Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match!

A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for the discussion of current events,cultural issues and politics especially in relation to Catholic values.

Saint Thomas More was martyred during the Protestant Reformation for standing firm in the Faith and not recognizing the King of England as the Supreme Head of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Thomas More

Aug 8th 2013 new
(quote) Marianne-100218 said: ...the
Japanese.  ...theatrocities the
Japanese performed .... Japanese did not give any of their victims ... cannot be compared to the
devastation done by the Japanese during the war.







Who are these people 'the Japanese'?

Who were 'the people of Sodom and Gomorrah'? Do they include the ten for whom the rest were not to be punished by a retributionary justice of fire from heaven? Could ten just people not be found in either Hiroshima or Nagasaki, for whom the rest were not to be punished by a retributionary justice of fire from heaven? Or is the Bible not to be used for reaching an opinion by hindsight?


Could the bombs not have been dropped on an unpopulated area of Japan?


Who are these people 'the Americans'? Do they exclude the seven times seven numbers of folk who were and are not William Calley or Robert Bales (or, to a 'lesser extent' a Charles Graner or a Lynddie England)? Must the guilt of these accused, and punishment by retributionary justice, be imputed to the countless others living in the fifty states and associated territories?


Who are these people 'the jihadists'? Does the logic they choose to use impute guilt of a few to the many so as to justify using themselves as a proxy to bring upon their victims a kind of fiery retributionary justice from heaven?



Where is the line between vengeance (which belongs to God) and self-defence (which belongs to Man)?


A scapegoat is a person or thing to whom sin is imputed. Were the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki scapegoats? Would the people of Tokyo, living in the city where the War Cabinet was located, have been scapegoats had they been bombed? Can it be self-defence to hurt a scapegoat, or vengeance?


A hostage is a person upon whom force can be applied as leverage upon another person upon whom force cannot be applied because he or she is out of reach. Were the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and, for that matter, Tokyo, hostages? Can it be self-defence to hurt a hostage, or vengeance?




LOCKED
Aug 8th 2013 new
(quote) Florian-626971 said: The point of invading Japan was to force its complete surrender and and to dismantle its government. The U.S. and its allies had adopted a policy of unconditional surrender of the Axis countries. I think the idea was that Germany, Italy, and Japan were so evil that it was no use negotiating with them. Hitler would ignore treaties, for example; so there was no point in signing a peace treaty with him. Leaving Japan's militaristic, war-mongering government in place was to invite another war with the Japanese in the future.

If one could use the atomic bomb morally to shorten the war, that would have been good. I've wondered if a demonstration of the bomb's power by dropping in the ocean just off the coast of Japan would have impressed the Japanese gov't just as well. At least that would have spared many more lives.
Yes, but after they dropped the first bomb, it did not achieve its purpose of stopping
the fighting. That kind of answers your question about dropping it in the
ocean.
LOCKED
Aug 8th 2013 new
(quote) Roystan-340472 said: Who are these people 'the Japanese'?

Who were 'the people of Sodom and Gomorrah'? Do they include the ten for whom the rest were not to be punished by a retributionary justice of fire from heaven? Could ten just people not be found in either Hiroshima or Nagasaki, for whom the rest were not to be punished by a retributionary justice of fire from heaven? Or is the Bible not to be used for reaching an opinion by hindsight?


Could the bombs not have been dropped on an unpopulated area of Japan?


Who are these people 'the Americans'? Do they exclude the seven times seven numbers of folk who were and are not William Calley or Robert Bales (or, to a 'lesser extent' a Charles Graner or a Lynddie England)? Must the guilt of these accused, and punishment by retributionary justice, be imputed to the countless others living in the fifty states and associated territories?


Who are these people 'the jihadists'? Does the logic they choose to use impute guilt of a few to the many so as to justify using themselves as a proxy to bring upon their victims a kind of fiery retributionary justice from heaven?



Where is the line between vengeance (which belongs to God) and self-defence (which belongs to Man)?


A scapegoat is a person or thing to whom sin is imputed. Were the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki scapegoats? Would the people of Tokyo, living in the city where the War Cabinet was located, have been scapegoats had they been bombed? Can it be self-defence to hurt a scapegoat, or vengeance?


A hostage is a person upon whom force can be applied as leverage upon another person upon whom force cannot be applied because he or she is out of reach. Were the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and, for that matter, Tokyo, hostages? Can it be self-defence to hurt a hostage, or vengeance?




I really think you have no idea what war is.

Those that sit and write about what wrong was done, are quite a different
breed from the men and woman sacrificing to bestow the ability to
criticize others from a safe haven.

The military does not consult with the Pope when it plans its maneuvers.
All this back and forth on the morality of war is just a gesture in
philosophizing.
LOCKED
Aug 8th 2013 new
(quote) Roystan-340472 said: Who were 'the people of Sodom and Gomorrah'? Do they include the ten for whom the rest were not to be punished by a retributionary justice of fire from heaven? Could ten just people not be found in either Hiroshima or Nagasaki, for whom the rest were not to be punished by a retributionary justice of fire from heaven? Or is the Bible not to be used for reaching an opinion by hindsight? 
I suggest you read about the Rosary a bit more.
www.catholicherald.co.uk
LOCKED
Aug 8th 2013 new
(quote) Alex-789274 said: I suggest you read about the Rosary a bit more.
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/features/2010/08/05/the-priests-who-survived-the-atomic-bomb/
Such a good story, Alex. I wish my parents were alive to read it.

Thank you.
LOCKED
Aug 8th 2013 new
(quote) Alex-789274 said: I suggest you read about the Rosary a bit more.
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/features/2010/08/05/the-priests-who-survived-the-atomic-bomb/
(I dont think that the importance of the Rosary and the graces obtained through it can be overstated. I think anyone who does not pray the Rosary in this day and age ought to have their head examined.)

It is my understanding that this particular event is where the Jesuits began to take the turn to the Left. They had no idea that a bomb had done the damage they saw; when they learned that the US had deliberately dropped a nuclear weapon on a city, they mentally walked away from the US government.

As a learning point, there is something in Catholic teaching that is called an intrinisc evil, which means that it can never be deliberately done; absolutely no good can come out of it. Super-heating a city can never be justified, because the civilians are the targets; this is murder, which is forbidden.

Whatever the Japanese soldiers may have done in China during the war, the women, the children, and the elderly (the non-combatants) did not do this. A city itself is a "soft target" We targeted civilians when we dropped the Bomb on the two cities. (Let there be no question about it; we would have hung any Japanese officer or political leader who ever gave a similar order in which an American city was incinerated.)

I think the reason that the questions about the Bombs came out after the fact is because the United States Army Air Force under Curtiis Le May was already dropping napalm up and down Japan on the country's cities. (The firebombing of Tokyo in March 1945 killed far more Japanese than those in either Hiroshima or Nagasaki.) The Bomb was simply a faster way of carrying out what was already a campaign of murder. Nobody cried "boo" when more than 100,000 people were burned to death in Tokyo; why would the President expect any dissent when they wiped out a city with a nuclear weapon?
LOCKED
Aug 8th 2013 new
(quote) Florian-626971 said: The point of invading Japan was to force its complete surrender and and to dismantle its government. The U.S. and its allies had adopted a policy of unconditional surrender of the Axis countries. I think the idea was that Germany, Italy, and Japan were so evil that it was no use negotiating with them. Hitler would ignore treaties, for example; so there was no point in signing a peace treaty with him. Leaving Japan's militaristic, war-mongering government in place was to invite another war with the Japanese in the future.

If one could use the atomic bomb morally to shorten the war, that would have been good. I've wondered if a demonstration of the bomb's power by dropping in the ocean just off the coast of Japan would have impressed the Japanese gov't just as well. At least that would have spared many more lives.
May I remind you that we left the head of that "militaristic, war mongering government" in place, namely, the Emperor Hirohito, along with the Diet and the Prime Minister. Other than the limitation of the military to a "Self-Defense Force" (that is the name of their defense forces, BTW), the form of Japanese government stayed more or less the same.

The point is that the massive loss of life caused by the use of the Atomic Bomb itself was objectionable. That doesn't excuse anything Japan did; it just says that we descended to the level of barbarians as well. That was something Catholics at the time protested, as did the Old Right (who believed that we never had any business getting involved in another World War).

Here is a classic from the Saint Benedict Center, a religious group formed by Fr. Feeney and loyal to the Church. "We could not find it in our hearts to rejoice over the wholesale slaughter of innocent people."

catholicism.org




LOCKED
Aug 8th 2013 new
(quote) Marianne-100218 said: Two bombs dropped on a small Island cannot be compared to the
devastation done by the Japanese during the war.







In conclusion, as long as it is only a relatively small number of people (men, women and children...by and far the majority of them non-combatants) it is perfectly okay to vaporize, fry, melt, flay with glass, crush with falling buildings, injure with radiation, etc. them if we believe what their military did elsewhere was bad. It's perfectly just to wage war on the civilian land and population...oh, wait...

Aren't you from the same crowd, Marianne, who protests against what the al Qaeda was supposed to have done to all the non-combatants in the World Trade Center towers? If that's so...why is just for us to commit an atrocity of greater enormity on Japan...but not just for someone else to do it to us?

I owe my lifestyle to my Catholic forefathers who shaped the face of western civilization. I do not owe anything (beyond the debt of my own sins) for the degradation of society that has been slowly going on for the last 200 years. I think you greatly misunderstand the term "freedom" if you use it in conjunction with the way americans live (it really is licentiousness).

There is a just war doctrine for a reason: because there are actual situations in which war is the only way to settle a conflict. If people who profess their enlightened cultures are going to flout the just war doctrine, they're going to come across as barbarians, like the Norse who raped, pillaged and killed regardless of military status all across Europe as the infrastructure of the Roman Empire fell in the west...or like the ancient moslems when they stopped their in-fighting and banded together to attack Europe, etc.
LOCKED
Aug 9th 2013 new
(quote) Chelsea-743484 said: In conclusion, as long as it is only a relatively small number of people (men, women and children...by and far the majority of them non-combatants) it is perfectly okay to vaporize, fry, melt, flay with glass, crush with falling buildings, injure with radiation, etc. them if we believe what their military did elsewhere was bad. It's perfectly just to wage war on the civilian land and population...oh, wait...

Aren't you from the same crowd, Marianne, who protests against what the al Qaeda was supposed to have done to all the non-combatants in the World Trade Center towers? If that's so...why is just for us to commit an atrocity of greater enormity on Japan...but not just for someone else to do it to us?

I owe my lifestyle to my Catholic forefathers who shaped the face of western civilization. I do not owe anything (beyond the debt of my own sins) for the degradation of society that has been slowly going on for the last 200 years. I think you greatly misunderstand the term "freedom" if you use it in conjunction with the way americans live (it really is licentiousness).

There is a just war doctrine for a reason: because there are actual situations in which war is the only way to settle a conflict. If people who profess their enlightened cultures are going to flout the just war doctrine, they're going to come across as barbarians, like the Norse who raped, pillaged and killed regardless of military status all across Europe as the infrastructure of the Roman Empire fell in the west...or like the ancient moslems when they stopped their in-fighting and banded together to attack Europe, etc.
I think you forget that almost all of the Japanese still on the mainland were
ready to take up arms against any invasion of their homeland. So these
are not innocent bystanders.

Unfortunately it took two atomic bombs for the Japanese to stop fighting.
That shows their tenacity.

I think it is time that you put the many years of fighting in Europe that led
up to WW2 and the War years themselves in perspective. The culmination
of the war with Japan by use of the atomic bomb is but one myopic part of a
very long and brutal conflict between many nations and involving the loss
of millions of lives.

The use of the atomic bomb was extreme. Now the world knows the
destructive and devastating power it contains. And lessons seem to
have been learned from it. Every arm-chair quarterback can easily sit
back and take aim at things that happened while they were safe and
sound from the war. But that is the point, they were not in the thick
of things or in harms way when the decisions were made.

What happened, happened, and we should all be thankful that we
were on the winning side and be thankful for all those men and women
who helped to put us in that position. I am and you should be too.

LOCKED
Aug 9th 2013 new
(quote) Chelsea-743484 said: In conclusion, as long as it is only a relatively small number of people (men, women and children...by and far the majority of them non-combatants) it is perfectly okay to vaporize, fry, melt, flay with glass, crush with falling buildings, injure with radiation, etc. them if we believe what their military did elsewhere was bad. It's perfectly just to wage war on the civilian land and population...oh, wait...

Aren't you from the same crowd, Marianne, who protests against what the al Qaeda was supposed to have done to all the non-combatants in the World Trade Center towers? If that's so...why is just for us to commit an atrocity of greater enormity on Japan...but not just for someone else to do it to us?

I owe my lifestyle to my Catholic forefathers who shaped the face of western civilization. I do not owe anything (beyond the debt of my own sins) for the degradation of society that has been slowly going on for the last 200 years. I think you greatly misunderstand the term "freedom" if you use it in conjunction with the way americans live (it really is licentiousness).

There is a just war doctrine for a reason: because there are actual situations in which war is the only way to settle a conflict. If people who profess their enlightened cultures are going to flout the just war doctrine, they're going to come across as barbarians, like the Norse who raped, pillaged and killed regardless of military status all across Europe as the infrastructure of the Roman Empire fell in the west...or like the ancient moslems when they stopped their in-fighting and banded together to attack Europe, etc.

".....Aren't you from the same crowd, Marianne, who protests against what the al Qaeda was supposed to have done to all the non-combatants in the World Trade Center towers? If that's so...why is just for us to commit an atrocity of greater enormity on Japan...but not just for someone else to do it to us?"
------------------

And what war were we in with al Qaeda? Your point is really misleading, more
precisely, not related.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"......I think you greatly misunderstand the term "freedom" if you use it in conjunction with the way americans live (it really is licentiousness)."
---------------------
Chelsea: If you think we as Americans do not live according to the way
freedom should be lived, then you try living as a woman in some of the
Arab countries that make no bones about women not having freedom.

Having freedom or using it wisely are two different things. Without
freedom, life would be all together different.

What bandwagon are you on anyway?

LOCKED
Posts 31 - 40 of 189