[Stated motivations don't matter with crimes like those committed by the 9/11 terrorists. Deliberately targeting civilian for slaughter on such a massive scale shows that the terrorists' cause has gone beyond reason. Groups that display this kind of nihilism can't be negotiated with.] -Steve
I replied, "As far as actually targeting civilians, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were on a massive scale."
[ There you go again with ignoring the context. ] -Steve
Steve, for God sakes you had just made the point that the context doesn't matter! You said "stated motivations don't matter " when it is on a massive scale and the target is civilians. You made the point that deliberately targeting civilians on such a scale shows that the cause "has gone beyond reason."
But now you want to make excuses for it. Osama bin Laden has excuses for his attacks too.
An interesting point is the level of dishonesty when dealing with US crimes against civilians. You mentioned Truman and MacArthur. Truman apparently was in denial (or incredibly IGNORANT to the point of absurdity) about the fact that he was targeting civilians. President Truman told his diary that he had ordered the bomb dropped on a "purely military" target, so that "military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children." Truman lied about what really happened, "The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians." Hear him lie.
The very day after the atomic bomb hit Hiroshima, the personal pilot of General Douglas MacArthur, commander of Allied forces in the Pacific, recorded in his diary that MacArthur was "appalled and depressed by this Frankenstein monster."
And the "need" for dropping the bomb is not as clear cut as you would like it to be.
"... there was no need to demand the unconditional surrender of Japan. If we had offered Japan the kind of peace treaty which we actually gave her, we could have had a negotiated peace."- Leo Szilard
As far as Nat Turner, the media was no more honest about his motives than they are about terrorists today. When Nat Turner and fellow terrorists attacked in American in 1831, the press played the SAME GAME of denying what was behind the terrorism. Describing Nat Turner in 1831 the Richmond Enquirer wrote, "He was artful, impudent and vindicative, without any cause or provocation"
WITHOUT ANY CAUSE OR PROVOCATION!
[The Nat Turner rebellion was a slave rebellion.]-Steve
So? And you can see how the press reported it at the time. You ignored my point, Nat Turner killed civilians: does that mean we never should have ended slavery? Was what Nat Turner did wrong or not, you really didn't make that clear.
As far as Israel, ethnic cleansing is wrong. From the beginning key Zionists plotted to remove non-Jews from Palestine. The Jewish Zionists used terrorism and the Jewish Zionists even killed Jews who objected to their agenda. Why should a small minority be allowed to discriminate and impose their racist agenda upon the majority? This is what happened when they sought to impose partition of land that wasn't theirs. Do you believe in democracy and human rights or not? You may be interested to know the background of the May 1948 unilateral declaration by 33% of the population, imposing their will on 67% of the non-Jews. In Nov 1947 the UN made a recommendation for a three-way partition of Palestine into a Jewish State, an Arab State and a small internationally administered zone that would have included Jerusalem. This was a recommendation by the UN General Assembly and General Assembly recommendations have no force, they are only recommendations. In fact Israel is the greatest rejecter of General Assembly resolutions by the way. When the recommendation was made, war broke out between the Palestinians and the Zionists who had been planning on taking over and had amassed much more arms. By May 1948, when the Jews (33%) unilaterally declared "the state of Israel", 300,000 Palestinians had already been ethnically cleansed, (forced from their homes or had fled the fighting) by the Zionists and the Zionists had stolen a region well beyond the area of the original Jewish State that was proposed by the UN. IsraelHistory What Israel is doing is about imposing a racist state upon people, it isn't about "security". You don't move Jewish families into the territories if your concern is "security". It is more of the land grab, those that accept the excuse of "security" are naive to say the least.