There is no moral difference between a Stealth bomber and a suicide bomber

old hippy · 04-01-2014 06:44PM

Nino Brown wrote: »

That's racist? Is it racist to call Irishmen, Irish?

No because Irish is a descriptive term. "Jap" is an archaic, offensive term and is considered a racist slur. As I have discussed at length elsewhere on boards at least a dozen or so times.

dj jarvis · 04-01-2014 07:53PM

Killer Wench wrote: »

Missed this, did ya?

no - i quote you, "Brit or Yank is usually assigned to people of a certain nationality" ie people from Britain or America , jap also is assigned to people from Japan.

you defeat your own argument

i confuse nothing - i understand English perfectly, i also know the difference between a derogatory name for someone from a certain country and a racist slur

so you think calling someone from Scotland "jock" is a racial slur ?
or calling a welsh man "taffy" - or "Jap" for a Japanese person is equivalent to calling the Japanese all " yellow bellied slanty eyed rice eating mother****ers "

one is racist - one is a derogate national term - you missed that - did ya ?

Jap is a distasteful name to call a Japanese person , but no worse than calling a German a kraut , a English person a hun , or a French man a frog , as i said , distasteful , but not racist

dj jarvis · 04-01-2014 07:57PM

old hippy wrote: »

No because Irish is a descriptive term. "Jap" is an archaic, offensive term and is considered a racist slur. As I have discussed at length elsewhere on boards at least a dozen or so times.

so would you consider "Kraut" for a German racist ? , or "taffy" for a Welshman ?

or calling a Irishman paddy - is that racist , or is it just bad manners and distasteful

call the Irish potato eating , scrap metal robbing , buck toothed knackers would be racist - calling us paddy is not

dj jarvis · 04-01-2014 08:23PM

good example is for the usage for the word "japs" in a non racist way but derogatory way is to watch some ww2 doc on history or discovery channel , the term is used all the time , in describing the Japanese ,

or more recently , in the US film pearl harbor , they repeatedly use the term to describe the Japanese - yet i cant recall a modern movie that described black warriors/soldiers in the same way , i don't recall hearing Micheal cane shouting "here come the **** " in the film Zulu - because that would be racist
but yet , in war movies and documentary , they term Jap is used frequently , why ? because one is racist and one describes the Japanese in the same way paddy taffy hun kraut of frog is used for other nations , not nice , but not really racist

Killer Wench · 04-01-2014 08:51PM

dj jarvis wrote: »

no - i quote you, "Brit or Yank is usually assigned to people of a certain nationality" ie people from Britain or America , jap also is assigned to people from Japan.

you defeat your own argument

i confuse nothing - i understand English perfectly, i also know the difference between a derogatory name for someone from a certain country and a racist slur

so you think calling someone from Scotland "jock" is a racial slur ?
or calling a welsh man "taffy" - or "Jap" for a Japanese person is equivalent to calling the Japanese all " yellow bellied slanty eyed rice eating mother****ers "

one is racist - one is a derogate national term - you missed that - did ya ?

Jap is a distasteful name to call a Japanese person , but no worse than calling a German a kraut , a English person a hun , or a French man a frog , as i said , distasteful , but not racist

No. I just think this argument is far beyond your grasp of basic understanding between race, ethnicity, and nationality. Better luck in the future.

Nino Brown · 04-01-2014 08:57PM

I bet Jap isn't even a word in Japan. I could probably call a Japanese person a Jap, and not only would they not be offended, but they wouldn't have a clue what I just said. But say it on a discussion forum in Ireland, and watch people get their backs up about it, some people have nothing better to do but look for things to get offended by.

.jacksparrow. · 04-01-2014 09:18PM

Phoebas wrote: »

'Japanese' is the correct term. 'Jap' is widely considered to be a slur.

Jaysus.

Captain Chaos · 04-01-2014 09:19PM

Thread derailed into racist slurs, didn't see that coming.

dj jarvis · 04-01-2014 09:23PM

Killer Wench wrote: »

No. I just think this argument is far beyond your grasp of basic understanding between race, ethnicity, and nationality. Better luck in the future.

again , i fully understand the difference.
and if I have to point out the difference , then we are lost on this debate

I can call my Scottish mate , who is of east African ethnicity , but born in Scotland "jock", and get a friendly retort , normally getting called paddy back with no issue , but im sure if i called him a ****** , the outcome would be massively different , becasue one remark is racist and one is not.

i must inform him of this new development

Sound of Silence · 04-01-2014 09:24PM

Nino Brown wrote: »

I bet Jap isn't even a word in Japan. I could probably call a Japanese person a Jap, and not only would they not be offended, but they wouldn't have a clue what I just said. But say it on a discussion forum in Ireland, and watch people get their backs up about it, some people have nothing better to do but look for things to get offended by.

So I'm guessing you would have no problem calling someone of Japanese decent living here a "Jap" if you met them? Somehow I'm thinking you would very rightfully pull yourself back from saying it, like any normal and rational person. . .

I don't know what it is but people here seem to have either zero social skills whatsoever when it comes to communicating with other people or are simply so ignorant of anything outside their own experiences that they find it almost impossible to empathize with what might be offensive to other people, preferring instead to argue the semantics, as if it matters when it comes to derogatory language.

Reminds me of Nick Griffin when he tried to defend calling Irish people "Fenians".

Sound of Silence · 04-01-2014 09:26PM

dj jarvis wrote: »

again , i fully understand the difference.
and if I have to point out the difference , then we are lost on this debate

I can call my Scottish mate , who is of east African ethnicity , but born in Scotland "jock", and get a friendly retort , normally getting called paddy back with no issue , but im sure if i called him a ****** , the outcome would be massively different , becasue one remark is racist and one is not.

i must inform him of this new development

The highlighted word is very important.

Somehow I doubt you would be as cavalier as you are with your mate as you would be with any random chap you bump into on the street.

dj jarvis · 04-01-2014 09:34PM

Sound of Silence wrote: »

The highlighted word is very important.

Somehow I doubt you would be as cavalier as you are with your mate as you would be with any random chap you bump into on the street.

true , but if it was so offensive and racist , he would not be my mate for very long if ever , now would he !!

some people just want to be offended,

even wiki does not mention the word racist when describing the word jap in the context of the Japanese , it does however mention the words , derogatory and slur , funny , the VERY words i used when the subject first came up , a derogatory slur is not a racist remark

and people are accusing me of not being able to understand the concept of race ethnicity and nationality , yyyeeeaaaaaaaaa right

"Jap (ジャップ) is an English abbreviation of the word "Japanese." Today it is generally regarded as an ethnic slur among Japanese minority populations in other countries, although English-speaking countries differ in the degree to which they consider the term offensive. In the United States, Japanese Americans have come to find the term controversial or offensive, even when used as an abbreviation.[1] In the past, Jap was not considered primarily offensive; however, during and after the events of World War II, the term became derogatory"

Sound of Silence · 04-01-2014 09:40PM

dj jarvis wrote: »

true , but if it was so offensive and racist , he would not be my mate for very long if ever , now would he !!

some people just want to be offended,

even the dictionary does not mention the word racist when describing the word jap in the context of the Japanese , it does however mention the words , derogatory and slur , funny , the VERY words i used when the subject first came up , a derogatory slur is not a racist remark

and people are accusing me of not being able to understand the concept of race ethnicity and nationality , yyyeeeaaaaaaaaa right

"Jap (ジャップ) is an English abbreviation of the word "Japanese." Today it is generally regarded as an ethnic slur among Japanese minority populations in other countries, although English-speaking countries differ in the degree to which they consider the term offensive. In the United States, Japanese Americans have come to find the term controversial or offensive, even when used as an abbreviation.[1] In the past, Jap was not considered primarily offensive; however, during and after the events of World War II, the term became derogatory"

Racist or otherwise, I'm willing to bet that when you use that word you're pretty much rolling the dice when it comes to the reaction you're going to get. That should be reason enough to, you know, kind of step back and think, "Hmm, maybe it wouldn't be a great idea for me to call this person I just met a term that could very well be offensive".

I'm willing to bet that you didn't call your mate any slurs when you first met. Now that you both have been mates for a while and have gotten familiar with eachother, the banter is fine. You know why? Because he knows there is zero malice behind it.

Strangers don't know that. Therefore, don't use the term.

04-01-2014 09:45PM

Killer Wench wrote: »

Brit or Yank is usually assigned to people of a certain nationality, race is irrelevant. People usually conflate ethnicity, race, and nationality when it comes to being Japanese.

Speak for yourself.

Here in the States (as it relates to another thread), it is a considered an offensive term due to its usage from World War II.

To assume that Irish people use it as Americans do is idiocy. It's used as an abbreviation. Same as how I know Arabs who find it funny to find out they're being racist by saying "Paki" because apparently it's not just an abbreviation.

dj jarvis · 04-01-2014 09:45PM

Sound of Silence wrote: »

Racist or otherwise, I'm willing to bet that when you use that word you're pretty much rolling the dice when it comes to the reaction you're going to get. That should be reason enough to, you know, kind of step back and think, "Hmm, maybe it wouldn't be a great idea for me to call this person I just met a term that could very well be offensive".

I'm willing to bet that you didn't call your mate any slurs when you first met. Now that you both have been mates for a while and have gotten familiar with eachother, the banter is fine. You know why? Because he knows there is zero malice behind it.

Strangers don't know that. Therefore, don't use the term.

sorry , but racist or otherwise does not cut it , the debate was about the word JAP being racist , i suggested it was not , i said it was a derogatory comment , and everything i have read online regarding this backs me up ,
so it does matter

just like AH , people willing to brand someone just becasue THEY dont understand the issue or the explanation

the original poster that used the term was insinuated as a racist , i pointed out , in fact he was just being a twat , but not racist .

as i said , its not me that has a lack of understanding of the term racist , i fully understand it , and JAP is not it

*** and not wanting to derail a interesting thread im not going to post in relation to this , if people want to learn the difference between a derogatory national insult and a racist remark - go online , LOADS of stuff on it ***

Sound of Silence · 04-01-2014 09:57PM

dj jarvis wrote: »

sorry , but racist or otherwise does not cut it , the debate was about the word JAP being racist , i suggested it was not , i said it was a derogatory comment , and everything i have read online regarding this backs me up ,
so it does matter

just like AH , people willing to brand someone just becasue THEY dont understand the issue or the explanation

the original poster that used the term was insinuated as a racist , i pointed out , in fact he was just being a twat , but not racist .

as i said , its not me that has a lack of understanding of the term racist , i fully understand it , and JAP is not it

Racist words are derogatory by definition.

Where exactly is the distinction for you?

If Jap is solely derogatory, as you've argued, then tell me where it's application is outside of it being used solely to identify a specific group of people. I don't hear many people using it in the same way as they use "Shit" or "Fuck" - both derogatory words.

I think this thread is dead

dj jarvis · 04-01-2014 10:16PM

Sound of Silence wrote: »

Racist words are derogatory by definition.

Where exactly is the distinction for you?

If Jap is solely derogatory, as you've argued, then tell me where it's application is outside of it being used solely to identify a specific group of people. I don't hear many people using it in the same way as they use "Shit" or "Fuck" - both derogatory words.

I think this thread is dead

but derogatory terms are not racist by definition.

you must have missed the bit where i suggested we leave this topic and return to the thread context . and , the thread is dead ? says who ?

you have a great night ya hear

Nino Brown · 04-01-2014 10:19PM

So where were we? We were talking about kamikaze's flying stealth bombers right?

WilyCoyote · 04-01-2014 10:32PM

In SCRABBLE, stealth = 10 while suicide = 10

So I guess Stealth Bomber = Suicide Bomber.

There ye are. Sorted!

steddyeddy · 04-01-2014 10:36PM

Well this should re-rail things again! I found the interview where the quote was made. Very interesting interview about the distinction between terrorisim and war.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxTiolDpSsg

Duffy the Vampire Slayer · 05-01-2014 04:56AM

I hate when people try to defend using terms that are regarded as racist. Just stop using the term, its not that difficult.

Nino Brown · 05-01-2014 07:14AM

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

I hate when people try to defend using terms that are regarded as racist. Just stop using the term, its not that difficult.

Yeah yeah, and before you know it we're all signing baa baa rainbow sheep, until the gays decide that's offensive that is. People should stop being so easily offended, it's not that difficult.

Terry1985 · 06-01-2014 08:38AM

old hippy wrote: »

Enough of the racial slurs, if you please.

If you're offended by the term Jap, you going to have a PC field day in the motors forum... search for 'Jap cars' and 'Jap imports'.

SherlockWatson · 06-01-2014 09:22AM

Has anyone ever spoken to a Jap about this?

I have , they didn't consider the word a slur, so I don't know why some pasty white paddy's are getting their knickers in a knot over it.

PC gone mad joe.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 06-01-2014 09:26AM

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

I hate when people try to defend using terms that are regarded as racist. Just stop using the term, its not that difficult.

regarded is an ableist term, how do you think it makes blind people feel. i hope you'll reconsider your use of this vicious and vulgar word in the future.

Tony EH · 06-01-2014 09:36AM

banquo wrote: »

Because otherwise the war there would have gone on for longer, and a greater number of people than were killed from the bombs would have died.

At the very best, Japan could have held out until November and that was according to a US assessment.

As a war making power she was finished. There was nothing getting in or out the country without Allied interference.

In addition, Suzuki's government had been looking for a way to surrender months before the first bomb fell. The only stipulation that remained was the fate of the Emperor after the war had ended and even in this it was only the Army and Navy ministers that were holing out for clarification on the matter.

This was known to the Americans, as they had been reading the Japanese radio traffic for some time at that point, yet they made no attempt to reassure the Japanese that the Emperor wouldn't be harmed in any way, either during Potsdam, or after.

Such a move would have enabled the war to have ended quietly and peacefully, without the use of the bomb and tens of thousands of dead innocent civilians.

However, this would have meant forgoing the live test that a lot of American power brokers were looking for. Dropping the atomic bomb on Japanese cities would yield important test results that would have been impossible to replicate without a wartime situation and additionally provide a large wagging finger to the Russians, who had outlived their usefulness as an ally, now that Germany was defeated.

There is no justification, whatsoever, for the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan, no matter how it's twisted by some people.

Tony EH · 06-01-2014 09:44AM

dotsman wrote: »

Do you have any idea of how many lives those actions saved. Not just american lives, but Japanese?

Don't get me wrong - sucks to be on the receiving end of a nuke. But it was the second World War where, 70 years later, people are still trying to count the dead. After a decade of horrific war where the Japanese where the aggressors, where the majority of casualties were civilians and where the brutality of the regime was well known, killing a few (with respect to the estimated 60 million dead so far) to end the war was a far better option, both at the time and still today, than let it continue for another couple of months, possibly requiring a land invasion of Japan (which would have made every previous battle of the war look like a picnic)

Or, they could have abandoned the silly "unconditional surrender" nonsense and entered into talks that both sides would have found agreeable, which in fact would have been rather easy as both sides had pretty much the same aims. The Allies had no intention of harming Emperor Hirohito or in carving up the home islands. Likewise, the Japanese would have found these measures very pleasing indeed. In fact they were absolutely astounded that there was no designs made on teh home islands after the war.

It's almost assured that had the Americans made it known to the Japanese that these were their plans post-war that the conflict would have ended with using the bomb.

As for "invasion", there was no need. Operation Olympic was a non-starter. It simply wasn't needed by August 1945. Japan was finished and everybody knew it.

.jacksparrow. · 06-01-2014 10:04AM

Tony EH wrote: »

At the very best, Japan could have held out until November and that was according to a US assessment.

As a war making power she was finished. There was nothing getting in or out the country without Allied interference.

In addition, Suzuki's government had been looking for a way to surrender months before the first bomb fell. The only stipulation that remained was the fate of the Emperor after the war had ended and even in this it was only the Army and Navy ministers that were holing out for clarification on the matter.

This was known to the Americans, as they had been reading the Japanese radio traffic for some time at that point, yet they made no attempt to reassure the Japanese that the Emperor wouldn't be harmed in any way, either during Potsdam, or after.

Such a move would have enabled the war to have ended quietly and peacefully, without the use of the bomb and tens of thousands of dead innocent civilians.

However, this would have meant forgoing the live test that a lot of American power brokers were looking for. Dropping the atomic bomb on Japanese cities would yield important test results that would have been impossible to replicate without a wartime situation and additionally provide a large wagging finger to the Russians, who had outlived their usefulness as an ally, now that Germany was defeated.

There is no justification, whatsoever, for the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan, no matter how it's twisted by some people.

Thank you for this, I couldn't quite put it like this but I was astounded some people in this thread claimed it was a good thing for humanity that 70,000 people were vaporized, innocent people.

The mind boggles.

Tony EH · 06-01-2014 10:18AM

dj jarvis wrote: »

back to the 2 nukes the Americans dropped , they killed x and saved y , y is a far bigger number , you are morally bound to save the larger number , why should more die ? if its GOING to happen , regardless of the morality of the actual decision to drop , the prime objective is to save greater numbers

killing those people in the 2 citys , if the DIRECT result was the saving of ten fold , then , they must be dropped

What utter bunkum.

Alternatively, the Americans could have dropped their bomb on a target that contained no civilians. The sea of Japan perhaps?

Result nobody dead and impression made.

Unfortunately, for some, this would mean no test results from dropping it on an undamaged city full of people.

Tony EH · 06-01-2014 10:43AM

Phoebas wrote: »

There are no guarantees, but you can target a bomb e.g. you can drop it on a command post or explode it on a passenger bus.

As the question in the thread is a moral one, the intention of the bomber is important: suicide bombers usually target civilians. Stealth bomber commanders usually target military targets.

This is actually one of the most persistent fallacies when it comes to this type of conversation. When you realise that there is no such thing as precision bombing, and never has been, you understand that such a stance is useful only for salving ones conscience.

The vast majority of air dropped munitions have resulted in the death of civilians. It's unavoidable during war and will remain unavoidable unless we go back to picking a field away from urban areas in which to do our fighting.

Even with the all the complicated technology that's in the possession of the worlds air powers, it's absolutely impossible to drop bombs and not kill civilians and I'd wager that in the last decade the number of dead civilians from air borne munitions vastly outweighs that of the suicide bomber.

Also, one could argue that that the suicide bomber has the upper hand morally, as he/she knows that they are going to die amongst their targets. Whereas, the military operator dropping bombs on an urban area (the most often targeted situation) has to assure himself that no civilians are getting killed because "his country wouldn't do that sort of thing" and that they only target the "bad guys".

The guy in the plane has to go through some very tight hoops to justify his actions, whereas the suicide bomber is paying for his with his own life.

There is no moral difference between a Stealth bomber and a suicide bomber

Comments