![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.1){kind=small}
This guy is a sick sick individual. Of course the US and the UK doesn't bomb anyone or any place indiscriminately, and no sane person can compare the acts of either nation to the evil acts of terrorists.
And to think- a few days after terrorist attacks...and this garbage. Clearly this is a paper with absolutely no class, and the citizens of Britain would be wise to tell all their friends to make sure they never buy this paper again.
People like this are just beyond the pale, and there's no use even dealing with them they're so unhinged.
UPDATE: After researching this Peter Brookes guy, this probably shouldn't be surprising. He claims Bush stole the election without one shred of evidence.
July 14 2005, 04:22:21 UTC 6 years ago
i still <3 you.
i will be free ALL the time, very very soon. and then we can hang. promise!
July 14 2005, 05:04:12 UTC 6 years ago
why will u be free soon? did you quit your jobto work for the circus on a seasonal basis? thatd be kinda cool! and you didnt reply to my im on yahoo. it made me cry. then i peed myself cause i cried so hard.
ok im gonna shut up now before i scare people. well, scare them more.
July 14 2005, 05:06:26 UTC 6 years ago
July 14 2005, 08:39:19 UTC 6 years ago
July 14 2005, 09:06:17 UTC 6 years ago
July 14 2005, 07:13:06 UTC 6 years ago
Anonymous
July 14 2005, 08:37:18 UTC 6 years ago
you didnt know we're evil? no one told ya huh?
i'd really love to hear ONE example of a US bombing campaign that targeted urban areas and did so indiscriminately. it just doesn't happen. hell- we sometimes miss targets (bin laden for example!) because we don't want to cause civilian casualties.
good thing he made this cartoon tho- we can now add the times to the whackjob newspaper list for the UK (along with the guardian!)
July 14 2005, 20:51:06 UTC 6 years ago
I'll do you two better:
1) Hiroshima: Aug 6 1945; estimated 140,000 civilian dead
2) Nagasaki: Aug 9 1945; estimated 150,000 civilian dead
3) Dresden: Feb 13-15 1945; estimated 25,000 civilian dead
July 14 2005, 21:31:51 UTC 6 years ago
of course we killed civilians in japan- to end the war! and we know it ended the war...because, more civilians died in the initial bombing runs in tokyo than died in hiroshima and nagasaki combined. during many japanese battles, allied soldiers could see entire japanese families jumping off cliffs to their deaths (even throwing their babies off of cliffs) rather than surrender. that was the brutality caused by the brain washing from the imperial powers.
July 14 2005, 23:08:30 UTC 6 years ago
Oh, I see---targeting civilian populations is okay as long as *WE* do it. Interesting. Japanese families jumping off cliffs is a rather pleasant image for you, I'm sure.
Back on topic, though: There is little evidence to suggest that deliberately bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the war. Japan was already well on its way to losing the war before the atomic bombs were dropped. When Eisenhower learned of the plan to target Japanese cities, he advised against it. And when MacArthur found out about the plans after the fact, he declared that they held absolutely "no military value whatsoever." I don't know about you, but if the Allied Supreme Commander advised against using atomic weapons on civilians and the general in charge of the Asian theater felt the bombings weren't of any particular military value, I'm going to take that into consideration.
And you didn't touch the Dresden firebombings conducted by the British and Americans for two awful August days in 1945, which had they been conducted by the Nazis certainly would have been considered warcrimes. There is absolutely no defending the attacks on Dresden, and they are something the Brits and Americans part and parcel got away with.
July 15 2005, 00:20:53 UTC 6 years ago
besides...in all 3 cases- no one targeted civilian centers to just cause civilian casualities- they were moves to end a war that spanned the entire globe.
im really not sure how youre making the comparison between fighting during a world war and 4 nuts murdering innocent people simply because theyre part of a non-muslim theocracy. theres no comparison between what allied forces did in WWII and what terrorists do.
July 15 2005, 04:08:17 UTC 6 years ago
If you'll actually take the time to read this thread, you'll see that my comments are in response to your saying this:
i'd really love to hear ONE example of a US bombing campaign that targeted urban areas and did so indiscriminately
I gave you three examples, in which the USA and/or its allies deliberately targeted civilian centers that had little to no military value (again, these are the words and opinions of Eisenhower and MacArthur---if you dispute these claims, you should consider doing a little bit of research). The RAF and USAF firebombing of Dresden was militarily insignificant---the Germans didn't even have a garrison or a single anti-aircraft battery deployed within a 60-mile radius of the city. By the time the attacks were over, nearly 80% of residences within the city were completely destroyed; a conservative estimate shows over 250,000 civilian deaths as a result of the bombings, but that takes into account only the bodies that could be found---it is widely believed that some 500,000 bodies were vaporized, with temperatures in the city reaching over 1600 degrees *centigrade*. RAF military records show that over 700,000 bombs were dropped; at the time, Dresden had a total population of 1.2 million people. That's one bomb for every two people in the city, Josh---if that isn't indescriminate killing of a civilian population, I don't know what the hell you'd call it.
Furthermore, if you're "not sure" what the basis of comparison is, perhaps you should pay better attention to the things you say.
(I know, I know---this is probably asking too much...)
July 15 2005, 04:51:27 UTC 6 years ago
you show your true colors when you comment with madness like this.
if they had no military value, then you're doing exactly what i said- you're supporting the claim of nutjob cartoonist. we're no better than terrorists (if they had no military value, then they had to be acts of terrorism). that's fine, you can think that to be the case if you want, i'd just probably keep it to myself out in public.
you say that macarthur condemned the use of the bombs, and you say that the japanese were ready to surrender...but you never mention that macarthur (based on what the emperor and others in his inner circle said) made it clear that the only surrender that would have come before the bombings would have been a conditional surrender that guaranteed imperial rule (we know how well that worked for the US and everyone else involved!)...
July 15 2005, 05:09:05 UTC 6 years ago
this was after the refusal to an unconditional surrender...and the US promise of utter destruction of they refused to sign off to the potsdam proclamation.
July 15 2005, 05:36:02 UTC 6 years ago
July 15 2005, 05:19:27 UTC 6 years ago
I'm sorry I responded in the first place. Just never mind.
July 14 2005, 08:38:20 UTC 6 years ago
you didnt know we're evil? no one told ya huh?
i'd really love to hear ONE example of a US bombing campaign that targeted urban areas and did so indiscriminately. it just doesn't happen. hell- we sometimes miss targets (bin laden for example!) because we don't want to cause civilian casualties.
good thing he made this cartoon tho- we can now add the times to the whackjob newspaper list for the UK (along with the guardian!)
July 14 2005, 09:08:06 UTC 6 years ago
July 14 2005, 21:32:22 UTC 6 years ago