Big Readers Forum Index


Abdel Basset al-Magrahi

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Big Readers Forum Index -> Who are you? How are you? Where are you? etc.
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Please Register and Login to this forum to stop seeing this advertising.






Posted:     Post subject:



Back to top
Gino



Joined: 20 Dec 2008
Posts: 127


Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 3:31 pm    Post subject: Abdel Basset al-Magrahi  Reply with quote

I am shocked and sickened by the bloodthirsty American attitude towards this man concerned that he is not dying fast enough now that he is receiving first class treatment for his condition.
His conviction for his involvement in the aircraft bombing was on the most flimsy and unsafe grounds and if he did play some part he was not the originator of the scheme but an agent working on behalf of his government.
That being so he was no more a mass murderer than the crew of the Elona Gay.



_________________
Peter Gino Marchese
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
Apple



Joined: 24 Nov 2008
Posts: 1751



PostPosted: Mon May 09, 2011 9:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That would be Enola Gay if you are referring to the American bomber which bombed Japan and ended WW2.

I also think there is a big difference between that man and something which was done during a different time and and under totally different circumstances and was done in the long run to shorten the most bloody war in history after it became apparent that the Japanese would never surrender.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gino



Joined: 20 Dec 2008
Posts: 127


Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue May 10, 2011 6:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think that historians now beleive that getting Japan to surrender was not the main reason for the bombing, japan was already negotionating to surrender the main reason for the bombing was to intimidate the USSR.
Two bombs were dropped in rapid succesion to give the impression that the USA had a large supply of them while in fact they had very few.



_________________
Peter Gino Marchese
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
Apple



Joined: 24 Nov 2008
Posts: 1751



PostPosted: Thu May 12, 2011 1:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Japanese were never going to surrender unconditionally which is what the allies wanted that was the whole point, for six months before the atomic bombings, the United States intensely fire-bombed Japanese cities. Together with the United Kingdom and the Republic of China, the United States called for a surrender of Japan but the Japanese government ignored this ultimatum. on June 9, 1945 - Japanese Premier Suzuki announced Japan would fight to the very end rather than accept unconditional surrender and the way they fought and refused to give in on Okinawa proved that - That battle has been referred to as the "tetsu no ame" in Japanese, (or "Typhoon of Steel"), and It refers to the ferocity of the fighting, the intensity of kamikaze attacks from the Japanese defenders, and to the sheer numbers of Allied ships and armoured vehicles that assaulted the island.

The battle resulted in the highest number of casualties in the Pacific War during World War II. Japan lost over 100,000 troops, and the Allies suffered more than 50,000 casualties of all kinds.  The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki which caused Japan to surrender was just weeks after the end of the fighting at Okinawa, because the Americans knew they would face the same sort resistance on the home islands and they didn't want that sort of loss again.  I admit and agree that there was also an element of intimidating the Russians as by that point it was becoming apparent to the allies things were not all they seemed with the Soviet regime and suspicion was mounting but I maintain the main reason for the atomic bombings was to shorten and hopefully end the war as quickly as possible and with as few allied casualties as possible and considering as I said before World War II was THE single bloodiest war ever, trying to save a few lives and end it quicker was a good thing.

Don't get me wrong here I do not condone the use of atomic bombs on innocent civilians and I'm not sure the Americans realised or comprehended what the scale of the devastation and long term after effects would be, but I reiterate when you look at that, and compare it to a man who was prepared to take the fall and be a patsy for a terrorist attack to shield the real perpetrators the two just don't compare.




Last edited by Apple on Thu May 12, 2011 9:44 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gino



Joined: 20 Dec 2008
Posts: 127


Location: UK

PostPosted: Thu May 12, 2011 7:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I will be visiting Indianapolis for a two week stay next week fortunately I will be staying with a friendly Christian family and I am sure they will not have any bloodthirsty vengeful Ideas but I hope I can avoid getting into any any arguments with red neck types.
I think the main differences arise about the the Japanese willingness to surrender due to the status of the Emperor, the Americans were thirsting for revenge and there was much talk about killing him (they killed at least a thousand leading military personal after the surrender) after they gained power in Japan.
I think there was the slightest tinge of guilt after the true horror of the atomic bombings was revealed and this version that it saved lives by shortening the war was pushed for all it was worth.



_________________
Peter Gino Marchese


Last edited by Gino on Fri May 13, 2011 2:41 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
Apple



Joined: 24 Nov 2008
Posts: 1751



PostPosted: Thu May 12, 2011 11:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gino Wrote:
Quote:
I will be visiting Indianapolis for a two week stay next week fortunately I will be staying with a friendly Christian family and I am sure they will not have any bloodthirsty vengeful Ideas but I hope I can avoid getting into any any arguments with red neck types.


What's that supposed to mean?

I'm just giving my opinion as you have, and I really don't think there is a comparison and I gave my reasons why from the extensive amount of book's documentaries and records of the time I have read/watched on this subject (including some from the Japanese point of view).

The impression I have always got on this episode of history was the Americans wanted full unconditional surrender and the removal of the emperor, which the Japanese generals saw as the emperor surrendering and which they would not tolerate as he was seen as some higher being and incredibly, many in the military wanted to fight on, even after the first atomic bomb was dropped preferring death to capitulation.

The allies were anxious not to repeat the drawn out battle of Okinawa and offered surrender on several occasions which the Japanese either ignored or declined. Was that justification enough to drop an atomic bomb on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? probably not by todays standards but that was a different time, and it was a time which horrors of total war had been perpetrated throughout the world on a scale never before witnessed and this was a totally new and virtually untested weapon and I honestly don't believe the Americans had any idea of the devastation and long term effects caused by those bombs, and in the end the emperor stayed until his death in 1989 despite the fact many former POW's and inhabitants of countries conquered by Japan, as well as others in nations that fought Japan and historians saw Emperor Hirohito as responsible for the atrocities committed by the imperial forces and found it unpalatable that he was never held to account in War Crimes trials.

Well that’s Japan and the Americans bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, what about Lockerbie? I still remember watching the news on that terrible day and seeing the devastation on that little town of Lockerbie which had nothing to do with anything and had no part at all in any of the animosity between Libya and USA. I've not read as extensively on this subject but I have the basic knowledge of the subject and a rough idea of the motive and quite frankly its just not in the same league as total world war.

Until 2003 Libya had never formally admitted carrying out the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, but in 2003 Libya formally admitted responsibility (but did not admit guilt) in a letter presented to the president of the United Nations Security Council, and Gaddafi subsequently paid compensation to the families and in the recent Libyan conflict this year Libya's former justice minister has told a Swedish newspaper that Colonel Gaddafi personally ordered the Lockerbie bombing. So then what was the motive for the Lockerbie bombing? It seems that it is generally down to a series of military confrontations with the US Navy that took place in the 1980s in the Gulf of Sidra,  Gaddafi, was accused of retaliating by ordering the bombing of West Berlin nightclub, La Belle, that was frequented by U.S. soldiers .The proof? a US National Security Agency's alleged interception of an incriminatory message from Libya to its embassy in East Berlin which was the excuse for USAF warplanes then to launch  military strikes against Tripoli and Benghazi. The Libyan government claimed the air strikes killed Hanna, a baby girl Gaddafi claimed he adopted (her reported age has varied between 15 months and seven years and to avenge his daughter's death, Gaddafi is said to have sponsored the hijacking of Pan Am Flight 73 in Karachi,  in 1986.

The US  then encouraged and aided the Chadian National Armed Forces  by supplying satellite intelligence during the Battle of Maaten al-Sarra. The attack resulted in a devastating defeat for Gaddafi's forces, ending the Chadian-Libyan conflict. Gaddafi blamed the defeat on French and U.S. "aggression against Libya". The result was Gaddafi's lingering animosity which led to Libyan support for the bombings of Pan Am Flight 103. All very questionable and all total over reactions to situations and events on both sides and all were in my opinion totally preventable and unnecessary. But the fact remains that bomb went off, killed everyone on that plane and many more on the ground, and that man took the blame for it, for him then to be released, get the totally inappropriate hero's welcome and then make some kind of miraculous recovery has to be a severe kick in the teeth for all the victims families.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gino



Joined: 20 Dec 2008
Posts: 127


Location: UK

PostPosted: Fri May 13, 2011 2:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think we have reached a reasonable agreement on the events leading upto the ending of the Japanese/USA war but the point I was making was that too much hatred should not be directed towards the foot soldiers that mererly carry out their governments policy and press the buttons.
If by some strange turn around the the crew of the Enola Gay had fallen into Japenese hands would they have been justified in killing them ?, I think not.



_________________
Peter Gino Marchese
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
Apple



Joined: 24 Nov 2008
Posts: 1751



PostPosted: Fri May 13, 2011 7:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think the reason there is so much hatred is because justice does not appear to have been done and there is no closure for the families of the victims, because of the fact he was released and those wholly inappropriate scenes of jubilation on his return to Libya that in itself was like sticking two fingers up to the rest of world and America does not and never has taken kindly to that sort of attitude, then to discover he is not as ill as originally thought just makes things worse. Plus I think the Americans think that there was some kind of underhanded deal between the previous government and Gaddafi to secure the release.

The main point I have been trying to point out though is there is a huge difference between the two and they are just not comparable, one is the closing stages of a total world war where millions died in unthinkable circumstances all over the globe, and the American's possibly misguided attempt at bringing that war to a conclusion quicker than by the traditional means available at that time, not realising the devastation they were going to unleash. The other is is a number of unnecessary spats between two countries flexing their muscles which were all totally preventable and which escalated and got out of control, resulting in the terrorist atrocity that was Lockerbie for which someone should be held accountable and it appears to the Americans now that nobody was.




Last edited by Apple on Fri May 13, 2011 9:00 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gino



Joined: 20 Dec 2008
Posts: 127


Location: UK

PostPosted: Fri May 13, 2011 8:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I want to offer my apologies if you thought I was referring to you as a red neck, it was never my intention.
I am not an enthusiast for war crimes trials, I think that they make it harder for wars to be brought to and end as was demonstrated in the ending of the Japanese/USA war.
After the Napoleonic wars Napoleon was allowed to go into exile despite the millions that died in his wars also the German Kaiser after WWI I think it better for a few guilty men to survive in exile if it means that wars end sooner.

_________________



_________________
Peter Gino Marchese
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
Apple



Joined: 24 Nov 2008
Posts: 1751



PostPosted: Fri May 13, 2011 8:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

In a way I couldn't agree more with that point, but its all a very grey area, a case arose only the other day where a frail 91 year old man was wheeled into court and now faces the rest of his life in prison for crimes he allegedly committed over 70 years ago at Sobibor - just looking at him, he poses no threat to anyone now and you have to ask yourself what has it achieved at this late stage in his life and so long after the event.

But the fact is there was no real all out war between Libya and the USA just a lot of posturing and the flexing of military muscle and retaliation that got way out of control and if there were other terrorist atrocities committed it would be expected that the perpetrators be brought to justice. Which is not the impression Americans have in this case.



Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Big Readers Forum Index -> Who are you? How are you? Where are you? etc. All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Big Readers Theme by Mike Alexander
Based on Artemis by Vjacheslav Trushkin
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum