You're putting words in the commentators' mouths by assuming the answer to your opening question. These two would not characterise Islam moderate, and they suggested nothing of the kind. That's equivalent to me just assuming that you support the actions of Anders Brevik because you're afraid of a European takeover of Islam. Fair?

And FWIW, everything you said about Islam and the Quran also holds true for Christianity and the Bible (except of course for the etymology). For example, the Bible is very clear on the mandate to spread Christianity -- where do you think Islam got the idea? These commentators are derisory of the material taught in this course, derisory of the same things you just said were "extreme" and "ridiculous", so I'm not sure what point you're making except that you're a wee bit xenophobic.>> ^A10anis:

So, how would these two guys characterize the islamic faith? Would they say islam is benign and wants to co-exist peacefully with the west, allowing freedom from religious intrusion, equality for woman, gays, and those of other faiths? The evidence shows the opposite. The very word islam means submission, it is not just a faith, it is a theocracy and dictates every facet of daily life. Dooley's first comment about Hiroshima was extreme, and the FBI comment about Obama being influenced by islamic extremists was ridiculous. But the quran -despite people claiming it is taken "out of context"- is very clear on the propagation of islam. The quran must be followed by every muslim and In 50 years- it has been predicted- muslims in europe will have the balance of voting power. If that happens the commentators, who are so derisory today, will be able to see just how "moderate" islam will be.

So, how would these two guys characterize the islamic faith? Would they say islam is benign and wants to co-exist peacefully with the west, allowing freedom from religious intrusion, equality for woman, gays, and those of other faiths? The evidence shows the opposite. The very word islam means submission, it is not just a faith, it is a theocracy and dictates every facet of daily life. Dooley's first comment about Hiroshima was extreme, and the FBI comment about Obama being influenced by islamic extremists was ridiculous. But the quran -despite people claiming it is taken "out of context"- is very clear on the propagation of islam. The quran must be followed by every muslim and In 50 years- it has been predicted- muslims in europe will have the balance of voting power. If that happens the commentators, who are so derisory today, will be able to see just how "moderate" islam will be.

Smug? I think you are not hearing things in the interview that contradict your belief.

He said that it was a stark contrast between the celebration in Los Alamos (for having succeeded in doing something that no one had done before) and people in Hiroshima suffering and dying. Later he felt that building things was a waste of time because the weapon that he had helped create would destroy civilization as it was. (Admittedly, the end part of the prior sentence is logical extension from the points at the end of his talk.)

If you listen, you will hear him say that he originally agreed to the project to defeat Germany (from him saying that he failed in reevaluating his reasoning to work on the project when the original reason was removed by defeating Germany.) ...Time 2:00 -> "But what I did immorally, I would say, was to not remember the reason that I said I was doing it. So when the reason changed, which was that Germany was defeated, not the singlest thought came into my mind at all about that. That that meant now that I have to reconsider why I'm continuing to do this. I simply didn't think."

People don't grieve or even accept responsibility in the same way. Because someone doesn't show the emotion that you expect them to have doesn't mean that they haven't had long nights and years having an internal battle about the personal responsibility for the situation.

@TheHam: Did you watch the entire video? I'm not sure what you saw that made you think he was being smug. He described the elation that the Los Alamos team felt upon the detonation over Hiroshima, as it was viewed at the time from a very isolated detached perspective. Upon further thought about the real implications of it's effect he grew very depressed. There's nothing smug there.

hmm, Stingray may be onto something w/ the Bristol Stool SMELL Scale... how about:

1 • The ninja (no smell at all)
2 • Eau du doo (a faint, heady aroma)
3 • Fried chicken (what's cookin'?)
4 • The rotten egg (somebody light a match)
5 • The drag strip (burnt rubber / asphalt)
6 • Mustard gas (noxious, eye-watering)
7 • Hiroshima (don't even think about lighting a match)

Individual results may vary.

Was 9/11 for a biblical reason? Was Hiroshima for a biblical reason? Was the Holocaust for a biblical reason? Was Kirk Cameron for a biblical reason?

Please tell me that this guy is too religious even for Americans.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

According to wikipedia he was in Hiroshima for a 3-month business trip and the bomb fell on the last day he was there. He was in the process of leaving when he realized he'd left his signature stamp back at the office and went back to get it. The bomb fell as he was leaving the office once again.
So not only did he get caught in the blast on the last day he was there, but possibly only because he went back to get his stamp.
After getting caught in the first bomb; having his eardrums ruptured, being temporarily blinded and suffering serious burns on the left side of his torso; he rested for a bit and then went out to find his friends. Finding them, he spent that night in an air-raid shelter and returned home the following day.
Back in Nagasaki he got treatment for his injuries and went to fucking work on Aug 9th, placing him less than 2 miles from ground zero for the second bomb which fell as he was describing the events at Hiroshima to his supervisor. He was uninjured in this attack.
This guy was a Hollywood action movie caliber badass.


Here's to you, Mr. Badass 20th Century Samurai Warrior.

Was there a 'fridge involved?>> ^xxovercastxx:

According to wikipedia he was in Hiroshima for a 3-month business trip and the bomb fell on the last day he was there. He was in the process of leaving when he realized he'd left his signature stamp back at the office and went back to get it. The bomb fell as he was leaving the office once again.
So not only did he get caught in the blast on the last day he was there, but possibly only because he went back to get his stamp.
After getting caught in the first bomb; having his eardrums ruptured, being temporarily blinded and suffering serious burns on the left side of his torso; he rested for a bit and then went out to find his friends. Finding them, he spent that night in an air-raid shelter and returned home the following day.
Back in Nagasaki he got treatment for his injuries and went to fucking work on Aug 9th, placing him less than 2 miles from ground zero for the second bomb which fell as he was describing the events at Hiroshima to his supervisor. He was uninjured in this attack.
This guy was a Hollywood action movie caliber badass.

According to wikipedia he was in Hiroshima for a 3-month business trip and the bomb fell on the last day he was there. He was in the process of leaving when he realized he'd left his signature stamp back at the office and went back to get it. The bomb fell as he was leaving the office once again.

So not only did he get caught in the blast on the last day he was there, but possibly only because he went back to get his stamp.

After getting caught in the first bomb; having his eardrums ruptured, being temporarily blinded and suffering serious burns on the left side of his torso; he rested for a bit and then went out to find his friends. Finding them, he spent that night in an air-raid shelter and returned home the following day.

Back in Nagasaki he got treatment for his injuries and went to fucking work on Aug 9th, placing him less than 2 miles from ground zero for the second bomb which fell as he was describing the events at Hiroshima to his supervisor. He was uninjured in this attack.

This guy was a Hollywood action movie caliber badass.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Japan, Hiroshima, WWII, Atomic Bomb, Anime' to 'Japan, Hiroshima, WWII, Atomic Bomb, Anime, Barefoot Gen' - edited by ctrlaltbleach

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:

>> ^Yogi:
I think given a bit of time I could reach the same correlation with countries the US has attacked and nearly destroyed or has effected extremely negatively. I could prove up to at least the video posters standards that the US military does more for stifling science and general well being of other countries populations than anything else on earth. So to me this is an incredibly simplistic look and conclusion to come to when you're talking about humans and their development throughout history.

You mean like.. Japan?
Alright, so thats 65 years ago, but i mean, Japan was really, really fucked. Before the A-bombs, the destruction level of japanese cities ranged from 50-90% completely destroyed. Every single city. But today Japan is the most technologically advanced nation on earth. It rose from the ashes. so did germany, and Vietnam, and so many other countries that have been bombed to bits, whether its by the US or anyone else. if you want more recent examples, go to Croatia/former Yugoslavia. War is a terrible thing, and yes, the aftereffects are terrible and can last for centuries (just ask any child born near Hiroshima the last 65 years) But it is not sufficient reason to be stuck in the dark ages.


No that's a single event and then they got a chance to build themselves up. That's not like say Haiti who has been terrorized by the US for the last century or Cuba who's been terrorized for the last 50 years. It's not the same Japan vs Iran for example which we have been trying to stomp into the ground through various means for 50 years as well.

To me this is just way to complex the world is too complex. You can say Islam is stunting science if you want but the way he's going about proving it is incomplete.

>> ^Yogi:
I think given a bit of time I could reach the same correlation with countries the US has attacked and nearly destroyed or has effected extremely negatively. I could prove up to at least the video posters standards that the US military does more for stifling science and general well being of other countries populations than anything else on earth. So to me this is an incredibly simplistic look and conclusion to come to when you're talking about humans and their development throughout history.

You mean like.. Japan?

Alright, so thats 65 years ago, but i mean, Japan was really, really fucked. Before the A-bombs, the destruction level of japanese cities ranged from 50-90% completely destroyed. Every single city. But today Japan is the most technologically advanced nation on earth. It rose from the ashes. so did germany, and Vietnam, and so many other countries that have been bombed to bits, whether its by the US or anyone else. if you want more recent examples, go to Croatia/former Yugoslavia. War is a terrible thing, and yes, the aftereffects are terrible and can last for centuries (just ask any child born near Hiroshima the last 65 years) But it is not sufficient reason to be stuck in the dark ages.

>> ^Mikus_Aurelius:

Drawing a distinction between bombing civilians and dropping the atomic bombs is nonsense though. Atomic weapons, as they existed in 1945 were simply more efficient civilian killing tools. A single firebombing raid on Tokyo leveled the city and killed 100,000 civilians. This about the equivalent of either a-bomb, all it required was more planes. By August, every major Japanese city had been leveled by conventional weapons. There was no threat of "utter destruction" until much larger weapons were developed during the cold war. All we could do was level cities and slaughter civilians, something we'd already been doing for months. I don't buy the shock and awe argument at all. Then again, I wasn't in the room when the generals decided to surrender.

Yes it was a threat of utter destruction. That was the exact rhetoric that Truman used, and the exact reasoning included by Hirohito for his surrender:

"The enemy now possesses a new and terrible weapon with the power to destroy many innocent lives and do incalculable damage. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization."

America had plans laid out for increased production of the atomic bomb and for large scaled bombing of Japanese cities with atomic weaponry should they not surrender. The atomic bombs were not just a more efficient change to, like you said, an already exhaustive firebombing campaign.

And like I said, I'm not trying to justify total war, or the killing of civilians, so there's no need for you to belabor that point. The argument is, given that America was already engaged in a total war, the use of nuclear weapons is absolutely justified.

Also, please use the reply function. It sends a email to the person you replied to which makes communicating easier.

>> ^Mikus_Aurelius:

Certainly it is logically incompatible to hold that the Japanese government didn't care about civilian deaths and also that the atomic bomb caused the surrender. The only purpose of strategic bombing is to kill and demoralize large numbers of civilians. Why would a quarter of a million more deaths change the mind of such a callous regime?

I never said the civilian casualties swayed the regime to surrender. Obviously it doesn't play much of a factor since many times that died in conventional bombing campaigns and Japan didn't budge. It was the threat of utter destruction that the atomic bomb promised that finally convinced the Japanese to surrender.

Also, your criticism of Truman's demand for unconditional surrender is wrong. The Potsdam declaration was in fact conditional. And we do know exactly what the Japanese were demanding: That they retain control of Korea and Taiwan, which is about as acceptable as letting the Nazis keep France and Poland.

Also, stop twisting my words. I never said that bombing civilians was "absolutely justified". I said the use of atomic weaponry was absolutely justified. The justification of Total war is not something that I'm arguing, and strategic bombing is not unique to nuclear weapons. As to why similar bombing hasn't been used since WWII, well that's because we haven't been engaged in another total war, and we're held back by the threat of global nuclear holocaust and mutually assured destruction.

>> ^honkeytonk73:

The general Japanese civilian population at the time was poor, starving and consisted mostly old men, women, and children. All males of 'fighting age' or capacity were either dead, or in the military. The citizenry's weapons of choice that were available to them were... brooms, shovels, and sticks. This doesn't overshadow the threat the emperor, the empire and his military machine posed. However, this doesn't negate the fact that the country was already defeated by the time the A-bombs were dropped.

It doesn't matter if the civilian population was already defeated, because the Japanese military did not give a shit about the lives or the suffering of civilians, either at home, or abroad. The ferocity of the resistance experienced in the pacific theater, the failed coup to stop emperor from surrendering, holdouts well into 1970s, and the Japanese refusal to accept the Postdam declaration even after the first bomb was dropped highlights the determination of the Imperial Army. The will of the Imperial Army had to be broken.

A direct invasion of the Japanese mainland would have resulted in civilian casualties orders of magnitudes greater than from bombing alone, judging from the Battle of Okinawa. Conventional bombing of Japan produced far more damage and casualties than the two atomic bombs combined, yet had no effect on influencing the Japanese to surrender. The use of atomic weapons was absolutely justified and was not just an international show of force.

The responsibility for the deaths of those killed by the bombings, as well as all civilians in the pacific theater rests squarely on the shoulders of Hirohito and the Japanese military, many of whom, unlike their Nazi counterparts, went unpunished for their crimes.