It was argued that to wait for the Japanese to surrender would have cost many lives. But would the Japanese soon have been defeated anyway by the U.S. army? Was the use of atomic bombs, weapons that instantly killed tens of thousands of men, women, and children immoral? Yes. Killing thousands of innocent people is never moral, in any case.
The Crusades or Jihad (holy war) between Islamic and the Christian fanatics from 635 to 1588, was outright murder, sanctioned war or just a convenient religious method of getting rid of the opposition supported by the Churches and rulers of the time. I think it really depends on whether you are asking a Christian, or a Muslim, or someone who is an Atheist and a supporter of neither religious group. No matter whom you talk to though you will undoubtedly get a different answer form each. I think the Crusades and Jihad where murderous in nature, in the name of a god who could care a less about land, and if conducted today depending on the country would be considered terrorism. I say that because the United States invaded Iraq for no real solid reason and the world community other than Middle Eastern countries railed around and supported us, however think back when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990.
Instead 1000’s of innocent Japanese people did. This was a major down fall of the atomic bomb, as the Americans couldn’t specifically choose who they were going to kill. The people that really deserved to die didn’t, and their country had to pay for that. Whilst getting revenge, and reasserting their self-pride, the Americans also planned on spreading fear over every country in the world. They knew that if they dropped this never seen before weapon it would shock the world and make themselves respected and feared.
From day one of conception to day of birth, the child should be deemed a living being. Abortion carries many cons, the biggest being the definition of murder. When a human being takes another adults life, they are tried for their crime. Aborting an unborn child is the same concept, but sadly not view this way by most. The child has no say in what is happening, and the worst part of the procedure is it has been proven that the fetus can feel everything that is happening to it during an abortion.
Six people said they disagreed and that assault rifles and high capacity magazines should be banned because there is too much violence. Three people said anything, meaning that they would do anything to get any gun or high capacity magazines out of the market. Five people said it was ineffective. The total people who supported my thesis statement was 19 and people who didn’t support my thesis statement was 14. Which proves the point that this topic is, indeed, extremely controversial.
Did Sacco and Vanzetti had a fair trial? Why not? Were they guilty of the crime? No , Sacco and Vanzetti didn’t have a fair trail as they didn’t commit any crime but they got arrested and sentenced to death just because they are anarchists and confessed that they hated the capitalism and the American system of the government. Also, the Americans who tried them are all biases and when the court case was trailed, it was the height of the red scare so all Americans were being so paranoid when they knew that a murder case had something to do with foreigners and they didn’t even find out what the truth was and just assumed that Sacco and Vanzetti were the attackers.
The laws they fought against were laws against Christianity. People in this region wanted to maintain their religion but this was not an option because the government took it away from them (Document C). More rebels joined in the fight and soon enough in some areas the rebels almost wiped out government officials. The rebels even killed some of the government (Document D). Many people throughout the Reign of Terror were killed by a guillotine.
Martha Z. Ocana 01/10/2012 GOVT 2305 Reaction Essay #1 Today I watched several videos of de Westboro Baptist Church. This people should be banned from the media in my opinion, this should not be freedom of speech. Freedom of speech should be when you’re defending a point but not hurting anyone else. It should be when you fight against people like these. I don’t know how the government allows these people to even live, they are causing damage and pain to soldier families and to gay people, the words are so hurtful and damaging that it can even lead someone to commit suicide or kill one of their members, which they’re putting themselves and their children in danger too.
Abortion is a very tricky thing to bring up and discuss. This is because so many people, whether they are for or against, have such a strong opinion about it. There are three main ways women become pregnant, and those are: on purpose, on accident, and most importantly by rape. Obviously a women that wanted to get pregnant wont abort their child, so this leaves the on accident and rape group. Many will argue firstly that it is against religion and faith to kill a child, to destroy a soul, especially one as pure as an unborn baby.
The similar objectives they both experience that are heritability entitled for them to feel guilt for, would be, for example, killing a person. It is never acceptable in the United States to commit a crime of killing another human. The legal laws in America would sentence both, Christians or Atheists, to prison if they were to commit such a crime. In extension, Christianity also has in the Ten Commandments telling them, “thy shall not kill.” The legal laws would send a murderer to prison, therefore this punishment would leave both groups remorseful for their actions. Atheist may feel their punishment is complete once they served their sentence, but since Christians believe taking someone’s life is committing a sin; they therefore question the likelihood of their soul entering into heaven.