Did the Pope Slander Islam?

[August1991]

Civilian death toll in just one country (Iraq) in just two months was over 6,500.

The vast majority of those deaths are due to Iraqis tragically killing each other.

[cybercoma]

Maximizing, minimizing... We'd have to read the mind to know.

No, we wouldn't. We would know very clearly because if the Israelis or Americans or Brits wanted to maximize civilian casualties they'd be dropping cluster bombs and napalm into packed soccer stadiums and markets> Wouldn't be very difficult at all.

You're right Argus. It wouldn't be difficult.

When Harry Truman approved the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, he did exactly as you suggest. Churchill did the same when he approved the bombing of Dresden.

I'm not certain that claiming the West only aims to kill combatants and not civilians is a tenable argument. Given circumstances, the West can aim for civilian deaths too.

Argus, the only tenable argument is that we are right. Galileo, standing before the inquisition, murmured it best, "But it moves." The West uses reason to question superstition and intuition - as stationary as we seem to be, we know the earth is moving.

Saying the west doesn't show restraint and citing some things that happened over 60 years ago is patently absurd.

If the west didn't show restraint, the middle east would be a sheet of glass floating on oil right now.

[Remiel]

Glass on oil is a bit of an overstatement. Not using nuclear weapons isn't restraint, it's rational thinking. Besides, if you carpet nuked the Middle East, how exactly would you get the oil out?

[August1991]

Saying the west doesn't show restraint and citing some things that happened over 60 years ago is patently absurd.

I strongly disagree. What is 60 years in the life of someone with memory?

Chou-En Lai famously said that the verdict on the French Revolution had yet to be rendered.

If the west didn't show restraint, the middle east would be a sheet of glass floating on oil right now.

I'm thankful of Truman's decision. The Islamists know that we are showing restraint now. Restraint? Truman proved that we can and we did. Our threat is credible. They know it.

But I'll repeat again that our Galilean force is not threats, atomic bombs, Geneva conventions or protecting civilians. Our force is that we are intelligent sceptics. We question authority. We seek truth.

[geoffrey]

But I'll repeat again that our Galilean force is not threats, atomic bombs, Geneva conventions or protecting civilians. Our force is that we are intelligent sceptics. We question authority. We seek truth.

Yeehaw! Add that one to your memoirs.

[myata]

Civilian death toll in just one country (Iraq) in just two months was over 6,500.

The vast majority of those deaths are due to Iraqis tragically killing each other.

... as a direct result of liberation though. Then many, many more died as "collateral" damage in the act. More still because of lack of basic necessities resulting from destruction of infrastructure.

We've been through this before and I'm sorry to mention it, but you failed to prove that motivation of the perpetraitor should matter one bit. Without this argument, all we have left is the result - and it speaks for itself.

[jbg]

When Harry Truman approved the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, he did exactly as you suggest. Churchill did the same when he approved the bombing of Dresden.

I'm not certain that claiming the West only aims to kill combatants and not civilians is a tenable argument. Given circumstances, the West can aim for civilian deaths too.

The difference there is that the only other alternative, a conventional invasion of Japan, would have resulted in about 250,000 US and Aussie casualties, and double or triple that for Japanese military and civilians. Overall, the death toll would have been well over 1,000,000.

This is because both Japan's propensity for suicidal defense, and Japan's island location and topography. The choices were essentially deaths, or more deaths. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were life-saving measures, net, net, net.

[myata]

So, "minimization" was no longer an issue? Amazing how we make an effortless transition from high moral grounds to basic cost-benefit analysis.

[Rue]

The Iraqi civil war is a completely different scenario then what went on in World War Two. Its like comparing apples to oranges.

It would be more accurate to analyze what is going in in Iraq, by looking at other civil wars where external forces came into the country to try restore or impose order.

I am thinking of say the French in Algeria, or the British in India, or the British or French in Africa, Asia, the Middle East.

I think its safe to say Iraq is a civil war with an external power attempting to colonialize it no different then what the British tried to do in India, or the French in Vietnam or the French in Algeria or the British in Sudan, etc.

That is a more accurate comparison.

When conventional military forces are used as occupying armies and police forces, necessarily the longer they stay on the ground, the more likely guerilla and/pr terrorist war breaks out and continues indefinitely in a war of slow, long, drawn out attrition until the colonial power withdraws.

We have seen it time and time again whether it be with the British, French, Portugese, Belgians, Dutch, Nazis, Greeks, Romans, Napoleon' French forces, etc.

The U.S. has used fighting terrorism as a pretense to engage in colonialism in an attempt to control oil. And that in this day and age is doomed.

In today's era baboons like the President of Venezuela and Iran can make fools of the Americans. The days of trying to control countries with conventional armies landing on the ground are over.

The next President, will be forced to pull the American armed forces out of Iraq and save face no different then when Nixon had to do the same with Vietnam.

The reality is cold but there for every one to see. You can't simply walk into the Muslim world and say-hello drink Coke, eat MacDonalds, and be American will yah. The Muslim world categorically rejects Western materialism, Western democracy, and all the values we think are ideal such as freedom of expression, human rights, gender equality.

You can't simply impose such values.

When the Americans tried to impose their will on Vietnam it did not work. The moment the army left, but the inter-net was allowed to do its thing as well as Coca Cola and and Nike, etc., things changed.

The Middle East and Muslim world on a political level will of course reject anything American, but on another level, the young next generation of Muslims is being communicated to by inter-net and hip hop music, etc., and that is a more powerful agent for change then any gun.

So I say, look the Americans are right hunt down and kill terrorists. But don't mix that with colonial expeditions. Train your armed forces into small, elite, specially trained commando strike units, that come and go swiftly and leave the rest to the multi-nationals and non profit organizations.

Iraq like many countries is destined for prolonged periods of civil war and strife and there is a practical limit to what the US or anyone can do. No I do not think the UN has done its job forcing the US to fight terrorism on its own, but on the other hand Americans have to realize they are their own worst enemy if they think they can simply march into countries and try control them. Its an approach to politics that Ghandi soundly defeated, then Mao Tse Tung soundly defeated and is now easily defeated by low life scum like Ben Laden.

Today we need to stick to liquidating terrorists in careful, strategic, surgical strikes, and then show sophistication in trying to influence other countries. Easier to corupt them with a Big Mac or Tim Horton's coffee or Beyonce video then a tank.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Slander is inaccurate untruths - what the Pope did was quote history - and speak out against religions that force themselves on others by the sword.

Also - the great thing about being the Pope is that you don't have to cowtow to overly sensitive special interest groups (radical Islamics) who blackmail politicians into submission through violence.

[Argus]

Glass on oil is a bit of an overstatement. Not using nuclear weapons isn't restraint, it's rational thinking. Besides, if you carpet nuked the Middle East, how exactly would you get the oil out?

Bring back the neutron bomb.

[Figleaf]

i'm sorry i wasted so much of my time in a crap hell like mapleleafweb.

Edited July 18, 2007 by Figleaf

[geoffrey]

Jeez, what an uproar.

Honestly, I can't imagine why anyone would object to having their religion called 'evil an inhuman'.

Especially when their reaction is actually evil and unhuman.

[myata]

Bring back the neutron bomb.

Actually, even though it happened 60 years ago, no one has ever admitted that it was wrong (am I mistaken here)? No one ever apologised. So, it's still a valid example.

Here's an interesting parallel: Japan has never threatened the US proper, only it's interests in the Pacific. The war was fought on the islands thousands of miles from the american soil. Now compare these two figures (easily found on the net): 1) the number of american military casualties in Pearl Harbour; 2) the number of civilian deaths in the two cities (Hiroshima & Nagasaki). Talk about maximization. And compare it with the recent compaign in Lebanon by Israel (and it's staunch support by the US) . Looks like not much has changed in 60 years.

Here's another one: the two cities had 0 military value; both had large civilian population. Deliberate and intentional attempt to cause mass civilian casualties with a purpose of achieving political goal ... does it reminds us of something? some definition? Maybe, Bin Laden and the bunch, they're just learning from their teachers?

[jbg]

Actually, even though it happened 60 years ago, no one has ever admitted that it was wrong (am I mistaken here)? No one ever apologised. So, it's still a valid example.

Here's an interesting parallel: Japan has never threatened the US proper, only it's interests in the Pacific. The war was fought on the islands thousands of miles from the american soil. Now compare these two figures (easily found on the net): 1) the number of american military casualties in Pearl Harbour; 2) the number of civilian deaths in the two cities (Hiroshima & Nagasaki). Talk about maximization. And compare it with the recent compaign in Lebanon by Israel (and it's staunch support by the US) . Looks like not much has changed in 60 years.

Here's another one: the two cities had 0 military value; both had large civilian population. Deliberate and intentional attempt to cause mass civilian casualties with a purpose of achieving political goal ... does it reminds us of something? some definition? Maybe, Bin Laden and the bunch, they're just learning from their teachers?

For much of my response, hit the "snapback" link below. For the rest of my response, read on:

The difference there is that the only other alternative, a conventional invasion of Japan, would have resulted in about 250,000 US and Aussie casualties, and double or triple that for Japanese military and civilians. Overall, the death toll would have been well over 1,000,000.

This is because both Japan's propensity for suicidal defense, and Japan's island location and topography. The choices were essentially deaths, or more deaths. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were life-saving measures, net, net, net.

Was the US to simply surrender its Pacific interests?

[myata]

You're using the same fallacious argument as the one we already discussed with Argus - assuming that someone's moral standing, or calculation, etc can serve as a meaningful justification of an overwise criminal action. It doesn't. You can phantacise all you want about millions of imaginary damage. The facts remain.

...

Not much of an argument. There were, of course, options other than surrender or blow up cities full of civilians.

[scribblet]

From today's NP they say it better than I can.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/is...08-51292c4cc77b

how true, how true, said the young kangaroo.... and I love this Al-Q the political arm of the U.N. LOL

"The infidelity and tyranny of the Pope will only be stopped by a major attack," announced al-Qaeda from its cave on the Afghan-Pakistani border. Al-Qaeda's political arm in New York, a.k.a. the United Nations, took no position, only using the opportunity to condemn Israel for one thing or another."

Why do some Muslims have such an uncanny talent for proving the case of their critics? When accused of violence, they threaten violence. Better still, they engage in it. "Call us unruly and we riot," they say, in essence. "Call us murderers, and we kill you." Don't they see that this makes them a joke?

Well, no, they don't -- and they're right. Saying such things may make someone a joke in a debating society, but Islamofascists fight in a different arena. They don't care about winning the debate; what they want to win is their Kampf, better known these days as Jihad.

Lo and behold, they're winning it. By now the whole world tiptoes around the sensibilities of medieval fanatics. We take pains not to offend ululating fossils who cheer suicide bombers. Or raise them. We prop up rickety regimes whose sole contribution to modern times is to nurture ancient grievances and revive barbaric customs. We worry about the feelings -- feelings! -- of people who stone their loved ones for sexual missteps. We pussyfoot to protect the delicate psyche of oily ogres who amputate the hands of petty thieves, issue fatwas on novelists and cover up their hapless wives and sisters to the eyeballs.

We do this, obviously, not because we're impressed by the logic of the Islamofascist line -- "call us murderers and we'll kill you" -- but because we're intimidated by it. The Jihadists don't care about the quality of their argument. One doesn't have to, if one's aim isn't to persuade, but to coerce. The mullahs of militant Islam aren't worried about proving their critics' case. So some pundits think we're proving Benedict XVI or Manuel II right, imams Choudary and Malin might say. Big deal. Logic may be essential for pundits. It isn't essential for our followers who are willing to blow themselves up to get their way."

[betsy]

You're using the same fallacious argument as the one we already discussed with Argus - assuming that someone's moral standing, or calculation, etc can serve as a meaningful justification of an overwise criminal action. It doesn't. You can phantacise all you want about millions of imaginary damage. The facts remain.

...

Not much of an argument. There were, of course, options other than surrender or blow up cities full of civilians.

That two cities were filled with civilians when bombed was sad....however, let's not forget who the aggressor was.

Thousands of other civilians were getting killed and being devastated in other neighboring Asian countries that Japan was systematically occupying. The occupation was brutal.

Thousands more would have died if the war was prolonged. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had put an abrupt stop to what could be a long drawn out war.

All wars have their price and their death tolls.

What other options do you suggest in preventing more deaths and the end to that war?

[Argus]

You're using the same fallacious argument as the one we already discussed with Argus - assuming that someone's moral standing, or calculation, etc can serve as a meaningful justification of an overwise criminal action. It doesn't.

Except on planet Earth, and in every judicial jurisdiction on it.

Not much of an argument. There were, of course, options other than surrender or blow up cities full of civilians.

Like surrender. Sure.

[Argus]

Here's an interesting parallel: Japan has never threatened the US proper, only it's interests in the Pacific.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Do you? There was an economic war, then a real war after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour. Do dismiss this act of war as "well, they didn't threaten the US proper" is such bizarre thinking I can't even begin to understand where it's coming from.

The war was fought on the islands thousands of miles from the american soil. Now compare these two figures (easily found on the net): 1) the number of american military casualties in Pearl Harbour; 2) the number of civilian deaths in the two cities (Hiroshima & Nagasaki). Talk about maximization.

Again, this seems confusing and bizarre. Are you suggesting that once attacked by an enemy you can only respond up to the point where as many of their citizens die as yours did? Pearl Harbor was joined with the Phillipines, remember, wherin many thousands more were killed, many thousands captured. American posessions all across the Pacific were attackied, Americans killed and imprisoned. And you think the Americans should have then done what? Negotiated?

[myata]

Except on planet Earth, and in every judicial jurisdiction on it.

Sorry, Argus, you had a chance to respond with concrete arguments and chose not to. This avenue is closed.

[myata]

What other options do you suggest in preventing more deaths and the end to that war?

There're lines that people who (consider themselves) acting on the side of law will never cross.

E.g. police chasing dangerous criminals will never blow up two inhabited apartment buildings to smoke them out. Sorry that it requires explanation.

And yeah, I now remember that the rules of American engagements are such that all morals, legalities, rules and conventions apply exclusively to their opponents (Hiroshima; Vietnam; Guantamo; Iraq; feel free to add to the list).

[betsy]

What other options do you suggest in preventing more deaths and the end to that war?

There're lines that people who (consider themselves) acting on the side of law will never cross.

Prisoners were being tortured! Women being raped. Villages being pillaged and burned! Men being picked out to be killed! My father was among those lined up to be shot in the town square....luckily, pandemonium ensued when some planes came strafing. I sure am glad that the Americans decided to cross that line...whatever kind of line that is at war-time!

The Americans should've done it sooner!

[betsy]

E.g. police chasing dangerous criminals will never blow up two inhabited apartment buildings to smoke them out.

Sorry, but that's no comparison.

You're talking peace-time. I'm talking war!

[betsy]

And yeah, I now remember that the rules of American engagements are such that all morals, legalities, rules and conventions apply exclusively to their opponents (Hiroshima; Vietnam; Guantamo; Iraq; feel free to add to the list).

Wait a minute, we're talking Hiroshima and Nagasaki during WW2.

Vietnam, Guantanamo, Iraq has nothing to do with those WW2 bombings. So let's not try to put everything in one neat packaging....

Saving of Americans and allies was enough justification for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

And if we talk of morals, legalities, conventions etc....if I'm not mistaken, Japanese diplomats were hardly finished talking or signing a peace treaty with the Americans when the bombing of Pearl Harbor happened. In other words, Japan threw out morals and conventions when it attacked the USA on the sly!