Do you think this is OK or not? (video of Watertown home raid)

None of that makes it acceptable. Dropping atomic bombs on civilians is not acceptable no matter how someone tries to spin it or write it in the history books. Man will always find a way to justify his horrific actions and senseless murder of others.

I have to congratulate the US forces for their speedy apprehension of those two terrorists, that having surveillance cameras everywhere is a great thing, however intrusive it seems to be. To be able to identify those two within 24 hours was brilliant. Lessons have to be learnt each time anything like this happens, lots of good and bad things can be worked on. What saddened me after the final terrorist was captured, was the world news coverage showing thousands [of mainly youngsters] out on the street, shouting USA, USA, like it was a Ryder Cup victory (remember them?!), turning a grave situation into it a carnival atmosphere, police cars roaming, honking their horns in appreciation. This also seemed to be explained by the fact it was 420 day, they were all stoned ? cops too.

The American reaction to such events tends to be different from anywhere else around the world, the National Guard on the streets, a no-fly zone, that every senator claimed their post contained Ricin, Louisiana closed down highways and harbours because someone accidentally left a briefcase near a post office. Obama desperate to appear on tv to petrify a nation as if aliens had landed and nuked New York. After Twin Towers idiot Bush told the word America was at war. The whole point of terrorism is to terrify, and America is brilliant at being that. And having most of the population armed didn't do much good, that should shut a lot of pro-gunners up.

Those who read that British ex-Prime Minister Thatcher died the other week, should note how she reacted when the IRA attempted to kill her in 1994, they blew up the hotel, five died, many injured, and she was very lucky to escape the blast. Next morning, 9.30am, she strode out and acted as if nothing had happened. Again, when the IRA bombed the City of London, enormous destruction, yet 36 hours later the whole area was opened for business as usual. These things need to be played down when they can, or the terrorists really are winning [in America].

Treat Tsarnaev as a criminal, not a terrorist, throw him in with the rapists, killers and not very nice people, don't make him special, by putting him in a quasii-prisoner of war detention camp, or killing him and making him and his brother martyrs.

You're wrong. I watched a special on Showtime just a few weeks ago showing archived footage of the Generals in their own words saying that the bomb was not needed.
Truman wanted to drop it to prove a point.

Do some research. Don't believe what we were taught in school about it.

ok, i watched the doc in its entirety, thanks for pointing me to it.

for me, i think stone is on to something, but hasn't quite got it sorted out.

as stone points out, truman was not in charge of dropping the bomb, groves was, groves is otr stating that truman didn't so much as say yes, he just didn't say no to already existing plans to drop the bomb(s). groves described truman as a boy on a toboggan.

next, he goes on that the japanese communicate to the russians that they are willing to surrender conditionally, if the emperor can be kept.

general kawabi says: we learned of hiroshima gradually, we learned of the manchurain invasion quickly.

stalin had rushed to invade manchuria after learning of the successful test of the bomb

for me, what stone is really trying to revise, is that truman blinked. truman backed off his requiring japan to surrender uncondtionally, at potsdam, he allows them to maintain the emperor. in that sense, yes, the bomb didn't have anything to do with it.

but i don't think that changes the fact that the bombs did shorten the war. that's not to say that russia's entry would not have shortened the war. but based on the doc, the plan to drop the bombs was in motion via groves, truman had no real say, as did any of the other generals.

ok, i watched the doc in its entirety, thanks for pointing me to it.

for me, i think stone is on to something, but hasn't quite got it sorted out.

as stone points out, truman was not in charge of dropping the bomb, groves was, groves is otr stating that truman didn't so much as say yes, he just didn't say no to already existing plans to drop the bomb(s). groves described truman as a boy on a toboggan.

next, he goes on that the japanese communicate to the russians that they are willing to surrender conditionally, if the emperor can be kept.

general kawabi says: we learned of hiroshima gradually, we learned of the manchurain invasion quickly.

stalin had rushed to invade manchuria after learning of the successful test of the bomb

for me, what stone is really trying to revise, is that truman blinked. truman backed off his requiring japan to surrender uncondtionally, at potsdam, he allows them to maintain the emperor. in that sense, yes, the bomb didn't have anything to do with it.

but i don't think that changes the fact that the bombs did shorten the war. that's not to say that russia's entry would not have shortened the war. but based on the doc, the plan to drop the bombs was in motion via groves, truman had no real say, as did any of the other generals.

WW2 and the 'Unconditional Surrender'

Some time during ww2, the allies started floating around this 'unconditional surrender' nonsense about how the war would end.

so instead of another european war blowing itself out.. you had this added caveat that your surrender would be 'unconditional', whatever that meant.

This meant you had no soldiers giving up, armies and governments fighting 'end game scenarios', cause for all they knew, everyone would end up dead

So you had a war being dragged out for YEARS, because of two words

same with Japan.

Anyone who says 'this saved millions of lives', not only has no clue what they're talking about, is probably suspect MIC supporter

i know you are just c&p'ing this comment but it truly lacks any real understanding of the aggression of germany and japan at that time.

that aggression prompted the unconditional surrender, certainly not the allies and some random bullshit, as the above gibberish suggests.

proof is the misunderstanding the unconditional surrender saved lives.

i've never read anything that claimed the requirement for unconditional surrender saved lives, that's pretty silly.

do you know that the bush family had very close ties to the nazi party?

and sorry, i was talking about the nukes that were dropped on Japan

it was a crime against humanity.

no, they didn't have very close ties to the nazi party. they invested in the recovery of germany in the 130s-ish like many wealthy americans and businesses did.

the slaughter of civilians caused by any war is a crime against humanity.

america didn't invent that, america does not hold a monopoly on that. you'll need to include all the other participants in war for your comment to be fair and accurate.

dyna_mo we are hijacking this thread...but I'd like to say something to you.

You're not the only educated person on here. And not the best educated either I would suspect. I'm sure there are much more educated folks on here than you or I.

Having said that...I graduated college in 1983.
And one thing that always stuck in my head was our Western Civ professor telling us at the end of the semester that pretty much everything he had taught us was complete bullshit and that "history is written by the victors of wars"

I'd keep that in mind before you get your thoughts set in stone on the subject of the United States dropping atomic bombs on highly populated cities. (not even military targets)

If ANY country ever did that we would immediately brand them a "terrorist nation" and all hell would break lose.
But WE are the only country that has ever done something so horrible.

It's just one of the many reasons that people around the world hate and fear the United States. Our goddamn govt. is a disgrace.

do i need to be fair and accurate when it comes to a subject of the needless deaths of countless women and children?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004...secondworldwar

can you read this and we can get back to the discussion? i don't want to type for awhile about shit that's already fact