On May 19, 3:50=A0pm, Hiro****ma Facts <hiro****ma_fa...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > (I modified your header to make it more appropriate, don't bother
> > thanking me)
>
> That was childish of you.
perhaps, but so is your selection of pseudonym.
>
> > > > Nonsense. =A0 The Phoenix program in Vietnam was deliberate
> > > > terror against civilian populations. =A0 SEAL units went into
enclav=
es
> > > > where VC were in the area and deliberately assassinated town
> > > > leaders to make them fear them more than the VC. =A0 =A0 If you
want=
> > > > references I'll put you in direct contact with the point man
> > > > who's unit operated in area right before Bob Kerrey (who's
president=
ial
> > > > campaign died in 2000 due to admissions of atrocity).
>
> > > I do not accept the claim that the US ordered such targeting.
>
> > I'm not surprised, you are torturing the English language to ensure
> > that America and Americans are a morally superior(morally flawless)
> > race =A0and
> > nation to any in this wide world.
>
> Nope. =A0I'm not torturing language, saying Americans are morally
> flawless, or making any racial comparisons whatsoever.
Then what is the reason you think that Americans have
not targeted civilians in the last 100 years (in the face
of copious facts that THEY HAVE.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > >> I showed you do***ents about the
> > > > >> targeting decisions, =A0and you diddle words to try to claim
that=
> > > > >> "morale" bombing isn't terror, =A0or that 'targeting urban
areas =
for
> > > > >> best effect' is not targeting civilians.
>
> > > > > Those do***ents show that the military value of a given urban
area=
was
> > > > > an im****tant consideration.
>
> > > > This is the 'diddle words' part. =A0 The strategic im****tance was
wh=
at was
> > > > emphasized, not the value of the military target. =A0 The most
im****=
tant part
> > > > of the targeting was the political value, the shock value showing
th=
e
> > > > quantity of devastation.
>
> > > It is true they wanted a target large enough to show the true
> > > destructive value of the bombs, but that does not change the fact
that=
> > > among targets large enough for that purpose, they considered the
> > > military value of the targets.
>
> > secondary.
>
> True. =A0The main concern was to shock Japan into surrender.
Euphamism for terrorize.
>
> But that does not change the fact that they made an effort to find
> targets with high military value.
Here's the first targeting meeting:
http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/4.pdf
The meeting covered target selection primarily as the best chance
of showing how devastating this bomb could be. They needed good
weather, proper range, and untouched cities. They also detailed that
the 20th AF was already in the process of bombing all the targets in
Japan that were of military im****tance and they didn't want the Atomic
bomb project to interfere with that, as nobody was really sure it was
going
to work. Read Page 3. It is clear from this that anything of
military im****tance
was being done already.
>
> > > > >> Urban areas are not by definition military targets. =A0
Military =
targets
> > > > >> might well be contained in an urban area.
>
> > > > > Urban areas are also not by definition civilian targets. =A0The
de=
tails
> > > > > of the urban area is im****tant.
>
> > > > Come on. =A0Urban is a city. =A0 City is a concentrated area of
peop=
le where
> > > > they live and work. =A0 =A0A civilian is someone who is not armed
an=
d
> > > > uniformed or part of a military unit.
>
> > > Cities can also contain im****tant military targets.
>
> > Especially if you change the definition of 'military target' to
> > include anything you want your military to bomb.
>
> No need to change definitions. =A0Soldiers, military headquarters, and
> weapons factories are all legitimate military targets.
It would help your apologetics if you could find some mention
of those specifics in the targeting committee meetings.
>
> > > > Bombing cities to reduce a population's
> > > > morale is by definition targeting civilians.
>
> > > Not if you are targeting factories, soldiers, and military
> > > headquarters.
>
> > > > If it's not, then Hitler
> > > > never
> > > > targeted civilians either, nor did Japan.
>
> > > No, Hitler actually targeted civilians.
>
> > Of course he did, =A0but if you were nazi you wouldn't think so.
>
> If I were German in WWII, I wouldn't be a Nazi, and I would think
> Hitler was targeting civilians.
Anybody can see that if Hitler said he was
going to bomb an urban area to shock his enemy into surrender
that you would know he was targeting civilians even
if Hitler called it a military target.
that's so obvious.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > >> Mincing words doesn't cut it. =A0 "targeting" means where you
int=
end to
> > > > >> drop the bomb, shoot the artillery, swing the sword. =A0
=A0"civi=
lians" are
> > > > >> people who are not armed to fight.
>
> > > > > We were trying to drop the bomb where it would destroy Japanese
> > > > > soldiers (Hiro****ma) and arms factories (Nagasaki).
>
> > > > That's not sup****ted by the facts,
>
> > > Yes it is. =A0Hiro****ma was an im****tant military center, with tens
of=
> > > thousands of soldiers and a vital military headquarters.
>
> > > Nagasaki was a city devoted to arms-production.
>
> > That's why the 2nd Army headquarters in Hiro****ma and the
> > ammunition factory near Nagasaki were used as the precise
> > ground zero locations for the bomb drops.
>
> > No, you won't find that sort of thing in the target selection
> > do***ents.
>
> Actually the target selection do***ents do consider that, but they
> decided to just hit the center of the cities instead of picking out a
> specific target within them.
>
> Note section 5.C (on page 3) here:
>
> http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/9.pdf
And you think this makes your case?
>
> > You will find this, though, the final authorization. =A0 The targets
> > are the cities themselves, no mention of the military targets within
> > the cities:
>
> >http://www.dannen.com/decision/handy.html
>
> The fact that the final order does not mention the military value of
> the target cities does not change the reality that such value was
> considered in the target selection process.- Hide quoted text -
Military targets that were not proximate to civilian areas were not
considered.
The em****er's palace (not a military target) was considered and
rejected.
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/bomb/large/do***e=
nts/index.php?pagenumber=3D6&do***entid=3D29&do***entdate=3D1945-05-10&study=
collectionid=3Dabomb&groupid=3D
|
