french military victories <cough>

[Sibanac]

Originally posted by Wile_E_Coyote
<Warning! Strong scene described>

I once visited a website dedicated to the”anniversary” of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There were a lot of witness’ accounts and drawings of the events, and I can quite honestly say that it’s the most gruesome and grotesque crime against humanity ever committed. The suffering that the civilian population (they were after all cities not military targets) was beyond anything I’ve ever heard… It took people everything from hours to days and weeks before they finally could die. It was impossible to save them, but even so volunteers went in to ease the suffering paying the ultimate sacrifice, dying themselves of the radiation. Scenes like dying people by the scores trying to quench their thirst and cool their burns (half mad from pain) from a water tank where dead people floated, pregnant women and children included. People who went deranged because of swelling of the brain… Cannibalism…

The reasons for the bomb was pure terrorism (induce fear/terror into the public of the nation), there were no significant military targets in either cities. This is recent history, in the grand scheme of things 50 years is NOTHING. There were no one punished for war crimes and the nuclear program (and the view that it was a viable weapon) if anything picked up. Humanity is indeed mad, and fear what the “civilized” world (USA) is capable of doing. Terrorism is only bad when it happens to you m’kay....
uke:

Actualy the carpet/fire bomming of Dresden and Tokyo cause much more casualties. Most will also agree the the Bomming of Dresden had no military reason what so ever (Germans where beaten and there where no militatary targets in the city)

 

[old.job]

Obviously dropping a nuclear bomb on a town, without warning is going to be very,very nasty.
The reasons why they did it are so well documented and so clear cut it doesn't require an explanation.

 

[old.Dillinja]

Originally posted by old.LandShark
No, it's not a nice thought. You bring this up why?

I might be mistaken but we was talking about nuclear weapons?

Originally posted by old.LandShark

I fail to see the relevance of that

Are you even reading the same thread as me?

 

[old.LandShark]

Originally posted by old.Dillinja
I might be mistaken but we was talking about nuclear weapons?

So if we were discussing horse racing and I just sat in my chair saying "Hay guys, you know horseshit smells really bad, lol, wouldn't want to die by being drowned in horseshit, nope, no siree, no no, ew, nope." that'd be fine?

Originally posted by old.Dillinja
Are you even reading the same thread as me?

Yeah. I said that nuclear war was far less likely than military actions using non-nuclear weaponry, to which you replied first that nuclear incineration is really, really not fun if it hits you in the face, and then that you'd rather get shot in the face than die of cancer.

WHAT'S YOUR FUCKING POINT, YOU WITLESS FUCKCHUCKLE?
Why is it always you that pushes me into profanity?

 

[Flesh]

Originally posted by old.ivan
Congratz thats another "constructive" comment i've seen from ya. Must be really hard to keep em that "constructive".

Considering that's probably the only of my posts in this thread not to be fact. I'd say mine were alot more constructive then your blatant false bs.

 

[old.ivan]

Originally posted by Flesh
Considering that's probably the only of my posts in this thread not to be fact. I'd say mine were alot more constructive then your blatant false bs.

Its your right to feel that way about it. And i didnt say all your posts were "constructive", just one of quite a few

 

[Flesh]

This coming from the person that thought native American indians used cannons?

 

[Wile_E_Coyote]

Originally posted by old.job
Obviously dropping a nuclear bomb on a town, without warning is going to be very,very nasty.
The reasons why they did it are so well documented and so clear cut it doesn't require an explanation.

Yes, in order to win the war more quickly and not let communist Russia take more Japan controlled area than necessary thousands upon hundreds of thousands innocent civilians were killed. Guess the end justified the means.

Now, I'm very grateful I don't have to speak japanese today (not likely anyway since Japan was already losing the war), but my point is that in my opinion one evil doesn't justify another...

Sibanac: I know there were a lot of other atrocities as well in wwII. Human being is a scary creature isn't it?

War is bad m'kay...

 

[Flesh]

Originally posted by old.ivan
i agree Fluffy Little Animuls dont get enough lovin

Constructive.

Originally posted by old.ivan
PS: dont pretend to be smarter than you really are mate, you end up being a smart-arse.

 

[old.ivan]

Originally posted by Flesh
No, because the French never really did fuck all for them, they only really helped them after they had the war in the bag ..iirc oO

Re-read your post, then read my answer

I wonder who supplied the powder, cannons and ammunition etc etc etc was it the indian natives ?

next step is to spot the sarcasm.

Do you see now ?

PS: yep, do pick the phrases out of context, unfortunately its a vain effort.

 

[old.LandShark]

Originally posted by Wile_E_Coyote
Yes, in order to win the war more quickly and not let communist Russia take more Japan controlled area than necessary thousands upon hundreds of thousands innocent civilians were killed. Guess the end justified the means.

Now, I'm very grateful I don't have to speak japanese today (not likely anyway since Japan was already losing the war), but my point is that in my opinion one evil doesn't justify another...

Sibanac: I know there were a lot of other atrocities as well in wwII. Human being is a scary creature isn't it?

War is bad m'kay...

The old question of can the ends justify the means rages on
My personal opinion is that a nuclear attack, as soon as the technology was implmented, should have been directed so as to cause minimum human casualties; the undeniable power alone would easily have had a similar effect. On the other hand, it's possible that without the slightly sharper demonstration of the horror nukes could cause, the detterent might not have been sufficient to prevent the cold war from erupting. It's debatable, we can never know as we can't turn back time.
What's sick is how they must have gone from "We get to test our weapon, create a near-perfect deterrent and hopefully end the war, all in one go!" to "Let's also drop one more, just so we can test the second trigger mechanism type".
Anyhow.
Wile: ever hear of the rape of Nanking? Scale and specific type have very little to do with horror. I'm sure the aftermath of a nuclear event is horrific; but I'd frankly not call Nagasaki & Hiroshima any more horrific than the on-going poverty of the third world, nor than the aftermath of other military actions; carpet bombing, landmines, etc.
I defy you to disagree other than by saying one form of dehumanising suffering is worse than another, which, well, I'd disagree with.

I'd also like to add that you have a very odd definition of terrorism.
It is totally impossible, semantically and otherwise, for an attack by a nation against a nation it is at war with, to be terrorism; even if directed at noncombatants. It was an act totally forbidden by the Geneva convention; however the G.C. was not signed until 1949. I believe there were no international treaties preventing the involvement of noncombattants in effect at the time; hell, if there were I think Hitler's blitzkriegs on eastern France and later against England would have been just as much in violation.

 

[old.LandShark]

Originally posted by Flesh
This coming from the person that thought native American indians used cannons?

Retarded comment; he didn't say that.

 

[Flesh]

Originally posted by old.LandShark
Retarded comment

Suitably directed at a retarded person.

 

[old.LandShark]

Don't take it as a personal attack d00der

 

[Wile_E_Coyote]

I'd also like to add that you have a very odd definition of terrorism.

LandShark, I ment as in terror with an -ism behind. Terror being:
"Violence committed or threatened by a group to intimidate or coerce a population, as for military or political purposes."

And I don't know why everyone keep going after details of my wording. Strikes me as pedantic. Being in the state of war or not, hypocrisy aside, killing noncombattans is just as wrong no matter who does the killing.

ever hear of the rape of Nanking? Scale and specific type have very little to do with horror. I'm sure the aftermath of a nuclear event is horrific; but I'd frankly not call Nagasaki & Hiroshima any more horrific than the on-going poverty of the third world, nor than the aftermath of other military actions; carpet bombing, landmines, etc.

I totally agree with what you're saying here... Of course you can't measure human suffering. Its all very very wrong. But in a single incident I'm hard pressed to find the level of suffering and horror on such a large scale than that of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And certainly none that has been so easily forgotten and without consequences. The victor writes the historybooks... I might have said "one of the most gruesome..." I agree, since as you said, you really can't measure suffering and pain.

 

[Fafnir]

Are there any winners in a war?

 

[old.ivan]

Originally posted by Fafnir
Are there any winners in a war?

It depends on how you look at it, for example : did Americans win in the Gulf War ?
imo yes, they got the oil contracts they always wanted.

 

[eynar]

Like war is something to be proud of in the first place...

On a sidenote, who started most wars in the passed couple of decades?

 

[old.Dillinja]

Originally posted by old.LandShark
So if we were discussing horse racing and I just sat in my chair saying "Hay guys, you know horseshit smells really bad, lol, wouldn't want to die by being drowned in horseshit, nope, no siree, no no, ew, nope." that'd be fine?



Yeah. I said that nuclear war was far less likely than military actions using non-nuclear weaponry, to which you replied first that nuclear incineration is really, really not fun if it hits you in the face, and then that you'd rather get shot in the face than die of cancer.

WHAT'S YOUR FUCKING POINT, YOU WITLESS FUCKCHUCKLE?
Why is it always you that pushes me into profanity?

Witless fuckchuckle? What? Since when did this conversation involve wit? lol.

We was talking about nuclear facts, so I decided to bring one up.

Why must your opinion be the correct one?
Why must you spout off your shit at me if you don't like what I post?
Why must you start your pathetic attempt at flaming me when I have obviously done nothing to annoy you?
Why must you always contradict everything I say in almost every thread that we have both posted in?
Why must you make me hate you?
Why the fuck must you be so fucking arrogant all the time?

Answer me this, how did I push you into profanity by talking about radiation and fallout? If you see a guy on the TV commenting on radiation being nasty stuff, do you fire a gun at the screen? Or call him a witless fuckchuckle? I don't think so.
I think it's because you have some kind of unexplained hate for me, I've asked you why before but I didn't get any simple answer.

I'm going to just push this aside now and forget about it, this is very off-topic and I wouldn't want to ruin the thread, I just wanted to find out a few things about our friend Landshit here.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Ey! It's Landpoop you ignorant bafoon

And fallout is good, haven't you seen all those tv shows where people get hit by fallout and are able to post coherrant and intelligent stuff on the boards?!

I wanna be a superpostah too!

 

[old.LandShark]

Originally posted by old.Dillinja
Witless fuckchuckle? What? Since when did this conversation involve wit? lol.

We was talking about nuclear facts, so I decided to bring one up.

Why must your opinion be the correct one?
Why must you spout off your shit at me if you don't like what I post?
Why must you start your pathetic attempt at flaming me when I have obviously done nothing to annoy you?
Why must you always contradict everything I say in almost every thread that we have both posted in?
Why must you make me hate you?
Why the fuck must you be so fucking arrogant all the time?

Answer me this, how did I push you into profanity by talking about radiation and fallout? If you see a guy on the TV commenting on radiation being nasty stuff, do you fire a gun at the screen? Or call him a witless fuckchuckle? I don't think so.
I think it's because you have some kind of unexplained hate for me, I've asked you why before but I didn't get any simple answer.

I'm going to just push this aside now and forget about it, this is very off-topic and I wouldn't want to ruin the thread, I just wanted to find out a few things about our friend Landshit here.

You don't know what wit means. I say this not as sarcasm but a clinical fact; witless does not mean un-funny.
I'm perfectly within my rights to get annoyed at you for posting what I consider to be drivel. OMG NOOKS NASTY ((((((((((((((((((((((((((
Mate, given you once accused me of stalking you around the forums for no apparent reason, I'd say you're being hypocritical.
I didn't contradict anything you have said, you braindead; you said nuclear death is bad. I said it was irrelevant, not wrong
We appear to be destined for mutual dislike, blame god imo
Because I am always right. Always.

In conclusion:
For you:

For me in self-mockery:

And for everyone else:

 

[old.Tohtori]

A reply worth giving:

 

[old.Dillinja]

Originally posted by old.LandShark
We appear to be destined for mutual dislike

Yeah, let's leave it at that, at least its something we can both agree on.