Pakistani girl accused of blasphemy

[pallidin]

You spoke your mind, and in my opinion that is very valued.

[Coffey]

Through epithany and revelation.

That is human attributes. So that is the humans maturing.

[Knight Of Shadows]

Going back to the original posting, "my" personal opinion which I am sure someone, maybe a lot of people will disagree with me, and I DGF,. is that these savages should be wrapped up with their Korgan or whatever that unholy piece of crap that demands that that little girl, who has downes disease and is incapable of understanding what is going on. So she had 2 burnt parts of that unholy book and maybe she was burning it, but she is still incapable of understanding that this is wrong. But this unholy book and even worse their sariaha religion is going to stone this child, and no one over there will come to her aid for fear they will be next. They all should be wrapped up in the pages, have pig blood/oil soak it and fire it off. this is the only thing these evil pregnant pigs (there that much better lol) will understand. Hate me, at least i spoke my mind, as tiny as it is......

some one is having " racisim and hatred overflow " breath easy .. those bad feelings will only hurt you and no one else

after all your words are worthless even if they're insulting ..but that just shows how you been raise and what kind of family you been in

i pity you honestly

[HappyNcamping]

some one is having " racisim and hatred overflow " breath easy .. those bad feelings will only hurt you and no one else

after all your words are worthless even if they're insulting ..but that just shows how you been raise and what kind of family you been in

i pity you honestly <your ↓ spelling>

Nope not one bit of, now how did you put it {racisim and hatred overflow} Is that something like a bad hair day???? nope no hatred of the good people, bt condemnation of the savages etc, etc, etc.

My worthless words apparently raised an eyebrow as you felt it necessary to not only point out that they were insulting, but worthless, and in you high and might throne, seem to know something about my upbringing and my family. tsk tsk tsk .

Please, save your words of pity for someone who must look up at you. YOU did nothing to show your disgust about the stoning of this child. We know now where your values are, or should I say your turban, no wait, different tribe. You on the other hand have proven with your lack of words on the subject is the one in need pity. .

[Guest]

I really don't think that most of the Islamophobes realize they are been racist. I don't think that they can actually see that there is a clear distinction between the actions of a single priest and using that action to make sweeping statements about a whole nation and group of nations. I don't think they are at all aware that similar thinking allows political leaders to wage war on a whole section of the worlds population - causing more barbarity than the behaviour they rail against. I don't think they realize that the only reason that most of them don't see similar behaviours in their own priests is because they have moved away from religion towards secularism (the last person hanged for heresy in Britain was Thomas Aikenhead in 1696, this was the end of a grand tradition of British heretics been hanged for crimes against Christianity. The Roman inquisition was an active force till 1858).

In brief - I don't think they have really though about this at all. As they say bigotry is its own justification.

Br Cornelius

Edited August 24, 2012 by Guest

[+and-then]

Update...

By Stefan J. Bos, Chief International Correspondent BosNewsLife

Churches are often attacked in Pakistan, Christians say.

ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN (BosNewsLife)-- Muslims torched Christian homes and "destroyed" a church in a slum area of Islamabad while suspected militants shot at another church outside Pakistan's capital, after the jailing of a mentally handicapped Christian girl for "blasphemy", witnesses said Tuesday, August 21.

"Our staff and a few [other] Christians went into [islamabad's] colony of Meherabadi [late Monday local time ]," added Farrukh H. Saif, executive director of Pakistani rights group World Vision In Progress (WVIP).

"We found that five houses were burned and one church was destroyed," he told BosNewsLife. "Bibles [have been torn] to pieces and a [church] cross is broken", the official said.

Elsewhere in Pakistan's southern city of Karachi the Catholic St. Matthew's Church was "attacked by unknown extremists at 2 a.m. local time," added Saif, citing investigators.

"They opened fire at the Church building which damaged the front of the building," in Karachi's Pehlwan Goth neighborhood, he explained.

MORE TENSIONS

Karachi's WVIP representative in Karachi, Sunny Bernard Gill, said the incident had "created tension and fear among Christians of the Pehlwan Goth" area.

This was not an isolated incident in the neighborhood as "Muslim extremists" have attacked Christian properties and churches twice over the last year, Saif said.

The latest violence came as 11-year-old Rimsha Masih was preparing to spend another night in Adiala jail, a grim facility in Rawalpindi, close to Islamabad.

Police jailed the girl Friday, August 17, after at least hundreds of Muslim protesters demanded that she face charges under Pakistan's blasphemy laws.

A local cleric had said she burned pages of the Noorani Qaida, a religious textbook used to teach the Koran to children, said Saif.

MENTALLY HANDICAPPED

Rimsha is thought to be mentally handicapped, but police quoted in some media claimed "she had no mental impairments" and that she may be older.

However Saif told BosNewsLife he is convinced about her young age and stressed she "could not have known she burned the textbook as she can not read."

As Pakistani Muslims celebrated the feast of Id al-Fitr, Rimsha was still in Adiala jail reportedly with her mother, awaiting their fate.

Muslim mobs have been pressuring the girl's Christian neighbors and others to flee, Saif and other activists said.

THOUSANDS FLEE

Thousands of Christians were still outside the slum area where the alleged burning incident happened, fearing for their lives, according to several human rights workers.

There were concerns late Tuesday, August 21, that at least several Christian refugees would have no place to return to, amid reports of burning homes. WVIP said it was distributing food among hundreds of impoverished Christians.

Pakistan's President Asif Ali Zardari stressed in a statement that he had "taken notice" of the situation and ordered the Interior Ministry to investigate the girl's detention.

Under Pakistan's controversial blasphemy legislation anyone, including apparently minors, can face the death penalty or at least a long prison term for blasphemy against Islam.

On Monday, August 20, Dutch parliamentarians of the ChristianUnie, or'ChristianUnion' party, urged the Netherlands and the European Union to pressure Pakistan to release Rimsha and demand an end to the blasphemy laws.

The case underscores concerns over thousands of children who rights activists say are languishing in Pakistani jails, often without proper legal representation, or just forgotten by what critics view as a corrupt and bureaucratic judicial system.

If they execute this child I think we should reduce their aid by a Billion dollars. This people are sick and out of control and have a bloody vendetta against ALL who do not share their desire to "submit" to their will. This isn't about worshiping or insulting a god, it's about human bloodlust and it's sickening to the point of being horrific. And it AMAZES ME that so many people seem clueless of the risk of this culture having access to nuclear weapons..... if there are any historians left to tell the tale i can only imagine what they'll think..... WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?

[Guest]

If they execute this child I think we should reduce their aid by a Billion dollars. This people are sick and out of control and have a bloody vendetta against ALL who do not share their desire to "submit" to their will. This isn't about worshiping or insulting a god, it's about human bloodlust and it's sickening to the point of being horrific. And it AMAZES ME that so many people seem clueless of the risk of this culture having access to nuclear weapons..... if there are any historians left to tell the tale i can only imagine what they'll think..... WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?

The only nation to use a Nuclear weapon on a Civilian population was a predominantly christian one. Go figure.

Br Cornelius

Edited August 24, 2012 by Guest

[meryt-tetisheri]

Turning the case of Rimsha into an occasion to jump into sweeping evaluations of religion, Christianity, Islam, or the history of atomic bombs...etc., not only detracts from the gravity of the case, but also trivializes the plight of Rimsha; it will turn culprits into victims! A young life is at stake. For any condemnation to be effective, it must address the specific case. As far as I know, the French government has officially expressed its concern about Rimsha's case, did any other governments follow suit?

[Knight Of Shadows]

Nope not one bit of, now how did you put it {racisim and hatred overflow} Is that something like a bad hair day???? nope no hatred of the good people, bt condemnation of the savages etc, etc, etc.

My worthless words apparently raised an eyebrow as you felt it necessary to not only point out that they were insulting, but worthless, and in you high and might throne, seem to know something about my upbringing and my family. tsk tsk tsk .

Please, save your words of pity for someone who must look up at you. YOU did nothing to show your disgust about the stoning of this child. We know now where your values are, or should I say your turban, no wait, different tribe. You on the other hand have proven with your lack of words on the subject is the one in need pity. .

and you signed up just because it bothered you so much ?

ohhh i feel honored that islam does that to people like you

[hetrodoxly]

This isn't the action of a single madman but that of a country being guided by a perverted religion, Pakistan sinks ever deeper into the dirty mire that is Islam why aren't Pakistanis in places like the UK taking to the streets in protest over the treatment of one of their children, could it be they agree with her captors? it takes teddy bears and burning books to get them of their arses.

[+OverSword]

Did nobody read where it says "she was reported holding in public burnt pages which had Islamic text and Koranic verses on them" ?

Sounds like a frame up to me.

[+OverSword]

I really don't think that most of the Islamophobes realize they are been racist. I don't think that they can actually see that there is a clear distinction between the actions of a single priest and using that action to make sweeping statements about a whole nation and group of nations. I don't think they are at all aware that similar thinking allows political leaders to wage war on a whole section of the worlds population - causing more barbarity than the behaviour they rail against. I don't think they realize that the only reason that most of them don't see similar behaviours in their own priests is because they have moved away from religion towards secularism (the last person hanged for heresy in Britain was Thomas Aikenhead in 1696, this was the end of a grand tradition of British heretics been hanged for crimes against Christianity. The Roman inquisition was an active force till 1858).

In brief - I don't think they have really though about this at all. As they say bigotry is its own justification.

Br Cornelius

And yet you first post in this thread I think you make a general sweeping prejudiced statement, so how are you different?

Oh excuse me I think you've got something there (wipes smug off of BR's face)

Edited August 24, 2012 by OverSword

[Guest]

And yet you first post in this thread I think you make a general sweeping prejudiced statement, so how are you different?

Oh excuse me I think you've got something there (wipes smug off of BR's face)

I simply pointed out that religion has always tended to cause brutality and that diminishes the more secular we become. Thats not a sweeping statement - that's a truism.

Br Cornelius

[+and-then]

The only nation to use a Nuclear weapon on a Civilian population was a predominantly christian one. Go figure.

Br Cornelius

I don't care what your opinion of my country is you simp Simian. It's easy(though stupid and offensive) to sit in judgment over a decision made by a generation who was experiencing the greatest loss of life to war EVER in history up to that point. People who benefited from the help of the US then curse us for our choices in how to do it disgust me. You are an ingrate and a provocateur.

[Guest]

I don't care what your opinion of my country is you simp Simian. It's easy(though stupid and offensive) to sit in judgment over a decision made by a generation who was experiencing the greatest loss of life to war EVER in history up to that point. People who benefited from the help of the US then curse us for our choices in how to do it disgust me. You are an ingrate and a provocateur.

I was simply countering your point.

However I believe that a public demonstration of what the Americans were capable of would have been more than adequate to persuade the Japanese to surrender. The second bomb was criminal at the very least.

Br Cornelius

[+and-then]

I was simply countering your point.

However I believe that a public demonstration of what the Americans were capable of would have been more than adequate to persuade the Japanese to surrender. The second bomb was criminal at the very least.

Br Cornelius

Don't your own statements counter one another? If a demonstration is all you think would have been required to bring about surrender, then why did the Japanese hold out until AFTER a second bomb was detonated? There is no doubt from the record that the use of the bomb was partly political/geostrategic. But I also believe that the leaders of the day KNEW that the people here were sick and tired of the long, bloody conflict and after losing about 12 THOUSAND dead on Okinawa, Truman didn't want a peace movement on his hands that would have left the Empire of Japan bloodied but unbent. They began the war. They took part in some of the worst atrocities known to man during the war and they were still unbeaten in spirit right up to the end. You also have to remember that the military completely controlled the civilian population. The leaders knew they were headed to an execution for war crimes. In the run up to the bombs being dropped, LeMay had incinerated many Japanese cities completely with firebombing raids - actually greater loss of life in those. As counter intuitive and inconvenient as it is for those whose instinct is to berate the US on all occasions, the bombs actually SAVED LIVES. Japanese and American.

[Guest]

Revisionist bull**** and you should know it. Japan was seeking to surrender when the bombs were dropped.

The question of military necessity can be quickly put to rest. "Japan was already defeated and dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary." Those are not the words of a latter-day revisionist historian or a leftist writer. They are certainly not the words of an America-hater. They are the words of Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe and future president of the United States. Eisenhower knew, as did the entire senior U.S. officer corps, that by mid 1945 Japan was defenseless.

After the Japanese fleet was destroyed at Leyte Gulf in October 1944, the U.S. was able to carry out uncontested bombing of Japan's cities, including the hellish firebombings of Tokyo and Osaka. This is what Henry H. Arnold, Commanding General of the U.S. Army Air Forces, meant when he observed, "The Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell because the Japanese had lost control of their own air." Also, without a navy, the resource-poor Japanese had lost the ability to import the food, oil, and industrial supplies needed to carry on a World War.

As a result of the naked futility of their position, the Japanese had approached the Russians, seeking their help in brokering a peace to end the War. The U.S. had long before broken the Japanese codes and knew that these negotiations were under way, knew that the Japanese had for months been trying to find a way to surrender.

Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, reflected this reality when he wrote, "The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace.the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, said the same thing: "The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender."

Civilian authorities, especially Truman himself, would later try to revise history by claiming that the bombs were dropped to save the lives of one million American soldiers. But there is simply no factual basis for this in any record of the time. On the contrary, the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey reported, "Certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped." The November 1 date is important because that was the date of the earliest possible planned U.S. invasion of the Japanese main islands.

In other words, the virtually unanimous and combined judgment of the most informed, senior, officers of the U.S. military is unequivocal: there was no pressing military necessity for dropping the atomic bombs on Japan.

http://www.commondre...s06/0806-25.htm

With such a slight grasp on history your opinions on military strategy seem dubious at best.

It seems to me that dropping the bomb was primarily a way of seeing the long term effects of their new toy on a civilian population. Evil at best.

Br Cornelius

Edited August 25, 2012 by Guest

[+and-then]

Revisionist bull**** and you should know it. Japan was seeking to surrender when the bombs were dropped.

http://www.commondre...s06/0806-25.htm

With such a slight grasp on history your opinions on military strategy seem dubious at best.

It seems to me that dropping the bomb was primarily a way of seeing the long term effects of their new toy on a civilian population. Evil at best.

Br Cornelius

Why did they hold out until a second bomb was dropped before they surrendered? And they were trying to surrender to the Russians NOT the US. In fact the Russians declaring war on them probably had as much effect on causing the surrender as the bombs did. FDR had made a point of saying the US would win through to ultimate victory. Truman had many times used the expression "UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER" and that's what the American people expected after so many deaths and so much loss. If you want a textbook definition of evil read about the Rape of Nanking. THAT'S who we were fighting. I hope you have a chance to view true evil, up close and personal some day Brutha. So you can make an accurate comparison for once in your life.

[Guest]

Why did they hold out until a second bomb was dropped before they surrendered? And they were trying to surrender to the Russians NOT the US. In fact the Russians declaring war on them probably had as much effect on causing the surrender as the bombs did. FDR had made a point of saying the US would win through to ultimate victory. Truman had many times used the expression "UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER" and that's what the American people expected after so many deaths and so much loss. If you want a textbook definition of evil read about the Rape of Nanking. THAT'S who we were fighting. I hope you have a chance to view true evil, up close and personal some day Brutha. So you can make an accurate comparison for once in your life.

I would not seek to defend the Japanese conduct in the second world war - but ignoring the crime of America dropping the bombs doesn't help your case. Japan was negotiating peace through the intermediary of Russia not with Russia. Have you considered the very real probability that America was stonewalling the Japanese in order to create the opportunity to test their bombs.

Killing nearly half a million civilians in cold blood can never be described as a humanitarian gesture.

Br Cornelius

[Guest]

I hate to labour the point but it is intolerable to let revisionist self serving history stand so here are some more facts about how necessary the atomic bombs on Japan were;

Apart from the moral questions involved, were the atomic bombings militarily necessary? By any rational yardstick, they were not. Japan already had been defeated militarily by June 1945. Almost nothing was left of the once mighty Imperial Navy, and Japan's air force had been all but totally destroyed. Against only token opposition, American war planes ranged at will over the country, and US bombers rained down devastation on her cities, steadily reducing them to rubble.

.........

Even before the Hiroshima attack, American air force General Curtis LeMay boasted that American bombers were "driving them [Japanese] back to the stone age." Henry H. ("Hap") Arnold, commanding General of the Army air forces, declared in his 1949 memoirs: "It always appeared to us, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse." This was confirmed by former Japanese prime minister Fumimaro Konoye, who said: "Fundamentally, the thing that brought about the determination to make peace was the prolonged bombing by the B-29s."

..........

American officials, having long since broken Japan's secret codes, knew from intercepted messages that the country's leaders were seeking to end the war on terms as favorable as possible. Details of these efforts were known from decoded secret communications between the Foreign Ministry in Tokyo and Japanese diplomats abroad.

In his 1965 study, Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam (pp. 107, 108), historian Gar Alperovitz writes:

Although Japanese peace feelers had been sent out as early as September 1944 (and [China's] Chiang Kai-shek had been approached regarding surrender possibilities in December 1944), the real effort to end the war began in the spring of 1945. This effort stressed the role of the Soviet Union ...

In mid-April [1945] the [uS] Joint Intelligence Committee reported that Japanese leaders were looking for a way to modify the surrender terms to end the war.

The State Department was convinced the Emperor was actively seeking a way to stop the fighting.

........

It was only after the war that the American public learned about Japan's efforts to bring the conflict to an end. Chicago Tribune reporter Walter Trohan, for example, was obliged by wartime censorship to withhold for seven months one of the most important stories of the war.

In an article that finally appeared August 19, 1945, on the front pages of the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald, Trohan revealed that on January 20, 1945, two days prior to his departure for the Yalta meeting with Stalin and Churchill, President Roosevelt received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials. (The complete text of Trohan's article is in the Winter 1985-86 Journal, pp. 508-512.)

This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor. Specifically, the terms of these peace overtures included:

• Complete surrender of all Japanese forces and arms, at home, on island possessions, and in occupied countries.
  
• Occupation of Japan and its possessions by Allied troops under American direction.
  
• Japanese relinquishment of all territory seized during the war, as well as Manchuria, Korea and Taiwan.
  
• Regulation of Japanese industry to halt production of any weapons and other tools of war.
  
• Release of all prisoners of war and internees.
  
• Surrender of designated war criminals.
  

.........

In April and May 1945, Japan made three attempts through neutral Sweden and Portugal to bring the war to a peaceful end. On April 7, acting Foreign Minister Mamoru Shigemitsu met with Swedish ambassador Widon Bagge in Tokyo, asking him "to ascertain what peace terms the United States and Britain had in mind." But he emphasized that unconditional surrender was unacceptable, and that "the Emperor must not be touched." Bagge relayed the message to the United States, but Secretary of State Stettinius told the US Ambassador in Sweden to "show no interest or take any initiative in pursuit of the matter." Similar Japanese peace signals through Portugal, on May 7, and again through Sweden, on the 10th, proved similarly fruitless.

http://www.ihr.org/j...3p-4_Weber.html

So it seems that America were definitely stonewalling in order to implement your beloved "Scorched Earth Policy".

I am going to be generous and say that maybe you really don't know the reality of what went on and you are a victim of Americas internal propaganda machine.

To return to the point of all this - who are we to trust with Nuclear weapons - a government who used them to "see how they worked on civilians" or a government who is genuinely concerned about repeated threats of attack from America and Israel. I think the Iranians have a very good point about their need for a domestic nuclear deterrent.

Br Cornelius

Edited August 25, 2012 by Guest

[+and-then]

I hate to labour the point but it is intolerable to let revisionist self serving history stand so here are some more facts about how necessary the atomic bombs on Japan were;

http://www.ihr.org/j...3p-4_Weber.html

So it seems that America were definitely stonewalling in order to implement your beloved "Scorched Earth Policy".

I am going to be generous and say that maybe you really don't know the reality of what went on and you are a victim of Americas internal propaganda machine.

To return to the point of all this - who are we to trust with Nuclear weapons - a government who used them to "see how they worked on civilians" or a government who is genuinely concerned about repeated threats of attack from America and Israel. I think the Iranians have a very good point about their need for a domestic nuclear deterrent.

Br Cornelius

Your opinion means little because you are so obviously biased against the US. The Japanese would not surrender. In my opinion it was due to the cowardice of her military leaders who knew what fate lay in store for them. No matter how you try to spin it history shows that millions of Japanese were being trained and indoctrinated into preparation for a blood bath. The reasoning was that the US would eventually agree to a less than unconditional surrender. We had been attacked in a cowardly way and had suffered great losses. We damned well intended they should be defeated body AND spirit. Anything less and the fanaticism would just spring up again. And I say again - hopefully some day you can experience true evil so you can have a fair comparison...until then you're just a whiner IMO.

[Guest]

Your opinion means little because you are so obviously biased against the US. The Japanese would not surrender. In my opinion it was due to the cowardice of her military leaders who knew what fate lay in store for them. No matter how you try to spin it history shows that millions of Japanese were being trained and indoctrinated into preparation for a blood bath. The reasoning was that the US would eventually agree to a less than unconditional surrender. We had been attacked in a cowardly way and had suffered great losses. We damned well intended they should be defeated body AND spirit. Anything less and the fanaticism would just spring up again. And I say again - hopefully some day you can experience true evil so you can have a fair comparison...until then you're just a whiner IMO.

Another one who denies documentary evidence in favour of Your opinion. Fortunately your opinion is worth nothing to history.

By the way, may hatred is not of America, it is of tyranny where ever it rears its head - you should think about that.

Maybe you should listen to the Christian voice on this issue;

A leading voice of American Protestantism, Christian Century, strongly condemned the bombings. An editorial entitled "America's Atomic Atrocity" in the issue of August 29, 1945, told readers:

The atomic bomb was used at a time when Japan's navy was sunk, her air force virtually destroyed, her homeland surrounded, her supplies cut off, and our forces poised for the final stroke ... Our leaders seem not to have weighed the moral considerations involved. No sooner was the bomb ready than it was rushed to the front and dropped on two helpless cities ... The atomic bomb can fairly be said to have struck Christianity itself ... The churches of America must dissociate themselves and their faith from this inhuman and reckless act of the American Government.

A leading American Catholic voice, Commonweal, took a similar view. Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the magazine editorialized, "are names for American guilt and shame."

Br Cornelius

Edited August 25, 2012 by Guest

[+and-then]

Another one who denies documentary evidence in favour of Your opinion. Fortunately your opinion is worth nothing to history.

By the way, may hatred is not of America, it is of tyranny where ever it rears its head - you should think about that.

Br Cornelius

Which evidence can be just as biased as any opinion. I cannot believe you are hanging onto such a lame argument. No, wait, sure I can....

[Guest]

Which evidence can be just as biased as any opinion. I cannot believe you are hanging onto such a lame argument. No, wait, sure I can....

I cannot believe you would deny overwhelming evidence to the effect that the Nuclear attacks on Hiroshima were totally unnecessary. Then again you are a christian conservative so there is precedence.

You should look at your own argument before criticizing people who actually provide supporting evidence for their opinion. As I said your opinion has no baring on the reality of history so we can safely ignore it.

Br Cornelius

Edited August 25, 2012 by Guest

[+and-then]

I would not seek to defend the Japanese conduct in the second world war - but ignoring the crime of America dropping the bombs doesn't help your case. Japan was negotiating peace through the intermediary of Russia not with Russia. Have you considered the very real probability that America was stonewalling the Japanese in order to create the opportunity to test their bombs.

Killing nearly half a million civilians in cold blood can never be described as a humanitarian gesture.

Br Cornelius

The numbers for both bombs didn't reach half that number. The projected numbers of casualties from Olympic and Coronet were between 250,000 and 1,000,000 US dead and wounded. Several times that number in Japanese. A fortified garrison on Okinawa held out and killed 12,000 US Marines and Sailors. The numbers for the invasion of Japan probably were on the conservative side. So I think humanitarian is precisely the correct word if it saved easily ten times as many lives as it cost when the bombs were used. You simply will not admit you are in error. But if it had been your backside on the line back then I think you'd see those bombs in a whole new light.