My biggest pro-war conservative friend says that terrorism is only terrorism if it is "intended to instill fear". I find this outrageously stupid, and even when adhering to this definition he apparently believes dropping nuclear weapons on a nation does not constitute instilling fear. "oh, but these cities were industrial centers" he argued. Perhaps they were, but I still can't see any moral justification for so much death for the sake of ending the war.
God and the Jews are Terroists also: "Go and strike Amelek. Utterly destroy them. Kill all men, women, children, babies, and beasts." -God 1 Samuel 15:3.
God also supports slavery, rape, cannabalism, and child molestation.
Dude, you obviously haven't studied what you are writing about. Amelek and the Amelekites were rtying to destroy the Jews from the moment they left the valley of Sin. The people of that area were the child molesters, cannibals, rapists and sick fucks. That's why God had them destroyed. Nowhere in scripture does it ever say that God condones such things. He wanted them wiped out so that the chosen people could survive and future generations could live without such evil.
@oftheco sarcasm? Why talk about time dilation when you can use 1 + 1 to get a point across. People need to stop dogmatically defending their mascots of elephants and donkeys and use reason and logic to determine future actions; readily using the past as a grotesque animal, as a library, or zoo, to study outdated hopefully endangered vile ethics.
War and terrorism are not liberal/conservative issues.
Our three most agressive, violent, war-mongering presidents were probably Truman, Nixon, and Reagan. Truman and Nixon were both extremely liberal (yes, Nixon was a liberal), while Reagan was extremely conservative. All three mass-murdered innocent foreigners.
Why would conservatives want to defend Truman? Truman was an extremely leftist president. He continued FDR's New Deal, fought for universal healthcare, and generally had a very left-wing economic philosophy. Why would so-called conservatives want to defend him?
As for myself, I am a radical liberal who supports universal healthcare, keynesian economics, affirmative action, and a carbon-pollution tax to fight global warming. I have no solidarity with Truman, Vessey, bin-Laden, the Soviet Union, or anyone who murderes innocents to achieve political objectives.
I find it disturbing that there are so many domestic enemies lurking within our own borders. It is wrong to question your own government in time of war. That is called Treason.
There are too many terrorists left to kill to be having second thoughts now. Let's unite as one nation, one people in this war that has been so terribly forced upon us.
@seethelightofgod What if the government named you and your family to be terrorists? Or arbitrarily named ppl of your religious faith, etc. etc. Get my point?
Point remains the fire bombing(no one ever cries about that) killed (at once)and would have killed alot more people then both bombs. It's the use of force,atomic bombs, that ruffles feathers. Or that 50% of japans military industrial might was located in residential areas. War is hell. To avoid these horrors avoid war. period
To avoid the horrors of war, peace should be declared. The Japanese were ready to declare peace. They had reasonable requests within the context of the historic traditions of war. Instead, the US murderously tested an atomic bomb in civilian population centers. Those who gave the orders and those who followed them are a war criminals. Anybody supporting them is a monster.
People there are huge diffrences between "The war on Terror" and WW2. If you can't see this then you got to do some reading and/or ask a few vets of both wars. Do people forget they were tryin to take over the world?
Nobody was trying to take over the world. Imperialistic tendencies were the norm back then. The only empire left today is the US, and to some extent the EU and China.
No Hitler wasn't giving china to japan or taking most of europe for himself. No that never happened let me guess Hitler didn't kill any jews either that's made up. No they loved themselves some jews didn't they....Idiot.
Hitler wanted what Stalin got. Stalin killed more Jews than Hitler. The war was fought for nothing. Churchill called it the unnecessary war. Stalin killed many more people other than the Jews. Stalin supported Mao. Mao killed more than Stalin and Hitler. Hitler only starting killing Jews after the war was close to ending and he was losing as an act of retribution. If war had not been declared on him, the Jews would have not likely died. Declaring war on Germany weakened the peace party there.
Talk about pulling straws;by this definition of Terrorism a little kid beating up another kid,in an adolescent attempt to win the affections of girl(his 'objective'),is a terrorist.
It would also define events like the liberation of Haitian slaves as a Terrorist revolt.
I certainly agree that all distinctions between Terrorism are vague,esp.,when the discourse of terrorism isn't being shaped by the OLC,the CIA or the Pentagon.
thing is Japan was also working on the bomb; I doubt they would have any qualms on using it on American civilians if we didn't hit their particle accelerators and heavy water factories
True they were also using the pacific jet stream to launch 9,000 fire bombs on the U.S. 1 killed 6 people in Bly oreagon most of those people were children.
Hahahaha! MacArthur was against dropping the bombs? That is so insane to me. He wanted to use them against China during the Korean War. Granted, he was just trying to make a point that Truman was being an idiot in not taking the fight to the Chinese, when the Chinese were at war with us and moving troops into the Korean penisula.
I believe despite being a democrat he later endorsed Eisenhower, when Eisenhower's position was to leave Korea.
It's the same old same old. The conservative hero Ronald Reagan would call a terrorist a freedom fighter when it suited his needs. If you read George Orwell, you'll soon realize times may change but human nature doesn't.
300,000 + people died from the bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki. Estimated U.S. death toll from proposed Operation DownFall (land invasion of japan) 1.6 million American lives. Never mind Russian, Japanese Uk, or Canadian. Also Russia would have wanted a piece of japan(like germany) for itself. Imagine another Berlin wall in japan. We also came back in and helped rebuild afterwards. Did the 9/11 terrorist do that for us?
Your argument rests on an "estimated" 1.6 million dead as opposed to 300,000 *really* dead in the name of the unprovable estimation cited to induce panic and action. The fact remains that Truman listened to none of his eyes and ears on the ground in ordering this bombing.
Not listening to others was a facet of his character that was borne out again when he abdicated US sovereignty to the collectivist UN with Korea...The UN being a dream of his Progressive forebears, FDR /Wilson. Ah, progress
My argument is estimated by the best intell at the time. The joint cheifs of staff. Up to this point in the war we had already seriously underestimated the Japs several times.
Oh and just to let you know the real numbers were 1.2 - 4million allied and 5-10 million japanese. If these figures are remotely right we saved lives by dropping the bomb. So what would you do kill 300,000 quickly or drag on for another year or so and cost many more lives. JFYI they made half a million purple hearts in anticipation for Op. Downfall. Half a million.
You do realize that their were three days between the dropping of Little Boy and Fat Man. Even after Little Boy was dropped, the Japanese still did not surrender. Get off your morale high horse and read a few books.
No high horse here, and I have read a few books, thank you very much. One of my favorites has to do with why there was/is a US naval base at Pearl Harbor in the first place and how we much we favored sovereignty and "democracy" when there was an imperial prize to be had. Not much has changed, either...which I think is Mr. Hunter's point.
How many Us casualties occurred during the entire span of WW2?
Why would we need to invade Japan? They were isolated and defeated.
Many in the Japanese military and government wanted to surrender, but killing is faster than waiting and the US needed to test a bomb.
Why do you feel the need to justify the killing of innocents in civilian population centers? The killing of innocents is never justified. Only a monster would think so. A human can undertake no more barbarous of an act.
I just gave facts written and from soldiers that served (not opinions) to back my stance how about you try the same thing? It's not always about how you feel, and I'm sure in retrospect now it's easy to think about what ifs. Still glad we got it first. What would have happened to the world if we didn't?
Those weren't facts. Your fake statistics were created to justify barbarism. You defend the killing of innocent humans. There is no consistent moral or tactical argument for what was done. Your heroes are monsters, and you therefor are a monster.
Barbarism as if the Japs were innocent of such things.Least we not forget the raping of nanking. No consitant tacticle or moral argument. Oh no I didn't know I was dealing with the authority on WW2 sorry next time I'll just bow to your whim. ..not LOL Your a bigger fool then you let on are you not. As of my hero's I have none. Hero's usualy die. Who the hell are you to make snap judgements of me from what 2-3 posts.
I obviously touched the nerve of a monster. Your argument rest on the premise that because you believe the Japanese are barbarous, you have the right to be barbarous in return.
First, that makes you no better than them. You are what you believe they are.
Second, most Japanese were not, and are not, barbarous. Most of the people that died in the atomic bombings were innocent.
You continue to sickly justify that those men, women, and children needed to die. You are a monster of the worse kind.
Touched a nerve LOL you think this little debate shakes me to my core ROTFLMAO. I'm a monster LOL. you know so little of me do you think I even take you seriously. your posts are dribble. written by someone who obviously knows very little about ww2 and Japanese culture during the 1930-45. Those men women and children were already being killed by fire bombs the worst firebombing campiagn in history. Nice try,try again.
So you argument is basically, because we were already murderously firebombing innocent men women and children, it is okay to drop nuclear bombs on them?
An accurate representation of WW2 Japanese culture is represented in a movie called "Grave of the Fireflies." The Japanese culture is nothing like your deluded vision used to justify your murderous appetite for destruction.
Yeah and in that Anime the people religiously followed The emporers lead. If anyone is to blame it would be him and those running the country.Forcing their people to deal with such things for nothing more then pride. The war was over and they lost yet they didn't sign the peace treaty that would have ended there suffering. Also in case you forgot we helped them rebuild after. Is that a sign of barbarism. As for my deluded version I will ask you this Have you ever been to Japan? I
Rebuilding does not excuse barbarism. Killing innocent people is barbaric no matter any other factors involved.
Not all Japanese supported the emperor. Not all Germans supported Hitler. Not all Chinese supported Mao. Not all Americans supported Truman dropping the bomb.
I lived in Japan for a year in Toda City. I I rode my bike down to the waterfront and watched people play sports on fields next to the local river and watched professional rowers often practicing on the river.
No my argument is that people like you love to bitch about the big bombs but not the many little ones that killed just about as many people. If this were realy about people and loss of life would you not care about these as well?
How can you make such a big assumption? Have I ever said I support violence of any kind? One of the main tenets of Libertarianism is the principle of non aggression. It is a concept that the southern avenger also agrees with.
The firebombing was arguably much worse than the atomic bombs. Many more people died in firebombing than the atomic bombings. Both are horrible and arguing the intensity between the two is irrelevant. Only monsters justify the death of innocents.
5 Minutes and 46 Seconds of this Twang Swill'en FREAK babbling on and on and never stopping to take 1 breath of Air annoyed me more than his Stupid Rant...!!!
I think so to. But violence towards those committing the violence.
You don't believe this.
Also, if you said you'd kill all the Jews or Japanese or Southerners or whatever no. You wouldn't be a terrorist. You'd either be kidding or a jackass. If you laid out careful plans, gathered a task force and the materials necessary to carry out such a thing? Probably.
It makes you a planned terrorist. If I laid out careful plans to murder you I would still be planning homicide. Though point.
If Vesey executed his plan and didn't kill NON-SLAVE OWNERS or the children of slave owners (which was part of the plan)? Yes.
He wouldn't even have to make note of slave owners who bought slaves to free, educate, or protect from other slave owners who would treat them less favorably. Though that would be preferred.
Race, class, and sex are not "collectivist identities". They are or were real forms of exploitation and terrorism. Yes, that's right, classism is terrorism.
Jefferson fathering a son with Sally Hemings has not been proven. In fact, the 1998 DNA study that reported this by the scientific journal "Nature" retracted it, saying he did NOT father ANY children with her. Historians recognize this but people like you still spread such lies. Google for more details: wallbuilders jefferson hemings
Also, Jefferson is known for repeatedly speaking out against and trying to abolish slavery. He had many slaves, but not for the reason you think.
In the US one is innocent until proven guilty for good reason. Perhaps you don't agree with this concept.
Regardless, scientists doing DNA testing and historians would know better than you and I wouldn't they? DNA testing and history indicate Randolph Jefferson likely fathered one or more children with Hemings rather than Thomas. But you don't seem to care much for facts... or maybe you just don't like the message of individual liberty Thomas Jefferson preached.
The video says that all terrorism, regardless of the cause, is wrong. That means that slave rebellions were wrong and immoral and should not have occurred.
You might want to think about that some more. It sounds like you're seeing the word "terrorism" and thinking it means the same thing as "violence". There is a difference between self defense (slave rebellion) and terrorism (kill all white people). Vesey wanted the latter. I highly doubt anybody here would object to the former, the SA included.
Vesey never killed anyone,though.The speaker would have been better served showing the link in this case between the terror of the Federal State & the terror of the local State(South Carolina.)
Indeed,what SC did to Vesey is not even close to how we punish 'terrorists' today;being a violation of both 8th &14th Amendments.
South Carolina also lynching Vesey and others to 'advance the objective or agenda' of horrifying the slave population to suppress the will to revolt also suits this def.
I like how the Southern Avenger thinks that violence is never right while beating down on a would be slave rebellion who never actually committed one act of terrorism. I mean, really, if I say, right now, that I am going to kill all Southern Staters, am I a terrorist? I don't think so.
It is also interesting that the "SA" suggests no solution for the slaves who were terrorized on a regular basis. His basic thrust is this:
Looks like you entirely missed the point that liberals tend to support one form of terrorism while conservatives tend to support another. This is about ideas and those supporting them, not who is or is not a "terrorist." And I don't hear the SA suggesting violence is NEVER right.
And yes, if you made plans to kill all Southern Staters, that sounds like terrorism to me. Saying it is one thing. Supporting or planning it is another.
The Trokskist left and Western Marxist left (not to mention the entire anarchist left and an ultra-majority of the social democrats) turned away from Stalinist Russia when it was clear that Stalin was a dictator who KILLED ALL HIS FELLOW BOLSHEVIKS and was committing atrocities. The anarchistic-Libertarian George Orwell was a leader of this turn.
Why do you single out the use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? There was plenty of bombing of civilians in WW2. As Supreme Allied Commander,didn't Eisenhower have a role in the fire bombing of Dresden? Is being killed by conventional bombs any less painful than nukes?
Because it is famous, unique and completely undefensible? He is going after low hanging fruit... which is good for making the argument about the "terrorism" without being bogged down with historical details of all the different bombing raids, that people haven't heard much of.
Common sense as always! I saw you during the 2008 pres campaign when you introduced Ron Paul at a rally in Columbia (Oct 07 I believe it was). I didn't know who you were then but I wish I had been following you sooner. Keep up the good work Jack! You make more sense than most everyone else.
Arab nations didn't fund Binladen. America funded Binladen. Saudi Arabia, although not perfect as a country, has been the biggest and most active fighter of terrorism in the Middle East since the early 2000s, while Iraq was the biggest enemy to Saddam and wished to fight the Iraqi army in the Kuwait-Iraq war. So there was no possibility (Nor evidence) of Iraq funding Algaeda before the Iraq war. Regarding the Iraqi government were never 'Islamists'with Iraq not being a religious state in general
Liberals and Conservatives are BOTH Hypocrites and Liars. They are each ONLY Interested in their Own Agenda.
There is only one true hope for America, that comes via Libertarians / Anarchists - More Liberal than a Liberal and more Fiscally Conservative than a Conservative.
Good video as usual. One thing I don't understand about so many "conservatives" today, now that Obama is in they hate everything about the government, even though nothing much has changed, Yet they still champion our government's aggressive foreign policy and certainly have no complaints when big government takes over our foreign policy, which has been the case for a very long time now.
Indeed. And yet so many indivduals believe in government's alleged benevolence despite it being an insittution that insists upon holding a monopoly on the use of force while also being responsible for approximately 200 million deaths during the 20th century alone.
Yes, but what kind of people? The Nazi government? The People's Republic of China under Mao Zedong? The Khmer Rouge under Pol Pot? The American Republic under George W. Bush?
Yeah I think there is more to it then this. From my teachings and from having half my family in the armed forces during WW2 What I learned is they did not just drop an atomic bomb on People they were targeting one of Japans biggest military bases and radio tower. It just happened to be in an industrial area like some terrorists just happen to set up shop near or in schools and hospitals. I would like to see an entire vid dedicated to the bombings and your fact based answers to such SA.
So are you saying it's okay to kill innocent civilians if it means getting to the bad guy? There's a term for that called, "collateral damage." It tries to make what you say sound like it's okay, but that doesn't change what it is; killing innocents to kill the bad guy.
It's never that simple. There are huge diffrences between Iraq and WW2. I don't like war in general. However lets look at what could have happened if it did not go down that way. Russia was primed and already threw there hat in for a land based invasion. The Japs were an honor based society and loyal to there leader. I have no doubt that the big wigs of Japan would have "sacrificed" more of there own people for the cause. There is alot more to it then black and white tho.
No, there isn't. Killing innocent people is inexcusable. Doing so makes you the monster. It doesn't matter what your "cause" is. If you kill innocent people to further your agenda you're the terrorist.
So you don't think there is any diffrence between Iraq and WW2? I suggest you do some light reading. By your definition Mafia and Gangs are terrorists. As well as every leader that ever caused a war, just or not. Also most people whom have committed murder are terrorists. I find fault in this Definition and the way you and SA use of it. Normally I would agree with SA but like I said things are not just that black and white.
Well, Iraq was initiated for money and WW2 was fought in self-defense or a more elaborate term would be "Just War Theory" and yes gangs, the mafia, and murderers are terrorists. The terrorists that you're familiar with operate in much the same way, mainly killing and stealing.
Really was it money or baby W trying to protect daddy W? I have heard to many reasons ands not enough solutions. WW2 may have been a just war ,but innocent people died in the process(as they always do in war). Is this terrorism? Tho serial killers,gangs and mafia use terror to get some of the things the desire they are not just terrorists.
But they are terrorists. However, you must realize that terrorism is a non-term. It was invented by the political class to scare their people into demanding more government. The reason why it is a non-term is the same reason "assault weapon" is a non-term. There's no clear definition that anyone can agree on and when somebody actually does come up with a definition it is either too general or can be broken down using other terms.
I don't know... What do you think? Do you think it is right to champion a universalist approach to "terrorism" in relation to systematic terrrorism that is usually biased between two sides?
The Japanese people were being trained to be combatants, and the country at the time did not yet surrender. The "innocent civilians" you referred to were "innocent" only from a criminality perspective; they were in fact in the process of becoming trained combatants.
Something else you're probably not aware of, SA, is that the Japanese were only a year away from manufacturing jet aircraft. Imagine the consequences to both the Japanese and American peoples had this happened.
@laviciousness Or the fact that the Japanese were willing to surrender, I mean that means nothing, right?
The same reason the war with Germany lasted so long was that FDR and Truman were so intent on "unconditional surrender" and was the main reason the Japanese had not surrender, because they wanted to protect their emperor (that was it).
You do know that both of those cities had children and babies in them too.. right? Just like every other city, they had people who were just minding their lives. Sure if you try to capture their city, and their "divine" emperor, they would resist. But if that justifies nuking them all in your mind, babies and children included, commit to a psychiatric facility.
And don't use that "parents decide for kids" crap, unless you also approve of child prostitution by their parents.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The Japanese were fighting a war of extermination. It was either die fighting or suicide if they were defeated. The Atomic Bombs saved hundreds of thousands of American lives and millions of Japanese lives because the bombs ended the war before the planned invasion of Japan was carried out.
@Pellett29 thats an oversimplification. You also need to acknowledge that the US military was scant on taking prisoners and left many Japanese no out but to keep fighting.
You need to acknowledge the Japanese mindset of the WWII period, these were a people of faithful devotion to their emperor and country to the bitter end. The Japanese were willing to do anything to win; giving ones life for the emperor was honorable. These were not a people forced to fight a war they did not agree with but a people willing fight. Also the mindset was
If that were the case humans would have died out long ago.
I agree that we are way to many times in the violent mode for often trivial reasons, but we should not ignore the thousands of times we cooperate every day with fellow human beings.
I had a discussion with a liberal who was making the point that the civil war was justified because it freed the slaves.
Nevermind that this isn't the case, but arguing that point I said that it wasn't worth it because of the huge price in human lives. Of course I was immediately labeled a heartless monster, and the liberals were the compassionate ones.
Liberals use government to march hundreds of thousands to their deaths, and they're compassionate. I wanna avoid that, and I'm evil. Go figure
my friends grandfather was told to drink up, eat well, because in a weeks time, he would be some of the first Americans to storm japan. a Complete death sentences. (Japanese Already showed extreme efficiency in defense/Bunkering down, despite being under equipped). imagine how they would defend their home-soil?
The Super Secret A Bomb demolished hiroshima and nagasaki. saveing his life.
News papers in Japan told the civilians to make bamboo spears, to fight off the American Invaders. They where, and are a loyal and determined people(and God bless them).
the Japanese empire was using terrorist acts in the islands they conquered, also in China.
Not Down talking the Japanese people, but, live by the sword, die by the sword.
The A Bomb was a terrorist act, Yes. and i feel deeply for the Innocent people. Tho, it was to end war, not to start it.
Well argued. This was much better stated than the last one. You wove between both views like a master at the loom. I think your explanation of Vessey was much better. However, I must disagree with your conclusion, which you based on Leahy, McArthor, and Eisenhower's Words, because their words do not take heed of the undeniablility that Japan had not surrendered. This fact stands out as it has and will for the sole reasoning behind "fat boy" and "little boy". They ended the war.
given that japan had been beaten back all the way to her home islands ad had absolutely no offensive teeth left anymore with the destruction of her navy and airforce, exactly what threat did they pose to us?. Instead of nuking we could have done a live demo of the nukes. secodnly the russians were barrelling down from the west and north. Japan was starved out of almost every commodity and supplies. An official surrender is not needed for an effective Win..i.e. russo-afghan, russo-japan war etc.
It was questionable whether or not even the horrific use of nuclear weaponry had worked to affect a surrender of the Japanese Army, and it wasn't until six days after the second bomb was dropped that they did surrender. When the Japanese surrendered on Aug. 15, 1945, it was an unconditional surrender of all its armies. The surrender immediately freed the people of Vietnam, China, Burma, Thailand, Borneo, Cambodia from the ongoing torture, rape, enslavement, and murder by Japanese troops.
The hypocrisy of those that support pure capitalism and corporatism and that claim to be religious is rank unless you are willing to admit religion is nothing more than an archaic form of totalitarianism. Being the same through monopolization.
I wont argue with the definition of terrorism and who it applies to in this vid. But that leads to the debate if the the terror tactics work and thus are justifiable. Obviously targeting innocent civillians seems wrong and eveil but if the enemy State is propped up by the civillians if the army is backed and recruiting the civillians then that would make them activie participants in the fight.
You just made an argument that supports genocide in certain parts of Africa. Targeting "innocent" civilians seems wrong? It doesn't seem wrong. It is wrong.
the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan is supported by civillians. The U.S. Army is backed by and is recruiting civillians, which makes civillians participants, no? The same can be said of the CIA, which operates globally, making "all" of America a target.
Thats exactly what I am saying there are no innocent participants if the civillian population supports the goverment agenda then they made a stance and thus fair game in the mind of a terrorist. Morally it is wrong but on a practical level it is not. If I witness a murder and refuse to speak out about it then I am as guilty as the murderer and fiar game to the autorities or the lynch mob. The terrorist is thinking the same thing.
i agree though i guess we should all consider ourselves terrorists by your standard as we are propping up a government that is killing innocent civilians.
Umm.. Hang on, is there an exemption for the unwilling and tax evading, draft dodging people?
If there is - I bet you can find at least one innocent person in every large crowd of civilians subjected to massive violence. Also, if you think about the acts of terrors states have committed against their own citizens in terms of secession, large or small, explicit or inexplicit - like Waco - clearly identify who the real terrorists are.
how many civilians in any war are just trying to survive? if your house or business or town for that matter has been shelled, just finding food and water and shelter are the concern. sure you have civilians working in the war factories, but if the choice is work, be a soldier or be shot...Enemy States are just that. is it the people who demand that their leaders go to war or the other way around. killing people has become very profitable these days.
Where there lays the problem then, I can understand a civillian wanting to make ends meet and no doubt it is the politicians who make war, but the civillian has to hold accountable for his actions or suffer the consequences. And that is more true if we are in a democracy because we elect the politicians.
You can make any tax-dollar funded business highly profitable given adequate lobbying and political clout. Which is why there should be no tax collection. Once you collect taxes, you have sowed the seed.. then its only a matter of time before perverse and evil things become highly profitable.
You're right saying Hitler or Stalin were not terrorists. Because they werent. They were war criminals. Theres a reason you dont try people who commit acts of terrorism in military courts. Theyre not military, theyre civillians doing ACTS OF TERRORISM. If a soldier would do the same thing, he would get court martialed. Because he is a soldier. The bombing of Japan was not terrorism. You could consider it war crimes(although I dont).
I do have a comment to say about this. As a democratic socialist (and this is true about the democratic socialist movement), they were never in anyway in solidarity with the atrocities behind communism. Take the year 1919 for example. It was in that year that the Socialist Party of America split. Why? The left-wing faction were in solidarity with the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia while the so-called right-wing of the Socialist Party of America rejected the communism of Russia.
The Socialist Party of America which was known for people like Eugene V. Debs, Norman Thomas, A. Philip Randolph, Victor Berger, Helen Keller, Upton Sinclair, and many other social reformers were fiercely opposed to communism. Any impartial observer of history regardless of ideology will tell you that the Socialist Party of America was the party for freedom. Along with the ACLU, the Socialist Party opposed the treatment against Japanese Americans during World War II.
@whoo689 it's higher in the south esp when you take population into account. plus the splc hate map doesn't take into account how strong their numbers are and how much support they have in their area... there's a lot more blue collar racism in the south, thats just a given
nope, apparently some people are stupid enough to use strong positions as hating other people, even entire geographical areas (south? really?) as a matter of preference.
Let me play the role of the stupid republican here: TERRORISTS ARE INDIVIDUALS AGAINST AMERICA
s0beit 9 months ago
Dropping the atomic bombs had two intended purposes, perhaps the lesser one being Japan, it was a warning to Stalin that you've advanced far enough,
uzijohn 1 year ago
Does anyone still wonder why we fought the "civil war?"
TheFeralFury 1 year ago 4
wasn't Truman a Democrat? so conservatives support him? my how things have changed.
tgbotg 1 year ago
American Citizens don't have a government, Washington D.C. is an Organized Criminal Conspiracy!
CelticSouthland 1 year ago
My biggest pro-war conservative friend says that terrorism is only terrorism if it is "intended to instill fear". I find this outrageously stupid, and even when adhering to this definition he apparently believes dropping nuclear weapons on a nation does not constitute instilling fear. "oh, but these cities were industrial centers" he argued. Perhaps they were, but I still can't see any moral justification for so much death for the sake of ending the war.
MrUnicorn1995 1 year ago
God and the Jews are Terroists also: "Go and strike Amelek. Utterly destroy them. Kill all men, women, children, babies, and beasts." -God 1 Samuel 15:3.
God also supports slavery, rape, cannabalism, and child molestation.
CelticAlphabet 1 year ago
@CelticAlphabet
Dude, you obviously haven't studied what you are writing about. Amelek and the Amelekites were rtying to destroy the Jews from the moment they left the valley of Sin. The people of that area were the child molesters, cannibals, rapists and sick fucks. That's why God had them destroyed. Nowhere in scripture does it ever say that God condones such things. He wanted them wiped out so that the chosen people could survive and future generations could live without such evil.
AA19752012 8 months ago in playlist Common Sense part 3
Hypocrisy, is a four-season fruit of American politics...there's always plenty of low-hanging fruit for everybody.
oftheco 1 year ago
@oftheco sarcasm? Why talk about time dilation when you can use 1 + 1 to get a point across. People need to stop dogmatically defending their mascots of elephants and donkeys and use reason and logic to determine future actions; readily using the past as a grotesque animal, as a library, or zoo, to study outdated hopefully endangered vile ethics.
rockhardxrocker 1 year ago
War and terrorism are not liberal/conservative issues.
Our three most agressive, violent, war-mongering presidents were probably Truman, Nixon, and Reagan. Truman and Nixon were both extremely liberal (yes, Nixon was a liberal), while Reagan was extremely conservative. All three mass-murdered innocent foreigners.
seltian 1 year ago
Why would conservatives want to defend Truman? Truman was an extremely leftist president. He continued FDR's New Deal, fought for universal healthcare, and generally had a very left-wing economic philosophy. Why would so-called conservatives want to defend him?
seltian 1 year ago
As for myself, I am a radical liberal who supports universal healthcare, keynesian economics, affirmative action, and a carbon-pollution tax to fight global warming. I have no solidarity with Truman, Vessey, bin-Laden, the Soviet Union, or anyone who murderes innocents to achieve political objectives.
seltian 1 year ago
I find it disturbing that there are so many domestic enemies lurking within our own borders. It is wrong to question your own government in time of war. That is called Treason.
There are too many terrorists left to kill to be having second thoughts now. Let's unite as one nation, one people in this war that has been so terribly forced upon us.
seethelightofgod 1 year ago
@seethelightofgod What if the government named you and your family to be terrorists? Or arbitrarily named ppl of your religious faith, etc. etc. Get my point?
rockhardxrocker 1 year ago
Point remains the fire bombing(no one ever cries about that) killed (at once)and would have killed alot more people then both bombs. It's the use of force,atomic bombs, that ruffles feathers. Or that 50% of japans military industrial might was located in residential areas. War is hell. To avoid these horrors avoid war. period
jsh78mang 2 years ago
To avoid the horrors of war, peace should be declared. The Japanese were ready to declare peace. They had reasonable requests within the context of the historic traditions of war. Instead, the US murderously tested an atomic bomb in civilian population centers. Those who gave the orders and those who followed them are a war criminals. Anybody supporting them is a monster.
jeruon 2 years ago
People there are huge diffrences between "The war on Terror" and WW2. If you can't see this then you got to do some reading and/or ask a few vets of both wars. Do people forget they were tryin to take over the world?
jsh78mang 2 years ago
Nobody was trying to take over the world. Imperialistic tendencies were the norm back then. The only empire left today is the US, and to some extent the EU and China.
jeruon 2 years ago
No Hitler wasn't giving china to japan or taking most of europe for himself. No that never happened let me guess Hitler didn't kill any jews either that's made up. No they loved themselves some jews didn't they....Idiot.
jsh78mang 2 years ago
Hitler wanted what Stalin got. Stalin killed more Jews than Hitler. The war was fought for nothing. Churchill called it the unnecessary war. Stalin killed many more people other than the Jews. Stalin supported Mao. Mao killed more than Stalin and Hitler. Hitler only starting killing Jews after the war was close to ending and he was losing as an act of retribution. If war had not been declared on him, the Jews would have not likely died. Declaring war on Germany weakened the peace party there.
jeruon 2 years ago
Wow!!
Talk about pulling straws;by this definition of Terrorism a little kid beating up another kid,in an adolescent attempt to win the affections of girl(his 'objective'),is a terrorist.
It would also define events like the liberation of Haitian slaves as a Terrorist revolt.
I certainly agree that all distinctions between Terrorism are vague,esp.,when the discourse of terrorism isn't being shaped by the OLC,the CIA or the Pentagon.
This only asks,Is terrorism ever justified?
thirdshift47 2 years ago
thing is Japan was also working on the bomb; I doubt they would have any qualms on using it on American civilians if we didn't hit their particle accelerators and heavy water factories
wolgreth 2 years ago
True they were also using the pacific jet stream to launch 9,000 fire bombs on the U.S. 1 killed 6 people in Bly oreagon most of those people were children.
jsh78mang 2 years ago
Hahahaha! MacArthur was against dropping the bombs? That is so insane to me. He wanted to use them against China during the Korean War. Granted, he was just trying to make a point that Truman was being an idiot in not taking the fight to the Chinese, when the Chinese were at war with us and moving troops into the Korean penisula.
I believe despite being a democrat he later endorsed Eisenhower, when Eisenhower's position was to leave Korea.
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
Okay, thanks for clearing up my earlier question by saying it is the INTENTIONAL targeting of civilians.
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago 2
It's the same old same old. The conservative hero Ronald Reagan would call a terrorist a freedom fighter when it suited his needs. If you read George Orwell, you'll soon realize times may change but human nature doesn't.
eelzen 2 years ago
300,000 + people died from the bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki. Estimated U.S. death toll from proposed Operation DownFall (land invasion of japan) 1.6 million American lives. Never mind Russian, Japanese Uk, or Canadian. Also Russia would have wanted a piece of japan(like germany) for itself. Imagine another Berlin wall in japan. We also came back in and helped rebuild afterwards. Did the 9/11 terrorist do that for us?
jsh78mang 2 years ago
Your argument rests on an "estimated" 1.6 million dead as opposed to 300,000 *really* dead in the name of the unprovable estimation cited to induce panic and action. The fact remains that Truman listened to none of his eyes and ears on the ground in ordering this bombing.
Not listening to others was a facet of his character that was borne out again when he abdicated US sovereignty to the collectivist UN with Korea...The UN being a dream of his Progressive forebears, FDR /Wilson. Ah, progress
hartforest 2 years ago
My argument is estimated by the best intell at the time. The joint cheifs of staff. Up to this point in the war we had already seriously underestimated the Japs several times.
jsh78mang 2 years ago
Oh and just to let you know the real numbers were 1.2 - 4million allied and 5-10 million japanese. If these figures are remotely right we saved lives by dropping the bomb. So what would you do kill 300,000 quickly or drag on for another year or so and cost many more lives. JFYI they made half a million purple hearts in anticipation for Op. Downfall. Half a million.
jsh78mang 2 years ago
You do realize that their were three days between the dropping of Little Boy and Fat Man. Even after Little Boy was dropped, the Japanese still did not surrender. Get off your morale high horse and read a few books.
Pellett29 2 years ago
@pellett29
No high horse here, and I have read a few books, thank you very much. One of my favorites has to do with why there was/is a US naval base at Pearl Harbor in the first place and how we much we favored sovereignty and "democracy" when there was an imperial prize to be had. Not much has changed, either...which I think is Mr. Hunter's point.
hartforest 2 years ago
Bullshit
How many Us casualties occurred during the entire span of WW2?
Why would we need to invade Japan? They were isolated and defeated.
Many in the Japanese military and government wanted to surrender, but killing is faster than waiting and the US needed to test a bomb.
Why do you feel the need to justify the killing of innocents in civilian population centers? The killing of innocents is never justified. Only a monster would think so. A human can undertake no more barbarous of an act.
jeruon 2 years ago
I just gave facts written and from soldiers that served (not opinions) to back my stance how about you try the same thing? It's not always about how you feel, and I'm sure in retrospect now it's easy to think about what ifs. Still glad we got it first. What would have happened to the world if we didn't?
jsh78mang 2 years ago
Those weren't facts. Your fake statistics were created to justify barbarism. You defend the killing of innocent humans. There is no consistent moral or tactical argument for what was done. Your heroes are monsters, and you therefor are a monster.
jeruon 2 years ago
Barbarism as if the Japs were innocent of such things.Least we not forget the raping of nanking. No consitant tacticle or moral argument. Oh no I didn't know I was dealing with the authority on WW2 sorry next time I'll just bow to your whim. ..not LOL Your a bigger fool then you let on are you not. As of my hero's I have none. Hero's usualy die. Who the hell are you to make snap judgements of me from what 2-3 posts.
jsh78mang 2 years ago
I obviously touched the nerve of a monster. Your argument rest on the premise that because you believe the Japanese are barbarous, you have the right to be barbarous in return.
First, that makes you no better than them. You are what you believe they are.
Second, most Japanese were not, and are not, barbarous. Most of the people that died in the atomic bombings were innocent.
You continue to sickly justify that those men, women, and children needed to die. You are a monster of the worse kind.
jeruon 2 years ago
Touched a nerve LOL you think this little debate shakes me to my core ROTFLMAO. I'm a monster LOL. you know so little of me do you think I even take you seriously. your posts are dribble. written by someone who obviously knows very little about ww2 and Japanese culture during the 1930-45. Those men women and children were already being killed by fire bombs the worst firebombing campiagn in history. Nice try,try again.
jsh78mang 2 years ago
Nice cover.
So you argument is basically, because we were already murderously firebombing innocent men women and children, it is okay to drop nuclear bombs on them?
An accurate representation of WW2 Japanese culture is represented in a movie called "Grave of the Fireflies." The Japanese culture is nothing like your deluded vision used to justify your murderous appetite for destruction.
Sorry monster, I am not convinced.
jeruon 2 years ago
Yeah and in that Anime the people religiously followed The emporers lead. If anyone is to blame it would be him and those running the country.Forcing their people to deal with such things for nothing more then pride. The war was over and they lost yet they didn't sign the peace treaty that would have ended there suffering. Also in case you forgot we helped them rebuild after. Is that a sign of barbarism. As for my deluded version I will ask you this Have you ever been to Japan? I
jsh78mang 2 years ago
Rebuilding does not excuse barbarism. Killing innocent people is barbaric no matter any other factors involved.
Not all Japanese supported the emperor. Not all Germans supported Hitler. Not all Chinese supported Mao. Not all Americans supported Truman dropping the bomb.
I lived in Japan for a year in Toda City. I I rode my bike down to the waterfront and watched people play sports on fields next to the local river and watched professional rowers often practicing on the river.
jeruon 2 years ago
No my argument is that people like you love to bitch about the big bombs but not the many little ones that killed just about as many people. If this were realy about people and loss of life would you not care about these as well?
jsh78mang 2 years ago
How can you make such a big assumption? Have I ever said I support violence of any kind? One of the main tenets of Libertarianism is the principle of non aggression. It is a concept that the southern avenger also agrees with.
The firebombing was arguably much worse than the atomic bombs. Many more people died in firebombing than the atomic bombings. Both are horrible and arguing the intensity between the two is irrelevant. Only monsters justify the death of innocents.
jeruon 2 years ago
5 Minutes and 46 Seconds of this Twang Swill'en FREAK babbling on and on and never stopping to take 1 breath of Air annoyed me more than his Stupid Rant...!!!
hikonejo 2 years ago
If systematic terrorism is still occuring, it is justifiable to stop it using violence if violence is the only way? I think so.
agharta788 2 years ago
I think so to. But violence towards those committing the violence.
You don't believe this.
Also, if you said you'd kill all the Jews or Japanese or Southerners or whatever no. You wouldn't be a terrorist. You'd either be kidding or a jackass. If you laid out careful plans, gathered a task force and the materials necessary to carry out such a thing? Probably.
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
Probably does not make one a terrorist, nor does it make exaggeration for effect (killing children) true either.
So, if Vesey actually executed his plan and killed a bunch of slave-owning Southerners, he would have been a hero in your eyes?
agharta788 2 years ago
It makes you a planned terrorist. If I laid out careful plans to murder you I would still be planning homicide. Though point.
If Vesey executed his plan and didn't kill NON-SLAVE OWNERS or the children of slave owners (which was part of the plan)? Yes.
He wouldn't even have to make note of slave owners who bought slaves to free, educate, or protect from other slave owners who would treat them less favorably. Though that would be preferred.
Silvsilvchan 1 year ago
Race, class, and sex are not "collectivist identities". They are or were real forms of exploitation and terrorism. Yes, that's right, classism is terrorism.
agharta788 2 years ago 2
the terrorism of the white slave owners is okay, but not the terrorism of the slaves who were brave enough to rebel.
agharta788 2 years ago
Exactly what I was thinking.
So I guess Thomas Jefferson was not a child molester, even though he was raping a black slave CHILD, Sally Hemings.
chgosatrap 2 years ago
chgosatrap
Jefferson fathering a son with Sally Hemings has not been proven. In fact, the 1998 DNA study that reported this by the scientific journal "Nature" retracted it, saying he did NOT father ANY children with her. Historians recognize this but people like you still spread such lies. Google for more details: wallbuilders jefferson hemings
Also, Jefferson is known for repeatedly speaking out against and trying to abolish slavery. He had many slaves, but not for the reason you think.
someguy3sg3 2 years ago
And OJ was innocent.
chgosatrap 2 years ago
chgosatrap
In the US one is innocent until proven guilty for good reason. Perhaps you don't agree with this concept.
Regardless, scientists doing DNA testing and historians would know better than you and I wouldn't they? DNA testing and history indicate Randolph Jefferson likely fathered one or more children with Hemings rather than Thomas. But you don't seem to care much for facts... or maybe you just don't like the message of individual liberty Thomas Jefferson preached.
someguy3sg3 2 years ago
what he preached and what we have today are two diffrent things.
jsh78mang 2 years ago
agharta788
Who said terrorism committed by white slave owners was okay? This video certainly didn't.
someguy3sg3 2 years ago
The video says that all terrorism, regardless of the cause, is wrong. That means that slave rebellions were wrong and immoral and should not have occurred.
agharta788 2 years ago
agharta788
You might want to think about that some more. It sounds like you're seeing the word "terrorism" and thinking it means the same thing as "violence". There is a difference between self defense (slave rebellion) and terrorism (kill all white people). Vesey wanted the latter. I highly doubt anybody here would object to the former, the SA included.
someguy3sg3 2 years ago 6
Vesey never killed anyone,though.The speaker would have been better served showing the link in this case between the terror of the Federal State & the terror of the local State(South Carolina.)
Indeed,what SC did to Vesey is not even close to how we punish 'terrorists' today;being a violation of both 8th &14th Amendments.
South Carolina also lynching Vesey and others to 'advance the objective or agenda' of horrifying the slave population to suppress the will to revolt also suits this def.
thirdshift47 2 years ago
I like how the Southern Avenger thinks that violence is never right while beating down on a would be slave rebellion who never actually committed one act of terrorism. I mean, really, if I say, right now, that I am going to kill all Southern Staters, am I a terrorist? I don't think so.
It is also interesting that the "SA" suggests no solution for the slaves who were terrorized on a regular basis. His basic thrust is this:
agharta788 2 years ago
agharta788
Looks like you entirely missed the point that liberals tend to support one form of terrorism while conservatives tend to support another. This is about ideas and those supporting them, not who is or is not a "terrorist." And I don't hear the SA suggesting violence is NEVER right.
And yes, if you made plans to kill all Southern Staters, that sounds like terrorism to me. Saying it is one thing. Supporting or planning it is another.
someguy3sg3 2 years ago
Horrible.
The Trokskist left and Western Marxist left (not to mention the entire anarchist left and an ultra-majority of the social democrats) turned away from Stalinist Russia when it was clear that Stalin was a dictator who KILLED ALL HIS FELLOW BOLSHEVIKS and was committing atrocities. The anarchistic-Libertarian George Orwell was a leader of this turn.
agharta788 2 years ago
Wow! powerful
thevoice32 2 years ago
SA,
Why do you single out the use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? There was plenty of bombing of civilians in WW2. As Supreme Allied Commander,didn't Eisenhower have a role in the fire bombing of Dresden? Is being killed by conventional bombs any less painful than nukes?
marcdevon 2 years ago 2
Because it is famous, unique and completely undefensible? He is going after low hanging fruit... which is good for making the argument about the "terrorism" without being bogged down with historical details of all the different bombing raids, that people haven't heard much of.
utubehayter 2 years ago 2
Great commentary.
Thank you for finally making it through an entire commentary without mentioning Ron Paul or George Bush.
rjohnson182 2 years ago
Common sense as always! I saw you during the 2008 pres campaign when you introduced Ron Paul at a rally in Columbia (Oct 07 I believe it was). I didn't know who you were then but I wish I had been following you sooner. Keep up the good work Jack! You make more sense than most everyone else.
devil421 2 years ago 2
911 was an inside job.
That is all.
CarryANationIII 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
For the disgusting things you suggested in your first video. I'd say you'd make a really good conservative terrorist. Southern Avenger.
CreepyLizard 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Arab nations didn't fund Binladen. America funded Binladen. Saudi Arabia, although not perfect as a country, has been the biggest and most active fighter of terrorism in the Middle East since the early 2000s, while Iraq was the biggest enemy to Saddam and wished to fight the Iraqi army in the Kuwait-Iraq war. So there was no possibility (Nor evidence) of Iraq funding Algaeda before the Iraq war. Regarding the Iraqi government were never 'Islamists'with Iraq not being a religious state in general
CreepyLizard 2 years ago 2
10 stars!
williamfos 2 years ago 2
Great Piece.
droogie76 2 years ago
Liberals and Conservatives are BOTH Hypocrites and Liars. They are each ONLY Interested in their Own Agenda.
There is only one true hope for America, that comes via Libertarians / Anarchists - More Liberal than a Liberal and more Fiscally Conservative than a Conservative.
Liberals Lie, People Die.
Conservatives Lie, People Die.
END The FED. END The WARS.
peace. love. anarchy
enemyartistkristofeR 2 years ago 9
Great Addition!
Thanks for posting!
werebear1 2 years ago
Good video as usual. One thing I don't understand about so many "conservatives" today, now that Obama is in they hate everything about the government, even though nothing much has changed, Yet they still champion our government's aggressive foreign policy and certainly have no complaints when big government takes over our foreign policy, which has been the case for a very long time now.
HungryDingo 2 years ago 3
Government is the number one cause of death and misery in the world.
AntiFed1791 2 years ago 10
Indeed. And yet so many indivduals believe in government's alleged benevolence despite it being an insittution that insists upon holding a monopoly on the use of force while also being responsible for approximately 200 million deaths during the 20th century alone.
Mechanized0 2 years ago 2
Government is the result of people.
agharta788 2 years ago
Yes, but what kind of people? The Nazi government? The People's Republic of China under Mao Zedong? The Khmer Rouge under Pol Pot? The American Republic under George W. Bush?
AntiFed1791 2 years ago
I liken putting bush up with those guys is like putting pee wee herman up with a bunch of serial rapists. The guys just not that smart.
jsh78mang 2 years ago
Yeah I think there is more to it then this. From my teachings and from having half my family in the armed forces during WW2 What I learned is they did not just drop an atomic bomb on People they were targeting one of Japans biggest military bases and radio tower. It just happened to be in an industrial area like some terrorists just happen to set up shop near or in schools and hospitals. I would like to see an entire vid dedicated to the bombings and your fact based answers to such SA.
jsh78mang 2 years ago
So are you saying it's okay to kill innocent civilians if it means getting to the bad guy? There's a term for that called, "collateral damage." It tries to make what you say sound like it's okay, but that doesn't change what it is; killing innocents to kill the bad guy.
sniper6081 2 years ago
It's never that simple. There are huge diffrences between Iraq and WW2. I don't like war in general. However lets look at what could have happened if it did not go down that way. Russia was primed and already threw there hat in for a land based invasion. The Japs were an honor based society and loyal to there leader. I have no doubt that the big wigs of Japan would have "sacrificed" more of there own people for the cause. There is alot more to it then black and white tho.
jsh78mang 2 years ago
No, there isn't. Killing innocent people is inexcusable. Doing so makes you the monster. It doesn't matter what your "cause" is. If you kill innocent people to further your agenda you're the terrorist.
sniper6081 2 years ago
So you don't think there is any diffrence between Iraq and WW2? I suggest you do some light reading. By your definition Mafia and Gangs are terrorists. As well as every leader that ever caused a war, just or not. Also most people whom have committed murder are terrorists. I find fault in this Definition and the way you and SA use of it. Normally I would agree with SA but like I said things are not just that black and white.
jsh78mang 2 years ago
Well, Iraq was initiated for money and WW2 was fought in self-defense or a more elaborate term would be "Just War Theory" and yes gangs, the mafia, and murderers are terrorists. The terrorists that you're familiar with operate in much the same way, mainly killing and stealing.
sniper6081 2 years ago
Just war theory applies to the method of war not just the excuse for entering the war.
HairyCheeseNuts 2 years ago
I know.
sniper6081 2 years ago
No you don't "know". Instead, you "believe".
agharta788 2 years ago
No, I know.
sniper6081 2 years ago
Ah, but can any one truly know anything?
All we can do is believe what is put in front of us.
Silvsilvchan 1 year ago
Really was it money or baby W trying to protect daddy W? I have heard to many reasons ands not enough solutions. WW2 may have been a just war ,but innocent people died in the process(as they always do in war). Is this terrorism? Tho serial killers,gangs and mafia use terror to get some of the things the desire they are not just terrorists.
jsh78mang 2 years ago
But they are terrorists. However, you must realize that terrorism is a non-term. It was invented by the political class to scare their people into demanding more government. The reason why it is a non-term is the same reason "assault weapon" is a non-term. There's no clear definition that anyone can agree on and when somebody actually does come up with a definition it is either too general or can be broken down using other terms.
sniper6081 2 years ago
I agree as with "assualt rifles" it seem to be what ever they assume it is. Changing to match the politics of the day I guess.
jsh78mang 2 years ago
That's what makes it bullshit.
sniper6081 2 years ago
Yup, the Southern State slave owners were terrorists. Excellent conclusion!
Yup, the Southern State owners taught their children how to be terrorists..
agharta788 2 years ago
Are you talking to me?
sniper6081 2 years ago
I don't know... What do you think? Do you think it is right to champion a universalist approach to "terrorism" in relation to systematic terrrorism that is usually biased between two sides?
agharta788 2 years ago
Are you aware that terrorism is a non-word invented b the political class to scare their people into demanding more government?
sniper6081 2 years ago
Comment removed
utmost11 2 years ago
I bet if I followed you around you tube I would find plenty of errors in your grammer. Fucking word nazi.
jsh78mang 2 years ago
dude, relax
utmost11 2 years ago
*grammar
... I am so sorry. I couldn't resist. ;_;
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
Grammar is spelled with two As, bonehead.
agharta788 2 years ago
dang it.....thats what i get for trying to be smart
utmost11 2 years ago
SA, just wow. Never stop making videos. You can't get this stuff anywhere else. Thank you.
dtaijo174 2 years ago 7
SA, If this was baseball you would be hitting .420, with 55 homers 145 rbis and a gold glove...great stuff
JoeyPencils 2 years ago 2
I think one could make the case that we're arguing semantics on this issue
"terrorism" was historically associated with a lone individual or small group other than a recognized government.
War can be declared on a government with some sense of a line drawn in the sand, (one government against another)
One could also argue that all war is terrorism or that terrorism is a tactic within a war
The size of the weapon has little to do with it
Crashing a plane into a building (911) or a ship (WW2)
conspiracy777 2 years ago
@ laviciousness:
Nagasaki and Hiroshima were also a message to Stalin and the rest of the world.
n66178 2 years ago
The Japanese people were being trained to be combatants, and the country at the time did not yet surrender. The "innocent civilians" you referred to were "innocent" only from a criminality perspective; they were in fact in the process of becoming trained combatants.
Something else you're probably not aware of, SA, is that the Japanese were only a year away from manufacturing jet aircraft. Imagine the consequences to both the Japanese and American peoples had this happened.
laviciousness 2 years ago
@laviciousness Or the fact that the Japanese were willing to surrender, I mean that means nothing, right?
The same reason the war with Germany lasted so long was that FDR and Truman were so intent on "unconditional surrender" and was the main reason the Japanese had not surrender, because they wanted to protect their emperor (that was it).
luciusETRUR 2 years ago
You do know that both of those cities had children and babies in them too.. right? Just like every other city, they had people who were just minding their lives. Sure if you try to capture their city, and their "divine" emperor, they would resist. But if that justifies nuking them all in your mind, babies and children included, commit to a psychiatric facility.
And don't use that "parents decide for kids" crap, unless you also approve of child prostitution by their parents.
utubehayter 2 years ago 2
The human animal is the most dangerous.
secedeful 2 years ago
The State is legitimized terrorism.
InTheEndIWasRight 2 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The Japanese were fighting a war of extermination. It was either die fighting or suicide if they were defeated. The Atomic Bombs saved hundreds of thousands of American lives and millions of Japanese lives because the bombs ended the war before the planned invasion of Japan was carried out.
Pellett29 2 years ago
@Pellett29 thats an oversimplification. You also need to acknowledge that the US military was scant on taking prisoners and left many Japanese no out but to keep fighting.
thescreamingid 2 years ago
You need to acknowledge the Japanese mindset of the WWII period, these were a people of faithful devotion to their emperor and country to the bitter end. The Japanese were willing to do anything to win; giving ones life for the emperor was honorable. These were not a people forced to fight a war they did not agree with but a people willing fight. Also the mindset was
Pellett29 2 years ago
@thescreamingid Please learn alittle history before you write such moronic statements, thank you.
Pellett29 2 years ago
how is it moronic?
thescreamingid 2 years ago
I think as soon as things become violent, the most radical elements on both sides gain momentum, if they become predominant things get nasty.
DeletedDelusion 2 years ago
@DeletedDelusion agree with that, unfortunately, we always seem to be in violent mode..
thescreamingid 2 years ago
Always?
If that were the case humans would have died out long ago.
I agree that we are way to many times in the violent mode for often trivial reasons, but we should not ignore the thousands of times we cooperate every day with fellow human beings.
DeletedDelusion 2 years ago
peace to vessey! freedom or death!
Steadno 2 years ago
Absolutely!
What's amazing are the same humps who down thump your comment are the same who don't see a problem with atomic extermination to achieve an end.
Myopic self centered hypocrisy your name is man.
cosmosgato 2 years ago
The reason and purpose for destroying those two Japanese cities, H&N, was the fact they were the two largest christian centers in Japan at that time.
TOWIFELGA 2 years ago
I had a discussion with a liberal who was making the point that the civil war was justified because it freed the slaves.
Nevermind that this isn't the case, but arguing that point I said that it wasn't worth it because of the huge price in human lives. Of course I was immediately labeled a heartless monster, and the liberals were the compassionate ones.
Liberals use government to march hundreds of thousands to their deaths, and they're compassionate. I wanna avoid that, and I'm evil. Go figure
fairlylargejohn 2 years ago
keep up the good work SA. Have not been following lately but it's nice to see the same ol' practical logic in every video.
sarjil 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
my friends grandfather was told to drink up, eat well, because in a weeks time, he would be some of the first Americans to storm japan. a Complete death sentences. (Japanese Already showed extreme efficiency in defense/Bunkering down, despite being under equipped). imagine how they would defend their home-soil?
The Super Secret A Bomb demolished hiroshima and nagasaki. saveing his life.
ExecutorJoe 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
News papers in Japan told the civilians to make bamboo spears, to fight off the American Invaders. They where, and are a loyal and determined people(and God bless them).
the Japanese empire was using terrorist acts in the islands they conquered, also in China.
Not Down talking the Japanese people, but, live by the sword, die by the sword.
The A Bomb was a terrorist act, Yes. and i feel deeply for the Innocent people. Tho, it was to end war, not to start it.
damn shame, but it happened
ExecutorJoe 2 years ago
Well argued. This was much better stated than the last one. You wove between both views like a master at the loom. I think your explanation of Vessey was much better. However, I must disagree with your conclusion, which you based on Leahy, McArthor, and Eisenhower's Words, because their words do not take heed of the undeniablility that Japan had not surrendered. This fact stands out as it has and will for the sole reasoning behind "fat boy" and "little boy". They ended the war.
curiouschem 2 years ago
given that japan had been beaten back all the way to her home islands ad had absolutely no offensive teeth left anymore with the destruction of her navy and airforce, exactly what threat did they pose to us?. Instead of nuking we could have done a live demo of the nukes. secodnly the russians were barrelling down from the west and north. Japan was starved out of almost every commodity and supplies. An official surrender is not needed for an effective Win..i.e. russo-afghan, russo-japan war etc.
sarjil 2 years ago 6
It was questionable whether or not even the horrific use of nuclear weaponry had worked to affect a surrender of the Japanese Army, and it wasn't until six days after the second bomb was dropped that they did surrender. When the Japanese surrendered on Aug. 15, 1945, it was an unconditional surrender of all its armies. The surrender immediately freed the people of Vietnam, China, Burma, Thailand, Borneo, Cambodia from the ongoing torture, rape, enslavement, and murder by Japanese troops.
curiouschem 2 years ago
"...exactly what threat did they (Japan) pose to us?..."
None.
The reasons were we were pissed off so fuck those slant eyed monkeys!
Twowe wanted to know just what does this bomb do to human flesh?
cosmosgato 2 years ago
Jack, Terrorism is what people do to each other. Terror is what governments inflict.
Daniel Byman.
steve0281 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
ExecutorJoe 2 years ago
Religion and anti intellectualism.
The hypocrisy of those that support pure capitalism and corporatism and that claim to be religious is rank unless you are willing to admit religion is nothing more than an archaic form of totalitarianism. Being the same through monopolization.
Roonskii 2 years ago
Comment removed
ExecutorJoe 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It's a shame you view the world through a lens of Neo-Confederate-tism.
thejobloshow 2 years ago
lol. whatever the fuck that is.
grassmaster180 2 years ago
I wont argue with the definition of terrorism and who it applies to in this vid. But that leads to the debate if the the terror tactics work and thus are justifiable. Obviously targeting innocent civillians seems wrong and eveil but if the enemy State is propped up by the civillians if the army is backed and recruiting the civillians then that would make them activie participants in the fight.
clnmike 2 years ago
You just made an argument that supports genocide in certain parts of Africa. Targeting "innocent" civilians seems wrong? It doesn't seem wrong. It is wrong.
the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan is supported by civillians. The U.S. Army is backed by and is recruiting civillians, which makes civillians participants, no? The same can be said of the CIA, which operates globally, making "all" of America a target.
curiouschem 2 years ago 2
Thats exactly what I am saying there are no innocent participants if the civillian population supports the goverment agenda then they made a stance and thus fair game in the mind of a terrorist. Morally it is wrong but on a practical level it is not. If I witness a murder and refuse to speak out about it then I am as guilty as the murderer and fiar game to the autorities or the lynch mob. The terrorist is thinking the same thing.
clnmike 2 years ago
i agree though i guess we should all consider ourselves terrorists by your standard as we are propping up a government that is killing innocent civilians.
strapt313 2 years ago 2
Umm.. Hang on, is there an exemption for the unwilling and tax evading, draft dodging people?
If there is - I bet you can find at least one innocent person in every large crowd of civilians subjected to massive violence. Also, if you think about the acts of terrors states have committed against their own citizens in terms of secession, large or small, explicit or inexplicit - like Waco - clearly identify who the real terrorists are.
utubehayter 2 years ago
Lol, the problem there is that terrorist dont thake the time to make the distinction. But you have a point.
clnmike 2 years ago
how many civilians in any war are just trying to survive? if your house or business or town for that matter has been shelled, just finding food and water and shelter are the concern. sure you have civilians working in the war factories, but if the choice is work, be a soldier or be shot...Enemy States are just that. is it the people who demand that their leaders go to war or the other way around. killing people has become very profitable these days.
lezlitaz 2 years ago
Where there lays the problem then, I can understand a civillian wanting to make ends meet and no doubt it is the politicians who make war, but the civillian has to hold accountable for his actions or suffer the consequences. And that is more true if we are in a democracy because we elect the politicians.
clnmike 2 years ago
"Democracy: The god that failed"
You should read this book. Its exposes many ways that democracy is utter evil when it comes to war.. or pretty much anything else political.
utubehayter 2 years ago 2
@utubehayter I'll check that book out, utubehayter. Sounds interesting
mlawson84 2 years ago
Thanks, will do.
clnmike 2 years ago
You can make any tax-dollar funded business highly profitable given adequate lobbying and political clout. Which is why there should be no tax collection. Once you collect taxes, you have sowed the seed.. then its only a matter of time before perverse and evil things become highly profitable.
utubehayter 2 years ago
Comment removed
ExecutorJoe 2 years ago
You're right saying Hitler or Stalin were not terrorists. Because they werent. They were war criminals. Theres a reason you dont try people who commit acts of terrorism in military courts. Theyre not military, theyre civillians doing ACTS OF TERRORISM. If a soldier would do the same thing, he would get court martialed. Because he is a soldier. The bombing of Japan was not terrorism. You could consider it war crimes(although I dont).
Churchx77 2 years ago
I do have a comment to say about this. As a democratic socialist (and this is true about the democratic socialist movement), they were never in anyway in solidarity with the atrocities behind communism. Take the year 1919 for example. It was in that year that the Socialist Party of America split. Why? The left-wing faction were in solidarity with the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia while the so-called right-wing of the Socialist Party of America rejected the communism of Russia.
PsychoPunk1965 2 years ago
The Socialist Party of America which was known for people like Eugene V. Debs, Norman Thomas, A. Philip Randolph, Victor Berger, Helen Keller, Upton Sinclair, and many other social reformers were fiercely opposed to communism. Any impartial observer of history regardless of ideology will tell you that the Socialist Party of America was the party for freedom. Along with the ACLU, the Socialist Party opposed the treatment against Japanese Americans during World War II.
PsychoPunk1965 2 years ago
Perhaps so. However, teh ideas behind socialism itself are anti-liberty, regardless of how well-intentioned its proponents may be.
Mechanized0 2 years ago
I sure hope that white liberal guilt asshole Agharta doesn't come here to stir shit up again like that other video.
whoo689 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
i will, i fucking hate the south and neo nazis
d3p3ch3mod3 2 years ago
ouch,
ExecutorJoe 2 years ago
lol. who here is a fucking Neo-Nazi?? There are neo-Nazis in EVERY state. Or didn't you get the SPLC memo?
Hell, in some "northern" cities back in the day after the Civil War, segregation and black hatred was more apparent and worse than in the South.
whoo689 2 years ago
@whoo689 it's higher in the south esp when you take population into account. plus the splc hate map doesn't take into account how strong their numbers are and how much support they have in their area... there's a lot more blue collar racism in the south, thats just a given
d3p3ch3mod3 2 years ago
The American Nazi Party is based in Detroit.
Silvsilvchan 1 year ago
even though the two has nothing to do each other!!!!!!
sarjil 2 years ago
nope, apparently some people are stupid enough to use strong positions as hating other people, even entire geographical areas (south? really?) as a matter of preference.
utubehayter 2 years ago