60th anniversary of a-bomb attack

[Petra]

So, if the argument is that the dropping of A-bombs on Japanese cities were what was needed to end the war, does that mean that if A-bombs were to be dropped on Washington DC and New York City, that would stop the US's wars?


Hmmm....

[Morroskye]

Originally Posted by lunachick

So, if the argument is that the dropping of A-bombs on Japanese cities were what was needed to end the war, does that mean that if A-bombs were to be dropped on Washington DC and New York City, that would stop the US's wars?


Hmmm....

GREAT POINT!! The Japanese did commit horrific war crimes on it's neighbors and allies fighting them, no doubt. But targeting entirely civilian centers was thought to be beneath us. (We know better now as many Americans are proud of this crime against humanity.) They were looking for ways to surrender weeks before our decision to use nukes. I read about Battaan and Nanking. Also about Japanese atrocities in Korea, but I also read of the Okinawa massacre of women and children hiding in a cave and the intense racial hatred toward the Japanese during and after the war. Much like the racist hatred of Arabs today in the US. A few commit mass crimes and the entire people is condemned in some racist epithet. With the US being the only nation to use WMD's 'to stop war', it will surely come back to haunt us.

[BigBlue2]

Originally Posted by Morroskye

Wow! FF's playful tolerance of this cocksucker is breathtaking.

I wouldn't call the treatment that Albert receives on this board "playful tolerance". From what I've read, his views get bagged pretty consistently.

Originally Posted by Morroskye

Do you tolerate posters regularly using neo-Nazi terms for other races??

I doubt it. BTW "Jap" and "Nip" were terms coined by the Americans, not neo-Nazi's.

Originally Posted by Morroskye

The Fawning over this filthy Catholic is nauseating.

I haven't seen much fawning over him. However, "not fawning" over the bloke and banning him (which is what I think you want the admins to do) are two different issues.

Originally Posted by Morroskye

But I am so bored here at work I couldn't resist peeking under the rock at you all.

Coming to a board you don't like is a strange way to relieve boredom. It's not possible for you to have a quick wank in the nearest toilet cubicle?

Originally Posted by Morroskye

Perhaps Al should mail some of you a sock to suck on so the rest of the world isn't exposed to his Klanner/Catholic bullshit.

If this statement makes sense to anyone, could they please enlighten me? Much obliged.

[Morroskye]

Originally Posted by BigBlue2

I wouldn't call the treatment that Albert receives on this board "playful tolerance". From what I've read, his views get bagged pretty consistently.

I doubt it. BTW "Jap" and "Nip" were terms coined by the Americans, not neo-Nazi's.

I haven't seen much fawning over him. However, "not fawning" over the bloke and banning him (which is what I think you want the admins to do) are two different issues.

Coming to a board you don't like is a strange way to relieve boredom. It's not possible for you to have a quick wank in the nearest toilet cubicle?

If this statement makes sense to anyone, could they please enlighten me? Much obliged.

I don't know how to breakdown paragraphs and take little bites like everyone else but I'll try to help you understand! The words Jap & Nip ARE and WERE used by neo-Nazis and other white supremacist groups. Many fascists in the US bloke! I'm Impressed this site is so tolerant of rightist religious freaks like Al and mouthy angry Commies like me! It is possible to wank off in the bathroom. I finished about 5pm. I'm 41 so doing that more than once would put me to sleep for certain. I suggested members that regularly engage in discussions with Al get him to send them a used sock to suck on to soothe the Al cravings, resulting in perhaps less of him here. (Since everyone bags him so much!!) I cannot be more descriptive in the sock reference but imagine Al removing a sweaty sock and stuffing it in the mouth of one of his many buddies here. Best I can do in response to you. My job doesn't involve much computer skills so there are limits to my online abilities. Happy to Help! (And watch out for those funnel webbers! Mean blokes they are!)

[albert cipriani]

Originally Posted by beyelzu

I find the idea that the japanese were about to surrender to be ludicrous, they didnt even surrender right away after the first bomb.

also, iirc each week something like 100k chinese and pacific islanders were killed because of the japanese occupation. so if the bomb ended the war only by a couple of months quicker then it saved a fuckload of chinese and pacific islanders.

Finally, after 40 posts, a dick head who makes sense! (Hey, what can I say, it's your avitar.)

Seriously, thanks for saying something competent here. But you must understand that the Chinese and pacific islanders don't have victim status like the Japs do. That's why the PC crowd hasn't disenfranchised any of our legitimate names for them yet as they have vis-a-vis "Japs" which is now verbotem. So, you must recognize that your perfectly logical appeal will fall on deaf ears, for this crowd has got racist eyes... and they're blindly turned on us.

In other words, welcome to the racists corner. I was here all by myself till you donned the obligatory dunce cap by being logical and joined me. If you want to get out of the corner, you must show your compasion for the Japs by calling them Japanese. Conversely, you must show your lack of compasion for the lives of the Chinese, Pacific Islanders, Rusians and everyone else, especially those big bad American racists (cuz they invented the word "Japs") by being against the a-bomb that saved at least two million of their lives.

When you gouge your eyes out to look at it that way, it makes about as much sense as anything else these clowns say. I mean, what's at least 2 million lives of the races we don't care about on one side of the balance beam when on the other side there's a mere 100-plus thousand lives of the Japs whom it's Politically Correct to feel sorry for? The lengths these non-racists will go to prove us to be racists is amazing. -- Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

[Ari]

Are you still trying to justify the use of racist terms? Give it up, the boat has sailed.
The fact that you have prejudged peoples intentions here, and like to tell them what they think, fits quite well with the constant use of Japs.

It's pretty simple.
Targeting civilians is unacceptable no matter which side you fight on.

[albert cipriani]

Originally Posted by Ari

Give it up, the boat has sailed.

Ah, the use of metaphor to cover up the fact that you have no argument. Do you even get the irony? It's so pontifical of you. You missed your calling as a pope.

Targeting civilians is unacceptable no matter which side you fight on.

So how do you suggest the non-smart bombs of WWII were to target purely military targets? Knowing, as even you must, that the Japs moved their industry into their population centers, how would you do it? If you can criticize the US for not doing it, you must know what it is that they should have done instead, right? -- Albert the Racist

[Ari]

Last post to Albert, who doesn't appear to understand what people post.

PTFA, I have already said civilian casualties are unavoidable. There is a difference between civilians that were in the way and targeting civilians. Hell, you have said it yourself.
In the case of the A-Bomb, when deciding on which city to bomb, how much destruction it would wreck on the city itself, and thus civilian casualties, was a prime factor.
If you even read the list of cities I posted you would have noticed there were better or equal military targets that weren't located in such a populated area, but were considered lower grade targets.

[Adora]

Originally Posted by albert cipriani

Seriously, thanks for saying something competent here. But you must understand that the Chinese and pacific islanders don't have victim status like the Japs do.

Um, dick? Leave your borders once in a while and travel around SE/Asia a bit. They do, actually.

And, once again, you're missing the point. This isn't about who killed the most people and therefore deserved that happened to them. This is about taking responsibility for using the greatest weapon of mass destruction known to man. It doesn't matter if the other side ripped babies out of their mothers wombs in front of their fathers. There is absolute no justification for dropping a nuclear bomb (or two) on a country just because your home country wouldn't accept the PR of too many troops dying whilst trying to invade said country in the long-term.

The Japanese committed horrendous crimes in the Pacific during their occupation. Nobody is denying that. But this is a nuclear weapon we're talking about. Something that takes far far less manpower to create the same (and worse) destruction as you are claiming the Japanese did. This is about holding everyone to the same standards. Simply because we acknowledge the horrendous crime commited by the US at the end of the war does not mean we ignore those commited by Japan. If you bothered to know anything or hell, read a few of the articles linked in this thread, you'd know that that's what many of the actual victims of the bombing are doing right now - they say they don't ever want a bomb dropped on anyone again, but they also never want Japan or any other country to commit the atrocities it did in the Pacific. That is why these victims are uncomfortable (and in many cases, protesting) the Japanese government's remobilisation of the Self Defence force into Iraq.

I mean, seriously, how fucking stupid are you that you can't get your head around this? It's not about who-killed-more-people-and-therefore-deserved-what-they-got. It's about stopping it ever happening again on both sides. Fucking duh, you dumb Catholic wanker.

[Dingfod]

Despite the tragedy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I don't see that much moral difference between using the atomic bombs there and the firebombing of Tokyo or even of Dresden. The Allies already had a track record of targeting civilian populations. Most likely, no one considered any other alternative. If we had a weapon at our disposal, we were going to use it. They, the Japanese or Germans, would've too. Second guessing it now is pretty much an exercise in futility; it happened. Now, the question is, how do we stop it from happening again? By nobody having weapons of that kind. To me it is hypocritical as hell to tell other countries they can't have nuclear weapons when we aren't really doing much of anything toward getting rid of ours. I don't think there's anything special or more moral about the American government than most others. In fact, the current administration has proposed a whole new generation of nukes. To defuse the nuclear threat we need to disarm, not re-arm.

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by Adora

I never said there was. But I've heard people refer to the two continents and their little islands as "The Americas" a lot before. Especially European tourists.

well, I guess europeans shouldnt use sloppy ambiguous terms.

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by lunachick

So, if the argument is that the dropping of A-bombs on Japanese cities were what was needed to end the war, does that mean that if A-bombs were to be dropped on Washington DC and New York City, that would stop the US's wars?


Hmmm....

if you think that the war in Iraq is morally equivalent to the japan's actions in world war 2 then yes.

I however dont, while the war in iraq is bullshit, I dont think it is on the same level.

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by Adora

Um, dick? Leave your borders once in a while and travel around SE/Asia a bit. They do, actually.

And, once again, you're missing the point. This isn't about who killed the most people and therefore deserved that happened to them. This is about taking responsibility for using the greatest weapon of mass destruction known to man. It doesn't matter if the other side ripped babies out of their mothers wombs in front of their fathers. There is absolute no justification for dropping a nuclear bomb (or two) on a country just because your home country wouldn't accept the PR of too many troops dying whilst trying to invade said country in the long-term.

The Japanese committed horrendous crimes in the Pacific during their occupation. Nobody is denying that. But this is a nuclear weapon we're talking about. Something that takes far far less manpower to create the same (and worse) destruction as you are claiming the Japanese did. This is about holding everyone to the same standards. Simply because we acknowledge the horrendous crime commited by the US at the end of the war does not mean we ignore those commited by Japan. If you bothered to know anything or hell, read a few of the articles linked in this thread, you'd know that that's what many of the actual victims of the bombing are doing right now - they say they don't ever want a bomb dropped on anyone again, but they also never want Japan or any other country to commit the atrocities it did in the Pacific. That is why these victims are uncomfortable (and in many cases, protesting) the Japanese government's remobilisation of the Self Defence force into Iraq.

I mean, seriously, how fucking stupid are you that you can't get your head around this? It's not about who-killed-more-people-and-therefore-deserved-what-they-got. It's about stopping it ever happening again on both sides. Fucking duh, you dumb Catholic wanker.

I dont see it as a crime, not any more so than any bomb. innocent people die in war, if you want to work for peace, good luck.

[John Carter]

I don't see the use of nuclear weapons at the end of WW II as being more of an atrocity than the earlier mass bombing raids conducted by US forces throughout the war.

I also think that most histories give way too much credit to these bombings ending the war. IMO, the Soviet entry into the war in the Pacific, and the subsequent annihilation of the Japanese army in Manchuria had far more influence on the Japanese decision to unconditionally surrender to the US.

[Adora]

Originally Posted by beyelzu

I dont see it as a crime, not any more so than any bomb.

And yet the world disagrees. Nuclear weapons are not like any other kind of weapons, which is why they are treated the way they are. There's more paranoia over terrorists making a "dirty bomb" than there is about them getting a few kilos of fertiliser from the local hardware store or cooking up their own personal firebomb. Nuclear weapons don't just instantly kill and maim on a scale and intensity unseen in human history. They have all the worst parts of regular weapons condensed into a split-second release of violence which takes very little manpower to create. And then there are the long-term effects, which are as bad as, if not far worse than, the worst chemical or biological warfare we can cook up today. They linger both in the physical bodies of the people who have been victims and the collective psyche. You simply don't forget having a nuclear bomb dropped on your country, ever.

Nuclear weapons are the condensed weapons of every other terrible and economic ability humans have of killing each other. Which is why they are different both in practical application and symbolism from conventional wartime weapons, and why those who have experienced their effects and those who haven't campaign for them never to be used again. To use such a weapon is a crime, just as invading a foreign country for corrupt reasons is a crime, when there are many other options open but ignored for no other reason except cynical powermongering.

[John Carter]

Originally Posted by Adora

And yet the world disagrees. Nuclear weapons are not like any other kind of weapons, which is why they are treated the way they are. There's more paranoia over terrorists making a "dirty bomb" than there is about them getting a few kilos of fertiliser from the local hardware store or cooking up their own personal firebomb. Nuclear weapons don't just instantly kill and maim on a scale and intensity unseen in human history. They have all the worst parts of regular weapons condensed into a split-second release of violence which takes very little manpower to create. And then there are the long-term effects, which are as bad as, if not far worse than, the worst chemical or biological warfare we can cook up today. They linger both in the physical bodies of the people who have been victims and the collective psyche. You simply don't forget having a nuclear bomb dropped on your country, ever.

Nuclear weapons are the condensed weapons of every other terrible and economic ability humans have of killing each other. Which is why they are different both in practical application and symbolism from conventional wartime weapons, and why those who have experienced their effects and those who haven't campaign for them never to be used again. To use such a weapon is a crime, just as invading a foreign country for corrupt reasons is a crime, when there are many other options open but ignored for no other reason except cynical powermongering.

This is a modern perspective. Yes, we know now how lingering the effects of a nuclear blast can be. And yes, it doesn't take much in the way of manpower now to make one. All of your points are quite good ones for today's world. But 60 years ago? I seriously doubt anyone in the US government or military realized that these were so much more than really big and powerfull bombs.

[albert cipriani]

I asked Ari the question three different ways to make sure he’d get it:

“1) So how do you suggest the non-smart bombs of WWII were to target purely military targets?
2) Knowing, as even you must, that the Japs moved their industry into their population centers, how would you do it?
3)If you can criticize the US for not doing it, you must know what it is that they should have done instead, right?”

And what do I get? You guessed it, no answer at all, just more pablum:

Originally Posted by Ari

“I have already said civilian casualties are unavoidable. There is a difference between civilians that were in the way and targeting civilians… If you even read the list of cities I posted you would have noticed there were better or equal military targets that weren't located in such a populated area, but were considered lower grade targets.”

Ergo, I think we’re done.

Maybe some of you other likeminded mindless ones could answer for Ari. Would you drop it on a city that was a slightly better military target and a slightly less populated target? Will call this the Ari plan. Does anyone think the Ari plan would silence the modern moral outrage over using the a-bomb on the Japs? Then what’s the point of the Ari plan?

I know, what this impasse calls for is: The Super Ari Plan. Under this scenario, we’d have delivered the a-bomb via secret Green Peace agents. After they had smuggled it into Japan, they’d have passed it off to Peace Core volunteers who’d have dug a mine shaft one-half mile below a purely military target. A military target so pure that it causes the angels in heaven weep with envy. The Peace Core folks would hand the a-bomb off to the Jap anti-defamation League who’d bury it there so that the mean racist military generals could detonate it remotely and nobody would get hurt nor would there have been any radiation problems and yet we would have thus demonstrated to the world that we meant business! In this version of having our cake and eating it too, in this version of unreality wherein you folks live, we would have blown up the big bad a-bomb and yet not ruffled the feathers of ingrate amoral moralists 60 years later. You Non-Racists are A Joke, Albert Cipriani the Racist

[Ari]

Originally Posted by Warren

Despite the tragedy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I don't see that much moral difference between using the atomic bombs there and the firebombing of Tokyo or even of Dresden. The Allies already had a track record of targeting civilian populations.

I agree. I think the A-Bomb is often treated as a bigger tragedy because of the large scale destruction a single bomb had on an unsuspecting population. The ultimate weapon of terror. Also because of the lasting effects of radiation sickness that continued to kill long after the fires had been put out.
Oh, and because it's the current topic of the thread.

[godfry n. glad]

[QUOTE=beyelzu]

Originally Posted by Ari

and most certainly chinese and pacific islander lives were saved because the japanese surrendered much more quickly then they would have otherwise.

How do you figure?

By the time the bomb was dropped, Allied troops had advanced to within 500 miles of the Japanese homeland and secured a military staging area on Okinawa by June 1945. There was already a secured fighter base at Iwo Jima and bombers from the Marianas could fly almost with impunity over any Japanese target with fighter escorts. The Japanese fleet was tattered and in shambles. Strategic materials, primarily petroleum, metals and compounds necessary for explosives and propellants were dwindling, nationalists and communists in China had finally started working together and were driving the Japanese out of China,and it's only ally, Nazi Germany had fallen.

Any Pacific Islanders had already been "liberated". The "last stand" actions of Japanese soldiers in locales like Guadacanal and Iwo Jima, along with the kamikaze pilots indicated extreme conditions and desperate measures.

Japan was suing for peace. This was confirmed as early as February 1945, at the Yalta Conference. The Allies refused to negotiate. They wanted an unconditional surrender....not a negotiated one.

There is a compelling argument that the bomb was not dropped to compel the Japanese into surrender, but to demonstrate to the Soviet Union that any plans for overreaching after the war would be frowned upon and we had the wherewithal to back up our demands.

I think that a case could be made that very few lives need have been lost, as a siege of fortress Japan could have brought it to its knees, and surrender, relatively quickly and without loss of much life. Such was recommended, but ignored....because we had the bomb.

[livius drusus]

I just wanted to drop a quick thank you to all posting substantively on both sides of the issue. I don't know very much on the subject beyond what I learned in high school and from Newsweek's 40th anniversary of the bombing edition which I read on the plane from Rome to JFK when I was 12. I really appreciate getting this chance to follow y'all's arguments.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by albert cipriani

Right! It’s cuz we’re raciest that on VJ day newspapers all across our sick society ran 142 point headlines which read: “Japs Quit”

It’s cuz those newspaper editors knew that all those American widows and grieving mothers hated the Japanese so much that they wouldn’t buy newspapers if those newspapers called the Japanese anything other than their proper raciest epithet -- Japs. (Which is also why, till this very day, Americans still won’t buy Jap cars or cameras, or stereos… that’s how deep our bigotry continues to run.)

It had nothing to do with the fact the headline “Japanese Surrender” would have forced them to use less enthusiastic smaller leading. – Incredulous, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

Yeah... We're not racist, are we, al? I guess those thousands of Americans we placed in concentration camps (after defrauding them of much of their material possessions) during the Second World War was "just for their protection", huh?

What about all the Chinese-Americans that were mobbed and beaten because Americans of European descent could not tell them apart?

And, where were all the concentration camps for those Americans of German ancestry?

I'll tell you, al, the state I live was the state with the second largest number of members in the Ku Klux Klan during the 1920's. You know who the primary targets were for this group in an area where the black population was negliable? Asians, primarily; Japanese and Chinese. And Catholics.

[Darren]

Originally Posted by beyelzu

well, I guess europeans shouldnt use sloppy ambiguous terms.

What about the term "School of the Americas" for the CIA torture school, Beyelzu? I'm pretty sure that that name was coined in the US and that it purposely referred to both continents (the South American death squads were being trained in North America, hence the two Americas).

[Darren]

[QUOTE=godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by beyelzu

How do you figure?

By the time the bomb was dropped, Allied troops had advanced to within 500 miles of the Japanese homeland and secured a military staging area on Okinawa by June 1945. There was already a secured fighter base at Iwo Jima and bombers from the Marianas could fly almost with impunity over any Japanese target with fighter escorts. The Japanese fleet was tattered and in shambles. Strategic materials, primarily petroleum, metals and compounds necessary for explosives and propellants were dwindling, nationalists and communists in China had finally started working together and were driving the Japanese out of China,and it's only ally, Nazi Germany had fallen.

Any Pacific Islanders had already been "liberated". The "last stand" actions of Japanese soldiers in locales like Guadacanal and Iwo Jima, along with the kamikaze pilots indicated extreme conditions and desperate measures.

Japan was suing for peace. This was confirmed as early as February 1945, at the Yalta Conference. The Allies refused to negotiate. They wanted an unconditional surrender....not a negotiated one.

There is a compelling argument that the bomb was not dropped to compel the Japanese into surrender, but to demonstrate to the Soviet Union that any plans for overreaching after the war would be frowned upon and we had the wherewithal to back up our demands.

I think that a case could be made that very few lives need have been lost, as a siege of fortress Japan could have brought it to its knees, and surrender, relatively quickly and without loss of much life. Such was recommended, but ignored....because we had the bomb.

Especially the bit about the "unconditional surrender" clause. Actually, it was only a couple of fruitcakes in charge of the Japanese military who believed in death before dishonour by that stage. The pm was for surrendering.
As you suggest, a complete naval blockade of Japan would have tipped the balence given the state of things (i.e. no air force or navy, no big friendly allies to bale the Islands out with supplies etc.)

An interesting comparison might be drawn with island Britain in the early forties. Germany didn't manage to destroy the RAF in 1940, and were hopelessly outmatched by the Royal Navy's surface fleet from the outset. Even so, Britain depended entirely on the Atlantic Convoys returning from the US and Canada to continue resisting. That was Britain's Achilles heel and it was the blockade by the German U-boat fleet, not the Luftwaffe air raids, which nearly broke Britain by, at two different stages in the war, sinking a greater tonnage of supply ships than was being built.
If the RAF and RN had not remained intact and developed to counter the U-boat threat in '41, '42 and '43, the Atlantic supply line would have been cut and Britain would have been forced out of the war.
The united nations could have mounted a far more effective blockade against Japan in 1945 than Germany could have dreamed of raising around Britain. Moreover Japan, possessing no means of breaking such a blockade, could not have established a lifeline even if there existed the possibility of obtaining supplies and munitions from any continental source.

[albert cipriani]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

I just wanted to drop a quick thank you to all posting substantively on both sides of the issue. I don't know very much on the subject beyond what I learned in high school and from Newsweek...

Save your applause, Livius. I’m not letting you out of my doghouse. You’ve royally pissed me off.

You and your one-liners and your Jap-like sneak attacks upon imagined moral targets. At least the Japs hit real battleships. You hit where I’m not and you know it. That’s what’s disgusting. I expect that kind of shit from godfry, not you.

Or should we blame your behavior on your high school lack of education, too? Or was it that bastion of journalistic bombast, Newsweek, that taught you us folks who use the “J” word are racists? Or perhaps you just picked it up effortlessly, like an STD, from your many friends.

In any case, I bet you didn’t know that I was also racist against the Brits. You heard me right: Brits. I call my British colleagues Brits all the time. The only thing is, since the British were largely responsible for Western Civilization (read: Catholic culture) they don’t qualify for victim status. Thus, abbreviating their name doesn’t really prove I’m a British racist, but abbreviating the Japanese name does.

For, the Japs not only lost a war against the West, but they were and still are an atheistic nation. So its in the best interests of the liberal zeitgeist to drum up phony sympathy for them at every turn, no matter how irrational. You should know better than to go along with such an infernal farce, let alone, to instigate a witch-hunt in its name to sully my good name. – Disgusted Beyond Repair, Like the Arizona at the Bottom of Pearl Harbor, Albert the User of the “J” Word

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by albert cipriani

You and your one-liners and your Jap-like sneak attacks upon imagined moral targets. At least the Japs hit real battleships. You hit where I’m not and you know it. That’s what’s disgusting. I expect that kind of shit from godfry, not you.

Had you responded with a simple no to my question, I would have believed you unconditionally. It wasn't a set up, and I expected you to answer me honestly. You use a term you know full well has a history of being used as a racial slur and since none of us live in a cultural vacuum, it's bound to cause some reaction.

Do I think you're a bigot? Nope. I just think you like tickling the dragon's tail with rhetoric as much as Slotin did with uranium. Sometimes it's more distasteful to me than others. This is one of those times.

Originally Posted by albert cipriani

Or should we blame your behavior on your high school lack of education, too? Or was it that bastion of journalistic bombast, Newsweek, that taught you us folks who use the “J” word are racists? Or perhaps you just picked it up effortlessly, like an STD, from your many friends.

I never called you a racist, nor do I think that everyone who uses the word "Jap" is a racist. Those are words you're putting in my mouth (possibly because that's precisely the reaction you expected when you packed your post with "Japs").

Originally Posted by albert cipriani

In any case, I bet you didn’t know that I was also racist against the Brits. You heard me right: Brits. I call my British colleagues Brits all the time. The only thing is, since the British were largely responsible for Western Civilization (read: Catholic culture) they don’t qualify for victim status. Thus, abbreviating their name doesn’t really prove I’m a British racist, but abbreviating the Japanese name does.

"Jap" has a pejorative, racialized connotation that "Brit" does not, but again, my disappointment with you was in your choice of provocations.