Originally posted by Dirty Vader
Robtard on this page compared Hezbollah to "people who fly planes into buildings and bomb trains" and use "Islamist extremism" for their own ends. That sounds very much like you're comparing Hezbollah to Al Quaeda. No way is Hezbollah anywhere near as twisted and barbaric as Al Quaeda. They have very little in common.
They pioneered the use of suicide bombings in terrorist tactics, so ya, that's barbaric.
Originally posted by RobtardDid you actually know any of the historical context at all when you wrote inaccurate statements?
So America is wrong for choosing to use the bomb out of other options, but you cannot or will not state what other option would have been better for America. OK.I seriously wonder if Japan & Germany would have been so kind to England, America and Russia, let alone the rest of the world if the tables had been turned.
Originally posted by RobtardIsrael values it's hasbara machine.
Oh, ok, so now Israel is bombing Lebanon indiscriminately and with impunity as you claim but somehow they're still holding back because of PR. Gotcha.'Spiro Agnew' buddy.
Originally posted by VanillaCocaColaInvade and occupy southern Lebanon for 18 years.
Speaking of which, why were they kidnapped? What'd Israel do to provoke Hezbollah.
Originally posted by VanillaCocaCola
"Just shows that Israel actually didn't give a toss about those two soldiers."Speaking of which, why were they kidnapped? What'd Israel do to provoke Hezbollah.
Israel shelled a beach in Gaza only killing civilians, after there was supposed to be a ceasefire. Hamas, and rightfuly so, told them to shove their ceasefire up their ass and kidnapped a soldier. Hezbollah in solidarity with Hamas, being as they've been in the same situation for years, and they were sick and tired of military incursions in south Lebanon decided to kidnap the 2 soldiers.
They pioneered the use of suicide bombings in terrorist tactics, so ya, that's barbaric.
As I've said they've done ugly shit in the past. After Israel left Lebanon and the new cleric became the Hezbollah head, they've stopped doing that crap and turned to politics and rebuilding instead. Until July of course.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Did you actually know any of the historical context at all when you wrote inaccurate statements?
Israel values it's hasbara machine.Invade and occupy southern Lebanon for 18 years.
And which part was inaccurate, I asked you a question? I'll repeat it yet again. If America was in the wrong for dropping the bomb, which action would have been a better option for America? If you think America was wrong, at least be willing to offer what the right move would have been.
Well then, by that rational, they wouldn't indiscriminately just bomb civilians with impunity then.
Invade and occupy southern Lebanon for 18 years.
The people looking for a fight are the ones that run up and kick a man in the ass as he walks away from one.
Originally posted by Dirty VaderWhen they crossed over Israeli borders and killed and kidnapped soldiers.
As I've said they've done ugly shit in the past. After Israel left Lebanon and the new cleric became the Hezbollah head, they've stopped doing that crap and turned to politics and rebuilding instead. Until July of course.
Originally posted by RobtardI've stated that the nuclear weapons were not necessary and they should have accepted the Japanese surrender, as they did ultimately, and as they had always intended to do.
And which part was inaccurate, I asked you a question? I'll repeat it yet again. If America was in the wrong for dropping the bomb, which action would have been a better option for America? If you think America was wrong, at least be willing to offer what the right move would have been.
I take it you think America was acting in the wrong, maybe acting like a terrorist state since massive amounts of civilian men, women and children were killed in both explosions?
Incase you didn't know, Japan was working on a bomb of it's own, according to their own Kyodo news."
was inaccurate. And this question:
"But just answer me this, was Japan ready to surrender on August 5th 1945?"
was vacuous.
I asked you a question too. Did you actually know any of the historical context at all when you wrote these inaccurate statements?
Originally posted by RobtardThey know the limits of what they can achieve.
Well then, by that rational, they wouldn't indiscriminately just bomb civilians with impunity then.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I've stated that the nuclear weapons were not necessary and they should have accepted the Japanese surrender, as they did ultimately, and as they had always intended to do.
Your statements:
"If America did not bomb Japan a massive ground invasion would have been necessary to end the pacific war. That would have caused the war to go on for a MUCH longer and the death count would have risen to who knows how high, especially on the American side. Remember, 'Little Boy' was dropped and Japan still did not surrender.I take it you think America was acting in the wrong, maybe acting like a terrorist state since massive amounts of civilian men, women and children were killed in both explosions?
Incase you didn't know, Japan was working on a bomb of it's own, according to their own Kyodo news."
was inaccurate. And this question:
"But just answer me this, was Japan ready to surrender on August 5th 1945?"
was vacuous.
I asked you a question too. Did you actually know any of the historical context at all when you wrote these inaccurate statements?
They know the limits of what they can achieve.
How wonderful of you to expect America to let an enemy like Japan circa 1940's surrender on it's terms.
And call my ideas mindless all you like, but the facts remain, Japan had the option to surrender before the 1st bomb and before the 2nd bomb and they refused both times. You can argue that America is the evil bastard for not conceding to Japans conditions of surrender all you like, but the fact remains, they willfully choose not to surrender twice. To answer your question, yes I did.
Ah, that must be it, Israel doesn't give a damn, but they give a damn.
Originally posted by RobtardTerms of surrender they allowed anyway, that they always intended to allow. The Hirohito's divine sovereignty was a useful tool.
How wonderful of you to expect America to let an enemy like Japan circa 1940's surrender on it's terms.
Originally posted by RobtardThe Japanese War Cabinet met on the morning of August 9th to discuss acceptance of Potsdam.
And call my ideas mindless all you like, but the facts remain, Japan had the option to surrender before the 1st bomb and before the 2nd bomb and they refused both times. You can argue that America is the evil bastard for not conceding to Japans conditions of surrender all you like, but the fact remains, they willfully choose not to surrender twice. To answer your question, yes I did.
I asked you a question too. Did you actually know any of the historical context at all when you wrote said inaccurate statements?
Originally posted by RobtardMilitary action with foreseeable civilian cost but without serious public relations impact will go ahead regardless of foreseeable civilian cost.
Ah, that must be it, Israel doesn't give a damn, but they give a damn.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Terms of surrender they allowed anyway, that they always intended to allow. The Hirohito's divine sovereignty was a useful tool.The Japanese War Cabinet met on the morning of August 9th to discuss acceptance of Potsdam.
I asked you a question too. Did you actually know any of the historical context at all when you wrote said inaccurate statements?
Military action with foreseeable civilian cost but without serious public relations impact will go ahead regardless of foreseeable civilian cost.
Yes, but America allowed it only AFTER Japan unconditionally surrendered; key words 'America', 'allowed' and 'after'. America had absolutely no obligation to concede to any of Japans demands before the fact. Yes, it was a useful tool that America wanted to use, but under its own terms.
The 'Fatman' was dropped the morning of August 9th, they should have decided to surrender unconditionally sometime four days prior considering one bomb had already shown them what America was capable of.
I answered your question. See above post.
So Israel will kill as many civilians as it can as long as said kills do not smear their image. OK, I got it, but incase you haven't noticed or read the news, every single Lebanese death is having serious public relations issues for Israel. Sorry, try again.
-The U.S. always intended to utilise the nuclear weapons. The term "unconditional surrender" was used to prolong the war so that the weapons could be used. Even after the second nuclear warhead was used the Japanese maintained their intent to retain the Emperor.
The use of the weapons was unnecessary to end the war and Japanese surrender was imminent, contrary to your initial statements before rebutted about their necessity, after which you changed tack introducing the phrase "unconditional".
There were two days between Tokyo learning of the atomic attack and its second use, while the Japanese were in the process of surrender, as they had been for months. The only historical context that I've observed is that you know the names and the dates of the nuclear weapons' usage.
-Not to the extent that it threatens Israel continuing it's current military action or hinders cashflow to the Israeli government in U.S. government of private aid.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
-The U.S. always intended to utilise the nuclear weapons. The term "unconditional surrender" was used to prolong the war so that the weapons could be used. Even after the second nuclear warhead was used the Japanese maintained their intent to retain the Emperor.The use of the weapons was unnecessary to end the war and Japanese surrender was imminent, contrary to your initial statements before rebutted about their necessity, after which you changed tack introducing the phrase "unconditional".
There were two days between Tokyo learning of the atomic attack and its second use, while the Japanese were in the process of surrender, as they had been for months.
The only historical context that I've observed is that you know the names and the dates of the nuclear weapons' usage.
-Not to the extent that it threatens Israel continuing it's current military action or hinders cashflow to the Israeli government in U.S. government of private aid.
Your grasping at anything as long as it makes America look bad. Simple facts you cannot deny. Japan had a chance to surrender and they chose not to. Demanding actions of your enemy once you know you are unable to continue waging wag or that your ability to do so is near its end is the equivalent to saying "We do not surrender.", remember, it was war. Repeat, 'America had no obligation to concede to ANY demand of Japan.' If you want to say that America was wrong for not accepting Japans demands in said surrender, feel free.
Oh yes, oh my, I left out unconditional and only said surrender. Considering that surrendering with the demand of terms is not really surrendering(see above). Repeat, 'America had no obligation to concede to ANY demand of Japan.' Your grasping at anything as long as it makes America look bad again. What's next, we should allow convicts to decide conditions on their prison terms as long as it's fairly reasonable...
Fine, two days, that is irrelevant, they had ample time to surrender before the first bomb, let alone the second. Considering they knew they had to surrender, they shouldn't have demanded terms. Your grasping at anything as long as it makes America look bad yet again.
I could care less of your powers of observation, they are irrelevant.
You really need to pick a stance and stick with it, Israel doesn't care who it kills, Israel cares who it kills but only because of public image, Israel kills just enough to fly under the PR radar, Israel bombs indiscriminately and with impunity etc. etc. etc. Like I said, the world by and large hates Israel and condemns it for every single Lebanese death so far, read the news, you'll see a cornucopia of 'Lebanese civilian casulties' headlines and the stories that follow condemn Israel.
Originally posted by RobtardOh, yes, "I hate America, I want to make it look bad." Never mind that I'm only making statements based on historical analysis. The use of nuclear warheads was intended regardless of overtures of surrender. The term "unconditional surrender" was being used to delay the end of the war.
Your grasping at anything as long as it makes America look bad. Simple facts you cannot deny. Japan had a chance to surrender and they chose not to. Demanding actions of your enemy once you know you are unable to continue waging wag or that your ability to do so is near its end is the equivalent to saying "We do not surrender.", remeber, it was war. Repeat, 'America had no obligation to concede to ANY demand of Japan.' If you want to say that America was wrong for not accepting Japans demands in said surrender, feel free.
"Admiral Leahy took a good plain horse-sense position that the question of the Emperor was a minor matter compared with delaying a victory in the war which was now in our hands." Secretary of War Stimson.
Originally posted by RobtardIf that be the case then the Japanese never surrendered at all as they maintained their terms with regard to Emperor Hirohito even after both nuclear warheads had been deployed. And were granted this demand.
Oh yes, oh my, I left out unconditional and only said surrender. Considering that surrendering with the demand of terms is not really surrendering(see above). Repeat, 'America had no obligation to concede to ANY demand of Japan.' Your grasping at anything as long as it makes America look bad again. What's next, we should allow convicts to decide conditions on their prison terms as long as it's fairly reasonable...
Originally posted by RobtardI'm grasping. The ironing is delicious. As are the subtle changes that occur in your posts trying to retroactively qualify incorrect statements.
Fine, two days, that is irrelevant, they had ample time to surrender before the first bomb, let alone the second. Considering they new they had to surrender, they shouldn't have demanded terms. Your grasping at anything as long as it makes America look bad yet again.
Originally posted by RobtardIsrael has a low regard for non-Israeli civilian lives in its military actions other than that it may jeopardize the continuation of said military action. You can separate it out into tiny sentences all you want.
You really need to pick a stance and stick with it, Israel doesn't care who it kills, Israel cares who it kills but only because of public image, Israel kills just enough to fly under the PR radar, Israel bombs indiscriminately and with impunity etc. etc. etc. Like I said, the world by and large hates Israel and condemns it for every single Lebanese death so far, read the news, you'll see a cornucopia of 'Lebanese civilian casulties' headlines and the stories that follow condemn Israel.
"Everyone hates Israel." If there are Lebanese civilian casualty stories in the news, hmm maybe just maybe it's because Lebanese civilian casualties have occurred. Just throwing that out there, I know it's wild and outrageous. Because no one reports on Israeli civilians and soldiers being killed whatsoever.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/06/world/middleeast/06cnd-mideast.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=1b8ebdb744c11561&hp&ex=1154923200&partner=homepage
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060726/ap_on_re_mi_ea/lebanon_israel
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-08-06T174907Z_01_L069031_RTRUKOC_0_UK-MIDEAST.xml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5249972.stm
http://www.haaretz.com/
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Oh, yes, "I hate America, I want to make it look bad." Never mind that I'm only making statements based on historical analysis. The use of nuclear warheads was intended regardless of overtures of surrender. The term "unconditional surrender" was being used to delay the end of the war."Admiral Leahy took a good plain horse-sense position that the question of the Emperor was a minor matter compared with delaying a victory in the war which was now in our hands." Secretary of War Stimson.
If that be the case then the Japanese never surrendered at all as they maintained their terms with regard to Emperor Hirohito even after both nuclear warheads had been deployed. And were granted this demand.
I'm grasping. The ironing is delicious. As are the subtle changes that occur in your posts trying to retrospectively qualify incorrect statements.
Israel has a low regard for non-Israeli civilian lives in its military actions other than that it may jeopardize the continuation of said military action. You can separate it out into tiny sentences all you want.
"Everyone hates Israel." If there are Lebanese civilian casualty stories in the news, hmm maybe just maybe it's because Lebanese civilian casualties have occurred. Just throwing that out there, I know it's wild and outrageous. Because no one reports on Israeli civilians and soldiers being killed whatsoever.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/06/world/middleeast/06cnd-mideast.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=1b8ebdb744c11561&hp&ex=1154923200&partner=homepage
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060726/ap_on_re_mi_ea/lebanon_israel
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-08-06T174907Z_01_L069031_RTRUKOC_0_UK-MIDEAST.xml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5249972.stm
http://www.haaretz.com/
Like I said, if you want to say that America was wrong for not excepting Japans demands, feel free. But you must realize that America had an absolute zero obligation to accept Japans terms any terms.
"If they do not now accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air the likes of which has never been seen on this earth."
The quote is Truman's, after Hiroshima.
Yes, you are grasping and if I were indeed grasping and not yourself, it would be hypocrisy on my behalf. Is hypocrisy delicious?
Pick a solid stance on Israel's tactics regarding civilians and stick with it, and you claim I make subtle changes.
Comparatively speaking the news is definitely leaning on the anti-Israel side, I never said "All news is anti-Israel". There will always be two sides to a story and the media will report that and you know this. Please do not quote me and use your own words, that's the second time you've done that.
Oh, since you claimed that your pointing out of spelling errors and grammatical mistakes was not a childish ploy to belittle people but instead just your personal dislike of errors, you should know you said "The ironing is delicious." Just an FYI.
Originally posted by RobtardFYI deliberate. Cultural reference.
Oh, since you claimed that your pointing out of spelling errors and grammatical mistakes was not a childish ploy to belittle people but instead just your personal dislike of errors, you should know you said "The [B]ironing is delicious." Just an FYI. [/B]
Originally posted by Robtard"Accepting". The ironing is indeed delicious. The U.S. was not wrong for not accepting Japan's condition, because they did accept Japan's condition. The fact that Japan was making strong overtures of surrender didn't impact the intention to use the nuclear warhead. The U.S. was wrong for using nuclear warheads as there was no necessity.
Like I said, if you want to say that America was wrong for not excepting Japans demands, feel free. But you must realize that America had an absolute zero obligation to accept Japans terms any terms."If they do not now accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air the likes of which has never been seen on this earth."
The quote is Truman's, after Hiroshima.
Originally posted by RobtardIndeed yours is.
Yes, you are grasping and if I were indeed grasping and not yourself, it would be hypocrisy on my behalf. Is hypocrisy delicious?
Originally posted by RobtardI have.
Pick a solid stance on Israel's tactics regarding civilians and stick with it,
Originally posted by RobtardYou do.
and you claim I make subtle changes.
Originally posted by Robtard"The world by and large hates Israel and condemns it for every single Lebanese death so far, read the news, you'll see a cornucopia of 'Lebanese civilian casulties' headlines and the stories that follow condemn Israel." wasn't intended to imply that the news media only pays attention to Lebanese casualties?
Comparatively speaking the news is definitely leaning on the anti-Israel side, I never said "All news is anti-Israel". There will always be two sides to a story and the media will report that and you know this. Please do not quote me and use your own words, that's the second time you've done that.
Ironing at its finest.
Well
1st
I believe that kidnapping 2 hostages was a mistake
But killing 1000 civilian (1/3 children) is a War Crime
And those how defend Israel please stop doing that
This is a mistake and it has to be stopped
2nd
those who said Hezbollah ask Israel to stop because it is losing
Believe me it is not, it ask for that because it make him look like innocent and peaceful kid
You just make him stronger and stronger by making him go deep and deep in Lebanon instead of south region
3rd
Because it is an organization , you can't fight organization by an army
Israel will not win and Hezbollah will not lose
It is kind of Attrition
It is Far more better to use intelligence rather than an army
And believe me, half of Hezbollah power not used yet (fajar 1& 2 , zelzal 1 &2 rockets not used yet)
Hezbollah need a war to accomplish his goals by making Arab and the worlds hate Israel more and more and make Iran indirectly role the area
And Hezbollah did it well
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
FYI deliberate. Cultural reference."Accepting". The ironing is indeed delicious. The U.S. was not wrong for not accepting Japan's condition, because they did accept Japan's condition. The fact that Japan was making strong overtures of surrender didn't impact the intention to use the nuclear warhead. The U.S. was wrong for using nuclear warheads as there was no necessity.
And what position are you in to decide whether it was necessary or not? Would you have offered an idea anything more or less? I suggest shutting your mouth before going off the handle if you cannot offer anything else other than 'Japan's status was no longer in any postion to fight. Obviously they were ready to surrender. The A-bombs were not necessary.' For all you know, it could have saved more lives than you probably can't account for.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
"The world by and large hates Israel and condemns it for every single Lebanese death so far, read the news, you'll see a cornucopia of 'Lebanese civilian casulties' headlines and the stories that follow condemn Israel." wasn't intended to imply that the news media only pays attention to Lebanese casualties?Ironing at its finest.
How easy it is to point the finger and already assume a nation as a bad guy without first fighting them or fighting with them. I hope you feel comfortable sitting at your computer desk everyday knowing that this conflict may never reach you.
Yes... ironing at its finest...
Originally posted by Phoenix2001I'm not deciding anything. I'm restating the views of historians.
And what position are you in to decide whether it was necessary or not? Would you have offered an idea anything more or less? I suggest shutting your mouth before going off the handle if you cannot offer anything else other than 'Japan's status was no longer in any postion to fight. Obviously they were ready to surrender. The A-bombs were not necessary.' For all you know, it could have saved more lives than you probably can't account for.
"The Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs did not defeat Japan, nor by the testimony of the enemy leaders who ended the war did they persuade Japan to accept unconditional surrender. The Emperor, the lord privy seal, the prime minister, the foreign minister and the navy minister had decided as early as May of 1945 that the war should be ended even it meant acceptance of defeat on allied terms."
"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
United States Strategic Bombing Survey
"Careful scholarly treatment of the records and manuscripts opened over the past few years has greatly enhanced our understanding of why the Truman administration used atomic weapons against Japan. Experts continue to disagree on some issues, but critical questions have been answered. The consensus among scholars is that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan and to end the war within a relatively short time. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisers knew it."
J. Samuel Walker; Chief Historian of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Pray tell, what do you have to offer?
Originally posted by Phoenix2001Inanity. As well as the gross oversimplification in the use of the term "bad guy". The world is not a playground or cheap Hollywood fare.
How easy it is to point the finger and already assume a nation as a bad guy without first fighting them or fighting with them.
Do I have to go back in time and fight Nazi Germany too? And before you straw man I'm not comparing Israel to Nazi Germany, I'm illustrating the inanity of your statement. One does not have to "fight them or fight with them" to form an opinion on a nation's conduct.
How are your opinions on Iran, Syria, North Korea, China formed? Are you a one man army that wages war on the world. Fight on. Fight on.
Originally posted by Phoenix2001Thanks, I hope you do to.
I hope you feel comfortable sitting at your computer desk everyday knowing that this conflict may never reach you.
Originally posted by Robtard
Ya, if I were a Lebanese civilian just trying to scrap out a life and a Israeli plane came and bombed my family to death, I'd hate Israel. That is irrelevant though, the reason the plane came and bombed me is because a bunch of terrorist a-holes used my village as a weapons depot and hide among my fellow citizens, so considering that, I should really hate the terrorist who intentional put my family in harms way and intentionally used my family as meat shields so the terrorist could later on say "Look, Israel is killing people for no reason!". But unfortunately, I most likely would not have the luxury of knowing.I agree, I never said 9/11 was about religion, but the people that did that sort of sh!t justified it under their own personal skewed view of religion. Just as all Islamic fundamentalist terrorist do, including Hezbollah. I am not saying being a Muslim makes you a terrorist and you know that. You didn't answer the question though, you tip-toed around it.
Good, you agree that you'd hate them if they bombed your relatives for no reason, now you understand why I hate them, and those 900 hundred people have no reason to hate Hezbollah because Hezbollah was NOT hiding in their villages, neither in the houses or kindergardens, neither on the bridges or airports that Israel bombed, it was just a cheap excuse to justefy their violant actions and you bought that crap. The fact is that Hezbollah did not wanted situation to get where it is, they took hostages to exchange them for prisoners, in the very beginning of bombing they said they don't want to fight, and pay attention they never attacked Tel Aviv even though they can, and it makes no sense if they wanted war as you say. What quetion do you want me to answer? If i think that Hezbolah are good guys? No, i don't think so because they kill inocent people as well, but Israel does the same and in bigger amount and even when violant was not needed. So if Hezbollah is a terrorist organization then so is Israel, but much worse, especially if we are talking not only about Lebanon but Palestine as well.