Were the crew of the Enola Gay war criminals?

[Revoltingest]

Perhaps all of the above. But it is against the Geneva Convention to deliberately target civilians.

In the documentary "The War You Don't See" by John Pliger, the stats were given about civilian casualties in the wars fought since 1914.

In WW 1 civilian casualties made up 10%.
WW 2 it was 50 %
Vietnam 70%
Iraq 90%

Do you see the disturbing trend? Human beings can never be viewed as simply "collateral damage". Human life is not something to be treated lightly or taken without due regard for its sanctity in the eyes of God.

I don't disagree that such things are disturbing. But I ask because the nuclear bomb attacks so often provoke discussions of war crimes, while firestorm attacks using incendiary bombs are largely ignored. The latter results in comparable death tolls (even greater in Tokyo than the Nagasaki bombing) per city, & was used more often in both Germany (eg, Dresden) & Japan. I consider that even if we'd foregone the nuclear bombing, we'd have continued firebombing, which just didn't impress the Japanese to the same extent, despite even greater devastation & death tolls. To end the war sooner by "disturbing" the Japanese still strikes me as a good decision. But I still find it odd that killing even more civilians with firestorms is tacitly acceptable.

When men sign up for military service, they disown themselves and offer their lives for their country. This is seen as a noble thing. Soldiers of Christ do the same, except that we refuse to use a weapon. We will take a bullet for our brother, but we will never fire one. I believe this to be equally noble.

We'll have to agree to disagree about the nobility of dying without a fight.
I'd rather let my enemy take a bullet.

 

[oldbadger]

Actually what the world does is none of my business.

Well, why are you giving opinion on this thread.... Were the crew of the Enola Gay war criminals? ?

Services provided by the government in most nations include all sorts of services that tax payers fund. As tax paying citizens we can expect to benefit from those services. Schools, roads, hospitals, police, etc. It doesn't mean that we have to be part of that arrangement and serve with weapons.

Are you trying to tell me that there are no serving Police Officers in your country who are JWs? There are in the UK. And they carry weapons. So this is a cop-out...?

God allows governments to rule for now to maintain a measure of order. He authorizes them to "bear the sword" but we would not join them.

So you ignore the orders of your God?
You do join them, as explained in the para before this..... ?

Do you know how conscientious objectors responded to acts of war and violence perpetrated on themselves and their loved ones? Much the same as the first Christians did when thrown to the lions in the Roman arena. They showed no resistance and never resorted to violence. If Christ taught us to conquer evil with good, that is what we would endeavour to do. If we died by holding our integrity, then so be it. I would rather die faithful than become something Christ told me not to be. I will obey God first. You may choose a different path.

My Dad's neighbour was one. Very brave. Ran a trawler throughout the whole war, fishing in the North Sea...... the North Sea!
I don't know about Christ (you could quote some Paul?) but Jesus :-

Luke {22:36} Then said he unto them, But now, he that
hath a purse, let him take [it,] and likewise [his] scrip: and
he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

 

[Sees]

Perhaps all of the above. But it is against the Geneva Convention to deliberately target civilians.

In the documentary "The War You Don't See" by John Pliger, the stats were given about civilian casualties in the wars fought since 1914.

In WW 1 civilian casualties made up 10%.
WW 2 it was 50 %
Vietnam 70%
Iraq 90%

Do you see the disturbing trend? Human beings can never be viewed as simply "collateral damage". Human life is not something to be treated lightly or taken without due regard for its sanctity in the eyes of God.

When men sign up for military service, they disown themselves and offer their lives for their country. This is seen as a noble thing. Soldiers of Christ do the same, except that we refuse to use a weapon. We will take a bullet for our brother, but we will never fire one. I believe this to be equally noble.

Hi friend,

Soldier of Christ is a huge stretch.

Most of the people we killed in Iraq weren't even Iraqis and better described as minions than civilians.

Most of the people I know past and current active duty didn't sign up to fight for U.S. Inc. but for a host of other reasons.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I forget which American general characterized the bombing of Japan -- not just the atomic bombing, but all of it -- as a war crime. Do you remember who it was, by any chance?

I'm pretty sure MacArthur was one of them, though a number of military leaders and scientists considered it a war crime and admitted had they lost it would have been them hanging at Nuremberg. By the Allies own standards of executing Nazis who were just "following orders," the crew of the Enola Gay were war criminals. The Japanese were defeated, they were entering into negotiations to end the war, and the blasts caused immeasurable damage and suffering to civilians.
But rather I think it a step above war criminal, and they were crimes against humanity because the effects of the atomic bomb were unknown. Such an irresponsible action, as far as anyone knew then, could have been the death of us all.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Disturbing? Considering that they obliterated two cities in a matter of seconds, reducing many of the civilian inhabitants to vapour, you could say that was a bit disturbing.

Indeed. They should have only obliterated a third of them and then left the survivors to be tortured for five months by locusts. That would have been much less disturbing. :sarcastic

 

[Revoltingest]

The Japanese were defeated, they were entering into negotiations to end the war, and the blasts caused immeasurable damage and suffering to civilians.

This is not so factual.
Surrender of Japan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The prospect of continued bloody war with an even greater death was a real likelihood.
At least by nuking the 2 cities, the death toll was limited to the enemy. And the plan worked.

 

[JayJayDee]

I don't disagree that such things are disturbing. But I ask because the nuclear bomb attacks so often provoke discussions of war crimes, while firestorm attacks using incendiary bombs are largely ignored. The latter results in comparable death tolls (even greater in Tokyo than the Nagasaki bombing) per city, & was used more often in both Germany (eg, Dresden) & Japan. I consider that even if we'd foregone the nuclear bombing, we'd have continued firebombing, which just didn't impress the Japanese to the same extent, despite even greater devastation & death tolls. To end the war sooner by "disturbing" the Japanese still strikes me as a good decision. But I still find it odd that killing even more civilians with firestorms is tacitly acceptable.

When napalm was used in Vietnam, I do not believe that the general public were ever exposed to the aftermath of that as a weapon used on whole villages of innocent women and children. Since 'the enemy' was hard to spot because they did not wear uniforms...everyone was treated as the enemy. The "shoot first and ask questions later" mentality has pervaded all activities in warfare in these troubled times. Can a christian do that?

Reporting on 'the war we never see' is carefully controlled; it is sanitized in its reporting (especially by embedded journalists) to shield the general public, not only from the horror of it, but to downplay the responsibility of those involved in using those weapons on other human beings. Dehumanizing the enemy is one of the most important weapons of war. If we saw these as 'people'...someone's son or daughter...father or mother...brother or sister...then perhaps our conscience might come into play, but because training in the military, of necessity requires one to hate the enemy as "the enemy", compassion cannot be a factor in war. Since love and compassion are the backbone of Christ's teachings, if we lost them...we could no longer call ourselves Christians.

Can you see why Christians can never be a part of the military? We are taught to 'love our enemies' and to do good to those who wish us harm. Most people cannot entertain such an attitude without feeling treasonous. For a Christian...there is no enemy but the devil. Humans are his puppets, so we feel compassion even for those who are brainwashed into believing that their service to their country or to their religious or political ideal is also a service to God. The thing is, for a Christian, they are diametrically opposed. We cannot be citizens of God's kingdom whilst at the same time swearing allegiance to a country and committing ourselves to engage in unchristian conduct. (Acts 10:34, 35) It is the height of hypocrisy.

We'll have to agree to disagree about the nobility of dying without a fight.
I'd rather let my enemy take a bullet.

And you are entitled to hold that view. But I have to ask what kind of 'programming' led you to that stance? I don't think we realize how 'conditioned' we are from childhood to hold certain things to be sacrosanct. Do we appreciate that patriotism is a 'duty' that has been cleverly 'married' to religion...so much so that most people can't tell them apart?
No matter what "god" you serve, he will fight for you in a war. The only god served by war is the devil. (1 John 5:19)

I see religion's clear involvement with the military and their tacit support for the bloodshed. Just recently with the commemorations marking WW 1, how much was religion involved in the proceedings? How much sanction is given by the church for the most unchristian behavior demonstrated in wars? In WW2 churches were used as recruiting stations.

How can decent church going people be told that there is such a thing as a "just" war?...for those who are footstep followers of Christ, there is no such thing. God does not sanction war for Christians and never has...if he did then the lives of all the innocents taken in increasing numbers in our time would be on his shoulders. I can assure you that the blame lies squarely at the feet of man and his greed for power, resources and wealth. These are the footing that form the foundation of corruption that clearly mark the devil's world. How much of its attitudes are molded by him....the great deceiver? If you step back you can see the big picture.

 

[Imaginary_Friends]

This is not so factual.
Surrender of Japan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The prospect of continued bloody war with an even greater death was a real likelihood.
At least by nuking the 2 cities. The death toll was limited to the enemy. And the plan worked.

This in a nutshell was the logic behind using those atomic weapons.

I don't know why that is so difficult for the opposition to comprehend.

 

[JayJayDee]

Well, why are you giving opinion on this thread.... Were the crew of the Enola Gay war criminals? ?

Because many who consider themselves to be Christians see no problem with a Christian engaging in violence and bloodshed of war, when they would not do so in any other aspect of life. I am simply presenting an opposing view....the Biblical one as opposed to the patriotic one.

Are you trying to tell me that there are no serving Police Officers in your country who are JWs? There are in the UK. And they carry weapons. So this is a cop-out...?

Well, I can't speak for everyone who calls themselves Jehovah's Witnesses. We have a few among our ranks who are not spiritually strong and that is a pity, but a few weak apples doesn't reflect badly on the 8 million who are resolutely refusing to carry weapons.
All I can do is present you with our official stance as follows....

"Use of Arms in Civilian Employment
If someone has employment that involves carrying a weapon for use against other humans, or if he is required to be trained in the martial arts, such as judo and karate, what should he do? In making his personal decision he must bear in mind that a follower of Jesus is to pursue peace. (Romans 12:17, 18) In view of what is stated at Isaiah 2:4, most of Jehovah’s Witnesses avoid such employment. Even though the employment may be for the purpose of protecting the public (or property) in harmony with Romans 13:4, experience has shown that there is always the danger of incurring bloodguilt by taking life with the weapon, with harm to the individual’s conscience, as well as there being a danger of injury or death to oneself due to retaliation. (Psalm 51:14; compare Numbers 35:11, 12, 22-25.) Certainly it is best to avoid such dangers by selecting employment where they do not arise.

During these “last days,” many employees are expected to carry a firearm. Bank or security guards, watchmen and policemen may even be required to do so to hold employment. But what of the Christian, who is obligated to “provide for those who are his own”? (1 Timothy 5:8) His Bible-trained viewpoint would be different from that of worldly persons, who feel free to carry such weapons and to use them as they see fit in any dangerous situation that may arise. (Ephesians 5:15-17) He will want to avoid bloodguilt, having in mind Jehovah’s viewpoint on the sanctity of blood. (Genesis 9:6; Psalm 55:23) A mature Christian should try to find unarmed employment. Some Witnesses by talking with their employer have been successful in changing to a job that does not require carrying a weapon.

As the world becomes increasingly violent we can no longer regard as exemplary a brother who continues in armed employment. He could be allowed six months to make a change. If he does not make a change, he would not be in a position to hold special privileges of service and responsibility in the congregation.—1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:5, 6." ( WT '83 7/15 p25-26 para 17-19)

If some choose to go against this recommendation, they do so at the risk of becoming bloodguilty before God. It's a conscience issue.

So you ignore the orders of your God?
You do join them, as explained in the para before this..... ?

No, as Witnesses we follow the teachings of Christ. That does not allow us to carry weapons. If some because of a weakened spiritual state decide to stay in this kind of employment, they are out of harmony with the brotherhood they claim to be part of.

My Dad's neighbour was one. Very brave. Ran a trawler throughout the whole war, fishing in the North Sea...... the North Sea!
I don't know about Christ (you could quote some Paul?) but Jesus :-

Luke {22:36} Then said he unto them, But now, he that
hath a purse, let him take [it,] and likewise [his] scrip: and
he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Those who braved the tide of public opinion were indeed very brave. But God not only takes into account our actions, but also what motivates them. If we are brave in the face of danger for all the wrong reasons, it will hold no sway with the Father. The action must be motivated out of love for God and neighbor.
Was this man's motivation to keep earning a living or was it because he was a Christian?

That is a terrible misapplication of scripture btw.

When Jesus told his disciples to buy a sword, it was not with the intention to use them. Remember when Peter did, Jesus rebuked him?
If you read the account, being armed was to fulfill a prophesy, nothing more. Jesus was not armed and telling his disciple to go and buy swords proves that they were not armed either.

There is no sanction for Christians to carry weapons. :sorry1:

 

[Sapiens]

War criminals are never on the winning side.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

War criminals are never on the winning side.

Precisely. Western forces and Israel have committed many violations of the Geneva Conventions but will they ever be dragged before the Hague? Nope. There is no justice in this world.

 

[Sapiens]

War is not a just undertaking, to assume that it is and that it should/could be is foolish in the extreme.

 

[JayJayDee]

Hi friend,

Soldier of Christ is a huge stretch.

G'day Sees,

Paul made figurative reference to the military with regard to Christ's disciples yet never once is there a recommendation for them to take up arms for any reason.

"But a slave of the Lord does not need to fight, but needs to be gentle toward all, qualified to teach, keeping himself restrained under evil, 25 instructing with mildness those not favorably disposed; as perhaps God may give them repentance leading to an accurate knowledge of truth, 26 and they may come back to their proper senses out from the snare of the Devil, seeing that they have been caught alive by him for the will of that one." (2 Tim 2:24-26)

If this is true on a personal level, then we believe that it is true on all levels.

"For though we walk in the flesh, we do not wage warfare according to flesh. 4 For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but powerful by God for overturning strongly entrenched things. 5 For we are overturning reasonings and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God; and we are bringing every thought into captivity to make it obedient to the Christ" (2 cor 10:3-5)

Bringing one's thoughts and reasoning into line with Christ's teachings is often very difficult if one has been indoctrinated from birth to view participation in war as one's patriotic duty. A Christian's first duty is to God, not to any man or to any nation.

Most of the people we killed in Iraq weren't even Iraqis and better described as minions than civilians.

Most of the people I know past and current active duty didn't sign up to fight for U.S. Inc. but for a host of other reasons.

That really has nothing to do with any of of the issues raised here. It wouldn't matter if "the enemy" or his minions were from the moon...we, as Christ's disciples would still not fight them.

I do not expect those who are patriots or those who subscribe to Christendom's view of Christianity to understand a single thing I say, but I know that there are some whose conscience troubles them about these things. It is to these ones that I appeal. Let your Christian conscience be your guide. God gave it to us for a reason. :yes:

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is a terrible misapplication of scripture btw.

When Jesus told his disciples to buy a sword, it was not with the intention to use them. Remember when Peter did, Jesus rebuked him?

And where in the Bible does Jesus say "you know those swords I asked you to get, don't use them ever"? The mere fact that he didn't think violence was right in that time and place doesn't mean he was against violence in all cases.

If you read the account, being armed was to fulfill a prophesy, nothing more. Jesus was not armed and telling his disciple to go and but swords proves that they were not armed either.

"[...]and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one."

The way the verse (Luke 22:36) is written suggests that some of his disciples were already armed and some were not. Edit: it also suggests that the reason some disciples didn't have swords likely had to do more with them not being able to afford swords than some opposition to violence.

In Matthew 8, Jesus meets a Centurion who becomes his follower. The passage mentions nothing about Jesus telling him to resign from the Roman army... or about Jesus having any problem with his military service at all. Why do you think that is?

 

[Revoltingest]

When napalm was used in Vietnam, I do not believe that the general public were ever exposed to the aftermath of that as a weapon used on whole villages of innocent women and children. Since 'the enemy' was hard to spot because they did not wear uniforms...everyone was treated as the enemy. The "shoot first and ask questions later" mentality has pervaded all activities in warfare in these troubled times. Can a christian do that?

The VN war was a different kettle of fish, & not very relevant to nuking Japan.
I cannot speak for Xians.

Reporting on 'the war we never see' is carefully controlled; it is sanitized in its reporting (especially by embedded journalists) to shield the general public, not only from the horror of it, but to downplay the responsibility of those involved in using those weapons on other human beings. Dehumanizing the enemy is one of the most important weapons of war. If we saw these as 'people'...someone's son or daughter...father or mother...brother or sister...then perhaps our conscience might come into play, but because training in the military, of necessity requires one to hate the enemy as "the enemy", compassion cannot be a factor in war. Since love and compassion are the backbone of Christ's teachings, if we lost them...we could no longer call ourselves Christians.

Can you see why Christians can never be a part of the military? We are taught to 'love our enemies' and to do good to those who wish us harm. Most people cannot entertain such an attitude without feeling treasonous. For a Christian...there is no enemy but the devil. Humans are his puppets, so we feel compassion even for those who are brainwashed into believing that their service to their country or to their religious or political ideal is also a service to God. The thing is, for a Christian, they are diametrically opposed. We cannot be citizens of God's kingdom whilst at the same time swearing allegiance to a country and committing ourselves to engage in unchristian conduct. (Acts 10:34, 35) It is the height of hypocrisy.

Since I'm an atheist, I'm not bound by any Biblical prescriptions.
I'm willing to use violence in self defense.

And you are entitled to hold that view. But I have to ask what kind of 'programming' led you to that stance? I don't think we realize how 'conditioned' we are from childhood to hold certain things to be sacrosanct. Do we appreciate that patriotism is a 'duty' that has been cleverly 'married' to religion...so much so that most people can't tell them apart?
No matter what "god" you serve, he will fight for you in a war. The only god served by war is the devil. (1 John 5:19)

I see religion's clear involvement with the military and their tacit support for the bloodshed. Just recently with the commemorations marking WW 1, how much was religion involved in the proceedings? How much sanction is given by the church for the most unchristian behavior demonstrated in wars? In WW2 churches were used as recruiting stations.

How can decent church going people be told that there is such a thing as a "just" war?...for those who are footstep followers of Christ, there is no such thing. God does not sanction war for Christians and never has...if he did then the lives of all the innocents taken in increasing numbers in our time would be on his shoulders. I can assure you that the blame lies squarely at the feet of man and his greed for power, resources and wealth. These are the footing that form the foundation of corruption that clearly mark the devil's world. How much of its attitudes are molded by him....the great deceiver? If you step back you can see the big picture.

I've never believed in gods or devils, so neither will protect or harm me.
Self defense is just a rational choice to ensure survival.
And the big picture is that I like surviving.

FYI:
I was a nascent draft dodger until Nixon cancelled the draft....just in time.
Then I went to work at Northrop designing flight controls on the F-18.
Now I'm a landlord, & carry a Glock 22.
I like bacon.

 

[LuisDantas]

Easy....... you don't want crime but you want the forces ranged against it to be peaceful....

"But"?

Of course I do want crime prevention to be peaceful.

now start with your home city and successfully end all crime peacefully.

That, of course, would take generations and a level of political influence that I simply lack entirely.

Then, and only then should you look to rend crime in your country, peacefully, and then you could address the World's crime. We are all walking before we can run, methinks?

Why would you think so? Crime prevention is a social issue. War crimes are a matter of seriousness of political/military policy. Their solutions are hardly convergent.

Have you ever used force against a crime in the happening? Have you ever had to hold a and detain a criminal? Start there....

Still not seeing your point, sorry.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm curious....what aspects of nuking Japanese cities are most disturbing?
Number of deaths per attack?
Deaths per bomb?
Quickness of the destruction?
Radiation?
Civilian deaths?
Grisly nature of the deaths?
The fact that only one side had the bomb?

That human beings actually did it purposefully... and then repeated the deed three days later.

 

[LuisDantas]

No.... they did not. They were committed to continue... Only after Nagasaki did a majority of leaders force the decision to surrender...

That sure sounds odd and unlikely, and does not really mesh with other sources' perspectives.

After Nagasaki a majority of leaders pushed the surrender through, and thus millions of Japanese, American, Australian, New Zealand, Canadian, Indian, Nepalese, English and other lives were saved.

Assuming, of course, that Nagasaki was decisive and that the conflict would otherwise run indefinitely.

Both assumptions are, far as I know, unwarranted.

 

[LuisDantas]

This is not so factual.
Surrender of Japan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The prospect of continued bloody war with an even greater death was a real likelihood.
At least by nuking the 2 cities, the death toll was limited to the enemy. And the plan worked.

Sometimes I can't help but wonder how Americans can live with that.

 

[Revoltingest]

That human beings actually did it purposefully... and then repeated the deed three days later.

Mass killings in wartime are generally purposeful, so this didn't differ in that respect.
It took 2 bombs to convince the Japanese to surrender.