Even the Japanese children were involved in "Taking a shot at the Sleeping
Giant."
They dutifully put Fugos Balloon Bombs together and blessed them with prayer
to carry them over the Pacific in hopes they would set fire to the forests
here in the pacific northwest.

<snip>  http://www.seanet.com/~johnco/fugo.htm

Fugos: Japanese Balloon Bombs of WWII
Officially; in the waning days of the Pacific War Japan tried a last ditch
ploy to hit the United States with a terror weapon. That weapon was the
Balloon Bomb. It was supposed to set fire to the West Coast and drop
anti-personnel bombs randomly on the U.S. In research after the war it was
found that the Japanese built 15,000 of them but only launched 9,300. A
little over 300 Balloon Bomb incidents occurred in the U.S. and Canada. The
only casualties were a woman and five kids in Bly, Oregon on a church
picnic, who found and moved one. It exploded, killing them all.
When the survival of a society is at stake,  people resort to any means of
taking out the "bad guys."  The more heinous these "bad guys" are perceived
to be, the more vindicated the populace can be in their retaliation.
That even seems to work for the descendants of the holocaust now that they
are at the other end of the stick.  We (North) Americans like to sell arms
to the vanquished, who then become the oppressor, and we have to step in to
keep the peace (and clean up on real-estate).

Guy Avenell


----- Original Message -----
From: "Wirt Atmar" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 10:47 AM
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] How To Stop Suicide Terrorists... __`_ juspu w ih


> Gerald writes:
>
> > During the second world war the Kamakazi Bombers were attempting to kill
> > Americans who were an organized uniformed Opposing Army.
> >
> >  We are talking about innocent men women and children and to whitewash
or
> >  attempt to conceal that fact is an effort to add credence to this
insane
> >  act.
>
> All war is barbaric, but much of that barbarism is meant to be
psychological.
> To suggest that the American and Allied armies were not targeting women
and
> children is to completely misrepresent history. 85,000 to 100,000 Japanese
> civilians died in the firebombing of Tokyo, as did 135,000 German
civilians
> in the firebombing of Dresden, each event conducted in the span of one
night.
> Ultimately 500,000 Japanese civilians and 1 million German civilians died
as
> a result of deliberate American and Allied attacks against their
populations.
>
> If the Japanese kamikaze pilots had had American civilian targets within
> their range, you can be assured that the pilots would have attacked those
> targets as well, although it would have greatly diluted their
effectiveness.
>
>
> Ted writes:
>
> > With all due respect, Ghandi and King (amongst others) established that
> > suicide bombing is unquestionably *not* the only response left open
> > to the Palestinians.
>
> That is both a valid and very debatable point. A German peace activist,
whose
> name I cannot unfortunately remember at the moment, visited Ghandi in
India
> in 1938 or 1939 and asked his advice. Ghandi quite obviously advised him
to
> take up passive resistance as weapon to fight the Nazis internally. His
> response was that he did not think that it would work. He told Ghandi that
> "you fight your battles with English gentlemen. I must deal with a
monster."
>
> Indians, like the Americans, South Africans, Canadians, Australians,
> Singaporeans and Hong Kongers had the great fortune to be colonized by the
> British Empire, and that Empire that left a legacy of railroads,
> communications, civil order, and most importantly, the sense of fairness
and
> justice that permeates Anglo-Saxon law.
>
> The British unified India, reigning in the Princes of the Punjab, lacing
the
> country with railroads and massively investing in a mercantile class, but
all
> the while protecting rights of the muslims, tamils and other minority
> populations through a fairly administered and deeply taught rule of law.
>
> In contrast, the Palestinians have not benefited a whit from living next
to
> or under the domination of the Israelis. Ghandi's and King's tactics
worked
> for the very reason that they were truly dealing with gentlemen. Would
these
> same tactics have ever worked against the Israelis? While not the monster
of
> Hitlerian Germany, no Israeli government on the other hand has even acted
> with the evenhandedness or fairness that the British attempted.
>
> Nonetheless, passive resistance would have been my first choice as well.
If
> it had been conducted skillfully, it would have probably broken the back
of
> the unwavering support of the Armerican government. Support for Israel in
> Europe is nothing like the level of support that Israel enjoys in the
United
> States. In the face of Israeli excesses -- the provocation of which is the
> point of passive resistance -- the US would probably have withdrawn its
> support in the face of world opinion. But as it is, the US has provided
such
> a massive amount of monetary, military and psychological support to the
State
> of Israel that it has essentially allowed Israel free reign, a very
dangerous
> condition for any government.
>
>

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *