Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: Hiroshima AND Nagasaki?
  • Subject: Hiroshima AND Nagasaki?
Subject: Hiroshima AND Nagasaki?

"There's this theory that if there were an infinite number of monkeys pecking away at typewriters, they would eventually write the great works of Shakespeare, but thanks to the internet we now know that's not true." -Adam Savage

"Time is not made out of lines. It is made out of circles. That is why clocks are round." -Caboose

NOTE: This is my new primary account. My old account was AgentCOPP1, and I changed it because it was linked to a gamertag that I no longer use.

Posted by: NinjaLord77

Posted by: erac2detsaw2

Posted by: NinjaLord77
What Gulf war? I'm talking about the recent war in Afghanistan. Or do you think that no civilians were killed? The point is that they can kill people and it's fine, if others kill they are terrorits. Yeah OK.


Where in the world did you get 700,000 Iraqi's killed? CNN?


Are you serious a -blam!- load of Iraqis were killed in the 2003 bombings. It's OK to bomb civilians I know

So I guess whenever we're talking about the unit of a "-blam!- load", that automatically equals 700,000.

  • 01.03.2013 12:22 PM PDT

What are these first person words you speak of?


Posted by: Lethal Spaniard

Posted by: RockdaleRooster
Yes. Absolutely necessary.

  • 01.03.2013 12:23 PM PDT

"I will show you how a true Prussian officer fights!"

"And i will show you where the iron crosses grow..."

- "Cross of Iron"


Posted by: NinjaLord77

Posted by: erac2detsaw2

Posted by: NinjaLord77
What Gulf war? I'm talking about the recent war in Afghanistan. Or do you think that no civilians were killed? The point is that they can kill people and it's fine, if others kill they are terrorits. Yeah OK.


Where in the world did you get 700,000 Iraqi's killed? CNN?


Are you serious a -blam!- load of Iraqis were killed in the 2003 bombings. It's OK to bomb civilians I know


You are literally just spouting nonsense now, where did 700,00 come from?

Also if you knew anything about Afghanistan you would realize there is a COALITION OF COUNTRIES THERE not just America.

You honestly have no idea what you are talking about.

  • 01.03.2013 12:23 PM PDT

Old School

It was actually over 1 million iraqi civillians according the cables that were released.



Posted by: AgentCOP1
Posted by: NinjaLord77

Posted by: erac2detsaw2

Posted by: NinjaLord77
What Gulf war? I'm talking about the recent war in Afghanistan. Or do you think that no civilians were killed? The point is that they can kill people and it's fine, if others kill they are terrorits. Yeah OK.


Where in the world did you get 700,000 Iraqi's killed? CNN?


Are you serious a -blam!- load of Iraqis were killed in the 2003 bombings. It's OK to bomb civilians I know

So I guess whenever we're talking about the unit of a "-blam!- load", that automatically equals 700,000.

  • 01.03.2013 12:24 PM PDT

:)

Posted by: Raptorx7

Posted by: NinjaLord77

Posted by: erac2detsaw2

Posted by: NinjaLord77
What Gulf war? I'm talking about the recent war in Afghanistan. Or do you think that no civilians were killed? The point is that they can kill people and it's fine, if others kill they are terrorits. Yeah OK.


Where in the world did you get 700,000 Iraqi's killed? CNN?


Are you serious a -blam!- load of Iraqis were killed in the 2003 bombings. It's OK to bomb civilians I know


You are literally just spouting nonsense now, where did 700,00 come from?

Also if you knew anything about Afghanistan you would realize there is a COALITION OF COUNTRIES THERE not just America.

You honestly have no idea what you are talking about.


I was going to say haha, Britain should be the first one that pops to someones mind.

  • 01.03.2013 12:25 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: darkruby
It was actually over 1 million iraqi civillians according the cables that were released.


Source?

  • 01.03.2013 12:26 PM PDT

“If we will disbelieve everything, because we cannot certainly know all things, we shall do much what as wisely as he who would not use his legs, but sit still and perish, because he had no wings to fly.” - John Locke

"How can anyone be enlightened? Truth after all is so poorly lit." - Rush

*sigh* I really have nothing more to say to those of you who consider the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocents as "justified," especially since the evidence suggests that the killing of civilians is not what ended the war.

[Edited on 01.03.2013 12:27 PM PST]

  • 01.03.2013 12:27 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Locke357
*sigh* I really have nothing more to say to those of you who consider the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocents as "justified," especially since the evidence suggests that the killing of civilians is not what ended the war.


It's war. Arguing what is and isn't justifiable or moral is an exercise in futility.

  • 01.03.2013 12:28 PM PDT


Posted by: hadlermaster
Posted by: NinjaLord77
You still didn't answer my question.


Killing a bunch of people in 8 years and with their weaponry is not hard. All they have to do in drop a missile and there goes 1,000

  • 01.03.2013 12:28 PM PDT


Posted by: Locke357
*sigh* I really have nothing more to say to those of you who consider the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocents as "justified," especially since the evidence suggests that the killing of civilians is not what ended the war.
Right? No. Justified? Yes.

And if the evidence suggest that bombs didn't end the war, then that shows that it didn't effect the Japanese that much. Im out now.

  • 01.03.2013 12:29 PM PDT


Posted by: Locke357
*sigh* I really have nothing more to say to those of you who consider the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocents as "justified," especially since the evidence suggests that the killing of civilians is not what ended the war.

That's why I avoid the morality in these debates and just focus on my interpretations of events and where I believe they would lead based on my knowledge.

  • 01.03.2013 12:29 PM PDT

“If we will disbelieve everything, because we cannot certainly know all things, we shall do much what as wisely as he who would not use his legs, but sit still and perish, because he had no wings to fly.” - John Locke

"How can anyone be enlightened? Truth after all is so poorly lit." - Rush


Posted by: Hayabusawarrior

Posted by: Locke357
*sigh* I really have nothing more to say to those of you who consider the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocents as "justified," especially since the evidence suggests that the killing of civilians is not what ended the war.
Right? No. Justified? Yes.

And if the evidence suggest that bombs didn't end the war, then that shows that it didn't effect the Japanese that much. Im out now.
No, it simply shows that killing hundreds of thousands of civilians between the bombings and fire-bombing was actually largely useless, and any degree of moral high ground is evaporated.

  • 01.03.2013 12:30 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

I still want to know what people think of the strategy behind these bombings was. They intended to kill civilians its pretty simple no?

  • 01.03.2013 12:30 PM PDT

Posted by:ScubaToaster
Posted by: HipiO7
This man, this man right here put it so eloquently that I actually cancelled my own 2000+ word long post.
/slow clap for respect


:)
The person who said participating is important, not winning, obviously never won anything.

Posted by: NinjaLord77
Posted by: HipiO7
Posted by: NinjaLord77
Posted by: HipiO7
Posted by: NinjaLord77
And you retaliated against innocent Afghanistanis and killed over a million of them. And killed over 700,000 Iraqis cause they "had weapons" What a peaceful nation.


What does The Cold War and The Gulf War have to do with WWII?

Stop pulling facts out of your ass that have nothing to do with whats being discussed to try and help yourself.


What Gulf war? I'm talking about the recent war in Afghanistan. Or do you think that no civilians were killed? The point is that they can kill people and it's fine, if others kill they are terrorits. Yeah OK.


Obviously civvies were killed but why all the hate ONLY on the US? If you knew history you would know the USA is not even among top 3 countries with the bloodiest history. How convenient to forget what the Spanish did in South America (exterminating 3 civilizations), then the British in India and all their colonies. The french in North Africa and not let us forget the Portugese in West Africa and the ammount of slave trading and genocides in South America.

But no, the US is the eternal bad guy.



I don't hate the US but I hate how if they kill a million people it's OK, when other people kill them it's not OK. Quit acting like heroes.


Yes because the Spanish, French, English and Portuguese are equally hated for having killed a lot more than various millions, yet the USA is the center of the Universe.

Its funny how blind ignorance and blind hate work together.

  • 01.03.2013 12:31 PM PDT

Old School

the source is actually in the Cable, i cba to read thru it again haha.

but here's a quote that the US officially released "As of December 2012, the IBC has recorded 110,937-121,227 civilian deaths. The IBC has a media-centered approach to counting and documenting the deaths. Other sources have provided differing estimates of deaths, some much highe"

This doesnt include those killed by the republican guard, disease or deaths of young males.


Posted by: erac2detsaw2

Posted by: darkruby
It was actually over 1 million iraqi civillians according the cables that were released.


Source?

  • 01.03.2013 12:31 PM PDT


Posted by: Locke357

Posted by: Hayabusawarrior

Posted by: Locke357
*sigh* I really have nothing more to say to those of you who consider the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocents as "justified," especially since the evidence suggests that the killing of civilians is not what ended the war.
Right? No. Justified? Yes.

And if the evidence suggest that bombs didn't end the war, then that shows that it didn't effect the Japanese that much. Im out now.
No, it simply shows that killing hundreds of thousands of civilians between the bombings and fire-bombing was actually largely useless, and any degree of moral high ground is evaporated.
Its war, I didn't know a morally high ground ever existed.

  • 01.03.2013 12:31 PM PDT

:)

Posted by: Murcielago00

Posted by: Locke357
*sigh* I really have nothing more to say to those of you who consider the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocents as "justified," especially since the evidence suggests that the killing of civilians is not what ended the war.


It's war. Arguing what is and isn't justifiable or moral is an exercise in futility.



Unfortunately that is the sad truth. In war, it's the civvies that are the ones that get slaughtered.

It's completely and utterly morally wrong but in war, it can't be helped.

  • 01.03.2013 12:32 PM PDT

“If we will disbelieve everything, because we cannot certainly know all things, we shall do much what as wisely as he who would not use his legs, but sit still and perish, because he had no wings to fly.” - John Locke

"How can anyone be enlightened? Truth after all is so poorly lit." - Rush


Posted by: Murcielago00

Posted by: Locke357
*sigh* I really have nothing more to say to those of you who consider the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocents as "justified," especially since the evidence suggests that the killing of civilians is not what ended the war.


It's war. Arguing what is and isn't justifiable or moral is an exercise in futility.

The attitude that simply being at war justifies any and all crimes against humanity is definitely not universal. Nor do I think it is a desirable one.

[Edited on 01.03.2013 12:34 PM PST]

  • 01.03.2013 12:33 PM PDT

Recon Number 54 -
If they are still looking, then while holding the snarl, I let drool start to drip from my mouth, I stand, curl my fingers into claws and with a hunched over crouch, I then make slow and deliberate steps towards them. When I get close enough, I let them hear my agonized and gasping growls and then, if they continue to stare, when I get within arm's reach? I kiss them on the nose, and run away giggling.


Posted by: Hayabusawarrior
Ask the the thousands of people who would have died in the invasion (on both sides) if it was necessary.


And yet, if soldiers were killing other soldiers I would say that is better than Nuking a few hundred thousand civilians.

More lives lost? Potentially, but that would have been two opposing armies not killing thousands of civilians.

Note: Civilians are not active combatants and you shouldn't target them for the lulz.

  • 01.03.2013 12:34 PM PDT

Posted by: AquaBlader
Soon to be breaking news:


US Coast Guard prepares for massive rescue mission after Iranian fleet sinks off shore. Reports say a small thunderstorm caused most of the ships to simply...fall apart.

Posted by: NinjaLord77

Posted by: hadlermaster
Posted by: NinjaLord77
You still didn't answer my question.


Killing a bunch of people in 8 years and with their weaponry is not hard. All they have to do in drop a missile and there goes 1,000

So, 100K~200K deaths. Where are you getting 700,000?

And what about the million Afghans?

  • 01.03.2013 12:34 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Locke357

Posted by: Murcielago00

Posted by: Locke357
*sigh* I really have nothing more to say to those of you who consider the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocents as "justified," especially since the evidence suggests that the killing of civilians is not what ended the war.


It's war. Arguing what is and isn't justifiable or moral is an exercise in futility.

The attitude that simply being at war justifies any and all crimes against humanity is definitely not universal.
Agreed. And I'm not taking that side.

I'm just pointing out that it is war, and as such, in its very nature there will be crimes against humanity. You can have a debate on it all you want but in the very end there can't be war without crimes to humanity.

  • 01.03.2013 12:35 PM PDT

"I will show you how a true Prussian officer fights!"

"And i will show you where the iron crosses grow..."

- "Cross of Iron"


Posted by: Locke357

Posted by: Murcielago00

Posted by: Locke357
*sigh* I really have nothing more to say to those of you who consider the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocents as "justified," especially since the evidence suggests that the killing of civilians is not what ended the war.


It's war. Arguing what is and isn't justifiable or moral is an exercise in futility.

The attitude that simply being at war justifies any and all crimes against humanity is definitely not universal.


Your right it isn't universal, but like it was said the realities of war are impossible to fully understand. From what i see hear there are a few individuals who think the U.S. had this blood lust like idea to just murder civilians. Its not true and as said before it was indeed a necessary evil it saved more lives then it killed.

  • 01.03.2013 12:35 PM PDT

“If we will disbelieve everything, because we cannot certainly know all things, we shall do much what as wisely as he who would not use his legs, but sit still and perish, because he had no wings to fly.” - John Locke

"How can anyone be enlightened? Truth after all is so poorly lit." - Rush


Posted by: culexus

Posted by: Hayabusawarrior
Ask the the thousands of people who would have died in the invasion (on both sides) if it was necessary.


And yet, if soldiers were killing other soldiers I would say that is better than Nuking a few hundred thousand civilians.

More lives lost? Potentially, but that would have been two opposing armies not killing thousands of civilians.

Note: Civilians are not active combatants and you shouldn't target them for the lulz.

And there's that whole bit about how the US wouldn't have been invading alone, the USSR recently declared war, and many sources and historical works argue that the Soviet entry had far more to do with the Japanese decision to surrender

  • 01.03.2013 12:35 PM PDT

'Κύριε Ἰησοῦ Χριστέ, Υἱὲ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἐλέησόν με τὸν ἁμαρτωλόν.'

Japan would have fought down to the literal last man, woman and child if we had not dropped the bomb, and thus more civilians would have died--along with soldiers. The emperor--prior to the bombing--was already giving speeches over the radio urging the Japanese population to prepare to fight for their homeland because he was expecting a full-scale invasion. As much as people may want to deny it--the bomb was the best option given the circumstances. The other alternative the Allies were going to take was a full-scale invasion of Japan, and that would have been a lot worse with casualties ranging in the millions, whereas only 140,000-240,000 people died from the atomic bombings.

People also forget about the Asian Holocaust where Japan was treating the people it occupied worse than Naz1 Germany. If we delayed the war by allowing it to go on for longer by not dropping the bombs, then more of them would have died. I think that the occupied civilians' lives are more important than Japanese civilians' lives--many of whom knew what their country was doing but didn't mind or do anything to stop it.

  • 01.03.2013 12:35 PM PDT

“If we will disbelieve everything, because we cannot certainly know all things, we shall do much what as wisely as he who would not use his legs, but sit still and perish, because he had no wings to fly.” - John Locke

"How can anyone be enlightened? Truth after all is so poorly lit." - Rush


Posted by: Raptorx7
as said before it was indeed a necessary evil it saved more lives then it killed.
Except that is hardly proven, and is hardly considered the consensus amongst the historical community. Many historians are of the opinion that the USSR entering into the war against Japan had far more effect, and might have on its won caused the Japanese to surrender.

[Edited on 01.03.2013 12:36 PM PST]

  • 01.03.2013 12:36 PM PDT