Tuesday, August 9, 2011

National[ist] Catholic Reporter Distorter Blesses Mass Murder

Tom Woods dismantles an "entirely conventional rendition and defense of that awful episode in U.S. history, a rendition I might have expected to read in the neoconservative Weekly Standard" — Left-Liberal Catholics: Yay for the Atomic Bombings! An excerpt of his reponse:
    The use of formulations like “Japan started the war” helps to evade all the relevant moral questions; if “Japan” started it, can “Japan” be laid waste? Their political class makes an idiotic and suicidal military move, so every single three-year-old in the country becomes subject to bombing, poisoning, being burned or buried alive, etc.? At what point do we start questioning the logic of this, instead of formulating all our arguments as if this were simply an obvious moral given?

    Instead of asking these hard questions, the kind of questions we are trained from early childhood not to ask, indeed not even to be intellectually equipped to formulate, NCR gives us a collectivist propaganda piece. Anyone who criticizes the decision to drop the bomb is trying to “defame our country” (again, in classic neocon style, conflating the decisions of a small circle of officials with “our country”).

    I guess the editor of the Paulist Catholic World was trying to “defame our country”? Or how about L’Osservatore Romano, which also criticized the bombings? Or the great Catholic philosopher G.E.M. Anscombe? Or even Pat Buchanan, who denounces the bombings as acts of barbarism?
I once brought up Mr. Buchanan's opposition to the a-bombings in a conversation with two left-liberals, expecting them to find something in common with a man demonized by the media as a "hate-monger." Boy, was I wrong. Instead, I was treated to a regurgitation of the tired propaganda. Here's an old, quote-laden post of mine, countering such left-liberal nonsense — Old Rightist Voices Against Atomic Mass Murder.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Bookmark and Share


Blogger scotju said...

WC, the two cities were legitimate military targets. One had a military base and war production facilies were spread out in civilian area throughot both cities. Our air force dropped leaflets warning the civilians days in advance to get out before the bombs were dropped. So if they chose to stay and be nuked, it was their own damm fault.

12:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I left a comment (probably won't get published) complaining how the atom bomb was an example of anti-diversity, since the victims didn't include blacks and latinos. Maybe that would get through to the liberals.

12:36 AM  
Blogger Iosue Andreas Sartorius said...

scotju, there were no "leaflets warning the civilians days in advance to get out before the bombs were dropped." That is a lie our government told you, and you chose to accept uncritically.

Pearl Harbor was a legitimate military target, and the attack was an example of the neocon preventative war doctrine. I'm not justifying Pearl Harbor, but it was a far less infamous attack than those on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (or Dresden or Tokyo for that matter).

I suggest you ponder Catechism of the Catholic Church - Paragraph # 2314: "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and humanity, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation."

Conservative Catholics ranging from Pope Pius XII to Archbishop Fulton Sheen to and Father James Gillis expressed their "firm and unequivocal condemnation." Left-liberal Catholic like you and NCR are eating at the cafeteria.

Well said, kuiwon. Maybe they will argue that they tried hard to include cities with large Korean populations to be as "diverse" as possible.

6:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

WC, the two cities were legitimate military targets. One had a military base and war production facilies were spread out in civilian area throughot both cities.

Both cities were industrial centers and bases, but we held control of the waters and the resources the factories needed so in essence both cities were neutralized. Ralph Raico's article points out the military aspect, but the collapse of the Japanese Empire meant the latter.

Our air force dropped leaflets warning the civilians days in advance to get out before the bombs were dropped.

By which you mean this leaflet? If you notice, it mentions cities in general, and the picture gives the impression of a incendiary bomb raid, not an atomic bombing. It also told them we weren't the enemy but their government was. Here is the article on that "warning".

If you were on the receiving end of 40 kilotons of destruction, and days later the people that did it give you a note saying they aren't the enemy, would you believe them?
That's right, they were dropped after the bombing of Hiroshima.

I should also note that the source of the leaflet and the translation is from the CIA website detailing "the Information War in the Pacific."

So if they chose to stay and be nuked, it was their own damm fault.

About as much as it was the fault of those that went to work in the World Trade Center on 9/11 that they fell with the towers? In your schooldays, that would have rated having you mouth washed out with soap! If it didn't, it ought to have.

9:07 AM  
Blogger scotju said...

IAS, I just did a web search. I googled "Dropping leaflets on Hiroshima" and guess what? It took only several minutes to find many sources that said we did drop pamphlets and leaflets on those cities, several days before they were nuked. In fact, it was Allied policy to drop them on any city before a bombing raid. By the way, I'm not a liberal or a neo-con, I'm an orthodox Catholic and a patriotic American who believes Truman made the right decision ti break the backs of the fanatical militarists who controled the Japanese government.

9:20 AM  
Blogger love the girls said...

scotju writes : "war production facilies were spread out in civilian area throughot both cities."

This has always been the argument I have the most difficulty with because the industry was indiscriminately interspersed throughout the cities to where it wasn't possible to bomb them without bombing the entire city. To wit, fire bombing Tokyo.

On whom does the burden rest?

I think it's pretty clear that if men defending a village can shoot at an advancing enemy using a human shield wall because the burden to protect those innocents doesn't outweigh their duty to defend their kith and ken under attack in the village.

Similarly, modern warfare incorporates the entire populace into the war because machinery production is intrinsic to the war with Japanese society having been intertwined where it was simply impossible to separate out combatant from non combatant.

The difference between fire bombing Tokyo and Nagasaki is that the first had a reason relative to war while the latter was used to force unconditional surrender. While the first is arguable either way, in the latter the burden rested clearly on the Americans who chose to kill innocents.

12:01 PM  
Blogger love the girls said...

scotju writes " I'm not a liberal or a neo-con, I'm an orthodox Catholic and a patriotic American"

Such defenses may fly for the libs. thinking their orthodox over at "liar of the cavemen" but elsewhere you need to back it up with Church teaching.

10:44 PM  
Blogger scotju said...

The bleeding heart whine session for the Japanese that I see in these com-boxes is pathetic. These people were fanatical savages. Nanking, Battan, Corrigador made the Japanese hated throughout the world. I also believe the Koreans have no great love for the sons of Nippon either, you might say many of the Korean women found no "comfort" was given by the Japanese soldiers. The Japanese government has never apologised or made repartations for any of these crimes committed against their victims. Yet you and others cry a river about nuking a couple of military targets. Your misplaced pity, IMHO, is sympathy for the devil.

10:59 PM  
Blogger Iosue Andreas Sartorius said...

You're pathetic, and perhaps a fanatical savage if it weren't for your obvious ignorance, in labeling as "fanatical savages" the thousands of women and children, not to mention Koreans and Catholics and other noncombatants, incinerated in those ungodly attacks, ordered by a 33rd Degree Freemason. And you talk about "sympathy for the devil."

Try your arguments with Blessed Pope Pius XII and Servant of God Archbishop Fulton Sheen, both of whom were among those who condemned the attacks within days after they were committed.

11:44 PM  
Blogger scotju said...

IAS, the Japanese wanted to conquer all of Asia. They were willing to commit any act of terrorism against anybody to bring them into subjection. "Fanatical savages" is a pretty good description of the people who brought us the Rape of Nanking, the Baatan Death March, and other war crimes.
Yes, it's always a shame that civilians run the risk of getting killed in a war. That's why we warned the people of those cities we were going to drop a bomb on them. The Japanese killed civilians without mercy, especially in Nanking.
As for bringing Sheen and PPXII into the arguement against a-bombing, I suggest you read the post and the comments from the American Catholic from 08/14/2010. the-american-catholic.com/2010/08/14/victory-over-japan/

2:07 AM  
Blogger Iosue Andreas Sartorius said...

Equating citizens with their government is the logic of Al Qaeda.

11:38 AM  
Blogger scotju said...

IAS, the Japanese people were trained to follow the Emperor without question. Everybody in Japan was told to take up arms to fight the invaders. So under the Imperial government, there were no civilians, everybody was in the army. Yes "Equating citizens with their government may be the logic of Al Qaeda" but it was the logic that the Japanese government used on it's own people in an effort to keep the war going. Thankfully, two a-bombs scared the miltaristic fanatics in the Imperial government that continuing the war wasn't in their best interest.

2:48 PM  
Blogger Francis-Xavier said...

"Pearl Harbor was a legitimate military target,....was a far less infamous attack than those on Hiroshima and Nagasaki...."

With all due respect, I wholly doubt that any serious experts in military science would concur. Pearl Harbor was a surprise attack that preceded a formal declaration of war and which was accompanied by diplomatic negotiations in bad faith. "Civilized countries" i.e. not Nazi Germany, not Stalinist Russia, and not 1941 Japan, just did not do such things.

The Japanese began the war with the US as barbarians, and ended it after some unpleasant lessons, which almost certainly are explained to a good part by their throwing overboard the established norms of warfare.

3:39 AM  
Blogger scotju said...

Francis-Xavier, congrats for being another voice of sanity on this post!

10:43 PM  
Blogger Aquohn said...

I live in an area formerly occupied by the Japanese, and studied the Japanese Occupation in school. I live in Singapore, the former Crown Colony of the British Empire, fallen to the Japanese on 15 February 1942, and freed from the hands of the insane Japanese rulers by the atomic bomb. In the interim between these two events, the Japanese did terrible, terrible things. From Japan, down through China, and Malaya, and Singapore, everywhere, the Japanese brutalised the civilians. People were so poor they had to pick rice off the floor. But worst of all is their policy of Sook Ching. In order to punish the Chinese for putting up such a tough fight (they conquered Malaya before taking all of China, as they needed the tin & rubber there), and to punish the overseas Chinese in Singapore and Malaya for supporting the Chinese war effort, they engaged in indiscriminate murder of the Chinese population. Chinese-majority Singapore was hit really hard. I, fortunately, lost only one great-grand-uncle to it. Many were not so fortunate. The Japanese were brutal and vicious in the war. The atomic bomb was a tragic necessity. The further continuation of the war would have seen many more Chinese massacred everywhere. The invasion of Japan would have seen many soldiers dead. 500,000 Purple Hearts were manufactured in anticipation of the casualties caused by a Japanese invasion (that' about half the actual total given out during the war). Through the Korean War, Vietnam War, Gulf War, Afghanistan War and Iraq War, there are still (as of 2003) 120,000 of those same 500,000 left over. The Japanese were also employing "fight-to-the-death" policies that would starve out its civilians and eradicate the distinction between combatants and non-combatants. Wikipedia cites a few reasons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

9:40 AM  
Blogger Iosue Andreas Sartorius said...

I lived 14 years in (and married into) a country occupied for 35 years by the Japanese, Korea. No one hates the Japanese worse than the Koreans, but both North and South Korea have funded memorials at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Perhaps Koreans, with their high IQs (average 107 - highest in the world), are able to understand that the a-bombs had nothing to do with ending a war that already had been won. As none other that Dwight David Eisenhower noted, the surrender feelers had already long been sent out, and, "It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

The a-bombs were the first shot in the Cold War, a cynical warning to our "ally" Soviet Russia, in which tens of thousands of civilians were slaughtered.

Your argument is merely an apology for mass murder.

10:18 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Omnes Sancti et Sanctæ Coreæ, orate pro nobis.