So you want morbid?. Doesn't get much worse than this... I can't click the green thumb that says "Funny" under it because the Japanese actually did this many times in China from 1937-1945... they would place


Anonymous comments allowed.
#79 - Saeka (05/16/2012) [-]
My grandfather was in WW2.
He didn't talk much about it but every once in a while he would tell us about some pretty morbid stuff.
He got separated from his troupe and had to walk across half of China with two other guys to get back to his allies. He had a lot of help from Chinese peasants who let him stay for the night and hide him from the occupying Japanese.
When the Japanese were bored, they would steal Chinese babies from their mothers' arms, throw them into the air and catch them on bayonets.
It was a game to them and he could do nothing to stop them. He was 19.
#140 - skuser (05/17/2012) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #230 to #221 - Blargosnarf ONLINE (05/17/2012) [-]
That looks like Vietnam... or North Korea...
#80 - fegeltroll (05/16/2012) [-]
I can't click the green thumb that says "Funny" under it because the Japanese actually did this many times in China from 1937-1945... they would place bets on whether the baby was a boy or girl, then do this to find out, sometimes they would also fling it up into the air and try to catch it on their bayonets for fun... mfw people say the Americans committed the worst atrocity by nuking Japan (even though invading Japan would have cause many million Japanese civilian deaths and over one million American deaths while dropping the two nukes caused less than 200,000 deaths)...
#214 to #80 - extremistavenger (05/17/2012) [-]
America, Japan, Germany, just about everyone 			******		 up or did some 			******		 up 			****		 after/during WWII. But on the topic of nuclear bombings there's a mix between why America should and shouldn't have done it. There were certainly alternatives that wouldn't have cost environmental damage and innocent lives, but America had wanted to impress Russia as well as put the money used on nuclear testing to "actual use". There is no right or wrong, somebody had to slap Japan and tell them to get a grip, they got way out of hand, and it cost them good people, what a waste.
America, Japan, Germany, just about everyone ****** up or did some ****** up **** after/during WWII. But on the topic of nuclear bombings there's a mix between why America should and shouldn't have done it. There were certainly alternatives that wouldn't have cost environmental damage and innocent lives, but America had wanted to impress Russia as well as put the money used on nuclear testing to "actual use". There is no right or wrong, somebody had to slap Japan and tell them to get a grip, they got way out of hand, and it cost them good people, what a waste.
User avatar #239 to #214 - fegeltroll (05/17/2012) [-]
It is a shame that, throughout civilization, people have always been warring with each other, trying to take that which is not there's... sadly, this will never change since it is in human nature to want that which is not ours, so there will always be war.
User avatar #244 to #239 - extremistavenger (05/17/2012) [-]
"War, war never changes."

Human nature is sometimes a big, fat joke sometimes, wouldn't you say?
User avatar #258 to #244 - fegeltroll (05/17/2012) [-]
Yes, it is most certainly flawed. One of my favorite quotes goes something like this; I think it was a Roman saying: "If you want peace, prepare for war."
User avatar #96 to #80 - gramernazi (05/17/2012) [-]
Well that doesn't explain why they bombed cities before trying to end the war. Have you heard of the Kobe firebombings and many other Japanese civillian bombings? I totally agree with you but I also don't understand why they can't do that to the taliban today.
User avatar #116 to #96 - fegeltroll (05/17/2012) [-]
They can't do that to the Taliban today because of the media. They would make the entire world think that those planes dropping bombs were ending all civilization. I believe, even though it sounds harsh, that they should flatten cities because of the effect it would have on citizens' morale. Since the civilians see no destruction, they think that that Taliban is powerful and that the West is weak. If their cities were flattened, they would know that the Taliban is weak and the West is not, and they would be force to make a choice: stop resistance or, simply, die. That's just my logic and I could be wrong, though, so I'm not sure what the best way to defeating the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and other terrorism would be. Then again, no one seems to know.
User avatar #188 to #116 - mussyo (05/17/2012) [-]
wow dude, just wow. I hope you never have the decision to end some ones life
User avatar #194 to #188 - fegeltroll (05/17/2012) [-]
Like I said, it's harsh, and if I were in the position to do this, I would probably pussy out, but if we hadn't done this to Japan, we could still be fighting them today...
User avatar #201 to #194 - mussyo (05/17/2012) [-]
Maybe, maybe not, It is not for us to say.

Just tell me, do you not think that the death of an innocent person is a bad thing ?
User avatar #224 to #201 - fegeltroll (05/17/2012) [-]
I think that it is a horrible thing, but when you are forced to decide whether 200,000 innocents should die, or up to and maybe over 10,000,000 innocents should die, which one would you choose?
User avatar #236 to #224 - mussyo (05/17/2012) [-]
I would let the individuals decide, as each person should have their say. Take the quarrel to those who have one, and separate the innocent from the guilty. It would take a very long time, yes, but in the end, at the very least we did not give up on our humanity.

Do not get me wrong, I understand the logical and quantifiable facts of your opinion, its just a choice I would never have made, for if we make everyone a number, they fail to hold "value" individually.
#405 to #236 - iamflowseidon (05/17/2012) [-]
Unfortunately, nothing is that simple, and we live in a world where leaders have to make decisions. When you're the American president, "Can't we just ask each Japanese person how they feel and fight them accordingly?" isn't an option. In an ideal world, I would agree with you. Generally speaking, killing 200,000 people is an atrocity no matter how it's done. But as a realist, I know it was us or them, and I'm damn glad it was them
User avatar #503 to #405 - mussyo (05/19/2012) [-]
at least you acknowledge the atrocity
User avatar #254 to #236 - fegeltroll (05/17/2012) [-]
If someone could create a machines that could pause time everywhere except for where you want, then your solution would be perfect. Sadly, that technology is not here yet, and to do what you have suggested would take a very long time, perhaps over a year, and by then more innocent people, perhaps more than the 200,000 to die from the nukes, would have died. The saddest thing for me is that these problems will never go away since, form the beginning of civilization, people have been warring with each other to try to take that which is not theirs. Sadly, this will never change since it is in human nature to want that which is not ours, so there will always be war, and we will always have to answer question and make decisions like these.
User avatar #106 to #80 - vivial (05/17/2012) [-]
Thank you for having a different view of things

I don't really know what I'm saying but I really appreciate you for that comment. I appreciate you for informing people

I seriously don't know what I'm saying. I feel like i have to thank you somehow
User avatar #191 to #106 - fegeltroll (05/17/2012) [-]
Thank you for your appreciation. I love discussing WWII, and it pleases me to know that I am helping to inform people about WWII and that people like you respect my opinions, even if they are different from most others'.
User avatar #152 to #80 - samxdaxman (05/17/2012) [-]
we were just learning about WWII in world cultures and when i brought up the fact an invasion wouldve cost more american and japanese deaths and that bombing was the best choice most of the class raged and called me a racist asshole. until the teacher took my side. and winston churchill. and any official in the american military who knew what was going on. that shut them up.
User avatar #161 to #152 - fegeltroll (05/17/2012) [-]
Same thing happened to me except my teacher did not help me and when I tried to support my argument, the rest of the class simply outshouted me... so much for trying to have a polite, thoughtful and considerate debate...
User avatar #165 to #161 - samxdaxman (05/17/2012) [-]
i hate when people do that. it seriously is one of the only things that makes me want to punch them. shouting louder doesnt win arguments, just as much as using caps lock makes you look intelligent.
User avatar #176 to #165 - fegeltroll (05/17/2012) [-]
Or when people say that I'm not arguing against them, I'm arguing against God or science or, as mussyo said in comment #158, "you argue against MORALITY not ME!" All of these things are debatable, not fact, as morality is merely one's opinion. The science that is often debated is made up of theories, not facts, so they are debatable, and religion is also made up of theories, not fact, so it is also debatable.
User avatar #212 to #176 - samxdaxman (05/17/2012) [-]
exactly. i could be raised to think that killing babies is good and that all buddhists are the devil. that would be my morality. almost everything is debatable. science, religion, art everything.
User avatar #231 to #212 - fegeltroll (05/17/2012) [-]
Yes; the more you think about it, the more you realize that everything is debatable, no matter how outrageous it may seem.
User avatar #186 to #176 - mussyo (05/17/2012) [-]
Morality is not opinion... and it does not spout from religion. I have a solid moral compass and am an atheist...
User avatar #203 to #186 - fegeltroll (05/17/2012) [-]
I never said it had anything to do with religion. What I said (or at least tried to say) was that it is a person's opinion of what is moral or not. Therefore, I believe that morality is an opinion, or opinionated, what ever sounds better, I think you know what I mean.
User avatar #218 to #203 - mussyo (05/17/2012) [-]
yes I do, so your opinion is that morality is an opinion ?

You are allowed your opinion, but I do not think it is right.

It has been nice of you to be mannered in this debate.
#166 to #80 - gabolo (05/17/2012) [-]
What i have a problem with is, appart from the 300,000 civilian deaths during the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, but the genocide the americans commited when setteling the west. They systematically forced indians off their reservations and made them amrch for hundreds of miles. They killed their food source made them die of hunger, thousands and thousands of dead native americans because they wanted ti settle the west. Thats a pretty large atrocity if you ask me.
User avatar #237 to #166 - samxdaxman (05/17/2012) [-]
there is no nation in this world that hasnt committed at least one atrocity or been the victim of an atrocity. we all mess up so i say forgive but dont forget so it doesnt happen again.
#83 to #80 - anon (05/16/2012) [-]
About damn time someone said it. The marxist thinkers who say that the bomb shouldn't have been dropped didn't live under Japanese rule or fight the Japanse army. Therefore, they have no right to disagree with it.
User avatar #90 to #83 - fegeltroll (05/17/2012) [-]
I was actually prepared for red thumbs when I posted this. In debate class, whenever I would state this, everyone would go ******* and react to me as if I was the second Hitler. Whenever I would try to explain to them how many lives it actually saved and why, they would just drown me out with their screaming. At least I tried...
#337 to #80 - findtheanswer (05/17/2012) [-]
I ******* love you now.

no homo
User avatar #108 to #80 - hagletrough ONLINE (05/17/2012) [-]
I'm Chinese and know this side of the story very well from going to school there. Coming from a Communist country to a nation of supposed free thinking, I was kind of disappointed in how much of America was ignorant and only knew biased stories of historical events.
User avatar #113 to #108 - vivial (05/17/2012) [-]
I'm Chinese too, but I didn't know of any specific "activities" the Japanese did to the Chinese during the time of the war. Knowing this now though, has given me a new view of things.
User avatar #81 to #80 - IceViper (05/16/2012) [-]
Japan deserved that **** . They call it the Rape of Nankung for a reason
User avatar #86 to #81 - fegeltroll (05/17/2012) [-]
Sometimes I can't tell who was sicker: the Nazis and SS who planned and carried out the Final Solution, or the Japanese who raped Nanking. At least the Nazis were somewhat systematic and quick with their atrocities, on the other hand, the Japanese seem to have done what they did purely for fun and enjoyment. The Nazis did what they did because, in their perverted view, they believed it was their mission. The Japanese did what they did for fun, pleasure, and enjoyment.
User avatar #89 to #86 - IceViper (05/17/2012) [-]
but the nazis were a very small part of the Germans with a lot of power. They used to power to force people to exterminate jews, so it was a small group of very evil people. The Japanese soldiers all took part in the atrocities that took place. They even took young girls and made them sex slaves for the japanese brigades known as the "comfort brigade"
User avatar #99 to #89 - fegeltroll (05/17/2012) [-]
I've heard of that. The Japanese also forced random Chinese civilians to have sex with random, dead, decaying bodies still left on the streets from the fighting. I also wish that more people would understand that, as you said, most Germans were not Nazis. The Germans that committed the atrocities were the SS (not to be confused with the Wehrmacht, or the rest of the German military) and some of the high-ranking Nazi officials. Besides that, most Germans were innocent, and I respect the Wehrmacht as much as I respect the Allied militaries that fought during WWII. The Japanese, on the other hand, very often committed atrocities and disobeyed the "code of war" (i.e. they would raise they white flag of surrender and drop their weapons, but when the American marines would come to capture them, the would pick up their guns and kill the marines. They would also wait for an American medic to come and tend to them if they were wounded, then pull out a grenade and explode themselves once the medic arrived). This is why the fighting in the Pacific was unusually harsh. (Sorry for long text.)
User avatar #101 to #99 - IceViper (05/17/2012) [-]
Yeah i totally agree with you. and its really unfair to Germans because although i'm American i see that German people in general get so much **** for things that happened 2 generations ago and things they had nothing to do with.
User avatar #111 to #99 - sidekickman (05/17/2012) [-]
A lot of people do ignore the fact that many of the Jews persecuted were Germans.
User avatar #122 to #99 - TarnRazor (05/17/2012) [-]
I wanna thank you both for this information. I was never told about this and, therefore, was ignorant of the truth behind World War II. This really changed my outlook on things.
User avatar #126 to #122 - fegeltroll (05/17/2012) [-]
Thank you for saying that. I enjoy having WWII discussions and spreading knowledge that people may not have heard before. I'm glad that you learned something from one of my posts, even though it is, for me, depressing information to learn.
User avatar #470 to #126 - fattyhasarrived (05/17/2012) [-]
You have to remember that the Allies are perceived as the 'good guys' and the Nazis and Japanese as 'bad guys'. When advancing on Berlin the Russians also committed many atrocities. They raped many German and Eastern European women, sent many to prison camps where people were treated nearly as badly as the Japanese and the Nazis treated their 'prisoners'. So did the Americans (I'm not pro-Nazi or Japanese, I just believe some get pulled into the good-guy-bad-guy thing), but they are shown as the 'good guys' because they followed the Geneva Conventions more than most other nations, i.e prisoners should be adequately fed and housed etc. But I do agree that the Japanese deserved the use of nuclear weapons, even though the bombs were terrible. American generals believd they would lose 1,000,000 men if they organised a land invasion. The Japanese dropped bacteria and viruses over towns in China to 'test' how they could be used in war. They had 'decapitation competitions' amongst the soldiers. They had live bayonet practises. They even took prisoners and did medical procedures upon them, such as removing most of their internal organs and seeing how long they could last. The Japanese were sick and ruthless, and followed the Bushido code (if i remember correctly), which basically meant honor over all else, and honor was only achieved through killing as many enemy as possible, even if it meant your own death. Sorry for the super-long text, but it's a shame if no-one learns of the atrocities committed by both sides during the war,
#95 to #89 - mussyo (05/17/2012) [-]
It is not down to us to decide who lives or who dies!

When it is a war, there is 2 countries against each other, or several against each other,

There is hope to defend ones self against another soldier, but much like the gassing of the Jews, the Japanese had no defence, It was not strategic, it was the international equivalent of beating a child with a hammer, a defence was not possible! These are the reasons I do no agree with the bombings, it is not for us to decide whether people should die, it is only our decision to defend ourselves that is justifiable if it leads to death, as at least you were protecting yourself, as opposed to downright murdering someone out of convenience.
User avatar #97 to #95 - IceViper (05/17/2012) [-]
it stopped countless more deaths from a war that would have continued and quickly killed more people than the bombings did in the first place.
#103 to #97 - mussyo (05/17/2012) [-]
Irrelevant as at least there was a ground for defence on both sides, this way, no such defence was possible.

Also you cannot determine how many lives would of been lost, most books report the end of the way was nigh, and this was just an act of aggression to assert dominance in order to obtain the status that america have today.

By your logic, the Afghani and Iraqi government have full right to nuke the US as the US soldiers have continued to commit horrible hate crimes, in each country against, their people. You cannot endorse the ideology that one person should have the decision to annihilate an entire population due to convenience, regardless of how many terrible things have been committed, not everyone in the area of effect was in agreement with the actions of a few, and there is no way to know whether they were all guilty or not, so realistically they condemned thousands of people to death with no regard to individual responsibility.
User avatar #104 to #103 - IceViper (05/17/2012) [-]
That is a broad steriotype. the US has been very good about being in iraq and afghanistan. Any hate crimes were probably results of PTSD and would occur no matter what country was there. ( **** happens).

And the japanese had a cultural enigma that they would never give up. Nuking them made them give up and stopped many years of war with less deaths respectively.
User avatar #107 to #104 - mussyo (05/17/2012) [-]
You are generalising, according to what you said, the Japanese should not have give up even after the bombs, so defeat was something they would of considered.

Also it is as "BROAD" a stereotype that all 200,000 of those people that died were all hate crime committing criminals.

America was in the wrong, and according to " **** happens" theory, why didn't all American soldiers commit the hate crimes? Also if " **** happens" then cutting babies up is just another physical manifestation of PTSD... practice what you preach mate :)
User avatar #114 to #107 - IceViper (05/17/2012) [-]
well they werent showing signs of giving up so it didnt look like they were going to. Thats why we bombed them.

I never said the 200,000 were hate crime committing criminals.

And **** does happen. No matter where, if there is an invasion there are going to be crimes committed. Im saying PTSD probably caused the crimes. Are you aussie hating on America? because im just saying that bombing Japan was a faster easier way out of the war with less death and killling civilians was very acceptable for the Japanese in China and everywhere basically at the time.
User avatar #121 to #114 - fegeltroll (05/17/2012) [-]
You're correct. In fact, had Emperor Hirohito not intervened and said that Japan should not go on fighting, the Japanese would probably not have surrendered. Almost all Japanese military officials still wanted to fight on after the second atomic bomb, and some still wanted to continue the fight even after the emperor said not to. They had plans for citizens of all ages and genders to become soldiers armed with guns, katanas, and sharpened bamboo sticks, or to become suicide bombers if the American invaded Japan. Imagine how many more deaths and casualties that would have caused...
User avatar #123 to #121 - IceViper (05/17/2012) [-]
yes, my point exactly good sir.
User avatar #130 to #123 - fegeltroll (05/17/2012) [-]
Thank you for your agreement, my fellow FJer. I also posted this so that mussyo could see this, though personally, I doubt anything we post will change his/her opinion. Hopefully though, other people will learn some new facts and maybe even change some of their opinions of WWII because of this discussion.
User avatar #136 to #130 - IceViper (05/17/2012) [-]
im looking for a document. i know its right because i saw it on discovery channel that some smart guys figured out that nuking them would be the least harmful way out to the Japanese economically and also with casualties.
#133 to #121 - mussyo (05/17/2012) [-]
HOW does that matter ? Innocent people were killed!! do you understand that ? not criminals, but INNOCENT PEOPLE! you killed a league of innocent people so that no more of your soldiers, WHO JOIN THE MILITARY knowing full well DEATH is a possibility , would not die.

That is weakness when it comes to a decision, people will argue that deciding to bomb the city was the "hard decision" but no, it was the easy way out. To annihilate a city, regardless of who is innocent or not, so they do not become more of a problem!
User avatar #151 to #133 - fegeltroll (05/17/2012) [-]
I don't think you understand, not only would millions more of the militants have died, but up into the tens of millions of civilians would have also had died!!!! because they would have been forced to become soldiers with outdated and degraded weapons or suicide bombers. Yes, to have less than 200,000 people whom were mainly civilians die in war is very tragic, but it is better than the alternative were tens of millions of soldiers and civilians (mainly civilians) would have died!
#158 to #151 - mussyo (05/17/2012) [-]
look, you cannot quantify what would of happened, the fact is, you did not let that country decide for itself, or the individual in the city to decide for themselves as to whether they should fight or not. You do not now the future or what would of happened, my point is you did not allow them to have an opinion or even act. you slaughtered them, with no regard. No excuse can ever be made for the slaying of innocent lives. Nothing you can say can change that sir, you argue against MORALITY not ME!
User avatar #183 to #158 - fegeltroll (05/17/2012) [-]
Japan did not let America decide for itself (what makes you so sure I am an American anyway?) at Pearl Harbor in 1941, and civilians were killed there also. And remember, Japan attacked America. In fact, America was isolationist before WWII and was dragged into it by Japan. It could be said that the destruction that fell onto Japan in 1945 was brought on by itself.
User avatar #192 to #183 - mussyo (05/17/2012) [-]
Once again, just because they did it, does not make it right we should. The same ******* injustice the American's felt, Japan felt too.

Also I am sorry for assuming you are American, even if you are, I should not have.
User avatar #217 to #192 - fegeltroll (05/17/2012) [-]
It is okay, I don't mind that you assumed that I am an American. I am currently an American, though I was born and spent my childhood in Germany.

In all honesty, I'm not sure how else to explain my opinion to you. I wish that the decision to drop the nukes did not have to be made, but it was a decision between bad or worse; either 200,000 die, or upwards into the 10 millions die. There is one thing I feel confident that we can all agree on and that is that I hope no one ever has to make a decision like that ever again for all time.
User avatar #223 to #217 - mussyo (05/17/2012) [-]
My thumbs for you sir and yes I agree that we hopefully will not see a decision like that again.
User avatar #228 to #223 - fegeltroll (05/17/2012) [-]
Thank you. If I am in a logical debate with a person, I like to try to at least find some common ground. Thank you for respecting that. Thumbs for you.
User avatar #482 to #133 - fattyhasarrived (05/17/2012) [-]
I don't think that you understand he scale of the war. The majority of the US military were conscripted, meaning that anyone within a certain age are enlisted to fight. America had already lost about 400,000 soldiers, whilst the USSR had lost (including civilians) nearly 23,000,000. The war had entirely consisted of bombing cities to make the enemy so scared and the country's population to have such a low morale that they surrender. It was a new kind of warfare. Japanese had killed nearly 5 million civilians. If you could kill only 100,000~200,000 Japanese and have minimal American losses, or you could plan a full scale invasion, lose 1,000,000 Americans and millions of Japanese, which would you choose?
User avatar #501 to #482 - mussyo (05/19/2012) [-]
you have no right to define whose life is worth more!

Stupid mentality that somehow because you are an american that you are worth more than someone else... pft
#119 to #114 - mussyo (05/17/2012) [-]
wut ?

Just because it is an easier and quicker option, does not mean it is the right one good sir!

there were signs all over the place that the war was about to end, same as in Iraq, America has a tendency to continue to be offensive when there is no cause left to fight against or for.

If it were down to me, I would have both the UK government and the US government held to trail on accounts of their actions abroad in Iraq, and I live in the UK, just so you know I have no bias in regards to a country.
User avatar #124 to #119 - IceViper (05/17/2012) [-]
but it saved more lives, thats why its a better option. Are you an aussie cuz ur hating on UK now too.
#128 to #124 - mussyo (05/17/2012) [-]
No, I am a UK CITIZEN, with a solid moral and legal mentality. it did not save more lives, it killed more innocents then the other option, which was to take on the guilty people as opposed to an entire city of people. I do not feel like you are reading what I am putting down, you repeat yourself and that is all you do. As evident in the fact that In my last comment I said I lived in the UK, and you asked yet again whether I am Australian ...
#132 to #128 - IceViper (05/17/2012) [-]
yes, but taking their guilty would mean killing more of them but more importantly it would mean more killing allied soldiers who were on the winning side. It saved lives, guilty or innocent on either side.   
P.S. i TL;DRed ur last post
yes, but taking their guilty would mean killing more of them but more importantly it would mean more killing allied soldiers who were on the winning side. It saved lives, guilty or innocent on either side.

P.S. i TL;DRed ur last post
#138 to #132 - mussyo (05/17/2012) [-]
It did not save anyone's lives, how is killing the population of 2 entire cities a morally OK way to solve a problem. Listen to yourself, convenience over what is right, you sound like someone else in history, but I cannot remember who!!?
User avatar #149 to #138 - IceViper (05/17/2012) [-]
here is a good point: we had to sacrafice some of Japan's population to prevent an invasion by Russian forces which would have caused more casualties (on top of the ones from the potentially really long war)

Finally and perhaps most importantly, Stalin agreed at Yalta that once the War in Europe was over, he would transfer his forces from Europe to Asia and within 90 days would enter the War in the Pacific against Japan. This is where timing becomes critically important. The War in Europe ended on May 8, 1945. May 8 plus 90 days is August 8. If the U.S. wanted to prevent Russia from occupying territory in east Asia the way it had occupied territory in eastern Europe, it needed to end the war as quickly as possible.

"This issue of territory in east Asia was especially important because before the war against Japan, China had been embroiled in a civil war of its own. It was the U.S.-favored nationalists under General Chiang Kai Shek against the communists under Mao Ze Dong. If communist Russia were allowed to gain territory in east Asia, it would throw its considerable military might behind Mao, almost certainly handing the communists a victory once the World War was ended and the civil war was resumed." You need to login to view this link
User avatar #156 to #149 - mussyo (05/17/2012) [-]
Yes, quoting a website is all fine and great.

But answer me this IceViper, When did a human being stop being a life and become just a number in a chess game.

A person is a person regardless of where they live, not only is that racism, but ignorance as well. those innocent people in that city SHOULD of had the right to retreat, or to run, they DESERVED to be heard, but I guess all mighty America, the believe in civil rights, made that decision for them. Silenced them before they became a problem.
User avatar #159 to #156 - IceViper (05/17/2012) [-]
This is my answer, mussyo.

In the early 1940s. Citizens were used as numbers and casualties everywhere in the world. It was extremely commonplace for citizens being killed for a economic effect or for a surrender, which Japan was not giving anytime soon. America did what anyone else would have done. Hell, they didnt kill anywhere near what other countries did for the same effect.

It was absolutely justified.
#168 to #159 - mussyo (05/17/2012) [-]
Dude what they thought at the time does not make it right, america used to think black people did not deserve rights, look how foolish you look in modern society today because of that decision.

What you think is right and what is right are two difference things, and one holds more objectivity over the other. I am sure you know which one.

It was not justified, this is not a matter of opinion, when you chose to take an innocent persons life, knowingly, that is wrong. No amount of word play, or arguing will ever change that sir.
User avatar #210 to #168 - IceViper (05/17/2012) [-]
your last rebuttal was very childish at that, i never said i agreed with the rascist movements that took place in the 1950s, so that accusation was yet a petty insult that you accuse me of. refusing to talk to me changes the subject matter in the first place. i have been backed up with math and sociology among other things saying that: dropping the bomb ended the war faster with less death. it also prevented Russia's ocupation of Japan which was a plus for the citizens.
User avatar #229 to #210 - mussyo (05/17/2012) [-]
Sir, I ask, Are you able to read ? A question, not an insult.

It's only that the following, cannot be seen as a accusation:

"America does, i hope you are not saying that they do not actually deserve rights, because if so, I no longer have respect for you sir and will refused to acknowledge anything you say furthermore"

I simple asked for clarification, you have no grounds to call me childish, and if you are a racist, I OF COURSE will not listen to your opinion of "GLOBAL WAR" as your opinion will be biased. Nothing I said is wrong, please stop with this obscure assault at my maturity, it is honestly a weak thing to do.
User avatar #179 to #168 - IceViper (05/17/2012) [-]
being ignorant and refusing to listen to me just proves how childish your rebuttals are.
User avatar #198 to #179 - mussyo (05/17/2012) [-]
I did not refuse to listen to you, do not sink to petty insults to change the subject matter. My points are based on morality not opinion, I will refused to listen to someone if they CHOSE to remain ignorant. My rebuttals have not been Childish at any stage, and have been backed up by Psychology, Sociology, and Philosophy.

This is beneath you, do no stoop to insulting someone on the fact that they do not agree with you.
User avatar #171 to #168 - IceViper (05/17/2012) [-]
either way, it was a way to stop many more deaths than it would cause.

innocent lives and soldiers lives really morally dont make a difference so in fact you are saving lives.

America doesnt look foolish for not thinking black people should have rights at all either.
User avatar #177 to #171 - mussyo (05/17/2012) [-]
Once again an opinion based on nothing, show me solid quantified maths, and I will buckle, quantify humanity and then predict the events that would of followed not bombing Japan, until then only one thing has solid ground, and that is that morally, it was wrong, the point that I have been trying to make, a point that I have made, and a point that is indisputable.

"America doesnt look foolish for not thinking black people should have rights at all either"

America does, i hope you are not saying that they do not actually deserve rights, because if so, I no longer have respect for you sir and will refused to acknowledge anything you say furthermore .
User avatar #247 to #168 - IceViper (05/17/2012) [-]
alright, you will not come to agree with me and arguing is pointless, hurling insults and i didnt say that's and what not is also pointless since i do not know you.

one thing i can say for sure is that it happened and there is nothing we can do about it. Although now i can safely say (and i would hope you agree with at least this)- it wont arise as an issue in the future due to the Geneva convension. so i will be the gentleman to stop this right as you start to step into the area that sadly i will not go with you.
User avatar #248 to #247 - mussyo (05/17/2012) [-]
right, I don't understand your last point but yes I do hope it wont happen again, or we have to be left with a decision like this again.
User avatar #142 to #138 - SuperVenatus (05/17/2012) [-]
It's called strategy, you've got to lose some to end some.
#150 to #142 - mussyo (05/17/2012) [-]
That is not morally right, and what happens when we give up on what is right and wrong!?

I ask you sir, what makes us different from the "enemy"

We become one and the same.
User avatar #155 to #150 - SuperVenatus (05/17/2012) [-]
There is no difference, we are one, and we are no different from the enemy. Some soldiers had hearts, I know. Although, life isn't always morally right. There are men even in US who do much more horrible things but I still see you focusing on what US did instead of what is happening now. Life isn't always going to go the way everyone wants it. I would love a world with moral rights, but the Japanese were even more morally wrong during the war than any other country fighting over the Pacific. Focus on saving and starting more lives, instead of focusing of the lives that could've been saved for "looking good".
User avatar #172 to #155 - mussyo (05/17/2012) [-]
Looking good has nothing to do with it, if we are both the same then there was no wrong or right, it was a chain of actions with no moral standpoint, according to your point you have as much right to defend America as you do Japan.

If we do not abide by the rules we set in place, of course "life will never be morally just" It is because we make it UNJUST. It is down to us to change, and you are advocating simplicity, or convenience over what is right. something I believe a morally just person should never advocate !
User avatar #197 to #172 - SuperVenatus (05/17/2012) [-]
It's nature, man. It's nature and you've got to compensate for it. Mouse eats berry, owl eats mouse, hawk eats owel. It's not fair, and it will never will be. War isn't about "Oh I'm sorry, let me just stand there so you can stand there also."
User avatar #200 to #197 - mussyo (05/17/2012) [-]
It may not be pal, but remember that we have evolved from animals, we have been "Socialised", there is a reason society exists, let us not undo it, or even contribute to undoing it. Taking a step back in evolution is not a good thing to do, surely we can agree on that.
User avatar #135 to #128 - SuperVenatus (05/17/2012) [-]
I agree with the others though, that decision caused by Americans had saved much more lives than it would've sprouted with their case of mentality of never giving up. Imagine what they would've done. Especially since others are stating they attacked when we had no defense, when in actuality, they did the same in the middle of the war when they attacked Pearl Harbor, which dragged US in. At that time, people believed US was weak because it was free, and even though the Japanese attacked for the reason of US cutting its supplies a bit, it caused hundreds of lives to be lost, and some strategy officials thought this was the only way to completely end the terror.

Also take into consideration that although we may not know how many people died during these 2 nuking strikes, we do not also know how many deaths could have happened if the nuking hadn't taken its chance.
#147 to #135 - mussyo (05/17/2012) [-]
So killing people because it easier than doings what is right is what we should be doing now ?

What is the point in the judicial system... wtf is the point in human liberties and RIGHTS.

Just because one country committed a disgusting act of war, does not mean we should too. I do not remember america commissioning a plane to hit buildings in Iraq because "they started it", even though the invasion that they decided on instead was bad as well.
User avatar #154 to #147 - SuperVenatus (05/17/2012) [-]
Well, you've just contradicted yourself, that's exactly my point. War is beautiful, but bad things can happen from war. You don't know because I'm sure you've never experienced it. It's much worse than from what you read on books and what you read on TV and some things must be chosen in order to end war. US saw that as a potential way to end the war, and it did end it correctly. When it's war, rights are still in tact, but sometimes, you've got to do something in order to stop many others from dying.
User avatar #162 to #154 - mussyo (05/17/2012) [-]
how have I contradicted myself, how the **** is war beautiful. are you insane?!
User avatar #131 to #128 - SuperVenatus (05/17/2012) [-]
Holy quantam physics this is amazing to read please continue, this is really really interesting.
#399 to #107 - anon (05/17/2012) [-]
A large part of the Japanese population did not approve of surrendering even after TWO nuclear bombs went off in their country. We warned them we were going to set one off, they didn't surrender. We set one off and warned them we would set another one off, they didn't surrender. We set another one off, and there were still many in Japan who disagreed with the Emperor's surrender.
Civilians of islands America took would either booby trap themselves to kill American soldiers or kill themselves because of Japanese propaganda saying we would eat them if we took them prisoner. Their entire population was determined to fight to the bitter end. Dropping the bomb was the only thing preventing millions of civilian deaths.
Do like 5 minutes of research before you pretend like you know what you're talking about.
User avatar #105 to #95 - fegeltroll (05/17/2012) [-]
They had anti-aircraft guns and still a couple of fighter planes at the time, thus, in my opinion, they had defense as they could have shot down the American bombers carrying the nukes. The holocaust victims, on the other hand, had nothing; their countries were either part of the Axis, were allied with them, or were taken over by them. Also, it would have taken up to two years to completely capture Japan and millions more would have died on each side due to the suicidal fighting tendencies of the Japanese (imagine suicide bombers, any gender, any age). As you said, it is not for us to decide whether people should die, but can't we have opinions on how things could have been done differently to save more lives?
#115 to #105 - mussyo (05/17/2012) [-]
There is no way they could of defended themselves against that bomb, its evident in the fact that they couldn't, otherwise why did they let the planes through ? What is the point in human rights if we just chose to breach them when it becomes convenient!

We can have opinions, it is something I will defend to my last breath, however having and opinion and sentencing an entire city to death are two different things. I do not think America is an awful country or anything like that, just this decision was barbaric and inhumane!
#441 to #115 - anon (05/17/2012) [-]
You appear to know nothing about war and casualties. It's very, very simple.

That does not mean war is right. War is unavoidable, as it is in animalistic instinct and human intelligence to take what you want/need for more resources and power. The person attacked must then defend or be taken. In the case of US v Japan, the US and other countries were afraid of the Axis powers taking over and thus did what they felt necessary.

During a war, the lesser evil is the best option. That does not mean it is right. What it does means is it is LESS bad than the other option. In war, there is no right or wrong. There is only greater evil and lesser evil. If you have to choose between the two, which would you take? If you are a war general and you do not pick and pick fast, millions will die.

I will state this: No one can predict the future. We can only estimate. We cannot think "this is right" or "it is better to wait" for sure. This means that every war decision is based on past actions and what will happen based on those. Again, NO ONE can predict the future.

This is how you would see it if you were in the place of the generals at that time:
The Japanese are ******* crazy. They are doing suicide missions and arming every woman, child, and man with weapons. They intend to have every citizen on the offensive if you invade. They don't appear to ever tire.
If the US drops the bombs, they will be reduced in number and discouraged by the sheer power. 150k will die. (Later: They were not discouraged by just one bomb. Their will seems endless. 300k will die.)
If the US does not drop the bombs, the US will be overpowered and tired due to overseas issues; an upwards of 6 million of citizens, US and Japanese, will die.

The assumed lesser evil was chosen. We can't gauge if it was because we DO NOT know what would have happened. It is not right. It just results in less overall death.
User avatar #500 to #441 - mussyo (05/19/2012) [-]
proved my point, it was the wrong thing to do.
"It is not right"
#392 to #95 - anon (05/17/2012) [-]
The Chinese citizens didn't have much to protect themselves from the Japanese people raping and murdering their families. So **** you
User avatar #502 to #392 - mussyo (05/19/2012) [-]
/care, not all of them were evil. well put together argument, stay ignorant sir, it is your choice.
User avatar #486 to #89 - fattyhasarrived (05/17/2012) [-]
Don;t forget about Hitler's control of Germany. They loved him, and any who opposed him were killed or exiled. He blamed the problems from the Treaty of Versailles and the Great Depression on Jews and Communists. He labelled the Jews the 'Eternal Problem'(I believe). Through uses of propaganda and oppression, much of Germany saw him as their saviour, and pledged complete allegiance to him.
User avatar #178 to #86 - SeoYummy (05/17/2012) [-]
To be fair, it is Japan.
User avatar #185 to #178 - fegeltroll (05/17/2012) [-]
That is what I have come to conclude over the years I've been studying WWII, though sometimes it seems that the difference is small.
User avatar #481 to #86 - thephantur (05/17/2012) [-]
That reminds me... at that point in time, my grandparents were children in Shanghai when it was attacked...
User avatar #384 to #86 - kravjohn (05/17/2012) [-]
The Nazi's wouldn't shoot medics where as the Japanese would aim for the medics
User avatar #311 to #81 - spacefield (05/17/2012) [-]
I just looked that **** up. I'm about to rage the **** right now... Holy **** .
User avatar #499 to #311 - IceViper (05/18/2012) [-]
it makes me ******* angry too.
User avatar #367 to #311 - fegeltroll (05/17/2012) [-]
I forgot who the author was or what the title of the book is, but there was a girl in college who wrote a book about the Rape of Nanking. The information she learned about what the Japanese did there caused her to become so depressed that she committed suicide a short while after the publication of her book...
#220 - sorandomllycool (05/17/2012) [-]
I had to use this 5 times today
I had to use this 5 times today
#326 to #220 - lambocj (05/17/2012) [-]
You've seen so 			****
You've seen so ****
#48 - nottatguy (05/16/2012) [-]
Comment Picture
#308 to #48 - drumhero **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#52 to #48 - troudon (05/16/2012) [-]
Hungry dog
User avatar #281 - Omegatron (05/17/2012) [-]
Not my proudest boner...
#45 - soulkiller (05/16/2012) [-]
Jup, and then the memories from "Men behind the sun" came back...
Jup, and then the memories from "Men behind the sun" came back...
#370 - kramon (05/17/2012) [-]
they bring out your inner child
User avatar #110 - BeardOfJesus (05/17/2012) [-]
then the fetus sprung to life, defeated all the soldiers, aided his mother and grew up to be Bruce lee.
#93 - cullenatorguy (05/17/2012) [-]
**cullenatorguy rolled a random image posted in comment #24 at VEGETARIANISM IS MURDER ** mfw
#29 - ragingbrony ONLINE (05/16/2012) [-]
This image has expired
My god...the special effects are just amazing!
#1 - mickmickqwerty (05/16/2012) [-]
**mickmickqwerty rolled a random image posted in comment #75 at The thinker ** <until you see this
**mickmickqwerty rolled a random image posted in comment #75 at The thinker ** <until you see this
#3 to #1 - Eralus [OP](05/16/2012) [-]
OH **** WHY?!
#346 - apleaforchris (05/17/2012) [-]
#274 - trunsako (05/17/2012) [-]
#280 to #274 - theamazingtrixiex (05/17/2012) [-]
*****		 has a point. Leetle baby men everywhere in this thread.    
You think this is morbid? Go visit your first gore thread, pussy.
***** has a point. Leetle baby men everywhere in this thread.
You think this is morbid? Go visit your first gore thread, pussy.

User avatar #304 to #280 - kaisergodzilla (05/17/2012) [-]
#261 - rogueshadow (05/17/2012) [-]
Comment Picture
#275 to #261 - anon (05/17/2012) [-]
Annnndd I'm done.
Annnndd I'm done.
#39 - comeatmebrother (05/16/2012) [-]
Chinese abortion
User avatar #57 to #39 - gabemczombie (05/16/2012) [-]
i never understood why someone would make that picture
User avatar #62 to #57 - comeatmebrother (05/16/2012) [-]
it was a glitch on the sims game. Its pretty ****** funny no matter how many times i see it
User avatar #64 to #62 - gabemczombie (05/16/2012) [-]
that is true
#372 - bbdabrick (05/17/2012) [-]
so how is this not **** but flashing a nipple is?
#398 to #372 - olem (05/17/2012) [-]
Amuricah, that's why.
#331 - fantasticmrneko (05/17/2012) [-]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)