Conquer Club

Snorri1234 wrote:

black elk speaks wrote:

Neoteny wrote:

black elk speaks wrote:

Spuzzell wrote:No-ones saying 9/11 wasn't appalling, just that it's not any more appalling than the hundreds of other attacks that happen around the world.

Yes, it was. No other terrorist attack killed roughly 3000 civilians, caused so much economic damage and destroyed such a large structures. It was the most appalling in history.

Nagasaki... an act of war, between 2 nations that were defined as being at war at the time. Not terrorism.

It still ended the lives of a fuckload of innocent civilians who had nothing to do with that shit but just happened to have the bad luck of being born in a country that the US didn't like.

yes, the US didn't like them because they were so kind as to execute a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. The two countries were at war with each other. there is a big difference between declaring war and utilizing an act of terrorism. Furthermore, Japan was warned that they were going to be nuked, by leaflet dropping as well as radio broadcast. Japan decided to not act on the warnings. I don't think that terrorism is so fully involved in the mannerism of warfare as to actually go so far as to warn their targets of an eminent attack. Total casualties counted in excess of 400,000 from both sites. but this was an act of war, not an act of terror. If you want to change the definitions for the terms of this conversation, then feel free to do so, but until you do, but I won't agree to a definition that defines a legitimate act of war as the same as an act of terrorism.

Even still, it was an act of violence that was designed to, among other things, have a large impact on non-combatants in an attempt to cause fear or psychological impact carried out to achieve a political goal. If that's not terrorism, I don't know what is. The massive involvement of non-combatants, indeed, their very targeting, moves the events away from wartime operations into terrorist operations.

black elk speaks wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

black elk speaks wrote:

Neoteny wrote:

black elk speaks wrote:No other terrorist attack killed roughly 3000 civilians, caused so much economic damage and destroyed such a large structures. It was the most appalling in history.

Nagasaki... an act of war, between 2 nations that were defined as being at war at the time. Not terrorism.

It still ended the lives of a fuckload of innocent civilians who had nothing to do with that shit but just happened to have the bad luck of being born in a country that the US didn't like.

yes, the US didn't like them because they were so kind as to execute a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. The two countries were at war with each other. there is a big difference between declaring war and utilizing an act of terrorism. Furthermore, Japan was warned that they were going to be nuked, by leaflet dropping as well as radio broadcast. Japan decided to not act on the warnings. I don't think that terrorism is so fully involved in the mannerism of warfare as to actually go so far as to warn their targets of an eminent attack. Total casualties counted in excess of 400,000 from both sites. but this was an act of war, not an act of terror. If you want to change the definitions for the terms of this conversation, then feel free to do so, but until you do, but I won't agree to a definition that defines a legitimate act of war as the same as an act of terrorism.

At least they hit a military base, we blew up two cities. Now, if Japan had wiped San Fransisco and Seattle off the face of the earth, then we can begin to compare. There is a huge difference between an underhanded surprise attack on a military facility and the destruction of a city.

As for the warning, would you then be saying that it's OK to nuke cities as long as you give them a fair warning first? To recreate the situation back then, let's say that nobody has nukes aside from us.

black elk speaks wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

black elk speaks wrote:

Neoteny wrote:

black elk speak wrote:
Yes, it was. No other terrorist attack killed roughly 3000 civilians, caused so much economic damage and destroyed such a large structures. It was the most appalling in history.

Nagasaki... an act of war, between 2 nations that were defined as being at war at the time. Not terrorism.

It still ended the lives of a fuckload of innocent civilians who had nothing to do with that shit but just happened to have the bad luck of being born in a country that the US didn't like.

yes, the US didn't like them because they were so kind as to execute a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. The two countries were at war with each other. there is a big difference between declaring war and utilizing an act of terrorism. Furthermore, Japan was warned that they were going to be nuked, by leaflet dropping as well as radio broadcast. Japan decided to not act on the warnings. I don't think that terrorism is so fully involved in the mannerism of warfare as to actually go so far as to warn their targets of an eminent attack. Total casualties counted in excess of 400,000 from both sites. but this was an act of war, not an act of terror. If you want to change the definitions for the terms of this conversation, then feel free to do so, but until you do, but I won't agree to a definition that defines a legitimate act of war as the same as an act of terrorism.

you're talking bollocks. the scum that is the IRA gave numerous warnings to the police that there was a bomb about to go off. they are terrorist with out a doubt, but now there is peace in Ulster/Northern ireland and there is no fear.

you all would be correct, except for the fact that we were engaged in an open declaration of war with Japan at the time. Nagasaki was a strategic strike as a sea port and Hiroshima was in fact largely known as a military headquarters. These weren't random strikes.

black elk speaks wrote:you all would be correct, except for the fact that we were engaged in an open declaration of war with Japan at the time. Nagasaki was a strategic strike as a sea port and Hiroshima was in fact largely known as a military headquarters. These weren't random strikes.

even so. if Japan had nuclear weapons and they used them on sa New York and LA then what would the USA say about that?

DAZMCFC wrote:

black elk speaks wrote:you all would be correct, except for the fact that we were engaged in an open declaration of war with Japan at the time. Nagasaki was a strategic strike as a sea port and Hiroshima was in fact largely known as a military headquarters. These weren't random strikes.

even so. if Japan had nuclear weapons and they used them on sa New York and LA then what would the USA say about that?

I suppose that we would have surrendered to the Japanese. What would you suspect we would have said about that? it was a war.

the Pope and the the catholic church were involved in 911?
As a troofer, this new info is great news jimi.
Thanks mate. I'm going to look for funny hat shapes created in the smoke on YouTube

Despite not being at war with Cambodia the US military carpet bombed the country extensively and killed thousands of civilians, this in turn led to a huge surge in support for the Khymer Rouge and eventual genocide - millions ended up dead. The operation was totaly illegal to the extent that even the White House was kept in the dark about the scale of the bombing, for good measure they repeated the exercise in Laos as well

What does that have to do with 9/11?

InkL0sed wrote:What does that have to do with 9/11?

It's about terrorism, I guess. One step away!

comic boy wrote:Despite not being at war with Cambodia the US military carpet bombed the country extensively and killed thousands of civilians, this in turn led to a huge surge in support for the Khymer Rouge and eventual genocide - millions ended up dead. The operation was totaly illegal to the extent that even the White House was kept in the dark about the scale of the bombing, for good measure they repeated the exercise in Laos as well

Actually, the Khmer Rouge planted mines around villages to stop people escaping and moving back to the city. Yes, the USA did carpet bombed Cambodia, but Khmer Rouge also planted many, many mines.

Frigidus wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:What does that have to do with 9/11?

It's about terrorism, I guess. One step away!

Once in awhile, it'd be nice to hear the Brits on this forum condemn the actions undertaken during their Empire, rather than just attacking the USA.

But hey, I guess that's how they mask their self-loathing.

black elk speaks wrote:you all would be correct, except for the fact that we were engaged in an open declaration of war with Japan at the time. Nagasaki was a strategic strike as a sea port and Hiroshima was in fact largely known as a military headquarters. These weren't random strikes.

So you think that the mass destruction of thousands of civilians is ok as long as war is declared beforehand? I can't imagine you would agree with that. There were military reasons for the attacks, but the targets were chosen specifically for their non-combatants.

Frigidus wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:What does that have to do with 9/11?

It's about terrorism, I guess. One step away!

yes, going off topic is about the only way that this thread can continue. its obvious that Neoteny and the rest can only try to twist the intended thread topic around in order to avoid facing up to the fact that is it insensitive to make mockery of the Sept 11 tragedy on sept 11.

The US, like just about every other nation on the face of this planet at some point or another in history, is guilty of one atrocity or another. Those of you that are British, well, your people wrote the book on it. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were war time acts. Sept 11 was a strike against the entire west. you folks that are fellow westerners aught to remember that.

black elk speaks wrote: Sept 11 was a strike against the the American people by it's own government to gather support for the "War on Terror". Hey, it worked for Hitler.

QFT


And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

jay_a2j wrote:

black elk speaks wrote: Sept 11 was a strike against the the American people by it's own government to gather support for the "War on Terror". Hey, it worked for Hitler.

QFT


And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

so clever and original.

Damn! Lots and lots of emotional pantywadding over this issue. I especially liked the graphic descriptions of smashed bodies resembling pizzas, and the dust covered wench looking for her arm - loverly. Were any of you hysterical flag wavers there? Or are you just oh so worked up by being in close proximity to thousands of other bandwagon jumpers who let a little pissant like jr. Bush whip them into a frenzy?

Mob action of any kind gives me a case of the red ass - which is why i detest sports fans - and that's all this is - a big fooking myteamisbetterthanyours football game. Gawd bless Amerika. Pearl Harbor eat your heart out - we now have a new sacred cow.


Honibaz

b.k. barunt wrote:Damn! Lots and lots of emotional pantywadding over this issue. I especially liked the graphic descriptions of smashed bodies resembling pizzas, and the dust covered wench looking for her arm - loverly. Were any of you hysterical flag wavers there? Or are you just oh so worked up by being in close proximity to thousands of other bandwagon jumpers who let a little pissant like jr. Bush whip them into a frenzy?

Mob action of any kind gives me a case of the red ass - which is why i detest sports fans - and that's all this is - a big fooking myteamisbetterthanyours football game. Gawd bless Amerika. Pearl Harbor eat your heart out - we now have a new sacred cow.


Honibaz

All that I wanted to point out was that the Iraq war was not waged because of Sept 11. true it may be that Sept 11 may have made it easier for GW to get the war that he wanted there, I suppose that is speculation that I won't dispute any more. but the reason or Iraq was not Sept 11. I won't stick up for GW, nor will I suggest that his war was just, in face I have always believed it to be a mistake.

PLEASE FUCKING LOCK THIS THREAD.

pimpdave wrote:PLEASE FUCKING LOCK THIS THREAD.

you could simply choose not to read it.

Heh heh, i just love to tip a cow every now and then.


Honibaz

pimpdave wrote:PLEASE FUCKING LOCK THIS THREAD.

But everybody is being so calm and rational about it...

pimpdave wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:What does that have to do with 9/11?

It's about terrorism, I guess. One step away!

Once in awhile, it'd be nice to hear the Brits on this forum condemn the actions undertaken during their Empire, rather than just attacking the USA.

But hey, I guess that's how they mask their self-loathing.

The entire country condemns most of the actions they did in the past. Shit, I'd more than happily condemn the shit my country did like slavery and keeping colonies under control by military actions.

The only reason I don't is that you haven't the faintest clue about what my country has done and I can't be arsed to teach a history-class on this forum.

Snorri1234 wrote:
The entire country condemns most of the actions they did in the past. Shit, I'd more than happily condemn the shit my country did like slavery and keeping colonies under control by military actions.

The only reason I don't is that you haven't the faintest clue about what my country has done and I can't be arsed to teach a history-class on this forum.

Actually, in my experience, I know more European history than most Europeans, but thanks for playing that stereotypical American idiot card. Classy.