Turkey |
|
|
|
|
|
Armenians-Turks
|
| 70. |
15 Oct 2007 Mon 11:53 pm |
|
This case such as the issue whichever is first chicken or egg  I say this because I searched much of the truth in history books , not prevail so far
but one day will come and the truth appears,like the day which Japan apologized to the people whom suffered persecution of the Japanese during the Second World War as well as the Germans from the tragedies caused by the Nazis This shows clearly there is some countries or peoples, which had turned the conditions in periods of its history to barbarism and bullying and then attempt to cancel the other soon to revert to the proper conduct of history,
|
|
| 71. |
16 Oct 2007 Tue 12:04 am |
|
Quoting vineyards: Has the US government officially apoligized to Japan for killing more than two hundred thousand people in Hiroshima and Nagazaki?
Have they apoligized to the residents of The Bikini Islands for testing an H-bomb on their island?
|
Lets not forget that the japanese brought that on themselves. When they bombed pearl harbour.
The attack on Pearl Harbor was a pre-emptive military strike on the United States Pacific Fleet base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii by the Empire of Japan's Imperial Japanese Navy, on the morning of Sunday, 7 December 1941. Two attack waves, totalling 350 aircraft were launched from six IJN aircraft carriers which destroyed two U.S. Navy battleships, one minelayer, two destroyers and 188 aircraft. Personnel losses were 2,333 killed and 1,139 wounded. Damaged warships included three cruisers, a destroyer, and six battleships. Of those six, one was deliberately grounded and was later refloated and repaired. Two sank at their berths but were later repaired and both rejoined the fleet late in the war. Vital fuel storage, shipyards, and submarine facilities were not hit. Japanese losses were minimal at 29 aircraft and five midget submarines, with 65 Japanese servicemen killed or wounded.
The pre-emptive strike's intent was to protect Imperial Japan's advance into Malaya and the Dutch East Indies – for their natural resources such as oil and rubber – by neutralizing the U.S. Pacific Fleet. Both the US and Japan had long-standing contingency plans for war in the Pacific focusing on the other's surface fleet, developed during the 1930s as tension between the two countries steadily increased. Japan's expansion into Manchuria and later French Indochina were greeted with increasing levels of embargoes and sanctions from the United States. In 1940, the US halted further shipments of airplanes, parts, machine tools and aviation gas to Japan, which they interpreted as an unfriendly act.[5] America continued to export oil to Japan, as it was understood in Washington that cutting off exports could mean Japanese retaliation.[6] In the summer of 1941, the US ceased the export of oil to Japan due to Japan's continued aggressive expansionist policy and because an anticipated eventual American entrance to the war in Europe prompted increased stockpiling and less commercial use of gasoline.[7] President Franklin D. Roosevelt had moved the fleet to Hawaii, and ordered a buildup in the Philippines, to reduce Japanese aggression in China and deter operations against others, including European colonies in Asia. The Japanese high command was certain any attack on the United Kingdom's colonies would inevitably bring the U.S. into the war.[8] A pre-emptive strike appeared the only way Japan could avoid U.S. interference in the Pacific.
The attack was one of the most important engagements of World War II. Occurring before a formal declaration of war, it shocked the American public out of isolationism. Roosevelt called December 7, 1941 "… a date which will live in infamy"
|
|
| 72. |
16 Oct 2007 Tue 12:15 am |
|
As you elaborately stated yourself the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour was conducted by the Japanese air force against a US military base. The bombings of Nagazaki and Hiroshima on the other hand were targeting hundreds of thousands of CIVILIANS who lived in those two cities and who struggled for the rest of their lives to survive the terrible consequences of the bombings. When you take into account those who died of cancer and other diseases caused by the bombings you will realize these two incidents actually claimed the lives of millions of CIVILIANS.
If you ask me those two incidents were the most terrible war crimes ever. First because they were committed by what was supposed to be a very civilized country supposedly fighting against the evil forces of the time. Secondly, although every detail of the bombing action is known, the US government have never apoligized to anyone.
|
|
| 73. |
16 Oct 2007 Tue 12:21 am |
|
Also interestingrnough, this position would actually implicate the armenians. By your explanation, "they brought this on themselves" by allying with Russia and attacking the Ottomans...
|
|
| 74. |
16 Oct 2007 Tue 12:23 am |
|
Quoting vineyards: As you elaborately stated yourself the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour was conducted by the Japanese air force against a US military base. The bombings of Nagazaki and Hiroshima on the other hand was targeting hundreds of thousands of CIVILIANS who lived in those two cities and who struggled for the rest of their lives to survive the terrible consequences of the bombings. When you take into account those who died of cancer and other diseases caused by the bombings you will realize these two incidents actually claimed the lives of millions of CIVILIANS.
|
both were carried out during WWII .. the usa would never have entered WWII if the japanese hadn't pulled them into it ..
The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuclear attacks during World War II against the Empire of Japan by the United States of America under US President Harry S. Truman. After six months of intense firebombing of 67 other Japanese cities, on August 6, 1945, the nuclear weapon "Little Boy" was dropped on the city of Hiroshima, followed on August 9, 1945 by the detonation of the "Fat Man" nuclear bomb over Nagasaki. These are the only uses of nuclear weapons in warfare.
As many as 140,000 people in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki may have died from the bombings by the end of 1945[1], roughly half on the days of the bombings. Since then, thousands more have died from injuries or illness due to radiation.[2] In both cities, the overwhelming majority of the dead were civilians.[3][4]
On August 15, 1945 Japan announced its surrender to the Allied Powers, signing the Instrument of Surrender on September 2 which officially ended World War II. Furthermore, the experience of bombing led post-war Japan to adopt Three Non-Nuclear Principles, which forbid Japan from nuclear armament.
if the usa hadn't done what they did .. then I'm sure we wouldn't be worried about speaking english, or translating turkish txt msgs .. we would all be speaking german or japanese .. but then maybe you think that is a better solution than what we have today ..
|
|
| 75. |
16 Oct 2007 Tue 12:23 am |
|
Quoting KeithL: Also interestingrnough, this position would actually implicate the armenians. By your explanation, "they brought this on themselves" by allying with Russia and attacking the Ottomans... |
oh, finally back to the thread!
armenians-turks!
|
|
| 76. |
16 Oct 2007 Tue 12:28 am |
|
Quoting femme_fatal: Quoting KeithL: Also interestingrnough, this position would actually implicate the armenians. By your explanation, "they brought this on themselves" by allying with Russia and attacking the Ottomans... |
oh, finally back to the thread!
armenians-turks! |
See FF? You question my madness, but my replies always have a reason and do come back around to making the point relevant to the thread. Sometimes more quickly than other times...
|
|
| 77. |
16 Oct 2007 Tue 12:30 am |
|
Quoting KeithL: Quoting femme_fatal: Quoting KeithL: Also interestingrnough, this position would actually implicate the armenians. By your explanation, "they brought this on themselves" by allying with Russia and attacking the Ottomans... |
oh, finally back to the thread!
armenians-turks! |
See FF? You question my madness, but my replies always have a reason and do come back around to making the point relevant to the thread. Sometimes more quickly than other times... |
altho you started the thread off with american natives 
|
|
| 78. |
16 Oct 2007 Tue 12:31 am |
|
Quoting femme_fatal: Quoting KeithL: Also interestingrnough, this position would actually implicate the armenians. By your explanation, "they brought this on themselves" by allying with Russia and attacking the Ottomans... |
oh, finally back to the thread!
armenians-turks! |
It is always hard to know completely what happened. The archives holding all this data needs to be analysed by people that can have an objective view and without prejudice to either side. I have heard the Croatian wars of the 1990's described as "Ethnic Cleansing" that is flat out blatant genocide in my opinion ..
The Croatian War of Independence was a war in Croatia from 1991 to 1995. Initially, the war was between Croatia and the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA). Later, the conflict turned into fighting between the armed forces of the newly-independent Croatia and the rebelling Serb minority, who proclaimed an autonomous Republic of Serb Krajina. The Serbs were supported by the Yugoslavian National Army and Belgrade. The Croatian side aimed to establish sovereignty for the Republic of Croatia, previously a federal unit in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Croatia's rebelling Serbs had wanted to remain a part of Yugoslavia, effectively seeking new boundaries in those parts of Croatia with a Serb majority or significant minority. The war was striking for its brutality and intensity.
In Croatia the war is referred to as Domovinski rat (Homeland War), and due to its recent history, it is often contracted to just rat (war). In Serbia, the phrase Rat u Hrvatskoj (War in Croatia) is the most common name. (See Nomenclatorial note below.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatian_War_of_Independence
|
|
| 79. |
16 Oct 2007 Tue 12:37 am |
|
Quote:
if the usa hadn't done what they did .. then I'm sure we wouldn't be worried about speaking english, or translating turkish txt msgs .. we would all be speaking german or japanese .. but then maybe you think that is a better solution than what we have today ..
|
I guess your own message is to be found in your final paragraph I quoted above. Leelu, yours is a xenophobic point of view. No one could guess what would have happened had all those incidents never ever taken place.
|
|
| 80. |
16 Oct 2007 Tue 12:43 am |
|
Quote: Quoting vineyards:
if the usa hadn't done what they did .. then I'm sure we wouldn't be worried about speaking english, or translating turkish txt msgs .. we would all be speaking german or japanese .. but then maybe you think that is a better solution than what we have today ..
|
I guess your own message is to be found in your final paragraph I quoted above. Leelu, yours is a xenophobic point of view. No one could guess what would have happened had all those incidents never ever taken place.
|
actually I do not have a fear of the strange or foreigners. If that were so, I doubt I would be "wanting" to learn the languages of countries that I visit as a sign of respect. I am actually one of the "least xenophobic" people I know. I love different cultures, countries, languages, religions and people. Maybe you are making reference to being xenophobic because you indeed harbour those feelings. I have always heard that the best way to turn attention from yourself is by throwing the smoke screen up to make it appear someone else is projecting what you want hidden in the first place.
|
|
|
