days were developed. This implied that a 90-day Olympic campaign would cost 456,000 casualties, including 109,000 dead or missing. If Coronet took another 90 days, the combined cost would be 1,200,000 casualties, with 267,000 fatalities.[30]

    * A study done by Adm. Nimitz's staff in May estimated 49,000 casualties in the first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea.[31] A study done by Gen. MacArthur's staff in June estimated 23,000 in the first 30 days and 125,000 after 120 days.[32] When these figures were questioned by Gen. Marshall, MacArthur submitted a revised estimate of 105,000, in part by deducting wounded men able to return to duty.[33]

    * In a conference with President Truman on 18 June, Marshall, taking the Battle of Luzon as the best model for Olympic, thought the Americans would suffer 31,000 casualties in the first 30 days (and ultimately 20% of Japanese casualties, which implied a total of 70,000 casualties).[34] Adm. Leahy, more impressed by the Battle of Okinawa, thought the American forces would suffer a 35% casualty rate (implying an ultimate toll of 268,000).[35] Admiral King thought that casualties in the first 30 days would fall between Luzon and Okinawa, i.e., between 31,000 and 41,000.[36]

Of these estimates, only Nimitz's included losses of the forces at sea, though kamikazes had inflicted 1.78 fatalities per kamikaze pilot in the Battle of Okinawa,[37] and troop transports off Kyūshū would have been much more exposed.

    * A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7–4 million American casualties, including 400,000–800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.[38]

Outside the government, well-informed civilians were also making guesses. Kyle Palmer, war correspondent for the Los Angeles Times, said half a million to a million Americans would die by the end of the war. ]b\Herbert Hoover, in memorandums submitted to Truman and Stimson, also estimated 500,000–1,000,000 fatalities, and were believed to be conservative estimates;[/b] but it is not known if Hoover discussed these specific figures in his meetings with Truman. The chief of the Army Operations division thought them "entirely too high" under "our present plan of campaign."[39]

For context, the Battle of Normandy had cost 63,000 casualties in the first 48 days; and the Battle of Okinawa ran up 72,000 casualties over about 82 days, of whom 18,900 were killed or missing. Several thousand soldiers who died indirectly whether because of wounds or other causes at a later date are not included. The entire war cost the United States a total of just over a million casualties, with 400,000 fatalities.

Nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals were manufactured in anticipation of the casualties resulting from the invasion of Japan. As of 2005, all the American military casualties of the following sixty years — including the Korean and Vietnam Wars — have not exceeded that number.

First article above wrote:

In estimating the death toll from the attacks, there are several factors that make it difficult to arrive at reliable figures: inadequacies in the records given the confusion of the times, the many victims who died months or years after the bombing as a result of radiation exposure, and the pressure to either exaggerate or minimize the numbers, depending upon political agenda. That said, it is estimated that as many as 140,000 had died in Hiroshima by the bomb and its associated effects,[1][2][3] with the estimate for Nagasaki roughly 74,000.[4] In both cities, the overwhelming majority of the deaths were those of civilians.

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

As far as I'm concerned, the war was won when Hitler shot himself.....

Vilham wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

^^ My grandpa still hates Japs and Germans.

That is because he was alive to witness what they did im guessing, its exactly the reason the Palestine Israel conflict will never end, people just cant let by gones be by gones.

sergeriver wrote:

Everyday we read about the problems in the Middle East, the fight between Israel and Arab Nations, the massive immigration from Muslim countries to Europe, etc.  And the generalized feeling in the West towards Islam is that it's a Religion of terrorism, and that we should fear all the Muslims.  At least a lot of people think this way, and this general feeling about the Muslim community draws a parallel to the anti-Semitism that was prevelant in the Nazi Germany upto the Holocaust.  Are Muslims becoming the new Jews?  Is this kind of stereotype, particularly vilification in the media, making Muslims the new scapegoats?  What do you think?

rawls2 wrote:

I think you are all confusing islamophobia with "fly a plane into a buildingphobia" or "Blow up women and children in a cafephobia". Two very different things.

Last edited by sergeriver (2007-01-29 09:39:58)

sergeriver wrote:

rawls2 wrote:

I think you are all confusing islamophobia with "fly a plane into a buildingphobia" or "Blow up women and children in a cafephobia". Two very different things.

Personally, I don't deny those things happening, but generalizing about a whole community for the actions of a few ones, could lead to some sort of racism or discrimination.

rawls2 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

rawls2 wrote:

I think you are all confusing islamophobia with "fly a plane into a buildingphobia" or "Blow up women and children in a cafephobia". Two very different things.

Personally, I don't deny those things happening, but generalizing about a whole community for the actions of a few ones, could lead to some sort of racism or discrimination.

Aha, you hit the nail on the head.
Don't judge the actions of a few generalizing Americans and say that America is turning anti-islam. The way you see Americans generalizing is the same way we see Americans bieng generalized as anti-islam when in reality we are anti-9/11 or anti-Madrid etc etc.

sergeriver wrote:

rawls2 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Personally, I don't deny those things happening, but generalizing about a whole community for the actions of a few ones, could lead to some sort of racism or discrimination.

Aha, you hit the nail on the head.
Don't judge the actions of a few generalizing Americans and say that America is turning anti-islam. The way you see Americans generalizing is the same way we see Americans bieng generalized as anti-islam when in reality we are anti-9/11 or anti-Madrid etc etc.

When did I say that Americans only were doing this?  It's all the non Muslim World.  Show me where I wrote it and I'll delete it, lol.