averageJOE
zombie
I thought they already made a slogan? It was something about making America great again.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Trump's divisive Comments
- Thread starter RamaRaksha
- Start date
Sleeppy
Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
Christ, Ghandi, King, etc.. All of them have done it. All of them had followers who did it. And of course, I'm evident as well. I was born and raised in the US; a country founded on colonialism, genocide, slavery, capitalism, and other forms of exploitation- and yet here I am, reborn and matured, a citizen of the "kingdom of God".
But, these men obviously were/are not sufficient for the entire population; they apparently weren't sufficient in your circumstance. They were not able to educate everyone. They fell short of this goal.
So I am aware that you, ISIS, and others require more. I will take time to locate and compile more evidence. The studies are out there. Give me time to collect and present them.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Not that they weren't sufficient, just that they have nothing at all to do with ISIS. The leaders of the group are sociopaths, imho. An incurable mental deficiency that cannot be changed with mere convincing. The part of the brain that gives normal people empathy did not develop in them.
If that genuinely isn't what he meant, at the very least I think you'd agree that he should've found another way to say it, because it's not just the 'Left' that's seen it that way.
Our disagreements in general and on this specifically aside, thank you, that actually means quite a bit to me. For what it's worth, I feel the same in regards to you. The only reason I'm going at this so passionately is because not only do I genuinely think you're too good to be going to bat for Trump, I know you are. He & his "movement" simply doesn't deserve someone as knowledgeable as you.
However comforting it might be for you to think or see all people like this as being sociopaths or psychopaths, this simply isn't the case. "Greater good", whatever that means to an individual, is an extremely powerful motivator. The motivation of psychopaths and sociopaths tends to be more basic, and frankly is rather short-term, as we get bored quickly.
outhouse
Atheistically
And I take that as a compliment, thank you.
I only think things should done before a large tragedy happens. Stopping islamic immigrants, or travel could possibly help. We don't need another 9/11 or Paris before we protect ourselves.
I'm not sure it is the best policy, or one that could even be implemented properly.
In context however, he is getting people to think about taking the next step, and before is better then to late.
This caliphate Is no joke, and they make the Taliban look like saints, and they are moving forward full steam ahead. I see people under estimate the danger and that is not a good thing.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
And, this doesn't apply to the higher-ups in ISIS. From what I have seen, they have no end-game.
Sleeppy
Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
Incurable? That remains to be tested.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Sociopathy is incurable. Whether or not that accurately describes the higher-ups in ISIS has yet to be tested though.
I think you'd have a hard time convincing me Nagasaki had a net negative impact on death and injury count...
Also, the barbarism of the enemy only makes us the 'comparatively' good guy. We lose sight of that at our own risk.
outhouse
Atheistically
Somewhat agree. When you dig into the politics, I know the president was going to teach them a lesson. He took it personal.
End result it saved lives, ours and theirs, at the cost of the two cities.
That nation, committed terrible terrible crimes against humanity. We did not.
I don't understand your point here.
I know they had not surrendered as of yet, and I know the second bombed quickened a decision.
I know both bombs were better to be dropped then carpet fire bombing the whole nation from head to toe, besides the US soldiers lives it saves.
Sleeppy
Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
Sociopathy is both preventable and curable. The focus and desire to do either of these needs to be there, however.
Well...honestly...all nations involved in war committed 'terrible crimes against humanity' and I can pull up examples of prisoner murders, etc. That's really my point. No hands are lily white, and seeing ourselves as the 'good guys' is risky. We're just people.
To be clear, I'm not a pacifist. The Japanese (in this example) needed to be stopped, and military force was, in my opinion, for the greater good. But I think when we literally buy into a black hat/white hat mythology, it can have unfortunate effects on our decision making, where we subvert our own checks and balances because we're still 'comparatively good'.
You can know they hadn't surrendered, but I find it difficult to believe you can 'know' the second bomb hastened a decision, even if that were my point. It's a matter of conjecture. Besides which, 'hastening the decision' is completely beside the point if we're discussing this from a moral point of view. What is pertinent is the number of lives expended versus those saved. Even if I'm willing to put a massive premium on US military lives over Japanese civilian ones, there is no reason to believe a small pause before the surrender would be 'expensive' in terms of US lives. I see zero reason to believe Nagasaki was needed to avoid Operation Downfall being required.
Some pertinent points, although we might need a new thread if you really want to investigate this;
1) Japanese civilians outside of Hiroshima were almost universally unaware of what had happened in any detail. Further, in terms of deaths and damage, the a-bomb was less destructive than a wholesale firebombing campaign anyway, and the long terms effects were completely misunderstood even by the US. (there were plans to a-bomb landing sites during Downfall, then land within 24 hours, before resistance could be re-established).
2) The Japanese government was not entirely sure what had happened, or the implications either.
3) The Japanese government was provided less than 3 days to assess the impact of the first ever atomic bombing, and determine that unconditional surrender was their only option. Was a week unreasonable? What would it have cost? The US KNEW that the Japanese were trying to negotiate a surrender, so much of the Operation Downfall rhetoric is overstated in any case. The Japanese were talking to the Soviets about acting as mediators.
4) General Groves indicated that it was Dec 1944 that he came to the opinion that 2 atomic bombs could end the war. Prior to this his opinion had been that more would be required. That is not indicative of an operational decision, but a planned campaign (albeit of limited scope). It is worth noting that General Thomas Handy who signed off use of the 2 bombs, and that Roosevelt then changed sign-off protocols so he needed to be actively involved. This was perhaps partially because some generals were advocating a third strike, against Tokyo.
5) Key cabinet meetings between the 8-10 August spent MORE time focused on the Soviet entry into the war, which seemed to preclude any hope of a negotiated settlement (see Poland 1939-40 for an example of what happens when uncomfortable allies fight over the scraps) than it did on the a-bombs. The Soviet entry into the war, in my opinion, was effectively the second atomic bomb from a military standpoint.
6) The US indicated it would halt bombing on the 10th to await a response from Japan. This was, pragmatically, a sensible choice. They didn't HAVE a third bomb ready to go. Why could this action have not been taken after the first bomb?
7) US documents clearly indicate that the ability of the US to demonstrably produce more than one bomb was important for post-war discussions with the Soviets. There is a clear political rationale behind the second bomb, but it doesn't only include Japan.
8) Finally, as everyone knows, the second bomb was meant for Kokura. Nagasaki was originally fourth on a list of three potential targets, but got added when Kyoto was withdrawn for religious and cultural reasons, although it made more sense as a military target. What is perhaps less known is that the B-29 heading to Kokura couldn't bring the bomb back once it was launched. There were 2 choices. Drop it on Nagasaki, or drop it into the ocean.
There are credible historians who think the same way you do, so I'm not trying to represent my opinion as 'fact'. But there is enough there, in my opinion, to cast a lot of doubt over Nagasaki even if you are a person who accepts the necessity of Hiroshima. It's an example of what I'd see as black hat/white hat thinking. Just my opinion.
outhouse
Atheistically
outhouse
Atheistically
Agreed. As I stated he was going to make them pay, on a personal level. He was bitter over these people and planned on setting an example.
outhouse
Atheistically
I went through these before in a thread I think we were both part of, and we agreed on much. [if it was you 2-3 year ago]
Both sides make good points. And it all depends on how you look at it.
In the end personal opinions with no real winners here. My opinion is based on not feeling sorry for people who committed such war crimes.
Were taking about people that killed 10.2M people brutally.
I did not chose to debate this. A supporter of Caliphates threw the rhetoric at me, so he was thrown quick personal opinions in a general sense.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
You are incorrect sir. Take a look at the article liked below.
https://psychopathyawareness.wordpr...hy-is-incurable-nothing-can-fix-a-psychopath/
How are you going to identify these fanatics? Do you think they would show up wearing a sign that says
"I am a fanatic"? A terrorist could very easily look just like you. How do you propose to stop that? Do we ban all people from entering or exiting this country? Do we place a person on every square inch of the two borders to this country, because I can tell you, the one I live by is pretty damned big.
Yet again, how do we do that Outhouse? How do we know for a fact who is a fanatic and who is not? Do you not see the slippery slope this could become? People lie. They could enter saying I am a Christian and perhaps be light skinned, etc. Do we stop all peoples from every known country with a Muslim group within its borders? Do we stop those who are our allies?
No deaths are acceptable Outhouse but how do you propose this 'something should be done'? What does that look like and how do we enforce it? As I said, banning Muslims from entering is a blanket statement that can be overcome so easily as to render that notion just plain useless. What other means do you suggest here?