>>24
lolz, logical fallacy. Let me give you some contributions, then.
>>15
Do some research, and you might find that that statement is entirely BS. A capitalist economy does not equate to a free state in any sense; one is an economic system and the other is a system of government. Under Tojo, the military government recklessly abandoned human rights, both of its citizens at home, abroad, and its conquered nationals; the economy was reshaped into a command economy dedicated to improving military production.
Partly, the Japanese invasions in Southeast Asia in the early 1930s were simply due to seeking additional natural resources to fuel their military. Your statement on why they joined the Axis also has no real basis in history. Indeed, the existence of an emperor was largely responsible for the creation of the military government--not for opposing it.
The Meiji constitution stated that the Japanese government was accountable to the emperor, and on the grounds that their politics were dividing the nation, the Parliament actually voted to dissolve themselves into a body for 'assisting' imperial rule that had no real political power. Thus, nobody could stop the military takeover.
>>17
NOT the goals of the United States at the time, sorry. The US nuked Nagasaki and Hiroshima to in part to win a war, in part to test a new weapon, and in part to curb Soviet aggression.
First, the estimates, given the experiences of Okinawa and Iwo Jima, caused the US military to believe a direct invasion of Japan would be devastating to their own army. They'd win, of course, but at too high a cost. For the record, the Japanese entirely refused a surrender, contrary to what
>>18 says, and the nuclear bomb was used to facilitate this.
It had been iterated at (I believe) the Tehran Conference by the Soviet Union that, upon the defeat of Germany, the USSR would turn its troops to Japan. By late 45, we hadn't done so yet, and we didn't want the Russians to conquer Japan. Ultimately, the United States goals were to keep the defeated nations sovereign, but pacified, as opposed to controlled like those that the Soviet Union "liberated."
To that end, plus considering that we had to not only show off our new bomb to the world so that people wouldn't fuck with us, we dropped the bomb. And does that justify it? No, I don't really think so, knowing now what we know about how well the USSR turned out, but at the time it was a very serious fear.
>>18
There were a lot of Jews in the Israel area prior to World War II, however, it was not formally partitioned by the English government until after the Holocaust. Moreover, it was not directly caused by the Holocaust, though it is true that the Holocaust was a contributing factor.
Moreover, the Holocaust was a systematic murder of millions, not the quick destruction of two quasi-military targets.
And, yes, this is one thing that's been neglected. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were respectively (or maybe it's the other way around) military centers, the former being a site for a great degree of military industrial production and the latter having various infrastructure and command located in it. The civilians were largely collateral, though certainly not accidental collateral.
>>19
Actually, if you believe that's what Osama did say, then he did lie. Especially because he didn't really say it. He iterated repeatedly that, while it was too bad Americans lived in America, he had to bring a tyrannous beast to the ground due to America's constant support for Israel and its reckless ravaging of Muslim countries, in accordance with the fatwa he's issued.
Do you want a quote?
"Terrorism against America deserves to be praised because it was a response to injustice, aimed at forcing America to stop its support for Israel, which kills our people,"
"While I was looking at these destroyed towers in Lebanon, it sparked in my mind that the tyrant should be punished with the same and that we should destroy towers in America, so that it tastes what we taste and would be deterred from killing our children and women."
It's about revenge, not religious salvation.
>>22
No, it wouldn't. Moral relativism is pretty easy to explain.
Basically,
>>20, it means that there is no universal standard of morality, and that individual circumstances must be scrutinized in order to determine morality.
In that regard, individual subjectivity provides the only true 'morality.'
So, anyway, were both acts justified? Honestly, yeah, I can see how they'd both be justified and how they both wouldn't be. And, honestly, I don't really have an opinion, as personally, I don't believe morality can be justified in government.
Though I do believe that Hiroshima and Nagasaki can be justified a bit better than 9/11.