Muslims comparing 9/11 to Hiroshima and Nagasaki

[Xombie]

I was disturbed to see on an Islamic forum that many Muslims were comparing the two events. What are your thoughts?

[Mike Smash!]

I was disturbed to see on an Islamic forum that many Muslims were comparing the two events. What are your thoughts?Both horrific and unneccessary terrorist acts on civilian populations done to try to force policy change.

Sounds about right to me.

[Valmore]

Both horrific and unneccessary terrorist acts on civilian populations done to try to force policy change.

Sounds about right to me.

Sounds completely incorrect to me.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombings that came from an officially declared sovereign nation enemy that were meant to end a long, ongoing war.

9/11 were attacks from a non-sovereign nation meant to instigate fear.

How the hell are the two the same in any sort of scope?

[Alex]

Sounds completely incorrect to me.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombings that came from an officially declared sovereign nation enemy that were meant to end a long, ongoing war.

9/11 were attacks from a non-sovereign nation meant to instigate fear.

How the hell are the two the same in any sort of scope?
Aside from that, they also had entirely different after effects.
One ended a war, one started a war.

[Tages]

Sounds completely incorrect to me.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombings that came from an officially declared sovereign nation enemy that were meant to end a long, ongoing war.

9/11 were attacks from a non-sovereign nation meant to instigate fear.

How the hell are the two the same in any sort of scope?
Neither of which address what Mike said. At all.

They were both directed at civilians. They were both meant to force policy change by the government of the nation that was attacked. Those are similarities.

[Motormouse]

Sounds completely incorrect to me.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombings that came from an officially declared sovereign nation enemy that were meant to end a long, ongoing war.

9/11 were attacks from a non-sovereign nation meant to instigate fear.

How the hell are the two the same in any sort of scope?

Here are a few other opinions on the subject of Hiroshima & Nagasaki

HIROSHIMA
WHO DISAGREED WITH THE ATOMIC BOMBING?

From what we read in the general media, it seems like almost everyone felt the atomic bombings of Japan were necessary. Aren't the people who disagree with those actions just trying to find fault with America?

Positions listed refer to WWII positions.

~~~DWIGHT EISENHOWER

"...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."

- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380

In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson:

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63


~~~ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY
(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

- William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441.


~~~HERBERT HOOVER

On May 28, 1945, Hoover visited President Truman and suggested a way to end the Pacific war quickly: "I am convinced that if you, as President, will make a shortwave broadcast to the people of Japan - tell them they can have their Emperor if they surrender, that it will not mean unconditional surrender except for the militarists - you'll get a peace in Japan - you'll have both wars over."

Richard Norton Smith, An Uncommon Man: The Triumph of Herbert Hoover, pg. 347.

On August 8, 1945, after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, Hoover wrote to Army and Navy Journal publisher Colonel John Callan O'Laughlin, "The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul."

quoted from Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 635.

"...the Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945...up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; ...if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs."

- quoted by Barton Bernstein in Philip Nobile, ed., Judgment at the Smithsonian, pg. 142

Hoover biographer Richard Norton Smith has written: "Use of the bomb had besmirched America's reputation, he [Hoover] told friends. It ought to have been described in graphic terms before being flung out into the sky over Japan."

Richard Norton Smith, An Uncommon Man: The Triumph of Herbert Hoover, pg. 349-350.

In early May of 1946 Hoover met with General Douglas MacArthur. Hoover recorded in his diary, "I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria."

Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 350-351.


~~~GENERAL DOUGLAS MacARTHUR

MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur's reaction to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan: "...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."

William Manchester, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512.

Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, "MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed." He continues, "When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.

If you want to see the entire listing go to http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

[FBHthelizardmage]

Aside from that, they also had entirely different after effects.
One ended a war, one started a war.

No, the war had started far before that. It was just the first time most people noticed.

[The Dosadi Experiment]

I was disturbed to see on an Islamic forum that many Muslims were comparing the two events. What are your thoughts?

Disturbed why?

I would only be disturbed if they claimed that 9-11 ignited a war against them, and that the attacks aimed at them were on par with nagasaki and hiroshima.

if they're sticking to the they attacked civilians, and the victims of the A-bomb were civilians- reasoning, I find it not at all that disturbing, they only take on a different historical context.

[Devon C.]

I was disturbed to see on an Islamic forum that many Muslims were comparing the two events. What are your thoughts?
Question: What was so disturbing about it? Partially, the two events are similar. They both were involved with policy change, both were inflicted upon civillians.

[Valmore]

Here are a few other opinions on the subject of Hiroshima & Nagasaki

Doug Long dot com? Whatever. And anyway, opinions after the fact are irrelevant and hindsight is always 20-20. The simple question is - did it stop the war? Answer? Yes. Was it done by a declared enemy that was also a sovereign nation? Answer? Yes.

The bombings between those and 9/11 aren't similar in those respects.

[west3man]

I see similarities.

I'm interested in seeing who'll claim the two aren't similar since they're not identical.

[Night]

Sounds completely incorrect to me.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombings that came from an officially declared sovereign nation enemy that were meant to end a long, ongoing war.

9/11 were attacks from a non-sovereign nation meant to instigate fear.

How the hell are the two the same in any sort of scope?I.e. they're dissimilar because US populace didn't recognize a state of war or the ruling authority of the enemy. The biggest difference is that the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction didn’t exist during WWII. Japan had no counter-move to the attacks.

[JerrBear81]

There are similarities, but they're not totally similiar. The only real similiarity I can think of is what others have said:

Civilians bombed.
Specifically for policy changes.

I don't see why it's so hard to make those similiarities.

[Xombie]

Question: What was so disturbing about it? Partially, the two events are similar. They both were involved with policy change, both were inflicted upon civillians.

Well it wasn't so much the similarities it was the claim that they were identical and that it was kind of like "see America deserved 911"

[Valmore]

Well it wasn't so much the similarities it was the claim that they were identical and that it was kind of like "see America deserved 911"

Ah, okay. You kinda left that last part out about it being disturbing.

Japan didn't deserve Hiroshima and Nagasaki anymore than New York deserved 9/11.

[Devon C.]

Well it wasn't so much the similarities it was the claim that they were identical and that it was kind of like "see America deserved 911"
Ahh. I see. They were claiming that 9/11 was poetic justice.

[fly on the wall]

Of course an act of mass killing to a city is going to have similarities with other such act. No argument there. But I think the main difference in 9-11 and the atom bombings is that the Japanese knew the exact address and location and name of the perpetrators. They weren't left guessing as to who did this and where they might go to return the favor.

Terrorists tend to run and hide.

Just an observation, not a sermon.

[Adam Crocker]

Xombie;

Can you actually provide a link to these remarks or at least reproduce them here? I ask because I noticed you started a thread to debate a set of remarks that no one else has actually read.

[Jared_Humpherys]

Xombie;

Can you actually provide a link to these remarks or at least reproduce them here? I ask because I noticed you started a thread to debate a set of remarks that no one else has actually read.

Good point, Adam Flex. A link to the forums would be much appreciated, as I'd like to know exactly how the two were being compared.

[Xombie]

Good point, Adam Flex. A link to the forums would be much appreciated, as I'd like to know exactly how the two were being compared.

I would except this forum has been linked to this site in the past (I think during the third age.) Because someone else showed some thing someone else said which caused a massive influx of people and many bannings on that forum. I would rather that not happen again.

[Adam Crocker]

I would except this forum has been linked to this site in the past (I think during the third age.) Because someone else showed some thing someone else said which caused a massive influx of people and many bannings on that forum. I would rather that not happen again.

Well then why are you even bothering to bring it up as a discussion point if you are unwilling to even reproduce the remarks in question? It's hard to discuss a set of statements when we have no clue what we are actually discussing except vague second-hand accounts as opposed to the actual statements meant to be the subject of the topic.

[Xombie]

Well then why are you even bothering to bring it up as a discussion point if you are unwilling to even reproduce the remarks in question? It's hard to discuss a set of statements when we have no clue what we are actually discussing except vague second-hand accounts as opposed to the actual statements meant to be the subject of the topic.

I just wanted to know what people thought about such an allegation. I would have no intent on just making in up?

-Also to go back to the point, Hiroshima and Nagasaki both had some military value while 9/11 did not.

[Adam Crocker]

I just wanted to know what people thought about such an allegation. I would have no intent on just making in up?

It's not that I think you are making it up, just that it is damn near impossible to expect people to comment on a remark if they can't even read it. It wasn't until several posts in that we even knew how they were comparing 9/11 to the Atomic Bombings in Japan.