i agree with pretty much everything victor said
and let me comment on
2 3 things you said(lionet).
Originally Posted by
Lionet
Supposedly, US threw those bombs to "avoid a greater disaster", since the war had already ended, the losing countries and nations had already signed peace treaties and such but Japan, that was affiliated to the losing alliances of the war, didn't stop invading and advancing against other countries, even though they were losing and dying too. What I often saw people say is that they were so "determined" to go til the end that even while disarmed they would fight against an army, resulting in a big deal of deaths.
Facing this situation US was "forced" to throw an atomic bomb there to soften the disaster by disabling them and overthrowing their morale. The second bomb was a "warranty" and obviously a show off.
sorry for the off topic or sort of, but I'll compensate it giving my opinion about the matter.
ok,no the us really didn't have to throw that atomic bomb, they could have searched for the place where the japanese leaders are hiding and just throw much smaller bombs that will cause only few hunderds of deaths.
even if they continued the war agains't them there is no way that the number of deaths is going to reach 200k specially considering japan's position at the moment. they would run of resources very fast and just give up after realising that they lost the war long time ago. at worst case the number of deaths wont even reach 200k from both sides combined.
Originally Posted by
Lionet
Now coming to the actual topic (sorry), I think the same way about terrorism nowadays. It has a solid and "fair" reason sometimes and US put them as enemies and everyone else just believes and repeat their words, then I just don't believe it. I'm not being ignorant and closing my eyes to the catastrophes I do know terrorism causes, but I'm also aware of US impact in countries like these where most of terrorist factions are based.
the problem is that the US caused this terrorism for themselfs but they are still precieved as the good guys when in reality there are no good guys here. and keep isis out of the equation because everyone know how fucked up they are(and most of their attacks are in muslim countries so...eh just saying).
Originally Posted by
Lionet
If I'm not mistaken there is a religion that believes in "dying for a greater cause" guarantees your place in "heaven" and they have US as personification of evil so, it's a fair deal to them.
well, yes and no.
i know you are talking about islam and i am a muslim myself(not really sure acually), anyway i know quite alot about this religion and yes as dying for a greater reason can get you a good place in heaven according to it tho there is 1 problem which is that in islamic war rules killing civilians(or anything that isn't trying to kill you acually) is completely prohibited. if i could find one certain reason why these people do such things is shia. why you may ask? simple because these guys use quoranic verses out of context to manipulate people (like the US use the media but a hundred times worse).
anyway the point of me making this is not to defend terrorists, its just to say why one side is called terrorist and the other not when they are both killing people instead of getting to an agreement.