PDA

View Full Version : Tom Hanks: US Wanted to Annihilate the Japanese Because They Were ”Different”



Gingersnap
03-10-2010, 12:41 PM
Tom Hanks: US Wanted to Annihilate the Japanese Because They Were ”Different”2010
March 10
tags: Hollywood, News, NewsRealblog, Politics, Tom Hanksby Michael van der Galien

Although I am used to Hollywood stars making the most outrageous, anti-American and downright stupid statements, I’ve got to admit that I was taken aback by this post over at Hot Air, nonetheless. Its subject: Tom Hanks said recently that America wanted to ”annihilate the Japanese because they were different.” Yes, seriously:


He is pleased that The Pacific has fulfilled an obligation to our World War II vets. He doesn’t see the series as simply eye-opening history. He hopes it offers Americans a chance to ponder the sacrifices of our current soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. “From the outset, we wanted to make people wonder how our troops can re-enter society in the first place,” Hanks says. “How could they just pick up their lives and get on with the rest of us? Back in World War II, we viewed the Japanese as ‘yellow, slant-eyed dogs’ that believed in different gods. They were out to kill us because our way of living was different. We, in turn, wanted to annihilate them because they were different. Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what’s going on today?”

As John Nolte explains at Big Hollywood, “no matter how many times you read this passage the context is clear. By ‘different’ Hanks is clearly referring to race, culture and religion, not ideology.”

Words fail.

Newsreal Blog (http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/03/10/tom-hanks-us-wanted-to-annihilate-the-japanese-because-they-were-different//#pageTitle)

linda22003
03-10-2010, 12:45 PM
I thought he was actually a little less moonbatty than the others. Guess not. Anyone who has read "The Ghost Soldiers" knows better, and knows what we were up against.

FlaGator
03-10-2010, 12:52 PM
When ever I start to take Tom Hanks too seriously I recall Bachelor Party and Bossum Buddies, that kind of puts things in to perspective.

Space Gravy
03-10-2010, 01:05 PM
They started it. The Enola Gay ended it.

Kay
03-10-2010, 01:49 PM
They were out to kill us because our way of living was different. We, in turn, wanted to annihilate them because they were different. Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what’s going on today?”


Yeah....it does sound very familiar to what's going on today:
A sneak attack out of the blue on Pearl Harbor by one,
a sneak attack out of the blue on the WTC by the other.

Tom Hanks' wife is a looney tunes liberal.
I guess she's rubbed off on him.

Wei Wu Wei
03-10-2010, 01:55 PM
I'd argue it was the opposite. The US wanted to describe the Japanese as "different" because they wanted to annihilate them (although this term is a bit too loose, still though, the detention of Japanese Americans and of course The Bombs still remain an awful stain on our history, despite the complixities of the situations at thetime)

lacarnut
03-10-2010, 02:08 PM
I'd argue it was the opposite. The US wanted to describe the Japanese as "different" because they wanted to annihilate them (although this term is a bit too loose, still though, the detention of Japanese Americans and of course The Bombs still remain an awful stain on our history, despite the complixities of the situations at thetime)

I disagree. The bombs saved thousands of American lives, and to my way of thinking that is What War is All About( Killing the enemy before it kills you). We should nuke Iran and Syria and get these war games over in that part of the world and bring our boys home. Liberals are not only pussies but cowards

stsinner
03-10-2010, 02:11 PM
The Bombs still remain an awful stain on our history, despite the complixities of the situations at thetime)

God, you're in idiot.

Wei Wu Wei
03-10-2010, 02:15 PM
I disagree. The bombs saved thousands of American lives, and to my way of thinking that is What War is All About( Killing the enemy before it kills you). We should nuke Iran and Syria and get these war games over in that part of the world and bring our boys home. Liberals are not only pussies but cowards

Yeah it was tough. Even after their navy and airforce was wiped out the Japanese just kept on fighting. They had an incredible ideology that would essentially not let them surrender. While it is tough to fight an enemy like that, killing over 200,000 civilians in one of the most horrific ways imaginable is not something that can just be paved over with simple rhetoric (although some people still believe that it was necessary). It was one of the low points in human history, and we should do what we can to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Wei Wu Wei
03-10-2010, 02:18 PM
We should nuke Iran and Syria and get these war games over in that part of the world and bring our boys home. Liberals are not only pussies but cowards

I'm at a real loss for words when I encounter someone who thinks nuclear warfare is just a standard tool of international policy.

With today's weapons, millions of civilians can be killed with a couple of bombs, it stuns me that people think that's okay.

It's blasphemous and totally against any idea that a human life and soul is worth anything at all.

I feel sorry for any human being with a heart and mind so cold and empty that such a thing is just "ok".

stsinner
03-10-2010, 02:20 PM
Yeah it was tough. Even after their navy and airforce was wiped out the Japanese just kept on fighting. They had an incredible ideology that would essentially not let them surrender. While it is tough to fight an enemy like that, killing over 200,000 civilians in one of the most horrific ways imaginable is not something that can just be paved over with simple rhetoric (although some people still believe that it was necessary). It was one of the low points in human history, and we should do what we can to make sure it doesn't happen again.

One thing pussies like you and our government doesn't seem to understand is that you fight wars to win! You don't fight wars to please other countries and safeguard your image around the world in the eyes of countries who aren't part of the conflict.. That's how you earn respect from countries that will never respect us for any other reason. You fight your enemy with crushing force and defeat them, and then you bring the troops home. You don't keep soldiers occupying a country getting picked off like sitting ducks...

We did what we had to do to win WWII, and we should use every weapon in our arsenal to win every war and use American lives, i.e. boots on the ground, only when absolutely necessary!

Wei Wu Wei
03-10-2010, 02:21 PM
I advise people to watch a documentary called "White Light, Black Rain" which focuses on first-hand accounts of civilians who survived the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as those who helped build and deliver the bomb to it's destination.

BadCat
03-10-2010, 02:22 PM
I'm at a real loss for words when I encounter someone who thinks nuclear warfare is just a standard tool of international policy.

With today's weapons, millions of civilians can be killed with a couple of bombs, it stuns me that people think that's okay.

It's blasphemous and totally against any idea that a human life and soul is worth anything at all.

I feel sorry for any human being with a heart and mind so cold and empty that such a thing is just "ok".

Why don't you go fellate yourself?

You're nothing but a lying little liberal troll. Another Dimocrat piece of shit.

Milly
03-10-2010, 02:22 PM
I'd argue it was the opposite. The US wanted to describe the Japanese as "different" because they wanted to annihilate them (although this term is a bit too loose, still though, the detention of Japanese Americans and of course The Bombs still remain an awful stain on our history, despite the complixities of the situations at thetime)

If we had wanted to annihilate them, we would have. Oddly enough, we accepted their surrender and actually let the Japanese who survived the end of the war continue to live. Odd, huh?

BTW, all militaries in every time and place objectify their enemies by calling them perjoratives. We were 'round eyed devils', as I recall.

stsinner
03-10-2010, 02:24 PM
If we had wanted to annihilate them, we would have. Oddly enough, we accepted their surrender and actually let the Japanese who survived the end of the war continue to live. Odd, huh?

BTW, all militaries in every time and place objectify their enemies by calling them perjoratives. We were 'round eyed devils', as I recall.

In Vietnam our Marines were Devil Dogs, because the Vietnamese said that fought like Devil Dogs....

Wei Wu Wei
03-10-2010, 02:26 PM
One thing pussies like you and our government doesn't seem to understand is that you fight wars to win!

war isn't a game. while this high-school football mentality is always used to rouse up people into supporting warfare, it is something real and beyond the scope of "win or lose".

you don't "win" a war by murdering (and yes, killing non-combatants is murder) hundreds of thousands of civilians. No one wins from that. Reducing human life into a mere incidental in the game of warfare that must be won simply for the sake of winning is blasphemous. If God lives within us, part of our eternal soul, then nukes are a direct affront to God. Humanity itself loses it's soul when blatant nuke-dropping occurs.


"For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"
- Mark 8:36


We did what we had to do to win WWII, and we should use every weapon in our arsenal to win every war and use American lives, i.e. boots on the ground, only when absolutely necessary!

War without War. Even the greatest warlords of the past knew such a thing was absurd.

stsinner
03-10-2010, 02:26 PM
Regarding Tom Hanks-just another actor whom I like as an actor but now have a very low opinion of as a person. Just another disappointing, un-American elitist who doesn't live in the real world..

Wei Wu Wei
03-10-2010, 02:28 PM
If we had wanted to annihilate them, we would have. Oddly enough, we accepted their surrender and actually let the Japanese who survived the end of the war continue to live. Odd, huh?

BTW, all militaries in every time and place objectify their enemies by calling them perjoratives. We were 'round eyed devils', as I recall.

Like I said, annihilate was a very loose term being used for the rhetorical sake of inverting Tom Hank's statement.

Still, the things the US did during war are unforgivable, and are the things the Japanese and especially the Nazi's did.

No one "wins" a war unless you're fighting a war of imperial conquest, which we were not.

Milly
03-10-2010, 02:33 PM
I advise people to watch a documentary called "White Light, Black Rain" which focuses on first-hand accounts of civilians who survived the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as those who helped build and deliver the bomb to it's destination.

Does it include the information that for DAYS before we dropped the bomb the AF dropped leaflets telling the civilians to get out? Because we did, unlike - say - the Germans bombing London.

Dead is dead, whether from nukes or conventional weapons. How much more dead does a nuke make an individual, anyway?

linda22003
03-10-2010, 02:35 PM
I advise people to watch a documentary called "White Light, Black Rain" which focuses on first-hand accounts of civilians who survived the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as those who helped build and deliver the bomb to it's destination.

And I advise you to talk to my father and lots of other American GIs who were waiting to be sent into the Home Islands of Japan in a land invasion, to almost certain death. The bomb saved them. The Japanese government had plenty of warniing that something big was coming before Hiroshima and they chose to ignore it. They were warned again before Nagasaki, and they had to be told a second time. They could have spared two of their major cities, and there were those in the Japanese command who STILL resisted surrender after the two bombings. They could have saved their people and they chose not to.

stsinner
03-10-2010, 02:36 PM
war isn't a game. while this high-school football mentality is always used to rouse up people into supporting warfare, it is something real and beyond the scope of "win or lose".

you don't "win" a war by murdering (and yes, killing non-combatants is murder) hundreds of thousands of civilians. No one wins from that. Reducing human life into a mere incidental in the game of warfare that must be won simply for the sake of winning is blasphemous. If God lives within us, part of our eternal soul, then nukes are a direct affront to God. Humanity itself loses it's soul when blatant nuke-dropping occurs.


"For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"
- Mark 8:36



War without War. Even the greatest warlords of the past knew such a thing was absurd.

So, let me see if I've got this straight:

1. You don't fight wars to win
2. We should throw human lives at the enemy, instead of cruise missiles and bombs


I didn't say that we should nuke as a first option, but we should do just as we did with Iraq-send cruise missiles in to take out every single radar and disable military installations, destroy runways and make it so they have no military that can fight, and then we keep pounding them until either all their military is decimated or they surrender..

You don't fight with troops just because the enemy doesn't have planes.. You use whatever you have at your disposal to win..

You don't allow disgusting Muslim murderers to hole up in mosques and shoot at our troops-you bomb that mosque and kill those men.. You fight TO WIN, not to act like social workers...

Milly
03-10-2010, 02:37 PM
No one "wins" a war unless you're fighting a war of imperial conquest, which we were not.

You have got to be kidding, right? You win a war when your enemies lay down their arms and sue for peace on whatever terms you want. The fact that the US has rarely required property as part of peace terms (Mexico in 1848 comes to mind as one such rare case) doesn't negate this fact.

Gingersnap
03-10-2010, 02:43 PM
And I advise you to talk to my father and lots of other American GIs who were waiting to be sent into the Home Islands of Japan in a land invasion, to almost certain death. The bomb saved them. The Japanese government had plenty of warniing that something big was coming before Hiroshima and they chose to ignore it. They were warned again before Nagasaki, and they had to be told a second time. They could have spared two of their major cities, and there were those in the Japanese command who STILL resisted surrender after the two bombings. They could have saved their people and they chose not to.

Indeed.

Wei Wu Wei
03-10-2010, 02:47 PM
Does it include the information that for DAYS before we dropped the bomb the AF dropped leaflets telling the civilians to get out? Because we did, unlike - say - the Germans bombing London.

Dead is dead, whether from nukes or conventional weapons. How much more dead does a nuke make an individual, anyway?

Not everyone who died died in the immediate flash. Tens of thousands of orphaned children (yes children, just like your children) had 80% of their body totally burned. With only minimal care they sat around in hospitals with enormous portions of their skin simply gone (for some it took well over a year for their wounds to close and heal), awful deformations, and then the radiation effects started cropping up.

Wei Wu Wei
03-10-2010, 02:50 PM
And I advise you to talk to my father and lots of other American GIs who were waiting to be sent into the Home Islands of Japan in a land invasion, to almost certain death. The bomb saved them. The Japanese government had plenty of warniing that something big was coming before Hiroshima and they chose to ignore it. They were warned again before Nagasaki, and they had to be told a second time. They could have spared two of their major cities, and there were those in the Japanese command who STILL resisted surrender after the two bombings. They could have saved their people and they chose not to.

No one doubts America had reasons, it ended the worst war the world has even seen. It's just unfortunate that the ending to the worst war the world has seen was the worst attack on civilians that the world has ever seen.

Like I said, this is not a clear-cut issue of "good guys and bad guys", but to pretend that dropping a nuclear bomb on a city is something desirable or something that should just be paved over in our history is appalling and dishonest.

linda22003
03-10-2010, 02:51 PM
Adults often make bad decisions that kill children. This was a bad decision made by Japanese which killed their own children. At least they learned from it; they haven't started a war since.

Sonnabend
03-10-2010, 02:52 PM
I'd argue it was the opposite. The US wanted to describe the Japanese as "different" because they wanted to annihilate them (although this term is a bit too loose, still though, the detention of Japanese Americans and of course The Bombs still remain an awful stain on our history, despite the complixities of the situations at thetime)Prior to Truman's decision, the US Mint was ordered to make HALF A MILLION Purple hearts in in anticipation of the mass casualties that would follow from an invasion of Japan.

Speaking also as an Aussie whose cities were BOMBED by the Japanese in preparation for them invading us, as an Aussie, whose soldiers fought. bled. and died in jungles to hold off the invader, as an Aussie who remembers all too well the hideous war crimes of the Japanese (Remember the Bataan Death March?)....the Bomb ended a war started by Japan in 1941..,.and quite frankly, it was and still remained the only option that ended the war as fast as it did.

Mate, dont EVER lecture me on this, because I will boot your ass around your ears every time. We know full well what the Japanese were capable of, what they planned.

Your revisionist history is like the rest of your liberal claptrap...no facts to back up its lunatic claims. Wanna start a thread with me on this?

Bring it, buddy.

Bring your A game.

Mano a mano

Got the cojones to face me and argue this one out?

Hm?

linda22003
03-10-2010, 02:53 PM
No one doubts America had reasons, it ended the worst war the world has even seen. It's just unfortunate that the ending to the worst war the world has seen was the worst attack on civilians that the world has ever seen.

Like I said, this is not a clear-cut issue of "good guys and bad guys", but to pretend that dropping a nuclear bomb on a city is something desirable or something that should just be paved over in our history is appalling and dishonest.


You've certainly moderated your comments. I don't think anyone thinks using nuclear weapons is "desirable" (except to Al-Qaeda, in terms of America). I don't think anyone has "paved over" the history of the beginning of the atomic age.

Wei Wu Wei
03-10-2010, 02:54 PM
If winning a war means the government of the enemy nation accepts surrender, that means it's impossible to win a war against a non-nation enemy. Our 'enemy' today is a non-nation, it's a non-organization even (terrorism as a tool and as part of an ideology).

Unlike wars we fought before, there is no single person or group or legislative body or leader who can "surrender", thus we are fighting a war that is unwinnable.

linda22003
03-10-2010, 02:57 PM
I wouldn't say "unwinnable"; I'd say we'd better live with it for a long time to come.

Wei Wu Wei
03-10-2010, 02:57 PM
Interesting fact, in the movie White Light, Black Rain many of the survivors are very outspoken about their belief that America was not to blame for the bombings. In fact, some formed political groups to force the Japanese government to provide additional care to the survivors because "the japanese government started the war that ended in the bomb".

So yes, it's not even as simple as "they are the bad guy to us, and we are the bad guy to them".

I highly recoommend the film.

BadCat
03-10-2010, 02:58 PM
If winning a war means the government of the enemy nation accepts surrender, that means it's impossible to win a war against a non-nation enemy. Our 'enemy' today is a non-nation, it's a non-organization even (terrorism as a tool and as part of an ideology).

Unlike wars we fought before, there is no single person or group or legislative body or leader who can "surrender", thus we are fighting a war that is unwinnable.

Fine, we win when they are all dead.

That's OK with me.

AlmostThere
03-10-2010, 02:58 PM
I disagree. The bombs saved thousands of American lives, and to my way of thinking that is What War is All About( Killing the enemy before it kills you). We should nuke Iran and Syria and get these war games over in that part of the world and bring our boys home. Liberals are not only pussies but cowards

Considering the Japanese were prepared to continue the fight even if their homeland was invaded, these bombs probably saved many thousands of Japanese lives as well. If historians wants to lay blame on someone for the lives lost at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they don't need to look any further than the leadership in Japan. The Potsdam Declaration stated if they didn't surrender, they faced utter destruction. Even after Hiroshima was obliterated, they didn't surrender. I guess they never learned that discretion is the better part of valor.

BadCat
03-10-2010, 03:00 PM
Interesting fact, in the movie White Light, Black Rain many of the survivors are very outspoken about their belief that America was not to blame for the bombings. In fact, some formed political groups to force the Japanese government to provide additional care to the survivors because "the japanese government started the war that ended in the bomb".

So yes, it's not even as simple as "they are the bad guy to us, and we are the bad guy to them".

I highly recoommend the film.

I've seen it.

I could not care less about them. They got what they deserved.

Wei Wu Wei
03-10-2010, 03:00 PM
Fine, we win when they are all dead.

That's OK with me.

someone help my eyes just rolled down the stairs

BadCat
03-10-2010, 03:02 PM
someone help my eyes just rolled down the stairs

No, those were your testicles. Spineless pussy.

stsinner
03-10-2010, 03:02 PM
No, those were your testicles. Spineless pussy.

:D

Wei Wu Wei
03-10-2010, 03:04 PM
I've seen it.

I could not care less about them. They got what they deserved.

This right here is a Tuff Man. He's so Tuff that he doesn't have feelings for people, that's for wimps and women and liberals. Empathy? Psh. Common identification with your fellow man? Hah! Recognition of the divinity of the human spirit revealed through compassion and destroyed through hatred? More like gimme-a-steak!

I bet this guy does pushups a lot too and has a feeling of peace (and not the pansy kind of peace EITHER) inside of himself when he's not hunting deer with his bare hands.

Wei Wu Wei
03-10-2010, 03:06 PM
Built Ford Tuff, a Man's Man. Real testosterone. Boots and trucks.

BadCat
03-10-2010, 03:08 PM
This right here is a Tuff Man. He's so Tuff that he doesn't have feelings for people, that's for wimps and women and liberals. Empathy? Psh. Common identification with your fellow man? Hah! Recognition of the divinity of the human spirit revealed through compassion and destroyed through hatred? More like gimme-a-steak!

I bet this guy does pushups a lot too and has a feeling of peace inside of himself when he's not hunting deer with his bare hands.

Nice deduction, faggot.

linda22003
03-10-2010, 03:08 PM
someone help my eyes just rolled down the stairs

Which terrorists would you prefer to spare?

BadCat
03-10-2010, 03:09 PM
Built Ford Tuff, a Man's Man. Real testosterone. Boots and trucks.

Get real.

You think I'd own a car built by an American Labor Union? I wouldn't waste the gas required to set one on fire.

Gingersnap
03-10-2010, 03:11 PM
Okay, that was pretty funny. :D

Now, back to Hank's twisted views on WWII.

noonwitch
03-10-2010, 03:14 PM
What happened to the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is horrific. That said, Truman did what he had to to end the war, and avoid further casualties to american troops. Truman was the president of the USA, and one of the duties of that job is to protect american soldiers whenever possible.

I don't think Truman made the decision to use atomic weapons on the japanese lightly, for what it's worth. I hope and pray that no nation ever sees the need to use nuclear weapons ever again. The cost is too high, under ordinary circumstances. WWII was not ordinary circumstances.


Despite all of that, nuclear weapons weren't used in Europe, but in Asia. I don't know what criteria was used to decide what weapons to use in which theater of the war-I wouldn't rule out the possiblity that the race of the people being bombed was a factor, but I have seen no proof of that. There might have been tactical reasons why Japan was a better target than Europe for that type of attack-being an island could have also been a factor.. Military strategy is not exactly my area of expertise.

The bombing of Dresden, described by Kurt Vonnegut in his novel Slaughterhouse 5, was almost as devestating as the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, without the fallout radiation complications. It didn't leave many buildings standing. Pretty much every college-educated american liberal has read that book.

Wei Wu Wei
03-10-2010, 03:15 PM
Nice deduction, faggot.

At it's core, homophobia is really just misogyny.

FlaGator
03-10-2010, 03:15 PM
war isn't a game. while this high-school football mentality is always used to rouse up people into supporting warfare, it is something real and beyond the scope of "win or lose".

you don't "win" a war by murdering (and yes, killing non-combatants is murder) hundreds of thousands of civilians. No one wins from that. Reducing human life into a mere incidental in the game of warfare that must be won simply for the sake of winning is blasphemous. If God lives within us, part of our eternal soul, then nukes are a direct affront to God. Humanity itself loses it's soul when blatant nuke-dropping occurs.


"For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"
- Mark 8:36



War without War. Even the greatest warlords of the past knew such a thing was absurd.

Seriously... how old are you?

What does a person or a nation care for Mark 8:36 if the Bible is not a guiding influence in their lives? God only lives within those who follow His commands and live out His words. I believe that God is in control of all things and the fact that the bombs detonated means that they were ordained as part of His plan. He has already factored them in to the grand scheme of things and they serve some greater good that we may not be aware of. To imply less is to limit God and a God with such limits is not God. When man's sovereignty trumps God's sovereignty then God is no longer God.

FlaGator
03-10-2010, 03:17 PM
At it's core, homophobia is really just misogyny.

Like he hasn't heard that before.:rolleyes:

BadCat
03-10-2010, 03:17 PM
At it's core, homophobia is really just misogyny.

No idiot, I'm not at all "phobic" about your sexual practices.

I just think you're sick.

Wei Wu Wei
03-10-2010, 03:18 PM
Which terrorists would you prefer to spare?

Oh yes let's just propose Final Solution to Eradicate Terrorists as if they were an ethnic group with a set population.

It's an ideology, not a group of people with definite numbers, If we just say fuck it and start dropping bombs on people we're going to end up with more people suicide bombing us, not less.

Wei Wu Wei
03-10-2010, 03:20 PM
Seriously... how old are you?

What does a person or a nation care for Mark 8:36 if the Bible is not a guiding influence in their lives? God only lives within those who follow His commands and live out His words. I believe that God is in control of all things and the fact that the bombs detonated means that they were ordained as part of His plan. He has already factored them in to the grand scheme of things and they serve some greater good that we may not be aware of. To imply less is to limit God and a God with such limits is not God. When man's sovereignty trumps God's sovereignty then God is no longer God.

Interesting view, many people hold it and I do find it fascinating.
I love this sort of discussion and I wish this forum had sub-forums for Religion and Philosophy.

(simple question everyone asks I know) but what's your opinion on free will?

Wei Wu Wei
03-10-2010, 03:21 PM
No idiot, I'm not at all "phobic" about your sexual practices.

I just think you're sick.

Got it. Conservative Underground poster Bad"gotta nuke somethin"Cat thinks that I am sick.

I'll write that down and keep it with me so I don't forget.

BadCat
03-10-2010, 03:21 PM
Oh yes let's just propose Final Solution to Eradicate Terrorists as if they were an ethnic group with a set population.

It's an ideology, not a group of people with definite numbers, If we just say fuck it and start dropping bombs on people we're going to end up with more people suicide bombing us, not less.

Pretty hard to suicide bomb us when you've been incinerated.

BadCat
03-10-2010, 03:23 PM
Got it. Conservative Underground poster Bad"gotta nuke somethin"Cat thinks that I am sick.

I'll write that down and keep it with me so I don't forget.

Yeah I think you're a lying little troll.
Write it on a stick and shove it up your fat ass so you don't forget.

FlaGator
03-10-2010, 03:25 PM
Interesting view, many people hold it and I do find it fascinating.
I love this sort of discussion and I wish this forum had sub-forums for Religion and Philosophy.

(simple question everyone asks I know) but what's your opinion on free will?

The question you ask is very complex but in a nutshell we all have free will, but the Lord, being omniscient has already accounted for our decisions. If he doesn't know our decisions in advance then he isn't omniscient.

Gingersnap
03-10-2010, 03:26 PM
Interesting view, many people hold it and I do find it fascinating.
I love this sort of discussion and I wish this forum had sub-forums for Religion and Philosophy.

(simple question everyone asks I know) but what's your opinion on free will?

No, no, no! Finish this discussion (or whatever) and then start another thread. Don't interject entirely new topics into existing threads when it's a highly charged issue.

Wei Wu Wei
03-10-2010, 03:27 PM
your testicles.


Nice deduction, faggot.


a stick and shove it up your fat ass

hmm...you've got a bit of a theme running here. Obsessed much?

But hey I'm all for people living how they want to live don't let me stop you. ;)

Wei Wu Wei
03-10-2010, 03:27 PM
No, no, no! Finish this discussion (or whatever) and then start another thread. Don't interject entirely new topics into existing threads when it's a highly charged issue.

Hah. My bad, I've got that ADHD you know.

Wei Wu Wei
03-10-2010, 03:28 PM
The question you ask is very complex but in a nutshell we all have free will, but the Lord, being omniscient has already accounted for our decisions. If he doesn't know our decisions in advance then he isn't omniscient.

Let's save it for another thread.

Wei Wu Wei
03-10-2010, 03:29 PM
Pretty hard to suicide bomb us when you've been incinerated.

If I went and murdered you I'm willing to bet your friends and family would suddenly have a new enemy.

Gingersnap
03-10-2010, 03:29 PM
Let's save it for another thread.

Good job! :)

BadCat
03-10-2010, 03:30 PM
hmm...you've got a bit of a theme running here. Obsessed much?

But hey I'm all for people living how they want to live don't let me stop you. ;)

I just hate liberals, and you are one.

BadCat
03-10-2010, 03:31 PM
If I went and murdered you I'm willing to bet your friends and family would suddenly have a new enemy.

My friends and family hate you already.

M21
03-10-2010, 03:40 PM
The question you ask is very complex but in a nutshell we all have free will, but the Lord, being omniscient has already accounted for our decisions. If he doesn't know our decisions in advance then he isn't omniscient.
You and I should flesh this out someday in another thread. If you mean He looks down the corridors of time and in his eternal decrees he has accounted for every decision you'll ever make regardless of all of the possible options on your part I would disagree. I'm not convinced that our will is as "free" as you do. I believe in compatibilist freedom. We probably agree when we define our terms.

Back to the topic at hand.

FlaGator
03-10-2010, 03:42 PM
You and I should flesh this out someday in another thread. If you mean He looks down the corridors of time and in his eternal decrees he has accounted for every decision you'll ever make regardless of all of the possible options on your part I would disagree. I'm not convinced that our will is as "free" as you do. I believe in compatibilist freedom. We probably agree when we define our terms.

Back to the topic at hand.

It should be interesting.

Speedy
03-10-2010, 03:43 PM
I advise people to watch a documentary called "White Light, Black Rain" which focuses on first-hand accounts of civilians who survived the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as those who helped build and deliver the bomb to it's destination.

I am sure you would have the same high praise for a film focusing onfirst hand accounts of 9-11 survivors.

Maybe some first hand accounts of those who survived the slaughterof hundreds of thousand perpetrated by the Japanese at Nanking.

You can't. You can't because for your skewed view of the world to make any sense, America has to be the bad guy.

Wei Wu Wei
03-10-2010, 03:44 PM
I just hate liberals, and you are one.

That's cool.

yeah I like carrying hate around in my heart too bro, really gives my short time on Earth that extra spark it needs.

BadCat
03-10-2010, 03:48 PM
That's cool.

yeah I like carrying hate around in my heart too bro, really gives my short time on Earth that extra spark it needs.

You gonna watch Hank's new WW2 series "The Pacific"?

It's starting on HBO this weekend (Not that I think you can actually afford HBO).

I bet you'd watch it and root for the Japs to win.

And I'm not your "bro", asshole.

Wei Wu Wei
03-10-2010, 03:49 PM
I am sure you would have the same high praise for a film focusing onfirst hand accounts of 9-11 survivors.

Sure would, in fact I think that the news coverage of 9-11 was extremely questionable but America was facing an extremely traumatic event so it's understandable. So yeah films like that I would like to see.


Maybe some first hand accounts of those who survived the slaughterof hundreds of thousand perpetrated by the Japanese at Nanking.

And the soviet gulags and the nazi death camps, it's awfully depressing but important to remember how much evil we are capable of if we wish to move forward.


You can't. You can't because for your skewed view of the world to make any sense, America has to be the bad guy.

can't what? America has done a lot of stuff, but it was never as simple as "america being the bad guy" (complexities of war, questionable moral situations, ect), and of course no one is without sin.

I've said over and over this is not, and it never is, a simple case of good guy vs bad guy.

Wei Wu Wei
03-10-2010, 03:51 PM
You gonna watch Hank's new WW2 series "The Pacific"?

It's starting on HBO this weekend (Not that I think you can actually afford HBO).

Oh hell yes it looks amazing I was wondering when it starts thanks for the heads up. lol and yeah I have HBO.


I bet you'd watch it and root for the Japs to win.

Heh, well I don't want to give away any spoilers but I already know how it ends. ;)



And I'm not your "bro", asshole.

http://bazmaroo.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/15711__zoolander_l.jpg

Speedy
03-10-2010, 04:10 PM
America has done a lot of stuff, but it was never as simple as "america being the bad guy" (complexities of war, questionable moral situations, ect), and of course no one is without sin.

I've said over and over this is not, and it never is, a simple case of good guy vs bad guy.

America has never perpetrated a genocide as a matter of policy or committed a Nanking level atrocity. You can squeal and shriek about how many civilians have been killed in Iraq by American bombs but those have all been collateral damage, never the target.

The Jihadists to whom you are so sympathetic because they are facing the evil US, target civilians almost exclusively. Many, many more civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan have been killed by insurgents than Americans.

stsinner
03-10-2010, 04:30 PM
At it's core, homophobia is really just misogyny.

Another idiot that uses the word homophobia incorrectly.. I'm quite sure Bad Cat isn't scared of queers...

CaughtintheMiddle1990
03-10-2010, 06:22 PM
Fine, we win when they are all dead.

That's OK with me.

But who are ''they''? How can you win against an enemy which has no face, no national identity?

BadCat
03-10-2010, 06:26 PM
But who are ''they''? How can you win against an enemy which has no face, no national identity?

How about if they own a Quran, have read it, and believe in what it says?

CaughtintheMiddle1990
03-10-2010, 06:28 PM
How about if they own a Quran, have read it, and believe in what it says?

And how do you determine that? And what of those who own a Quran, read it, believe what it says and are nice, decent people?

BadCat
03-10-2010, 06:37 PM
And how do you determine that? And what of those who own a Quran, read it, believe what it says and are nice, decent people?

Napalm doesn't care.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
03-10-2010, 06:39 PM
How about if they own a Quran, have read it, and believe in what it says?


Napalm doesn't care.

Someone who has a conscience and isn't a sociopath does; Napalm doesn't operate by itself.

BadCat
03-10-2010, 06:51 PM
Someone who has a conscience and isn't a sociopath does; Napalm doesn't operate by itself.

Oh, a conscience, just what we need in a war.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
03-10-2010, 06:54 PM
Oh, a conscience, just what we need in a war.

Why fight an enemy if to win you have to become just as evil? Then you've lost the purpose, then there is no United States. If we allow ourselves to get down to basically what would be genocide--simply because you don't like their religion--we're nothing better than the enemies we've fought in the past.
You support eliminating an entire class of people, around 1 billion people, simply because they don't believe in the God you do.

lacarnut
03-10-2010, 06:55 PM
Oh, a conscience, just what we need in a war.

Conscience/compassion will get your ass killed in a war . Something that these liberal turds do not understand.

BadCat
03-10-2010, 06:57 PM
Why fight an enemy if to win you have to become just as evil? Then you've lost the purpose, then there is no United States. If we allow ourselves to get down to basically what would be genocide--simply because you don't like their religion--we're nothing better than the enemies we've fought in the past.
You support eliminating an entire class of people, around 1 billion people, simply because they don't believe in the God you do.

What God do I believe in, peaceboy?

lacarnut
03-10-2010, 06:58 PM
Why fight an enemy if to win you have to become just as evil? Then you've lost the purpose, then there is no United States. If we allow ourselves to get down to basically what would be genocide--simply because you don't like their religion--we're nothing better than the enemies we've fought in the past.
You support eliminating an entire class of people, around 1 billion people, simply because they don't believe in the God you do.

Maybe not a billion but a few million who have stated they want to kill us. That is not evil; that is called self preservation. You have it ass backwards.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
03-10-2010, 06:59 PM
Oh, a conscience, just what we need in a war.


What God do I believe in, peaceboy?

I don't know what God you believe in but you see to be making it about religion--You implied you support killing everyone who owns and believes the words of the Koran to win. That sounds like religious warfare to me.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
03-10-2010, 07:01 PM
Maybe not a billion but a few million who have stated they want to kill us. That is not evil; that is called self preservation. You have it ass backwards.

There is a difference between what you said and what the other guy said. The other guy said to win we would essentially kill anyone who owned and believed the words of the Koran. He didn't say Jihadists; Anyone who owns and believes in the Koran is generally considered a Muslim--and there are about 1 billion Muslims. What you're saying is reasonable, what he said isn't.

BadCat
03-10-2010, 07:10 PM
I don't know what God you believe in but you see to be making it about religion--You implied you support killing everyone who owns and believes the words of the Koran to win. That sounds like religious warfare to me.

Their religion tells them to kill us.

If they believe that, then they get their 72 virgins. Collateral damage happens in wars. Ask the folks who lived in Dresden.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
03-10-2010, 07:14 PM
Maybe not a billion but a few million who have stated they want to kill us. That is not evil; that is called self preservation. You have it ass backwards.


Their religion tells them to kill us.

If they believe that, then they get their 72 virgins. Collateral damage happens in wars. Ask the folks who lived in Dresden.

For a few radical nutbags, it does. I know Muslims who don't believe their religion tells them to do so. I was raised around Muslims. Many of them were nicer to me than my fellow Christians who I was around.
The Bible, at least the Old Testament, orders the people of God to murder anyone who doesn't believe. Christians choose to ignore that verse as they feel Jesus obliterated the Old Law. But Jews still follow the Old Law.

You're not talking about collateral damage. You spoke of purposefully wiping out an entire group of people.

Rockntractor
03-10-2010, 07:16 PM
For a few radical nutbags, it does. I know Muslims who don't believe their religion tells them to do so. I was raised around Muslims. Many of them were nicer to me than my fellow Christians who I was around.
The Bible, at least the Old Testament, orders the people of God to murder anyone who doesn't believe. Christians choose to ignore that verse as they feel Jesus obliterated the Old Law. But Jews still follow the Old Law.

You're not talking about collateral damage. You spoke of purposefully wiping out an entire group of people.
Yeah moron keep going back 2000 years to make your case. Remember 9/11

CaughtintheMiddle1990
03-10-2010, 07:21 PM
Yeah moron keep going back 2000 years to make your case. Remember 9/11

I'm not going back 2000 years, the word is still written in the Old Testament. It doesn't say "Only valid until xx/2008" Christians feel Jesus invalidated all of that...But Jews don't believe Jesus was the messiah they were waiting for and thus those words are just as valid for them as now.
Every religious book has something crazy in it. Even Hindu works.
And I remember 9/11, but I don't place the blame for 9/11 on ALL Muslims, simply on those who perpetrated it or agree with it.

lacarnut
03-10-2010, 07:22 PM
For a few radical nutbags, it does. I know Muslims who don't believe their religion tells them to do so. I was raised around Muslims. Many of them were nicer to me than my fellow Christians who I was around.
The Bible, at least the Old Testament, orders the people of God to murder anyone who doesn't believe. Christians choose to ignore that verse as they feel Jesus obliterated the Old Law. But Jews still follow the Old Law.

You're not talking about collateral damage. You spoke of purposefully wiping out an entire group of people.

Nutty appeasers like you are going to get us killed. Better to wipe them out before they wipe us out. That is their stated goal, you fool.

papabull
03-10-2010, 07:24 PM
Here's a little history lesson you don't get in school.

Every country on planet Earth today is populated by the people that killed, kicked out or enslaved the former occupants of that particular patch of real estate. The only way to keep some other country from punking you out is to make damned sure they know that if they try it, they'll be slaughtered like swine without remorse and without mercy. And if they try it anyway, you better be ready to follow through and lay waste to them, their country, their families, their culture and everything they've ever held dear.

Rockntractor
03-10-2010, 07:25 PM
I'm not going back 2000 years, the word is still written in the Old Testament. It doesn't say "Only valid until xx/2008" Christians feel Jesus invalidated all of that...But Jews don't believe Jesus was the messiah they were waiting for and thus those words are just as valid for them as now.
Every religious book has something crazy in it. Even Hindu works.
And I remember 9/11, but I don't place the blame for 9/11 on ALL Muslims, simply on those who perpetrated it or agree with it.

Stick your left thumb in your mouth and your right thumb in your ass and rotate them every five minutes!

CaughtintheMiddle1990
03-10-2010, 07:28 PM
Yeah moron keep going back 2000 years to make your case. Remember 9/11


Nutty appeasers like you are going to get us killed. Better to wipe them out before they wipe us out. That is their stated goal, you fool.

''Their'', again....Kill them as we identify them. Don't kill 1 billion people on the suspicion of what a million want to do.
And what about the Muslims living here? Should we tag and identify them with a half moon? How do we deal with the Muslims here in the process of slaughtering every Muslim on Earth?

You know it's rather ironic. A year and two days ago someone I knew who was Muslim got killed in a fight. He got into a fist fight with a group of kids because they harassed and insulted his female friend, who was a Christian girl. He got into a fight defending her and ended up getting punched in the chest, which with his already existing heart condition, killed him. He was 17, and was a very nice guy and very talented. He was a Muslim, yet his best friend throughout his life was a Jewish kid in our class, who cried for days after his death. But in the eyes of some like you would have him and his family murdered because they believe subscribe to a certain religion, regardless of who they are as individuals.

FlaGator
03-10-2010, 07:28 PM
For a few radical nutbags, it does. I know Muslims who don't believe their religion tells them to do so. I was raised around Muslims. Many of them were nicer to me than my fellow Christians who I was around.
The Bible, at least the Old Testament, orders the people of God to murder anyone who doesn't believe. Christians choose to ignore that verse as they feel Jesus obliterated the Old Law. But Jews still follow the Old Law.

You're not talking about collateral damage. You spoke of purposefully wiping out an entire group of people.

No one Christian that I know ignores anything from the Old Testament. God does nothing that doesn't have a positive benefit even if we can't see what good comes from it. Since you claim to be a Christian the you should be familiar with a couple of Old Testament verses


"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD.

and


I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

It sounds a lot to me like you are constructing your own God in your image because you don't have approve of or have an understanding of the God of the Bible. Since you are not capable of understanding God and His purposes what do use you base your criticism on?

CaughtintheMiddle1990
03-10-2010, 07:30 PM
No one Christian that I know ignores anything from the Old Testament. God does nothing that doesn't have a positive benefit even if we can't see what good comes from it. Since you claim to be a Christian the you should be familiar with a couple of Old Testament verses



and



It sounds a lot to me like you are constructing your own God in your image because you don't have approve of or have an understanding of the God of the Bible. Since you are not capable of understanding God and His purposes what do use you base your criticism on?

I base my criticism on his behavior in the Old Testament, ordering the destruction of entire cities or civilizations specifically because they believed in a different God. And I've seen Christians say that because of Jesus, the laws of the OT were invalidated.

FlaGator
03-10-2010, 07:33 PM
''Their'', again....Kill them as we identify them. Don't kill 1 billion people on the suspicion of what a million want to do.
And what about the Muslims living here? Should we tag and identify them with a half moon? How do we deal with the Muslims here in the process of slaughtering every Muslim on Earth?

You know it's rather ironic. A year and two days ago someone I knew who was Muslim got killed in a fight. He got into a fist fight with a group of kids because they harassed and insulted his female friend, who was a Christian girl. He got into a fight defending her and ended up getting punched in the chest, which with his already existing heart condition, killed him. He was 17, and was a very nice guy and very talented. He was a Muslim, yet his best friend throughout his life was a Jewish kid in our class, who cried for days after his death. But in the eyes of some like you would have him and his family murdered because they believe subscribe to a certain religion, regardless of who they are as individuals.

So your relationship with Muslim, Christian and Jewish friends indicates how war should take place and how cultures should feel about one another. A microcosm defines the macrocosm and people should react to one in a similar manner as the other. Is that the point you are making with this story?

CaughtintheMiddle1990
03-10-2010, 07:38 PM
So your relationship with Muslim, Christian and Jewish friends indicates how war should take place and how cultures should feel about one another. A microcosm defines the macrocosm and people should react to one in a similar manner as the other. Is that the point you are making with this story?

The point is, not all Muslims are the evil horrible people some believe. If there was a thousand evil people and five good people among them, I would spare the thousand for the good of the five. I will not do evil to defeat evil. Just the same, I will not support the eradication of 900 good million men, women and children to rid us of approximately one hundred million who are evil. It's been said that 10% of Muslims are radical..I do not support the eradication of the 90% that aren't to eliminate the 10% that are.

And again, if the course we set out upon was to kill EVERY Muslim on Earth, how do we deal with those here? Find them? What about their non-Muslim family members or friends who would be angry about their friends and family being killed on the basis of their religion?

FlaGator
03-10-2010, 07:39 PM
I base my criticism on his behavior in the Old Testament, ordering the destruction of entire cities or civilizations specifically because they believed in a different God. And I've seen Christians say that because of Jesus, the laws of the OT were invalidated.

His behavior never changes in relation to his objectives. The God of the OT is the same God of the NT. To state otherwise is to imply that God changes and if God changes then he can be wrong and if God is capable of error then he is not God and we need to be looking for who created him because that would be God.

Some OT laws were invalidated. For example, Christ himself invalidated the dietary laws which in effect invalided the laws that caused Jews to be different and set apart from the rest of those they lived among. Christ's death on the cross invalidated the sacrificial laws because no other sacrifice was needed. The laws that remained were the ethical laws that many refer to as the moral code of behavior between individuals and between and individual and God.

BadCat
03-10-2010, 07:41 PM
And how do you determine that? And what of those who own a Quran, read it, believe what it says and are nice, decent people?

Let's go back to this statement...the Quran quite clearly describes how muzzies are to treat and regard infidels, it even demands that believers intentionally LIE to infidels.

Why should we believe a single thing any muzzie ever says?

CaughtintheMiddle1990
03-10-2010, 07:43 PM
So your relationship with Muslim, Christian and Jewish friends indicates how war should take place and how cultures should feel about one another. A microcosm defines the macrocosm and people should react to one in a similar manner as the other. Is that the point you are making with this story?


His behavior never changes in relation to his objectives. The God of the OT is the same God of the NT. To state otherwise is to imply that God changes and if God changes then he can be wrong and if God is capable of error then he is not God and we need to be looking for who created him because that would be God.

Some OT laws were invalidated. For example, Christ himself invalidated the dietary laws which in effect invalided the laws that caused Jews to be different and set apart from the rest of those they lived among. Christ's death on the cross invalidated the sacrificial laws because no other sacrifice was needed. The laws that remained were the ethical laws that many refer to as the moral code of behavior between individuals and between and individual and God.

But your second paragraph contradicts your first. You said God doesn't change, yet...Did he not change by invalidating laws previously laid by him? The dietary laws? Did he not change by deciding that sacrifice was no longer necessary? Why would he contradict himself?

It's your opinion as a Christian that the God of the OT is the same as the NT. A Jewish person might disagree.

And if the moral laws are still in effect, doesn't that mean we should be out stoning Wiccans (''witches"), psychics and gays? Should we be putting to death our family members who try to convert us to other religions

BadCat
03-10-2010, 07:45 PM
Psychics and gays...yes.

I got no problem with witches.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
03-10-2010, 07:46 PM
Let's go back to this statement...the Quran quite clearly describes how muzzies are to treat and regard infidels, it even demands that believers intentionally LIE to infidels.

Why should we believe a single thing any muzzie ever says?

Juidge every person on his or her own merit. The Old Testament says go to cities where the inhabitants don't believe and put to death ''everything that breathes.'' I know, you'll say I'm going back 2000 years, but...Aren't you going back 1400 years for the Quaran. Jews follow the OT in the same way the Muslims follow the Quaran. In fact I'd say Judaism and Islam are closer and probably follow the same God, whereas the God of the NT is this nice, merciful entity.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
03-10-2010, 07:47 PM
Let's go back to this statement...the Quran quite clearly describes how muzzies are to treat and regard infidels, it even demands that believers intentionally LIE to infidels.

Why should we believe a single thing any muzzie ever says?


Psychics and gays...yes.

I got no problem with witches.

If you're being serious, why do you hate gays and psychics? You advocate killing them?
And why stop at witches?

FlaGator
03-10-2010, 07:49 PM
The point is, not all Muslims are the evil horrible people some believe. If there was a thousand evil people and five good people among them, I would spare the thousand for the good of the five. I will not do evil to defeat evil. Just the same, I will not support the eradication of 900 good million men, women and children to rid us of approximately one hundred million who are evil. It's been said that 10% of Muslims are radical..I do not support the eradication of the 90% that aren't to eliminate the 10% that are.

And again, if the course we set out upon was to kill EVERY Muslim on Earth, how do we deal with those here? Find them? What about their non-Muslim family members or friends who would be angry about their friends and family being killed on the basis of their religion?

I don't believe that anyone here thinks that all Muslims are evil. As with all things there are good and bad examples within the group. The problem at hand is one of human nature and that is the need to seek revenge (or some say justice) for the wrongs perpetrated by those who behave badly. Revenge does not concern itself with innocent bystanders until after the fact... if ever. But, right or wrong, this his human nature. I may not agree with the anger that some here have toward all Muslims but I can understand it and it's causes and I try to keep that in mind when discussing these things. What you are arguing against is not the beliefs of people here whether they are Christians or Jews or agnostics or atheists. What you have issue with is human nature that will express itself regardless of the belief system of the individual.

Personally, I believe that Islam is an evil belief system that promotes and encourages the worse of human behavior and calls it good. I believe that the religion is based on fear and exploitation of the perceived weakness' of it's male members. But, I do know that even within this view I have of them there are many who are good and try to do good things within the parameters that their beliefs have set for them.

Zathras
03-10-2010, 07:50 PM
In Vietnam our Marines were Devil Dogs, because the Vietnamese said that fought like Devil Dogs....

Actually the Marines got the nickname Devil Dogs from the Germans during the Battle of the Belleau Wood in 1918. It was in a dispatch from the German front lines to their higher headquarters explaining the current battle conditions that described the fighting abilities of the new, fresh Americans as fighting like "Teufel Hunden" or "Hounds from Hell."

BadCat
03-10-2010, 07:57 PM
If you're being serious, why do you hate gays and psychics? You advocate killing them?
And why stop at witches?

I just like tweaking gullible idiots like you.

But, in actuality, I don't care much for gays and psychics.

FlaGator
03-10-2010, 08:01 PM
I just like tweaking gullible idiots like you.

But, in actuality, I don't care much for gays and psychics.

I had a feeling you were going to say that.

BadCat
03-10-2010, 08:03 PM
I had a feeling you were going to say that.

You have some great guitars, I will forgive your psychic powers.

linda22003
03-10-2010, 08:04 PM
Actually the Marines got the nickname Devil Dogs from the Germans during the Battle of the Belleau Wood in 1918. It was in a dispatch from the German front lines to their higher headquarters explaining the current battle conditions that described the fighting abilities of the new, fresh Americans as fighting like "Teufel Hunden" or "Hounds from Hell."

Good catch, Zathras. My husband and I collect original World War I posters, and this one (not in our collection, outside our parameters) is quite famous:

http://docsouth.unc.edu/wwi/41944/A-849-100.jpg

FlaGator
03-10-2010, 08:08 PM
You have some great guitars, I will forgive your psychic powers.

BTW, I do have a 71 Les Paul. I think it was a gold top at one time but some one stripped it down to the wood grain and then put a lacquer sealant on it. It's a nice blond wood grain color.

stsinner
03-10-2010, 08:22 PM
Actually the Marines got the nickname Devil Dogs from the Germans during the Battle of the Belleau Wood in 1918. It was in a dispatch from the German front lines to their higher headquarters explaining the current battle conditions that described the fighting abilities of the new, fresh Americans as fighting like "Teufel Hunden" or "Hounds from Hell."

Thanks for the clarification.. My dad told me once what the tattoo of a bulldog with the Devil Dogs inscription on his bicep meant when I was a small boy, and I didn't remember it exactly.. I appreciate you setting me straight..

djones520
03-10-2010, 08:32 PM
Yeah it was tough. Even after their navy and airforce was wiped out the Japanese just kept on fighting. They had an incredible ideology that would essentially not let them surrender. While it is tough to fight an enemy like that, killing over 200,000 civilians in one of the most horrific ways imaginable is not something that can just be paved over with simple rhetoric (although some people still believe that it was necessary). It was one of the low points in human history, and we should do what we can to make sure it doesn't happen again.

It's amazing that you can perfectly explain why the bombs were necessary, and then continue with the screed that you did.

Japanese society back then, there were no civilians. Everyone of them would have fought to the death, even many of the children. Read up on Iwo Jima. 216 survivors of over 18,000 defenders of that island.

So tell me, you think storming the island, with forecasted Ally casualties being over 1,000,000 soldiers would have been better? You think being forced to nearly commit genocide on the Japanese would have been a preferable option?

The only humane option was what we did.

Rockntractor
03-10-2010, 08:33 PM
It's amazing that you can perfectly explain why the bombs were necessary, and then continue with the screed that you did.

Japanese society back then, there were no civilians. Everyone of them would have fought to the death, even many of the children. Read up on Iwo Jima. 216 survivors of over 18,000 defenders of that island.

So tell me, you think storming the island, with forecasted Ally casualties being over 1,000,000 soldiers would have been better? You think being forced to nearly commit genocide on the Japanese would have been a preferable option?

The only humane option was what we did.

Very well put Dow Jones!!

stsinner
03-10-2010, 08:53 PM
I'd love to have, in addition to the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines, the Snipers... We should have an entire elite branch of sharpshooters like Mark Wahlburg in Shooter... Just start from a friendly country that borders the country we're at war with and snipe our way in after all the radar and surveillance equipment was hit with cruise missiles.. That would be sweet... They would have to be a mix between Navy Seals and snipers in order to avoid detection..

NJCardFan
03-11-2010, 12:15 AM
I advise people to watch a documentary called "White Light, Black Rain" which focuses on first-hand accounts of civilians who survived the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as those who helped build and deliver the bomb to it's destination.

You are so frigging brain dead that words cannot describe. Do you even know what you're talking about or are you just parroting beatnik hippie drivel? We wanted to annihilate the Japanese. Uh huh. Take a look at the target cities: Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Medium sized cities with minimal tactical importance. Those bombings were a message. If Japan didn't surrender, Osaka, Yokohama, or even Tokyo might have been next. If we wanted to annihilate them, we would have bombed Tokyo right off or some other more populated city. Besides, they started it, we finished it. As was said, you fight wars to win. One of my favorite movie lines of all time was Samuel L. Jackson's role as Col. Childers in Rules of Engagement:"You think there's a script for fighting a war without pissing somebody off? Follow the rules and nobody gets hurt?" People die in wars. If nobody wanted innocent civilians to die in a war then maybe their governments should stop starting them. And before you start looking at the Japanese as victims, know that the amount of civilians we killed in those bombings don't put a dent into the amount of innocent civilians the Japanese killed in WWII. Some estimates have it in the range of 10 million Chinese, Filipinos, Koreans, and others in Asia in ways that make waterboarding look like a bed time story.

Wei Wu Wei
03-11-2010, 02:23 AM
Fine, we win when they are all dead.

That's OK with me.


How about if they own a Quran, have read it, and believe in what it says?

Are you, Conservative Underground poster "Badcat", suggesting we should systematically kill every member of a particular religious background?

Wei Wu Wei
03-11-2010, 02:25 AM
Conscience/compassion will get your ass killed in a war . Something that these liberal turds do not understand.

life is war http://imgur.com/2UnDZ.gif

-lacarnut

Wei Wu Wei
03-11-2010, 02:26 AM
Maybe not a billion but a few million who have stated they want to kill us. That is not evil; that is called self preservation. You have it ass backwards.

a million people threatened this man.

Wei Wu Wei
03-11-2010, 02:29 AM
It must be awful to exist perpetually feeling threatened by everyone around you, always on defense, ready to attack anyone who approaches. It's like a poor abused beaten dog left on a chain, who bites anyone who comes near simply out of fear.

Sonnabend
03-11-2010, 02:43 AM
1. 1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by

a. Superman
b. Jay Leno
c. Harry Potter
d. a Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40

2. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by

a. Olga Corbett
b. Sitting Bull
c. Arnold Schwarzenegger
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

3. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by:

a. Lost Norwegians
b. Elvis
c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

4. During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:

a. John Dillinger
b. The King of Sweden
c. The Boy Scouts
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

5. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:

a. A pizza delivery boy
b. Pee Wee Herman
c. Geraldo Rivera
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

6. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by:

a. The Smurfs
b. Davy Jones
c. The Little Mermaid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

7. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a US Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by:

a. Captain Kidd
b. Charles Lindberg
c. Mother Teresa
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

8. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:

a. Scooby Doo
b. The Tooth Fairy
c. Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

9. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:

a. Richard Simmons
b. Grandma Moses
c. Michael Jordan
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

10. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:

a. Mr. Rogers
b. Hillary Clinton, to distract attention from Wild Bill's women problems
c. The World Wrestling Federation
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

11. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take out the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers. Thousands of people were killed by:

a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd
b. The Supreme Court of Florida
c. Mr. Bean
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

12. In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against:

a. Enron
b. The Lutheran Church
c. The NFL
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

13. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by:

a. Bonnie and Clyde
b. Captain Kangaroo
c. Billy Graham
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

14, in Indonesia in 2002, over 200 people were killed and more injured by

a. Daffy Duck
b. The Boston Philharmonic Orchestra
c. The Western Essex Bridge Club Womens Auxiliary
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

In Mumbai, 2008, 78 people were murdered and more than 200 injured by

A. Captain Caveman
B. Doctor Goldfoot and his Bikini Machines
C. The North London Glee Club
D. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

Since 9/11, Muslim extremists and murderers have carried out 14, 968 separate terror attacks

Jihad Attacks in 2010:

Countries: 147

Religions: 5

Dead Bodies: 606

Critically Injured: 1602

And last but definitely not least (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/)


Irish police arrested seven Muslims suspected of conspiracy to murder Tuesday over an alleged plot to kill a Swedish cartoonist who drew the Prophet Mohammed with the body of a dog, they said.

The four men and three women were arrested in the southern Irish towns of Cork and Waterford following an international operation.

A police source confirmed press reports that they were Muslims arrested over an alleged plot to assassinate Swedish cartoonist Lars Vilks [above], who has a A$110,000 bounty on his head from an Al-Qaeda-linked group.

"But....but...it's only a FEW....".:rolleyes:

Religion of Peace....MY ASS. :mad:

Wei Wu Wei
03-11-2010, 02:45 AM
NewsFlash: People commit violence.

[subtext] If we examine group X specifically, we notice many people in that group commit violence.

More at 11.

Sonnabend
03-11-2010, 02:57 AM
NewsFlash: People commit violence.

[subtext] If we examine group X specifically, we notice many people in that group commit violence.

More at 11.

Newsflash:Muslims try to murder a man for the crime of drawing a cartoon...after over 100 more die worldwide, over said cartoons.

In related news, a huge hue and cry has risen over the depiction of Christ nailed top a jet plane...newspapers are expecting a flood of....letters to the editor. :rolleyes:

Liberals...stuck on STUPID.

Zathras
03-11-2010, 03:00 AM
Thanks for the clarification.. My dad told me once what the tattoo of a bulldog with the Devil Dogs inscription on his bicep meant when I was a small boy, and I didn't remember it exactly.. I appreciate you setting me straight..

No problem, glad to help. Learned that fact when I was a crew member of the USS Belleau Wood (LHA-3) during the 80's...in fact the crew were all called Devil Dogs.

Sadly, she was sunk as a target back in 2006...which made me kind of mad because the other 4 ships in the Tarawa class LHA's are still in service.

Wei Wu Wei
03-11-2010, 03:20 AM
Newsflash:Muslims try to murder a man for the crime of drawing a cartoon...after over 100 more die worldwide, over said cartoons.

In related news, a huge hue and cry has risen over the depiction of Christ nailed top a jet plane...newspapers are expecting a flood of....letters to the editor. :rolleyes:

Liberals...stuck on STUPID.

From their official website:


Welcome to the Ku Klux Klan!

The Knights Party, USA

Bringing a Message of Hope and Deliverance to White Christian America! A Message of Love NOT Hate!

Well that's all I needed to hear. Christians are racist. Checkmate, end of story, gameover, knockout, one hitter quitter, that is all.

Sonnabend
03-11-2010, 05:52 AM
Well that's all I needed to hear. Christians are racist. Checkmate, end of story, gameover, knockout, one hitter quitter, that is all.

What the FUCK are you on about?


Seven held over Swedish cartoonist 'kill plot'

Irish police arrested seven Muslims suspected of conspiracy to murder Tuesday over an alleged plot to kill a Swedish cartoonist who drew the Prophet Mohammed with the body of a dog, they said. The four men and three women were arrested in the southern Irish towns of Cork and Waterford following an international operation.

A police source confirmed press reports that they were Muslims arrested over an alleged plot to assassinate Swedish cartoonist Lars Vilks, who has a A$110,000 bounty on his head from an Al-Qaeda-linked group. "The operation... is part of an investigation into a conspiracy to commit a serious offence (namely, conspiracy to murder an individual in another jurisdiction)," said a statement from Ireland's national police service.

Law enforcement agencies in the United States and a number of European countries were involved in the operation, it said. A spokesman for Sweden's security police, Mattias Lindholm, said "we were aware that arrests were coming" but refused to comment on any threat to Vilks. "Right now we are in continuous touch with the authorities involved, including our Irish counterparts," he told AFP, adding: "I cannot say anything about any possible threats against any individuals, for security reasons."

The seven people arrested range in age from mid 20s to late 40s, Irish police said, while state broadcaster RTE reported that they were originally from Morocco and Yemen, but were all legally in Ireland.

Swedish newspaper Nerikes Allehanda published a cartoon on August 18, 2007, depicting the Prophet Mohammed as a dog to illustrate an editorial on self-censorship and freedom of expression and religion.

The cartoon prompted protests by Muslims in the town of Oerebro, west of Stockholm, where the newspaper is based. Egypt, Iran and Pakistan made formal complaints and death threats were issued against Vilks.

An Al-Qaeda front organisation offered A$165,000 to anyone who slit Vilks' throat or A$110,000 dollars for his murder by other means, while they also offered A$55,000 dollars to kill newspaper editor-in-chief Ulf Johansson. The uproar echoed that caused in Denmark by the publication by newspaper Jyllands-Posten in September 2005 of 12 drawings focused on Islam, including one with the Prophet Mohammed with a hat in the shape of a bomb.

Muslims worldwide, angered both by the association of their religion with terrorism and by the showing of images of Mohammed, which many consider blasphemous in themselves, took to the streets in protest.

And killed 102 people. including a nun who was machinegunned from behind


In February 2008, Danish police said they had foiled a plot to murder the cartoonist of the bomb drawing, Kurt Westergaard, while another attempt on his life was allegedly made by a Somali man in January. Vilks has in the past dismissed the threats against him as "scare tactics" and, supported by the Swedish media, has insisted on the importance of publishing such material in defence of Sweden's freedom of expression.

He even announced in 2007 that he had begun working on a musical based on the drawing called "Dogs", involving Mohammed, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Al-Qaeda. He compared it to musicals such as "Cats".

Islam is a RELIGION, not a race.

Moron.:rolleyes:

malloc
03-11-2010, 06:29 AM
No one doubts America had reasons, it ended the worst war the world has even seen. It's just unfortunate that the ending to the worst war the world has seen was the worst attack on civilians that the world has ever seen.

Like I said, this is not a clear-cut issue of "good guys and bad guys", but to pretend that dropping a nuclear bomb on a city is something desirable or something that should just be paved over in our history is appalling and dishonest.

O.K. This is it. Someone has to interject with some historical fact for fucks sake.

1st off: StSinner: Marines were awarded the nickname of teufelhunden which translates to Devil Dog during the Battle of Belleau Wood on 06 Jun 1918. This didn't happen in Vietnam, it happened in WWI.

2nd: I'd advise everyone reading this thread to investigate the incendiary bombing of Japan. These raids, such as Doolittles bombing of Tokyo with incendiary explosives, was not designed to engage or weaken a military target. As a matter of fact, our incendiary raids upon Japan's wooden cities caused more deaths and destruction than fat man and little boy combined. These raids were aimed at civilian targets and designed to alter the civilian mindset, and make them disinclined to warfare with the U.S.. I would advise you to read the memoirs of General W. T. Sherman to understand the total war theory. The razing of Atlanta accomplished nearly the same effect. Basically, we, the U.S. of A. firebombed civilian targets in an effort to remove the oppositions' will to fight. It worked, by the way.



Seriously, for gods sake, read some freaking history from both sides before you decide to debate a point. The history of mankind is available in all sorts of formats, from all sorts of sources.

Historical fact says that the United States of America chose to engage in total war theory with Japan. We firebombed their cities, left hundreds of thousands dead, and that still wasn't good enough. We had to employ the atom bomb, or we had to invade. Not a hard decision to make for a president.


The moral of all this is to look into history, not HBO original series. If you are too lazy to read up on history, than just shut up.

SarasotaRepub
03-11-2010, 07:31 AM
Seriously, for gods sake, read some freaking history from both sides before you decide to debate a point. The history of mankind is available in all sorts of formats, from all sorts of sources.

Historical fact says that the United States of America chose to engage in total war theory with Japan. We firebombed their cities, left hundreds of thousands dead, and that still wasn't good enough. We had to employ the atom bomb, or we had to invade. Not a hard decision to make for a president.


The moral of all this is to look into history, not HBO original series. If you are too lazy to read up on history, than just shut up.

Correct.

FlaGator
03-11-2010, 07:51 AM
O.K. This is it. Someone has to interject with some historical fact for fucks sake.

1st off: StSinner: Marines were awarded the nickname of teufelhunden which translates to Devil Dog during the Battle of Belleau Wood on 06 Jun 1918. This didn't happen in Vietnam, it happened in WWI.

2nd: I'd advise everyone reading this thread to investigate the incendiary bombing of Japan. These raids, such as Doolittles bombing of Tokyo with incendiary explosives, was not designed to engage or weaken a military target. As a matter of fact, our incendiary raids upon Japan's wooden cities caused more deaths and destruction than fat man and little boy combined. These raids were aimed at civilian targets and designed to alter the civilian mindset, and make them disinclined to warfare with the U.S.. I would advise you to read the memoirs of General W. T. Sherman to understand the total war theory. The razing of Atlanta accomplished nearly the same effect. Basically, we, the U.S. of A. firebombed civilian targets in an effort to remove the oppositions' will to fight. It worked, by the way.



Seriously, for gods sake, read some freaking history from both sides before you decide to debate a point. The history of mankind is available in all sorts of formats, from all sorts of sources.

Historical fact says that the United States of America chose to engage in total war theory with Japan. We firebombed their cities, left hundreds of thousands dead, and that still wasn't good enough. We had to employ the atom bomb, or we had to invade. Not a hard decision to make for a president.


The moral of all this is to look into history, not HBO original series. If you are too lazy to read up on history, than just shut up.

Well said.

BadCat
03-11-2010, 10:24 AM
Are you, Conservative Underground poster "Badcat", suggesting we should systematically kill every member of a particular religious background?

If they want to kill us - you betcha.

NJCardFan
03-11-2010, 12:51 PM
From their official website:



Well that's all I needed to hear. Christians are racist. Checkmate, end of story, gameover, knockout, one hitter quitter, that is all.

Wow. A fringe group of rednecks are the same as a worldwide consortium of terror networks some of which have the backings of entire governments some of which have killed more in a single month than the KKK has done in it's entire existance. Yeah, that's the same.:rolleyes: You are undoubtedly the biggest asshole these boards have ever seen.

Oh, and thanks for ignoring my post on the conduct of the Japanese during WWII. You prove that when it comes to presenting you with facts, all you do is put your fingers in your ears and go "lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala". Wanker.

lacarnut
03-11-2010, 12:57 PM
If they want to kill us - you betcha.

Sounds right to me. It's time for action.

Wei Wu Wei
03-11-2010, 01:55 PM
What the FUCK are you on about?



And killed 102 people. including a nun who was machinegunned from behind



Islam is a RELIGION, not a race.

Moron.:rolleyes:

No see you missed the point. The KKK, as well as several other violent hate groups, also commit their acts in the name of Christianity. Therefore, according to your logic, Christians are racist and Christianity is a hateful religion.

lacarnut
03-11-2010, 01:59 PM
No see you missed the point. The KKK, as well as several other violent hate groups, also commit their acts in the name of Christianity. Therefore, according to your logic, Christians are racist and Christianity is a hateful religion.

Nope. You are just too stoooopid to understand the point.

papabull
03-11-2010, 02:07 PM
No see you missed the point. The KKK, as well as several other violent hate groups, also commit their acts in the name of Christianity. Therefore, according to your logic, Christians are racist and Christianity is a hateful religion.

The KKK acts out of their core belief in white supremacy, not because Jesus told them to do whatever it is they're doing whenever it is they're doing it. They don't care if a black guy or Puerto Rican is a Christian or not. And they don't care whether their members are Christian or not. The relationship between the KKK and Christianity is nothing but smoke and mirrors. I thought everyone with at least a couple functional brain cells knew that.

Wei Wu Wei
03-11-2010, 02:11 PM
The KKK acts out of their core belief in white supremacy, not because Jesus told them to do whatever it is they're doing whenever it is they're doing it. They don't care if a black guy or Puerto Rican is a Christian or not. And they don't care whether their members are Christian or not. The relationship between the KKK and Christianity is nothing but smoke and mirrors. I thought everyone with at least a couple functional brain cells knew that.

I thought everyone with a couple of functional brain cells knew that Muslim terrorists are acting out of their core beliefs in economic and political change. The religious crap is just used to draw in new recruits who feel lost and hopeless and see this as the only way to give their life meaning. There's a reason the terrorist leaders don't blow themselves up.

FlaGator
03-11-2010, 02:19 PM
No see you missed the point. The KKK, as well as several other violent hate groups, also commit their acts in the name of Christianity. Therefore, according to your logic, Christians are racist and Christianity is a hateful religion.

Here is the difference most Christian groups denouce the KKK and sects such as Westbro Baptist. I don't see the same level of denunciation from Muslims.

papabull
03-11-2010, 02:21 PM
I thought everyone with a couple of functional brain cells knew that Muslim terrorists are acting out of their core beliefs in economic and political change. The religious crap is just used to draw in new recruits who feel lost and hopeless and see this as the only way to give their life meaning. There's a reason the terrorist leaders don't blow themselves up.

You started off that post with the first two words being a lie.

When people are blowing up buildings, cafes and innocent women and children while chanting "Alahu Akbar", there's no mistaking that it's a "holy war". The Muslim religion promotes and, indeed, demands the extermination of infidels. There's no way you could have "thought" and still posted what you just did.

FlaGator
03-11-2010, 02:23 PM
I thought everyone with a couple of functional brain cells knew that Muslim terrorists are acting out of their core beliefs in economic and political change. The religious crap is just used to draw in new recruits who feel lost and hopeless and see this as the only way to give their life meaning. There's a reason the terrorist leaders don't blow themselves up.

The Islamic fundamentalist use passages from the Koran that state it is ok to kill infidels (an infidel being anyone who isn't Muslim) but the KKK are unable subvert the Bible in such a direct way. To my knowledge there are no passages in the Bible that state "Thou shalt killth darkies."

Wei Wu Wei
03-11-2010, 02:32 PM
Here is the difference most Christian groups denouce the KKK and sects such as Westbro Baptist. I don't see the same level of denunciation from Muslims.

Of course you don't see it, because you don't live in a Muslim community. People act as if they want a nation of muslim people to personally show up at their doorstep and apologize for things that radicals did in their name.

For the record there are plenty of Muslims who speak out against it, just because you don't hear about it doesn't make it not so.

In fact, here's a Fatwa Against Terrorism by a respected Muslim scholar, denouncing all violent actions as against the teachings of Islam:

http://www.minhaj.org/images-db2/fatwa-eng.pdf

Wei Wu Wei
03-11-2010, 02:35 PM
The Islamic fundamentalist use passages from the Koran that state it is ok to kill infidels (an infidel being anyone who isn't Muslim) but the KKK are unable subvert the Bible in such a direct way. To my knowledge there are no passages in the Bible that state "Thou shalt killth darkies."

KKK quotes the bible all the time. You are assuming that when the Muslims do it, it is legitimate, but when Christians do it, it's subversion of the faith. You are approaching the question with an answer already in mind.

FlaGator
03-11-2010, 02:38 PM
Of course you don't see it, because you don't live in a Muslim community. People act as if they want a nation of muslim people to personally show up at their doorstep and apologize for things that radicals did in their name.

For the record there are plenty of Muslims who speak out against it, just because you don't hear about it doesn't make it not so.

In fact, here's a Fatwa Against Terrorism by a respected Muslim scholar, denouncing all violent actions as against the teachings of Islam:

http://www.minhaj.org/images-db2/fatwa-eng.pdf (http://www.minhaj.org/images-db2/fatwa-eng.pdf)

Do you live in a Muslim community?

What I would have like to have seen was the various mosques around the world stating how the people who pulled off 9/11 didn't represent Islamic beliefs. What I saw was image after image of Muslims dancing in the streets celebrating the murder of 3000+ people. Those little gatherings went along way to defining the image that Americans have of Muslims.

FlaGator
03-11-2010, 02:41 PM
KKK quotes the bible all the time. You are assuming that when the Muslims do it, it is legitimate, but when Christians do it, it's subversion of the faith. You are approaching the question with an answer already in mind.

But they don't quote verses that directly state to that it is ok to kill non-whites do they? They quote passages about the prohibition on blending two different types of materials and things like that. The Islamists quote direct verses killing infidels that fail to submit to the will of Allah. Now if you have some verses from the Bible that state it OK for whites to kill blacks then I'd like to see them.

Wei Wu Wei
03-11-2010, 02:43 PM
What I would have like to have seen was the various mosques around the world stating how the people who pulled off 9/11 didn't represent Islamic beliefs. What I saw was image after image of Muslims dancing in the streets celebrating the murder of 3000+ people. Those little gatherings went along way to defining the image that Americans have of Muslims.

You are absolutely right. The images we are shown on the news largely defines the image Americans have of Muslims. We are dealing with an issue of images. The simple fact is that there are over a billion Muslims, if they really wanted to kill us they would just do it.

Radicals always take up some ideological anchor to forward their cause. The KKK does it, the Nazi's did it, the christian soldiers in the Crusades did it, the Americans did it when they systematically killed the natives, it's nothing new and doesn't speak towards the thing they use to legitimize it at all.

Today, in the face of modern economic and political situations, we have people from middle eastern countries turning into radicals, and of course, as always, they are attaching themselves to a cause that is much larger than themselves s so they feel as if they are doing something meaningful, rather than just being a human bomb for a rich political rebel.

Wei Wu Wei
03-11-2010, 02:46 PM
Also, every time we fight a real war with people that has heavy civilian casualties, the image is always spoun (for Americans) that those people are simply different from us in a fundamental radical way.

It was done for Germany, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Soviet Union, and now our middle eastern targets.

It simply helps Americans pave over the horrors of war in their minds.

linda22003
03-11-2010, 02:47 PM
And you think they don't do it in return?

Sonnabend
03-11-2010, 02:50 PM
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_RwdH5DTKRas/SoTX_W4jCaI/AAAAAAAAB2o/J3425GiRaSE/s400/mohammed%2520cartoon%2520danish-thumb.jpg

Mass riots, 102 dead, embassies burned, cities in flames, attempted assassinations of the cartoonists, attempts to kidnap and murder their children

http://cruciality.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/andreas-serrano-piss-christ-1987.jpg

A few angry letters and phone calls. Yeah, we Christians are sooo violent. :rolleyes:

Wei Wu Wei
03-11-2010, 02:53 PM
And you think they don't do it in return?

Of course they do.

BadCat
03-11-2010, 03:13 PM
Of course they do.

Then what's the problem?

noonwitch
03-11-2010, 03:14 PM
Do you live in a Muslim community?

What I would have like to have seen was the various mosques around the world stating how the people who pulled off 9/11 didn't represent Islamic beliefs. What I saw was image after image of Muslims dancing in the streets celebrating the murder of 3000+ people. Those little gatherings went along way to defining the image that Americans have of Muslims.


I don't live in a "muslim community", but I live in the metropolitan area with the most muslims outside of the middle east. I try to live in peace with my neighbors and understand what their beliefs are.

On 9-11, there were a lot of rumors going around professional circles in Detroit that the muslims in Dearborn were celebrating/rioting in support. All those rumors turned out to be lies. The local Arab/Muslim community organizations denounced the attacks (ACCESS is the major one here), and so did leaders of various local mosques. That doesn't preclude the nut jobs that hide among them, but the largest mosques and religious organizations roundly condemn terrorism.

I posted a few weeks ago about how the local muslims were marching outside of the federal courthouse in Detroit during the underwear bomber's arraignment. They weren't protesting his arrest, they were marching in support of the US government! Their spokespeople told the reporters that they wanted americans to know that this guy is not acting on their behalf. This did not get coverage from the networks, CNN or FOX, only local stations.

I'm not going as far as Wu Wei does about muslim terrorists acting for political and economic justice, because even if there was some truth in that statement, it's political and economic justice as they define it for a small number of people, a number that excludes half of the human race on the basis of gender alone.

FlaGator
03-11-2010, 03:15 PM
You are absolutely right. The images we are shown on the news largely defines the image Americans have of Muslims. We are dealing with an issue of images. The simple fact is that there are over a billion Muslims, if they really wanted to kill us they would just do it.

Radicals always take up some ideological anchor to forward their cause. The KKK does it, the Nazi's did it, the christian soldiers in the Crusades did it, the Americans did it when they systematically killed the natives, it's nothing new and doesn't speak towards the thing they use to legitimize it at all.

Today, in the face of modern economic and political situations, we have people from middle eastern countries turning into radicals, and of course, as always, they are attaching themselves to a cause that is much larger than themselves s so they feel as if they are doing something meaningful, rather than just being a human bomb for a rich political rebel.

I watched the arab broadcasts as well. They showed the same thing without any American slant. These broadcasts show happy Muslims dancing in the street over the deaths of Americans. Now there may be a billion Muslims but they are not in a position to kill us so your statement is completely pointless. What they are capable of, however they are doing. There are Muslims and many of them have governments sanctioning the imprisonment and murder of Christians all over the world. Lots of them. Muslims killed 500 Christians in Nigeria the other day while the Nigerian government looked the other way. Several people in Pakastan were given life sentences on charges the blasphemied Allah just this week. A few years ago two school girls in the Phillipines where kidnapped and beheaded because they were Catholic.

You keep implying that radicals are misusing the Koran to further there agenda. I have and I can quote passages from the Koran that state out right acceptable handling of infidels. You have yet to produce Biblical passages that directly support that agenda of the KKK. Would you like me to post my quotes from the Koran?

Wei Wu Wei
03-11-2010, 03:19 PM
Then what's the problem?

Buying into it and accepting it as real despite realizing that it's just ideological bs.

FlaGator
03-11-2010, 03:22 PM
I don't live in a "muslim community", but I live in the metropolitan area with the most muslims outside of the middle east. I try to live in peace with my neighbors and understand what their beliefs are.

On 9-11, there were a lot of rumors going around professional circles in Detroit that the muslims in Dearborn were celebrating/rioting in support. All those rumors turned out to be lies. The local Arab/Muslim community organizations denounced the attacks (ACCESS is the major one here), and so did leaders of various local mosques. That doesn't preclude the nut jobs that hide among them, but the largest mosques and religious organizations roundly condemn terrorism.

I posted a few weeks ago about how the local muslims were marching outside of the federal courthouse in Detroit during the underwear bomber's arraignment. They weren't protesting his arrest, they were marching in support of the US government! Their spokespeople told the reporters that they wanted americans to know that this guy is not acting on their behalf. This did not get coverage from the networks, CNN or FOX, only local stations.

I'm not going as far as Wu Wei does about muslim terrorists acting for political and economic justice, because even if there was some truth in that statement, it's political and economic justice as they define it for a small number of people, a number that excludes half of the human race on the basis of gender alone.

For the most part the Muslims in the US have distanced themselves from the associations to the extremist. Many have not ("Jihad Jane", etal). What was seen from many areas of the Muslim world has solidified in the minds of many Americans a picture of Islam that seems to condone the radical's behavior. Saudi stand against it but that is because they know that a organized radical insurgency could bring down their government and their comfortable life.

I don't want to paint with such a large brush because the Muslims that I know are decent, hard working people who are appalled by what they see going on. They've been here long enough to know that the people of America aren't a whole lot different than they are when it comes to our desires for a better life our families and children.

BadCat
03-11-2010, 03:26 PM
Buying into it and accepting it as real despite realizing that it's just ideological bs.

What state do you live in?

papabull
03-11-2010, 03:27 PM
What state do you live in?

It looks like he lives in the state of confusion.

NJCardFan
03-12-2010, 01:01 AM
Also, every time we fight a real war with people that has heavy civilian casualties, the image is always spoun (for Americans) that those people are simply different from us in a fundamental radical way.

It was done for Germany, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Soviet Union, and now our middle eastern targets.

It simply helps Americans pave over the horrors of war in their minds.
How do you know? You probably weren't even alive when the Cold War ended. And speaking of which, we didn't fight a "real war" with the USSR. A little education goes a long way.

Constitutionally Speaking
03-13-2010, 05:20 AM
Wei Wu Wei is an unknown quantity at this point


No see you missed the point. The KKK, as well as several other violent hate groups, also commit their acts in the name of Christianity. Therefore, according to your logic, Christians are racist and Christianity is a hateful religion.

Your problem is that you don't realize it is NOT a small minority of Muslims who feel this way. 25% of young muslims believe homicide bombings against civilians is ok.



http://pewresearch.org/assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf


The KKK is a VERY small group who are rejected openly and LOUDLY by nearly every other group in the U.S.

You INSTANTLY lose credibility when you have been found to be associated with such a group.

With the radical Islamists, - not so much. Sure there are some that speak out against it, but to make a comparison like that is beyond disingenuous.

Starbuck
03-13-2010, 09:41 AM
Back to the original post.

Hanks is mostly right. I have the family history to back it up, too.......

My sister, born in 1943, is half Chinese. Our mother is Boston-Irish. In 1943, when she was born, it was ILLEGAL for anglo-Americans to marry orientals (Asians). The uproar cause by this illegitimate birth seperated my mother from her family forever. I never met a single member of her family. Up until 1948 this law, called an anti-miscegenation law, was enforced in most states, including Massachusetts and was sporadically enforced until the 60s.
Asians were depicted in comic book drawings and newspaper cartoons as an evil, fanatical, almost sub-human species. It was widely accepted as fact that Asians could not see well through their slanted eyes and therefore would not make good pilots or fighters. The term "Jap" was widely used.

It was a very different world in 1941. Did we want to "wipe 'em out because they were different"? Dunno about that, but most Americans did indeed want to wipe them out, and there wasn't much said about herding them into concentration camps. My Brother In Law (Sis's Husband) was a little boy in one of the camps in Arizona.

The Japs were hated, and they didn't do themselves many favors during the war, either. The very first Japanese pilot shot down over Hawaii landed within sight of a Japanese American family, and guess what they did?........They HID him.

It is easy to judge yesterday's world by today's standards. But it is usually a mistake.

Sonnabend
03-13-2010, 10:11 AM
Hanks is mostly right. I have the family history to back it up, too.......

Revisionist history is never right.


Asians were depicted in comic book drawings and newspaper cartoons as an evil, fanatical, almost sub-human species . It was widely accepted as fact that Asians could not see well through their slanted eyes and therefore would not make good pilots or fighters. The term "Jap" was widely used.

As opposed to gai-jin, barbarian, round eye, white devils....:rolleyes:


It was a very different world in 1941. Did we want to "wipe 'em out because they were different"?

No. They brought this on themselves, by carrying out a sneak attack on a military base and THEN delivering a declaration of war. Killing civilans, women and children en masse did very little to dispel the sterotype....and speaking myself, I can attest to knowledge of their atrocities.

They started the war. They carried out massive war crimes and atrocities...and did nothing to hide it or resile from it in any way shape or form. Even today their history is taught in a very different light, eliding or ignoring the very real acts of their military.

Sorry, no sympathy here.


Dunno about that, but most Americans did indeed want to wipe them out, and there wasn't much said about herding them into concentration camps. My Brother In Law (Sis's Husband) was a little boy in one of the camps in Arizona.

They were interned as enemy aliens, not in concentration camps. Concentration camps were places like Auschwitz, Birkenau, Treblinka. Nice try and bullshit.

The Japanese were ALLIED with the Nazis...you did know that, didnt you?


The Japs were hated, and they didn't do themselves many favors during the war, either. The very first Japanese pilot shot down over Hawaii landed within sight of a Japanese American family, and guess what they did?........They HID him.

Which by rights would give credence to the notion of interning Japanese Americans on the basis their loyalty was suspect

It's also called giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Another word is TREASON.


It is easy to judge yesterday's world by today's standards. But it is usually a mistake.

I'd love to know where you studied history. Berkeley? Liberal U? John Kerry School of Hate America?

Starbuck
03-13-2010, 01:05 PM
Wow. What an insightful and thought provoking reply.

NJCardFan
03-13-2010, 01:17 PM
Back to the original post.

Hanks is mostly right. I have the family history to back it up, too.......

My sister, born in 1943, is half Chinese. Our mother is Boston-Irish. In 1943, when she was born, it was ILLEGAL for anglo-Americans to marry orientals (Asians). The uproar cause by this illegitimate birth seperated my mother from her family forever. I never met a single member of her family. Up until 1948 this law, called an anti-miscegenation law, was enforced in most states, including Massachusetts and was sporadically enforced until the 60s.
Asians were depicted in comic book drawings and newspaper cartoons as an evil, fanatical, almost sub-human species. It was widely accepted as fact that Asians could not see well through their slanted eyes and therefore would not make good pilots or fighters. The term "Jap" was widely used.

It was a very different world in 1941. Did we want to "wipe 'em out because they were different"? Dunno about that, but most Americans did indeed want to wipe them out, and there wasn't much said about herding them into concentration camps. My Brother In Law (Sis's Husband) was a little boy in one of the camps in Arizona.

The Japs were hated, and they didn't do themselves many favors during the war, either. The very first Japanese pilot shot down over Hawaii landed within sight of a Japanese American family, and guess what they did?........They HID him.

It is easy to judge yesterday's world by today's standards. But it is usually a mistake.
Perhaps you might want to take a gander at the thread I started about Imperial Japanese atrocities. In case you're too lazy, just click these(I'm using wiki for simplicity sake only):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manila_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bataan_Death_March
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes

Now, of course, looking at the Japanese as "evil, fanatical, almost sub-human species" is unwarrented, right?:rolleyes: You do know that the "Japs" were using captured American soldiers in their experiments, right? Don't give me "the Japanese were misunderstood" shit. They were evil. They were animalistic. They were fanatical(unless there is some rational way to explain kamikaze's). Just read through the links I gave you then tell me how horrible they were treated during WWII in this country. Then ask the Chinese their feelings on the Japanese.

Starbuck
03-13-2010, 04:51 PM
Perhaps you might want to take a gander at the thread I started about Imperial Japanese atrocities. In case you're too lazy, just click these(I'm using wiki for simplicity sake only):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manila_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bataan_Death_March
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes

Now, of course, looking at the Japanese as "evil, fanatical, almost sub-human species" is unwarrented, right?:rolleyes: You do know that the "Japs" were using captured American soldiers in their experiments, right? Don't give me "the Japanese were misunderstood" shit. They were evil. They were animalistic. They were fanatical(unless there is some rational way to explain kamikaze's). Just read through the links I gave you then tell me how horrible they were treated during WWII in this country. Then ask the Chinese their feelings on the Japanese.

I did not make myself clear.
Historically, that is what happened; the Japanese were viewed in the above terms. That's a fact. It is also a fact (in my view) that they deserved every bit of what happened to them.
I never said the Japanese were misunderstood. I don't think they were. I think they were a bunch of fanatical sociopaths who viewed themselves as superior to every other race on earth.
And we (The Americans) hated them. So if Hanks says we wanted to annihilate them because they were different, he may have been partially (even mostly) right.

What is with people like you and Sonnabend? Did this statement - absolutely established as a fact - just send y'all over the edge?

Asians were depicted in comic book drawings and newspaper cartoons as an evil, fanatical, almost sub-human species. It was widely accepted as fact that Asians could not see well through their slanted eyes and therefore would not make good pilots or fighters. The term "Jap" was widely used.

I know the Chinese feelings toward the Japanese. Remember, my sister is half Chinese and my Brother In Law is Japanese American.
Also, I was fortunate enough to be assigned to a Filipino ship while I was in the Navy and I am aware of their feeling toward the Japanese and what happened in The Philippines. I heard it firsthand from those who were children in 1942.

Be careful who you attempt to lecture about WWII history. You may be in over your head.;)

AmPat
03-13-2010, 04:56 PM
I'm at a real loss for words when I encounter someone who thinks nuclear warfare is just a standard tool of international policy.

With today's weapons, millions of civilians can be killed with a couple of bombs, it stuns me that people think that's okay.

It's blasphemous and totally against any idea that a human life and soul is worth anything at all.

I feel sorry for any human being with a heart and mind so cold and empty that such a thing is just "ok".

Too true, especially when HE and fire bombing like Dresden is just as effective.:rolleyes:http://i41.tinypic.com/dnc03o.jpg

Sonnabend
03-13-2010, 06:20 PM
Wow. What an insightful and thought provoking reply.

Just for the record FuckerMe, this is a concentration camp.

http://blogs.uptownlife.net/sonyarose/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Belsen011.jpg

This is Manzanar

http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/FindingAids/dynaweb/calher/jvac/figures/j8CD-513A.jpg

Jackass.

AmPat
03-13-2010, 08:43 PM
Not everyone who died died in the immediate flash. Tens of thousands of orphaned children (yes children, just like your children) had 80% of their body totally burned. With only minimal care they sat around in hospitals with enormous portions of their skin simply gone (for some it took well over a year for their wounds to close and heal), awful deformations, and then the radiation effects started cropping up.You really don't know much about war or war wounds do you? Take a look around a VA med center. Standard burns from warfare via HE, friction, fuel etc have the same heal times. There are fragmentation wounds left open for months/years so they can be continually debreeded.

stsinner
03-13-2010, 08:59 PM
Wow. What an insightful and thought provoking reply.

Ignore Sonofabitch.. He's a hot-headed jackass with OCD that remains untreated...

Starbuck
03-13-2010, 10:52 PM
Ignore Sonofabitch.. He's a hot-headed jackass with OCD that remains untreated...
Hey, thanx.......actually I did put him on my ignore list.:)

NJCardFan
03-13-2010, 11:01 PM
Not everyone who died died in the immediate flash. Tens of thousands of orphaned children (yes children, just like your children) had 80% of their body totally burned. With only minimal care they sat around in hospitals with enormous portions of their skin simply gone (for some it took well over a year for their wounds to close and heal), awful deformations, and then the radiation effects started cropping up.

Wow. Bummer. Well, not everyone who was doused with kerosene and set on fire at Nanjing died right away either. At least not until the Japanese soldiers went and bayoneted the one's still alive. As for the orphaned children, perhaps the Marines should have gone to Hiroshima, tossed the children in the air, and caught them on their bayonets like the Japanese did to orphaned Chinese children. Again, don't go acting like the Japanese are innocent victims in their destruction.

Sonnabend
03-14-2010, 12:18 AM
Ignore Sonofabitch.. He's a hot-headed jackass with OCD that remains untreated..

Meet our resident Troofer.

Sonnabend
03-14-2010, 12:52 AM
I did not make myself clear.

Y'all sure did, hyuck hyuck....( is anyone else wondering who the fuck this TruckerMe is?)


Historically, that is what happened; the Japanese were viewed in the above terms.

............and?


And we (The Americans) hated them. So if Hanks says we wanted to annihilate them because they were different, he may have been partially (even mostly) right.

No, Hanks is wrong and Hanks is running the "black armband" type of historical revisionism. Not buying it, now or ever.


What is with people like you and Sonnabend? Did this statement - absolutely established as a fact - just send y'all over the edge?

It's bullshit.


know the Chinese feelings toward the Japanese. Remember, my sister is half Chinese and my Brother In Law is Japanese American.Also, I was fortunate enough to be assigned to a Filipino ship while I was in the Navy and I am aware of their feeling toward the Japanese and what happened in The Philippines.

And the name and registry number of that ship is...? Would you also kindly tell us your rank and service please?


I heard it firsthand from those who were children in 1942.

I heard it firsthand from soldiers who survived Japanese "internment" which was nowhere near as luxurious or humane as Manzanar.


Be careful who you attempt to lecture about WWII history. You may be in over your head.

Bring it, you fool.

nightflight
03-14-2010, 02:09 AM
Wow. What an insightful and thought provoking reply.

Yes, especially this part:

The Japanese were ALLIED with the Nazis...you did know that, didnt you?

namvet
03-14-2010, 12:45 PM
when it came to war crimes and atrocities the Nazi's couldn't hold a candle to the Japs

bAp8bSdE5MQ

Chuck58
03-14-2010, 05:01 PM
I did not make myself clear.
Historically, that is what happened; the Japanese were viewed in the above terms. That's a fact. It is also a fact (in my view) that they deserved every bit of what happened to them.
I never said the Japanese were misunderstood. I don't think they were. I think they were a bunch of fanatical sociopaths who viewed themselves as superior to every other race on earth.
And we (The Americans) hated them. So if Hanks says we wanted to annihilate them because they were different, he may have been partially (even mostly) right.

What is with people like you and Sonnabend? Did this statement - absolutely established as a fact - just send y'all over the edge?


I know the Chinese feelings toward the Japanese. Remember, my sister is half Chinese and my Brother In Law is Japanese American.
Also, I was fortunate enough to be assigned to a Filipino ship while I was in the Navy and I am aware of their feeling toward the Japanese and what happened in The Philippines. I heard it firsthand from those who were children in 1942.

Be careful who you attempt to lecture about WWII history. You may be in over your head.;)

My father served in the Pacific in WW2 - Marine Corps, at Guadalcanal and other places.

Here in New Mexico, we still have a few survivors of the Bataan Death March. I've heard some of their stories. Nothing you or that other character 3W can say will ever match the real life experiences of those men.

To the day he died, my father called them Japs, Monkey Men and worse. He never forgave them. The Bataan survivors here mostly haven't forgiven or forgot either.

Hanks needs to drop the bleeding heart crap. I once thought he was above that.

namvet
03-14-2010, 05:06 PM
My father served in the Pacific in WW2 - Marine Corps, at Guadalcanal and other places.

Here in New Mexico, we still have a few survivors of the Bataan Death March. I've heard some of their stories. Nothing you or that other character 3W can say will ever match the real life experiences of those men.

To the day he died, my father called them Japs, Monkey Men and worse. He never forgave them. The Bataan survivors here mostly haven't forgiven or forgot either.

Hanks needs to drop the bleeding heart crap. I once thought he was above that.

the sleeping giant was awakened in 41 and and filled with a terrible resolve.

Nubs
03-14-2010, 07:02 PM
To say that the Internment camps in the US were any where equivilent to concentration camps is absolute and utter bullshit. During WWII where were the location of the lowest infant mortality rates in the entire world??? The Internment camps.

My father had a colleague that was broght up in one of these camps. His colleague has absolute no ill will of being a resident of these camps. In fact, he believes he was fortunate to be a resident. He later became a world renouned thorasic surgeon. How's that for racism.

noonwitch
03-15-2010, 08:21 AM
To say that the Internment camps in the US were any where equivilent to concentration camps is absolute and utter bullshit. During WWII where were the location of the lowest infant mortality rates in the entire world??? The Internment camps.

My father had a colleague that was broght up in one of these camps. His colleague has absolute no ill will of being a resident of these camps. In fact, he believes he was fortunate to be a resident. He later became a world renouned thorasic surgeon. How's that for racism.


I didn't know that about the infant mortality rates, that is very interesting. It probaby has to do with overcompensation by government officials, to some degree.


I read a book written by a woman who had been a child growing up in one of the camps. The book was called "Farewell To Manzanar". Her description seemed pretty honest-that when her family first arrived, things were crowded and chaotic, but that once they got the camps totally up and running, they were comfortable and her mother even had a job as a dietician there, because she had been critical of the food when they first got there. She said that the kids had a certain amount of freedom to leave the camp on outings and camping trips into the mountains. Her oldest brother enlisted in the army and served in the occupying forces in Japan after the war, where he was valued for his bilingual abilities.

The thing from her book that I remember as being the most horrible is the way people tried to take advantage of the japanese as they were being detained-some antiques dealer came by their home in LA and offered her mother and insulting price for dishes, and the mother broke every dish in front of him. The people being detained could only bring so much personal stuff with them, and had to leave behind what they couldn't take.

Her father was separated from the rest of the family, at first. He was a fisherman, and the government accused him at first of supplying japanese submarines off the coast of CA with oil, because someone had taken a photo of him in his boat with a tank of something in it. When they searched the family's house, they found the japanese flag he had brought with him when he emigrated here. The tank, incidentally, held chum. It seemed he was more bitter about his experience than the rest of the family.

I don't think it was necessarily the right thing to send japanese americans to detainment camps, but it wasn't like what the Nazis did-we didn't kill, starve or mistreat the japanese detainees, and once the initial detainment occurred, there were continual improvements made in how the people were treated as the war progressed and action became more distant from the West Coast.

Sonnabend
03-15-2010, 09:00 AM
I don't think it was necessarily the right thing to send japanese americans to detainment camps,

Using FuckerMe's example, if they were that prone to giving aid and comfort to the enemy, and their loyalty was suspect, then it was the right thing to do.


but it wasn't like what the Nazis did-we didn't kill, starve or mistreat the japanese detainees, and once the initial detainment occurred, there were continual improvements made in how the people were treated as the war progressed and action became more distant from the West Coast.

Difference is the people of Manzanar lived to tell their stories.

Six million Jews and uncounted millions of others did not.

One was a concentration camp, one was not. A fact our newest historical revisionist seems not to notice. My father and my brother in law saw Auschwitz..and both of them described a place where Satan came to play.

Rockntractor
03-20-2010, 10:12 AM
Also, I was fortunate enough to be assigned to a Filipino ship while I was in the Navy and I am aware of their feeling toward the Japanese and what happened in The Philippines. I heard it firsthand from those who were children in 1942.

Be careful who you attempt to lecture about WWII history. You may be in over your head.;)

You have got me interested. What ship did you serve on in the navy? What is the name and registry?

namvet
03-20-2010, 11:07 AM
BTY the HBO special the Pacific is now running. I watched part 1 today. Guadalcanal. tomorrow night part 2.

Rockntractor
03-20-2010, 11:10 AM
BTY the HBO special the Pacific is now running. I watched part 1 today. Guadalcanal. tomorrow night part 2.

That would make this one of the few times I wish we had HBO.

namvet
03-20-2010, 11:21 AM
That would make this one of the few times I wish we had HBO.

same here. but TWC had a special to watch this. 10 bucks a month for the box and the first 6 mons of HBO free. so i could not pass it up.

AmPat
03-20-2010, 11:41 AM
This right here is a Tuff Man. He's so Tuff that he doesn't have feelings for people, that's for wimps and women and liberals. Empathy? Psh. Common identification with your fellow man? Hah! Recognition of the divinity of the human spirit revealed through compassion and destroyed through hatred? More like gimme-a-steak!

I bet this guy does pushups a lot too and has a feeling of peace (and not the pansy kind of peace EITHER) inside of himself when he's not hunting deer with his bare hands.

The what? Where do you get this crap? God is Divine, man is sinful. You just can't get anything right, can you?

AmPat
03-20-2010, 11:45 AM
Interesting view, many people hold it and I do find it fascinating.
I love this sort of discussion and I wish this forum had sub-forums for Religion and Philosophy.

(simple question everyone asks I know) but what's your opinion on free will?

Another "simple question": if this is simple, why do you find it impossible to answer the question posed to liberals? You were asked what was YOUR liberal definition of freedom. A much simpler question since it was posed fror a subjective response. You quibbled for days without answering.

AmPat
03-20-2010, 11:58 AM
For a few radical nutbags, it does. I know Muslims who don't believe their religion tells them to do so. I was raised around Muslims. Many of them were nicer to me than my fellow Christians who I was around.
The Bible, at least the Old Testament, orders the people of God to murder anyone who doesn't believe. Christians choose to ignore that verse as they feel Jesus obliterated the Old Law. But Jews still follow the Old Law.

You're not talking about collateral damage. You spoke of purposefully wiping out an entire group of people.Christianity didn't exist until Jeshua brought the New Covenant with God. The Old Testament is read and used by the believers of the New Covenant (Christians). We do not practice the Old Covenant. When is the last time you witnessed Christians sacrificing animals? Don't try to justify your ignorant opinions without knowing something about it. Jesus himself stopped an Old Testament law in progress (the stoning of the prostitute). He was a Jewish Rabbi as well as the Son Of God. That in itself is a picture of a transition from the Old to the New Covenant by the One who created us.

AmPat
03-20-2010, 12:00 PM
I'm not going back 2000 years, the word is still written in the Old Testament. It doesn't say "Only valid until xx/2008" Christians feel Jesus invalidated all of that...But Jews don't believe Jesus was the messiah they were waiting for and thus those words are just as valid for them as now.
Every religious book has something crazy in it. Even Hindu works.
And I remember 9/11, but I don't place the blame for 9/11 on ALL Muslims, simply on those who perpetrated it or agree with it.see post 181 and stop making a fool of yourself.:cool:

AmPat
03-20-2010, 12:08 PM
From their official website:



Well that's all I needed to hear. Christians are racist. Checkmate, end of story, gameover, knockout, one hitter quitter, that is all.

I noticed you don't have any quotes from "Reverend" Jeremiah Wright. You know, the one who mentored and preached to O Blah Blah for 20 years? The one who The One can't remember uttering contempt for America or Racist theology?:rolleyes:

AmPat
03-20-2010, 12:14 PM
I thought everyone with a couple of functional brain cells knew that Muslim terrorists are acting out of their core beliefs in economic and political change. The religious crap is just used to draw in new recruits who feel lost and hopeless and see this as the only way to give their life meaning. There's a reason the terrorist leaders don't blow themselves up.

Try wiping your @$$ (or face, both same on you) with a page or two from the koran in front of those non-believing muslims. See if they use it as a smoke screen or do they really believe?

AmPat
03-20-2010, 12:20 PM
Do you live in a Muslim community?

What I would have like to have seen was the various mosques around the world stating how the people who pulled off 9/11 didn't represent Islamic beliefs. What I saw was image after image of Muslims dancing in the streets celebrating the murder of 3000+ people. Those little gatherings went along way to defining the image that Americans have of Muslims.

The definition from Libberweenies aren't affected. They want to coddle our enemy. Don't look at the thousands of examples of islamic radical terrorists and their murders,they look at Christians who they attempt to make a twisted argument for having the same beliefs if they cherry pick select verses from the OT or use Westboro or KKK examples. Come to think of it, Jeremiah Wright would be a much better example for them to use. Now Hmmmm,,,,,, Why don't "progressives" ever use Wright as an example? Hmmm, interesting question.

Odysseus
03-20-2010, 12:28 PM
No one doubts America had reasons, it ended the worst war the world has even seen. It's just unfortunate that the ending to the worst war the world has seen was the worst attack on civilians that the world has ever seen.
That sounds really nice until you actually analyze your statement. If you don't count the millions killed in the Holocaust (or the Armenian Genocide, or the various cities destroyed by invading armies, including Baghdad by the Mongols, Carthage by Rome, or Constantinople by the Turks), you're still way off (and as regards the genocides, I would say that ongoing, deliberate slaughter of civilians beats a single bombing). For that matter, the Japanese rape of Nanking resulted in more civilian deaths, and did so in a much more deliberate and sadistic manner (including the rapes of between 40,000 and 80,000 women).

Then, there's your assumption that we targeted civilians exclusively. Hiroshima was hardly a civilian target. It housed the headquarters of the Japanese Fifth Division and Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan and served as a supply and logistics base, as well as a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops. In short, it was a military target first.


Like I said, this is not a clear-cut issue of "good guys and bad guys", but to pretend that dropping a nuclear bomb on a city is something desirable or something that should just be paved over in our history is appalling and dishonest.
I don't recall anyone paving it over. If anything, we've flagellated ourselves over it for decades, while the Japanese have gone to great lengths to avoid admitting responsibility for their actions in the war, to include the mass enslavement of "comfort women," the deliberate mass murder of civilians (see Nanking, for one example), the systematic murder of POWs, etc. If anything demonstrates a clear-cut distinction between good guys and bad guys, it's that the good guys spent the decades after the war rebuilding their enemies' homelands and beating ourselves up over winning. Bad guys tend not to care what happens to their enemies.

If winning a war means the government of the enemy nation accepts surrender, that means it's impossible to win a war against a non-nation enemy. Our 'enemy' today is a non-nation, it's a non-organization even (terrorism as a tool and as part of an ideology).
Winning a war means defeating your opponent's will to fight. We may never eliminate every jihadi, but we can certainly make it unpleasant for the nations that support them with arms, funding and sanctuaries. If we destroy the infrastructure that supports them, as well as discrediting them in the eyes of the Muslim world, then we will not have to maintain a perpetual war footing.

Unlike wars we fought before, there is no single person or group or legislative body or leader who can "surrender", thus we are fighting a war that is unwinnable.
So, this war is not like, say, the Moro insurrection, in which we fought and defeated Islamic tribes in the Philippines (who, BTW, considered themselves jihadis) or the Barbary Pirate War? Perhaps you mean that it's not like the Cold War, in which our main enemy used proxies to engage us in order to avoid our direct retaliation, the way that Iran uses Hamas and Hezbollah? Or perhaps you mean that it's not like the Indian Wars, which, regardless of the morality of them, were fought against tribal leaders who used hit and run tactics and ultimately were driven from the field and forced to accept terms that have kept them from reengaging for the better part of two centuries?

And, of course, that doesn't take into account all of the other similar conflicts which other nations have fought, and won, against similar groups. We have every means of winning this war, except one. If we lose the will to fight, then we are defeated before we start. In that regard, you need to decide whose side you're on.

AmPat
03-20-2010, 12:59 PM
*snip*

And, of course, that doesn't take into account all of the other similar conflicts which other nations have fought, and won, against similar groups. We have every means of winning this war, except one. If we lose the will to fight, then we are defeated before we start. In that regard, you need to decide whose side you're on.

All excellent points except the last. This particular tool has already chosen sides. Standby for a steady stream of quibbling, cherry-picked defenses in his attempt to withstand those dreaded facts.

Apache
03-20-2010, 01:06 PM
All excellent points except the last. This particular tool has already chosen sides. Standby for a steady stream of quibbling, cherry-picked defenses in his attempt to withstand those dreaded facts.

Leftists are like Jell-O, neither one can be pinned down. That's why I don't even bother with 3W, I know whatever the argument he will divert, deflect or ignore the facts to support his position.

AmPat
03-20-2010, 01:39 PM
Leftists are like Jell-O, neither one can be pinned down. That's why I don't even bother with 3W, I know whatever the argument he will divert, deflect or ignore the facts to support his position.

I know, I just like to point it out.http://i42.tinypic.com/nefcyh.jpg

Wei Wu Wei
03-20-2010, 01:52 PM
The Pacific is excellent. Part 1 was a real ride. I advise anyone who has HBO to tune in, they show reruns often and Part 2 airs tonight.

If you don't have HBO visit a friend who does :) (my place is welcome to other Texans)

Rockntractor
03-20-2010, 01:56 PM
The Pacific is excellent. Part 1 was a real ride. I advise anyone who has HBO to tune in, they show reruns often and Part 2 airs tonight.

If you don't have HBO visit a friend who does :) (my place is welcome to other Texans)

Is it available for download anywhere?

Wei Wu Wei
03-20-2010, 01:58 PM
Is it available for download anywhere?

actually I think episode 1 is available for free from the HBO site:

http://www.hbo.com/the-pacific/index.html#/the-pacific/episodes/0/01-part-1/video/part-1-full-episode.html

Rockntractor
03-20-2010, 02:05 PM
actually I think episode 1 is available for free from the HBO site:

http://www.hbo.com/the-pacific/index.html#/the-pacific/episodes/0/01-part-1/video/part-1-full-episode.html

Thank you.

megimoo
03-20-2010, 02:10 PM
That sounds really nice until you actually analyze your statement. If you don't count the millions killed in the Holocaust (or the Armenian Genocide, or the various cities destroyed by invading armies, including Baghdad by the Mongols, Carthage by Rome, or Constantinople by the Turks), you're still way off (and as regards the genocides, I would say that ongoing, deliberate slaughter of civilians beats a single bombing). For that matter, the Japanese rape of Nanking resulted in more civilian deaths, and did so in a much more deliberate and sadistic manner (including the rapes of between 40,000 and 80,000 women).

Then, there's your assumption that we targeted civilians exclusively. Hiroshima was hardly a civilian target. It housed the headquarters of the Japanese Fifth Division and Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan and served as a supply and logistics base, as well as a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops. In short, it was a military target first.


I don't recall anyone paving it over. If anything, we've flagellated ourselves over it for decades, while the Japanese have gone to great lengths to avoid admitting responsibility for their actions in the war, to include the mass enslavement of "comfort women," the deliberate mass murder of civilians (see Nanking, for one example), the systematic murder of POWs, etc. If anything demonstrates a clear-cut distinction between good guys and bad guys, it's that the good guys spent the decades after the war rebuilding their enemies' homelands and beating ourselves up over winning. Bad guys tend not to care what happens to their enemies.

Winning a war means defeating your opponent's will to fight. We may never eliminate every jihadi, but we can certainly make it unpleasant for the nations that support them with arms, funding and sanctuaries. If we destroy the infrastructure that supports them, as well as discrediting them in the eyes of the Muslim world, then we will not have to maintain a perpetual war footing.

So, this war is not like, say, the Moro insurrection, in which we fought and defeated Islamic tribes in the Philippines (who, BTW, considered themselves jihadis) or the Barbary Pirate War? Perhaps you mean that it's not like the Cold War, in which our main enemy used proxies to engage us in order to avoid our direct retaliation, the way that Iran uses Hamas and Hezbollah? Or perhaps you mean that it's not like the Indian Wars, which, regardless of the morality of them, were fought against tribal leaders who used hit and run tactics and ultimately were driven from the field and forced to accept terms that have kept them from reengaging for the better part of two centuries?

And, of course, that doesn't take into account all of the other similar conflicts which other nations have fought, and won, against similar groups. We have every means of winning this war, except one. If we lose the will to fight, then we are defeated before we start. In that regard, you need to decide whose side you're on.
Save your finders typing to Wei_Wei and his little code kiddies.Tell them to read a history book about WW II and pay attention to the part about the Japanese sneak attack of Pearl Harbor .

Tell them of the estimate of the number of American dead if we invaded the Japanese Mainland but that wont penetrate their thick kiddie Liberal skulls.Harry Truman made the decision to use the Atomic bombs and end the war.Great man that Harry Truman !!

And while they're 'about it' have them look at those old black and whites of American troops 'island hopping' across the Pacific taking Island after Island with young men, most under twenty years old, fighting and dying for their country.

Makes me feel ashamed for most of this current crop of young American men who hate their own country.

Nubs
03-20-2010, 02:53 PM
Tell them of the estimate of the number of American dead if we invaded the Japanese Mainland but that wont penetrate their thick kiddie Liberal skulls.Harry Truman made the decision to use the Atomic bombs and end the war.Great man that Harry Truman !!


Tell them of the estimated Japanese civillian deaths if we were to invade the home islands. The atomic bombs saved Japanese lives.

Odysseus
03-20-2010, 04:47 PM
The Pacific is excellent. Part 1 was a real ride. I advise anyone who has HBO to tune in, they show reruns often and Part 2 airs tonight.

If you don't have HBO visit a friend who does :) (my place is welcome to other Texans)

Since Hanks (and you) equate our war in the Pacific with racism, rather than national defense, I'll hold out for a more reliable source before I commit to watching.

Sonnabend
03-20-2010, 04:53 PM
And just WHERE have you been hiding, Major? :D

Starbuck
03-20-2010, 05:35 PM
Since Hanks (and you) equate our war in the Pacific with racism, rather than national defense, I'll hold out for a more reliable source before I commit to watching.

Well, when you come right down to it, and if you could turn back the clock and walk among the population of America in November, 1941, no one would know what you mean when you use the term "racist". It was not in popular usage, and if fact appears in text for the first time in 1936.

http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/siteinfo/newsround/oracism.html

That doesn't mean that Americans were not racist, of course, but it does indicate that there was no shortcut to making them understand their own racist motives. Name calling has come a long way, it seems....:)

The 1941 Americans were racist by any standards. The question to me is: was our fury with Japan really fueled only by the bombing of Pearl Harbor? Or did our foes' obvious differences contribute to their near annihilation?
Attributing the war in the Pacific totally to racism is a little silly, but so is denying that the Japanese were not disliked before the war.

Sonnabend
03-20-2010, 05:43 PM
Originally Posted by TruckerMe http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/images/twisteddark/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?p=247907#post247907)
Also, I was fortunate enough to be assigned to a Filipino ship while I was in the Navy and I am aware of their feeling toward the Japanese and what happened in The Philippines. I heard it firsthand from those who were children in 1942.

Be careful who you attempt to lecture about WWII history. You may be in over your head.

Again.

What was the name and registry of that ship? When were you there? Who was its Captain? What other ships did you serve in?

Odysseus
03-20-2010, 08:49 PM
And just WHERE have you been hiding, Major? :D

Been up to my ears at work. We just got a brigade combat team out the door and we're ramping up to transform to a new TDA. And, frankly, I got tired of Gator's idiocy. But. once in a while, somebody lays on a juicy target and I just can't resist.

Rockntractor
03-20-2010, 08:53 PM
Again.

What was the name and registry of that ship? When were you there? Who was its Captain? What other ships did you serve in?

I don't understand it. I would assume that would be a question he would answer quite readily.

Nubs
03-20-2010, 09:41 PM
Based on the statement, at the youngest, he would now be around 85-86 years old. He is either taking a nap or headed out for the early bird special.

Starbuck
03-20-2010, 09:52 PM
You have got me interested. What ship did you serve on in the navy? What is the name and registry?
Oops . Missed the response.

I was assigned to the Quezon and commissioned her into the Philippine Navy in 1967.

Here is her story...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRP_Quezon_%28PS-70%29

I spent 9 years in the navy from 1962 til '71 and was on several ships, both coasts and crossed both oceans.

I can't read sonnabend; he's on my ignore list.

Sonnabend
03-20-2010, 09:55 PM
I was assigned to the Quezon and commissioned her into the Philippine Navy in 1967.You commissioned her? So you were her Captain?

Your own words.


I'm a 60 - something year old dude, and I tell ya...

Make that a 70 something,

How old were you when you joined the Navy? Were you an enlisted man? An officer? According to your own posts you could have been no more than 20 years old at most..so either you were promoted FAST or you didnt


commission her into the Philippine Navy in 1967.

Rockntractor
03-20-2010, 10:01 PM
Oops . Missed the response.

I was assigned to the Quezon and commissioned her into the Philippine Navy in 1967.

Here is her story...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRP_Quezon_%28PS-70%29

I spent 9 years in the navy from 1962 til '71 and was on several ships, both coasts and crossed both oceans.

I can't read sonnabend; he's on my ignore list.

The article is really interesting. It amazes me how long they can keep ships in service.

Rockntractor
03-20-2010, 10:03 PM
You commissioned her? So you were her Captain?

Your own words.



Make that a 70 something, or you are LYING about your age. How old were you when you joned the Navy? According to your own posts you could have been no more than 20 years old at most..so either you were promoted FAST or you didnt

Would he have to be that old?

Sonnabend
03-20-2010, 10:50 PM
I spent 9 years in the navy from 1962 til '71 He would have to be at least 18 to have been in the Navy in 1962 (as a recruit straight out of school) means he was born in 1944 or thereabouts. My guess is he is between 66 and 68 years old.

Or older.


I can't read sonnabend; he's on my ignore list.Chickenshit.

Sonnabend
03-20-2010, 10:56 PM
BTW, I share hamp's disdain for anyone that puts people on ignore.:rolleyes:

Rockntractor
03-20-2010, 10:58 PM
BTW, I share hamp's disdain for anyone that puts people on ignore.:rolleyes:

And I used to think so highly of Wilbur!:D

Swampfox
03-21-2010, 12:37 AM
They started it. The Enola Gay ended it. Technically, the Bock's Car ended it with the second atomic bomb drop, but I'm just being an a-hole for pointing that out. :D

CaughtintheMiddle1990
03-21-2010, 01:13 AM
Save your finders typing to Wei_Wei and his little code kiddies.Tell them to read a history book about WW II and pay attention to the part about the Japanese sneak attack of Pearl Harbor .

Tell them of the estimate of the number of American dead if we invaded the Japanese Mainland but that wont penetrate their thick kiddie Liberal skulls.Harry Truman made the decision to use the Atomic bombs and end the war.Great man that Harry Truman !!

And while they're 'about it' have them look at those old black and whites of American troops 'island hopping' across the Pacific taking Island after Island with young men, most under twenty years old, fighting and dying for their country.

Makes me feel ashamed for most of this current crop of young American men who hate their own country.


Good old Harry Truman, you mean the guy who pushed for Universal Healthcare?

Starbuck
03-24-2010, 10:03 PM
Would he have to be that old?

Nah.

I'll be 65 this summer.

Went in when I was 17. 1962. Got out in '71. Had lotsa fun, saw lotsa the world. In addition to serving of the Quezon I served on a Colombian ship, a Burmese Sub Chaser, a troop transport (USS Cambria) in the Mediterranean, with John McCain's father on the east coast (USS Pocono), took a Minesweep over to Viet Nam (USS Impervious) and was Co-Pilot of Plainview (AGEH - 1), which at the time was the world's largest hydrofoil.

I got a lot of the assignments because I was a graduate of the naval advanced electronics school in San Fransisco. (ET"B" school, for those who speak Navalese....)

Rockntractor
03-24-2010, 10:11 PM
Nah.

I'll be 65 this summer.

Went in when I was 17. 1962. Got out in '71. Had lotsa fun, saw lotsa the world. In addition to serving of the Quezon I served on a Colombian ship, a Burmese Sub Chaser, a troop transport (USS Cambria) in the Mediterranean, with John McCain's father on the east coast (USS Pocono), took a Minesweep over to Viet Nam (USS Impervious) and was Co-Pilot of Plainview (AGEH - 1), which at the time was the world's largest hydrofoil.

I got a lot of the assignments because I was a graduate of the naval advanced electronics school in San Fransisco. (ET"B" school, for those who speak Navalese....)

You saw a lot of sites and I'm sure you have a lot of great memories!

NJCardFan
03-24-2010, 10:23 PM
Good old Harry Truman, you mean the guy who pushed for Universal Healthcare?

Harry Truman is to the right of Reagan compared to the no-good, rotten, four-flushing, low-life, snake-licking, dirt-eating, inbred, overstuffed, ignorant, blood-sucking, dog-kissing, brainless, dickless, hopeless, heartless, fat-ass, bug-eyed, stiff-legged, spotty-lipped, worm-headed sack of monkey shit* who's in there now.







*Thank you Clark W. Griswold.