Tsunami "payback" for Pearl Harbour

[RelexCryo]

You might be a redneck if....

...you blame a society we are at peace with for something that happened 70 years ago-which the current leaders have no control over- and think that a natural disaster is "payback".

Even if this was the 1940's, this would still be idiotic. You can't blame the peasants who are enslaved by an evil emperor for what that emperor does.

I question the word "Peasant" (Used wrongly) and "Evil".

No Japanese soldier would consider himself a peasant, the soldier caste is well above the peasant caste. Nor would I consider the Emperor to be evil. If anything, he did not have that much control over his Army, the genrals were more powerful then he was.

The ruler of a country is not evil if he is militaristic. By your standards is Honest Abe evil? How about Wintson Churchill, George Bush, Woodrow Wilson, hell, any leader who leads a nation in a time of war?

Even though this is slightly off topic...

The use of the word peasant in this context is insulting, when one thinks peasant one thinks "Stupid farmhand", a peasant is only one step above a serf. Also, considering that Japan was industrailised, it is wildly innaccurate. Finally I would ask you why you are referring to the Emperor as someone who was "Evil", I would ask you to state exactly WHY he was evil.

The Emperor supported the act of invading other countries for purely selfish reasons and mass murdering innocent people. Japan murdered more than 30 million people- several times more than Nazi Germany.

Peasant does not imply a lack of intelligence or education- it is a term used regardless of education to refer to economic/political power. An example: Leonardo Da Vinci's mother was a peasant, and so originally was he. One of the smartest, most well educated men of all time was a peasant.

Abraham Lincoln actually fought a defensive war- in self defense- as the south attacked first. Same for Winston Churchill. There is a difference between self defense- or fighting to overthrow a regime that murders innocent people- and the act of invading other countries for selfish reasons and/or murdering innocent people.

The Japanese caste system dictates that the soldiers were not peasants and had more economic and political power then the farmers (Peasants), it is just a question of semantics, I guess. Unlike in other nations, the Soldier's were a cut above normal citizens.

And I would argue that whilst the Emperor was the spiritual head of the Japanese people, the army had more control then the emperor over what it was doing, hence the Manchurian crisis. The government (And the emperor) tried to stop the army, the army ignored them. I would not call the Emperor and evil man. A crass, powerless man, yes. But evil? No.

Men like Stalin and Hitler were evil, without a doubt. The Emperor? Not so much. Cultural considerations must be made.

Plus Winston Churchill allowed the murder of thousands of innocents during his "Defensive" war.

And as for Abe Lincoln, well, He was not fighting a defensive war, he was fighting a war to prevent the south from seperating. One could argue that fighting to preserve the Union was a selfish war, a war to assure the dominance of the north over the continent. If he was merely trying to defend the north there would still be the Confederate States of America as he would not have retaken the territory which had been lost.

Let it be noted that I am not trying to state that the Japanese were innocent of committing War Crimes, merely that the Emperor was not an evil man, merely a powerless man with a title, controlled by the army. Think the Queen of England (Although he had much more power then she does) she cannot be blamed for what Parliament does.

You keep saying that soldiers were not peasants. Neither the atomic bombs nor the earthquake hit many soldiers. They primarily hit civilains. We were discussing the morality of attacking those civilians/refusing to help those civilians, and I said that peasants cannot be blamed for the actions of an evil government that controls them. Saying that the soldiers are not peasants is an irrelevant statement, as we are discussing the suffering of civilians. If the atomic bombs were dropped on military bases, or the earthquake mostly hit the bases of the Japanese Defense Force, stating that soldiers are not peasants might actually be a relevant observation.

As to how much power the Emperor had to stop his army, that is debatable. As a figurehead, he still had the power to move people with his words. He could have spoken out against it.

The Confederacy attacked the Union first, and tried to sieze territory from the Union. Trying to state that this war was not defensive ignores that. It is true he (Abe Lincoln) wanted to preserve the power of the United States by keeping it United, and hence that was a consideration, but the Confederacy was also aggressively attacking the Union, and the Union's military response existed largely because of that fact. If the Confederacy had never attacked the Union, there is a very large chance the Union would never have done anything. After the Confederacy attacked them, they increased their military force and attacked in return. From their perspective, they could only prevent the Confederacy from attacking them in the future by removing the people who would attack them from power.

 

[Astoria]

People just keep on disappointing don't they.

 

[Vibhor]

-SNIP-

Why the hell should I be any of the following on that list when you were the one that failed to comprehend what I posted?

 

[Bernzz]

And with every bit of news, I lose a bit more of my faith in humanity to the uncaring void.

Pretty sure the nukes were the payback. More than payback. People are stupid dicks sometimes, and unfortunately that can't be changed.

I'm horrified by Japan's situation, and these comments annoy me to no end.

 

[ImprovizoR]

I think that everyone who forgot that Americans nuked Japan twice after bombing the shit out of them is a fuckin' idiot.

 

[Brutus03]

The people who say its payback....
They are are a bunch of ignorant people who don't understand history.
Its the worst kind of arrogance.

What happened was a natural event, it had no supernatural causes, nor was it related to karma or other such deity. History has proven, earthquakes, volcanoes and various natural disasters just happen. Be it related to a Asteroid wiping out the dinosaurs or a volcano wiping out an island civilization. It just happens.

 

[Kortney]

It's all irrelevant now.

It was all very rationale and respectful up until there. I was getting ready to reply and discuss it with you.

War crimes (on both sides) are irrelevant now? Disgusting.

Yes. War crimes committed over sixty years ago are completely irelevent to an Earthquake/Tsunami. I don't see how they aren't. People are suffering in an Earthquake and instead people are too busy talking about what their country did before most of them were even born.

Irrelevant.

"It's all irrelevant now" implies a period. If you meant 'war crimes committed seventy years ago have no bearing on a natural disaster now' it would have been better to say that.

To be honest I don't really care what you have implied from my words. You're the only one with a problem with it. I was just telling you civilians in Japan were a part of the war effort. Relax.

 

[DarthFennec]

What ... the fuck is this? Who is that moronic to say something like that?

Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure just about everyone responsible for Pearl Harbor are all dead by now. Even if they weren't, I don't think someone bombing one of our military ports deserves them having their entire country getting hit by a natural disaster, especially when we dropped two atomic bombs and million more regular bombs on them as payback already. What the fuck is wrong with people?

Frankly, when it comes down to it nobody deserves `payback' and nobody deserves to be devastated by an earthquake and a tsunami, no matter what they might have done to other people.

This makes me sad.

 

[llubtoille]

Sounds like trolls trolling trolls tbh.

Now if a group of Americans had invoked the earthquake unnaturally, then maybe;
but natural occurrences don't count as revenge.

Also getting revenge some 70 years after the event has occurred, by which time anyone who was there has one or two feet in the grave, is a little on the late side.
It would pretty much count as a fresh attack.

Anyway, the second A-bomb would likely count as 'the revenge'.

 

[Kortney]

So it would have been okay for the Japanese to drop nuclear bombs on New York? I mean, civilians there were part of the war effort.

Why on Earth you are defending the slaughter of innocent people is beyond me.

You've got to be kidding me. Can you do me a favour and read my post? Where am I defending the slaughter of innocent people? You said:

Killing people who had nothing at all to do with the war nor wanted any part of it. People like you and me. Dead.

I said:

First of all I do have to agree with you that Nagasaki and Hiroshima involved some awful acts of humanity that never should have happened.

However, the part of your post I quoted is incorrect. Every civilian in Japan did have an awful lot to do with the war. The Japanese government had pretty much the entire civilian sect working and providing directly to the war effort. Their civilian war involvement was actually far higher than the USA. So, as harsh as it may sound to say it, Japanese civilians did have something to do with the war.

By the way, can we all tone down the Anti-American attitudes here? Both sides did some pretty unspeakable things during World War 2. The Japanese war crimes were arguably the worst of the war. It's all irrelevant now.

Please. Go away.

 

[Kortney]

Please. Go away.

Exceedingly mature of you.

I'm sorry, but what is the matter with you?

What exactly have I said that has ruffled your feathers so much? First of all you were annoyed that I said that talk of war crimes is irrelevant. Then you realised you completely misinterpreted me, so you started accusing me of "defending" war crimes.

 

[Eisenfaust]

if anything i'd say it's more like the whales are gettin payback... which might be logistically possible, actually

 

[Kortney]

Please. Go away.

Exceedingly mature of you.

I'm sorry, but what is the matter with you?

What exactly have I said that has ruffled your feathers so much? First of all you were annoyed that I said that talk of war crimes is irrelevant. Then you realised you completely misinterpreted me, so you started accusing me of "defending" war crimes.

Oh my, aren't we condescending. Amusing.

Firstly, I didn't misinterpret you. You worded your post poorly. Huge difference. Secondly, you suggested the civilian involvement of having a job (forced upon some by a terrible government) that in some way aided their country's troops helped made their slaughter somewhat more acceptable.

You'd be a terrible barrister! Let's have a look:

Killing people who had nothing at all to do with the war nor wanted any part of it. People like you and me. Dead.

First of all I do have to agree with you that Nagasaki and Hiroshima involved some awful acts of humanity that never should have happened.

However, the part of your post I quoted is incorrect. Every civilian in Japan did have an awful lot to do with the war. The Japanese government had pretty much the entire civilian sect working and providing directly to the war effort. Their civilian war involvement was actually far higher than the USA. So, as harsh as it may sound to say it, Japanese civilians did have something to do with the war.

By the way, can we all tone down the Anti-American attitudes here? Both sides did some pretty unspeakable things during World War 2. The Japanese war crimes were arguably the worst of the war. It's all irrelevant now.

Once again, please highlight the words where I suggest their deaths are acceptable.

Your original claim: They had nothing to do with the war.

Reality: They did have lots to do with the war.

There is no reason for a morality argument here, despite your eagerness to be in one. You said something that was false. I agreed with everything else you said. Go pick a fight somewhere else, there is no grounds for one here.

And yes, before you ask, if Japan had nuked Detroit I would still correct you if you claimed that the civilians had nothing to do with the war. In World War 2, in a state of total war, civilians were a part of the war effort. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but it is a fact. I'm not defending the USA's decision to unleash that much power on civilians - in fact, I am entirely against it. You just said something that wasn't true. I really do wish I didn't bother replying.

I understand if you want to be engaged in an internet fight, but in the future, please try to pick your targets a little better.

 

[Gruevy]

Dude1: My Japanese girlfriend just broke up with me.
Dude2: Yeah well, there's plenty more in the sea.

If I get banned for this joke then so be it.

~~~~~lol~~~~~~


omf

 

[Kortney]

The civilians had a lot to do with the war did they?

Yes, actually. A lot. Especially in Japan towards the end of the war.

All those women and children who had a bomb dropped on their head were busily arming the troops, were they?

Indirectly, yes. Without civilians the army is powerless. The Japanese army were actually kept afloat solely on civilian resources towards the end of '45.

You can try to be condescending and act morally superior all you want. Facts are facts!

By the way, this isn't a generalisation. This happened to all civilians in all towns.