No, actually I didn't say that. Follow out the sequence. I acknowledged that the controversy would have made a trial difficult, and that it was fortunate we did not have to endure one
Yes, that is all very interesting, the way you worded it.
If I have misunderstood the previous time and you just looked like you agreed ("trial would be difficult", "fortunate we didn't have to endure one", etc) then we can resume the correspondence at your leisure :-)
Anyway, here is the definition of a "crime against humanity". Do let me know if you think nuking the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki fit this description:
----------------------------------------------
Nuremberg Principles, August 8, 1945
CHARTER OF THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL
AUGUST 8, 1945
[Signatories: USA, USSR, Britain, France]
c) Crimes against humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian populations, before or during the war; or prosecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.
dannen.com
----------------------------------------------------
As for the "extermination of a civilian population" argument: as soon as the Axis resorted to counter- population tactics, all bets were off.
What? :-)
Who is the "Axis" ("of evil"???) and what "tactics"?
Which American civilian population did Japan exterminate?
And how on earth does your opponent resorting to a crime make it OK for YOU to commit a MUCH larger crime (i.e. killing many many more civilians if they killed civilians themselves?)
Or if your opponent starts cutting off the arms of civilians they encounter, so can you, hmm?
The British, for example, could not let Hitler bomb London with impunity. A comparable asset was dictated
"A comparable asset was dictated"??? Neocon - I remember back when you used to talk normal English and it was easier to talk to you then :-)
the fanaticism demonstrated by the kamakaze
Kamikaze. And it is an honor to give one's life for their country in some places (maybe not where you are from), not "fanaticism".
I do imagine a number of Americans also gave their lives for their country in that war, went into situations they knew they could not come out alive, but would strike a blow against the enemy. You seem to be calling that "fanaticism". And arguing that it justifies killing their civilians off in massive numbers. I cannot agree.
So, in my judgment, it was no crime in the first place
Has your "judgement" read the definition of a "crime against humanity" above? If so, how does your "judgement" STILL not see the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the subsequent vaporisation of their civilian populations as a crime? |
