Damn Those Pesky Muslims!

Heres the solution by the people, for the people...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6729916/

Thats so sad.

lol

Yeah I was reading that earlier and I just couldn't believe how many ignorant people we have in the US.

I'd like to give a big fuck you to the "americans" who believe in this, "The survey found 44 percent favored at least some restrictions on the civil liberties of Muslim Americans"

Theres absolutly nothing american about restricting the rights of Muslims Americans just because they are Muslim. Epecially since this counrty was founded on people running from religious persecution! Morons! All 44% of them!

I dont find the poll results shocking at all. Believe it or not, we are at war with a muslim enemy. This is the same country that took all Japanese Americans and put them in camps away from America's shores in fear that they would help a Japanese lead invasion.

I do not support the idea that we should limit rights to muslims. Nor do I believe that all muslims want to kill Americans.

Afterwards, go say a big "Fuck You" to your parents, grandparents, and anyone of the WWII era. They did a lot more to the Japanese because of Pearl Harbor, and the 9/11 attack caused not only more casualties, but 9/11 was targeted against innocent civilians.

Hes sayin FUCK YOU to those who voted. What the americans did to the japanese was totally wrong. Even if they attacked first, they shouldn't treat the civilians this way. Oh and another thing thats wrong is that they dropped 2 ATOMIC bombs on japan and that was unjustified.

I do not support the idea that we should limit rights to muslims. Nor do I believe that all muslims want to kill Americans.


I appreciate that. Now if 44% of the americans think like you , we would live happily amongst each other lol ;)

Al Queda and their supporters are the ultimate "hate group." Do you also think we should stop infiltrating the Nazis and KKK? What about the libs most hated group, the evil GUN OWNERS of America. You're all for restricting and investigating them. I had a friend that was a target of an investigation, because he ran an Irish pub during the IRA heyday. Where was the ACLU then? Where was the outcry about the Irish being discriminated against? Oh, that happens only if you're not white.

aloharocky, are you actually participating in this discussion, or are you just trying to stir shit? Think about it. If you have anything to offer related to the topic of the thread please post it. If not, go away.

I must note that at least more people were in favour of liberty and freedom, than were opposed to it in the poll.
That 44% of Americans are also complete morons, makes the idea that 44% of those polled were opposed to what America stands for more understandable. :p

LOL, you read a poll, don't like the results, so the people polled are morons and idiots. That's real "participation."

Afterwards, go say a big "Fuck You" to your parents, grandparents, and anyone of the WWII era. They did a lot more to the Japanese because of Pearl Harbor, and the 9/11 attack caused not only more casualties, but 9/11 was targeted against innocent civilians.

Ok, I have no idea what you are tying to say in this post. It was morally wrong to take Japanese Americans away from their homes and put them in camps. However, I would have done the same thing. War isn't pretty and alot of ugly shit happens during it.

LOL, you read a poll, don't like the results, so the people polled are morons and idiots. That's real "participation."


Yes they are morons, ignorants, prejiduce, inhuman , hypocrites etc....

LOL, you read a poll, don't like the results, so the people polled are morons and idiots. That's real "participation."

I don't see you doing any better with the topic at hand. :loser:
Of course they're morons, they voted against what the country they live in stands for. They may as well have said that they also beleive the United States government should hand over control of the union to Britain. :2cents:
People came to America, and continue to come to America to escape religous persecution, the Quakers, and Puritans started the trend and it continues. If you're so close minded and ignorant that you believe this country should start persecuting people because of their religion you're a total moron, and the United States is definately not the country for you.
don't like the results,
I must also point out that I did like the results, the majority of people polled were not in favour of idocy, only 44% have a problem with liberty, equality, and justice for all. :p

The thing that didn't surprise me in the article was that the 44% that voted in favour of revoking some rights were influenced by the media.

Americans want them to be viewed as saviours, good dooers in the eyes of the rest of the world...yet here they are starting the same things the nazi's did back in the WW's

How many people did they even poll!? 44%... What did they do, drive down the back woods and hills of Tennessee? That poll is stupid and anyone who voted yay on it should have THEIR civil rights restricted and see how they like it.

How many people did they even poll!? 44%... What did they do, drive down the back woods and hills of Tennessee? That poll is stupid and anyone who voted yay on it should have THEIR civil rights restricted and see how they like it.

715 people nationwide.

715? thats it?

they should have at least tried to hit 5000, what a bunk poll, its results arent even wroth worrying about

How many people did they even poll!? 44%... What did they do, drive down the back woods and hills of Tennessee? That poll is stupid and anyone who voted yay on it should have THEIR civil rights restricted and see how they like it.
There have ALWAYS been a sizable potion of the US population who would wish to restrict fundamental freedoms of others. This is why the US founding fathers placed basic freedoms in the constiution. They knew there would be such people who wish to meddle, so the Constiution seeks to protect everyone.

Now, for everyone who finds this poll disturbing, go and have a closer look at the Patriot Act II. The government's restrictions on your freedoms are coming along nicely.

I wouldn't mind seeing this poll taken in other countries.

I wonder what the results would be if it was taken in Spain or other countries going thru acts of terrorism?

I love seeing certain users here calling people they don't know morons just because they disagree with how they feel or think. Just because they disagree doesn't make them morons. Just because they hold a different opinion then you, you feel the need to degrade them.

Have you ever considered why they feel this way. Could it possibly be they are swayed by the media and tend to react a different way then they would normally. Could they feel some fear from terrorists. Afterall people don't walk around town letting everyone know they are terrorists. I bet the government is watching muslims closely. I would be willing to bet the police are profiling muslims yet you want to trash people because they are afraid and read and watch acts of terror happening.

Al Queda and their supporters are the ultimate "hate group." Do you also think we should stop infiltrating the Nazis and KKK? What about the libs most hated group, the evil GUN OWNERS of America. You're all for restricting and investigating them. I had a friend that was a target of an investigation, because he ran an Irish pub during the IRA heyday. Where was the ACLU then? Where was the outcry about the Irish being discriminated against? Oh, that happens only if you're not white.

haha i'll leave the KKK to you. you sound like you know what you're talking about.

Afterwards, go say a big "Fuck You" to your parents, grandparents, and anyone of the WWII era. They did a lot more to the Japanese because of Pearl Harbor, and the 9/11 attack caused not only more casualties, but 9/11 was targeted against innocent civilians.

unlike those "precision" atomic bombs dropped on japan i guess.

WMD on civilians.... yeah Iraq is BAD!!!

Afterwards, go say a big "Fuck You" to your parents, grandparents, and anyone of the WWII era. They did a lot more to the Japanese because of Pearl Harbor, and the 9/11 attack caused not only more casualties, but 9/11 was targeted against innocent civilians.
Sorry bud but my grandfather wasn't even old enough to in that war. Also, so I guess since we did restrict the rights of the Japanese, which we know was completely wrong, its all right to do it again? Its all right to not learn from our mistakes? I don't care if we are at war with Muslims, restricting the rights of an American Muslim is wrong. The people we at war with are extremists who happen to be Muslim (but God knows they use their religion as a scapegoat for everything they do).

So lemme ask you this, do you agree with restricting the rights of American Muslims?

aloharocky, are you actually participating in this discussion, or are you just trying to stir shit? Think about it. If you have anything to offer related to the topic of the thread please post it. If not, go away.


Every single political discussion I've seen him participate in he tries to stir up shit. I'm surprised hes still an active participant on these forums.

Now, for everyone who finds this poll disturbing, go and have a closer look at the Patriot Act II. The government's restrictions on your freedoms are coming along nicely.

I agree with you there. Trading in freedom for the illusion of security.

I wouldn't mind seeing this poll taken in other countries.

I wonder what the results would be if it was taken in Spain or other countries going thru acts of terrorism?

I love seeing certain users here calling people they don't know morons just because they disagree with how they feel or think. Just because they disagree doesn't make them morons. Just because they hold a different opinion then you, you feel the need to degrade them.

Have you ever considered why they feel this way. Could it possibly be they are swayed by the media and tend to react a different way then they would normally. Could they feel some fear from terrorists. Afterall people don't walk around town letting everyone know they are terrorists. I bet the government is watching muslims closely. I would be willing to bet the police are profiling muslims yet you want to trash people because they are afraid and read and watch acts of terror happening.

You know, I don't call people morons because I disagree with them. I do call them morons when feel its ok to restrict the rights of fellow americans just because of their religion. Yes, if you feel that way then in my eyes your a moron. I wish the people who took that poll and voted for restrictions were reading this thread right so they know how I feel about them.

Maybe the media did have a big part in influencing these people. Instilling fear into them. Theres an excellent book out, The Culture of Fear, thats about the media misleading the public. But I'm sorry if these people are taking everything they read and hear at face value.

In my opinion no matter what we do whether it be to serverly tighter american boarders, conduct open cavity searches at airports, take every Muslim in america and hold them in a cell or close down the US to the outside world, a terrorist attack could still happen. So I find it real hard to justify restricting an americans rights, based on their religion, for fear of future attacks.

Oh and another thing thats wrong is that they dropped 2 ATOMIC bombs on japan and that was unjustified.

I'd like to thank our friend from the ACLU here for clearing up how "wrong" it was for America to drop two atomic bombs on japan.

Ok people here is a free histroy lesson because I guess they teach us how wrong it was in school.
Truman had a choice, he could drop the bombs on japan and hopefully end the war with the them. The two cities were civilian targets yes, but they also had a military value to them as well.
The other choice for Truman, invade japan where every man, woman, and child would fight to the death and cause upwards of a million casualties for American soldiers.
Lets see, drop the bomb and kill several thousand civilians but hopefully end the war, or invade japan and drag the war out a couple of more years killing many, many, many more people?
Yes, he dropped the bomb on japan, but he also warned them about it and asked them to surrender both times before he did.

I know this is off the topic of the thread but it really pisses me off when people don't know what the hell they are talking about!!!

So lemme ask you this, do you agree with restricting the rights of American Muslims?
If it would mean that we would never be attacked from within again, then yes. It may not be fair, nor ethical, but neither is war.

I'd like to thank our friends from the ACLU here for clearing up how "wrong" it was for America to drop two atomic bombs on japan.

Ok people here is a free histroy lesson because I guess they teach us how wrong it was in school.
Truman had a choice, he could drop the bombs on japan and hopefully end the war with the them. The two cities were civilian targets yes, but they also had a military value to them as well.
The other choice for Truman, invade japan where every man, woman, and child would fight to the death and cause upwards of a million casualties for American soldiers.
Lets see, drop the bomb and kill several thousand civilians but hopefully end the war, or invade japan and drag the war out a couple of more years killing many, many, many more people?
Yes, he dropped the bomb on japan, but he also warned them about it and asked them to surrender both times before he did.

I know this is off the topic of the thread but it really pisses me off when people don't know what the hell they are talking about!!!Agreed!

If it would mean that we would never be attacked from within again, then yes. It may not be fair, nor ethical, but neither is war.

So what if you fell into that catogory? Lets say, for the sake of arguement, that you are a law abiding American Muslim. Would you still feel the same way? War isn't fair, I know. I'm a part of it. I fight to protect american freedoms, rights, and interests. So agreeing with the idea of restricting another americans rights so you can feel more secure offends me in every way. Using war as an excuse to restrict the rights of Muslim americans is absurd to begin with. Also, correct if I'm wrong, but the terrorists that committed those terrible acts were not american citizens.

715? thats it?

they should have at least tried to hit 5000, what a bunk poll, its results arent even wroth worrying about

715 is actually quite a large number. If you've ever taken a class on statistics, you'd know that once you've polled 30 people, your overall pattern for the results isn't going to change very much (unless of course you go into dog show, and ask "are cats stupid" and then go to a cat show and ask the same question).

Just because they disagree doesn't make them morons.
It's their idiotic ideas that make them morons. You don't protect freedom and liberty by getting rid of freedom and liberty. What kind of idea is that? A moronic one. That's all there is to it. If you act like a moron, you are a moron. :)

I
The other choice for Truman, invade japan where every man, woman, and child would fight to the death and cause upwards of a million casualties for American soldiers.
Lets see, drop the bomb and kill several thousand civilians but hopefully end the war, or invade japan and drag the war out a couple of more years killing many, many, many more people?
Yes, he dropped the bomb on japan, but he also warned them about it and asked them to surrender both times before he did.
Several thousand civillians? More like several hundred thousand. And never mind that the death toll due to the bombs continued to rise even decades after the war.
Mac Arthur believed that the atomic bombings were unnecessary, I'd agree with him. Japan's infrastructure was shattered, they may not have been surrendering, but the truth of the matter is that had America simply invaded, it's probable that fewer people would have died, in all reality. The Japanese very simply couldn't have done much about it. They didn't have what they needed to fight off anybody for any real length of time. They had already "surrendered" (though they weren't about to use that word or admit it directly) to Russia (believe it or not, this is the exact moment also, that Russia declared war on Japan) and there's no way they could have done much of anything at all about an invasion - it's very hard to swallow that anybody honestly thought that they could've dragged out the war for another year or so.
I think the bombs were used because the government had already spent so much time and money on them, and they had an opportunity to use them, even if it wasn't actually necessary.

I know this is off the topic of the thread but it really pisses me off when people don't know what the hell they are talking about!!!
So are you pissed off at yourself? :p

Japan's infrastructure was shattered, they may not have been surrendering, but the truth of the matter is that had America simply invaded, it's probable that fewer people would have died, in all reality. The Japanese very simply couldn't have done much about it. They didn't have what they needed to fight off anybody for any real length of time. They had already "surrendered" (though they weren't about to use that word or admit it directly) to Russia (believe it or not, this is the exact moment also, that Russia declared war on Japan) and there's no way they could have done much of anything at all about an invasion - it's very hard to swallow that anybody honestly thought that they could've dragged out the war for another year or so.



Fewer people would have died if the U.S. would of invaded Japan than if they would of used the bombs!? You have go to be kidding me!!!
You say they couldn't of done anything about it but they were going to do something.
The japaniese knew the Americans were coming so they got ready to fight to the death. Every single person able to fight got guns, sharpened sticks, anything they could use to fight the American soldiers.
They got every boat they could find and strapped explosives to them so they could ram them into the incoming American ships and troop boats. They were strapping explosives to cars and each other ready to take down as many Americans as possible.
The stats were right, the U.S. might of received a million casualties and I just listed reasons why. They might not of had anything to fight with really but they were going to use Kamikaze on the americans the entire time.

If you look at history the japaniese fought the americans almost to the last man standing at Okinawa becasue it was considered japaniese home soil. The greatest Kamikaze raids took place here along with some of the hardest fighting the americans took place in. The mainland of japan would of been 100 times worse than Okinawa ever could of been had there been an invasion.

If you honestly think it was "wrong" to drop the bombs and sending americans into kamikaze japan was a better choice, I thank god you weren't a general during WW2.

Recent history shows that the Japanese were within reach of nuking the US, and that they were only foiled because of the capture of a German submarine. We nuked them just in time. And if Korea or Iraq comes close, I'm glad that our submarines are waiting off their coasts too.

Recent history shows that the Japanese were within reach of nuking the US, and that they were only foiled because of the capture of a German submarine. We nuked them just in time. And if Korea or Iraq comes close, I'm glad that our submarines are waiting off their coasts too.

You got a link to that info?

Recent history shows that the Japanese were within reach of nuking the US, and that they were only foiled because of the capture of a German submarine. We nuked them just in time. And if Korea or Iraq comes close, I'm glad that our submarines are waiting off their coasts too.

Hyperbole.


http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/japan/nuke/

The submarine in question was only carrying enough raw material to build one fifth of a bomb.there is no indication that they had the technology, or the balance of the raw materials to make a bomb, or the technology with which to deploy it.They were were nowhere near completion when Japan surrendered.

As to Iraq coming close.....get real.The WMD proved to be a figment of the Pentagons imagination.Hopefully the US will never launch another nuclear attack EVER. Crimes against humanity should not be undertaken lightly.As I see it, the nuclear bombing of Japan was a grotesque 'field trial', intended more to establish American dominance of the arms race with Russia and the rest of the world than to subdue a delpeted Japanese force.

One could even draw parallels with the current war in Iraq....America crushing a half-dead opponent just to show the rest of the world how brave and independent they can be.

Would be a fitting footnote if in fifty years from now, Iraqi imports were disposing of the last of Americas heavy industry.America may have won the war, but the Japanese have certainly fared better in peacetime.

So the Japs could only make a bomb 1/5th as big as ours? Oh, that's ok then. We should have let them use it on us.

Please, read peoples' posts before carrying on with your ill-informed prejudice.:rolleyes: The fact that they may have been the intended recipient of the raw materials does not mean that they were anywhere close to deploying a bomb of any size.Their heavy industry was alredy in ruins thanks to enormous conventional bombings,There cities had been extensively torched with incendiary attacks, and they were being driven back on all fronts.It is unlikely that the outcome of the war would have been different had the Americans not bombed Nagasaki, and the bombing of Hiroshima only served to hasten the loss by Japan.We will never know what might have been, but we do know the facts.The fact remains that Japan was nowhere neatr nuclear capable when they surrendered.

There was no submarine with nuclear stuff on it that was sunk. Their was a German ship sank buy a french sub that had nuclear equipment but that's it.
It was the Germans who were close to getting nuclear weapons and not Japan. I'm sure though that since they were allies Japan would of got a German nuke or two.

There was no submarine with nuclear stuff on it that was sunk. Their was a German ship sank buy a french sub that had nuclear equipment but that's it.
It was the Germans who were close to getting nuclear weapons and not Japan. I'm sure though that since they were allies Japan would of got a German nuke or two.

You obviously didn't read my original link,so I will quote from it for you.


There are indications that Japan had a more sizable program than is commonly understood, and that there was close cooperation among the Axis powers, including a secretive exchange of war materiel. The German submarine U-234, which surrendered to US forces in May 1945, was found to be carrying 560 kilograms of Uranium oxide destined for Japan's own atomic program.

If you took the trouble to Google search your beliefs,or read the links provided by those that do, you might end up closer to the facts.

http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&q=u-234+uranium++submarine&spell=1

I love seeing certain users here calling people they don't know morons just because they disagree with how they feel or think. Just because they disagree doesn't make them morons. Just because they hold a different opinion then you, you feel the need to degrade them.
When you even consider taking steps into revoking the rights of some based solely on religion because the media portray's them as demons...then yes you are a moron. It's no worse then the extremists calling all Americans "infidels" that should die.

Have you ever considered why they feel this way. Could it possibly be they are swayed by the media and tend to react a different way then they would normally. Could they feel some fear from terrorists. Afterall people don't walk around town letting everyone know they are terrorists. I bet the government is watching muslims closely. I would be willing to bet the police are profiling muslims yet you want to trash people because they are afraid and read and watch acts of terror happening.
So I guess since you have sympathy for the morons then you must certanly empathize with the extremists who were lured into thinking all Americans and Isreali's are their sworn enemy and should kill as many of them as possible...right? Your so quick to defend your fellow Americans even though they are taking even more steps towards a Nazi-America, yet you criticize those who defend people of other countries.
Yes the police and other government divisions no doubt profile muslims, such as revoking visa's and green cards based on religion (even though they wont tell you that). Are you gonna say that's ok too? Would you say it's for the protection of others? If you say yes to those last two then it must be because you are not affected but I bet youd cry your ass off if any of these things happened to you.

I have referred to some people in this forum as idiots.The fact that I disagree with their beliefs is neither here nor there.I call them idiots because they are either unwilling or unable to debate their positions, preferring to repeat themselves and parrot official lines rather than back up their arguments with facts.

EXAMPLE

to date, the Americans have not found any significant WMD in Iraq.

Example of fact.

Yeah, but we'll find them evenntually, Saddam was a bastard and has hidden them somewhere

Example of unsupported opinion.

People who build their beliefs on facts are smarter than people who choose their beliefs and then go looking for material that supports their standpoint.

The idiots are the ones who think that we should accept their opinions as gospel simply because it is their opinion.

I have referred to some people in this forum as idiots.The fact that I disagree with their beliefs is neither here nor there.I call them idiots because they are either unwilling or unable to debate their positions, preferring to repeat themselves and parrot official lines rather than back up their arguments with facts.

EXAMPLE

to date, the Americans have not found any significant WMD in Iraq.

Example of fact.

Yeah, but we'll find them evenntually, Saddam was a bastard and has hidden them somewhere

Example of unsupported opinion.
People who build their beliefs on facts are smarter than people who choose their beliefs and then go looking for material that supports their standpoint.

The idiots are the ones who think that we should accept their opinions as gospel simply because it is their opinion.

Thats correct. There are no WMD. Never were. Bush admitted to it himself and went on to blame the intelligence community for that mistake. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, didn't Saddam confess that he never posessed WMD? And that he only claimed to have them to inflict fear in his enemies.

Muscletang (http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/member.php?u=223822) - You just DONT kill civilians. Theres absolutely NO EXCUSE on what the U.S. did to the Japanese civilians.

Muscletang - You just DONT kill civilians. Theres absolutely NO EXCUSE on what the U.S. did to the Japanese civilians.

Then what were we suppose to do mr. general?
Our other option was to invade Japan and as I stated they were in a kamikaze state. This factor made the estimated casualty toll for the Americans close to 1 million.
So what would you of done? We kill 200,000 of their people, 50,000 being military personal, and we possible end the war.
Or we don't have to use the bombs, we could invade and possible send 1 million american soldiers to their deaths.
So what would YOU of done? 200,000 Japanese or 1 million Americans?

Well according to this Death Toll (http://www.hitler.org/ww2-deaths.html) it was more like 2 million Japanese dead. Although we don't know how many of them were military and how many were civilians

Several thousand civillians? More like several hundred thousand. And never mind that the death toll due to the bombs continued to rise even decades after the war.
Mac Arthur believed that the atomic bombings were unnecessary, I'd agree with him. Japan's infrastructure was shattered, they may not have been surrendering, but the truth of the matter is that had America simply invaded, it's probable that fewer people would have died, in all reality. The Japanese very simply couldn't have done much about it. They didn't have what they needed to fight off anybody for any real length of time. They had already "surrendered" (though they weren't about to use that word or admit it directly) to Russia (believe it or not, this is the exact moment also, that Russia declared war on Japan) and there's no way they could have done much of anything at all about an invasion - it's very hard to swallow that anybody honestly thought that they could've dragged out the war for another year or so.
I think the bombs were used because the government had already spent so much time and money on them, and they had an opportunity to use them, even if it wasn't actually necessary.

I think muscletang is right on this one.
The Allies had quite rightly decided that Japan must have unconditional surrender. One only needs to look at the their vast, barbaric acts (ie:against China) used to build their Empire in the 20's and 30's to know this was required.
There was a great documentary on PBS about this. The Allies, mostly the US, had extensive plans about the invasion of mainland Japan. The Japanese homeland defenses were extensive (5000 aircraft, thousands of fortified concrete bunkers, hardened communications and transport routes and millions of fanatical Japanese willing to fight to the death. )

It would have been a massive, lengthy, bloody and hugely expensive effort to have done this, enough to have made D-Day and the Eastern Front combined look like kindergarten. (Think Okinawa times 1000) At the time, the Whitehouse and the Pentagon seriously considered that a conventional war against the Japanese was not winnable, that is, insufficient manpower and a willingness to fight by US troops for the months on end that would be required. They felt that after 3 and a half years of all - out war, US infantry was exhausted and a long Japanese campaign would be excessively demoralising for the troops and the civillians at home.
Furthermore, the Allies had alreadly lost half of Europe to Soviet influence and they were unwilling to let half of Japan fall to the soviets either.

I came in late on this one so please forgive me if I state something already stated.

In the article it said
"The survey found 44 percent favored at least some restrictions on the civil liberties of Muslim Americans."

Which civil liberties are they referring to?


"The survey showed that 27 percent of respondents supported requiring all Muslim-Americans to register where they lived with the federal government. "

Doesn't everyone who pays taxes already do that?

"Twenty-two percent favored racial profiling to identify potential terrorist threats."


The arguement against racial or religious profiling has always bothered me. If you know that most of the terrorist attacks are being done by people of a certain nationality or a certain religon then how can you help not profiling those groups? It wouldn't make sense to investigate everyone on the face of the earth. You have to narrow down your scope to the most likely canidates. Otherwise you are waisting huge amounts of resources. Do we choose to be P.C. or do we choose to be more efficient?


"And 29 percent thought undercover agents should infiltrate Muslim civic and volunteer organizations to keep tabs on their activities and fund-raising."

Only if they are suspected of supporting terrorist activities. And this goes for any organization Muslim or otherwise.

Then what were we suppose to do mr. general?
Our other option was to invade Japan and as I stated they were in a kamikaze state. This factor made the estimated casualty toll for the Americans close to 1 million.
So what would you of done? We kill 200,000 of their people, 50,000 being military personal, and we possible end the war.
Or we don't have to use the bombs, we could invade and possible send 1 million american soldiers to their deaths.
So what would YOU of done? 200,000 Japanese or 1 million Americans?


Im pretty damn sure its more than 200,000 civilians. You know what, you're like a psycho murderer coming up with an excuse like that tryin to JUSTIFY there actions against the civilians.I must say your dumb as donkey. There was lots of children and women that has NOTHING TO DO WITH WAR and yet you're still backing it up with that LAME ASS excuse to kill the innocent. Way to go :rolleyes:

"The survey found 44 percent favored at least some restrictions on the civil liberties of Muslim Americans."

Which civil liberties are they referring to?

Does it really matter which one/s they want to revoke? Even the thought of it is wrong nevere mind which one they think should be gone.

"Twenty-two percent favored racial profiling to identify potential terrorist threats."

The arguement against racial or religious profiling has always bothered me. If you know that most of the terrorist attacks are being done by people of a certain nationality or a certain religon then how can you help not profiling those groups? It wouldn't make sense to investigate everyone on the face of the earth. You have to narrow down your scope to the most likely canidates. Otherwise you are waisting huge amounts of resources. Do we choose to be P.C. or do we choose to be more efficient?
Agreed. Racial profiling exists and theres no way of eliminating it. But you have to diffirentiate between racial profiling and discriminating.


"And 29 percent thought undercover agents should infiltrate Muslim civic and volunteer organizations to keep tabs on their activities and fund-raising."

Only if they are suspected of supporting terrorist activities. And this goes for any organization Muslim or otherwise.
No. That's just plain stupid. When have you ever heard of any Muslim community or organization in the US funding terrorists? The only thing you can get from keeping a close eye on those Msulims in the STates is a false sence of security and wasted money.

Im pretty damn sure its more than 200,000 civilians. You know what, you're like a psycho murderer coming up with an excuse like that tryin to JUSTIFY there actions against the civilians.I must say your dumb as donkey. There was lots of children and women that has NOTHING TO DO WITH WAR and yet you're still backing it up with that LAME ASS excuse to kill the innocent. Way to go :rolleyes:

All in all, probably 250,000 people died in the bombings of Japan. Around 80,000 died in the first bombing and less died in the second, the rest were killed by radiation poisoning.

I'm a psycho murderer?
If anything you are for wanting to of sent many more Americans to their deaths by an unnecessary invasion. You never even answered my question in the first place.
If you were Truman what would YOU of done? Would you of killed 250,000 Japanease with the two atomic bombs, or would you of sent Americans to invade Japan where estimated casualties were around a million?
You also talk about many of these people hand NOTHING to do with the war, sorry that isn't so. Did you know that every man, woman, and child able was issued a 6 ft sharpened pipe so they could kill any American invaders? Did you know that many of these "innocent" civilians were ready to drive boats into the invading ships?
Also, these people had a chance to leave the city. American bombers dropped thousands upon thousands of fliers telling the Japanease that these certain cities would be bombed unless Japan surrendered. The people had a chance to escape, they didn't and got ready to fight.
If you still say you'd rather invade and the bombs were "wrong" you obviously have no idea the sacrific American soldiers went through so you could sit here today and say what you want to say.

Also, people don't realize but more people were killed in the fire bombing raids of Tokyo than almost all of the 250,000 that died due to the atomic bombs. Again almost more people died in the bombings of Dresden and Cologne in German than both atomic blast, but I don't hear people on here saying those were wrong either.

i was aware of the Tokyo firebombing killing more.

Bombing on a NK city in the Korean war killed more than those combined i think.

I am actually glad the US nuked japan. here is my reasoning.

whether or not it was needed to force japan to surrender is debatable. I do not believe it was as Japan was already trying to negotiate peace through the Soviet's as America had declined peace talks. HOWEVER, had the US not used nukes at that time it may not have scared the crap out of people enough to avoid using them in the future. Rather than seeing the grid-lock of the cold war we may have, and i believe would have, seen nuclear weapons used in a major conflict. (read WW III) and ultimately this would have been very bad for a lot more people than those who lost their lives in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

just my opinion, but hopefully you see the logic.

side query.

if these cities were of such military significance. why were the military targets in them deliberately avoided? why did the cities see no bombing prior to the attacks? obviously the military targets were not significant enough to worry about.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were avoided because if they would of been fire bombed like Tokyo then there would of been nothing left. Americans left potential nuclear targets alone.
About 60% of Tokya had been totally destroyed in the fire bombing raids. If America would of dropped a nuclear bomb on it then it would of been a waste, seeing as how most of the city was already destroyed.

i concur. unfortunately though that strengthens the case that there was not sufficient military targets in either city to justify the attack as being anything other than civilian oriented. If the US were so worried about winning the war they would have bombed ANY military targets they could.

Well Japan's military was nothing at this point in the war and it would of been a waste of a bomb to drop it on nothing but a military target. They not longer had a navy, air force, and very little of an army. There was no huge military base they could of bombed so that left cities.

wow, is this an actual civil debate in the political forums!?(between Muscletang and TRD200) Now ive seen everything. But id have to agree with muscletang, first what we did was right with nuking japan and that those cities were as good a pic as ever. Pluss if we had invaded not only would around 1 million allies die, I bet alot more Japanese would have died if the defense of Japan then those that died in the bombings.

unfortunately lightning that defies the fact that japan was already looking for peace and had been cut off from negotiations by the US, therefore they had turned to russia in the hope that they may be listened to. (remember at the end of the war in europe Russia and the US were allies) perhaps if america hadn't been so keen to test their new toys there may have been a way for a lot less lives to have been lost.

in response to muscletang, you are somewhat right, japan had been reduced to almost nothing at that point, however when it comes down to it, what would have been a worthwhile military target anyway? Those cities had been deliberately selected and reserved for atomic testbeds, it would have been a shame to miss them. Valley locations even heightened the effect of the bomb by ricocheting the shockwave.

as far as effect goes, the administration was presented with the option of exploding the bomb over Tokyo harbour at a higher elevation, where it would have been witnessed by far more people and quite possibly had an even bigger effect on the countries moral, without the civilian casualties inflicted.

I do however maintain though, that in hindsight (20/20's a wonderful thing) dropping the bombs was a worthwhile thing, and the people killed did not die in vein as the awareness that the ongoing deaths had on the world conciousness, i believe, has so far helped avoid a nuclear war. At the time i don't think it was justified as there were other, just as effective ways of ending the war with or without demonstrating US military might. Talking being a good one, though I believe that the two bombs dropped (out of a planned 17 over the next few months) were as much about revenge/punishment as they were military necessity, and understandably so, perhaps thats why the US wouldn't end the war without them.

Well Japan's military was nothing at this point in the war and it would of been a waste of a bomb to drop it on nothing but a military target. They not longer had a navy, air force, and very little of an army.

Makes you wonder if they really needed to drop them at all.

Talking being a good one, though I believe that the two bombs dropped (out of a planned 17 over the next few months) were as much about revenge/punishment as they were military necessity, and understandably so, perhaps thats why the US wouldn't end the war without them.

Actually the two bombs they dropped were the only two they were going to use. If the two they dropped didn't cause Japan to surrender then the U.S. would of gone ahead with the November invasion of Japan.

Also, people say the U.S. "cut" off negotiations with Japan, they didn't. The U.S. wanted Japan's unconditional surrender and that's all they wanted. They weren't going to negotiate anything, they wanted them to surrender.

Finally I'm a little mad nobody has answered my question. If you were Truman what would you of done? Would you of dropped the bombs and hopefully ended the war without an American based invasion? Or would you of skipped that and went ahead with the American invasion that, I've said several times, was estimated to have 1 million casualties? What would be more important to you, killing some Japanease civilians and saving American lives, or sending many, many more American soldiers to their deaths but not look bad by dropping the bombs?

Actually the two bombs they dropped were the only two they were going to use. If the two they dropped didn't cause Japan to surrender then the U.S. would of gone ahead with the November invasion of Japan.

Also, people say the U.S. "cut" off negotiations with Japan, they didn't. The U.S. wanted Japan's unconditional surrender and that's all they wanted. They weren't going to negotiate anything, they wanted them to surrender.

Finally I'm a little mad nobody has answered my question. If you were Truman what would you of done? Would you of dropped the bombs and hopefully ended the war without an American based invasion? Or would you of skipped that and went ahead with the American invasion that, I've said several times, was estimated to have 1 million casualties? What would be more important to you, killing some Japanease civilians and saving American lives, or sending many, many more American soldiers to their deaths but not look bad by dropping the bombs?
Those two bombs that were used WERE the only 2 available.
At the time, the only way of extracting and refining the fissionable material was using cyclotrons, a very expensive, inefficient and slow process. It would have taken months for the US to have refined more and made a third bomb. IMHO if the Japanese government knew this, they may not have been so quick to surrender.

Finally, in a round-about way I did answer your question in my last post at the top of page 4. IMHO Truman made the correct decision, (at least in dropping the first one,) considering the limited supply of bombs at the time.
Was dropping the second one required?? Maybe not.