Extraordinary admission to interrogators by London bomb suspect

So Muslims are incapable of expressing anger without violence..

Let me give you a hypothetical. Lets say the US government adopted a PRC like policy of one family one child and that any family caught having more than one child would be subject to mandated abortion. Now would you be mad about that? Do you think that there would be more Eric Rudolfs and that support for them would be higher?

I know you're an abortion opponent but certainly you must recognize that the abortion situation isn't as extreme or emotionally trying as what is going on in Iraq but imagine if it was.

All I'm saying that while there is widespread support and anger over Iraq even among Muslim leaders that still doesn't mean that they can express that without violence anymore that after Waco and Ruby Ridge there was wide spread anger among conservative whites including political leaders yet there wasn't a rash of Tim McVeigh's.

 

Again, do we have right wing leaders etc, that sympathise with those who are killing civilians by the thousands in Iraq, or the thousands of civilians killed in past wars? Is indifference to civilian casualties by our own leaders and society any better? I'm starting to think that this disinterest will be the cause of many regrettable unforeseen consequences.

 

you gotta be kidding me...and who exactly are you talking about...you are seriously misinformed.

 

I believe this article may change your view:

Hiroshima After Sixty Years: The Debate Continues
by Gar Alperovitz

This weekend marks the 60th anniversary of the August 6, 1945 bombing of Hiroshima. One might think that by now historians would agree on all the fundamental issues. The reality, however, is just the opposite: All the major issues involved in the decision are still very much a matter of dispute among experts. An obvious question is why this should be so after so many years.

Did the atomic bomb, in fact, cause Japan to surrender? Most Americans think the answer is self-evident. However, many historical studies–including new publications by two highly regarded scholars--challenge the conventional understanding. In a recently released Harvard University Press volume drawing upon the latest Japanese sources, for instance, Professor Tsuyohsi Hasegawa concludes that the traditional “myth cannot be supported by historical facts.” By far the most important factor forcing the decision, his research indicates, was the Soviet declaration of war against Japan on August 8, 1945, just after the Hiroshima bombing.

Similarly, Professor Herbert Bix–whose biography of Hirohito won the 2000 Pulitzer Prize for general nonfiction–also writes in a recent article that “the Soviet factor carried greater weight in the eyes of the emperor and most military leaders.”

Many Japanese historians have long judged the Soviet declaration of war to have been the straw that broke the camels back–mainly because the Japanese military feared the Red Army more than the loss of another city by aerial bombardment. (They had already shown themselves willing to sacrifice many, many cities to conventional bombing!)

An intimately related question is whether the bomb was in any event still necessary to force a surrender before an invasion. Again, most Americans believe the answer obvious–as, of course, do many historians. However, a very substantial number also disagree with this view. One of the most respected, Stanford University Professor Barton Bernstein, judges that all things considered it seems “quite probable–indeed, far more likely than not–that Japan would have surrendered before November” (when the first landing in Japan was scheduled.)

Many years ago Harvard historian Ernest R. May also concluded that the surrender decision probably resulted from the Russian attack, and that “it could not in any event been long in coming.” In his new book Hasegawa goes further: “[T]here were alternatives to the use of the bomb, alternatives that the Truman Administration for reasons of its own declined to pursue.”

(On the other hand, one recent writer, Richard Frank, argues Japan was still so militarily powerful the U.S. would ultimately have decided not to invade. He justifies the bombing not only of Hiroshima but of Nagasaki as well. Japanese historian Sadao Asada believes that “there was a possibility Japan would not have surrendered by November” on the basis of the Russian attack alone.)

What did the U.S. military think? Here there is also dispute. We actually know very little about the views of the military at the time. However, after the war many–indeed, most–of the top World War II Generals and Admirals involved criticized the decision. One of the most famous was General Eisenhower, who repeatedly stated that he urged the bomb not be used: “t wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.” The well-known “hawk,” General Curtis LeMay, publically declared that the war would have been over in two weeks, and that the atomic bomb had nothing to do with bringing about surrender. President Truman’s friend and Chief of Staff, five star Admiral William D. Leahy was deeply angered: 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. . . n being the first to use it, we . . . adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages.”

Some historians believe such statements may have been made partly to justify postwar funding requests by the various military services. Several years after the war General George C. Marshall did state publicly that he believed the bombings were necessary. On the other hand, long before the atomic bomb was used Leahy’s diary shows he judged the war could be ended. And Marshall is on record months before Hiroshima as suggesting that “these weapons might first be used against straight military objectives such as a large naval installation and then if no complete result was derived from the effect of that... we ought to designate a number of large manufacturing areas from which the people would be warned to leave--telling the Japanese that we intend to destroy such centers....”

Why was the bomb used? The conventional view, of course, is that it was to save as many lives as possible. But if this is so, several historians now ask, why did President Truman and his chief adviser Secretary of State James Byrnes make it harder for Japan to surrender? Specifically, why did they remove assurances for the Japanese emperor from the July 1945 Potsdam Proclamation warning Japan to surrender? The assurances were strongly recommended by U.S. and British military leaders, and removing them, they knew, would make it all but impossible for Japan to end the war.

A traditional theory has been that the President feared political criticism if he provided assurances to the emperor. But, other historians note, leading Republicans were for–not against–clarifying the terms to achieve a surrender, and were calling for this publicly. Moreover, American leaders always knew the emperor would be needed to order a surrender–and, of course, in the end they did agree to an understanding which allowed such assurances: Japan still has an emperor.

Hasegawa believes the assurances were taken out of the Potsdam Proclamation precisely because American leaders wanted to have the warning rejected so as to justify the bombing–and, further, that they saw the bomb as a way to end the war before Russia could join the fighting. There is other evidence suggesting that policy makers, especially Secretary of State Byrnes, wanted to use the bomb to “make the Russians more manageable in Europe”--as he told one scientist.

(Full disclosure: My own view–as one of the historians involved in the debate--is that the bombings were unnecessary and that American policy makers were advised at the time that a combination of assurances for the emperor plus the forthcoming Russian declaration of war would likely bring about surrender in the three months available before the invasion could begin. I also believe the evidence is strong, but not conclusive, that American leaders saw the bomb above all as a way to impress the Russians and also as a way to end the war before the Red Army got very far into Manchuria.)

Why are historians still struggling over these issues? One reason is that few nations find it easy to come to terms with questionable actions in their past. Nor is this a simple left-right debate. In recent years liberals have been critical of the decision. At the time The Nation magazine defended the bombing while many conservative publications criticized it–including Human Events, and later, the National Review. “The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul," former President Herbert Hoover wrote to a friend.

One of the most important reasons the issues don’t seem to get resolved has to do with the historical record. The fact is most discussions concerning the decision to use the atomic bomb were simply not recorded. Not only were such matters handled in an extremely secretive manner, they were largely handled outside the normal chain of command. There is also evidence of the manipulation of some documents and of missing documents in certain cases–and in some instances, evidence that documents were destroyed.

Perhaps one day we will know more and the long debate over Hiroshima will come to an end. We are unlikely, I think, to discover new official sources. However, a new generation of scholars may well be able to ferret out diaries, letters, or additional personal papers in the attics or basements of descendants of some of the men involved. An even more interesting possibility is that the President’s daughter Margaret will one day donate additional papers to the Truman Library. (In her own writing Margaret reports details which seem clearly to be based on documentary sources. However, she has so far refused to respond to inquiries from historians asking for access to these.) A third possibility is that if, as some believe, the Soviets bugged the Truman villa near Potsdam, Germany (or the villas of other American or British officials who were there for the July 1945 meetings just before the bombings), there may be tapes or transcriptions of some key conversations in NKVD or other files in the Russian archives.

Gar Alperovitz, Lionel R. Bauman Professor of Political Economy at the University of Maryland is the author of Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam and of The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0803-26.htm

 

please point to me where i said that. if you got that from what i wrote, then i apologize, because that's not at ALL what i meant.

my response was merely to those who say over and over again that what we're seeing is akin to white "Christians" who are bombing abortion clinics. but the HUGE HUGE GIGANTIC ENORMOUS difference here is scope. scope in the frequency of these events...scope in the impact of these events...scope in the power possessed by those who do coordinate and carry out these attacks. HUGE DIFFERENCE. not even close.

Christianity at one time needed a reformation. The church...the one and only church..became a slave master. It was a political force. And it used the illiteracy of its followers as a weapon by telling them that the Bible called on them to spill blood in the name of Jesus. Most believers had no clue that their Lord and Savior told them to turn the other cheek when they were struck. Instead, they were told that Jews and Muslims were enemies to be destroyed...because that was expedient for the "church" leaders. Perhaps that's where Islam is.

 

wait a second...we don't have state-sponsored terrorism coming out of the Middle East???

 

i agree with you. to the extent there is indifference for human life, that sucks.

but i'm drawing at least a mild distinction between a group that spends billions upon billions of dollars to sharpen technology so as to make more accurate weapons to avoid civilian casualties....and groups that blow up office buildings and commuter trains. there is a difference there.

 

Does that include cluster bombs, depleted uranium munitions, and bunker-busting nuclear weapons?

 

probably not.

 

But at the same time there is a vast difference in the scope of people from the respective religions calling out against the different attacks as well.

Muslim clergy all over have been issuing fatwahs against terrorism, Muslims have written books disclaiming terrorism as acts in line with the teachings of Islam. Muslims have formed organizations, signed petitions, held marches, time and time again against terrorism from radical Islamic terrorists.

The Christian outrage over Eric Rudolph has been there, but not in the same scope. Nor should it have been. I agree with you that the two incidents happened with a difference in frequency.

But just to be fair so has the condemnation of those activities by the various groups. If the problem comes from within, then we have to look at how each group is dealing with the problem. There seems to be protest from both groups. Large amounts from muslims, and smaller amounts from Christians that is probably due to the correlation of the frequency of terrorism carried out by each group.

 

but here's the thing FB...guys like McVeigh and Rudolph weren't religious terrorists. they didn't do their acts in the name of God. both didn't claim to be Christians.

here's a letter from Rudolph to his mom:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/07/05/rudolph.letters.ap/

"Most of them have, of course, an agenda; mostly born-again Christians looking to save my soul. I suppose the assumption is made that because I'm in here I must be a 'sinner' in need of salvation, and they would be glad to sell me a ticket to heaven, hawking this salvation like peanuts at a ballgame," he wrote.

"I do appreciate their charity, but I could really do without the condescension. They have been so nice I would hate to break it to them that I really prefer Nietzsche to the Bible."


Upon McVeigh's death, his final statement was a poem called Invictus. It talks about being the captain of his own fate and soul...says he remains unbowed, though his head is bloody. Hardly the stuff of Christianity. And I recall an interview where McVeigh said he never attended church.

Again..we're talking scope. And we're talking context. These men didn't issue a Christian jihad...McVeigh was concerned with the federal government becoming too powerful. Rudolph acknowledges preferring Nietzsche to the Bible. So we're left with guys who typically get painted as Christian terrorists...but there's just not evidence to support that what they did was in the name of the Christian faith. They weren't supported by churches or theocracies. We don't see unified world-wide networks of Christian terrorists. We just don't. And the comparisons aren't even comparisons...because these guys don't exist as religious terrorists...they don't crash planes into buildings saying, "To Jesus be the praise!"

 

I didn't know that about Rudolph. I guess I was wrong to make assumptions about him.

The point is though that while these men haven't done it in the name of Christianity, others have. There were other bombings besides Rudolphs, and snipers as well that have claimed to be doing God's work.

 

and, again..it's about scope.

 

Congratulations, tigermission1, on thread # 100000!!!!

 

I don't know what is in your head but that certainly seemed to be the intent of your statement in the context of this discussion.

You were responding to my posts where I stated that while Muslims are genuinely angry about seeing fellow Muslims and killed that didn't mean that as a whole they would become violent terrorists.

You're response:

To me that seems to imply that you believe that the scope of terrorists attacks, the polling on sympathy for the London bombers and political leaders supporting "B.S." (which I'm not sure if you mean terrorism or anger over Iraq because I'm not aware of any Muslim political leaders publicly supporting terrorism) means that you believe that Muslisms (or most Muslims) can't express anger without violence.

Which is why I gave you the hypothetical. I understand that Abortion is a very sensitive issue to Christians and White American Conservatives but I don't believe the situation has reached it emotional level for Muslims seeing fellow Muslims killed, abused and humiliated by the World's most powerful country every day. My hypothetical was meant to show that if it got to the point where the US Gov. was forcing people to have abortions that you might see a lot more anger among White American Conservatives and probably a lot more Eric Rudolphs.

We don't need a hypothetical to draw a comparison between Muslims and White American Conservatives. As I noted McViegh's anger at the Fed was widely held by even politicians and while OK city was the most horrific terrorist act committed by those who shared his views throughout the 90's and 80's there were a string of other terrorists acts and the foundational document of that movement The Turner Diaries praises suicide attacks. That movement wasn't as successful as Al Qaeda (of course there are far less White Americans than Muslims) but I bet that in 1994 among White American Conservatives you would find widespread anger with the Fed. and sympathy for people at Ruby Ridge and Waco but a very small % supporting terrorism. The same as polling among Muslims shows widespread anger over Iraq but a very small % supporting terrorism.

There may be something to that but that is totally ignoring that there is a political context to this and its not happening it a vacuum. That is like saying that Waco had nothing to do with OK City when it clearly did. This isn't to excuse McVeigh or to justify it but obviously OK City didn't happen in a vacuum. The problem with saying that Islam is just backwards and that Muslim anger and sympathy for the causes of the terrorists is that it underestimates the enemy and goes against human nature. Further it blinds our own efforts to successfully fight terrorism by undercutting the support for terrorists.

 

sishir --

my post wasn't in response to the part of the post you highlighted...my response was in the comparisons of Islamic terrorism to guys like Eric Rudolph. there is no comparison there.

 

people tend to put all the situations together…

.the Palestine-Israel circumstances is different from the Iraq war...which is different from the 9/11 attacks...these are all results of different situations...

Only Palestine receives funds from states…and that is not directly for terrorism…a lot just ends up in the wrong hands…most of the states are under control of the U.S…and that’s another story.

 

so iran hasn't sponsored terrorism? libya?? syria??

 

I agree, but again it is also about the scope of the condemnation from the various groups as well.