Posted by 5GJW [5GJW] on October 31, 1999 at 15:14:03 {MDPAlM8llYlo6QIt25t6PXIQS8Kp4Q}:
In Reply to: ****2 BUSTED from the GB posted by ros on October 31, 1999 at 13:36:14:
>Its a question of what constitutes "blood guilt"--not what is legal.
Very well, lets focus on blood guilt. I only mentioned the fact that bombing cities is usually not considered a war crime, and therefor does not make one guilty of crimes, legal or otherwise.
>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.
I will not go into all of the factual errors you have made here, because I think that I understand the point you are trying to make, that the victor defines what is and is not a legal crime. Even given your somewhat distorted view of the facts about WWII, you can't possibly compare Allied excesses such as Dresden and Hiroshima to the Axis atrocities at Auschwitz or Nanking.
>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.
Oppenheimer was a very good physicist, but a poor strategist. Perhaps you would not mind sending your child on a bombing mission over enemy territory after warning the enemy that you were coming, but most would object strongly. Did you know that there was an attempt to seize the Emperor of Japan so as to prevent him from surrendering, and that this attempted coup was after the destruction of the two Japanese cities? The stories you may have heard about the Japanese being ready to surrender are advocated by people willing to ignore a great deal about the Japanese mindset in 1945.
>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.
As you stated in your opening sentence.
>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?
I believe that this is not the point that COMF was trying to make. Your question should read:
Is a judge "blood-guilty" for sending an accused murderer to the gas chamber when he knew that no crime had been committed, that no one had been killed?
I think that you know the answer to this.
5GJW, wondering what GB will do after digesting the red pill