| Yes | 53% | 53% - 67 | ||||
| No | 46% | 46% - 59 | ||||
| Total: 126 | ||||||
Last edited by Pug (2007-01-28 15:26:31)
I dare you to show me any legit history book from any country that calls the bombing of Japan a terrorist attack.[UTQ]_Ausch88 wrote:
History? maybe your side of history.. the one you learn in your american school, reading your american book.lowing wrote:
Ever hear of the Bikini Islands pal??[UTQ]_Ausch88 wrote:
um why didnt you chose a military target then? Or maybe just drop the bomb in a deserted area .. to show them how powerful it was.. im pretty sure that they would have surrender. But no.. you add to chose two cities with NO military target.. just a bunch of civilian. Good job
History does not condemn bombing Japan as a terrorist attack. It is some bullshit you need to say to try and gain leverage in your anti-American rhetoric. It isn't working
Go learn history on the japanese point of view, i know they are ashamed of their imperialistic past but im pretty sure that no one over there think that those two peaceful cities full of civilian and lacking military targets deserved to be totally destroyed.
edit: and btw, im not anti-american.. im anti-warmonger i love Jane Fonda.. sexy jane
YOU are wrong!!Bertster7 wrote:
Not true. The Japanese had surrendered before the bomb was dropped.lowing wrote:
Never said the US is innocent in history. The US and Japan was at war,a war Japan started, there was a choice to be made, invasion or bomb. The US chose the lesser of two evils. period. The US also gave Japan several oportunities to surrender, warning them of the potential desaster that would befall them if they didn't. Japan knew the US had the bomb. The US even warned Japan of the damn thing.
Dropping the bombs was done to send a message to the Russians. Quite a clear, "Don't fuck with us" message.
It was something they "realistically" did accept now wasn't it??Bertster7 wrote:
Pretty sure. The Japanese offered to surrender several times. I've never seen the terms offered by the Japanese, but I have heard they were virtually unconditional, I think there was something in there about the Emperor.Pug wrote:
You sure about that? I believe that the offensive in Manuchuria was still going on at the time...until the Russians crushed it. In fact some Japanese historians say it was Russia's crushing of the Japanese forces caused the end of the war...not the bombs.Bertster7 wrote:
Not true. The Japanese had surrendered before the bomb was dropped.
Dropping the bombs was done to send a message to the Russians. Quite a clear, "Don't fuck with us" message.
The US refused to accept anything but unconditional surrender, which given the Japanese war ethic is something they could never realistically accept.
Oh, does this mean you are going to stop trying to re-write history by saying the US bombing of Japan was a terrorist act??Vilham wrote:
ENOUGH GOING OFF TOPIC!
America nuked a country, for whatever reason, valid in your opinion or not. End of.
I wonder why you don't hear as much about this massacre . Not to take light of the bombings... but damn, read through that.lowing wrote:
Oh, does this mean you are going to stop trying to re-write history by saying the US bombing of Japan was a terrorist act??Vilham wrote:
ENOUGH GOING OFF TOPIC!
America nuked a country, for whatever reason, valid in your opinion or not. End of.
Yeah?? Where were ya arguing against it when your brethren was making such bullshit claims??Vilham wrote:
I dont remember saying it was a terrorist act.
The Japanese also deny that the Nanking Massacre ever occured, refuse to acknowledge the crimes committed in POW camps and deny the existance of 'comfort women'.[UTQ]_Ausch88 wrote:
History? maybe your side of history.. the one you learn in your american school, reading your american book.lowing wrote:
Ever hear of the Bikini Islands pal??[UTQ]_Ausch88 wrote:
um why didnt you chose a military target then? Or maybe just drop the bomb in a deserted area .. to show them how powerful it was.. im pretty sure that they would have surrender. But no.. you add to chose two cities with NO military target.. just a bunch of civilian. Good job
History does not condemn bombing Japan as a terrorist attack. It is some bullshit you need to say to try and gain leverage in your anti-American rhetoric. It isn't working
Go learn history on the japanese point of view, i know they are ashamed of their imperialistic past but im pretty sure that no one over there think that those two peaceful cities full of civilian and lacking military targets deserved to be totally destroyed.
edit: and btw, im not anti-american.. im anti-warmonger i love Jane Fonda.. sexy jane
The English version or the Arabic version?Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Go read the Koran. Islam is not a peaceful religion, nor is it a tolerant one. Of course the extremists do go too far though.
Suffice to say it gets annoying to see all these I defend Muslims but make countless 'look at how dumb the bible is' posts. The Koran's just as dumb. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the whole conservatives being Christians thing.
Just as Jewish and Christian scholars turn to the earliest texts, in Hebrew or Greek, when it is a question of exactly what is meant by a certain passage, so Muslim scholars turn to the Qur'ān in Arabic. It ain't the same if you read it in English, so what you are reading is not actually "The Qur'an".The Qur'ān has been translated into many languages, including English. These translations are considered to be glosses for personal use only, and have no weight in serious religious discussion. Translation is an extremely difficult endeavor, because each translator must consult his or her own opinions and aesthetic sense in trying to replicate shades of meaning in another language; this inevitably changes the original text. Thus a translation is often referred to as an "interpretation," and is not considered a real Qur'ān.
Another try?a person who uses violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
It can be seen that the Islamic Extremists are indeed terrorists. On closer inspection, it can also be noted that America, by definition, are terrorists! Are they using violence and intimidation for political purposes? Yes! Interesting...the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
Mcminty.Vilham wrote:
To be honest, I doubt you guys have ever even talked to a Muslim let alone had one or more as a friend. You are quite simply, talking shit.
What are you going on about? "As for your going ons about what a terrorist attack is"- was that even directed at me because I didn't say anything about what a terrorist attack is.mcminty wrote:
The English version or the Arabic version?Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Go read the Koran. Islam is not a peaceful religion, nor is it a tolerant one. Of course the extremists do go too far though.
Suffice to say it gets annoying to see all these I defend Muslims but make countless 'look at how dumb the bible is' posts. The Koran's just as dumb. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the whole conservatives being Christians thing.
The Qur'an differs in both versions due to the way it was translated:Just as Jewish and Christian scholars turn to the earliest texts, in Hebrew or Greek, when it is a question of exactly what is meant by a certain passage, so Muslim scholars turn to the Qur'ān in Arabic. It ain't the same if you read it in English, so what you are reading is not actually "The Qur'an".The Qur'ān has been translated into many languages, including English. These translations are considered to be glosses for personal use only, and have no weight in serious religious discussion. Translation is an extremely difficult endeavor, because each translator must consult his or her own opinions and aesthetic sense in trying to replicate shades of meaning in another language; this inevitably changes the original text. Thus a translation is often referred to as an "interpretation," and is not considered a real Qur'ān.
----------------------------------------
As for your going ons about what a terrorist attack is, I'll give you the Oxford Dictionary Definition:Another try?a person who uses violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.It can be seen that the Islamic Extremists are indeed terrorists. On closer inspection, it can also be noted that America, by definition, are terrorists! Are they using violence and intimidation for political purposes? Yes! Interesting...the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
-------------------------------------
In summary,
Ladies, Gentlemen, Boys and Girls... We have a WINNER!Mcminty.Vilham wrote:
To be honest, I doubt you guys have ever even talked to a Muslim let alone had one or more as a friend. You are quite simply, talking shit.
These people say your wrong and ZOMFG!! they've actually read the Islamic teachings. Although in the statement you make above you seem to think you are 100% right so where do you get your facts from? Fox?Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Go read the Koran[/b]. Islam is not a peaceful religion, nor is it a tolerant one.
Wrong. I think mcminty made a very valid argument that you chose simply to ignore without providing any reason to the contrary.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Secondly it's absurd to say the only way to read the Koran is by learning arabic.
No but you can probably be classed as racist when your are going around telling people what the book says when you clearly seem to have no idea what it says.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
To be honest, I don't see what point you're trying to get at? Like I said, just more "I'm racist if I insult Islam based on what the book actually says"
Last edited by crimson_grunt (2007-01-29 02:00:32)
Lowing when I read your posts I remember Brian Dennehy in First Blood. You seem to be yelling all the time and you aren't polite at all, you are confused and that makes you say the wrong stuff.lowing wrote:
Yeah?? Where were ya arguing against it when your brethren was making such bullshit claims??Vilham wrote:
I dont remember saying it was a terrorist act.
I don't watch FOX news, but clearly they're always wrong and to be used when trying to insult someone.crimson_grunt wrote:
These people say your wrong and ZOMFG!! they've actually read the Islamic teachings. Although in the statement you make above you seem to think you are 100% right so where do you get your facts from? Fox?Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Go read the Koran[/b]. Islam is not a peaceful religion, nor is it a tolerant one.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/notislam/mi … tions.htmlWrong. I think mcminty made a very valid argument that you chose simply to ignore without providing any reason to the contrary.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Secondly it's absurd to say the only way to read the Koran is by learning arabic.No but you can probably be classed as racist when your are going around telling people what the book says when you clearly seem to have no idea what it says.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
To be honest, I don't see what point you're trying to get at? Like I said, just more "I'm racist if I insult Islam based on what the book actually says"
So, by that theory if you have never been to Iraq, Israel, or were President of the United States, thou shall STFU?mcminty wrote:
In summary,
Ladies, Gentlemen, Boys and Girls... We have a WINNER!Mcminty.Vilham wrote:
To be honest, I doubt you guys have ever even talked to a Muslim let alone had one or more as a friend. You are quite simply, talking shit.
I will award you selective reader of the day. I showed a translation made by some academics that says the everything you are saying about Islam being hateful is wrong. My point was to show that you sayingAjax_the_Great1 wrote:
Then you go on saying I'm wrong on Mcminty's point, yet you youraself attempt to use a source of the Koran translated into English. You win genius award of the day.
was an incorrect blanket assumption as i proved that some people Have read the koran and displayed lots of evidence as to why you are wrong. Sure there is translations that say otherwise, I was reinforcing that you saying the book preaches evil is open to interpreting.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Go read th Koran. Islam is not a peaceful religion, nor is it a tolerant one.
My bad should have realized an Education institute who have obviously done such in depth research would be biased as they came out with the belief that Islam wasn't about hating and killing.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Lastly I know a great deal about Islam, plenty more than a one sided interpretation out of Southern Cal.
I don't want to believe your a racist. I want point out that you sayingAjax_the_Great1 wrote:
Like you, wanting to believe that I'm racist, even when a religion has nothing to do with race.
was pointless as due to the readers education level and experience of the Islamic religion/society/'way of life all those years ago' and other factors its probably easy to misinterpret and make assumptions what is said.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Go read the Koran. Islam is not a peaceful religion, nor is it a tolerant one.
So are you saying the Jews aren't a race of people? Man I wish people would look up the word "race" and stop assuming it only means colour. Strictly speaking, being homophobic is being racist as a race of people is defined as any group with a common feature that they share.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Like you, wanting to believe that I'm racist, even when a religion has nothing to do with race.
Bro i suggest you take a brief look at the particular reasoning behind the usage of the bomb. One of which was to INSTILL TERROR, imagine if you were playing a bluffing mans game and you have 3 Nuclear bombs...which was all the US had at the time, you want to scare the living shit out of the enemy hence its usage. Terror is instill by the fact that the US could destroy the entire country, granted it was perceived by the Japanese that we had an unlimited arsenal, but we didn't so the visual effects of the actual bombing does a great deal of helping the situation for unconditional surrender. Yet, it can be disputed that the bombings themselves was icing on the cake since the Japanese forces had been pretty much devastated by tactical bombings, not to mention the FIRE BOMBING of cities through out Japan which were predominantly CIVILIAN targets, hence TERROR. Of course its not in the same sense as terrorist today, but still you are instilling terror into the population in order to stimulate some sort of action on their part and end the devastation through pleadings with their government.lowing wrote:
Oh, does this mean you are going to stop trying to re-write history by saying the US bombing of Japan was a terrorist act??Vilham wrote:
ENOUGH GOING OFF TOPIC!
America nuked a country, for whatever reason, valid in your opinion or not. End of.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hardly millitary targets. They could have nuked any military base, but they chose to hit two civilian population centers. Draw your own conclusions.Fen321 wrote:
Bro i suggest you take a brief look at the particular reasoning behind the usage of the bomb. One of which was to INSTILL TERROR, imagine if you were playing a bluffing mans game and you have 3 Nuclear bombs...which was all the US had at the time, you want to scare the living shit out of the enemy hence its usage. Terror is instill by the fact that the US could destroy the entire country, granted it was perceived by the Japanese that we had an unlimited arsenal, but we didn't so the visual effects of the actual bombing does a great deal of helping the situation for unconditional surrender. Yet, it can be disputed that the bombings themselves was icing on the cake since the Japanese forces had been pretty much devastated by tactical bombings, not to mention the FIRE BOMBING of cities through out Japan which were predominantly CIVILIAN targets, hence TERROR. Of course its not in the same sense as terrorist today, but still you are instilling terror into the population in order to stimulate some sort of action on their part and end the devastation through pleadings with their government.lowing wrote:
Oh, does this mean you are going to stop trying to re-write history by saying the US bombing of Japan was a terrorist act??Vilham wrote:
ENOUGH GOING OFF TOPIC!
America nuked a country, for whatever reason, valid in your opinion or not. End of.
Terror acts are NOT exclusive to Muslim nations, although I'm sure you would LOVE to find a way to argue this, hence the usage of the bomb was both strategic in the sense to instill a sense of imminent destruction upon your entire country, tactical in terms of instilling fear within the targeted areas in order to fulfill the greater strategic objective.
I know its depressing to come to the realization that Nuclear weapons have a terror aspect to them, as do most other conventional weapons, but it is silly to argue that the dropping of the bomb was done in order to destroy JUST the facilities it was dropped on and not instill terror/fear of more bombings later on.
Conclusion = Many many many more Innocent lives spared.LaidBackNinja wrote:
They could have nuked any military base, but they chose to hit two civilian population centers. Draw your own conclusions.
Since when does that happen?paranoid101 wrote:
Gone off topic just a bit, hasnt it.