How many innocent Muslims have been killed in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan? Well over a 1m and that is just by wars. Sanctions in Iraq killed over 500k in Iraqi kids and you are thinking these people should be friendly towards us?

Get real.

http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011...stian-violence

Just the other day the Pope was apologising for Christian violence throughout the ages.

These are Danish citizens we're talking about, not Iraqi, Libyan or Afghani citizens. That's another problem with muslims, they don't assimilate, they expect Western countries that they immigrate to to adapt to their culture.

It will be a cold day in hell before you see the Imams and the shaykhs apologize for Muslim conquests throughout the ages. I'm a strict non-interventionist, I don't support any of these wars, but to pretend that Islam is not a theocratic ideaology would be to deny the truth.

Shotsie, did your wife leave you for a Muslim with a bigger cock or something?

http://i43.tinypic.com/1zc3k1u.png

Yep, and now everytime I look at the symbol for Allah all I can picture is a huge set of cock & balls.

We should drop you into Iran or Saudi Arabia with some of your work product (porn) and see how well you do. You would cry like a little bitch, begging to be in Westernized Israel.

No, I am saying the goal of any US attack is rarely to conquer and occupy. Its to break a country so that it can rebuild with us contractors and supervision. After they are broken we then squat in that country until they 'welcome' or 'accept' us.

Agreed. Never underestimate our governments willingness to kill you in new and inventive ways.... or tried n true oldies.

Nuking Israel would be cheaper than nuking Iran. And unlike Iran there's fuck all underneath Israel to make cars run. And Russia and China wouldn't give a shit. And neither would the rest of the world. Hell, the Arab and Muslim world would probably hand over half their oil as thanks, and we'd all be able to get on planes again without taking our shoes off.

Any disadvantages?

I'm not trying to defend anybody but Stalin never killed "many millions" of people it's an urban legend that became popular during the anti communist propaganda campaign in the west.

Apparently it depends on how you calculate the number of victims and if you mix it with number of killed, because there is a big difference between a victim - someone who was relocated by Stalin and someone who was shot in the head because he disagreed with Stalin. There are records of only 800 000 executions which is still a lot of people but not 60 mil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin#...ber_of_victims

You fail to mention that while you say these things, Muslims haven't been waging wars with people, it is western nations waging war with Muslims. You talk about those Denmark things but with 1.5 billion Muslims there is going to be some extreme ones just like there are extreme Christian groups that murder and kill.

Here is an interesting statistic if you want to talk about European terrorism:

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/...islamic_terror

So maybe what you need to do is really come to terms with who the aggressors are in the situation. Sure there are some violent things in the Quran but there are violent things in the Bible and in the Torah but it doesn't mean that those are the things all Muslims are following just like not all Christians are strictly following the bible.

You need to get rid of your hate for Islam and realize that the vast, vast majority of Muslim people are just like you and me.

So how long would it be until you gave up fighting? How long until you break? Would seeing your family killed break you or enrage you and make you fight harder?

Iranians will never accept a US military presence in their country just like you would never accept a military Chinese presence in the US.

Japan didn't just up one day and decide to attack Pearl Harbor. It was after the US cut off all resources to Japan that the Japanese had no choice but to attack. That said Pearl Harbor was a military target and an attack on a military population. The two bombs that were dropped were dropped with the intention of literally terrorizing the Japanese into surrendering.

No one has the cash to go to war these days except China

No one

I don't know why you're saying distorted. I agree with you it didn't start with the Japanese but that still doesn't excuse the US retaliating against a civilian population for a military attack. The attack on Pearl Harbor was an attack on a military base, the nuclear bombs the US dropped were meant to murder as many innocent civilians as possible.

Do you see the terrorism now? Or do you support attacks on civilian populations as revenge for a military attack, say for example if the US were to attack lets say an Afghan militant then you would support Afghans coming to the US and say flying airplanes into buildings full of civilians?

What is this about refusing to sell materials? The US set up a naval blockade of Japan meaning they wouldn't allow resources into the country, it wasn't the US refusing to sell things to Japan. It was the US being in the water actively stopping ships from reaching Japan which is an island nation with almost no resources of their own. Educate yourself before bringing out the laughy faces because then it just looks like you're laughing at yourself.

I may have left out the China thing and I agree with you 100% that what Japan was doing to China was horrible, but that still doesn't (doesn't even come close to) excuse a nuclear attack on a civilian population by the US. That was and is and will always be a terrorist attack against the Japanese people. It was uncalled for and the US should have been and should be stripped of their nuclear weapons because of it.

The Japanese were hell bent on counquering China and the entire East Indies, and there was no naval blockade, the Western powers just refused to sell iron ore, steel and oil to Japan, denying it the raw materials needed to continue its activities in China and French Indochina.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific...stern _powers



If any other country had developed the atomic bomb before the US did during WW2 they sure as shit would have used it without thinking twice. Nazi Germany was working on it since 1939, we just beat them to it. We had already lost 500,000 troops fighting in the European theatre of war, and Truman wasn't going to potentially risk losing millions more men fighting a country who's soldiers would rather commit Seppuku than surrender. As someone who never got a chance to meet a great uncle because of the Japanese Imperial Army, I don't feel bad at all.


Why don't you read about the sick, twisted shit the Japanese were doing to the Chinsese before the war before you go spewing your anti-American rhetoric.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

Wait so you are okay with 9/11 because it saved lives? Because some people claimed by those terrorist attacks happening millions of lives were saved. That is a legit reason to do something like that according to you.

Did you even read the article you linked? How can you claim no naval blockade when the article talks all about it happening? How can you ask me to read something when you don't even read it and furthermore why would you link something about how bad the Japanese were to the Chinese when I clearly stated in the post that you yourself are quoting that what the Japanese did was horrible?

moe, how on earth can you say americas nuclear bombs on japan were a terrorist attack?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embargo

They were an attack on a civilian population with the intent of terrorizing the Japanese into surrendering. How is it not a terrorist attack? What is the difference between Al Qaeda flying those two planes into the WTC buildings and the US dropping nuclear weapons on Japan (other than the number of dead of course)?

You were saying? This is from the article you yourself linked to.

What's your point? Initially an embargo was placed on Japan by Western powers. The battle of Midway wasn't until June 1942, six months after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Of course we had placed a blockade on them by then, we had already been at war with them for six months.


Keep grasping at straws. Your attempt to compare(and justify) the 9/11 attacks-an arguably unprovoked rogue attack on a nation in the name of Islamic jihad-with the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki just shows that you have no interest in the truth, only in cherry picking and twisting bits of information to support your own biased, anti-American narrative. It's completely obvious. I don't see you bashing the Russians on this board about Putin and the invasion of Chechnya, which is considered by many to be an attack on Islam. I don't hear you complaining about China commiting genocide-by-inundation by moving thousands and thousands of Han Chinese to overcome the dominance of Muslim Uighurs.


The Japanese were given an ultimatum, surrender or face prompt and utter destruction. The ultimatum was broadcast to the Japanese Home Islands on the radio while leaflets describing it were dropped from American bombers. The most I will concede is that the US should have waited to see if the Hiroshima bomb would bring surrender before dropping the second one on Nagasaki. Yet, after two atomic bombings, massive conventional bombings, and the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, the Japanese government STILL refused to surrender. The only reason they finally did surrender is because the emperor requested it, and he was considered a god to the Japanese people. The real terrorists against the Japanese were the Imperial military and the Japanese government who were more concerned with loss of honor than Japan's destruction. In fact, surrender was so repugnant to the military that most of the military leaders commited seppuku after the surrender document was signed.

The Egyptians 4000 years ago couldn't exterminate them
The Romans 2000 years ago failed to exterminate them
The Germans 60 years ago also failed
The Arabs today shit their pants when the Israelis make a move.

If they strike Iran, there will be no response besides a lot of yap yap yap like in 1981 when they took Saddam's reactors out.
No matter how much you hate them, they wont bend and they will stick their grounds, with the support of the UK and the US.

:2 cents:

My point is that you said there was no blockade. You were wrong.

The bombs dropped on Japan were terrorist attacks.

That is the definition of terrorist attack. That is exactly what the US did.

The bombs were dropped to terrorize the people. How can they not be a terrorist attack?

Who cares if they were given an ultimatum. Yet again, that does not excuse the murder of tens of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians. That is what made it a terrorist attack.

I'm sure some people out there excuse the 9/11 attacks as attacks that were called for on the US and not terrorist attacks but I would say no, they are terrorist attacks and the proof is that they targeted civilians in order to terrorize them.


You're making yourself look stupid.

And Black All Through if the Israelis were so tough they wouldn't have to be so afraid of rock throwing Palestinians. Yet nothing worries and scares them more than a Palestinian who is equal to them, and that's why they keep trying to oppress the Palestinian people.

If the US is involved Obama can kiss any chances of re-election good buy. Last thing this country wants is another war!

Maybe the world would be a more peaceful place if someone would nuke the shit out of USA.

maybe because it was a world war and the two countries were at war? just a slight, slight difference or can't you thick head see through that cloud of anti american bullshit you have learnt from youtube?

the nazis bombed the shit out of london in what was the blitz, was it terrorism?

Being at war doesn't excuse terrorism. There are terrorist attacks in Afghanistan and Iraq and those are wars, but they are still terror attacks when they are against a civilian population. Why the insults dude?

You saw the definition of a terrorist attack, you know what the bombings on Japan were, how can you say those weren't terrorist attacks?

As to the Nazis killing civilians in WWII, yes I do believe that was terrorism. Any attacks on a civilian population in order to make them scared is terrorism.

OK, so we had Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Tunisia, Libya...

Iran is a big NoGo, as they are of a complete different caliber.

it is true that if we had not nukes Japan they prolly would have never surrendered, fuck they had enough balls to take one hit without giving in, which is what led to number 2 bombing... so yes you could somewhat justify it

BUT

the simple fact that Hiroshima was left virtually untouched during the war while we fire bombed the fuck out of the rest of the country is suspicious enough to make most people believe that it was left untouched solely in order to determine how much damage a nuke could do, with the majority of deaths being civilian..... whether or not you call that terrorism is up to you, but the arguement that it could not be terrorism because we were at war is not valid. the whole point of war is to terrorize your enemy into surrendering... call the nukes what you will, but you would be pretty fucking terrorized if you woke up tomorrow and saw a mushroom cloud from a nuke that Iraq managed to sneak into the country, and we are at war win them still

Anybody ever tell you you are an idiot? Wait, they tell you that here everyday.

I think this guy explains the plan quite well.

Your original argument was that the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor because we had placed a naval blockade on them. You clearly stated that here:


I provided the information to disprove this argument three times so far in this thread. Somehow you still cannot comprehend the difference between an embargo, which was the reason the Japanese bomber Pearl Harbor, and a naval blockade, which was not put in place until six months after the war began, even though I provided you with the definition for both terms. Yet you call me stupid.


Let me try to explain it to you in a way that might be easier for you to understand: America stops selling shit to Japan, Japan gets pissed, bombs Pearl Harbor. America declares war on Japan, starts dropping bombs and shit on them. America sends a bunch of battleships and shit over to Japan to block shit from getting in.


Then you provide a definition of a terrorist attack that further bolsters my argument as to why I don't necessarily believe the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrorist attacks:

Nothing about the bombings was a surprise, that's the point I was trying to make when I said they were given an ultimatum, had millions of leaflets dropped over them warning them of the attack, and had the warning broadcast over the radio to them.


Anyway, you've managed to completely derail this thread, i'm done. I'm gonna go paint some happy Muhammeds for the local mosque.

http://i42.tinypic.com/35lfcl4.jpg