9/11 Remembering the Jumpers

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ConstipatedVigilante

Diamond Member
Feb 22, 2006
7,670
1
0
Wow, you too? Its generally accepted now that Japan was trying to surrender and we essentially ignored them so that we could try out the bomb. They wanted to keep their emperor in place after surrender, which we refused - the US wanted unconditional surrender at the time. Two nukes later, they agreed to unconditional surrender. Guess what we did with that emperor? Left him in power anyway. You figure it out. Well, no I take that back - try not to figure anything out - you may hurt yourself.
Um, what? The emperor was actually willing to surrender, but his generals were not. They tried to stage a coup to keep fighting.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,515
16,238
146
Originally posted by: m1ldslide1
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: EricMartello
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: EricMartello
Burning to death is probably one of the more painful ways to die, especially if you are slowly roasted and not quickly consumed in an explosive blast. The people who survived the initial crash could only be slowly burned, so jumping is simply the lesser of two evils in this case...10 seconds of fresh air then BAM, you're roadkill -instant death, no pain.

For some perspective, the US military dropped incendiary bombs on Japan during WWII - burning most of their major cities to the ground. The incendiary bombs killed many civilians, and unlike the tower jumpers, their only option was to experience Iron Chef from the food's perspective. The number of people killed by the atomic bombs pale in comparison to the numbers the US killed with incendiary bombs. So yeah, we lost the WTC but compared to the things we as a nation have done...if you can't take it, don't dish it out.

You do realize that by dropping the atom bombs we saved hundreds of thousands, if not millions of lives....right?

You do realize you ignored the part about the US Fire-bombing and killing many thousands of japanese civilians for the greater duration of the US involvement in WWII, which effectively negate any lives we "saved" by nuking them. Furthermore, your statement is based on heresay - it is highly unlikely that the Japanese could have mounted a substantial assault on the US at the time we decided to nuke them. At that point, their navy was in shambles, they were out of raw materials and most of their major cities were smoldering piles of ash. We killed more jap civilians than hitler killed jews...What I am saying is that the WTC was bad but the US has been responsible for far worse in the past and people need to understand that we as a country are far from innocent.

Woah woah woah there slugger...
1. We did not kill more Japanese civilians than Hilter killed Jews.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties
580k Japanese civilian deaths; 6 million Jews died in the holocaust.
2. China suffered 16 million civilian deaths. Who were they fighting against?
3. Soviet Union had 11 million civilian deaths. Fighting against Germany.
4. Germany had 1.6 million civilian deaths during the American Reign of Terror.
5. It's great that we saved a lot of Japanese lives by nuking instead of invading, but I think we were more interested in saving American lives.
6. Japan was the aggressor. They could have surrendered when it became obvious that they were going to lose, but they kept fighting. They forced our hand. Japan's civilian death's are Japan's fault.


Wow, you too? Its generally accepted now that Japan was trying to surrender and we essentially ignored them so that we could try out the bomb. They wanted to keep their emperor in place after surrender, which we refused - the US wanted unconditional surrender at the time. Two nukes later, they agreed to unconditional surrender. Guess what we did with that emperor? Left him in power anyway. You figure it out. Well, no I take that back - try not to figure anything out - you may hurt yourself.

In your smug ignorance you seem to not understand that all surrenders are not created equally. Japan was NO WHERE NEAR an UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER.

The surrender terms they offered were laughable at best.

So no, we did not "ignore them so we could try out the bomb." The bombs were dropped to force them to accept unconditional surrender. Period. The bombs saved countless lives, both American and Japanese. No matter what, unless unconditional surrender was offered, we were to invade Japan. And, as I have pointed out, Japan was no where near accepting an unconditional surrender.

But keep trying the "hate America" revisionist history. I know it impresses your pseudo intellectual elitist buddies and makes you feel so cultured and all.
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
36
91
Wow the loonies are revising WWII history to make the US look like the bad guy now?

I think I have now seen it all......
 

FleshLight

Diamond Member
Mar 18, 2004
6,883
0
71
Originally posted by: ConstipatedVigilante
Wow, you too? Its generally accepted now that Japan was trying to surrender and we essentially ignored them so that we could try out the bomb. They wanted to keep their emperor in place after surrender, which we refused - the US wanted unconditional surrender at the time. Two nukes later, they agreed to unconditional surrender. Guess what we did with that emperor? Left him in power anyway. You figure it out. Well, no I take that back - try not to figure anything out - you may hurt yourself.
Um, what? The emperor was actually willing to surrender, but his generals were not. They tried to stage a coup to keep fighting.

The Emperor was also just a figurehead at the time and the military was in command.
 

Eeezee

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2005
9,922
0
0
Well, this thread is absolutely shitty. I haven't read a single OT post in this whole thread; it all belongs in P&N. I was looking for humor and didn't find it after walking around waist-high in P&N shit for awhile.
 

nick1985

Lifer
Dec 29, 2002
27,153
6
81
Originally posted by: m1ldslide1
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: EricMartello
Burning to death is probably one of the more painful ways to die, especially if you are slowly roasted and not quickly consumed in an explosive blast. The people who survived the initial crash could only be slowly burned, so jumping is simply the lesser of two evils in this case...10 seconds of fresh air then BAM, you're roadkill -instant death, no pain.

For some perspective, the US military dropped incendiary bombs on Japan during WWII - burning most of their major cities to the ground. The incendiary bombs killed many civilians, and unlike the tower jumpers, their only option was to experience Iron Chef from the food's perspective. The number of people killed by the atomic bombs pale in comparison to the numbers the US killed with incendiary bombs. So yeah, we lost the WTC but compared to the things we as a nation have done...if you can't take it, don't dish it out.

You do realize that by dropping the atom bombs we saved hundreds of thousands, if not millions of lives....right?

Oh no...another thread about to be derailed by Nick's completely irresponsible lack of history education. :thumbsdown:

Care to explain how that statement is false? Anyone with some idea of WWII knows that is pretty much a fact. Most likely millions of Japanese and hundreds of thousands of US soldiers would have died if Japan had to be taken by the foot soldiers acre by acre.

Or are you just trolling? :roll: right back at ya, tool.
 

EricMartello

Senior member
Apr 17, 2003
910
0
0
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Wow the loonies are revising WWII history to make the US look like the bad guy now?

I think I have now seen it all......

It would be nice for a lot of people if it were simply a case of us being the "good guys" and anyone we pick a fight with "bad guys"...but that is not the case. There are no "good guys" and "bad guys", it's simply us vs them and whoever wins gets to write the history books.

Care to explain how that statement is false? Anyone with some idea of WWII knows that is pretty much a fact. Most likely millions of Japanese and hundreds of thousands of US soldiers would have died if Japan had to be taken by the foot soldiers acre by acre.

Your statement is purely assumptive and has no basis in fact. It is never a better option to kill off thousands of civilians, in the process destroying entire cities, in order to spare the lives of military personnel - people who have agreed to fight and die for their country.

If you continue to stick to your assumption that killing Japanese civilians saved lives, then that means you support what happened at the WTC - killing off a bunch of American civilians to further a military goal.

You see, it's not "OK" for us to do that to another country, and then cry when it happens to us. If people don't want this kind of stuff to happen, then warring nations need to agree to keep civilian targets out of the cross-hairs.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,515
16,238
146
Originally posted by: EricMartello
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Wow the loonies are revising WWII history to make the US look like the bad guy now?

I think I have now seen it all......

It would be nice for a lot of people if it were simply a case of us being the "good guys" and anyone we pick a fight with "bad guys"...but that is not the case. There are no "good guys" and "bad guys", it's simply us vs them and whoever wins gets to write the history books.

Care to explain how that statement is false? Anyone with some idea of WWII knows that is pretty much a fact. Most likely millions of Japanese and hundreds of thousands of US soldiers would have died if Japan had to be taken by the foot soldiers acre by acre.

Your statement is purely assumptive and has no basis in fact. It is never a better option to kill off thousands of civilians, in the process destroying entire cities, in order to spare the lives of military personnel - people who have agreed to fight and die for their country.

If you continue to stick to your assumption that killing Japanese civilians saved lives, then that means you support what happened at the WTC - killing off a bunch of American civilians to further a military goal.

You see, it's not "OK" for us to do that to another country, and then cry when it happens to us. If people don't want this kind of stuff to happen, then warring nations need to agree to keep civilian targets out of the cross-hairs.

Considering the facts that my father would have been involved in the invasion, 1 in 3 (more than 1 million Americans) would have more than likely died invading Japan... not to mention the 300,000 +allied slave laborers who were to be executed upon invasion... I know for sure that you're 100% full of shit.

Japan and Germany had committed themselves to 100% total war, and neither spared civilians on any front.

Your lack of historical knowledge is only surpassed by your sad, pathetic hatred of your own country. Like I said before, this bullshit you're spewing may impress your elitist pseudo intellectual buddies and make you feel oh so smart, but realize it's just trendy history revisionism, and nothing more.

Now please, shut the fuck up, okay?
 

nick1985

Lifer
Dec 29, 2002
27,153
6
81
Originally posted by: EricMartello


Care to explain how that statement is false? Anyone with some idea of WWII knows that is pretty much a fact. Most likely millions of Japanese and hundreds of thousands of US soldiers would have died if Japan had to be taken by the foot soldiers acre by acre.



If you continue to stick to your assumption that killing Japanese civilians saved lives, then that means you support what happened at the WTC - killing off a bunch of American civilians to further a military goal.


A+++++ analogy, would read again.


On the other hand, you are aware that basically agreed upon by all historians on the matter that more Japanese civilians would have died in an inch by inch, yard by yard, take-over of the Japanese mainland than died in the A-bomb attacks?
 

EricMartello

Senior member
Apr 17, 2003
910
0
0
Originally posted by: Amused
Considering the facts that my father would have been involved in the invasion, 1 in 3 (more than 1 million Americans) would have more than likely died invading Japan... not to mention the 300,000 +allied slave laborers who were to be executed upon invasion... I know for sure that you're 100% full of shit.

Japan and Germany had committed themselves to 100% total war, and neither spared civilians on any front.

Your lack of historical knowledge is only surpassed by your sad, pathetic hatred of your own country. Like I said before, this bullshit you're spewing may impress your elitist pseudo intellectual buddies and make you feel oh so smart, but realize it's just trendy history revisionism, and nothing more.

Now please, shut the fuck up, okay?

Translation...you're a dumbass who probably spends every weekend getting drunk and thinks anyone who can read at a grade 3 level or higher is a "elitist intellectual".

Hah! Don't try to turn this into a redneck patriotic issue...mah pappy dun go to JApan to kill em japs cuz we nukem first nyuk nyuk.

Yes, it's easy for those of you with a room temperature IQ to go all yee-haw about killin anyone who doesn't agree with your narrow-minded views...but the world does not revolve around your emotional sentiments. Do you think that the people killed in the nuclear blast did not have families? Your father may be important to you, but to everyone else, he's just another person - and in the military's eyes he was just as expendable as anyone else. People need to understand that joining the military is essentially saying "I agree to obey the orders given by superior officers, even if that means I will die." Don't join if you just want sympathy of you're fishing for respect that you can't get any other way.


Originally posted by: nick1985
A+++++ analogy, would read again.

On the other hand, you are aware that basically agreed upon by all historians on the matter that more Japanese civilians would have died in an inch by inch, yard by yard, take-over of the Japanese mainland than died in the A-bomb attacks?

Really? Because I was having a hard time dumbing the concept down any more...I mean the next step is pulling out a box of crayons and construction paper...

Again with your assumptions of what might have happened - but never did...If troops were on the ground in an attempt to seize control of the Japanese mainland, logic would suggest that most of the civilians would evacuate the combat area and that the military would put the are under martial law...similar to what might happen if Japan managed to land troops on US soil. In other words, the majority of the casualties would have been military targets on both sides.
 

FleshLight

Diamond Member
Mar 18, 2004
6,883
0
71
Originally posted by: EricMartello
Originally posted by: Amused
Considering the facts that my father would have been involved in the invasion, 1 in 3 (more than 1 million Americans) would have more than likely died invading Japan... not to mention the 300,000 +allied slave laborers who were to be executed upon invasion... I know for sure that you're 100% full of shit.

Japan and Germany had committed themselves to 100% total war, and neither spared civilians on any front.

Your lack of historical knowledge is only surpassed by your sad, pathetic hatred of your own country. Like I said before, this bullshit you're spewing may impress your elitist pseudo intellectual buddies and make you feel oh so smart, but realize it's just trendy history revisionism, and nothing more.

Now please, shut the fuck up, okay?

Translation...you're a dumbass who probably spends every weekend getting drunk and thinks anyone who can read at a grade 3 level or higher is a "elitist intellectual".

Hah! Don't try to turn this into a redneck patriotic issue...mah pappy dun go to JApan to kill em japs cuz we nukem first nyuk nyuk.

Yes, it's easy for those of you with a room temperature IQ to go all yee-haw about killin anyone who doesn't agree with your narrow-minded views...but the world does not revolve around your emotional sentiments. Do you think that the people killed in the nuclear blast did not have families? Your father may be important to you, but to everyone else, he's just another person - and in the military's eyes he was just as expendable as anyone else. People need to understand that joining the military is essentially saying "I agree to obey the orders given by superior officers, even if that means I will die." Don't join if you just want sympathy of you're fishing for respect that you can't get any other way.


Originally posted by: nick1985
A+++++ analogy, would read again.

On the other hand, you are aware that basically agreed upon by all historians on the matter that more Japanese civilians would have died in an inch by inch, yard by yard, take-over of the Japanese mainland than died in the A-bomb attacks?

Really? Because I was having a hard time dumbing the concept down any more...I mean the next step is pulling out a box of crayons and construction paper...

Again with your assumptions of what might have happened - but never did...If troops were on the ground in an attempt to seize control of the Japanese mainland, logic would suggest that most of the civilians would evacuate the combat area and that the military would put the are under martial law...similar to what might happen if Japan managed to land troops on US soil. In other words, the majority of the casualties would have been military targets on both sides.

Learn history. 28 million japanese civilians signed up for the "National Volunteer Combat Force" which was armed with rifles, swords, and bamboo spears and were trained in guerilla warfare. They were to perform hit and run attacks during the night time against the invasion force.
 

nick1985

Lifer
Dec 29, 2002
27,153
6
81
Originally posted by: EricMartello
Originally posted by: Amused
Considering the facts that my father would have been involved in the invasion, 1 in 3 (more than 1 million Americans) would have more than likely died invading Japan... not to mention the 300,000 +allied slave laborers who were to be executed upon invasion... I know for sure that you're 100% full of shit.

Japan and Germany had committed themselves to 100% total war, and neither spared civilians on any front.

Your lack of historical knowledge is only surpassed by your sad, pathetic hatred of your own country. Like I said before, this bullshit you're spewing may impress your elitist pseudo intellectual buddies and make you feel oh so smart, but realize it's just trendy history revisionism, and nothing more.

Now please, shut the fuck up, okay?

Translation...you're a dumbass who probably spends every weekend getting drunk and thinks anyone who can read at a grade 3 level or higher is a "elitist intellectual".

Hah! Don't try to turn this into a redneck patriotic issue...mah pappy dun go to JApan to kill em japs cuz we nukem first nyuk nyuk.

Yes, it's easy for those of you with a room temperature IQ to go all yee-haw about killin anyone who doesn't agree with your narrow-minded views...but the world does not revolve around your emotional sentiments. Do you think that the people killed in the nuclear blast did not have families? Your father may be important to you, but to everyone else, he's just another person - and in the military's eyes he was just as expendable as anyone else. People need to understand that joining the military is essentially saying "I agree to obey the orders given by superior officers, even if that means I will die." Don't join if you just want sympathy of you're fishing for respect that you can't get any other way.


Originally posted by: nick1985
A+++++ analogy, would read again.

On the other hand, you are aware that basically agreed upon by all historians on the matter that more Japanese civilians would have died in an inch by inch, yard by yard, take-over of the Japanese mainland than died in the A-bomb attacks?

Really? Because I was having a hard time dumbing the concept down any more...I mean the next step is pulling out a box of crayons and construction paper...

Again with your assumptions of what might have happened - but never did...If troops were on the ground in an attempt to seize control of the Japanese mainland, logic would suggest that most of the civilians would evacuate the combat area and that the military would put the are under martial law...similar to what might happen if Japan managed to land troops on US soil. In other words, the majority of the casualties would have been military targets on both sides.

Ok wise-ass...

Text

"Okinawan civilian losses in the campaign were estimated to be between 42,000 and 150,000 dead (more than 100,000 according to Okinawa Prefecture[12]). "

That alone is on par with 1 of the 2 nukes. And Okinawa is MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH smaller than mainland Japan. You cant honestly say, and believe it, that there wouldnt have been at least 10x as many civilian deaths on the mainland.

You cant be this dense, can you? And no, the majority of deaths would not have been military, you dolt. Read some fucking history about WWII before you post. You sound so stupid its sad.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
wow. really when you think you have seen everything and all the stupidity someone like Ericmartello post.

 

nick1985

Lifer
Dec 29, 2002
27,153
6
81
Originally posted by: waggy
wow. really when you think you have seen everything and all the stupidity someone like Ericmartello post.


And here I was, thinking nobody could top casiotech...
 

mugs

Lifer
Apr 29, 2003
48,920
46
91
Originally posted by: EricMartello
Originally posted by: mugs
Woah woah woah there slugger...
1. We did not kill more Japanese civilians than Hilter killed Jews.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties
580k Japanese civilian deaths; 6 million Jews died in the holocaust.
2. China suffered 16 million civilian deaths. Who were they fighting against?
3. Soviet Union had 11 million civilian deaths. Fighting against Germany.
4. Germany had 1.6 million civilian deaths during the American Reign of Terror.
5. It's great that we saved a lot of Japanese lives by nuking instead of invading, but I think we were more interested in saving American lives.
6. Japan was the aggressor. They could have surrendered when it became obvious that they were going to lose, but they kept fighting. They forced our hand. Japan's civilian death's are Japan's fault.

Once you cite a credible, irrefutable source like Wikipedia, any chance debate is quashed. :eek: There is no way those numbers are inaccurate.

The point that you seem to be missing, unsubstantiated figures aside, is that the US has in its past killed many civilians and has committed what could be considered "horrendous crimes against humanity". Guantanamo bay is a lovely resort, isn't it? The guy saying we "saved soldiers lives" by killing Japanese civilians with a nuke rather than invading...sure sounds noble, but members of the military have agreed to fight; civilians have not. Killing civilians to prevent further military deaths sounds a lot like an Al Quaeda tactic to me. In fact, I bet these muslim terrorists are using the same logic - blow up a few schools to prevent kids from adding to the US military. Blow up some buildings - that's one less logistical advantage for the US. Just think how many lives are saved each time a car bomb goes off.

There is a source listed for every country on the list. You obviously have a source that says the US killed more than 6 million Japanese civilians, or you wouldn't have said it. Why don't you share with the rest of us?

Once you resort to making up facts to support your position, any chance of debate is quashed.
 

TehMac

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2006
9,976
3
71
Eric Martello, are you a fond fan of Pat Buchanan and revisionist history?
 
Aug 23, 2000
15,509
1
81
Originally posted by: Lurknomore
Originally posted by: EricMartello
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: EricMartello
Burning to death is probably one of the more painful ways to die, especially if you are slowly roasted and not quickly consumed in an explosive blast. The people who survived the initial crash could only be slowly burned, so jumping is simply the lesser of two evils in this case...10 seconds of fresh air then BAM, you're roadkill -instant death, no pain.

For some perspective, the US military dropped incendiary bombs on Japan during WWII - burning most of their major cities to the ground. The incendiary bombs killed many civilians, and unlike the tower jumpers, their only option was to experience Iron Chef from the food's perspective. The number of people killed by the atomic bombs pale in comparison to the numbers the US killed with incendiary bombs. So yeah, we lost the WTC but compared to the things we as a nation have done...if you can't take it, don't dish it out.

You do realize that by dropping the atom bombs we saved hundreds of thousands, if not millions of lives....right?

You do realize you ignored the part about the US Fire-bombing and killing many thousands of japanese civilians for the greater duration of the US involvement in WWII, which effectively negate any lives we "saved" by nuking them. Furthermore, your statement is based on heresay - it is highly unlikely that the Japanese could have mounted a substantial assault on the US at the time we decided to nuke them. At that point, their navy was in shambles, they were out of raw materials and most of their major cities were smoldering piles of ash. We killed more jap civilians than hitler killed jews...What I am saying is that the WTC was bad but the US has been responsible for far worse in the past and people need to understand that we as a country are far from innocent.

QFT
That we would "need" to "save" Japan from itself by possibly sacrificing millions just to implement our unconditional surrender clause is a reflection of our patronizing worldview that still exists today.

So we should have just given up, let the Japanese leaders stay and rebuild their military so they can fight another day?
The idiocy of you and Eric Martello's post is mind boggling. You do realize who attacked us 1st right? As with Sept 11 we knew who did it. For those of us that are still not in high school you should remember that most of the country was ready for war and ready to kick someones ass.
 

skyking

Lifer
Nov 21, 2001
22,376
5,337
146
Originally posted by: Eeezee
Well, this thread is absolutely shitty. I haven't read a single OT post in this whole thread; it all belongs in P&N. I was looking for humor and didn't find it after walking around waist-high in P&N shit for awhile.

That's not true; my post was right on topic. In the old days it would not have been allowed. I saw plenty of these 'jumper' posts get locked because they are in bad taste and are disrepectful of people in thier last moments of life, who happen to be caught on camera. Those people have surviving brother and sisters,parents, children.

Originally posted by: Engineer

This thread makes me :( and :|
Me too:(
 

EricMartello

Senior member
Apr 17, 2003
910
0
0
Originally posted by: FleshLight
Learn history. 28 million japanese civilians signed up for the "National Volunteer Combat Force" which was armed with rifles, swords, and bamboo spears and were trained in guerilla warfare. They were to perform hit and run attacks during the night time against the invasion force.

Thanks for cleverly pointing out that people are considered "civilians" before they sign up for any type of military duty...but yes, they did "sign up" to defend their country, as did many American civilians.


Originally posted by: nick1985
Ok wise-ass...

You cant be this dense, can you? And no, the majority of deaths would not have been military, you dolt. Read some fucking history about WWII before you post. You sound so stupid its sad.

Apparently, the denser of the two is the retard who keeps posting links to wikipedia thinking that they're going to "settle the score" and prove that he knows what he's talking about.

WTB more definitive wikipedia links. Thanks much!

What are your thoughts on Global Warming? Should I buy some land in PA? Because I heard there's a good chance it will be ocean front property in the next 10 years. Be a good boy and wikipedia that for me. :D

Originally posted by: mugs
There is a source listed for every country on the list. You obviously have a source that says the US killed more than 6 million Japanese civilians, or you wouldn't have said it. Why don't you share with the rest of us?

Once you resort to making up facts to support your position, any chance of debate is quashed.

If Wikipedia said your mom was a $3 crack whore would you believe it? That's the problem with something that can be edited by the same idiots who post on the the forums. :eek: It is unlikely that over 6 million jews were killed...the jews like to inflate that number to get sympathy and to feel more entitled...kinda like black people still whip out the slavery card.

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
So we should have just given up, let the Japanese leaders stay and rebuild their military so they can fight another day?
The idiocy of you and Eric Martello's post is mind boggling. You do realize who attacked us 1st right? As with Sept 11 we knew who did it. For those of us that are still not in high school you should remember that most of the country was ready for war and ready to kick someones ass.

The purpose of a surrender, a cease-fire agreement between two nations, is just that - one side declares defeat. You say they attacked the US first; but the US was not idly sitting by in WWII. They were "secretly" helping out - and I personally think the decision to attack Pearl Harbor was poorly thought out from a tactical perspective, the US was not simply an innocent bystander getting swept into someone else's fight.

Correction about 9/11 - we know what the media told us about the individuals leading up to the WTC event. The truth behind the matter will probably never be known to the general public, but at least now we had a damn good reason to put a large military presence in the middle east. Again, the simpletons will continue trying to reason with "good guys us - bad guys them" mentality...it's hardly that black and white.

 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,515
16,238
146
Originally posted by: EricMartello
Originally posted by: Amused
Considering the facts that my father would have been involved in the invasion, 1 in 3 (more than 1 million Americans) would have more than likely died invading Japan... not to mention the 300,000 +allied slave laborers who were to be executed upon invasion... I know for sure that you're 100% full of shit.

Japan and Germany had committed themselves to 100% total war, and neither spared civilians on any front.

Your lack of historical knowledge is only surpassed by your sad, pathetic hatred of your own country. Like I said before, this bullshit you're spewing may impress your elitist pseudo intellectual buddies and make you feel oh so smart, but realize it's just trendy history revisionism, and nothing more.

Now please, shut the fuck up, okay?

Translation...you're a dumbass who probably spends every weekend getting drunk and thinks anyone who can read at a grade 3 level or higher is a "elitist intellectual".

Hah! Don't try to turn this into a redneck patriotic issue...mah pappy dun go to JApan to kill em japs cuz we nukem first nyuk nyuk.

Yes, it's easy for those of you with a room temperature IQ to go all yee-haw about killin anyone who doesn't agree with your narrow-minded views...but the world does not revolve around your emotional sentiments. Do you think that the people killed in the nuclear blast did not have families? Your father may be important to you, but to everyone else, he's just another person - and in the military's eyes he was just as expendable as anyone else. People need to understand that joining the military is essentially saying "I agree to obey the orders given by superior officers, even if that means I will die." Don't join if you just want sympathy of you're fishing for respect that you can't get any other way.

The most amazing thing? Both me (MBA - Army veteran) and my father (Doctorates in both physics and electrical engineering WWII Naval veteran) risked our poor, low brow lives so you could have the freedom to trash talk the country that gives you the freedom to speak your mind. You are the very definition of an elitist. Your post more than proves that little gem.

Meanwhile, it is highly obvious to everyone but yourself that you did not refute any of the facts I posted. Not one.

Your only response to me is to call me stupid???

Why didn't you just post, "You're the dummy, DUMMY!" back to me and save everyone the time of reading your half assed attempt at being intellectually superior?

It's more than obvious you have very little knowledge of what you're talking about here beyond the liberal/isolationist dribble you've been fed.
 

Born2bwire

Diamond Member
Oct 28, 2005
9,840
6
71
Originally posted by: EricMartello
It is unlikely that over 6 million jews were killed...the jews like to inflate that number to get sympathy and to feel more entitled...kinda like black people still whip out the slavery card.

Seriously?
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Whoa!

Clicks on 9/11 thread. Reads about WWII.

We've strayed ;)