Wiki:

(Bold is mine)

Hiroshima during World War II

The Enola Gay and its crew, who dropped the "Little Boy" atomic bomb on Hiroshima.At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of some industrial and military significance. A number of military camps were located nearby, including the headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. Hiroshima was a minor supply and logistics base for the Japanese military. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops. It was one of several Japanese cities left deliberately untouched by American bombing, allowing a pristine environment to measure the damage caused by the atomic bomb.^{[citation needed]}

The center of the city contained several reinforced concrete buildings and lighter structures. Outside the center, the area was congested by a dense collection of small wooden workshops set among Japanese houses. A few larger industrial plants lay near the outskirts of the city. The houses were constructed of wood with tile roofs, and many of the industrial buildings were also built around wood frames. The city as a whole was highly susceptible to fire damage.

Thank you for the attempt. Now find something that supports what you said in your original post. What you said was this:

"When you add into the equation that Hiroshima was purposely NOT fire-bombed so that he full effects of a nuke could be observed....."

Provide us some proof that the reason Hiroshima was NOT bombed was, "so the full effects of a nuke could be observed."

Your words, not mine.

Provide us some sort of information that seems to indicate the only reason the US did not bomb Hiroshima during the first three plus years of the war was because of the nuclear weapon they had developed in 1945. Your words state rather emphatically there was some grand scheme going on within the US government for over three years in order to set the city up for a bombing.

Your statement is ludicrous and false and you have not provided proof of your assertion.

???? I just gave you a wiki quote....wiki is generally quite reliable, and would certainly deserve significant information to call it false. I put the relevant quote in bold for your convenience...I even qualied that I had boldened some words....and you are saying I didn't provide you with "some sort of information"?

????? I specifalically said "in the weeks prior". Nowhere did I claim anything about the previous 3 years.

???? Ludicrous? I thought you had been studying the dictionary lately....I'll give you time.

????? False? Again you accuse me of deceit. That's 3 times without any substance.

What's the problem with "ludicrous"? What is "specifalically" (sic) incorrect?

___________________________________________________

Definition of ludicrous:

lu⋅di⋅crous  /ˈludɪkrəs/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [loo-di-kruhs] Show IPA

Use ludicrous in a Sentence

See images of ludicrous

Search ludicrous on the Web

–adjective causing laughter because of absurdity; provoking or deserving derision; ridiculous; laughable: a ludicrous lack of efficiency.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:

1610–20; < L lūdicrus sportive, equiv. to lūdicr(um) a show, public games (lūdi-, s. of lūdere to play, + -crum n. suffix of instrument or result) + -us -ous

Related forms:

lu⋅di⋅crous⋅ly, adverb

lu⋅di⋅crous⋅ness, noun

Synonyms:

farcical. See funny.

Dictionary.com Unabridged

Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.

Cite This Source |Link To ludicrous

Explore the Visual Thesaurus »Related Words for : ludicrous

farcical, ridiculous, absurd, cockeyed, derisory

View more related words »

lu·di·crous (lōō'dĭ-krəs)

adj. Laughable or hilarious because of obvious absurdity or incongruity. See Synonyms at foolish.

[From Latin lūdicrus, sportive, from lūdus, game; see leid- in Indo-European roots.]

lu'di·crous·ly adv., lu'di·crous·ness n.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Cite This Source

Word Origin & History

ludicrous

1619, "pertaining to play or sport," from L. ludicrus, from ludicrum "source of amusement, joke," from ludere "to play," which, with L. ludus "a game, play," may be from Etruscan, or from a PIE base *leid- "to play." Sense of "ridiculous" is attested from 1782.

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper

HERE IS THE LINK: (Capitalized in order to be better seen.)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ludicrous

Do you have that easel out yet?

I was waiting for the dictionary quote.

I think you need to go back and try to comprehend everything that has been said.

I was waiting for the dictionary quote.

I think you need to go back and try to comprehend everything that has been said.

Isn't that you saying on another thread about the use of semantics during a debate? I stand by my definition of your post as being ludicrous. In reality, most of your posts do fall under that definition.

Now I am going to take a little nap and give you time to regroup. I will check back in later but this little respite will give you time to gather your strength and resources.

At the risk of being shouted at by both, I think the point being made is the emboldened section under Wikipedia's own rules requires citation [an approved collaborating source] and at this time there isn't one. Hence, Harcout, the criticism of using it to support the contention [even though personally I think the contention is not unreasonable]

Regards

At the risk of being shouted at by both, I think the point being made is the emboldened section under Wikipedia's own rules requires citation [an approved collaborating source] and at this time there isn't one. Hence, Harcout, the criticism of using it to support the contention [even though personally I think the contention is not unreasonable]

Regards

You are right, and no shouting from me.

I pasted "citation needed" as part of the quote. Nonetheless, it is "information" that I was accused of not presenting at all. :S

I was waiting for the dictionary quote.

I think you need to go back and try to comprehend everything that has been said.

Isn't that you saying on another thread about the use of semantics during a debate? I stand by my definition of your post as being ludicrous. In reality, most of your posts do fall under that definition.

Now I am going to take a little nap and give you time to regroup. I will check back in later but this little respite will give you time to gather your strength and resources.

I made four points....and all you can do is harp on about your definition of "ludicrous" and that you know what it means...in this and another thread.....

My argument that you may not know what it means will become evident to you once you fully comprehend the OTHER 3 points I made.

THIS is not a semantic argument at all.

Please have your nap and come back all refreshed.

Hiroshima was left mostly untouched by the Allies, but not so the A bomb could be tested. As usual, Mr. Harcourt has put his own spin on the facts to support one of his nutty theories.

Hiroshima had been left somewhat untouched by war since there was little war industry located there.

I've been wondering when Harcourt would come to his senses and realize the real truth about the non-bombing during the period leading up to 6 August 1945.

At that time, one way to win wars was to kill as many of the enemy as possible while destroying their military capability. Every country attacked military targets regardless of civilian casualties.

I don't think that Hiroshima was any more horrific that firebombing Tokyo, but purposely targeting civilians to rape and kill in Nanking was.

The raping of countless women and a few men in Nanking in 1937-38 was unspeakably horrific. The previous shelling of Guernica http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guernica_%28town%29 was 'better' because they only killed innocent civilians. FDR and Churchill roundly damned Guernica's civilian casualties. After London, Coventry, Dresden and Hamburg, the Allies targeted civilians intentionally. Hiroshima contained an army base, schools, children, and a Catholic church. Nagasaki was not a military target, nor were the wooden houses firebombed in Tokyo. The estimators of what the invasion of Japan would cost were criminally insane from war-lust, as was Truman. They were hailed as saviors.

At that time, one way to win wars was to kill as many of the enemy as possible while destroying their military capability. Every country attacked military targets regardless of civilian casualties.

I don't think that Hiroshima was any more horrific that firebombing Tokyo, but purposely targeting civilians to rape and kill in Nanking was.

The raping of countless women and a few men in Nanking in 1937-38 was unspeakably horrific.

..it was indeed and not many (nowadays) know about this horror, The Nanking Massacre or Rape of Nanking where Japanese soldiers killed between 300.000 and 600.000 civilians in just 6 weeks

I was not only about the rapes and killings of innocent people it was the WAY the Japanese killed those poor souls. I agree with both posters: Absolutely unspeakable horror *

If images of this, and there are many photos of these cruelties -even soldiers proudly showing cut-off heads of victims-, would appear in today's news around the world, people would throw up and feel sick.

They even held CONTESTS who could -fastest- kill 100 people with just one sword....

WARNING from Princeton:

Gallery

What you are about to see are images of war. Many of these pictures were in fact taken by Japanese soldiers themselves as souvenir snapshots. Remember, as you browse these images, that the true horror lies beyond these pages.

These images were obtained from the public domain.

* http://www.princeton.edu/~nanking/html/main.html

It explains and it's understandable why there is still so much anger and hate from the Chinese towards the Japanese, even after 72 years....

LaoPo

Hiroshima had been left somewhat untouched by war since there was little war industry located there.

I've been wondering when Harcourt would come to his senses and realize the real truth about the non-bombing during the period leading up to 6 August 1945.

Pardon? Frankly that's nonsense. Hiroshima had military significance, in the words of the Atomic Bomb Target[ing] Committee "...an important army depot and port of embarkation in the middle of an urban industrial area. It is a good radar target and it is such a size that a large part of the city could be extensively damaged. There are adjacent hills which are likely to produce a focussing effect which would considerably increase the blast damage. Due to rivers it is not a good incendiary target. (Classified as an AA Target)". That committee included Kyoto as prime, which was vetoed by State IIRC owing to its religious significance, which elevated Hiroshima to prime.

Now, just for clarity the same committee [10/11 May 1945] opined that "...was agreed by those present that the mission if at all possible should be a visual bombing mission. For this we should be prepared to wait until there is a good weather forecast in one or more of three alternative targets. ... When the mission does take place there should be weather spotter aircraft over each of three alternative targets in order that an alternative target may be selected in the last hour of the flight if the weather is unpromising over the highest priority target."

Regards

Edit add underline for further clarification//

Hiroshima had been left somewhat untouched by war since there was little war industry located there.

I've been wondering when Harcourt would come to his senses and realize the real truth about the non-bombing during the period leading up to 6 August 1945.

Pardon? Frankly that's nonsense. Hiroshima had military significance, in the words of the Atomic Bomb Target[ing] Committee "...an important army depot and port of embarkation in the middle of an urban industrial area. It is a good radar target and it is such a size that a large part of the city could be extensively damaged. There are adjacent hills which are likely to produce a focussing effect which would considerably increase the blast damage. Due to rivers it is not a good incendiary target. (Classified as an AA Target)". That committee included Kyoto as prime, which was vetoed by State IIRC owing to its religious significance, which elevated Hiroshima to prime.

Now, just for clarity the same committee [10/11 May 1945] opined that "...was agreed by those present that the mission if at all possible should be a visual bombing mission. For this we should be prepared to wait until there is a good weather forecast in one or more of three alternative targets. ... When the mission does take place there should be weather spotter aircraft over each of three alternative targets in order that an alternative target may be selected in the last hour of the flight if the weather is unpromising over the highest priority target."

Regards

Edit add underline for further clarification//

Vetoed because of religious significance?? That doesn't sound to me like people who are "criminally insane with war-lust".

Hiroshima was left mostly untouched by the Allies, but not so the A bomb could be tested. As usual, Mr. Harcourt has put his own spin on the facts to support one of his nutty theories.

I gave you a wiki quote. That is not putting spin on it, and it is not my theory, nutty or sensible.

Hiroshima had been left somewhat untouched by war since there was little war industry located there.

I've been wondering when Harcourt would come to his senses and realize the real truth about the non-bombing during the period leading up to 6 August 1945.

I gave you the wiki quote that said it directly.

But lets leave that aside for now...... you are saying Hiroshima had little war industry and that's why it was untouched.......so why blast it to kingdom come with a nuke?

Hiroshima was left mostly untouched by the Allies, but not so the A bomb could be tested.

You are reading the quote incorrectly and ignoring the correct meaning that has been pointed out to you more than once. Again, Hiroshima was left mostly untouched by the Allies, but not for the reason of testing the A bomb.

Hiroshima was left mostly untouched by the Allies, but not so the A bomb could be tested.

You are reading the quote incorrectly and ignoring the correct meaning that has been pointed out to you more than once. Again, Hiroshima was left mostly untouched by the Allies, but not for the reason of testing the A bomb.

You are commenting to your own quote; did you realize that ?

LaoPo

I am tying to point out that he has been corrected several times, by myself and other posters - but thanks.

^^^^

Mai Pen Rai Krup

LaoPo

Hiroshima was left mostly untouched by the Allies, but not so the A bomb could be tested.

You are reading the quote incorrectly and ignoring the correct meaning that has been pointed out to you more than once. Again, Hiroshima was left mostly untouched by the Allies, but not for the reason of testing the A bomb.

The wiki quote explicitly states, "...It was one of several Japanese cities left deliberately untouched by American bombing, allowing a pristine environment to measure the damage caused by the atomic bomb..."

" DELIBERATELY UNTOUCHED.....TO MEASURE THE DAMAGE...."

"I am tying to point out that he has been corrected several times, by myself and other posters"

You have not tried to correct me, you have simply contradicted me in a way that suggest you did not read the quote. Contradiction is not correction, unless it is accompanied by some backup.

I don't claim that the quote is gospel....but tell me why is it wrong.

Hiroshima had been left somewhat untouched by war since there was little war industry located there.

I've been wondering when Harcourt would come to his senses and realize the real truth about the non-bombing during the period leading up to 6 August 1945.

Pardon? Frankly that's nonsense. Hiroshima had military significance, in the words of the Atomic Bomb Target[ing] Committee "...an important army depot and port of embarkation in the middle of an urban industrial area. It is a good radar target and it is such a size that a large part of the city could be extensively damaged. There are adjacent hills which are likely to produce a focussing effect which would considerably increase the blast damage. Due to rivers it is not a good incendiary target. (Classified as an AA Target)". That committee included Kyoto as prime, which was vetoed by State IIRC owing to its religious significance, which elevated Hiroshima to prime.

Now, just for clarity the same committee [10/11 May 1945] opined that "...was agreed by those present that the mission if at all possible should be a visual bombing mission. For this we should be prepared to wait until there is a good weather forecast in one or more of three alternative targets. ... When the mission does take place there should be weather spotter aircraft over each of three alternative targets in order that an alternative target may be selected in the last hour of the flight if the weather is unpromising over the highest priority target."

Regards

Edit add underline for further clarification//

Pardon? Where in my post did I claim Hiroshima had no military "significance"?

What I said was "there was little war industry located there."

My suggestion is you try and comprehend what I have said.

Hiroshima was left mostly untouched by the Allies, but not so the A bomb could be tested.

You are reading the quote incorrectly and ignoring the correct meaning that has been pointed out to you more than once. Again, Hiroshima was left mostly untouched by the Allies, but not for the reason of testing the A bomb.

The wiki quote explicitly states, "...It was one of several Japanese cities left deliberately untouched by American bombing, allowing a pristine environment to measure the damage caused by the atomic bomb..."

" DELIBERATELY UNTOUCHED.....TO MEASURE THE DAMAGE...."

"I am tying to point out that he has been corrected several times, by myself and other posters"

You have not tried to correct me, you have simply contradicted me in a way that suggest you did not read the quote. Contradiction is not correction, unless it is accompanied by some backup.

I don't claim that the quote is gospel....but tell me why is it wrong.

Mr. Harcourt:

I am NOT claiming the quote is wrong. I am saying YOU are wrong in the interpretation of your own quote.

Nowhere in your quote does it state the reason why these several Japanese cities were left deliberately untouched. Your own quote simply states the cities had not suffered bombing, FOR WHATEVER REASONS, thus allowing a pristine environment for bomb damage assessment.

You are the one that said the cities were not bombed so the US would have this pristine site. Your quote never said that.

Hiroshima was left mostly untouched by the Allies, but not so the A bomb could be tested.

You are reading the quote incorrectly and ignoring the correct meaning that has been pointed out to you more than once. Again, Hiroshima was left mostly untouched by the Allies, but not for the reason of testing the A bomb.

The wiki quote explicitly states, "...It was one of several Japanese cities left deliberately untouched by American bombing, allowing a pristine environment to measure the damage caused by the atomic bomb..."

" DELIBERATELY UNTOUCHED.....TO MEASURE THE DAMAGE...."

"I am tying to point out that he has been corrected several times, by myself and other posters"

You have not tried to correct me, you have simply contradicted me in a way that suggest you did not read the quote. Contradiction is not correction, unless it is accompanied by some backup.

I don't claim that the quote is gospel....but tell me why is it wrong.

Mr. Harcourt:

I am NOT claiming the quote is wrong. I am saying YOU are wrong in the interpretation of your own quote.

Nowhere in your quote does it state the reason why these several Japanese cities were left deliberately untouched. Your own quote simply states the cities had not suffered bombing, FOR WHATEVER REASONS, thus allowing a pristine environment for bomb damage assessment.

You are the one that said the cities were not bombed so the US would have this pristine site. Your quote never said that.

The quote does not say, "... FOR WHATEVER REASONS, thus ...". But I can see your interpretation.

If you read on in the quote, and more from the original article, you might get a better inclination of what the context is and thus the likely intereptation.

One might also insert these clarifying words, "..It was one of several Japanese cities that were left deliberately untouched by American bombing, allowing a pristine environment to measure the damage that would be caused by the atomic bomb..."

Hiroshima had been left somewhat untouched by war since there was little war industry located there.

I've been wondering when Harcourt would come to his senses and realize the real truth about the non-bombing during the period leading up to 6 August 1945.

I gave you the wiki quote that said it directly.

But lets leave that aside for now...... you are saying Hiroshima had little war industry and that's why it was untouched.......so why blast it to kingdom come with a nuke?

Chuckd, you didn't like the word "significant" as you told A Traveler, but I quoted you directly.

I thought the whole subject of Hiroshima came up because of an implication that the US had commited an act of terrorism by it. (Knowingly killing civilians...or words to that effect...don't quote me....maybe it was a broader or narrower definition)

That it was a military target was the defence.

You are reading the quote incorrectly and ignoring the correct meaning that has been pointed out to you more than once. Again, Hiroshima was left mostly untouched by the Allies, but not for the reason of testing the A bomb.

The wiki quote explicitly states, "...It was one of several Japanese cities left deliberately untouched by American bombing, allowing a pristine environment to measure the damage caused by the atomic bomb..."

" DELIBERATELY UNTOUCHED.....TO MEASURE THE DAMAGE...."

"I am tying to point out that he has been corrected several times, by myself and other posters"

You have not tried to correct me, you have simply contradicted me in a way that suggest you did not read the quote. Contradiction is not correction, unless it is accompanied by some backup.

I don't claim that the quote is gospel....but tell me why is it wrong.

Mr. Harcourt:

I am NOT claiming the quote is wrong. I am saying YOU are wrong in the interpretation of your own quote.

Nowhere in your quote does it state the reason why these several Japanese cities were left deliberately untouched. Your own quote simply states the cities had not suffered bombing, FOR WHATEVER REASONS, thus allowing a pristine environment for bomb damage assessment.

You are the one that said the cities were not bombed so the US would have this pristine site. Your quote never said that.

The quote does not say, "... FOR WHATEVER REASONS, thus ...". But I can see your interpretation.

If you read on in the quote, and more from the original article, you might get a better inclination of what the context is and thus the likely intereptation.

One might also insert these clarifying words, "..It was one of several Japanese cities that were left deliberately untouched by American bombing, allowing a pristine environment to measure the damage that would be caused by the atomic bomb..."

Or they could have simply said this....."It was one of several Japanese cities that were left deliberately untouched by American bombing so they would have a pristine environment to measure the damage that would be caused by the atomic bomb."

They could have said any number of variations that would have been more precise, but they didn't.

Your personal interpretation of what they meant to say has no bearing on either current or historical events.

They said what they said and no amount of spin can change it.

PS: The FOR WHATEVER REASONS was never intended to be construed as part of the quote. Note the absence of quotation marks.

Edit in to change "change" to "can".

Hiroshima had been left somewhat untouched by war since there was little war industry located there.

I've been wondering when Harcourt would come to his senses and realize the real truth about the non-bombing during the period leading up to 6 August 1945.

I gave you the wiki quote that said it directly.

But lets leave that aside for now...... you are saying Hiroshima had little war industry and that's why it was untouched.......so why blast it to kingdom come with a nuke?

Chuckd, you didn't like the word "significant" as you told A Traveler, but I quoted you directly.

I thought the whole subject of Hiroshima came up because of an implication that the US had commited an act of terrorism by it. (Knowingly killing civilians...or words to that effect...don't quote me....maybe it was a broader or narrower definition)

That it was a military target was the defence.

I don't have a problem with the word "significant" at all. I rather like the word and have used it several times during my lifetime. Only on events of some significance, however.

My objection was in our learned friend using the word "significance" in place of "war industry", which were my words. His response was, therefore, not to what I posted but to what he thought I had posted.

The US committed no "act of terrorism" when the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. The US was at war with Japan and was intent on ending the war as quickly as possible, thereby saving many lives on both sides in the long run. The phrase "collateral damage" was not in the vocabulary at that time, thus any city became a target for bombing. Sad, but true.

.............

5. Or they could have simply said this....."It was one of several Japanese cities that were left deliberately untouched by American bombing so they would have a pristine environment to measure the damage that would be caused by the atomic bomb."

4. They could have said any number of variations that would have been more precise, but they didn't.

3. Your personal interpretation of what they meant to say has no bearing on either current or historical events.

2. They said what they said and no amount of spin can change it.

1. PS: The FOR WHATEVER REASONS was never intended to be construed as part of the quote. Note the absence of quotation marks.

Edit in to change "change" to "can".

1. Well, doh.

2. Well, doh....and my interpretation is spin, your's is the actual meaning? At least I have the open mindedness to be able to see your interpretation, and the grace to say so.

3. Well doh.

4. Well doh.

There's really no reason to state the obvious.

5. Yes...isn't that quite simmilar to what I am saying?...your point being?

Sorry, I stuffed up the quoted posts after recieving a "too many quotes" error....I wanted to give some history to the quote.

Hiroshima had been left somewhat untouched by war since there was little war industry located there.

I've been wondering when Harcourt would come to his senses and realize the real truth about the non-bombing during the period leading up to 6 August 1945.

I gave you the wiki quote that said it directly.

But lets leave that aside for now...... you are saying Hiroshima had little war industry and that's why it was untouched.......so why blast it to kingdom come with a nuke?

Chuckd, you didn't like the word "significant" as you told A Traveler, but I quoted you directly.

I thought the whole subject of Hiroshima came up because of an implication that the US had commited an act of terrorism by it. (Knowingly killing civilians...or words to that effect...don't quote me....maybe it was a broader or narrower definition)

That it was a military target was the defence.

I don't have a problem with the word "significant" at all. I rather like the word and have used it several times during my lifetime. Only on events of some significance, however.

My objection was in our learned friend using the word "significance" in place of "war industry", which were my words. His response was, therefore, not to what I posted but to what he thought I had posted.

The US committed no "act of terrorism" when the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. The US was at war with Japan and was intent on ending the war as quickly as possible, thereby saving many lives on both sides in the long run. The phrase "collateral damage" was not in the vocabulary at that time, thus any city became a target for bombing. Sad, but true.

My point was that "it was a military target" was a defence, yet you stated that Hiroshima was not really a military target, thereby suggesting that at least one of your fellow-debate-team-members was wrong.

I think that that is significant to this sub-topic.

Your reply of, "...The US was at war with Japan and was intent on ending the war as quickly as possible, thereby saving many lives on both sides in the long run...." to the question of why nuke Hiroshima at all if it was not a military target is rather worriesome.

Machiavelli would have said the same thing, I guess.

Right or wrong, the bombings of Hiroshima & Nagasaki could have been avoided if Japan didn't attack the USA in the first place. You don't jump somebody when they aren't looking then complain when they turn around and kick the holy shit out of you. Although to be fair, I don't hear any Japanese complaining - and frankly never have. It's just other people on the left who are complaining for reasons of their own.

I gave you the wiki quote that said it directly.

But lets leave that aside for now...... you are saying Hiroshima had little war industry and that's why it was untouched.......so why blast it to kingdom come with a nuke?

Chuckd, you didn't like the word "significant" as you told A Traveler, but I quoted you directly.

I thought the whole subject of Hiroshima came up because of an implication that the US had commited an act of terrorism by it. (Knowingly killing civilians...or words to that effect...don't quote me....maybe it was a broader or narrower definition)

That it was a military target was the defence.

I don't have a problem with the word "significant" at all. I rather like the word and have used it several times during my lifetime. Only on events of some significance, however.

My objection was in our learned friend using the word "significance" in place of "war industry", which were my words. His response was, therefore, not to what I posted but to what he thought I had posted.

The US committed no "act of terrorism" when the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. The US was at war with Japan and was intent on ending the war as quickly as possible, thereby saving many lives on both sides in the long run. The phrase "collateral damage" was not in the vocabulary at that time, thus any city became a target for bombing. Sad, but true.

My point was that "it was a military target" was a defence, yet you stated that Hiroshima was not really a military target, thereby suggesting that your fellow-debate-team-members were wrong.

I think that that is significant to this sub-topic.

What is significant is to actually read and understand what I am saying. Nothing more or less is required.

My words were.

_________________________________________________________

"The US committed no "act of terrorism" when the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. The US was at war with Japan and was intent on ending the war as quickly as possible, thereby saving many lives on both sides in the long run. The phrase "collateral damage" was not in the vocabulary at that time, thus any city became a target for bombing. Sad, but true."

__________________________________________________________

The key words are..."thus any city became a target for bombing."

The only errors I have pointed out are ones you and A_Traveller made.

EDIT IN: It should be noted my response was to Harcourt's original post, which is quoted above, prior to his edit. He has changed the content substantially.

What a mess.