Pakistani girl accused of blasphemy

[Jackofalltrades]

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

That is one thing I do not understand is,

If another country commited the same or similiar crimes (killing civilians) while in war and they stand trial for war crimes then why have USA not stood trial for war crimes for killing nearly half a million civilians ?

Admittedly it was in retaliation for Pearl Harbour, BUT two wrongs do not make a right

Edited August 25, 2012 by Jackofalltrades

[+and-then]

That is one thing I do not understand is,

If another country commited the same or similiar crimes (killing civilians) while in war and they stand trial for war crimes then why have USA not stood trial for war crimes for killing nearly half a million civilians ?

Admittedly it was in retaliation for Pearl Harbour, BUT two wrongs do not make a right

First of all his numbers are inflated greatly.

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/MED/med_chp10.shtml Second, war crimes involve non combatants generally and every country involved in WWII did this to some extent. WWII introduced a concept called TOTAL WAR. The idea was to destroy a nation's will to fight by terrorizing the civilian population. The Germans did so with the Blitz. The British with night time raids against Germany (killing many tens of thousands of Germans), the US by daytime raids in Germany and night time raids over Japan. The slander of calling legitimate struggle a "war crime" is cheap and tawdry when done by someone who just wants to smear a nation with which one doesn't agree. If the USA was guilty of war crimes in WWII then every allied and axis nation was also guilty of the same. And if everyone is doing it then it's hardly unique, is it?

[Guest]

I will admit the figure of 200,000 is more accurate.

However it is no smear to point out the wealth of evidence from the USA and Japan which shows that Japan had made offers to surrender before the bombs were dropped. There was one condition which was placed - that the emporer would stay in his position of head of state. The Americans agreed to this in the final deal. If the Americans had have agreed to that one condition the war would have been over months before (saving many lives on both sides) and no bombs would have been dropped. The evidence in support of this is overwhelming.

You want to see your own country as been blameless in this - but the deliberately launched the only two Nuclear bombs used against civilian targets to see what it would do. That is criminal and barbaric. Christians at the time condemned it as such - but it seems the modern day christian has less humanity than 70yrs ago. They could have targeted specific military installations if they didn't want to harm 200,000 civilians.

Again "and then" your showing that your personal moral compass is way off.

There are many dark episodes in history, but the calculated testing of two nuclear bombs on a civilian population on 6th and 8th of August 1945 has to be one of the darkest. If there is a devil - then he was at work on those days.

Jackofalltrades - the reason that America didn't face a criminal charge for the act of targeting civilians was simply because they were the victors and were running the war crimes tribunals. The winner always defines the post war settlement.

Br Cornelius

Edited August 25, 2012 by Guest

[+and-then]

Both Nagasaki and Hiroshima were military towns. No doubt of that. They were indeed held in store for these bombs. As such they were spared the firebombing common to all other cities of their type (military bases). The point of contention in the peace talks was indeed the Japanese condition of retention of the "Mikado". Truman had been on the job about a year and the one point he stressed above all else to Americans was that Japan's surrender must be UNCONDITIONAL. He was keeping a promise made by FDR. You can certainly have any opinion you like over the decision. But if it had been you under arms - or your father - THEN your opinion would matter.

Edited August 25, 2012 by and then

[DarkHunter]

Br Cornelius you need to read up of your World War 2 history a bit more since there was 4 conditions Japan wanted if they surrendered not just one and the targets for nuclear bombing was not against civilian targets.

The four conditions for Japans surrender before the atomic bombings was first the preservation of the kokutai, which is basically what you said with the emperor staying at the head of state, to give the Imperial Headquarters the responsibility of disarmament and demobilization of the Japanese military, no occupation of the Japanese homeland, Korea, and Taiwan, and lastly the punishment of Japanese war criminals to be handled by the Japanese government.

Basically the conditions of surrender the Japanese wanted was the emperor to remain head of state along, keeping some of their captured territory, allowing them to disarm themselves, and letting them prosecute their own people accused of war crimes. That is a bit different then just wanting the emperor to remain head of state like you claim.

As for the nuclear bombings you fail to mention how both where military targets and how the civilian population of Japan was warned before the atomic bombings of both cities, first with the Potsdam declaration and with leaflet drops over the two cities before the bombings.

You also fail to mention Br Cornelius how important Hiroshima and Nagasaki where military to Japan. Hiroshima had the headquarters of field marshal Shunroku Hata's 2nd army headquarters, which commanded the southern defense of Japan, the headquarters of the 59th army and most of the 224th division was in Hiroshima at the time. It was also a supply base, logistics base, communication center, storage area for military equipment, and assembly area for troops. While Nagasaki was an industrial center that was creating ordnance, ships, military equipment and had one of the largest sea ports of Japan.

[Guest]

"There is little point in attempting precisely to impute Japan's unconditional surrender to any one of the numerous causes which jointly and cumulatively were responsible for Japan's disaster. The time lapse between military impotence and political acceptance of the inevitable might have been shorter had the political structure of Japan permitted a more rapid and decisive determination of national policies. Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion.

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that 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, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

Paul Nitze - Strategic Bombing Survey.

"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."

Dwight D. Eisenhower.

"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."

Chester W Nimitz - Fleet Admiral

"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 because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

William D. Leahy - Fleet Admiral

Military vulnerability, not civilian vulnerability, accounts for Japan's decision to surrender. Japan's military position was so poor that its leaders would likely have surrendered before invasion, and at roughly the same time in August 1945, even if the United States had not employed strategic bombing or the atomic bomb. Rather than concern for the costs and risks to the population, or even Japan's overall military weakness vis-a-vis the United States, the decisive factor was Japanese leaders' recognition that their strategy for holding the most important territory at issue—the home islands—could not succeed.

Robert Pape

Br Cornelius

[SteveBronfman]

The only thing world war two has to do with the plight of this girl was it was after this war Pakistan was given independence and has allowed it's non-Muslim population to go from almost 20% to 1% through persecution such as this case.

[pallidin]

The tragedy of that poor girl is highly reflective of the theocratic barbarism of the regime.

[DKO]

Looks like she was framed.

A Christian girl who was arrested under Pakistan's controversial anti-blasphemy law may have moved a step closer to freedom on Sunday after police detained a Muslim cleric on suspicion of planting evidence to frame her. The imam, Khalid Jadoon Chishti, was sent to jail for a 14-day judicial remand.

http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/pak-cleric-arrested-for-framing-11-year-old-in-blasphemy-case-262209

[+and-then]

Looks like she was framed.

http://www.ndtv.com/...emy-case-262209

So evidence appears that could completely clear this child of wrong doing and the people of the village STILL want her punished and the Imam freed? Ignorance, cruelty and hatred are the fruits of this belief system.

[meryt-tetisheri]

She has been released on bail, good news! Hopefully the charges will now be dropped

http://news.yahoo.com/pakistan-frees-christian-girl-accused-blasphemy-130326246.html

[Mr.United_Nations]

she is free not on bail, that was yesterday

[+and-then]

she is free not on bail, that was yesterday

I'm glad to hear that but truth is she will never be "free" in that community of peaceful folks. She's as good as dead if she cannot get away from there.

[Knight Of Shadows]

so .. muslims damned if they do wrong , damned if they do right

am glad we don't aim to please anyone coz that's an impossiable task

with so much islamophobia around

i heard they charged against the " shekh " who faked the accusation

[meryt-tetisheri]

so .. muslims damned if they do wrong , damned if they do right

am glad we don't aim to please anyone coz that's an impossiable task

with so much islamophobia around

i heard they charged against the " shekh " who faked the accusation

No one 'damned' her release! The position & attitudes of her accusers are not representative of Islam but of how some people in Pakistan used it to guise other motives

[Knight Of Shadows]

try to tell these simple facts to some other members .. and look at the responses

no no .. it's always islam fault or that's what their delusion wants them to see

it's rather annoying .. and fun at same time

i take pleasure knowing islam bugs so many people enough till they dream about it in their sleep

i know .. it's bad but cannot help it

[+and-then]

so .. muslims damned if they do wrong , damned if they do right

am glad we don't aim to please anyone coz that's an impossiable task

with so much islamophobia around

i heard they charged against the " shekh " who faked the accusation

Which was the correct thing to do, KoS. And I saw members of her community saying publicly they wanted the "imam" exonerated and HER Punished. Even though the truth had become known so I think my comments were appropriate in this case.

[Jackofalltrades]

she is free not on bail, that was yesterday

Rimsha is on bail according to the sun newspaper

"Rimsha Masih, 14, was arrested on August 16 for allegedly burning pages containing verses from the Koran in a case that has sparked an international outcry.

But she was released from a prison in Rawalpindi after a court accepted her bail application on Friday."

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4527689/Christian-girl-in-Pakistan-blasphemy-case-is-freed-on-bail.html