Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Top 10 HORRIFYING Facts You Didn’t Know About SAMURAI - DEBUNKED" video.

  1. >"HOW WOULD YOU LIKE IT IF I MILKED YOU EVERY MORNING" ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
    9
  2. Levi Paladin It's not a strawman. You clearly laid out that your goal is to kill civilians because you place the value of your own troops first. It just happens that you're admitting that you'd commit a war crime. I know more about WWII history than you, bud. If you knew your history, you'd be aware that the nuking was not necessary. The US had already caused much destruction and death in Japan with the use of the B-29, it was impossible for Japan to win the war. It was not necessary to use a nuke, on a military target or otherwise.
    2
  3. The use of nuclear weapons, and by extent all the unecessary bombing of civilians, was wrong. The use of V1 and V2 against London was wrong. The firebombing of Dresden was wrong. The nuking of Japan was wrong.
    1
  4. Levi Paladin So the use of V1 and V2 bombs against Londoners was righteous? I'm sorry, but I think I am qualified to judge that incinerating hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians is typically deemed unecessary just to get a few military targets within the city... because no qualification is necessary, we're talking about basic humanity here. If the Germans had dropped atom bombs in America everyone involved would have faced trial and been executed for war crimes. We just don't think of nuclear bombing of civilians as a war crime because history is written by the victor.
    1
  5. Levi Paladin Nice cop out. You told me I was wrong but you can't be bothered to explain your reasoning. That's almost an admission of defeat. I read the arguments. Nuclear weaponry used on a city isn't a case of "collateral damage" because the whole purpose of nuking something is to wipe it off the Earth. And the leaflet drops occurred on several cities so the Japanese had no way of knowing their city was going to be nuked. You have not justified anything. Japan was absolutely crippled in terms of industrial capacity. The targets within Nagasaki and Hiroshima did not require the use of nuclear weapons to take out. The Japanese had very few artillery pieces capable of shooting down B-29s. Do you understand what a justification even is? You need to prove that the targets were vital for the defeat of Japan, that they could only be destroyed by nuclear weapons and that the human sacrifice was offset by the strategic goals. Right there your proposition fails, the human sacrifice greatly outweighed the strategic importance of the military targets since the US chose the cities based on the psychological impact of obliterating them and Japan wouldn't have been stopped due to the loss of their military targets alone. Not to mention that nuclear weapons were unecessary. Nuclear weaponry is indiscriminate in nature, you can't unleash it on civilians and say it's justified. Just like pulverizing Sarin or Anthrax on innocents.
    1
  6. Back Up Only those convicted of war crimes. And the people who would have ordered the use of atomic weapons on American civilians, the members of the Luftwaffe high command which authorized the mission and the pilots themselves would have been convicted had they survived the war. Conversely, had Japan won the war for some miraculous reason, everyone from the brass right down to the crew members of the Enola Gay would have been executed for participating in what was clearly a war crime.
    1
  7. Levi Paladin Emotional? I am being 100% logical. You're the emotional one, who thirsts for blood in revenge. You don't care about the facts, you just want death, death and more death. >"that you still didn't address my argument in" I just did, but clearly I am witnessing another failure of the school system because you can't read. >"the lives of soldiers on my side are more important than the civilians of my enemy" I hope your enemies have a shred of humanity and give you the mercy that you wouldn't give them. Because you're literally saying that if your enemy had people like you on their side, you would die despite being innocent.
    1
  8. Back Up Purposeful killing of civilians or the use of weapons that cause unnecessary suffering are considered war crimes. >"And here you have demonstrated your lack of knowledge. Do you also believe that Japan was unjust in its initial assault on pearl harbor?" Relevancy?
    1
  9. Back Up Except that the nuclear weapons were not necessary to destroy the military targets, to anyone with more than half a brain the use of a nuclear weapon within a city is purposeful mass murder of innocent civilians. >"Demonstrating your lack of supposed knowledge" Knowledge about what? You asked a very broad question and it wasn't clear what you wanted to hear. >"The fact that you asked about its relevancy further proves my point" Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, so you've proven nothing. We're literally talking about nuking innocent people and you want to grasp at straws and ask "gotcha" questions? I'm not obligated to deviate from the topic at hand, which is that innocent civilians have the right to not be massacred by nuclear fire.
    1
  10. Back Up >"They were necessary to force an immediate surrender." You're making my point for me. You've abandoned the legitimate military target excuse. You just admitted that an illegitimate target was attacked for the purpose of mass murder - shock and awe. >"If your answers are based on what someone wants to hear, you clearly aren't knowledgeable about world war 2 at all." "What you want to hear" = exactly what the fuck are you asking because it was a bullshit question. How far do you want me to go back when talking about Pearl Harbor? Gunboat Diplomacy? I don't understand the context of the question itself. >"I doubt you even realize that the soviets were fighting Japan as well." Which was one of the reasons that forced the Japanese surrender. You're shooting yourself in the foot now. >"Except they don't. 'Rights' are a complete fabrication." So you've just undermined the whole concept of moral and law. Wow. Tell me, if rights are a fabrication, shouldn't that mean I should kill you right now because you've just admitted that you are a threat to me or others by not respecting rights? I mean, if you have no respect for my right to live, or if such a right doesn't exist, wouldn't I be justified in ending your life to prevent future damage? >"which saved both the lives of many US soldiers" So by implying that a land invasion was necessary you're admitting you don't know about the successful naval blockade and the fact that the Japanese aviation industry could never catch up to the B-29.
    1