Alex Jones triggers the Young Turks

[Kemal Ergenekon]

That definition is a little vague. The part it's missing is "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group".

 

I never claimed that nuking japan made peace possible, I claimed, in response to your original claim, that that was the intent, and nothing you have said has proven otherwise. If you want to sling accusations around the burden of proving them lies with you. I'm not defending the action because frankly it was an act of mass murder, but it wasn't genocide.

 

Your stretching the term to fit your argument. I'm not arguing with you on the morality of the bombings of Japan, because frankly I don't care, I'm not American and as far as I'm concerned it was a horrible atrocity. I was arguing with your loose use of the word "genocide". Because it wasn't an act of genocide.

 

Then I am glad we agree that 1915 was also not a genocide, since you have no proof of intent of the Ottoman at the time. Have a grand day.

[SoS]

 

You seem to have missed it. It fits the definition: "the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation."

 

It was deliberate. It was killing a large group of people. They all belonged to the Japanese nation.

 

You cannot prove that. If we go ahead and accept that, then I can claim the Ottoman Empire didn't lead to the deaths of the Armenians because of their culture, race or nationality, but because they were attacking the Turkish army and civilians in the East and aiding the Russians against the Ottomans in WW1. We have already discussed that.

 

Then the whole argument that nuking Japan made peace possible is also debunked, which would imply the nukings were just gratuitous killings and genocide by the US.

Then nearly every war in history would be genocide.

 

We warned Japan that we would rain hell on them if they didn't surrender. They refused. Hiroshima happened. We warned them we would nuke again and again if they didn't surrender. They refused. Nagasaki happened. They surrendered.

 

Horrible as the slaughter was, it did spare many times more Japanese lives. And more importantly American lives. Knowing the tenacity of Japanese defense, it's fair to guess one if not a few million lives were saved. Beyond being the less bloody alternative, it was total war in which they had used every weapon and tactic at their disposal. Including indiscriminately targeting our civilians. We were well within our rights to use these weapons to win a war they started and that would have ended our existence had we lost.

 

When a regime goes door-to-door and rounds up a specific ethnic group, to be gassed or imprisoned or hacked with machetes or marched to exile or machine gunned into a mass grave, that's the basis of a genocide.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

Then nearly every war in history would be genocide.

 

Debatable. I agree that the definition is too broad, and that's why I think 1915 is not a genocide. But if 1915 is a genocide, then so is nuking Japanese civilians, if not more so. After all, most Armenians died due to the elements, hunger and diseases back in the day, which were common occurrences for every subject of the Ottoman Empire, and most parts of the world during WW1. Whereas the Japanese were obliterated using the most powerful weapons in the history of mankind.

 

We warned Japan that we would rain hell on them if they didn't surrender. They refused. Hiroshima happened. We warned them we would nuke again and again if they didn't surrender. They refused. Nagasaki happened. They surrendered.

 

False. You demanded unconditional surrender, not any kind of peace. They knew they lost the war, but they resisted because they wanted a peace agreement with more agreeable terms -- this is well documented. If the American government was less demanding, it could have had peace without the bombs. But they wanted complete control, and demilitarization as well as deindustrialization of Japan. Look it up.

 

Horrible as the slaughter was, it did spare many times more Japanese lives. And more importantly American lives. Knowing the tenacity of Japanese defense, it's fair to guess one if not a few million lives were saved. Beyond being the less bloody alternative, it was total war in which they had used every weapon and tactic at their disposal. Including indiscriminately targeting our civilians. We were well within our rights to use these weapons to win a war they started and that would have ended our existence had we lost.

 

This is, as I pointed out earlier, a false hypothetical thought experiment. There is no proof of what you claim. You are just writing a scenario that justifies the US decision; not because it is the most likely outcome, but because it is one that can whitewash wholesale slaughter of 200,000 civilians. There are many ways to achieve peace, and the US chose the one that involves beating your opponent into a pulp.

 

When a regime goes door-to-door and rounds up a specific ethnic group, to be gassed or imprisoned or hacked with machetes or marched to exile or machine gunned into a mass grave, that's the basis of a genocide.

 

But it isn't genocide if all the Armenians are in a single city and you nuke them? Ludicrous.

[PigInZen]

not ready to abandon thread yet

 

please, gentlemen (assumption), carry on

[SoS]

 

Then nearly every war in history would be genocide.

 

Debatable. I agree that the definition is too broad, and that's why I think 1915 is not a genocide. But if 1915 is a genocide, then so is nuking Japanese civilians, if not more so. After all, most Armenians died due to the elements, hunger and diseases back in the day, which were common occurrences for every subject of the Ottoman Empire, and most parts of the world during WW1. Whereas the Japanese were obliterated using the most powerful weapons in the history of mankind.

 

We warned Japan that we would rain hell on them if they didn't surrender. They refused. Hiroshima happened. We warned them we would nuke again and again if they didn't surrender. They refused. Nagasaki happened. They surrendered.

 

False. You demanded unconditional surrender, not any kind of peace. They knew they lost the war, but they resisted because they wanted a peace agreement with more agreeable terms -- this is well documented. If the American government was less demanding, it could have had peace without the bombs. But they wanted complete control, and demilitarization as well as deindustrialization of Japan. Look it up.

 

Horrible as the slaughter was, it did spare many times more Japanese lives. And more importantly American lives. Knowing the tenacity of Japanese defense, it's fair to guess one if not a few million lives were saved. Beyond being the less bloody alternative, it was total war in which they had used every weapon and tactic at their disposal. Including indiscriminately targeting our civilians. We were well within our rights to use these weapons to win a war they started and that would have ended our existence had we lost.

 

This is, as I pointed out earlier, a false hypothetical thought experiment. There is no proof of what you claim. You are just writing a scenario that justifies the US decision; not because it is the most likely outcome, but because it is one that can whitewash wholesale slaughter of 200,000 civilians. There are many ways to achieve peace, and the US chose the one that involves beating your opponent into a pulp.

 

When a regime goes door-to-door and rounds up a specific ethnic group, to be gassed or imprisoned or hacked with machetes or marched to exile or machine gunned into a mass grave, that's the basis of a genocide.

 

But it isn't genocide if all the Armenians are in a single city and you nuke them? Ludicrous.

Most Jews died of starvation, disease, and exposure as well.

 

Japan attacked us - in the most underhanded way. It's not PaW WW2 edition. You don't play games in the real world. Unconditional surrender was necessary to ensure they didn't attack us again.

 

Hypothetical thought experiments? They fought to the last man for shitty little sand bars with an airstip. Always. Every time. It is certain that an invasion of their homeland would have been costly.

 

If the nation of Armenia attacks you, you may bomb an Armenian city. That's war. If Armenian citizens (or Muslim citizens for that matter) in your nation carry out terror attacks and then you round up all the men, women, and children of that ethnicity - then that is something different. What the US did to the Japanese in the US was a crime. What we did to the nation of Japan was an act of war. Had we captured Hiroshima then put the people on an island and nuked them that would have been a crime. We attacked an enemy city.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

Most Jews died of starvation, disease, and exposure as well.

 

Yet it was not the intention of the Nazis to just relocate them. Hitler made it very clear that he wanted them exterminated. This is not true in the case of 1915. Armenians in the west were untouched because they posed no risk of colluding with the Russians, nor did they attack Turkish civilians. So it is quite clear that it was not targeted towards the Armenians because they were Armenians.

 

Japan attacked us - in the most underhanded way. It's not PaW WW2 edition. You don't play games in the real world. Unconditional surrender was necessary to ensure they didn't attack us again.

 

This is false. After the occupation of Japan, the US started the demilitarization and deindustrialization of Japan. But as soon as 5 years later, in 1950 the US decided that a militarized and industrialized Japan did not pose a risk to the US. Hence they stopped the deindustrialization and let Japan proceed just as they would if a white peace + war reparations were signed back in 1945. Knowing a little history helps my friend.

 

Hypothetical thought experiments? They fought to the last man for shitty little sand bars with an airstip. Always. Every time. It is certain that an invasion of their homeland would have been costly.

 

Yet it was far from the truth that an invasion was necessary before signing peace. The Americans decided they wanted unconditional surrender. They could have signed a less demanding surrender agreement which would not necessitate an invasion. In fact, when the USSR declared on Japan, it would have been much more easier to get any sort of peace deal the US desired.

 

If the nation of Armenia attacks you, you may bomb an Armenian city. That's war. If Armenian citizens (or Muslim citizens for that matter) in your nation carry out terror attacks and then you round up all the men, women, and children of that ethnicity - then that is something different. What the US did to the Japanese in the US was a crime. What we did to the nation of Japan was an act of war. Had we captured Hiroshima then put the people on an island and nuked them that would have been a crime. We attacked an enemy city.

 

Interesting argument. And you are incorrect, of course. There are international treaties that say what goes and what doesn't during military conflicts. Killing civilians is a big no-no. Nuking cities is unthinkable. But for the sake of argument, let's just assume that it was not genocide because it was a war crime instead. Then it could be applied to the Armenian case as well. The reason being that after the conflict, The First Republic of Armenia was declared: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Republic_of_ArmeniaSo that makes the Armenian-Turkish conflict between 1914-1918 the Armenian War of Independence. By your logic, since it was a war, it cannot be genocide. Not that I am defending this point, mind you. I am just following your faulty logic to its conclusion.

[SoS]

I don't know the history extensively, so I'm only discussing generalities. Maybe, someone more knowledgeable on this can speak regarding east/west Armenians. Hitler declared his final solution long after many "unintentional deaths", then.

 

I never said anything otherwise.

 

Tell me again about the little yellow area the Ottomans were left with? And, offer more advice on war.

 

Bombing military targets was perfectly legal. Collateral damage was perfectly legal.

 

War of independence, interesting. Go on. I really don't care to be correct over whatever happened there. Only the nuking thing. But, I'm interested in learning more about the history.

Edited July 25, 2016 by SoS

[WISD0MTREE]

ITT: 

 

 

Yes, the Soviets declared after the nuke. I just gave you a scenario about how it could go about without nuking 200k civilians. Many historians claim that the Soviet declaration had more to do with the surrender compared to the effect of the nukes. Which might actually be true given that the firebombing of Tokyo had already happened with no surrender.

 

Putting words into my mouth again, and underlining that Japan was the aggressor -> completely unrelated to how the war could have ended without more bloodshed.

 

Yes, America didn't want the USSR to invade. I don't see how it's related.

 

You didn't give enough time to cave in after the first nuke. But even if what you said is correct, then it shows that the nukes actually did not help the situation at all, and 200k civilians were murdered in vain.

Yes, and I just told you why that scenario wouldn't work out. 

 

No, I just expected that to be your response. It is very relevant. 

 

The Americans dropped the bomb in order to get Japan to surrender before the Soviets tried to invade. 

 

We didn't have the time. 

 

My revised version where everything is together - 

America needed to end the war with Japan before the Soviets invaded. Why? Because if the Soviets landed in Japan, they would want to split up Japan like Germany. We didn't want to give the Soviets more land because tensions were already rising after they went back on many promises made at Yalta. First off, a huge explosion in the ocean or some uninhabited area wouldn't make them surrender. We already firebombed Tokyo and many other cities and they did not surrender. In addition, they fought to the death for some shitty airstrips in the middle of the ocean. Looking back, they didn't even surrender after we bombed Hiroshima, so bombing some water before Hiroshima wouldn't intimidate them. After Hiroshima, the Soviets declared war. Seeing how quickly Manchuria fell to the Soviets, the Americans knew that the window of favorable post-war outcomes was growing smaller. In response, the US bombed Nagasaki. And the Emperor surrendered*. 

*After the Foreign Office did. And there were people who still wanted to continue the war. 

 

John Denver: xdxd, probably unrelated to me.

I'm onto you. 

 

 

 

 

 

Japan attacked us - in the most underhanded way. It's not PaW WW2 edition. You don't play games in the real world. Unconditional surrender was necessary to ensure they didn't attack us again.

 

This is false. After the occupation of Japan, the US started the demilitarization and deindustrialization of Japan. But as soon as 5 years later, in 1950 the US decided that a militarized and industrialized Japan did not pose a risk to the US. Hence they stopped the deindustrialization and let Japan proceed just as they would if a white peace + war reparations were signed back in 1945. Knowing a little history helps my friend.

America had no reason to do that. (Daily reminder they still can only have a self defense force.) 

[Kemal Ergenekon]

-snip-

 

If we trust the writings of the Japanese after the fact, we learn that they surrendered more due to the Soviet declaration than the nukes. Actually, this is also what you are saying, since you said Tokyo bombings and the first A-bomb did nothing. So it is also highly suspect that the second bomb did it. Which means that the firebombings and the two A-bombs were gratuitous murder of around half a million Japanese.

[SoS]

ITT:

 

 

Yes, and I just told you why that scenario wouldn't work out.

 

No, I just expected that to be your response. It is very relevant.

 

The Americans dropped the bomb in order to get Japan to surrender before the Soviets tried to invade.

 

We didn't have the time.

 

My revised version where everything is together -

America needed to end the war with Japan before the Soviets invaded. Why? Because if the Soviets landed in Japan, they would want to split up Japan like Germany. We didn't want to give the Soviets more land because tensions were already rising after they went back on many promises made at Yalta. First off, a huge explosion in the ocean or some uninhabited area wouldn't make them surrender. We already firebombed Tokyo and many other cities and they did not surrender. In addition, they fought to the death for some shitty airstrips in the middle of the ocean. Looking back, they didn't even surrender after we bombed Hiroshima, so bombing some water before Hiroshima wouldn't intimidate them. After Hiroshima, the Soviets declared war. Seeing how quickly Manchuria fell to the Soviets, the Americans knew that the window of favorable post-war outcomes was growing smaller. In response, the US bombed Nagasaki. And the Emperor surrendered*.

*After the Foreign Office did. And there were people who still wanted to continue the war.

 

I'm onto you.

 

 

 

 

America had no reason to do that. (Daily reminder they still can only have a self defense force.)

Spot on.

 

Kemal, drop the Japan thing.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

I don't know the history extensively, so I'm only discussing generalities. Maybe, someone more knowledgeable on this can speak regarding east/west Armenians. Hitler declared his final solution long after many "unintentional deaths", then.

 

I never said anything otherwise.

 

Tell me again about the little yellow area the Ottomans were left with? And, offer more advice on war.

 

Bombing military targets was perfectly legal. Collateral damage was perfectly legal.

 

War of independence, interesting. Go on. I really don't care to be correct over whatever happened there. Only the nuking thing. But, I'm interested in learning more about the history.

 

Collateral damage of 200k civilians is "perfectly legal" according to what international treaty exactly? I'd appreciate some references.

 

Ottoman Empire was on the side of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Bulgaria against Great Britain, France, Italy, Russia, Greece, and a host of other countries. There were three major Ottoman fronts: In the northeast (Caucasus) against Russia, in the west at the Dardanelles against Great Britain, its colonies and France, and in the southeast (Arabian Peninsula, Levant, Iraq, Syria) again against the same people, but mostly Great Britain.

 

Ottoman Empire lost the first front against Russians, won in the second front at the Dardanelles, preventing the Entente countries from sending aid to Russians via the Bosphorus and the Black Sea, and lost on the third front.

 

The loss against the Russians was severe. At Sarikamis, the Ottoman Empire suffered a great defeat against the Russians, who were backed by the Armenian subjects of the empire. You can read more about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sarikamish. This was in part due to Armenians supporting the Russian army either directly (see the Armenian volunteers who helped the Russians) and in part due to their guerrilla activities. The Armenians also attacked the non-Armenian civilians.

 

Now, this was not the first time the Ottoman Empire faced such a thing. In the past Greece and Bulgaria had declared their independence in a similar way: The population revolts and starts killing the Turks; they get the support of other countries who want to weaken and partition the Ottoman Empire; then they prevail and declare independence, after which the Turks in these lands suffer exactly what the Armenians suffered in 1915. It was the same with Armenians, in that the Entente countries wanted to create an independent Armenia, and purge the Turks from the area. This is evidenced by the fact that they actually did so: After the Ottoman Empire was defeated in 1918, they signed the Treaty of Sevres.

 

This is before WW1:

 

 

The plain yellow area is after WW1:

 

 

The parts you don't see on the map are mostly claimed by Great Britain. The blue part is what was ceded to the newly established state of Armenia. Here is the whole map of Armenia at that time:

 

 

Now, back to the aftermath of Sarikamis. The Ottoman Army which fought against the Russians was led by Enver Pasha, one of the infamous triumvirate. He blamed his whole defeat which killed or wounded around 100k Turkish soldiers on the Armenians. Is this the complete truth? Obviously not. He was an idiot who didn't wait for the winter equipment to reach the soldiers, and the Caucasus area is !@#$ing cold in winter. So he was defeated not only by the Russians and the Armenians, but also the winter. He was an idiot as I said. Still, he blamed the Armenians, and it was not completely without reason.

 

Seeing this, the triumvirate decided to move the Armenians in Eastern Anatolia to different parts of the empire so that they didn't aid the Russians. Since they had no way of identifying who the culprits were, they opted to move all the Armenians. Is this just? No, of course. (But actually the US did the same with the Germans and Japanese during WW2, but that's another story). But they did it anyway.

 

The Armenians in the west had to move to either west or south. The empire, being at war and so pathetic that it cannot even help its own populace, did nothing at all to help the Armenians. As I said, that region is !@#$ing cold in winter. So Armenians died in droves to disease, cold, hunger etc. On top of that, the Kurds attacked the Armenians and stole their stuff, and they weren't punished by the Empire at all, as if the Armenians weren't proper subjects.

 

However the Armenians who were already in other parts of the empire, like the west (and that was roughly half if I believe) were completely untouched in comparison. They had no chance to help the Russians, so they weren't moved or oppressed. This is why I don't think the intent part of the genocide definition is satisfied. Bernard Lewis, "the most influential postwar historian of Islam and the Middle East" who is currently affiliated with Princeton University has the same assessment as I, and I don't think he is a Turkish nationalist...

[Kemal Ergenekon]

Spot on.

 

Kemal, drop the Japan thing.

 

Why? It was one of the most horrible things done in human history. We must shame all Americans into being sorry for it so that they don't repeat it. You must all acknowledge the Japanese Genocide, and not be Japanese Genocide Deniers. Why, I think all the countries should ratify it as genocide. 

 

After all, this is what all the people who are arguing against me are defending for the case of 1915.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

Here, something for you guys to chew on:

 

http://www.ataa.org/reference/pdf/lewis.pdf

 

I won't copy paste the text, because it will not look good, but it's a single page, so everyone can read it.

[SoS]

I actually think I'm agreeing with your explanation of events. Appreciate it, too.

 

Millions of civilians have been killed as collateral damage in bombings all over the world by all kinds of nations. Happens every day. There was nothing unusual in regards to war in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

I actually think I'm agreeing with your explanation of events. Appreciate it, too.

 

Millions of civilians have been killed as collateral damage in bombings all over the world by all kinds of nations. Happens every day. There was nothing unusual in regards to war in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

My pleasure, thanks for having an open mind.

 

I still detest massacres of all kinds, including those which are acts of war, legitimate or not. But I do not think these should be condemned in congresses or politicized in order to humiliate people just because of their ethnicity or religion.

[Clarke]

This is probably the best thread yet, someone actually trying to justify the genocides committed by Turkey. 

That's really the problem when you have someone with a Turkish bias talking about the actions of their nation, they're going to defend terrible things. Turkey is a rather disgusting country as well so it doesn't surprise me it produced morons such as this guy trying to downplay the genocides. 

Comparing containing potential threats and nuking to save lives to killing and driving countless people to their deaths on a genocidal level. 

 

I'll admit you logic was decent a certain points but it was mainly because you used your opinion to strengthen it, unfortunately you will continue to use your opinion to find ways to justify such genocides. You will probably start justifying a genocide against the Kurds next. 

[----]

Turkey is a rather disgusting country as well so it doesn't surprise me it produced morons such as this guy trying to downplay the genocides. 

You will probably start justifying a genocide against the Kurds next. 

Like I posted earlier, imagine if Russia had taken control over the weakened Ottoman empire during the XIX century. Maybe things would have been a little less disgusting.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

This is probably the best thread yet, someone actually trying to justify the genocides committed by Turkey. 

That's really the problem when you have someone with a Turkish bias talking about the actions of their nation, they're going to defend terrible things. Turkey is a rather disgusting country as well so it doesn't surprise me it produced morons such as this guy trying to downplay the genocides. 

Comparing containing potential threats and nuking to save lives to killing and driving countless people to their deaths on a genocidal level. 

 

I'll admit you logic was decent a certain points but it was mainly because you used your opinion to strengthen it, unfortunately you will continue to use your opinion to find ways to justify such genocides. You will probably start justifying a genocide against the Kurds next. 

 

Hey, aren't you a Japanese Genocide Denier? So you are scum of the earth calling other countries "disgusting." I think whatever country and education system which made you such a bigot is "disgusting." Calling deportations genocide whereas whitewashing intentionally extinguishing the lives of 200,000 civilians is as hypocritical as it gets. Let's not forget how the US is built on the lands claimed from Native Americans who your ancestors have exterminated, and how even in the 21st century your government causing deaths all around the globe, where the Iraqi Death Toll alone has reached 1 million. Give me a break, kiddo.

[Clarke]

Hey, aren't you a Japanese Genocide Denier? So you are scum of the earth calling other countries "disgusting." I think whatever country and education system which made you such a bigot is "disgusting." Calling deportations genocide whereas whitewashing intentionally extinguishing the lives of 200,000 civilians is as hypocritical as it gets. Let's not forget how the US is built on the lands claimed from Native Americans who your ancestors have exterminated, and how even in the 21st century your government causing deaths all around the globe, where the Iraqi Death Toll alone has reached 1 million. Give me a break, kiddo.

I search Japanese genocide but all I get is the genocides they supposedly committed, that said I'm not going to list them as genocides. 

I'm not American, I'm simply from the west. It may have seemed like I was American but that's because it just so happened to be the correct side. 

 

I suppose we need to ask the Japanese government if they consider it Genocide. Your break is up, now bend over. 

Edited July 26, 2016 by Lightning

[LordRahl2]

Actually the forced migrations of Native Americans is very similar to what the Turks did. Although each should be viewed through slightly different lenses the congruence of the two is fascinating.

 

The Brits of course wiped out the Zulus, among others, in a vaugely similar fashion. The Belgian Congo was a horror show. The Netherlands did terrible things. As did the Japanese, Chinese, Pols...hmmm its like everybody that didn't get smashed commits atrocities and ethnic cleansing.

 

By the by most of the arguments itt are semantics imho. If you folks could define both genocide and ethnic cleansinh you might get closer to finding a ground you can at least debate on.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

Actually the forced migrations of Native Americans is very similar to what the Turks did. Although each should be viewed through slightly different lenses the congruence of the two is fascinating.

 

The Brits of course wiped out the Zulus, among others, in a vaugely similar fashion. The Belgian Congo was a horror show. The Netherlands did terrible things. As did the Japanese, Chinese, Pols...hmmm its like everybody that didn't get smashed commits atrocities and ethnic cleansing.

 

By the by most of the arguments itt are semantics imho. If you folks could define both genocide and ethnic cleansinh you might get closer to finding a ground you can at least debate on.

 

All very true. And intentions are tricky things to establish. That's why I usually rank the atrocities in my mind according to body count, normalized by the region's or the world's population at the time. Still a very crude metric perhaps, but at least it's objective.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

I search Japanese genocide but all I get is the genocides they supposedly committed, that said I'm not going to list them as genocides. 

I'm not American, I'm simply from the west. It may have seemed like I was American but that's because it just so happened to be the correct side. 

 

I suppose we need to ask the Japanese government if they consider it Genocide. Your break is up, now bend over. 

 

"Although bombings do not meet the definition of genocide, some consider that this definition is too strict, and these bombings do represent a genocide.[109][110] For example, University of Chicago historian Bruce Cumings states there is a consensus among historians to Martin Sherwin's statement "the Nagasaki bomb was gratuitous at best and genocidal at worst".[111]

 

The scholar R. J. Rummel instead extends the definition of genocide to what he calls democide, and includes the major part of deaths from the atom bombings in these. His definition of democide includes not only genocide, but also an excessive killing of civilians in war, to the extent this is against the agreed rules for warfare; he argues the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes, and thus democide.[112] Rummel quotes among others an official protest from the US government in 1938 to Japan, for its bombing of Chinese cities: "The bombing of non-combatant populations violated international and humanitarian laws." He also considers excess deaths of civilians in conflagrations caused by conventional means, such as in Tokyo, as acts of democide.

 

In 1967, Noam Chomsky described the atomic bombings as "among the most unspeakable crimes in history". Chomsky pointed to the complicity of the American people in the bombings, referring to the bitter experiences they had undergone prior to the event as the cause for their acceptance of its legitimacy.[113]

 

In 2007, a group of intellectuals in Hiroshima established an unofficial body called International Peoples' Tribunal on the Dropping of Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. On 16 July 2007, it delivered its verdict, stating:

 

The Tribunal finds that the nature of damage caused by the atomic bombs can be described as indiscriminate extermination of all life forms or inflicting unnecessary pain to the survivors.

 

About the legality and the morality of the action, the unofficial tribunal found:

 

The ... use of nuclear weapons in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was illegal in the light of the principles and rules of International Humanitarian Law applicable in armed conflicts, since the bombing of both cities, made civilians the object of attack, using nuclear weapons that were incapable of distinguishing between civilians and military targets and consequently, caused unnecessary suffering to the civilian survivors.[114]"

[Kemal Ergenekon]

Oh boohoo Japan got nuked.

 

Totally wasn't justified against a poor and innocent foe who had done no harm to anyone.

 

This post of yours really speaks volumes about your mentality. So if ISIS could detonate a nuke in your hometown, it would be justified because the US directly or indirectly killed countless Muslims.

[Sketchy]

Then I am glad we agree that 1915 was also not a genocide, since you have no proof of intent of the Ottoman at the time. Have a grand day.

 

I have no knowledge of any of that, I was only replying to your claims that the bombing of japan was an act of genocide. 

 

I'd need to familiarize myself with the subject before I can agree or disagree with you, and frankly I don't care enough to bother.

[Clarke]

Actually the forced migrations of Native Americans is very similar to what the Turks did. Although each should be viewed through slightly different lenses the congruence of the two is fascinating.

 

The Brits of course wiped out the Zulus, among others, in a vaugely similar fashion. The Belgian Congo was a horror show. The Netherlands did terrible things. As did the Japanese, Chinese, Pols...hmmm its like everybody that didn't get smashed commits atrocities and ethnic cleansing.

 

By the by most of the arguments itt are semantics imho. If you folks could define both genocide and ethnic cleansinh you might get closer to finding a ground you can at least debate on.

Migration of Native Americans is not similar at all and why do you say "actually", I believe only two people posted about it, you and the Turk. Clearly the Brits did a terrible job since they're the largest group in South Africa. Wiped Out? Lol.

 

The Congo is actually what the Turks try to make out their genocide was in that the population was low. In this case that is more logical since it was the Congo, the mother !@#$ing Congo. 

Africa is a bit different anyway since it was filled with savages, you have to trim the edges a bit. Smashed when? 

 

There's nothing to debate, the genocide is already being recognized and more countries will do so. Just some Turk in denial about his evil people.