9/11 [Archive] - dogbomb.co.uk

Squalion

Sep 12, 2003, 22:42

thunderbird2 spouted:

As much as I despise human suffering, America has made its bed, now it can shut the fuck up and lie in it.

Agreed.

Just a few weeks ago, the anniversairy took place of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Two Japanese cities, nuked by America. From the initial blast, around 120000 people died. From horrific burns and radiation poisoning, about 80000 more.

It was at the end of the war, and America knew they were going to surrender. Hitler was being assfucked, and the USA knew this. Their excuse: japan 'shat on' them first. Er, no.
Japan bombed Pearl Harbour as a prequel to the nuke.
Pearl Harbour was a military target.
Hiroshima and nagasaki were CITIES. Yet America dropped not one but TWO atomic bombs on these cities, murdering hundreds of thousands of innocents, and tainting future generations with terrible scars and deformities, and leaving the land flooded with radiation for years to come.

Where's the appreciation for poor souls that died in this event? Where's the sobbing and lamenting on the news for these? It's nowhere.

Same for the vietnamese, same for the Koreans, same for everyone else America has decided to screw over for no justifying reason.

It was only a matter of time before people got pissed off, it was hardly a suprise to me. I was hoping it would change the US government's attitude but it seemed it hasn't, at all.

I'm sorry for the people that died, but not for America as a country. The people didn't deserve it, but their country had it coming. Had it been UK or even Canada attacked in the same way, I guarantee it wouldn't be splashed over the news or even remembered in America.

http://www.dannen.com/decision/ - for some interesting insider quotes/opinions from the US at the time.

http://nuketesting.enviroweb.org/hew/Japan/Hirosh.html - for pictures of the effect, and also shocking images of what it did to the actual people.

9/11 kind of pales in comparison really, doesn't it.

marie

Sep 12, 2003, 22:52

I remember at a school sports day the team representing my school playing netball won the tournament. I was excused from taking part because I'd just got back to school after having an operation on both of my ears. When the tournament was over I congratulated one of the players and said 'yay we won!'

She said "We? You didn't play. It's 'yay, YOU won" and she stalked off.

So my personal opinion is that people who sit at a pc in their comfy little homes shouldn't be spouting off about whose death was more justified than the death of another. Discussing history is one thing but acting like it's personally affected your life and other people are being insensitive for disagreeing with you is just - imho- fucking pathetic.

Hello Donkeybutt.

Melobee

Sep 12, 2003, 23:04

For your information, I'm not just sitting here in my comfy computer chair. I have loved ones fighting for my country right now.

I think the reason why it was such a shock to Americans is that things like that don't usually happen. They just don't. And yeah, maybe if things happened elsewhere in the world, it wouldn't be such a big deal, but I guess maybe Americans just don't like being through something like that. That's just the way this country is. Yeah I don't agree with everything about the country I live in.

I do not LIKE President Bush, I did not VOTE for him. I do not like the fact that he's screwing up the job economy, that my mom is out of a job and almost out of her chances to go to college because Hussein was not taken care of properly.

And do you know why we're at war? Yes, because Hussein has some of our nuclear weapons or something like that, but also because we don't like that fact that those people over there in Iraq have suffered so much in Hussein's hands.

To tell you the truth, yeah, sometimes I think, "Well they're making too damn big of a deal out of this."

But hey, I live around the Kinzua Bridge and WE made a big deal out of it...because it's part of our history.

I'm just sort of ranting but I figured I'd write that. Yeah, I didn't think about Hiroshima, and I don't know why I didn't, but it's not like we told them they should lie down and take it. And no one should.

"We're not gonna take it, we're gonna break it..."
(The Who)

marie

Sep 12, 2003, 23:14

Melobee spouted:
For your information, I'm not just sitting here in my comfy computer chair. I have loved ones fighting for my country right now.

But not you. How about you concentrate on praying for them (if you're religious I suppose) instead of trying to change the world in your mind as though something might come of it in real life.

You can't change anything so why waste your time focussing on something you can't do anything about?

Melobee

Sep 12, 2003, 23:22

I said that, "I have loved ones fighting for my country" and I meant that I understand because of them, I understand this is something we can't do anything about.

I don't normally phocus on this stuff but I saw it and thought, well, what's this? So I looked at it and was kind of shocked that someone was telling us to just leave it be or whatever. Yes, I pray that these people I know are doing good and serving their country where I can't.

And something COULD come out of this in real life. Something has. People are dead. People are dying, people are being tortured. And maybe we can't do something for everybody, but isn't it better that we do something than nothing?

"I do this so, this world will know, that it will not change me."
(Garth Brooks)

marie

Sep 12, 2003, 23:29

Melobee spouted:
I said that, "I have loved ones fighting for my country" and I meant that I understand because of them, I understand this is something we can't do anything about.

I don't normally phocus on this stuff but I saw it and thought, well, what's this? So I looked at it and was kind of shocked that someone was telling us to just leave it be or whatever. Yes, I pray that these people I know are doing good and serving their country where I can't.

And something COULD come out of this in real life. Something has. People are dead. People are dying, people are being tortured. And maybe we can't do something for everybody, but isn't it better that we do something than nothing?

"I do this so, this world will know, that it will not change me."
(Garth Brooks)

So what are you going to do then?

I know it's frustrating to see it all happen and not be able to do a damn thing about it by yourself but it saves a lot of unnecessary stress if you concentrate on the things you CAN do, like helping those close to you whose lives you CAN affect for the better.

Melobee

Sep 12, 2003, 23:42

All I CAN do is support American troops.

thunderbird2

Sep 13, 2003, 04:25

Donkey bit of a knee jerk reaction from you this

DonkeyButt spouted:

look upon the 9-11 terrorists as "martyrs"

Saw the word "martyr" and automatically assume I'm pro Bin-Laden did we? I was referring to the people who died as a result of the attacks being martyred by those other fanatics, Americans, not the terrorists.

, but don't you dare going fucking on about all the countries american has "shat on" for every country america has had to wage war upon and decimate, it has made twice that number of countries from being far deeper into desolation than without the help of america.

Oh that hoary old chestnut - "We brought them civilisation!!" - it was also used by the old appartheid system in South Africa as a justification for why whites should lord over the rest of the country. No actually the US didn't give anything, but took lots - US drug companies use Africa as their private testing ground for AIDS vaccines, because their experiments would be illegal in the US. American business has tacitly used slavery from Banana Republics through to Disney's sweat shops in Indonesia and Malaysia, which would also be illegal in the US. In all these cases America has not brought civilisation. Just as they had brought nothing to Greece, Spain, Italy, Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, South America, in fact any country America has had dealings with.

america has the right to issue a foreign policy with the consent of the foreign country's government

Why? Who elected the US as arbiters of anything? This line of argument belongs with the "nobody can tell the US what to do" line of reasoning - you live on a planet most of which doesn't come under your national borders, respect the fact.
Current American policy has done more to destabilise the world than Reagan, that was the guy who almost had a nuclear war in 1983. It has singlehandedly succeeded in uniting the Arabs (against the US), Europe (against the US), and depending how badly North Korea is handled possibly asia as well.

By creating concentrated political blocks we go back to the world pre WWII, were the chances of local skirmishes taking on global proportions becomes very easy. Well done America!

All down to 11/09 which like Perl Harbour, is an ego thing - how dare anyone attack us!!! Nothing to do with the high sounding principles of "justice" which get touted - where was this moral high ground in the dealings with all the countries I've mentioned. Welcome to the real world, actions have consequences.

"shat"...what the hell?!

past participle of the verb "to shit".

thunderbird2

Sep 13, 2003, 04:35

Melobee spouted:
And you, thunderbird, don't know what it's like, maybe because YOUR country wasn't the one being attacked.

you got that backwards I'm afraid - the US didn't know what it was like to be attacked till 11/09.

As I already stated I not just sympathised with the people who died, I empathised. As did many other non Americans. Instead of capitalising on that empathy, the US has only succeeded in alienating themselves.

if America laid down and just took it in the ass from everybody that gave it to them, where in the hell do you think we'd be?

Yes that's the attitude that lost you all that sympathy and respect - by assuming everyone is like you, you force everyone into sodomy, and nobody wants to be the biatch.

thunderbird2

Sep 13, 2003, 04:54

Squalion spouted:

Just a few weeks ago, the anniversairy took place of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Two Japanese cities, nuked by America. From the initial blast, around 120000 people died. From horrific burns and radiation poisoning, about 80000 more.

I've actually been to both cities, and visited the holocaust museums. Odd isn't it that both America and Japan signed agreements limiting the possibility of law suits regarding the conduct of both countries in the war.

Also interesting is the fact that both bombs were set to explode in the air above the cities to maximise the dispersal of radioactive fall out. While the choice to drop the bombs is a whole other can of worms, unless one wished to find out about the effects of radiation on humans as well as destroy targets, this last snippet makes no sense. That would also explain the sensing apparatus which were dropped immediately after the blast.

ReverendPete

Sep 13, 2003, 05:46

Since this thread's been going this way here's a link to a pretty good article on terrorism in general. I thought it was pretty good. Tell me what you think.

Why Terrorism Works

ReverendPete

Sep 13, 2003, 05:47

Sorry, the link didn't go. Try this.

http://bigjweb.com/artman/publish/article_884.shtml

Squalion

Sep 13, 2003, 08:53

DonkeyButt spouted:

i don't know why i bother replying to sucj insanely dimwitted posts; maybe i just can't resist a pointless argument, but i'll say my piece anyway.

how the fuck DARE you say american had no justifiable reason?

Dare? It's hardly daring, the facts stare up at me in the face.

simple formulaic mathematical example:
pearl harbor attack = retaliatory action= nuclear bomb + x (number of people killed or severely injured in hiroshima/nagasaki bombing) = WWII.
they hit, we hit back harder.

And I see no justifiable reason there, whatsoever. You fail to mention that pearl hearbour was bombed by conventional methods, that it was a military target, and that Hiroshima and Nagasaki are both ordinary cities full of innocent people, women and children. No other country would stoop so low as to murder them the way America did, purely to impress it's own government, to stay as the big dog in the yard, and to test their latest instrument of mass destruction.
They hit, you commit and unspeakable act of human slaughter. Yes, thats an even equation isnt it.

Your little harbour got bombed, so you nuke 2 cities. Justified? No. If THAT's jusitfied, then 9/11 CERTAINLY is.
'america hit them, they hit backer' - seems fair to me.

Only difference is Japan didn't whine about it and use it as an excuse to invade another country again, they had to shut up and surrender, and sign things to make sure they couldn't sure america for most probably a gross travesty of human rights. They had no Enrique Iglesias remixes about the tragedy, had no firefighters to be praised over half the world, just funeral pyres scattered over a barren landscape. Their ground zero makes yours look like a crack in a pavement.

that's why this country is where it is today.

Universally loathed?

9-11 was unjustifiable. you think just because you got us down for a while that we can be completely knocked out, but just as in the past we're up and running stronger and more united than ever. fuck off.

Unjustifial to you maybe, not to people screwed over by your country. And I dunno where you get the 'you think' stuff from. I didn't mention America being knocked out or anything. You're being far too patriotic here, I didn't speak badly of your people, just the country itself, it's government, it's attitude/actions. I don't WANT to see you 'knocked out', I don't want people to die. But if you were to get knocked out, it'd be no suprise to me, and I'd have no sympathy for your government, or anyone who voted in Truman/Bush.

And no matter what you think, no matter how many times you bomb the middle east, it's only a matter of time before Bush or anyone else tries to dominate the world that little bit more and in the process of doing so pisses off the wrong nation and suddenly there's hundreds of nukes flying over the Pacific, and everyone who was smiling at Bush in public before is sat in their embassies sweeping their past relations under the same carpet that America swept it's past under.

thunderbird2

Sep 13, 2003, 11:09

ReverendPete spouted:
Sorry, the link didn't go. Try this.
http://bigjweb.com/artman/publish/article_884.shtml

The article starts out well "Stop thinking like a Westerner and you will begin to understand terrorism". Yet this comment is only to set the scene for the argument that terrorism is born from the jealousy of the less successful created by the gains of the more successful. Fair enough point, however I would use the words "negativity" or "bad feeling" instead of "jealousy". This negativity displayed by the Arabs, isn't just displayed by Arabs, but in fact any culture in the less developed world, who are in the less developed world not because they have stagnated cultures, or are poor businessmen, but because the "rules" of trade being stacked in the favour of the (western) house.

The nations who started the organisations which finance and police international trade are interested in raw materials, and are looking for ways to get them as cheaply as possible. That's why oil producing arab nations don't depend on the WTO, but rather OPEC to decide the fate of oil. Other countries, which aren't able to create powerful organisations to defend them, are only left with the choice of refusing to play the game of "westernisation" and look elsewhere. This is the single unifying idea which has created so many muslims, in so many historically diverse countries.

The rest of the article contends that by fighting a terrorist war, terrorists have shifted the ground rules making the honest sport of war fraught with moral dilemmas, but wasn't the war of independence originally a terrorist war?

In short, a refusal to step out of the hollywood "goodies in white hats, baddies in black hats" mentality and to admit at least partial responsibility for the events leading up to the creation of the group that perpetrated 11/09. The reason is simple, it's Hulk Hogan all over again, the baddy has been cheating, pulling hair and poking eyes, so Hulk has earned the right to wrathful vengeance and can start cheating, pulling hair and poking eyes himself. By being a victim the US is entitled to do anything it sees fit to redress the situation, like invading 2 countries with no connection to 11/09 and stepping in and out of organisations which are binding to other countries.

However this same belief that it can now lie, cheat and steal with impunity, is what also has alienated so many people previously allied with America since 11/09. Perhaps the people of the US should really consider what "Stop thinking like a Westerner and you will begin to understand" actually means.

Melobee

Sep 13, 2003, 16:34

Yeah well I don't seen any body from other countries going over to Iraq and doing something about the assholes that are torturing people over there.

And yeah in several ways I don't agree with this war, as a matter of fact, we're confusing two things: the attack Osama Bin Laden planned on us is something entirely different than Saddam Hussein. You do notice who the president is right now?

I think part of this whole war is that Bush wants to get Saddam Hussein where his dear old daddy couldn't.

It was a cowardly thing to do, attacking America in such a way. That's the reason why we're never attacked, did you notice? Because we hit back harder. It was under wraps, the whole thing, and then suddenly I hear, someone hi-jacked a plane.

And I don't care if you think it's WRONG for me to think that America has every right to be pissed off, that's part of what being an American is. This country is free.

Wish gasoline was free though.

thunderbird2

Sep 13, 2003, 19:45

Melobee spouted:
I don't agree with this war.......we're confusing two things: the attack Osama Bin Laden planned on us is something entirely different than Saddam Hussein......
we have some common ground :)

I don't seen any body from other countries going over to Iraq and doing something about the assholes that are torturing people over there.

Like a lot of other countries Saddam was backed by the US, under the "he's a bastard, but at least he's our bastard" philosophy. They bankrolled him and, along with the UK and other countries, supplied him with most of the weaponry he was accused of having. He also had the second largest reserves of oil in the world.

I don't care if you think it's WRONG for me to think that America has every right to be pissed off

Actually I don't think it's wrong to be annoyed/shocked/outraged etc, I think it is wrong however to let those feelings drown out everything else and not let yourselves admit you were involved in creating the problem, in view of the stakes.

Squalion

Sep 13, 2003, 20:04

DonkeyButt spouted:

pearl harbor and the libya incident in the 90s, among others, you inhumane fuckwit.

Hm, well, pearl harbour was a pretty big bombing, but as it was in war, not really a 'tragedy' in this context. I'd say the same if a Jap port got bombed, after they'd started a war.

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pearl.html

Ignore the heading, you don't have to believe it, but as you can see, there's plenty (possibly all) of facts below.

USA hadn't experience such a well..rape..before 9/11. Nothing that wasn't inside a war, or of it's own doing. But the point is, it brought all of this on itself.

thunderbird2

Sep 13, 2003, 20:06

DonkeyButt spouted:

pearl harbor

wasn't that a surprise attack of a military target?

Odd you don't mention the unprovoked attack by US Admiral C.Perry who twice arrived in Japanese waters with gunboats demanding the Japanese open their country to trade unconditionally with the US.

Completely different right?
Lets see that was 1893-94, Perl Harbor was 1941 so 48 years difference, and one didn't cause the other? the fact that the Yanks came, saw and butt fucked, didn't inspire the Japanese to industrialise, arm themselves and attack their attacker?

Learn to join up the dots Donkey.

Libya incident in the 90s feel free to refresh my memory about this one - I don't seem to remember Lybia sending an army to invade the US.

Melobee

Sep 13, 2003, 20:31

See the thing is I don't understand why Osama Bin Laden attacked us, because as far as I know, we never did anything to him. If I'm not mistaken though part of it was that we were so racist against Islams and the like, well, _I_ for one wasn't, but the thing is, there's racism against all kinds of different people all over the world. And I still don't understand whatever it was that makes us DESERVE to be attacked like that. No one should. Hiroshima - No. Pearl Harbor - No.

Anyway so yeah, if anyone could explain to me WHY Bin Laden attacked us, WHAT GOOD REASON he had...

"Listen, should we fight forever, knowing as we do know, fear destroys? Listen, should we leave or children? Listen, our lives stare in silence; help us now. Listen, you friends have been broken, they tell us of your poison; now we know. Kill them, give them as they give us. Slay them, on to hell..."
(Yes)

hugo-a-gogo

Sep 13, 2003, 21:57

hmm, who won that debate then

thunderbird2

Sep 13, 2003, 21:59

Melobee spouted:
See the thing is I don't understand why Osama Bin Laden attacked us

I can only summise what I've read about the situation, others amy want to correct any errors I make here. For Bin Laden his motivation comes from the US troops stationed in Kuwait, which he regards as holy ground. He sees the troops as defilers. However while that is his personal bone of contention, it isn't necessarily where the motivation for those that took part in the 11/09 attacks came from. A large part of pre IraqII support came from the tensions generated by the sense of alienation poor countries have in the face of "westernisation" (of which the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is seen as symbolic). Bin Laden has only managed to give a focus to general feelings of resentment and victimisation. I believe it's precisely this which he considers justification for going against the Islamic code against killing, by being victims people are absolved of guilt and accountability. Sound familiar?

This is why the US has to stop playing the same game, it's a one way road with no exits. I understand the importance of not giving in to bullies, but I would think it much more intelligent to change the exploitative business practices, for a more benevolent form of capitalism, and thereby removing his power base and potential recruits - happy, well fed, contented people make bad revolutionaries.

thunderbird2

Sep 13, 2003, 22:20

DonkeyButt spouted:

i'm done with this fucker. it's like teaching english to a pic or trying to get a brick wall to slap you five. what a dim bulb.

Judging by the total lack of facts supporting any of your arguments, I take it you're talking about yourself.

Reading this, a guide on not feeling dumb by an American for Americans, might help you over the current slump you are facing (with free dig at Europeans in the end, just to encourage you to read it :) ).

http://www.watchingyou.com/stupidamericans.html

bassoon

Sep 13, 2003, 22:49

Good link t-bird. I have to admit, for a nation that bitch slaps a lot of third worlders around, the U.S. hasn't had a lot happen to it. It is just much easier for the poor and oppressed to strike back in an area much closer to them geographically. I suppose this is probably why we don't beat the cannucks into better shape.
After all why would I poop in my yard when I can afford to fly over and totally bury yours in shit.

thunderbird2

Sep 13, 2003, 23:09

bassoon spouted:
I suppose this is probably why we don't beat the cannucks into better shape....

you of course know the US-Canadian war never officially ended :)

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/reference/18cmp.htm

Melobee

Sep 13, 2003, 23:48

I don't think I would like it for us to not be allies with Canada, being that they're right next to us and I think Canadians are cool! :)

Squalion

Sep 14, 2003, 01:52

DonkeyButt spouted:

*rolls eyes*
i'm done with this fucker. it's like teaching english to a pic or trying to get a brick wall to slap you five. what a dim bulb.

all I can say to that is :haha::haha:

thunderbird2

Sep 14, 2003, 02:14

with regards what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, here are virtual tours of the museums in the two cities

Hiroshima:
http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/peacesite/English/Stage1/Vtour/1-5E.html

Nagasaki:
http://www1.city.nagasaki.nagasaki.jp/na-bomb/museum/m1-1e.html

ReverendPete

Sep 14, 2003, 06:26

[QUOTE]ReverendPete spouted:
[B]Since this thread's been going this way here's a link to a pretty good article on terrorism in general.

One of the main reasons I posted that article was to say, that yes, what is going on now is fucked up; but unfotuneatly that is the way things go sometimes. In no way do I whole-heartedly back everything my country (America) has done in recent months/years but to say that we were wrong for Hiroshima/Nagasaki is just plain bullshit. Granted that maybe on an ethical level you could stand your ground and point fingers at who was wrong and who was right, but those times were different. I realise That most of you are European, do you think Hitler gave a fuck if London was a millitary target? Do you think the Holocaust victims cared? WHAT THE FUCK PEOPLE? Just because we killed a bunch of civilians in Japan doesn't mean we were wrong, it just means that they sided with "Them" instead of "Us". Nothing more, nothing less. Ask your Parents and Grand-Parents what they think

butchspangly

Sep 14, 2003, 08:47

thunderbird2 spouted:

...................happy, well fed, contented people make bad revolutionaries.

Spot on TB2

wbps

Sep 15, 2003, 10:25

30 ish years of terrorism on the British mainland and in Ireland. A large part of it paid for by "Oirish" Americans.

I didn't notice B-52 airstrikes on Belfast and Ulster. Is that because it happens in nice civilised Western Europe? Or does it not matter because no Americans were involved in the Omagh bombing?

/sighs

If you feel so strongly, go out and do something about it. Enlist in the army and go to Iraq. Go to Kosovo and dig up landmines. Anything to assuage your outraged sensabilities.

Manta7

Sep 15, 2003, 12:31

Any Historian will tell you, that the use of Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified if you take into consideration the situation and circumstances at the time, and they were not casually used as ordinary weapons of war to mindlessly wipe out innocent lives. Trueman and his cabinet made the decision to use atomic weaponary for the following reasons:-

1/ Japan's constant refusal to accept unconditional surrender
2/ The appalling breach of human rights dealt out to POWs by Japanese soldiers.
3/ The Emperor's acceptance to see the Japanese race wiped out than surrender.
4/ Bombed our ruined towns and cities throughout the country would have seen another Stalingrad on a much larger scale.
5/ The upkeep of morale of The American Armed Forces
6/ To prevent the Soviet Union invading Japan who had by then entered the war against the Japanese.
7/ Japanese use of kamikazis (suicide bombers) detailing their lack of regard for the their own Armed Forces.
8/ Ultimately to bring the war to a swift conclusion and to prevent further loss of life.

Following the bombings, Japan unconditionally surrended to the Allies possibly saving millions more lives.

Squalion

Sep 15, 2003, 16:40

Manta7 spouted:
Any Historian will tell you,

Every history teacher I've ever had has spat on them for doing that, in fact my most recent one frequently expressed his views on the country regarding the things they did. When asked about whether they knew about 11/9 or not, the comment from a history teacher of 10+ years, degree and everything, was 'I wouldn't put it past them'.

1/ Japan's constant refusal to accept unconditional surrender

No excuse for nukes.

2/ The appalling breach of human rights dealt out to POWs by Japanese soldiers.

I guess the US took a lesson from them when their soldiers went to Korea and Vietnam then eh?

3/ The Emperor's acceptance to see the Japanese race wiped out than surrender.

How was he to know they'd be wiped out? They were allies with Germany for a start, and maybe he thought better of America to murder countless civillians.

4/ Bombed our ruined towns and cities throughout the country would have seen another Stalingrad on a much larger scale.

What are AA defenses for?

5/ The upkeep of morale of The American Armed Forces

Kill 150000 people to keep the squaddies grinning, that proves my points about America even more so.

6/ To prevent the Soviet Union invading Japan who had by then entered the war against the Japanese.

Lol, so now they SAVED them by nuking 2 cities?

7/ Japanese use of kamikazis (suicide bombers) detailing their lack of regard for the their own Armed Forces.

1. Japanese history and culture leads me to believe that it wasn't a lack of regard, more of a twisted (from our point of view) war ethic. Honour and loyalty has always been a big thing in Japan, right from the samurais to the Army. It's not like they said 'who cares, let em die'. In their way of thinking, it held great pride to die for your country like that.

2. That is still no excuse to bomb cities and kill CIVILIANS, who weren't even in the damn army.

8/ Ultimately to bring the war to a swift conclusion and to prevent further loss of life.

Which could have been accomplished by fighting enemy soliders. Hitler was getting his arse kicked anyway.
Japan could have easily been made to surrender via a land invasion.

Now let's list some points you missed out;

1. To impress their own government.
2. To test the efficieny of the A-bomb on cities.
3. To test the killing power of the A bomb against humans.
4. To use the above 2 results to put the fear in every other country on the world, keeping 'on top'.
5. To help stay ahead of Russia in the arms race.
6. Because they could, and they're America, therefore they did.

dogbomb

Sep 15, 2003, 16:47

Today. I made this.

http://www.dogbomb.co.uk/more2/b3ta_911jenga.jpg

drnoble

Sep 15, 2003, 16:55

That shouldn't be funny,

but it's bloody hilarious :D :haha::haha::haha:

Squalion

Sep 15, 2003, 17:14

omfg :haha::haha::haha::haha:

That's....beyond belief...jesus...lmao

hugo-a-gogo

Sep 15, 2003, 17:27

all hail dogbomb

Manta7

Sep 15, 2003, 18:30

Squalion, history teachers are responsible for reporting events factually. It was, therefore irresponsible that all of your previous tutors gave forth their own conspiracy theories to events that have occurred, which are not only totally baseless of evidence but impossible to prove. They have not only failed at their professions, but failed to give you the proper understanding of history you require. In other words you have been brainwashed with lies and empty dogma.

I surmise that either you were taught by the 'thought police' who intend to create hatred towards America and feel ashamed of our past (people I refer to as bearded, corduroy hippies) or you went to a school that has Abel Hamza as it's patron.

The rest of your post is equally frightening, the thought police have had a field day with you haven't they?

May I recommend you purchase this book http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0761534040/102-6781818-2103331?v=glance to see how damaging your mind has been polluted. You will thank me later.

Brausen

Sep 15, 2003, 18:45

Manta7 spouted:
history teachers are responsible for reporting events factually.

Haaaaaa! History is written by the winning side. It's not factual.

Is there a ladybird book about history? Perhaps you could point me to that.

Squalion

Sep 15, 2003, 19:19

Manta7 spouted:
Squalion, history teachers are responsible for reporting events factually.

Which they did, and I can't see where my post says otherwise.

It was, therefore irresponsible that all of your previous tutors gave forth their own conspiracy theories to events that have occurred, which are not only totally baseless of evidence but impossible to prove.

I didn't mention conspiracy theories. I was only ever given facts, and made my own opinions based on them. They may have made a few comments regarding their own (factually based) opinion but that's by the by, I never took anything they ever said to be gospel unless I could read a fact behind it.

In other words you have been brainwashed with lies and empty dogma.

You are joking right? So, because I was informed on some stuff America doesn't like people remembering or discussing, I've been 'brainwashed with lies'? I think you'll find the 'brainwashing' takes place in America day in day out, not just by historians and politicians but by a LOT of others too..but that's an entirely different debate.

I surmise that either you were taught by the 'thought police' who intend to create hatred towards America and feel ashamed of our past (people I refer to as bearded, corduroy hippies) or you went to a school that has Abel Hamza as it's patron.

You're so far off the mark you'd laugh at yourself for even typing those sentences if you ever met my teachers. None had beards, none were hippies, and none intended to create 'hate' of any kind. They were all normal, laid back. extremely highly educated people, working at one of the best schools in the UK.

I detect a tad of over defensiveness here? Let's get things straight here, there was no inciting of hatred or whatnot, just a variety of facts and a few educated opinions.

The rest of your post is equally frightening, the thought police have had a field day with you haven't they?

Nope? I presume the vicar had fun with yours though?

May I recommend you purchase this book http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0761534040/102-6781818-2103331?v=glance to see how damaging your mind has been polluted. You will thank me later.

LOL @ that, 'assult on free minds and free speech'? Defending a nation of which a large population indoctrinate their children from birth? Where pigheadedness and narrowmindedness is world-reknown? Don't make me laugh. Let me guess, all written by Americans?
the frequent 'left' comments throughout the 'also bought' section are equally amusing. Not like America to use a scapegoat is it?
/me remembers reading about American propaganda at the time of the cold war, 'communism is evil! communism knocks countries down like dominoes! we must rally together to cleanse other nations communism! (despite it being none of our business)'

No thank you, I'll continue to read unbiased history books and make my own opinion from them.

Manta7

Sep 15, 2003, 19:50

Brausen spouted:

Haaaaaa! History is written by the winning side. It's not factual.

Perhaps in the case of the Soviet Union, China and other corrupt regimes where people have little chance to question events, you may have a point. In the case of the the USA and Britain it does not apply, for the simple fact that documentation is provided for the public giving clear reasons for actions taken.

hugo-a-gogo

Sep 15, 2003, 19:55

it must be very comforting to be so naive

Patrick

Sep 15, 2003, 20:21

That picture is fucking hilarious dogbomb..It rivals dave browns swissarmyphone and teeth.

Manta7

Sep 15, 2003, 21:10

Squalion, all you've achieved is present your own ideas and hatred you have developed for the Americans imbedded into you from your left-wing tutors - whatever clothes they wore. You have presented no factual evidence to support your claims of the reasoning behind America's decision to drop the atomic bombs whatsoever. To disprove the claims you need to provide proof, failure do so makes you nothing more than a conspiracy theorist.

My explanation of events were based on the reasoning given by President Truman, and yes I believe him as I have a good understanding of the dilemmas which faced the Americans at the time.

So given the choice between President Truman and yourself, I know who I believe.

thunderbird2

Sep 15, 2003, 21:56

For anyone interested in some well researched writings about Japan and the war I highly recommend "Japan in War and Peace: Selected Essays" by John W. Dower.

Manta7 spouted:

1/ Japan's constant refusal to accept unconditional surrender

while I said before dropping the bomb is a can of worms there are a few facts I think you are unaware of:

The second bomb, Nagasaki, was unnecessary, surrender was immanent. The target was chosen, not for its military value (it was a secondary target), but basically to see the effects of a bomb exploded in a valley, unlike Hiroshima which was on a plain. Both bombs were exploded in the air to maximise the spread of nuclear fallout, the results of which are still being lived by people in those areas today.

Finally, my interpretation rather than a fact, the amount of propaganda films produced by the US after using the bombs, to convince the American public the decision was justifiable, tends to smell of "Thou doth protesteth too much"

2/ The appalling breach of human rights dealt out to POWs by Japanese soldiers.

While not condoning the various atrocities committed by the Japanese in Asia and on pows, it is worthwhile pointing out that the Japanese had been studying European imperialism previous to the war. I already mentioned in another thread that the British invented concentration camps during the Boer War, but I also suggest you look into the British Raj and China, particularly the opium trade.

3/ The Emperor's acceptance to see the Japanese race wiped out than surrender.

The Emperors role was symbolic, and for the same reason that the pope didn't end up in the Neurenburg trials for his part in Mussolini's government, The Emperor was not executed at the end of the war along with the heads of the militaristic government headed by Tojo.

Had the Germans succeeded in invading the UK, I'm sure the lives of Joe Public would not have been held in higher regard, than that of the queen.

4/ Bombed our ruined towns and cities throughout the country would have seen another Stalingrad on a much larger scale.

Japan attacked America and other countries in Asia, forcing the British to leave a couple. That's why Britain was at war with the Japanese not because they bombed the UK, that was the Germans.

5/ The upkeep of morale of The American Armed Forces

Rather the establishment of the US as a super power, I mentioned the second bomb had no military purpose, it had a political purpose.

6/ To prevent the Soviet Union invading Japan who had by then entered the war against the Japanese.

Ahh yes the myth that the cold war began they day after WWII ended. If that were the case then the Americans wouldn't have expended considerable time, money and energy in rooting out right wing sympathisers from among the wheels of government in Japan and replacing them with left wingers. This went on to about 1949, when the Americans began to worry that left wingers might sympathise with communism, and the polarity was reversed - all the old guard were brought back with a vengeance,

7/ Japanese use of kamikazis (suicide bombers) detailing their lack of regard for the their own Armed Forces.

World War I anyone? The senseless slaughter of millions. What does that show about our culture's compassion for it's soldiers?

8/ Ultimately to bring the war to a swift conclusion and to prevent further loss of life..... saving millions more lives.

Yes this was the main justification on the part of the Americans - lets not forget by playing on the same team the UK gets a mention but it was the US that did all the post war reconstruction, including moving the political orientation of the post war government rightwards again as the cold war began (as mentioned in point 6). However the figure the Americans used wasn't millions, but in the hundreds of thousands, and they were talking about American troops only.

In tactical terms, there was no real need to drop the bomb, they could have just blockaded Japan and continued regular bombing raids on military targets - Japan has virtually no natural resources, those it had were taken from the new Japanese colonies like Korea, Burma etc. Again to justify their decision, the Americans claimed the Japanese had stockpiled enough raw materials to fight a 100 year war, logistically this is impossible. At the time of the invasion there wasn't enough food in Japan to feed the population, and contrary to popular belief there was a lot of grass roots unrest which could have been exploited.

The current peace driven constitution in Japan is not just the result of McArthur, despite almost constant pressure by the US to force Japan to relinquish it, the remilitarisation of Japan has been one of the most hotly contested issues in post war Japan.

Most damning however, is the fact the US and the Japanese signed moratorium treaties, absolving eachother from the possibility of expensive compensation claims. This is why there are no class action suits brought against the US by the people of Hiroshima or Nagasaki, allowing people in the west access to facts pushed into the background.

Squalion

Sep 15, 2003, 22:40

Manta7 spouted:
Squalion, all you've achieved is present your own ideas and hatred you have developed for the Americans imbedded into you from your left-wing tutors - whatever clothes they wore. You have presented no factual evidence to support your claims of the reasoning behind America's decision to drop the atomic bombs whatsoever.

Firstly, stop, you're taking this too far. In honesty, from secondary school, to the end of college, I heard about 10 anti-america comments. Except from the last teacher, but that was because of 9/11, obviously there was lots of pro/anti america debate then.
I used to look up to the 'america' I saw in the movies. I used to wanna move there when I was a kid, ride the highways, etc etc. My opinion on the country was changed without ANY provocation by any history tutors. Last time I'll say that.

Secondly if you choose to ignore the facts I put forward, so be it. Thunderbird knows more than me and puts his points across in a much more lengthy and obvious form, so I'll be damned if you can ignore his facts too.

Barnacle Bill

Sep 16, 2003, 10:13

did anyone watch that programme last night on BBC2 about the warship, aircraft carrier (Abraham Lincoln),

How brainwashed the american military are. they were watching the bombs fall on bagdad and it scared me to see the excitement in their eyes when buildings were blown to smitherines. and whats with the whole 'God Bless America'. I dont get it.

Kormiic

Sep 16, 2003, 10:18

Yeah, I saw that... it was pretty chilling the way they where prepared to openly talk about how eager they are to kill the enemy, and how they have itchy trigger fingers.

No wonder the yanks always end up killing more brits than "enemy"

Barnacle Bill

Sep 16, 2003, 10:28

words of one of the pilots before taking off for a mission.

myself and bruce springsteen are quite the same, we are both kick ass man.

fuckin tube

thunderbird2

Sep 16, 2003, 10:37

yes and it seems to be mostly friendly ass - altogether now "I shot the sheriff and I shot me the deputies"

bassoon

Sep 17, 2003, 00:23

Kormiic spouted:
No wonder the yanks always end up killing more brits than "enemy"
From reading this thread, maybe they are the same.
You all seem quite adept at pulling a random slurry of 'facts' and conspiracy theories out of your asses to create your own deluded reality. You need to stop reading tabloids and watching entertainment tonight. Get off your asses and get out and see reality.
Comparing the occurrences of world wars out of context to what people are doing today is more than ridiculous, it's idiotic.
I am the first to admit, the current leadership in the U.S. has shown the collective intelligence of a bigoted chimp, but who's worse: the idiot, or the one who follows him.
Right wing conspiracy web pages still don't count as factual reports, that's why they're web pages and not in some more reputable form, like supermarket tabloids.

thunderbird2

Sep 17, 2003, 07:15

bassoon spouted:

From reading this thread

Actually I doubt you did read the thread, and I feel you kind of shoot yourself in the foot by maintaining that people are just saying untrue stuff and then going on to prove this is true simply by saying cos you say so. Kind of like saying "You're just jealous".

What facts do you object to and why?

thunderbird2

Sep 17, 2003, 09:04

http://www.baghdadbulletin.com/pageArticle.php?article_id=146

BBC investigative reporter Greg Palast is also the author of the recent bestseller “The Best Democracy Money Can Buy,” a look at the American political process. He is also one of two journalists who obtained a document from the administration of US President George Bush titled “Moving the Iraqi Economy from Recovery to Sustainable Growth,”

“The draft I have obtained is dated February 2003, but given the extreme, extraordinary detail of what it discusses, it is clear that this plan was written months, maybe even a year, before the invasion. Certainly it was written well before we had any idea that there would be a conflict in Iraq. This makes it obvious that the US administration was thinking of a war with Iraq long before Saddam Hussein was publicly declared a threat to America,” Palast said.

“Said more plainly; it is a plan to sell off the oil fields, the pipelines and the oil infrastructure of Iraq to private business and to turn what is left of Iraq into a freemarket paradise,” Palast said.

“By eliminating the World Bank, they indicate that there is no time for the World Bank’s indirect methods. The grab for the assets has to be done before a government is elected"

Barnacle Bill

Sep 17, 2003, 09:19

the above makes me feel sick.

why dont the american gov just stand up, tell everyone, we are invading iraq and any other oil rich country because we are desperatey low on our own oil reserves, fuck you all if you dont like it.

proper nazi fuckers

Manta7

Sep 17, 2003, 17:34

thunderbird2 spouted:

While not condoning the various atrocities committed by the Japanese in Asia and on pows, it is worthwhile pointing out that the Japanese had been studying European imperialism previous to the war. I already mentioned in another thread that the British invented concentration camps during the Boer War, but I also suggest you look into the British Raj and China, particularly the opium trade.

It is not worth pointing out at all. There is no reason to connect the creation of camps (which in fact were a German invention in 1904) to the attrocities that occurred by Japanese soldiers. By doing so, you're only attempting to justify the Japanese methods and attribute blame to European Imperialism 40 years earlier in a different country and in different circumstances.

thunderbird2 spouted:
The Emperors role was symbolic, and for the same reason that the pope didn't end up in the Neurenburg trials for his part in Mussolini's government, The Emperor was not executed at the end of the war along with the heads of the militaristic government headed by Tojo.

Right, but this doesn't query the fact he was willing to see his race wiped out then surrender. I take it you agree with me on that point.

thunderbird2 spouted:
Japan attacked America and other countries in Asia, forcing the British to leave a couple. That's why Britain was at war with the Japanese not because they bombed the UK, that was the Germans.

Manta7: 4/ Bombed out ruined towns and cities throughout the country would have seen another Stalingrad on a much larger scale.

That's how the statement should have read. I am actually surprised you didn't notice, as the sentence did not make sense in it's original form.

thunderbird2 spouted:
Rather the establishment of the US as a super power, I mentioned the second bomb had no military purpose, it had a political purpose.

Actually Nagasaki was not the initial target for the second bomb. The original prime target was Kokura which had a large munitions plant. Nagasaki was chosen at the last minute as it had arms factories, steel works and ship yards.

thunderbird2 spouted:
Ahh yes the myth that the cold war began they day after WWII ended. If that were the case then the Americans wouldn't have expended considerable time, money and energy in rooting out right wing sympathisers from among the wheels of government in Japan and replacing them with left wingers. This went on to about 1949, when the Americans began to worry that left wingers might sympathise with communism, and the polarity was reversed - all the old guard were brought back with a vengeance,

America had every right to ensure Japan prospered in a way they found acceptable. I won't question their methods nor the inevitable change of leaders, it matters not to me. And whether the Cold War began in 1945 or 1949, there had been a deep mistrust between the two countries for some considerable time. And as is very clear to us how countries developed under the Soviet Union following WW II. They were corrupt regimes where people were oppressed, lived in poverty and had no human rights where they were tortured and murdered. This is in sharp contrast to Japan, and how it has prospered with the help of America making it a financial centre of the world and one of the leaders in technology.

thunderbird2 spouted:
World War I anyone? The senseless slaughter of millions. What does that show about our culture's compassion for it's soldiers?

This is irrelevent to Kamakazis. All you have attempted to do is deviate the discussion to other events in an attempt to make stupid comparisons to throw dirt on the British and avoid giving a proper answer to my statement.

thunderbird2 spouted:
Yes this was the main justification on the part of the Americans - lets not forget by playing on the same team the UK gets a mention but it was the US that did all the post war reconstruction, including moving the political orientation of the post war government rightwards again as the cold war began (as mentioned in point 6). However the figure the Americans used wasn't millions, but in the hundreds of thousands, and they were talking about American troops only.

There has been various estimated figures of potential casualties. I have seen millions and hundreds of thousands mentioned. No one can ever be sure.

thunderbird2 spouted:
In tactical terms, there was no real need to drop the bomb, they could have just blockaded Japan and continued regular bombing raids on military targets - Japan has virtually no natural resources, those it had were taken from the new Japanese colonies like Korea, Burma etc. Again to justify their decision, the Americans claimed the Japanese had stockpiled enough raw materials to fight a 100 year war, logistically this is impossible. At the time of the invasion there wasn't enough food in Japan to feed the population, and contrary to popular belief there was a lot of grass roots unrest which could have been exploited.

It's very easy for you to make suggestions now as to what would have been the best methods to end the war. What will it achieve though? Nothing. Only continue to cast doubt on the past and give the thought police more food to feed the deluded left-wing.

thunderbird2 spouted:
The current peace driven constitution in Japan is not just the result of McArthur, despite almost constant pressure by the US to force Japan to relinquish it, the remilitarisation of Japan has been one of the most hotly contested issues in post war Japan.

Most damning however, is the fact the US and the Japanese signed moratorium treaties, absolving eachother from the possibility of expensive compensation claims. This is why there are no class action suits brought against the US by the people of Hiroshima or Nagasaki, allowing people in the west access to facts pushed into the background.

It's not damaging at all, and quite right. There would be nothing to gain from prosecuting the USA over events that occurred nearly sixty years ago. All it will achieve is open old wounds, create anomosity and bad feeling. It would cost billions to stage, drag on for months if not years and if it turned out the USA were vindicated for dropping the bombs their opponants would never be satisfied.

thunderbird, the pattern of your arguments is clear mate. When faced with a statement that may contradict your argument or forces you to agree with me, you immediately deviate by making ridiculous analogies that have no relevance to the discussion.

This is a common tactic by left-wing politically minded people when they enter an argument on dodgy ground. And their reflection to the bombings of Japan is based upon ill-thought out arguments, conspiracy theories stating that the 'real facts' are nothing more than their own ideas, as demonstrated by Squalion.

We should thank the Americans for overthrowing Hitler, which would never been achieved without their intervention, and ensured Western Europe retained democracy rather than come under the evils of communism.

Patrick

Sep 17, 2003, 18:51

Manta, I thought it was generally accepted that the British invented concentration camps during the Boer war (1899-1902). Where did you yet this German 1904 information from?

Manta7

Sep 17, 2003, 20:49

It's possible I am wrong as to which country invented Concentration camps. We did use them during the Boar war and this was before the Germans, but in all fairness it still has no relevance to this discussion. The Emperor of Japan was responsible for the deaths of POWs during WW II, as he ratified ancient Samurai customs that go back centuries. He made it clear that surrender was dishonourable, and those that submitted to capitulation lost their human rights. This then lead to appalling atrocities commited to POWs, as explained in the following transcript from a book about the treatment of POWs during WW II.

While the signers of the Geneva Convention agreed to abide by the guidelines, not all did. Treatment could range from decent, such as in most American camps, to unthinkable atrocities, such as those committed by the Japanese in the Philippines.

The infamous Bataan Death March is considered to be the worst atrocity committed to Prisoners of War in World War II. While the rationale behind such horrendous behavior is inconceivable to many, it is explained by the mindset of the Japanese military. To their beliefs, to surrender was the ultimate shame and dishonor; therefore, POWs did not deserve humane treatment.

While Japan had ratified the 1907 Hague Convention, and treated its POWs decently afterwards, their belief system had changed by the late 1930s. Japanese military personnel and civilians had a very strong nationalistic attitude, where everything is done in reverence to the Emperor. In World War II, they did not believe enemy POWs deserved humane treatment, and would not allow the ICRC to inspect the POW camps believing that they were only there on propaganda and spy missions. Their soldiers were taught that capture would bring dishonor to themselves and their families. This partially explains why percentage wise, so few Japanese were captured. They would rather die heroically than live in disgrace. By 1942 only a few thousand Japanese were in captivity versus over 200,000 Allied troops.

While the Allies believed Japan agreed to abide by the 1929 Geneva Convention, they in fact only agreed to do so as long as it did not interfere with their military policy. General Tojo Hideki, Japan's war minister and premier, said in 1942, POWs would be expected to do all that Japan's citizens were do to. In reality their treatment was much worse. POWs were subjected to strict discipline, arbitrary beatings, inadequate food and medicine, and executed if they tried to escape. The Japanese were not concerned about retribution to their own soldiers because they were considered non-persons, due to allowing themselves to be captured. When the Red Cross tried to publicize worldwide about the treatment POWs were receiving at the hands of the Japanese, they denied it. When the Japanese realized they were loosing the war, their abuse became worse and they murdered or caused the deaths of thousands of POWs. They did this because they knew liberation was near and they did not want the POWs to be liberated.

jemm

Sep 17, 2003, 22:16

I for one could never forget 9/11 even if i wanted too my dad had died the week before and we had burried him on the Friday previous i can remember hearing the news of the twin towers on the tv that day and watching the families and feeling thier pain because i was also greiving.

Stonaco

Sep 17, 2003, 22:20

Forget what?

Brausen

Sep 17, 2003, 22:42

Manta7 spouted:
It's possible I am wrong as to which country invented Concentration camps.

Fucking decent of you to admit that. What are you doing cutting and pasting Lynda Lee-Potter articles? Do you think the entire Japanese population lived by this code of honour your Daily Mail correspondent calls up from his miasma of fear? OF COURSE they didn't - they were scared shitless because they were told for 30 years foreigners would eat their kids, rape their wives and cut their balls off. That's why when the Mericans invaded Okinawa or wherever fathers killed their families and mothers jumped off cliffs with their kids. They were manipulated!

As for your response to my post:

History is written by the winning side. For two hundred years the slave trade was a good thing. (Ship beads to Africa, swap for captives, go to west indies, sell captives and get sugar). Then people started to think black people might be human, so the good thing was revised. Eventually slavery was condemned as a 'bad thing'. So indentured labourers (people who mortgaged their lives and worked effectively for free) replaced slaves. But by then the British and Mericans had abolished slavery so they were OK, defenders of liberty. The fact that the former slaves were living in penury, or indentured themselves back to their former owners was overlooked.

History is a narrative to make you feel good about the way you are, about why we western people spend more on a round of drinks in Dubai than our Filipina waitress earns in a week.

So ease up on the quotes from books. Come out from behind the privet and meet a few people you're afraid of.

Frankly, listening to a pissy little piece of shit like you spout your book learned self justifying self-loving rhapsody of shit makes me feel a lot of sympathy for the muslim hordes giving birth as they ride across the steppes determined to separate your mothers pearls from her scraggy neck, hang your vicar from the nearest cross, make your dad eat his favourite retriever while foxes chew his balls off and ram the dail mail encyclopedia of known truth sideways up your arse. I'd pay to watch.

But, hey, that's democracy - we all can have an opinion.

Brausen

Sep 17, 2003, 23:23

Um, don't you mean "Uncle Toms Cabin?" I expect Manta will quote it any minute to prove slavery was good for everybody.

Simple african people, no responsibility, no stress. Loved every minute. Korean comfort women - never happier than when on the job - give them a simple task and some security. Qualified Bosnian doctor working 14 hour shifts in the Savoy cleaning the rooms - lucky girl at least she shows some appreciation of how great Britain is, right Manta?

Melobee

Sep 17, 2003, 23:58

Some people can't forget that it happened, because it was such a bizarre occurence...it's not every day an airplane crashes into a sky scraper and sends it falling to the ground. Some people can't forget what it feels like to lose someone...so MANY someones, in an occurence such as the 9/11 attacks. Some people still have nightmares about airplanes crashing into buildings, about bodies falling out of the building, people that would rather die from a nasty fall than being burned to death, (or maybe even hoping they'd be nastily injured in a fall but survive it).

Then there are people who don't WANT to remember, who don't WANT to face the fact that there are really mean people in this world bent on wiping out thousands of people, and not just in the twin towers/Pentagon. There are people who think that just because they're not emotionally attached to the people that died in the Hiroshima bombing, in the Holocaust, in Pearl Harbor, 9/11 attacks, Vietnam...that someone else shouldn't be either. But there ARE.

There are things I MYSELF can do. Donate blood. Donate food. Donate money. Start an organization. I could join the services, I could do so many things.

And put me down if I sound stupid, but that's just what I feel about it. Let people be sad about it if they want. It's no skin off your back. The only thing you have to endure is listening to it every once in a while. And if you really didn't want to read about it, you could have just looked at one of the other threads.

Manta7

Sep 18, 2003, 01:20

Brausen spouted:

Fucking decent of you to admit that. What are you doing cutting and pasting Lynda Lee-Potter articles? Do you think the entire Japanese population lived by this code of honour your Daily Mail correspondent calls up from his miasma of fear? OF COURSE they didn't - they were scared shitless because they were told for 30 years foreigners would eat their kids, rape their wives and cut their balls off. That's why when the Mericans invaded Okinawa or wherever fathers killed their families and mothers jumped off cliffs with their kids. They were manipulated!

As for your response to my post:

History is written by the winning side. For two hundred years the slave trade was a good thing. (Ship beads to Africa, swap for captives, go to west indies, sell captives and get sugar). Then people started to think black people might be human, so the good thing was revised. Eventually slavery was condemned as a 'bad thing'. So indentured labourers (people who mortgaged their lives and worked effectively for free) replaced slaves. But by then the British and Mericans had abolished slavery so they were OK, defenders of liberty. The fact that the former slaves were living in penury, or indentured themselves back to their former owners was overlooked.

History is a narrative to make you feel good about the way you are, about why we western people spend more on a round of drinks in Dubai than our Filipina waitress earns in a week.

So ease up on the quotes from books. Come out from behind the privet and meet a few people you're afraid of.

Frankly, listening to a pissy little piece of shit like you spout your book learned self justifying self-loving rhapsody of shit makes me feel a lot of sympathy for the muslim hordes giving birth as they ride across the steppes determined to separate your mothers pearls from her scraggy neck, hang your vicar from the nearest cross, make your dad eat his favourite retriever while foxes chew his balls off and ram the dail mail encyclopedia of known truth sideways up your arse. I'd pay to watch.

But, hey, that's democracy - we all can have an opinion.

Ah the customary barrage of insults, admittedly a little limp and childlike to what I'm used to though.

I'm sorry to disappoint you but I don't like Lynda Lee-Potter much, and I seldom read her column. In fact, I'm not even sure what she has to do with it, but there you go. It was based on fact written by a historian and verified by countless witnesses who namely had lived through the traumatic events as POWs. I also know how the Japanese people perceived western culture, and it's a far cry from your interpretation which is derived from a warped imagination with no knowledge of historical facts whatsoever. To get such a response for merely quoting an excerpt on how POWS were treated by the Japanese, clearly demonstrates your reluctance to participate in a sensible debate. And I therefore take it from that you're querying it's contents and you believe the Japs were lovely to their POWs, and we were the evil ones. Of course it all makes perfect sense!

You'll be pleased to know I have no desire to get into a lengthy debate on history - particularly the slave trade which to be fair has been an industry used by other countries including African ones, for centuries. No doubt that was lost somewhere in your translation. It also has no bearing in this thread and just another time attempt to throw mud at the Americans and Brits.

And as for 9/11, those fools that are now suggesting that the events that day were 'staged' in order for America to commence it's war on Iraq, are living in the worlds of fantasy. Yet more baseless untruths and insinuations for the 'thought police' to feed the deluded left-wing with, and who are in my opinion the champions of pessimism. Oh, and no doubt the Americans have dossiers detailing attacks on Iraq that go back before 9/11, after all they admittedly made the mistake of leaving the bastard in power in the first Gulf War. I am sure they had a plan outlined for an invasion considering Saddam has been defying the UN for years and continually torturing his own people. Such a 'coup' for a BBC journalist! <Yawn>

Manta7

Sep 18, 2003, 01:28

Brausen spouted:
Um, don't you mean "Uncle Toms Cabin?" I expect Manta will quote it any minute to prove slavery was good for everybody.

Simple african people, no responsibility, no stress. Loved every minute. Korean comfort women - never happier than when on the job - give them a simple task and some security. Qualified Bosnian doctor working 14 hour shifts in the Savoy cleaning the rooms - lucky girl at least she shows some appreciation of how great Britain is, right Manta?

How can you deduce I am an advocate of slavery? It beggars belief. Slavery is wicked and beyond contempt. No one should be placed into bondage (unless it's at their own request of course).

And as for illegal immigrants that's a different matter entirely. Qualified or not I want them all to go back to where they came from no questions asked. And that's not being racist, so please spare me the Nazi response comments. I couldn't care less of their colour or origin, if they arrived here illegally, then they don't belong here simple as that. And spare me that old flannel about a doctor cleaning our the lavs at some nursing home, puh-lease! I'm not interested.

thunderbird2

Sep 18, 2003, 01:38

manta

the creation of camps (which in fact were a German invention in 1904)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=concentration+camps+boer+war

to the attrocities that occurred by Japanese soldiers. By doing so, you're only attempting to justify the Japanese methods and attribute blame to European Imperialism 40 years earlier in a different country and in different circumstances.

I am as much an apologist for the Japanese as you are a historian. In 1868 Japan was an agriculture based economy in a third world country. By 1864 the Japanese were living in a modern industrialised nation and at war with China over the recently annexed Manchuria and 1904 with Russia over the rights to build a railway through the same occupied territory (the loss directly contributed to the start of the Russian revolution). Historians agree that these two successful campaigns set the field for the expansionist policies of the militarists in the 30's. Question is (rhetorical), where did they get the idea to invade China in the first place?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Russo-Japanese+War&btnG=Google+Search
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Sino-Japanese+War&btnG=Google+Search

this doesn't query the fact he was willing to see his race wiped out then surrender. I take it you agree with me on that point.

As you missed the thrust of the argument I'll lay it out for you. The pope saw jews, homosexuals, gypsies and political undesirables sent to concentration camps from Italy, yet while potentially wielding the spiritual power of the Catholic church in a catholic nation, stood by and did nothing. While the actions of the pope are morally reprehensible, he was not sent to the Neurenburg trials as he was not actively involved in the gassing etc.

The war-time Emperor saw the Japanese army rape, torture, enslave and kill in his name yet while potentially wielding the spiritual power of the Japanese nation, stood by and did nothing. While the actions of the Emperor are morally reprehensible, he was not sent to the Tokyo trials as he was not actively involved in the raping etc.

On a side note regarding the validity of the justice imparted by the Tokyo war crime tribunal. The trials had no charges related to the actions of Unit 731, whose actions were much more suitable for punishment than the actually used charge of "instigating the war".

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=unit+731&btnG=Google+Search

So no I don't agree with you.

Nagasaki was not the initial target for the second bomb. The original prime target was Kokura which had a large munitions plant. Nagasaki was chosen at the last minute as it had arms factories, steel works and ship yards.

I stated it was a secondary target not primary. Why then wasn't Osaka, a city with a much larger concentration of factories the primary target, if damaging military production was the only deciding factor? Topography was also involved, underlined by the US army documentation on show at the Nagasaki Peace Museum. I notice you side step the issue of exploding the A bombs in the air to maximise radioactive fall out, being as it's neither noble nor justifiable.

America had every right to ensure Japan prospered in a way they found acceptable. I won't question their methods nor the inevitable change of leaders, it matters not to me.

Technically it would be the allies that had the right, America didn't fight the pacific war alone. However it's thanks to the short sighted American policies I mentioned that there are so many right wing apologists who believe Japan did nothing wrong during the war in positions of power. While most Japanese know about the actions of Japan during the war, they didn't learn about them in school, the information having as much import to their lives as it apparently does to yours.

And whether the Cold War began in 1945 or 1949, there had been a deep mistrust between the two countries for some considerable time.

So what are you saying here? the cold war started in 1945 as you previously asserted or that details showing a lack of familiarity with the argument in question obfuscate your point?

And as is very clear to us how countries developed under the Soviet Union following WW II. They were corrupt regimes where people were oppressed, lived in poverty and had no human rights where they were tortured and murdered.

Also in the right-wing dictatorships favoured by the US while the Russians conquered by force, the Americans conquered by corruption, one you see the other you don't. Unless you live in a country controlled in this manner. The posting of excerpts from an article based on an interview with a BBC journalist over documentation relating to the war in Iraq is pretty much how America has done business.

This is in sharp contrast to Japan, and how it has prospered with the help of America making it a financial centre of the world and one of the leaders in technology.

"We gave them civilisation" argument again? You know the Japanese say the same thing about all the countries that fell under the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere", that the indigenous peoples sat about scratching their crotches waiting for the Japanese to arrive and civilise them?

Japanese business had been doing very nicely thank you very much since Meiji, so much so McArthur made it his prime objective to dismantle (and failed) the Zaibatsu, a kind of old boys network comprising of banks and large companies, which had financed the Japanese war, some of the names you might recognise:

Mitsubishi, Sumitomo, Mitsui, Dai Ichi Kangyo, Sanwa and Fuyo

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Zaibatsu+companies&btnG=Google+Search

This is irrelevent to Kamakazis. All you have attempted to do is deviate the discussion to other events in an attempt to make stupid comparisons to throw dirt on the British and avoid giving a proper answer to my statement.

How is WWI irrelevant? In both cases military planners used suicide attacks as a stratagem with which they hoped to win a war. Is it because WWI was fought on land with trenches and foot soldiers rather than on the sea with planes and ships?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=world+war+1+military+tactics&btnG=Google+Search

There has been various estimated figures of potential casualties. I have seen millions and hundreds of thousands mentioned.

Most of these I would wager in American propaganda.

It's very easy for you to make suggestions now as to what would have been the best methods to end the war.

The same tactics were used on Germany, another nation of fanatics. Once it had captured Okinawa the US had a base from which it could launch bombing raids with near impunity, and it probably would have had it not had the bomb. Interesting aside here is the British research into anthrax bombs, which it was intending to use on Germany, though it wasn't moral superiority that stayed its deployment.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Gruinard+island&btnG=Google+Search

It's not damaging at all, and quite right. There would be nothing to gain from prosecuting the USA over events that occurred nearly sixty years ago.
All it will achieve is open old wounds, create anomosity and bad feeling. It would cost billions to stage, drag on for months if not years and if it turned out the USA were vindicated for dropping the bombs their opponants would never be satisfied.

That was "damning" and again you're missing the point - the US knew it's actions were debatable and covered its arse. The same moratorium treaty is another example oft cited by right wing apologists in Japan as to why there should be no reason to feel guilt over Japan's conduct in the war. Also the above logic would appear to invalidate these:

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/commentary/story/0,4386,210345,00.html
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=comfort+women&btnG=Google+Search

When faced with a statement that may contradict your argument or forces you to agree with me, you immediately deviate by making ridiculous analogies that have no relevance to the discussion.

Manta - sorry to delude you, I have never actually felt in agreement with you, forced or otherwise, the only time you have ever shown you actually based one of your opinions on facts rather than osmotic here-say was in this thread when you cited Truman.

Summarising your whole contention here is based on the idea of some kind of moral superiority which you believe American actions have intrinsically, despite copious examples to the contrary which you seem to see as distractions from some other point. In reality you only manage to demonstrate how effective American spin doctors, past and present have been on you.

Squalion

Sep 18, 2003, 01:51

Manta7 spouted:

And as for 9/11, those fools that are now suggesting that the events that day were 'staged' in order for America to commence it's war on Iraq, are living in the worlds of fantasy. Yet more baseless untruths and insinuations for the 'thought police' to feed the deluded left-wing with, and who are in my opinion the champions of pessimism.

So where were the jets supposed to intercept the 2nd/3rd planes then?

You need to get this 'left wing' idea out of your head. None of us are politicians but in every post you use this term 'left wingers' to try and group us with. Sorry but personally I don't even vote lol.

The left wing idea is fueling your arguments in the wrong direction..

thunderbird2

Sep 18, 2003, 04:10

Nobbo spouted:
Hi Tbird. :)

Lo Nobbo

^^^ Say hello to the pathetic new alias of our old friend "DonkeyChoKissSpazQueenActButt." ^^^

yep yet another poster to visually skip when reading threads :)

thunderbird2

Sep 18, 2003, 04:24

Brausen spouted:
when the Mericans invaded Okinawa or wherever fathers killed their families and mothers jumped off cliffs with their kids. They were manipulated!

Nicely put Brausen. I would add that while we think "the others" are gullible bainwashed sheep, it's somewhat harder to see the bars of our own cages.

Anyone remember the anti-Russia hyping during the 80's which culminated in Sly Stallone facing off against Dolph Lungren in Rocky IV?

thunderbird2

Sep 18, 2003, 04:44

Wunderkind spouted:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3109538.stm

After all, Tony Blair's difficulties hinge largely on a single allegation. But the White House made numerous allegations in the run up to the war which turned out to be wrong
.....
After going through the trauma of 11 September, Mr Bush knew that if he told the American people he needed to attack Iraq they would support him.

Brausen

Sep 18, 2003, 10:45

Manta7 spouted:

Ah the customary barrage of insults, admittedly a little limp and childlike to what I'm used to though.

I'm sorry to disappoint you but I don't like Lynda Lee-Potter much, and I seldom read her column. In fact, I'm not even sure what she has to do with it, but there you go. It was based on fact written by a historian and verified by countless witnesses who namely had lived through the traumatic events as POWs. I also know how the Japanese people perceived western culture, and it's a far cry from your interpretation which is derived from a warped imagination with no knowledge of historical facts whatsoever. To get such a response for merely quoting an excerpt on how POWS were treated by the Japanese, clearly demonstrates your reluctance to participate in a sensible debate. And I therefore take it from that you're querying it's contents and you believe the Japs were lovely to their POWs, and we were the evil ones. Of course it all makes perfect sense!

What are you on about?

The point is that the Japanese were manipulated into behaving horribly. The people who manipulated them used 'historical facts' the same way you do. Japanese atrocities are on record.

You use the same tone as Lynda and you try to slide round the issue the same way the Mail does. The standard right approach - if you don't want to address a point you accuse the protagonist of all sorts of shit to hope the question goes away.

Here's the point again.
What is history? Why does it change from time to time?

If it's factual how come one sides version differs from the other? How can anybody be sure which one is right?

Manta7 spouted:

You'll be pleased to know I have no desire to get into a lengthy debate on history - particularly the slave trade which to be fair has been an industry used by other countries including African ones, for centuries. No doubt that was lost somewhere in your translation. It also has no bearing in this thread and just another time attempt to throw mud at the Americans and Brits.

Yeah, my mistake. Being British I used the history I know best as a demonstration of my point. You're right. Lots of countries and groups have practised slavery forever. Still goes on.

I left the door open to call me a mud-slinger and you walked right in. Made it too easy for you? Sorry.

Manta7 spouted:

And as for 9/11, those fools that are now suggesting that the events that day were 'staged' in order for America to commence it's war on Iraq, are living in the worlds of fantasy. Yet more baseless untruths and insinuations for the 'thought police' to feed the deluded left-wing with, and who are in my opinion the champions of pessimism. Oh, and no doubt the Americans have dossiers detailing attacks on Iraq that go back before 9/11, after all they admittedly made the mistake of leaving the bastard in power in the first Gulf War. I am sure they had a plan outlined for an invasion considering Saddam has been defying the UN for years and continually torturing his own people. Such a 'coup' for a BBC journalist! <Yawn>

Leaving aside your silly rhetoric – here’s a fact-

Merica had standing orders to scramble fighters in the event of a suspected hi-jack over the east coast. For some reason, on the 11 September 2001 that didn’t happen.

If your statement that everything in the USAs democracy is in the open you should be able to tell me why the fighters didn’t scramble.

So tell me.

Brausen

Sep 18, 2003, 10:56

Manta7 spouted:

How can you deduce I am an advocate of slavery? It beggars belief. Slavery is wicked and beyond contempt. No one should be placed into bondage (unless it's at their own request of course).

And as for illegal immigrants that's a different matter entirely. Qualified or not I want them all to go back to where they came from no questions asked. And that's not being racist, so please spare me the Nazi response comments. I couldn't care less of their colour or origin, if they arrived here illegally, then they don't belong here simple as that. And spare me that old flannel about a doctor cleaning our the lavs at some nursing home, puh-lease! I'm not interested.

It seems you need everything spelled out very clearly. I didn't deduce it, there's not evidence for making a deduction. I just said it to wind you up.

Well, my cheap crack about you supporting slavery was actually a statement about your tendency to quote any source that supports your Little Englander views. I guess you’d prefer to pass over that one?

Interesting that you used another right technique - I never said ‘illegal immigrant’? You did. But never mind, you changed the subject. How do they arrive here illegally - they arrive here, apply for asylum and become illegal. (or are we back with the mongol hordes riding through the Tyne Tunnel, giving birth on horseback, their cruel scimitars glinting in the sun, out to eat your pot noodles, asking your mother to give them a carrot so they can shag here in the shitter while shes rummaging in the vegetable shelf?)

If your thesis is that Britain is great surely the people who make the clearest practical expression of that are immigrants. You’re sending away your biggest supporters.

Stonaco

Sep 18, 2003, 11:01

America has stuck its big nose into many things over the years and it was inevitable it would get punched one day. The CIA is nothing more then a legal terrorist group in my opinion.

As to nuking Japan i don't see anything wrong with that. Better thousands of them died then any more allied troops. Nowadays it seems politicians have forgotten what war is all about. It's about winning with the least amount of casulties to our side. If that means little Abdull the 5 year old shepherd boy and his family gets splattered to save one of ours then good. I mean we spend billions killing and blowing the enemy up and then spend billions more helping them rebuild. Stupid.

Brausen

Sep 18, 2003, 11:12

Stonaco spouted:
I mean we spend billions killing and blowing the enemy up and then spend billions more helping them rebuild. Stupid.

No, no, no, no, no. Capitalism! We have to do this to make Merican industry function. Got to expand the economy, sell those muslim hordes ford explorers so their women dont have to give birth galloping across the steppes.

Somebody gives me a credit I'll change my avatar in memory of the millions communism killed in the USSR. Sorry, OFF TOPIC.

Squalion

Sep 18, 2003, 11:14

Stonaco spouted:
Nowadays it seems politicians have forgotten what war is all about.

War's also about saving innocent lives...it's not simply about killing them as fast as poss to save your own ass...thats why the Geneva convention happened, some things just aren't on in any war.

Stonaco

Sep 18, 2003, 11:43

Squalion spouted:

War's also about saving innocent lives...it's not simply about killing them as fast as poss to save your own ass...thats why the Geneva convention happened, some things just aren't on in any war.

As i said i couldn't care less about saving innocent lives of the enemy. My main concern is the lives of our troops and my tax bill. If a few thousand innocents die to save me a penny in the pound on my tax then i thank them for their sacrifice. And as for you saying its not about saving your own ass well it bloody well should be.

Geneva Convention. Something drawn up by politicians probably. And its only the "civilized" armies that will follow it and even then not all the time. Politicians have their chance to avert war and once they fail they should hand the problem over to the generals. If the army was given free reign instead of being answerable to suits the wars would be over quicker and with less casulties both innocent and combat.

thunderbird2

Sep 18, 2003, 13:33

Manta7 spouted:

Ah the customary barrage of insults
and you've never wondered why they are customary?

It was based on fact written by a historian

ahh yes A. Historian, prolific writer.

I also know how the Japanese people perceived western culture.......

which was.......? No really I'd love to hear it.

I have no desire to get into a lengthy debate on history

I wouldn't if I were you, history's not one of your strong points.

no doubt the Americans have dossiers detailing attacks on Iraq that go back before 9/11, after all they admittedly made the mistake of leaving the bastard in power in the first Gulf War...... Such a 'coup' for a BBC journalist! <Yawn>
since you're having trouble with getting at the gist of the article, let me help you a tad, it's not actually about the length of time the dossier has been in existence, but rather that it explicitly details how the oil reserves were to be divided up among western companies. This is in itself bizarre because the oil executives currently working in the Whitehouse, swore the war on the country with the second largest oil reserves in the world, wasn't about oil. Make sense now?

Oddly enough wasn't the war on Afghanistan possibly about an oil pipeline contract http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1626889.stm.

Seen in this light, the War on Terror has nothing to do with terror at all. Which probably explains why resources poor North Korea, while making the Axis of Eville, doesn't seem to be getting the same warm attentions as its former alleged partners in crime.

Manta7

Sep 18, 2003, 16:13

thunderbird: So what are you saying here? the cold war started in 1945 as you previously asserted or that details showing a lack of familiarity with the argument in question obfuscate your point?

I never asserted that the cold war began in 1945, this was your assumption from your ability to misread or misinterpret from what I believed was a clear statement in this case:

Manta: 6/ To prevent the Soviet Union invading Japan who had by then entered the war against the Japanese.

Considering the Soviets conquered and annexed the countries they freed from Nazism, it shouldn't be of any surprise why the Americans were keen to end the war swfitly before the Soviets were to much involved in the war with Japan.

Furthermore I never even mentioned the cold war, or even implied by some connotation.

thunderbird

Also in the right-wing dictatorships favoured by the US while the Russians conquered by force, the Americans conquered by corruption, one you see the other you don't. Unless you live in a country controlled in this manner. The posting of excerpts from an article based on an interview with a BBC journalist over documentation relating to the war in Iraq is pretty much how America has done business.

Here we go, your chance to deviate from 1945 to present day, Bush and the Iraq war. On that issue, I will make my own conclusions when there is sufficient enough evidence available, and not simply from an interview with a BBC journo.

I'm staggered at your attachment of corruption to the Americans and not the Soviets. And this assertion that 'America conquered by corruption' is such a ridiculous admission to make. Communism has always been a form of Government rife from top to bottom with corruption - even the most ardent supporter would agree with that. And considering it is estimated millions of people have been tortured and murdered by the their own people, this is in some contrast to how the Americans treated the Japanese following WW II.

thunderbird:

Manta - sorry to delude you, I have never actually felt in agreement with you, forced or otherwise, the only time you have ever shown you actually based one of your opinions on facts rather than osmotic here-say was in this thread when you cited Truman.

Summarising your whole contention here is based on the idea of some kind of moral superiority which you believe American actions have intrinsically, despite copious examples to the contrary which you seem to see as distractions from some other point. In reality you only manage to demonstrate how effective American spin doctors, past and present have been on you.

Immediately you've contradicted yourself, as I did make a statement as to atrocities made to POWs. This is undisputable. Feel free to disagree with it, if you must. And I have given you factual accounts which I've obtained from various historians and statesmen. All you have achieved is dispute my statements with ideas which you like to call 'facts', nonsensical bilge, ill-thought out conspiracy theories, anecdotal stories which have no relevance to the topic and make silly analogies so you can throw mud at the people you hate. It is only the most ardant opponant of America that would believe your vacuous rhetoric. You are only deluding yourself.

It is understandable those who wish to protest at the use of atomic bombs in a morale sense, but what is and can never be in doubt is the reasoning why they were dropped.

Manta7

Sep 18, 2003, 16:38

Brausen spouted:

What are you on about?

The point is that the Japanese were manipulated into behaving horribly. The people who manipulated them used 'historical facts' the same way you do. Japanese atrocities are on record.

You use the same tone as Lynda and you try to slide round the issue the same way the Mail does. The standard right approach - if you don't want to address a point you accuse the protagonist of all sorts of shit to hope the question goes away.

Here's the point again.
What is history? Why does it change from time to time?

If it's factual how come one sides version differs from the other? How can anybody be sure which one is right?

I agree the Japanese were manipulated by their Emperor, no argument there. Clearly I misinterpruted what you originally said, but hey it was late last night and I'm entitled to make the odd error from time to time, just point it out and I'll be happy to eat humble pie. And you seem to read more of Lynda Lee-Potter than I do (I find that quite disturbing).

In order to understand events and write history as factual as possible, we use primary and secondary evidence. In cases where it is conclusive, there is no need to dispute it. Only when there was insufficient enough evidence to begin with can it change.

If there is a specific incident you're referring to, start up another thread and let's discuss it.

Brausen spouted:

Leaving aside your silly rhetoric – here’s a fact-

Merica had standing orders to scramble fighters in the event of a suspected hi-jack over the east coast. For some reason, on the 11 September 2001 that didn’t happen.

If your statement that everything in the USAs democracy is in the open you should be able to tell me why the fighters didn’t scramble.

So tell me.

I have no idea is the honest answer. If that was the case, then questions must be asked.

Manta7

Sep 18, 2003, 17:04

Brausen spouted:

It seems you need everything spelled out very clearly. I didn't deduce it, there's not evidence for making a deduction. I just said it to wind you up.

Well, my cheap crack about you supporting slavery was actually a statement about your tendency to quote any source that supports your Little Englander views. I guess you’d prefer to pass over that one?

Interesting that you used another right technique - I never said ‘illegal immigrant’? You did. But never mind, you changed the subject. How do they arrive here illegally - they arrive here, apply for asylum and become illegal. (or are we back with the mongol hordes riding through the Tyne Tunnel, giving birth on horseback, their cruel scimitars glinting in the sun, out to eat your pot noodles, asking your mother to give them a carrot so they can shag here in the shitter while shes rummaging in the vegetable shelf?)

If your thesis is that Britain is great surely the people who make the clearest practical expression of that are immigrants. You’re sending away your biggest supporters.

I have quoted one source, which was the treatment of POWs. I believed it was relevant in response to the assertion made by thunderbird2, that Britain was indirectly responsible for the Japanese actions during WW II.

thunderbird2

Sep 19, 2003, 04:40

Manta7 spouted:

(before) ....it matters not to me. And whether the Cold War began in 1945 or 1949, there had been a deep mistrust between the two countries for some considerable time.
........
(after)...I never asserted that the cold war began in 1945, this was your assumption

I asserted it started in 1949. When were you suggesting it started?

Considering the Soviets conquered and annexed the countries they freed from Nazism,

actually I always thought there was a carve up of territories among the allies, but I guess I should read more A. Historian.

Here we go, your chance to deviate from 1945 to present day, Bush and the Iraq war......
Ok I can see you find it hard to follow the direction this thread has taken so I'll summarise it for you - the thread is about 11/09, we moved onto 1945 through illustrating how the short sightedness of American foreign policy may have caused 11/09 to happen. Therefor to deviate would be by prolonging the argument around WWII unnecessarily.

I'm staggered at your attachment of corruption to the Americans and not the Soviets. And this assertion that 'America conquered by corruption' is such a ridiculous admission to make.

As I didn't do it I can't admit to it old boy. As to my assertion of Americans using corruption:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=banana+republics&btnG=Google+Search

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1565840674/102-9298726-1189742?v=glance

Communism has always been a form of Government rife from top to bottom with corruption - even the most ardent supporter would agree with that.
Ahh ok you're outraged that I appear to be suggesting the American political system is corrupt - (another thread for that topic perhaps) the Russians were simply more open about their expansionism and used troops, while the Americans used commerce and trade to buy their way in. The end result is the same the target country gets subverted to the ideals system being peddled by the oppressor, regardless.

And considering it is estimated millions of people have been tortured and murdered by the their own people,

as opposed to torturing and murdering millions of non-citizens (do I really have to put google links for Korea, Vietnam, aids testing in Africa, American intervention in South America, the Okimawa rapes?)

this is in some contrast to how the Americans treated the Japanese following WW II.

the Americans have always been concerned about their public image where they are directly involved. Compare the American financed operations in Colombia.

Immediately you've contradicted yourself, as I did make a statement as to atrocities made to POWs. This is undisputable. Feel free to disagree with it, if you must.

well if I knew what you're going on about I probably would have something to say on it :D

And I have given you factual accounts which I've obtained from various historians and statesmen.

Anyone can make up facts to match their opinions and attribute them to vague, nebulous experts like everybody, a friend of the family, but most people stop doing this by the time they reach their teens. While I'm not suggesting this is what you have done to back up your arguments, the fact you never name your sources does make one wonder :)

All you have achieved is dispute my statements with ideas which you like to call 'facts'

yes these facts are so debatable you produce no hard factual evidence to counter them and pretend I never wrote them.

It is understandable those who wish to protest at the use of atomic bombs in a morale sense, but what is and can never be in doubt is the reasoning why they were dropped.

so you are admitting that the use of A bombs was immoral? That's quite a concession Manta. Now all I have to do is get you to admit that American foreign policy is a bag of pants and we can get back on topic :D