Accrington Web - Hiroshima on TV

Page 4 of 5

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Accrington Web (https://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/index.php)

- General Chat (https://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/f69/)

- - Hiroshima on TV (https://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/f69/hiroshima-on-tv-14125.html)

Owd Bert

08-08-2005 17:10

Re: Hiroshima on TV

"We appear to have digressed somewhat from the theme of this thread, that of the ethical and strategic case for nuking Japs in 1945. I know that 'Owd Bert does have a personal interest in this because had the US not done so he would have spent the following months and possibly years fighting his way up through the Japanese mainland, with all the risk of injury and death. "

Thanks for mentioning it Tealeaf-- Yes, I was a 22year old out in India, with a girl to come back to. Prospects seemed much rosier when training was halted to tell us the news.

So I am unashamedly biased.

yerself

08-08-2005 17:12

Re: Hiroshima on TV

Have we any nuclear physicists on here. Two of the girls who survived the Hiroshima bomb were said to have been within 250 metres of the epicentre of the explosion yet they have lived into their eighties. So just how dangerous is exposure to radioactivity?

garinda

08-08-2005 18:49

Re: Hiroshima on TV

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tealeaf

Turing did not leave a suicide note; although the cause of death was an apple contaminated with arsenic, the motive behind his death remains a mystery and one theory is that he was dealt with by the security forces because like a lot of gays he was a major security risk (think Burgess, Maclean, Blunt). He had also been convicted of a crime 2 years previously.

The apple was actually poisoned with cyanide. I wouldn't be as impertinent as to suggest you are always wrong, as you recently did with me, but on this occasion you are wrong. Nor would he be open to blackmail, because of his sexuality, which in such a sensitive position is surely a good thing.

garinda

08-08-2005 19:12

Re: Hiroshima on TV

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tealeaf

The law was changed in that year to allow for such acts between consenting adults and has since been amended to reduce the age to 16 (In other words, a paedophile's charter).

So an equal age of consent for people is a paedophiles charter? You do talk some absolute, vile crap sometimes.

The equalising of the age of consent to 16 for all young people, regardless of sexual orientation brought equality of freedom to all. Was the age of consent ok when it was 16 for hetrosexual girls and boys and lesbian girls? Is it just homosexual boys you have a problem with?

Whatever the age, rightly or wrongly being 16, it should be the same for all. Boys are no more prey to paedophiles than girls are to lecherous older men at the age of 16.

My parents lived with the knowledge that from the age of 17 to 21 I could of been imprisoned for the sexuality I was born with, NOT CHOOSEN. Although, I was classed as mature enough to have joined the army and perhaps given my life for my country, and of course old enough to vote. It was just the gender of the person I may or may not gone to bed with [in private] that the State feared for my innocence.

[Sorry Willow you had alreaDy corrected the cyadide mistake before I got to this post.]

Doug	08-08-2005 20:11

Re: Hiroshima on TV

I’m sorry but this thread as absolutely nothing to do with Alan Turing, Paedophiles or the age of consent among consenting adults. If you wish to continue this conversation please create a thread specifically for the purpose. I am not unaccustomed to wandering in threads, but this is becoming ridiculous and is serving no purpose…………

garinda

08-08-2005 20:14

Re: Hiroshima on TV

I think the thread started to wander when Entwisi mentioned terrorism then someone else mentioned Churchill and commerative stamps.

garinda

08-08-2005 20:20

Re: Hiroshima on TV

To be pedantic, it was entwisi in post 8 with terorists, and Tealeaf in post 16 with commerative stamps that were the first two threads to leave the subject of Hiroshima.

garinda

08-08-2005 20:21

Re: Hiroshima on TV

Sorry. Double post.:(
Blames shaking typing finger.:(

Doug	08-08-2005 20:25

Re: Hiroshima on TV

With respect neither has anything to do with young boys…..A nuke is a terror weapon and Churchill certainly assisted the yanks with the device at the centre of the question. That’s not the point I was making Gary. We should show some respect to Owd Bert has the originator of the question and leave sexuality out of it…….We’re all a little responsible for the wander myself, Ian and Tea included, but in post 46 Owd Bert made the point that we had digressed. My point is that we should show him some respect and return to and stick to the origins of what is a very serious post.

garinda

08-08-2005 20:43

Re: Hiroshima on TV

Point taken, as we just agreed in our pm's. Just stating that it had already wandered before Tealeaf mentioned a paedophiles charter, which I strongly felt I had to answer.

My first post in this thread was going so well. Far from being a wooly liberal, I seemed to be in the same boat as everyone else, even the defender of young boy's virtues.;)

WillowTheWhisp

08-08-2005 22:27

Re: Hiroshima on TV

Quote:

Originally Posted by yerself

I got the impression that it was from drinking the radioactive rain that most people became affected by the radioactivity.

Whichever way you look at it war is horrible but in some cases necessary. Given that the Japanese would probably have fought to the death each and every one then could there have possibly been any other way than the one which was chosen? I doubt it. We were just talking this evening and mentioned the Japanese soldiers still fighting the war on small islands 20 or 30 years down the line because nobody had told them it was over. They wouldn't have given in any other way. Does that mean that I can celebrate the bombings? I'm afraid not. All that I can feel is the hope that it never has to happen ever again - anywhere. The frightening thing is that we are now capable of far worse than that.

Tealeaf

09-08-2005 14:35

Re: Hiroshima on TV

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

To be pedantic, it was entwisi in post 8 with terorists, and Tealeaf in post 16 with commerative stamps that were the first two threads to leave the subject of Hiroshima.

Eh? Read the title of the tread again....this is 60 years since the dropping of the bomb and that TV programme (along with several others) with its partial and slanting presentation of the facts is part of the commemeration. I can't see any problem with bringing up this notion of commemeration. In fact, if I'd have had my way I'd have brought out stamps....

Nagasaki 9th August 1945 2nd class (with Mushroom cloud backdrop)

Hiroshima 6th August 1945 1st Class (with flattened city backdrop)

Kamikaze Pilot on Okinawa going down in flames (40p)

Formal Surrender on Missouri (68p)

If we can lauch a stamp series called "The best of ITV" (coming soon) then I see no reason why we should'nt have had a VJ series of stamps. Afterall, come mid-October, we shall be having Trafalgar stamps.

Wynonie Harris

09-08-2005 14:49

Re: Hiroshima on TV

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tealeaf

Afterall, come mid-October, we shall be having Trafalgar stamps.

However, a line at the bottom of each stamp will read "commemorating the victory of the red team over the blue team" so as not to cause offence to the French and Spanish.

cashman

09-08-2005 17:22

Re: Hiroshima on TV

tell me you are winding us up wynonie pleeeeeeese

Wynonie Harris

09-08-2005 21:28

Re: Hiroshima on TV

Yes, I am, but nothing would surprise me in present-day Britain.

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:06.

Page 4 of 5

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page