[Remember]: how the Spanish infedels treated Muslims

[Deesse23]

What about burning Dresden to crisp in WW2 ? 

Dresden was sending Hitler a signal his aggression would have consequences 

Sorry, but thats complete nonsense. Dresden was bombed in February 45. By that time the war was already over 4 years old and most german citiy centers were already in ruins.

There are conflicting ideas why Dresden was bombed.

#1 Help the red armys advancDresden could support the nearby eastern front with supplies
#2 Dresden was a traffic hub
#3 Terror

Imo the most plausible one is however different: We know that by Febraury 45 Bomber Command and 8th USAAF were running out of targets. Every major german city was already in ruins and cities with as few as 50.000 people were put under carpet bombing indiscriminantly. A valid (and simple) explanation is that the allies bombed Dresden because they could, and that it was in accordance with the common goal of #3.....and not much else was left to bomb.

That Atlass mentions Dresden instead of Hamburg however speaks again of his ignorance of history again. "Operation Gomorrha" was far more devastating and cost much more lives than Dresden 2 years later. (About 50% more according to recent studies!).

[The Grand Nudger]

So as Japan, punishing all the inhabitants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki for the sins of the imperial army must be thought of considering your argument. 

The inhabitants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were in the imperial army.  Ultimately, that's one of the weaknesses of the sort of full militarization that they (by necessity) were engaged in.  

In any case, I'd suggest that the use of atomic weapons was decided more by practical and political metrics than any moral consideration of punishment and sin.  If we want to address that dimension, and say that the use of the weapons was, in a moral sense, wrong - and I can see why we'd be interested in doing so - then it would behoove us to premise the statement on more accurate grounds.

[Deesse23]

So as Japan, punishing all the inhabitants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki for the sins of the imperial army must be thought of considering your argument. 

The inhabitants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were in the imperial army.  Ultimately, that's one of the weaknesses of the sort of full militarization that they (by necessity) were engaged in.  

In any case, I'd suggest that the use of atomic weapons was decided more by practical and political metrics than any moral consideration of punishment and sin.  If we want to address that dimension, and say that the use of the weapons was, in a moral sense, wrong - and I can see why we'd be interested in doing so - then it would behoove us to premise the statement on more accurate grounds.

The issue within this thread is not how one finally judges Hiroshima. Its yet another complicated issue, and one may come to this or that conclusion after evaluating evey angle of attack.
No, its Atlass black/white good/bad view of the world and people and his pathological need to paint himself and everyone religiously associated with him as whie and everybody else as black.

[Silver]

Grey only matters in relation to the matter between one’s ears.

[WinterHold]

So as Japan, punishing all the inhabitants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki for the sins of the imperial army must be thought of considering your argument. 

The inhabitants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were in the imperial army.  Ultimately, that's one of the weaknesses of the sort of full militarization that they (by necessity) were engaged in.  

In any case, I'd suggest that the use of atomic weapons was decided more by practical and political metrics than any moral consideration of punishment and sin.  If we want to address that dimension, and say that the use of the weapons was, in a moral sense, wrong - and I can see why we'd be interested in doing so - then it would behoove us to premise the statement on more accurate grounds.

You have no shame, right? you terrorist piece of shit.
Thanks for exposing your imperial double standards, terrorist monster.

[Sal]

The inhabitants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were in the imperial army.  Ultimately, that's one of the weaknesses of the sort of full militarization that they (by necessity) were engaged in.  

In any case, I'd suggest that the use of atomic weapons was decided more by practical and political metrics than any moral consideration of punishment and sin.  If we want to address that dimension, and say that the use of the weapons was, in a moral sense, wrong - and I can see why we'd be interested in doing so - then it would behoove us to premise the statement on more accurate grounds.

You have no shame, right? you terrorist piece of shit.
Thanks for exposing your imperial double standards, terrorist monster.

What the fuck are you even talking about? If I point out the Middle Ages of Arabic slave trade right up until the 20th century, does that mean that I condone slavery?

[The Grand Nudger]

You have no shame, right? you terrorist piece of shit.
Thanks for exposing your imperial double standards, terrorist monster.

It's not as if I conscripted them.  I'm simply reminding you of a fact that you have been made previously aware of.  A fact that would be relevant to any credibility your assessment of the matter might hope to achieve.

You could use this more accurate view to further stress your own point about the shittiness of the 20th century that's relevant to the middle east today. It would suck to have some imperial army conscript you, validating your home as a target through official decentralization, and then have a bomb dropped on your head for the trouble. How many of our drones are engaged in similar work today, racking up collateral?

There are other similarities. Weapons testing, check. Intense political pressure to use force, check. Dueling cultures of xenophobic jingoism, check. This is pointless reduction, but at least it sticks closer to some fact of the matter. The decisions made by despots in the islamic world are at odds with american interests in a moment that culture is powerfully aligned against them, along with the backdrop of a sneak attack™. If we were exactly the same country as we were then (and the world was likewise similar), I'd have expected us to turn the ummah into glass. It's not an enviable position to be stuck in, at least not as the common muslim on a middle eastern street.

Interestingly enough, american culture responded alot like you post, when we lost our shit out of fear in the cold war. So you've got that to look forward to, in future. As far as shame and terrorism, meh, wrong person to troll on that count.

[WinterHold]

You have no shame, right? you terrorist piece of shit.
Thanks for exposing your imperial double standards, terrorist monster.

What the fuck are you even talking about? If I point out the Middle Ages of Arabic slave trade right up until the 20th century, does that mean that I condone slavery?

Rejected as a Tu quoque argument. White-washing this hideous terrorist act by referring to another matter is a mere dust blowing in the eyes.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

What the fuck are you even talking about? If I point out the Middle Ages of Arabic slave trade right up until the 20th century, does that mean that I condone slavery?

Rejected as a Tu quoque argument. White-washing this hideous terrorist act by referring to another matter is a mere dust blowing in the eyes.

And yet you routinely seek to justify the horrors committed by Muslims by pointing to the horrors committed by non-Muslims.

This makes you a steaming great hypocrite.

Boru

[WinterHold]

Rejected as a Tu quoque argument. White-washing this hideous terrorist act by referring to another matter is a mere dust blowing in the eyes.

And yet you routinely seek to justify the horrors committed by Muslims by pointing to the horrors committed by non-Muslims.

This makes you a steaming great hypocrite.

Boru

No; I referred to the horrors caused by many Muslims across history; but also referred to the terrible amounts of horrors practiced by non-Muslims like Vlad The Impaler.