Is the West really morally superior?

[shira]

It's easy to say the the acts of contemporary terrorists are unprecedented, but I find myself wondering if that's true.

In the simplest terms, Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups target innocents in order to break the will of the West. To date, Al Qaeda has killed fewer than 5,000 innocents in various terrorist attacks. If Al Qaeda had the means (nuclear weapons and a delivery system, for example), I have no doubt that the number killed would be many, many times that.

But consider some of the more reprehensible actions by the Allies during WWII: Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.

Dresden was by any standard NOT a valid military target. At the time of the fire-bombing in February, 1945, its only military significance was that wounded German soldiers occupied hospitals there. It contained no military installations (the closest were 60 miles away, and were NOT targeted), there were no military units stationed there, and there were no anti-aircraft batteries. The vast majority of the estimated 1.2 million inhabitants of Dresden were non-combatants. Yet the allies dropped more than 600,000 incendiaries over a period of 14 hours, and at least 60,000 civilians are estimated to have perished.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki - where approximately 175,000 civilians died - have been justified because they forced Japan to surrender immediately and unconditionally (but note that negotiations were already ongoing as to the terms under which Japan was willing to surrender) and (it is claimed) it might have cost more civilian lives (and certainly more lives of allied soldiers) if the Allies had used conventional bombing (and perhaps an invasion) to break Japan's will.

But whatever justifications are used for Dresden and Hiroshima/Nagasaki, how are they really any different from Al Qaeda's? In both cases, civilians were/are targeted in order to hasten a desired military objective. Either it is morally unacceptable to target civilians or it is not. I realize that in its current fight against international terrorism, the West is not targeting civilians, but I think that's primarily because there's no geographically isolated civilian population that can be identified as being the "home" of Al Qaeda.

Videotaped beheadings are horrific, but so is being burned alive. I guess what I'm asking: Are the actions of international terrorists really so outrageous when looked at in a historical context? Does the West really have the moral high ground?

Edited to improve the accuracy of the death figures.

 

[dahunan]

I guess you would be happier with either the Japanese or the Nazis running the show?

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: dahunan
I guess you would be happier with either the Japanese or the Nazis running the show?

So your argument is that it's acceptable to target civilians to win a war, correct?

Edit:
Note also: It was abundantly clear at the time of Dresden that Germany was a defeated country. And it was abundantly clear at the time of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that Japan was a defeated country. So your question is actually without basis.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: dahunan
I guess you would be happier with either the Japanese or the Nazis running the show?

Typical Genx reponse: logical fallacy that doesn't address the OP. You should be ashamed, dahunan!


I'm not aware of the options re: Dresden but from what I've read re: the US's use of atomic bombs in Japan, it wasn't necessary as Japan was nearing the point of voluntarily surrendering. Seems like using the bombs was more of a point to be made to Russia.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: dahunan
I guess you would be happier with either the Japanese or the Nazis running the show?

So your argument is that it's acceptable to target civilians to win a war, correct?

Edit:
Note also: It was abundantly clear at the time of Dresden that Germany was a defeated country. And it was abundantly clear at the time of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that Japan was a defeated country. So your question is actually without basis.

Better than your reasoning which compares the west to terrorist groups!

 

[dahunan]

it was a knee jerk response .. yes..

but... how many people had the Germans and the Japanese TORTURED and murdered.. the Japanese military were some of the sickest bastards on the planet.. and we all know about the Germans..

Weren't the Japanese warned and warned and warned.. and they told us to FO each time...

I shouldn't have replied at all .. My knee jerk came for the FACT that these people he is comparing us to had started a World War ..

 

[bamacre]

No government is, or ever has been, moral.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: dahunan
I guess you would be happier with either the Japanese or the Nazis running the show?

So your argument is that it's acceptable to target civilians to win a war, correct?

Edit:
Note also: It was abundantly clear at the time of Dresden that Germany was a defeated country. And it was abundantly clear at the time of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that Japan was a defeated country. So your question is actually without basis.

Better than your reasoning which compares the west to terrorist groups!

I'm comparing the morality of the two, and you have not responded to that question.

 

[techs]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were complety justified and I firmly believed it saved more lives than it cost.
Dresden was also justified in that when you're enemy is bombing your civilians you have the right to bomb theirs.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: bamacre
No government is, or ever has been, moral.

Morality is a personal opinion.

Most governments in my opinion think they are moral, even when they may not be. In the end you can have a government that is 1% immoral and still be considered "moral".

 

[dahunan]

Should we have just stayed out of the whole war.. and laughed as the rest of the world died and were overtaken by the Nazis and the Japanese?

 

[tommywishbone]

no

 

[smack Down]

Simple we won. If we had done those and lost the war people would look at them as wrong but we won so it was right.

 

[BBond]

Terrorism is in the eye of the beholder. For example, Iraq. What did the Iraqi people do to deserve the carnage George W. Bush unnecessarily forced on them?

Bush is at least as much of a terrorist as bin Laden. Probably far more.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: shira
I'm comparing the morality of the two, and you have not responded to that question.

So you may have found some immoral acts associated with western governments, and some things we as a society should not be proud of.

Fact of the matter is, even through these immoral acts, there were many moral acts implemented by the same organisation. For example social conservatives in Canada who believe in large state funded social programs had to endure the legalization of gay marriage (immoral to them), but for the greater good of helping the poor (moral under their standards).

Al Qaeda's sole purpose is to be immoral. Not one of their actions or ideas have any benefit to society...herein lies the key difference, one you cannot overlook.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: dahunan
I guess you would be happier with either the Japanese or the Nazis running the show?

So your argument is that it's acceptable to target civilians to win a war, correct?

Edit:
Note also: It was abundantly clear at the time of Dresden that Germany was a defeated country. And it was abundantly clear at the time of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that Japan was a defeated country. So your question is actually without basis.

Germany perhaps but the Japanese were preparing for the last battle and expecting civlians to detonate themselves on advancing US troops to kill as many as possible.
If we didnt nuke those two cities Japan would have continued to fight even if defeated. It would have required an invasion that would have made Normandy look like childs play. And most likely it would have cost us 1 million CAS with about half of those dead. In other words would would have doubled the amount of men killed in the war in a single campaign. Lets not even count the amount of civilian casualties that would have occured from starvation, disease, and fighting.

Both acts were terrible, and both acts would not be tolerated today. Of course both happened in a completely different time and different type of war.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: techs
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were complety justified and I firmly believed it saved more lives than it cost.
Dresden was also justified in that when you're enemy is bombing your civilians you have the right to bomb theirs.

You are merely stating justifications for targeting civilians. Al Qaeda could make a similar claim.

Also, Germany NEVER targeted civilians on a scale anything like Dresden. The comparison usually made is Germany's culpability in bombing Coventry. But the number of civilians killed in Coventry was something like 350, and that number was for the ENTIRE war, as compared with the hundreds of thousands killed in Dresden in 14 hours. Also, Conventry was by any standard a legitimate military target (it contained munitions factories)

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: techs
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were complety justified and I firmly believed it saved more lives than it cost.
Dresden was also justified in that when you're enemy is bombing your civilians you have the right to bomb theirs.

You are merely stating justifications for targeting civilians. Al Qaeda could make a similar claim.

Also, Germany NEVER targeted civilians on a scale anything like Dresden. The comparison usually made is Germany's culpability in bombing Coventry. But the number of civilians killed in Coventry was something like 350, and that number was for the ENTIRE war, as compared with the hundreds of thousands killed in Dresden in 14 hours. Also, Conventry was by any standard a legitimate military target (it contained munitions factories)

After the British retaliated by bombing Hamburg, Germany lost focus on the air campaign and bombed civilian targets. When they couldnt do it with their bombers anymore they used the V1 and late in the war the V2.

 

[dahunan]

I guess gays, jews, gypsies, handicapped etc aren't equal to civilians?

And yes.. the Iraq War is definitely Western Terrorism

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: dahunan
I guess you would be happier with either the Japanese or the Nazis running the show?

So your argument is that it's acceptable to target civilians to win a war, correct?

Edit:
Note also: It was abundantly clear at the time of Dresden that Germany was a defeated country. And it was abundantly clear at the time of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that Japan was a defeated country. So your question is actually without basis.

Germany perhaps but the Japanese were preparing for the last battle and expecting civlians to detonate themselves on advancing US troops to kill as many as possible.
If we didnt nuke those two cities Japan would have continued to fight even if defeated. It would have required an invasion that would have made Normandy look like childs play. And most likely it would have cost us 1 million CAS with about half of those dead. In other words would would have doubled the amount of men killed in the war in a single campaign. Lets not even count the amount of civilian casualties that would have occured from starvation, disease, and fighting.

Both acts were terrible, and both acts would not be tolerated today. Of course both happened in a completely different time and different type of war.

For the sake of argument, let us accept your figures (and I assure you that your assertions were STRONGLY disputed in 1945 and are strongly disputed today).

You still haven't addressed the central issue: The West targeted civilians in order to hasten the defeat of an enemy. Either that is morally acceptable, or it is not. If it is morally acceptable, then it is acceptable for Al Qaeda to target civilians, too.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: dahunan
I guess you would be happier with either the Japanese or the Nazis running the show?

So your argument is that it's acceptable to target civilians to win a war, correct?

Edit:
Note also: It was abundantly clear at the time of Dresden that Germany was a defeated country. And it was abundantly clear at the time of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that Japan was a defeated country. So your question is actually without basis.

Germany perhaps but the Japanese were preparing for the last battle and expecting civlians to detonate themselves on advancing US troops to kill as many as possible.
If we didnt nuke those two cities Japan would have continued to fight even if defeated. It would have required an invasion that would have made Normandy look like childs play. And most likely it would have cost us 1 million CAS with about half of those dead. In other words would would have doubled the amount of men killed in the war in a single campaign. Lets not even count the amount of civilian casualties that would have occured from starvation, disease, and fighting.

Both acts were terrible, and both acts would not be tolerated today. Of course both happened in a completely different time and different type of war.

For the sake of argument, let us accept your figures (and I assure you that your assertions were STRONGLY disputed in 1945 and are strongly disputed today).

You still haven't addressed the central issue: The West targeted civilians in order to hasten the defeat of an enemy. Either that is morally acceptable, or it is not. If it is morally acceptable, then it is acceptable for Al Qaeda to target civilians, too.

Lookup operation Olympic and Cornet. Olymic was the invasion of Kyushu planned for Nov 1st of 45. They were expecting 250,000 dead in that operation alone. Coronet was to occur in March of 46 and the main focus being Tokyo. Casualty ranges were anywhere from 8-900,000 to 1.7 million US servicemen and nearly 10 million japanese.

One interesting tidbit I have heard. The Armed services ordered so many purple hearts for the invasion of Japan that never happened that we are still using them today.

By todays standards it is not morally acceptable. I addressed this in my previous post. By standards back then it was considered a valid tool to subdue your enemy and crush his will to fight.

And while you may not agree with the nuking of Japans two cities. It did in the long run save many more lives than it took.

 

[Steeplerot]

The firebombing of dresden was not even directly related to germany, it was a dispicable act to deny dresden to the soviets who actually fought across europe against germany at full strength.

A city filled with refugees, families sleeping on rooftops, the city was so filled hoping the war would be over soon.

dresden had no military targets and had not been bombed the whole war.

dresden ranks right up to the genocide of native american peoples and what happened to the jews.

I don't think most americans realize how cruel this government can be and live this fantasy idea of us morality.

Contrary to these glorious battle stories of our involvent in europe we were johnny come latleys who jumped in last minute against a defeated foe to save what was left of our economic interests, whowouldathunkit?

Lets not even get into big corprate money making throughout the war with germany and those who are now in power who are their direct decendants carrying on the legacy of national socialism now here in our country.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: dahunan
I guess gays, jews, gypsies, handicapped etc aren't equal to civilians?

And yes.. the Iraq War is definitely Western Terrorism

The genocide perpetrated by the Germans is on an entirely different level of moral repugnance. Targeting civilians to win a war is at least understandable, but the Germans commited genocide for its own sake.

But regardless, immorality by your enemies doesn't justify immorality in response.

With respect to the invasion of Iraq, I really don't think of that as an act of terrorism. Unjustifiable (especially in light of what we know now), certainly.

 

[nobody2you]

Originally posted by: shira
Either it is morally unacceptable to target civilians or it is not. I realize that in its current fight against international terrorism, the West is not targeting civilians, but I think that's primarily because there's no geographically isolated civilian population that can be identified as being the "home" of Al Qaeda.

Let talk about being practical. As a civilan, one would know if another country would be capable of causing harm to you...for instance I would have very little fear of another country's soldier attacking me living in the US as war seem to be fought in the other country territory and not in the US. But Al Qaeda doesn't have a defined territory so they can strike in any place. I may be just going with my life minding my own business and I could be a victim of random violence...so it would be morally unacceptable to me. But in reality, I would probabely be more concern of street thugs than Al Qaeda.

 

[Genx87]

Contrary to these glorious battle stories of our involvent in europe we were johnny come latleys who jumped in last minute against a defeated foe to save what was left of our economic interests, whowouldathunkit?

Germany and Japan were already defeated on Dec 7th 1941?
whowouldathunkit?