Flight 93 Movie

[kevdog]

I don't think you can really compare Bush to Hitler although he still really sucks and needs to have his ass kicked for once. Funny how he has flip flopped more than John Kerry. Every time I hear Bush open his mouth and spew out some really bad form of English I get extremely angry. I think he should be stoned to death.

 

[FN FAL]

Hey POOKIE or whatever your name is, you better hope I dont meet you someday.

Godbless America

Godblessed America with 9/11, doink. He must have done it because of all the people cheating on their taxes, not tipping their waitresses enough, cocaine, adultry, child molesting and gays.

 

[KeroseneSnorter]

KeroseneSnorter,



So you have justified murdering thousands of innocent civilians ?


Hmmm. How was 9/11 any different? The only thing different was that WE were on the receving side of the sh*tstorm.


From your point of view, it's okay for us to blow up innocent civilians so as long as it's in our best interest.


So, then you must think that terrorists that blow innocent people are not crazies, but indeed, individuals who act in their best interests?


I see a double standard here.

I never said anything about Iraq except that we will be judged by our actions at a future date, and that judgment will largly be based on the outcome.

My problem is the contention that Bush is a Hitler, and the statement that somehow our use of the A-Bomb in 1945 was wrong and evil.

1945 is not 2006, there were no smart bombs and guided missles. By the time we dropped the bombs 50 million people had already been killed. In 45 there was zero way to win the war without airpower.

The civilians that you speak of in the cities were actually war workers. Japan had scattered its munitions plants and weapon factories all over the place in all the large cities in a effort to hide them from our B-29 raids. Hitting the "Military target north of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have done nothing to their arms production, read any good history book of the war and you would know this. In that war there were no civilians, and had there been, there was no way to only target the military, we lacked the technology even if the industrial war producing facilities were not distributed among the civilian population.

The A-Bombs actually saved lives in Japan. Prior to having the A-bomb as an option our only way to slow the arms manufacture was to firebomb the cities. On March 9th and 10th 1945 334 B-29's fire bombed Tokyo....over 100,000 people died in the city. Both Nagasaki and Hiroshima put together only killed 105,000. 66,000 in Hiroshima and 39,000 in Nagasaki.

Had the war remained conventional, the war would have lasted until at least late 1946 (US Army estimate in 1945, documented in its attack plan for the mainland. At a rate of 100,000 dead from the air every two days, plus the deaths from the ground combat for the extra 12 to 18 months of combat it would have taken to defeat the Japanese mainland, Instead of 50 million dead in 6 years, it would have been 55 or 60 million dead in 7 to 8 years.

Trying to compare what is happening now to what was happening then, or trying to justify a position that we should not have used the A-bomb in 45 by using todays combat capabilities is silly and soils the memories of the 50 million that died during that war.

You forget that we could have lost that war very easily, had the Germans not made an incorrect turn early in their nucular research they would have had the bomb long before we could have. History could read very very different indeed except for a small twist of fate and a few scientist making a critical error in Germany, and scientist not making the same error in the US. They had everything else they needed including the ballistic missle delivery system for the a-bomb (V-1 Rocket)

In fact our own early ballistic missles in the 50's and 60's were all based on the V-1 design. We copied it and improved from there. (Those same Germans that designed the V-1 also designed the Saturn 5 rocket that took us the the moon in 69, fella by the name of Vonbraum. sp?)

If Bush were indeed Hitler, currently we would have all muslums in concentration camps systematically sending them to their doom, and we would not even make an attempt to target only military targets as we now do.

Having said that, I personally feel that we should pull the troops out of Iraq. Why? Because they obviously are too caught up in their own petty 2000 year old feud with each other to be any more of a threat. Pull the troops home, let Iraq self destruct into civil war if they want.

However I do not advocate ever leaving ourselves open to another 9/11. If it takes the force of the military to do it....so be it. Like it or not we are a target because of our beliefs....nothing more. If the terrorists had their way, they would exterminate all gays, christians, and anybody else that offended their sensibilities.........much the way Hitler and the Nazi's did. Ironic isn't it, 50 million killed to stop it 1945, and the world screamed that Great Britian and France didn't act to remove Hitler before it came to that, and now we act to remove a person with a proven past of similar acts (Sadaam gassed his own people and committed religous genocide on the Kurds) and we are condemed for taking an active stance against it before it turned into 50 million dead.

Was it right? The only way to really tell would have been to do nothing, but if we were right we avoided another Hitler. If not and we left Iraq today, al we can really be accused of is removing a murdering tyrant from power and trying to establish democracy and freedom to a country.

Time will be our judges, just as it was for Truman and his decision to use the bomb, and of Hitler and Tojo for sending the world into chaos.

At least we did not start this one, and we even ignored the first 10 or so attacks on us before acting...World trade 93, USS Cole, Various embassy bombings, etc. And we are not activly targeting civilians.....if that were the case as some claim and we could flatten cities conventionally in 1945 with nothing more than slow lumbering piston powered aircraft with un guided iron bombs............there would be millions dead by now, not 100,000.

Of course we can always sit around with our thumb up our butt and do nothing and wait for some terrorist to detonate a nuke in New York.............would that appease the protesters I wonder?

 

[pookie]

FlowLow,

I would kick your arse...now go to sleep.

 

[Thurman Merman]

If any of you have a question about the bombs dropped please read, "the last mission." It details a little known coup after the emperor recorded the surrender message. A number of military hierarchy took over the emperor's palace to locate the the recordings and destroy them as to prolong the war. The japanese were fanatical and this was after we dropped two a-bombs on them. One of the reasons they did not succeed was a city wide block out due to a b29 mission on the 14th of august, after the last bomb was dropped on the 9th because they would not commit to a surrender. Even Fuschida, a very respected pilot in the imperial navy who was a huge contributer to the attack on pearl harbor said it was the right thing to do. This can be referenced in, "the first heroes" about the doolittle raid in wwII. one of the survivors who later became a missionary in japan helped convert fushida to christianity had this discussion with him. Fuschida said it not only saved american lives but japanese as well.

When we attacked okinawa, japanese families were hurling themselves off cliffs because of propaganda from the japanese military saying how awful americans would be. Any able body persons were instructed no matter how old or young to resist the invasion with pitch forks or other farm tools once operation olympic and coronet took place(japanese homeland invasion). The many books I read on the Enola Gay and Bockscar detail how none of the crews felt any remorse. Paul Tibbets, the aircraft commander on the enola gay visited hiroshima in an ABC special in the 80's and still said he'd do it again. This was a different time people can not understand. My grandad flew in wwII and gave me insight and that is why I've read so many books on the subject. I know that he i was alive and I am as well due to the use of an atomic weapon. Truman did not like the fact that civiliians were an unfortunate strategy but he knew in the end this was saving lives, it was global warfare that had been started with the germans in '37 and it was time to end. Ask anybody who is alive today who was forced on the battan death march as to was it the right thing to do? Sorry to be so long winded but a very personal subject.

 

[Flyer1015]

I had such a huge post answer, to you Kerosene Snorter, but when I hit submit reply, it asked me to login (I was already logged in, must have timed out). As a result, I lost everything I typed.

So, I'll be brief.


Your justification that the Japanese civlians were not civilians, but were instead war people, is pathetic. It's no better than if Hamas claimed that blowing up Israel civlians is justified because they are military threats, since service is mandatory in the IDF.

About the firebombs VS atomic bombs:

Yes, the firebombs killed about as many (if not more) people as the atomic bombs. But the atomic bombs TO THIS DAY continue to affect people via the radiation effects (esp. cancer). That's an ONGOING punishment to Japanese civilians.

We can argue the what if's all day long. What if we didn't use the nukes? What if what if.

It's not justification enough.

Your argument bascially boils down to the fact that we did it to save the lives of our own soliders (who would have been killed in a ground invasion).

Okay, then by that same argument, you better agree with the terrorists if they blow up a nuke on our soil, claiming that a direct head on war with the US soldiers would have led to the slaughter and destruction of many terrorist soldiers' lives.

It's NOT justification enough.

Like it or not we are a target because of our beliefs....nothing more. If the terrorists had their way, they would exterminate all gays, christians, and anybody else that offended their sensibilities.........much the way Hitler and the Nazi's did.

OMG!

Canada has gays. They have gay marriage. They have Christians. They have NEVER been attacked by al-Qaeda terrorists.

Why?

Canada has not oppressed other nations. Canada does not have an oppressive foreign policy, espcially a predominantly one-sided Israel policy.

The US has had a rather oppressive foreign policy for the middle east. We've been there for quite a few decades now. The CIA has tried to overthrow government forms in the middle east.

We've caused other people to live in oppression. Oppression leads to desperation and extremism.

Make no mistake, we have NOT been attacked because we're "free people."

The Bush administration has thrown the "we were attacked because we are free people" idea at us to get us behind his side.

The Bush administration has successfully played the fear card many times, and will continue to do so.


Gentlemen, 9/11 was finally the culmination of many things, but mainly, the utterly PISS*D OFF people who have been tired of the USA's involvement in the middle east for the past few decades.

 

[KeroseneSnorter]

Thurman,

Good point about the coup attempt. I was going to mention it but was already very long winded by the time I got to it.

Unfortunatly many of the new generation either have never bothered to read about the war or choose to ignore the lessons that came from it.

Ignoring the past is a sure way to repeat it.

 

[KeroseneSnorter]

Your justification that the Japanese civlians were not civilians, but were instead war people, is pathetic. It's no better than if Hamas claimed that blowing up Israel civlians is justified because they are military threats, since service is mandatory in the IDF.

About the firebombs VS atomic bombs:

Yes, the firebombs killed about as many (if not more) people as the atomic bombs. But the atomic bombs TO THIS DAY continue to affect people via the radiation effects (esp. cancer). That's an ONGOING punishment to Japanese civilians.

We can argue the what if's all day long. What if we didn't use the nukes? What if what if.

It's not justification enough.

Your argument bascially boils down to the fact that we did it to save the lives of our own soliders (who would have been killed in a ground invasion).

Okay, then by that same argument, you better agree with the terrorists if they blow up a nuke on our soil, claiming that a direct head on war with the US soldiers would have led to the slaughter and destruction of many terrorist soldiers' lives.

It's NOT justification enough.

The part about the civilians in war material production out of their own houses.......read a history book once in a while. It is all there for your consumption.

As to the other, a few numbers to digest.

Japanese killed in WWII: Including the ones killed by the a-bombs

1.75 million military-----350,000 Civilian

Germans Killed in WWII: Not including the jewish deaths from the camps. NO use of Atomic bomb.

3.5 million Military------2 Million Civilian

Difference: 3.4 million people.......that is at least how many more could have been expected to die if we had to do it conventionally. At 105,000 killed in the two nuke strikes, Japan got a bargain.

And you are damn right....we did it to save american sons, of which 291,557 had already died in combat and hundreds of thousands more had been mutilated.

Pushing germany out of their country cost the russians over 7 million people doing it the conventional way.....and that was with us hitting them from the other side as well........we were on our own against Japan.

A few more numbers for you:

Number of civilians and prisoners that Japanese soldiers killed in Nanking China-- 300,000

One city in China, and that was just a small part of Japans activities in the war.........yes 105,000....a bargain considering what they had done to their neighbors.

 

[KeroseneSnorter]

OMG!

Canada has gays. They have gay marriage. They have Christians. They have NEVER been attacked by al-Qaeda terrorists.

Why?

Canada has not oppressed other nations. Canada does not have an oppressive foreign policy, espcially a predominantly one-sided Israel policy.

The US has had a rather oppressive foreign policy for the middle east. We've been there for quite a few decades now. The CIA has tried to overthrow government forms in the middle east.

We've caused other people to live in oppression. Oppression leads to desperation and extremism.

Make no mistake, we have NOT been attacked because we're "free people."

The Bush administration has thrown the "we were attacked because we are free people" idea at us to get us behind his side.

The Bush administration has successfully played the fear card many times, and will continue to do so.


Gentlemen, 9/11 was finally the culmination of many things, but mainly, the utterly PISS*D OFF people who have been tired of the USA's involvement in the middle east for the past few decades.

Well when we buy most of their oil, you gotta expect some interest in the region.

What part are they pissed off about? The part where we liberated Kuwait? Or was it the supplying of arms so the Afgans could repel the Soviets? That pretty much covers the last 30 years in the active to semi active combat roles that we had. Maybe they are mad about the effort to contain the Iran/Iraq war and ensure it didn't spread to it's neighbors? Maybe it is the nasty tendency we have to put sanctions against countries that are known human rights violaters. (womens rights, religious persecution, etc) Plus they are none too happy about our affection torward the Jewish state of Isreal, that really chaps their ass.

We are convienant, and up until 2002 we were an easy target. Travel around the middle east some, if you are a white boy, many dislike you, and are not shy about telling you from time to time. When they find out you are american? Most just want your money, then they will make a remark about Bush or whatever. Most are nice though, a few try to start a fight with some of our crews from time to time.........normally in a bar in another non muslum country where Mr. Abdul and his buddies are completly ripped out of their gord from drinking.........and I thought that Islam frowned upon that?

Like I said, we should pack our sh#t and leave Iraq to their own devices, 5 bucks say they would be in a civil war inside 2 weeks. 3 weeks later one or more groups in the region would be screaming for our help and money for aide! A month later they would be sending terrorist after us because we left Iraq with no security!

It is a no win situation for us.

 

[Flyer1015]

The part about the civilians in war material production out of their own houses.......read a history book once in a while. It is all there for your consumption.

As to the other, a few numbers to digest.

Japanese killed in WWII: Including the ones killed by the a-bombs

1.75 million military-----350,000 Civilian

Germans Killed in WWII: Not including the jewish deaths from the camps. NO use of Atomic bomb.

3.5 million Military------2 Million Civilian

Difference: 3.4 million people.......that is at least how many more could have been expected to die if we had to do it conventionally. At 105,000 killed in the two nuke strikes, Japan got a bargain.

And you are dang right....we did it to save american sons, of which 291,557 had already died in combat and hundreds of thousands more had been mutilated.

Pushing germany out of their country cost the russians over 7 million people doing it the conventional way.....and that was with us hitting them from the other side as well........we were on our own against Japan.

A few more numbers for you:

Number of civilians and prisoners that Japanese soldiers killed in Nanking China-- 300,000

One city in China, and that was just a small part of Japans activities in the war.........yes 105,000....a bargain considering what they had done to their neighbors.

Living at home, they were civlians with children who had every right to life. We took that away from them.

We murdered them. Your defense again is spewing the numbers of our soliders that would have died had we not used the nukes.

So surely if you believe that, then you better agree with the terrorists if they blow up a nuke on our soil, claiming that a direct head on war with the US soldiers would have led to the slaughter and destruction of many terrorist soldiers' lives.

I bet if we were on the receiving side of those nukes, your views would have been quiet different. Read the paragraph above about a nuke strike by a terrorist. Is it justified? Well, according to your reasoning, it would be.

What part are they pissed off about? The part where we liberated Kuwait? Or was it the supplying of arms so the Afgans could repel the Soviets? That pretty much covers the last 30 years in the active to semi active combat roles that we had. Maybe they are mad about the effort to contain the Iran/Iraq war and ensure it didn't spread to it's neighbors? Maybe it is the nasty tendency we have to put sanctions against countries that are known human rights violaters. (womens rights, religious persecution, etc) Plus they are none too happy about our affection torward the Jewish state of Isreal, that really chaps their ass.

We helped Kuwait for the SOLE interest of oil fields (oil $). We helped Afghanistan for the SOLE interest of beating our sworn enemy, Russia (the enemy of my enemy is my friend... ring a bell?).
Do NOT think for a second we gave a damn about these people. We acted out of our own interests. The oil in case one, and Russia in case two.

The Saudi Arabia situation is one that has really ticked off bin Laden. The King/Prince monarchy are nothing but puppets of the US government. With our soldiers stationed there, that ensures they (the monarchy) stays in power. Bin Laden knows this.

And yes, while you may just brush it off, the one-sided support for Israel that the US gives is also a major factor that has ticked off people in that region.

No other country supports, or would want to suppor, Israel like we do.

Like I said, we should pack our sh#t and leave Iraq to their own devices, 5 bucks say they would be in a civil war inside 2 weeks. 3 weeks later one or more groups in the region would be screaming for our help and money for aide! A month later they would be sending terrorist after us because we left Iraq with no security!

You do that, and Iraq will be in a WORSE situation than before with Hussein. There will be a civil war. Either the Sunnis or Shiites would win. The leader would in all likelyhood pursue Hussein like tactics, and start eliminating (executing) the other party members.

That's the sadest thing. We can't leave Iraq now. It's a mess started by Double-ya.


What scares me most about how our country reacted to 9/11 attacks is the complete and utter arrogance displayed.

Those terrorists flew airplanes into buildings... the most heinous of acts I can ever even think of.

But Bush said, "Either you're with us, or your're with the terrorists."

That's just like saying, " You're either with us, or you're no better (or just as worse) as the people who flew airplanes into buildings."

WTF??? How can we expect any major level of international support with such arrogance as that?!!?!

And look where we are now: handling the Iraq war and Afghanistan pretty much all with our troops (handful of British, Australians, some others), but the overwhelming majority, USA.

We have divided the world rather than unite it to fight terror. The Bush strategy is failing miserably.

Are you one of the 38 % of people in the US who approve of Bush ?

'Cause I'm not.