Awful protest

[Chronictank]

Lol, you really are a funny little man. I made the thread because I was disgusted by a protest and I wanted to see how other people felt about it.

And the same as you I already knew when I posted anything with "Muslim" or "Extremists" in one of the first replies would be you, since you have with all other related threads.

Thats becuse all the cretins come out of the woodwork in those threads and in the current climate i think it is important to have a balanced account of the situation.
Not that it matters to you, you will also find i post in almost every thread well not so much lately but that is pretty accurate

Anyway back on topic, the people protesting that day were extremists and they DO support terroism.

No relevance to the protest

None of the boards supported terrorism from the pictures on the news

Their personal views are of no consequence the same way any biggoted or personal opinions have no bearing on public demonstrations of the past provided they weren't aired there

 

[BloodOmen]

Thats becuse all the cretins come out of the woodwork in those threads and in the current climate i think it is important to have a balanced account of the situation.
Not that it matters to you, you will also find i post in almost every thread well not so much lately but that is pretty accurate


No relevance to the protest

Their personal views are of no consequence the same way any biggoted or personal opinions have no bearing on public demonstrations of the past provided they weren't aired there

Ur a stubborn old sod

 

[Chronictank]

Ur a stubborn old sod

i just want to make it clear i support their views in no way at all
But i am arguing the point that they should be allowed to protest within the confines of the law because everyone else can do it too

Anyway comic relief Apprentice is on, ciao

 

[nath]

Depends if i am refering to the God or god as a concept
I also will want a source that it needs to be ""god" without a CAPITAL G" as well as a corresponding quote of someone telling me it should be that way prior to now

Good luck with that

*sigh*

Pointlessly argumentative - God is supposed to be written just so. Also when you refer to Him the h should be capitalised also. It's just the way we write it in the english language. If you're going to get all penickety about the way you refer to Mohammed, at least be consistent. Anyway, all this is beside the point.

Bloodomen - it isn't and shouldn't be illegal to agree with what happened on 9/11. Having thought police is not a tremendously good idea. However, ACTING on those ideas should be and indeed is already illegal.

 

[Chronictank]

Pointlessly argumentative - God is supposed to be written just so. Also when you refer to Him the h should be capitalised also. It's just the way we write it in the english language. If you're going to get all penickety about the way you refer to Mohammed, at least be consistent. Anyway, all this is beside the point.

.

He wanted to be picky i simply returned the favour
Thanks for telling me (well thanks goes to mabs really as he brought it up first ><), this is the first i have heard of it (which is why he wouldnt have found someone telling me to that effect, but i just found the thought of him trawling through all my posts funny )
but i shall endevour to refer to "the god" as God

 

[soze]

I wonder the people who want us to pull out of the war zone and come home what do they think will happen?

Will the people start living prosperous lives now the Brittish are gone? Or will the Taliban waltz back in and murder every woman who has shown her face and every man who got medical attention or spoke to the Brittish? Will more farmers be forced to grow poppy's so the peoples heroes the Taliban can make more money for buying weapons and training suicide bombers? And where will they all go now there will be no need to blow up shopping centers full of villagers, oh no wait there will always be a different tribe they can just try to purge from the earth.

 

[Huntingtons]

actually that is a factual statement

the american military believed that having taken all the islands from the japanese "death before surrender" having to actually take mainland japan would cost hundreds of thousands of american dead. so plan B was easier.

the fact that since then the numbers have been criticised doesnt change it at all, it was the best info available at the time.

"innocent" might have been a bit subjective, but they were on our side, we won, so we get to write the history.. its how it goes

execpt that Japan was already writing a surrender treaty. In fact USA had given them one which they gladly would have signed if it had contained information what would have happend to their emperor.
the Russians were planning to invade and the war had already ended.
USA wanted to boast with their power, nothing more - and they didnt care about civilians, not in 1945, not in 2002 and not in 2009.

Access Denied you may read this as well.

 

[soze]

execpt that Japan was already writing a surrender treaty. In fact USA had given them one which they gladly would have signed if it had contained information what would have happend to their emperor.
the Russians were planning to invade and the war had already ended.
USA wanted to boast with their power, nothing more - and they didnt care about civilians, not in 1945, not in 2002 and not in 2009.

Access Denied you may read this as well.

Where is your proof on that seeing as a lot of claims that Japan were about to surrender have been rubbished as they came from people interviewed after the bomb had dropped. This debate has gone on for 40 years and the one thing to remember is more people died though conventional airstrikes than the nukes so a continuted invasion / bombing may well have killed more people.

 

[Huntingtons]

i was at the memorial musem in nagasaki where i read that.
Sure more people died from conventional airstrikes - over a period of 5 years. this happend within a few days. Besides nagasaki wasnt main target, Kawasaki was, or kyoto. more densely populated.

 

[Access Denied]

i was at the memorial musem in nagasaki where i read that.

And there's a completely unbiased source. Narf!

 

[Huntingtons]

And there's a completely unbiased source. Narf!

yes, quite frankly i would say it is - are the british national musems biased?

 

[Mabs]

And there's a completely unbiased source. Narf!

QFT

yes, quite frankly i would say it is - are the british national musems biased?

haha open you eyes. of course they are biased
"history is written by the victor" anyway

/edit
and allow me to qualify that by saying i wouldnt expect a museum to LIE about stuff, just gloss over or omit it

 

[Mey]

YouTube - A word about the soldiers

Pat Condell, summing up his thoughts on the protest, quite interesting anyway.

 

[Chronictank]

edit: nr mind whats the point

 

[soze]

i was at the memorial musem in nagasaki where i read that.
Sure more people died from conventional airstrikes - over a period of 5 years. this happend within a few days. Besides nagasaki wasnt main target, Kawasaki was, or kyoto. more densely populated.

According to Wiki

On July 26, Truman and other allied leaders issued The Potsdam Declaration outlining terms of surrender for Japan. It was presented as an ultimatum and stated that without a surrender, the Allies would attack Japan, resulting in "the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland" but the atomic bomb was not mentioned. On July 28, Japanese papers reported that the declaration had been rejected by the Japanese government. That afternoon, Prime Minister Kantaro Suzuki declared at a press conference that the Potsdam Declaration was no more than a rehash (yakinaoshi) of the Cairo Declaration and that the government intended to ignore it (mokusatsu lit. "kill by silence"). The statement was taken by both Japanese and foreign papers as a clear rejection of the declaration. Emperor Hirohito, who was waiting for a Soviet reply to noncommittal Japanese peace feelers made no move to change the government position. On July 31, he made clear to his advisor Kōichi Kido that the Imperial Regalia of Japan had to be defended at all costs.

In early July, on his way to Potsdam, Truman had re-examined the decision to use the bomb. In the end, Truman made the decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan. His stated intention in ordering the bombings was to bring about a quick resolution of the war by inflicting destruction and instilling fear of further destruction in sufficient strength to cause Japan to surrender.

There were no signs there of surrender infact the surrender was ignored

 

[Huntingtons]

The surrender of Japan and subsequent occupation

Main articles: Surrender of Japan and Occupation of Japan
Up to August 9, the war council was still insisting on its four conditions for surrender. On that day Hirohito ordered Kido to "quickly control the situation" "because Soviet Union has declared war against us". He then held an Imperial conference during which he authorized minister Tōgō to notify the Allies that Japan would accept their terms on one condition, that the declaration "does not compromise any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of His Majesty as a Sovereign ruler".[58]
On August 12, the Emperor informed the imperial family of his decision to surrender. One of his uncles, Prince Asaka, then asked whether the war would be continued if the kokutai could not be preserved. Hirohito simply replied "of course".[59] As the Allied terms seemed to leave intact the principle of the preservation of the Throne, Hirohito recorded on August 14 his capitulation announcement which was broadcast to the Japanese nation the next day despite a short rebellion by militarists opposed to the surrender.
In his declaration, Hirohito referred to the atomic bombings :
“ Moreover, the enemy now possesses a new and terrible weapon with the power to destroy many innocent lives and do incalculable damage. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization. Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects, or to atone Ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers.
” In his "Rescript to the soldiers and sailors" delivered on August 17, he stressed the impact of the Soviet invasion and his decision to surrender, omitting any mention of the bombs.
During the year after the bombing, approximately 40,000 U.S. occupation troops were in Hiroshima. Nagasaki was occupied by 27,000 troops.

this means they had been working on surrendering before the bombs dropped (9th of August.)

and to any one who thinks the bombs was a smart move, i suggest you watch some photos, read some diaries and watch some clips of people who have been there. then decide if a weapon like that really needs to be used.

 

[soze]

this means they had been working on surrendering before the bombs dropped (9th of August.)

and to any one who thinks the bombs was a smart move, i suggest you watch some photos, read some diaries and watch some clips of people who have been there. then decide if a weapon like that really needs to be used.

Ahh you were talking about the second bomb the first was dropped on the 6th.

And no war is pretty if you think the continued carpet bombing of populated cities with incendiary bombs would look any better your wrong.

 

[Huntingtons]

it says up the the 9th not from the 6th to the 9th just to clarify.

but also, we both use the same source, but they display different information.
Your source claims they ignored the surrender treaty, my source claim they wanted it clarified.