JOTD
-
Paul Watson wrote: Care to shed light on why you seem to think it was a terrorist attack? Well, I did not say that I think it was a terrorist attack. ;P However, I can see how some people can qualify it as such. The main purpose of the attack was to scare (terrorize) Japan into surrendering. 800+ thousand people died as the result...
War is hell. If we hadn't dropped the nuke, the war would have gone on for much longer and more people would have lost their lives. The Allies did what was necessary. Michael The avalanche has started, it's too late for the pebbles to vote.
-
Paul Watson wrote: Care to shed light on why you seem to think it was a terrorist attack? Well, I did not say that I think it was a terrorist attack. ;P However, I can see how some people can qualify it as such. The main purpose of the attack was to scare (terrorize) Japan into surrendering. 800+ thousand people died as the result...
Konstantin Vasserman wrote: The main purpose of the attack was to scare (terrorize) Japan into surrendering. 800+ thousand people died as the result... Maybe if you take the things so literally that God really did create Eve from a rib of Adam, but in the real world I don't think so. The two countries were at war after all. It was not a out of the blue first attack with no war time pre-events. If Hiroshima can be considered a terrorist attack then I would say Pearl Harbour was an even bigger one (not in lives lost, but in the way it was done and what came before... not much.) Anyway. As they say: One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaRoger Wright wrote: Using a feather is kinky; using the whole chicken is perverted!
-
Konstantin Vasserman wrote: Do you not agree? Not at present no, it was not a terrorist attack from what I know. Care to shed light on why you seem to think it was a terrorist attack?
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaRoger Wright wrote: Using a feather is kinky; using the whole chicken is perverted!
It said "terroristic" not "terrorist". At least that is how I interpretted what it meant.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
-
It said "terroristic" not "terrorist". At least that is how I interpretted what it meant.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
David Wulff wrote: It said "terroristic" not "terrorist" What is the difference? The statement made that Hiroshima was a terrorist act performed by the Allies on Japan. Adding ic on the end does not change the statement enough to make it different. LOL, got to love having three different arguements with you at the same time. Two over subtleties in verbage!
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaRoger Wright wrote: Using a feather is kinky; using the whole chicken is perverted!
-
War is hell. If we hadn't dropped the nuke, the war would have gone on for much longer and more people would have lost their lives. The Allies did what was necessary. Michael The avalanche has started, it's too late for the pebbles to vote.
I've read of at least 2 opposing arguments some time ago. Some sources say that Japan was already about to surrender anyway. Some other people ask why US did not just invite Japanese to a test of the A-bomb somewhere on the island to scare the s**t out of them, why did they choose to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians instead? I am not supporting any of the above views. I know too little about it. But from what I know it is not all that clear to me what really was the purpose and was US really justified in doing what they've done.
-
While on a propaganda tour George W. Bush visits a school where he explains his policy to the children. Afterwards he encourages the pupils to ask questions. Little Bob says:
_I have three questions:
- How did you win the election, though you lost the enumeration of votes?
- Why do you want to attack Iraq for no apparent reason?
- Don't you think, that the bomb on Hiroshima has been the biggest terroristic act of all the time?
_
At that very moment, the bell rings for the break, and all children run out of the class room. When they come back, President Bush asks them again for questions. Now Little Joe says:
_Mr. President, I have five questions:
- How did you win the election, though you lost the enumeration of votes?
- Why do you want to attack Iraq for no apparent reason?
- Don't you think, that the bomb on Hiroshima has been the biggest terroristic act of all the time?
- Why did the bell ring for break twenty minutes earlier than usual?
- Where is Bob?
_
Regards Thomas
Disclaimer:
Because of heavy processing requirements, we are currently using some of your unused brain capacity for backup processing. Please ignore any hallucinations, voices or unusual dreams you may experience. Please avoid concentration-intensive tasks until further notice. Thank you. -
David Wulff wrote: It said "terroristic" not "terrorist" What is the difference? The statement made that Hiroshima was a terrorist act performed by the Allies on Japan. Adding ic on the end does not change the statement enough to make it different. LOL, got to love having three different arguements with you at the same time. Two over subtleties in verbage!
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaRoger Wright wrote: Using a feather is kinky; using the whole chicken is perverted!
Paul Watson wrote: What is the difference? Well as I read it terroristic was refering to the use of a nuclear bomb against civilians, which is what Bush is telling is now is a possible terrorist attack. I.e. it is something a terrorist would do. Remember this joke is from the perspective of a child, so you have tot ake the words at face value. Paul Watson wrote: LOL, got to love having three different arguements with you at the same time. Two over subtleties in verbage! If you'll take a look at my question in the Web Development forum I'll forgive you... :rolleyes:
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
-
David Wulff wrote: It said "terroristic" not "terrorist" What is the difference? The statement made that Hiroshima was a terrorist act performed by the Allies on Japan. Adding ic on the end does not change the statement enough to make it different. LOL, got to love having three different arguements with you at the same time. Two over subtleties in verbage!
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaRoger Wright wrote: Using a feather is kinky; using the whole chicken is perverted!
Paul Watson wrote: Adding ic on the end does not change the statement Yup, good point and quite a useful one to make at odd times during the day too. Cheers, Simon "The day I swan around in expensive suits is the day I hope someone puts a bullet in my head.", Chris Carter. animation mechanics in SVG
-
I've read of at least 2 opposing arguments some time ago. Some sources say that Japan was already about to surrender anyway. Some other people ask why US did not just invite Japanese to a test of the A-bomb somewhere on the island to scare the s**t out of them, why did they choose to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians instead? I am not supporting any of the above views. I know too little about it. But from what I know it is not all that clear to me what really was the purpose and was US really justified in doing what they've done.
Konstantin Vasserman wrote: But from what I know it is not all that clear to me what really was the purpose and was US really justified in doing what they've Hindsight is such a wonderful thing, isn't it? None of us were there, we have little idea what it was like. A WORLD war was going on, it must have been a pressurised and scary place to be and make decisions in.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaRoger Wright wrote: Using a feather is kinky; using the whole chicken is perverted!
-
Konstantin Vasserman wrote: The main purpose of the attack was to scare (terrorize) Japan into surrendering. 800+ thousand people died as the result... Maybe if you take the things so literally that God really did create Eve from a rib of Adam, but in the real world I don't think so. The two countries were at war after all. It was not a out of the blue first attack with no war time pre-events. If Hiroshima can be considered a terrorist attack then I would say Pearl Harbour was an even bigger one (not in lives lost, but in the way it was done and what came before... not much.) Anyway. As they say: One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaRoger Wright wrote: Using a feather is kinky; using the whole chicken is perverted!
So is it your argument that it does not qualify to be called terrorist attack based on the fact that it was during war? Dictionary defines terror as violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands. It does not distinguish between war and peace... I guess any attack can be viewed as an act of terror, but there is a big difference IMO between dropping 2 A-bombs in the middle of cities full of people and attacking a naval base with conventional weapons...
-
The joke would work better if the Hiroshima line was removed. We can blame George Bush for many things, but not that. Michael The avalanche has started, it's too late for the pebbles to vote.
Michael P Butler wrote: We can blame George Bush for many things, but not that. I think (since I didn't write the Joke myself, but received it this morning and translated it from German to English), the mentioning of Hiroshima is not to blame GWB for that, but to show some people's reaction to any critics about American politics. Regards Thomas Sonork id: 100.10453 Thömmi
Disclaimer:
Because of heavy processing requirements, we are currently using some of your unused brain capacity for backup processing. Please ignore any hallucinations, voices or unusual dreams you may experience. Please avoid concentration-intensive tasks until further notice. Thank you. -
Paul Watson wrote: Adding ic on the end does not change the statement Yup, good point and quite a useful one to make at odd times during the day too. Cheers, Simon "The day I swan around in expensive suits is the day I hope someone puts a bullet in my head.", Chris Carter. animation mechanics in SVG
SimonS wrote: a useful one to make at odd times during the day too Boss: So why isn't it working? Co-worker: The funicular is not funucling with the funiclee. Boss: Slow down.. the fun what? Co-worker: The funicular! Simon, you explain. SimonS: Adding ic on the end does not change the statement Co-worker: Huh? Boss: Hey! That is one of those Dilbertisms, aint it? Well done, you get a raise SimonS... ic. :rolleyes:
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaRoger Wright wrote: Using a feather is kinky; using the whole chicken is perverted!
-
I've read of at least 2 opposing arguments some time ago. Some sources say that Japan was already about to surrender anyway. Some other people ask why US did not just invite Japanese to a test of the A-bomb somewhere on the island to scare the s**t out of them, why did they choose to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians instead? I am not supporting any of the above views. I know too little about it. But from what I know it is not all that clear to me what really was the purpose and was US really justified in doing what they've done.
Konstantin Vasserman wrote: Some sources say that Japan was already about to surrender anyway. Why did they wait for the SECOND a-bomb to go off then? Konstantin Vasserman wrote: why US did not just invite Japanese to a test of the A-bomb somewhere on the island to scare the s**t out of them Doesn't quite have the same effect, does it? Like I said above, it took 2 bombs to get them to surrender.
Jason Henderson
start page ; articles henderson is coming henderson is an opponent's worst nightmare * googlism * -
Paul Watson wrote: What is the difference? Well as I read it terroristic was refering to the use of a nuclear bomb against civilians, which is what Bush is telling is now is a possible terrorist attack. I.e. it is something a terrorist would do. Remember this joke is from the perspective of a child, so you have tot ake the words at face value. Paul Watson wrote: LOL, got to love having three different arguements with you at the same time. Two over subtleties in verbage! If you'll take a look at my question in the Web Development forum I'll forgive you... :rolleyes:
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
David Wulff wrote: Remember this joke is from the perspective of a child, so you have tot ake the words at face value. Err, feel free to blame me, because it was me who translated that joke from German to English, and I didn't know the proper translation. After consulting my favourite dictionary[^], I have to admit that "terrorist attack" is the better translation of the original German text :-O Regards Thomas Sonork id: 100.10453 Thömmi
Disclaimer:
Because of heavy processing requirements, we are currently using some of your unused brain capacity for backup processing. Please ignore any hallucinations, voices or unusual dreams you may experience. Please avoid concentration-intensive tasks until further notice. Thank you. -
So is it your argument that it does not qualify to be called terrorist attack based on the fact that it was during war? Dictionary defines terror as violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands. It does not distinguish between war and peace... I guess any attack can be viewed as an act of terror, but there is a big difference IMO between dropping 2 A-bombs in the middle of cities full of people and attacking a naval base with conventional weapons...
Konstantin Vasserman wrote: So is it your argument that it does not qualify to be called terrorist attack based on the fact that it was during war? Yes. As Michael said, war is Hell. Konstantin Vasserman wrote: Dictionary defines That is the first thing I did and why in my first post I said "If we are being literal" etc. If we are being literal then yes it was a terrorist act. But it was war. Lots of terrible decisions were made. Were the Russians terrorists for what they did to civilians? Pretty sure British infrantry men also killed civilians at times, sometimes even deliberatly. It was war.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaRoger Wright wrote: Using a feather is kinky; using the whole chicken is perverted!
-
David Wulff wrote: Remember this joke is from the perspective of a child, so you have tot ake the words at face value. Err, feel free to blame me, because it was me who translated that joke from German to English, and I didn't know the proper translation. After consulting my favourite dictionary[^], I have to admit that "terrorist attack" is the better translation of the original German text :-O Regards Thomas Sonork id: 100.10453 Thömmi
Disclaimer:
Because of heavy processing requirements, we are currently using some of your unused brain capacity for backup processing. Please ignore any hallucinations, voices or unusual dreams you may experience. Please avoid concentration-intensive tasks until further notice. Thank you.Are you telling me that originally GWB spoke German? Sorry - lost all credibility now (Though he probably speaks Germainian) -- Help me! I'm turning into a grapefruit!
-
Are you telling me that originally GWB spoke German? Sorry - lost all credibility now (Though he probably speaks Germainian) -- Help me! I'm turning into a grapefruit!
benjymous wrote: Are you telling me that originally GWB spoke German? LOL Maybe he speaks German_ic_... ;) Regards Thomas Sonork id: 100.10453 Thömmi
Disclaimer:
Because of heavy processing requirements, we are currently using some of your unused brain capacity for backup processing. Please ignore any hallucinations, voices or unusual dreams you may experience. Please avoid concentration-intensive tasks until further notice. Thank you. -
Thomas Freudenberg wrote: Don't you think, that the bomb on Hiroshima has been the biggest terroristic act of all the time? Do people think that?
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaRoger Wright wrote: Using a feather is kinky; using the whole chicken is perverted!
-
Konstantin Vasserman wrote: Do you not agree? Not at present no, it was not a terrorist attack from what I know. Care to shed light on why you seem to think it was a terrorist attack?
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaRoger Wright wrote: Using a feather is kinky; using the whole chicken is perverted!
I would say that War is terrorist by nature, but that last century saw the concept applied with new technologies. Strikes against cities during WWI and WWII were terrorists when targeting on purpose civilians, not only Hiroshima, but also Rotterdam, Warsaw, London, Hamburg, Dresden, Berlin, Tokyo...the list is too long.
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop
-
Konstantin Vasserman wrote: Some sources say that Japan was already about to surrender anyway. Why did they wait for the SECOND a-bomb to go off then? Konstantin Vasserman wrote: why US did not just invite Japanese to a test of the A-bomb somewhere on the island to scare the s**t out of them Doesn't quite have the same effect, does it? Like I said above, it took 2 bombs to get them to surrender.
Jason Henderson
start page ; articles henderson is coming henderson is an opponent's worst nightmare * googlism *As I've said before, nothing is as black and white as some people want us to believe. Here is some quotes of people who think it was a mistake: http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm[^]