Posted by ros [ros] on October 31, 1999 at 13:36:14 {MDPAlM8llYdmhhsMJ.h27/SY5I9NtE}:
In Reply to: ***2 BUSTED from the GB posted by 5GJW on October 31, 1999 at 11:04:45:
Its a question of what constitutes "blood guilt"--not what is legal. Had Hitler not for some mysterious reason suddenly switched from developing the atomic bomb to pursuing missle technology, the war would probably have had a different ending and the world would have lived a different history to now. We might have been the ones on trial for war crimes. Even then, its reported that the U.S. only beat Germany to the bomb by a matter of a few weeks.
The scientists who developed the atom bomb BEGGED the U.S. president to warn Japan--even demonstrate it, before dropping it on two civilian cities. The question is, is there blood guilt involved? I'm not interested in whether it was "legal." In that case, it is not illegal for a religion to prohibit medicine for the sick. The question posed is one about what constitutes "blood guilt" not what is legal.
Is a judge "blood-guilty" for sending an accused murder to the gas chamber, even if he does not personally believe in capital punishment, or even if it is later determined the accused was not guilty?
Ros