Typical example of "Selective Compassion"

Many "compassionate humanitarians" are not as compassionate for human being as they so claim.

More often than not, someone writes about "be compassionate for..." they are advocating for a group of people they relate too, often ignoring (if not at the cost of) other groups of human being.   In short, while fluent in using words that should be used by humanitarians, these writers by no means care about "all human being", and tarnish the human rights movements to its core.

This article by Salon is a typical example of this "strong biased selective compassion".

The Second World War II in Asia was a much less known war in the west where the main enemy was the German Nazi.  This fact gave opportunity to this author "CHRISTIAN APPY, TOMDISPATCH.COM" the convenience in selectively omit history.

While dropping nuclear bomb was nothing glory, it did reduce total number of civilian casualties significantly.  According to WWII civilian casualty China lost 15 to 20 million civilian alone (Japan invaded all over Asia, not just China), Japan on comparison, lost 2.5 to 3.2 million so it is about 6:1 ratio.  For any 1 Japanese civilian casualty, there were 6 Chinese died, plus other Asian civilizations).

So frame it as if US was the villain committed worst crime in human history as this author did, is in essence claiming Chinese (and other Asian) civilian life were meaningless, and were allowed to vanish without consequences, and Japanese civilian life on the other hand are human lives that is subject to human treatment uniquely.

If the Author come out straight froward as a Pro-Japan war activist, it is understandable.  By presenting himself as a "peace lover denouncing war crime", not only he undermined the meaning of anti-war peace movement, but also in the name of "humanitarian", he denied other Asian nations human life's dignity and right to live, while furiously fought for Japanese life.

Another great example of Political Correctness Artists work!  Using political correct wording to achieve what ever war criminals couldn't for decades.

The Japanese mass killers (in Nanking city-then capital of China alone they killed 300,000 people virtually the whole population of the city left then) was able to kill Chinese people, but never able to strip them of their dignity and human rights in front of the world.  Christian Appy, was able to eliminate any remote hope for Chinese people to be respected at least as much as Japanese by the political correct artists.

The Political inCorrect way of describing the tragedy should be Hiroshima - the most difficult decision American made in an attempt of reducing civilian casualty.  Knowing many Japanese civilian lives were affected to stop the Japanese war machine to keep killing other Asian, it is still a very debatable decision to make.

Throughout his post, he mentioned no word Asia nor Chinese, and argued the "fat boy" did not save significant number of American lives.... As if other than Japanese and American, lives of other nation are commodity and should not be taken into consideration of tough decisions.  How is such a logic humanitarian?