zionist americans. .. Soooo... you're pretty much just TRYING to start a . zionist americans Soooo you're pretty much just TRYING to start a
Upload
Login or register
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (714)
[ 714 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
#69 - cancerousiguana
Reply +145 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
Soooo... you're pretty much just TRYING to start a *********.
User avatar #71 to #69 - mithrander [OP]
Reply -79 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
if telling the truth is a ********* well then yeah,i am
#77 to #71 - wheresthefudge
Reply +51 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
"Zionist Americans" didn't do that.   
Americans did that to end a bloody war, which would only have been bloodier if allowed to continue. The number of people who died in those bombings pale in comparison to the number who'd have died in a land invasion, or a blockade, or simply doing nothing and allowing the Japanese to continue raping and pillaging Asia and the South Pacific.
"Zionist Americans" didn't do that.
Americans did that to end a bloody war, which would only have been bloodier if allowed to continue. The number of people who died in those bombings pale in comparison to the number who'd have died in a land invasion, or a blockade, or simply doing nothing and allowing the Japanese to continue raping and pillaging Asia and the South Pacific.
User avatar #610 to #77 - teoferrazzi
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
that's speculation, and the kind that makes you feel better. in that light, you should be suspicious of its veracity.
User avatar #691 to #610 - wheresthefudge
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
It's speculation, yes. But it's speculation from historians and military tacticians who have spent the majority of their life studying that exact question. It's as valid as speculation by physicists as to what happens in a black hole, or by biologists as to how life developed on earth 4 billion years ago.
User avatar #693 to #691 - teoferrazzi
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
not to mention, the opinion you have stated is by no means held by the absolute majority of historians. I'm not going to say it's absolutely false because I do not possess the knowledge, but there isn't an agreement.
User avatar #692 to #691 - teoferrazzi
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
I beg to differ. it was speculation made by people who, by and large, would be rather prone on making that speculation for reasons other than its truth, therefore it cannot be scientific
User avatar #694 to #692 - wheresthefudge
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
Well, you're welcome to believe that. But you're wrong, and I'm tired of fighting against your ignorance.
User avatar #695 to #694 - teoferrazzi
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
US Major General C. Chennault:

"...the entry of the Soviet Union into the war (against Japan) was the decisive factor that hastened the end of the war. Even if we had not used the bomb the result would have been just the same."

(New York Times Aug 15 1945.)

This isn't to refute your opinion, just to say that there is still a great deal of controversy/

User avatar #594 to #77 - fuzzyyeti **User deleted account**
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
I'm pretty sure USA warned Japan to surrender before they did it.
User avatar #97 to #71 - imcoolashell
Reply +10 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
that's like titling a picture "Honorable Japanese" and then having a picture of pearl harbor, and the kid asking "Which terrorist group did that"
this picture does not take into account the motivations behind such rash actions which is why the people who post this are so ******* ignorant
#72 to #71 - admiralamory **User deleted account**
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #95 to #72 - beasert
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
Look up 'Operation Downfall', USA's Plan B at the end of WW2. Here's a link to an abridged look at it (Article #3): You need to login to view this link
User avatar #80 to #72 - mithrander [OP]
Reply -23 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
....based on what kind of sense do i have to answer your stupid question? you have never heard about the Hiroshima atomic bomb? dude open a book
#98 to #80 - drewbridge
Reply +15 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
Hiroshima and Nagasaki COMBINED on the high end killed 244,000 Japanese.


Meanwhile, in the Naking massacre:
Historians and witnesses have estimated that 250,000 to 300,000 people were killed.
#90 to #80 - itsmypenis **User deleted account**
+8 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #100 to #90 - imcoolashell
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
unit 731....
#103 to #100 - itsmypenis **User deleted account**
+4 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #104 to #103 - imcoolashell
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
possibly because of its excessively gruesome and graphic nature
User avatar #545 to #104 - shitshitshit
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
********, we love that, we put that on tv everyday, we as humans feed off of it, it makes us feel better, and it gives us something to hate
User avatar #141 to #90 - Chuckaholic
Reply -4 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
Dude that doesn't even come close to justifying it. Just because they commit horrors against other people doesn't give you the right to murder millions of innocent civillians. If it was the argument about ending the war then there could be a debate, but don't justify killing with killing. For example an invasion would be more justified than the bombs if it were about the camp because an invasion would involve much more soldier on soldier rather than bomb on civillian.
#154 to #141 - itsmypenis **User deleted account**
+1 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #163 to #154 - Chuckaholic
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
Yes ok, that's fair enough. The japanese committed terrible atrocities, I just dislike it when people use it to justify the deaths of innocent civilians who had nothing to do with it and probably no knowledge of it.
User avatar #495 to #163 - JuliusC
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
hahahahah no knowledge?? yeah no they LITERALLY had articles about it in their newspapers, one being about two officers having a contest to see who was the first to kill 100 people with a katana. The people of both cities and all over japan were being trained to jump into Allied platoons with live grenades making them militia i.e. a valid military target
#436 to #163 - anon id: 89127d5d
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
It was no where near close to millions. See comment #80.
#499 to #141 - anon id: 3e47b2e8
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
The civilian population of Japan had essentially been militarized. The Japanese government released propaganda convincing their people that Americans would rape/torture/eat them if they surrendered. Often, Japanese civilians would either kill themselves or themselves and American soldiers once they had been defeated. They even trained kids at school to attack the Americans when they came to their town. An invasion would have killed many more civilians. The Japanese were going to fight to the death.
User avatar #111 to #69 - Mahazama
Reply +22 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
That's exactly why I thumbed this down.
#362 - vixq
Reply +37 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
Ok people, why don't any of you understand that a random unprovoked act of terrorism is completely different from an act of war that the "victims" were WARNED about?! Before we nuked Hiroshima we warned the Japanese that we were going to nuke them if they didn't surrender. Of course they didn't surrender. Then we warned them again before Nagasaki and they once again refused to surrender, so we blew their bitch asses up until they finally surrendered. The only people responsible for the death of all of those innocent Japanese civilians is the Japanese government who refused to surrender after fair warning. That scenario is completely different than a terrorist attack where some crazy extremists come out of nowhere and kill thousands of innocent people.There is no comparison.    
tl;dr: comment 353
Ok people, why don't any of you understand that a random unprovoked act of terrorism is completely different from an act of war that the "victims" were WARNED about?! Before we nuked Hiroshima we warned the Japanese that we were going to nuke them if they didn't surrender. Of course they didn't surrender. Then we warned them again before Nagasaki and they once again refused to surrender, so we blew their bitch asses up until they finally surrendered. The only people responsible for the death of all of those innocent Japanese civilians is the Japanese government who refused to surrender after fair warning. That scenario is completely different than a terrorist attack where some crazy extremists come out of nowhere and kill thousands of innocent people.There is no comparison.
tl;dr: comment 353
User avatar #378 to #362 - insanepain
Reply -14 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
comment 353 is short as ****, you're comment is like a novel.... So what the **** are you saying tl;dr for you twat?


(and everybody doesn't give a **** that you warned them, terrorists blew **** up, you blew **** up, end of story.)
User avatar #396 to #362 - Loon
Reply -8 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
Are you kidding me? Justifying what Americans did then is probably the worst I have ever heard. Even the people who ordered that **** done thought to themselves, "wow, what a mistaka to maka"... So many innocent civilian lives were taken with those bombs and that can never be justified as an act of war.
User avatar #408 to #362 - ponchosdm
Reply -7 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
unprovoked act of terrorism? those dont exist, actually those attack are reaction of oppresion or some other bad **** that america caused to those "terrorist"
#529 to #408 - nengcaste **User deleted account**
+2 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #710 to #529 - ponchosdm
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/20/2012) [-]
nah, they are too selfish for that, but still would be nice to have the decency to do so
User avatar #706 to #408 - vixq
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
Your interpretation of it is majorly ****** man.
#528 to #362 - nengcaste **User deleted account**
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#615 to #362 - teoferrazzi
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #531 to #362 - epicarianas
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
The reason that japan didn't surrender the 1st time is that America were saying "This is the most powerful bomb in history. This can tear a city apart." Japan thought they were bluffing because nothing like that had ever been seen.
#680 to #531 - nengcaste **User deleted account**
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#370 to #362 - icantusecaps **User deleted account**
+2 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #374 to #370 - vixq
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
This is true but after Hiroshima they should've learned ****** gonna go down and surrendered before nagasaki
#375 to #374 - icantusecaps **User deleted account**
+1 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #645 to #375 - cruzslzr
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
and calling that bluff would cost you millions of more civilians
good job, your little poker game just destroyed nagasaki
wanna call the 3rd one too?
I'm on the U.S. side on this one because of the 2 warnings
they were just too proud to give up imo
#700 to #645 - icantusecaps **User deleted account**
+1 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #707 to #700 - cruzslzr
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
well given the fact that we bombed them twice I don't think they'd take the chance but if they didn't surrender you know what they say third time's the charm
#382 to #362 - thebigcountry
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
#385 to #362 - ninjalazor **User deleted account**
+5 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#371 to #362 - mvtjets
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #190 - srskate
Reply +33 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
The horrible things about these posts is that they're impossible to argue against.
Not because they have any semblance of truth, but because they are just too stupid.
It'd be like trying to teach physics when someone doesn't believe in gravity.
User avatar #197 to #190 - mithrander [OP]
Reply -27 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
yeah because america isn't responsible for the bomb,pfff look go back to your mom,you will propably find it screwing a truck driver in the bar,and ask her to buy you a book.
this conversation is over
User avatar #203 to #197 - digeredoo
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
Mithrander is banned, everyone cheer that the over egoed faggot is gone forever!
User avatar #206 to #203 - mithrander [OP]
Reply -19 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
yeah because i can't make another account LOOOOOL
User avatar #207 to #206 - digeredoo
Reply +11 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
You're so desperate right now to make pointless remarks you've made another account.
Great job.
User avatar #211 to #207 - mithrander [OP]
Reply -14 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
i didn't make anything,but if this account get blocked or something i can always come back again :D
User avatar #212 to #211 - digeredoo
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
So you dedicate your life to arguing with people who obviously are more intelligent than you?

Great, so you're retarded, and you feel left out.
User avatar #217 to #212 - mithrander [OP]
Reply -12 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
it's weired to call yourself intelligent,but i know that i'm not her to argue,i'm her to post things that will make you kill yourself :D and then leave and leave after making a big mess
User avatar #220 to #217 - digeredoo
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
Well you're failing at calling me stupid and making me kill myself.
Again, I deal with idiots like you everyday and haven't hurt myself in anyway.
The only way you're effecting me is by making my eyes feel weird and my brain hurting with that bizarre language you type in.
User avatar #224 to #220 - mithrander [OP]
Reply -7 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
oh yeah i know,yeah you're to tally right,because i'm writing a long text in the same timme that i comment back,my fingers are tired,and i have to finish it tonight,but i want to do something fun in the same time,so that's why i'm here
User avatar #225 to #224 - digeredoo
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
Again, it's damn hard to understand the message you're trying to convey by typing like that.

Speak English and we'll talk then.
User avatar #228 to #225 - mithrander [OP]
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
again you're right about the typing so i'll type it again : "oh yeah i know,yeah you're totally right,because i'm writing a long text in the same time,my fingers are tired,and i have to finish it tonight,but i want to do something fun in the same time,so that's why i'm here "
is that fine ?
User avatar #229 to #228 - digeredoo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
Good, you know English at some extent.
User avatar #230 to #229 - mithrander [OP]
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
no i speak english,french and arabic,but i'm just so busy having fun with you and working in the same time
User avatar #232 to #230 - digeredoo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
Now, "having fun" makes you sound gay.
User avatar #234 to #232 - digeredoo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
What the **** is with the links.
User avatar #239 to #232 - mithrander [OP]
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
actually the fact that you thinking of it that way makes me think that you are gay,but it's ok with me i don' t care,whatever makes you happy just don't ask me to send you picture of my big cock
User avatar #242 to #239 - digeredoo
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
Also don't bring your "cock" into a conversation on the Internet or you're bound to get hate from everyone.

Just warning you.
User avatar #240 to #239 - digeredoo
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
Are you by chance aware with the word generic.
Because if you are you should stop being that word.

Plus I doubt your cock is that big, and if it is it certainly doesn't help your intelligence.
User avatar #267 to #240 - srskate
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
you proved my point. It was impossible to argue with him because he was far too dumb.

Next time, just forget about him, it will make you a happier person.
#246 to #240 - mithrander [OP]
0 123456789123345869
Comment deleted by mithrander [-]
User avatar #247 to #240 - mithrander [OP]
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
it fit perfectly in your big mouth,it's heavy btw,and you might freak out when you see it for the 1st time,but i guess you'll get use to it
#486 to #247 - officechair
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
<What I expect your next stupid response to be
User avatar #295 to #247 - HaloDiego
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
Shut the **** up.
#268 to #247 - digeredoo
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
Oh look you can boast about your fake cock on the Internet!
User avatar #651 to #268 - cruzslzr
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
dildo?
User avatar #199 to #197 - srskate
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
User avatar #201 to #197 - denoface
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
"Your mom" "Find it" "Her"
Dude, make up your mind, what's his mom's gender?
#257 to #190 - newtoast
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
i couldn't agree more.

#34 - pariahlol
Reply +20 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
#65 - drewbridge
Reply +18 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
> Without being provoked, Japan randomly bombs our Harbor, killing thousands of Americans and destroying dozens of boats and airplanes

=

> Americans are terrorists
#66 to #65 - techketzer
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism

The US government has never been reluctant to employ terrorism to further their cause.
User avatar #73 to #66 - drewbridge
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
That's exactly what the Japanese did, and was my point.
User avatar #78 to #73 - techketzer
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
The US did it as well.
User avatar #94 to #78 - drewbridge
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
Jesus, you people are dense....

It seems like any war-time act of killing civilians is defined as TERRORISM by you. Ok. Whatever the **** satiates you.
User avatar #122 to #94 - techketzer
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
"It seems like any war-time act of killing civilians is defined as TERRORISM by you."

Yes. Yes, it is, and not only by me.
User avatar #161 to #122 - drewbridge
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
So everyone is a terrorist.
User avatar #164 to #161 - techketzer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
Everyone targeting civilians to defeat a military is a terrorist, yes.
User avatar #186 to #164 - drewbridge
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
Wait, I can not believe I missed this, wouldn't it better be called a "war crime"?
"the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military, or civilian necessity"

I'd say the US bombing of Japan was more of a war crime.
User avatar #198 to #186 - techketzer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
It was a war crime committed with terrorist agenda.
Those two are not at all mutually exclusive, on the contrary if anything.
User avatar #200 to #198 - drewbridge
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
Sounds kind of redundant.
User avatar #208 to #200 - techketzer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
It isn't.
It shows that the command structure knowingly relied on targeting non-combatants in order to defeat an enemy militarily.

It is the difference between negligent manslaughter and cold-blooded murder.
User avatar #216 to #208 - drewbridge
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
> negligent manslaughter and cold-blooded murder

Which is which? War crimes aren't really unintentional.
User avatar #233 to #216 - techketzer
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
Negligent manslaughter on a military scale is called "collateral damage".
Willful murder would be terrorism.

As with the civilian counterparts, both are crimes and the only distinguishing factor is intent.
User avatar #174 to #164 - drewbridge
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
"The US government has never been reluctant to employ terrorism to further their cause."

Unless you're just being specific, then hasn't EVERY country "never been reluctant to employ terrorism to further their cause."?
User avatar #187 to #174 - techketzer
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
I guess that's a fair assumption.
Every government utilizes coercion and violence to stay in power and further its control, hell, monopolised violence is the very definition of government.
User avatar #512 to #187 - JuliusC
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
omfg must you post your opinion in EVERY flame war on this site, maybe you should keep your opinion to yourself, your not going to change anyone mind (the point of arguing) over the internet.
#684 to #512 - techketzer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
To hell with you. I do whatever I feel like doing.
#74 to #65 - colesy
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
well japan were sort of provoked seeming as the u.s placed an oil embargo on them cutting 90% of their oil supply and invested billions in weaponry for the GMD fighting against the japanese in china..
User avatar #82 to #74 - drewbridge
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
We made no military offensive move towards them. Taking a passive aggressive stance. We hurt them, but without firing a shot, so they bombed the **** out of us. We then proceeded to wreck their ****.
User avatar #87 to #82 - colesy
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
regardless of whether you made a military offensive move or not, signing that embargo and helping out the chinese could be easily seen as being provocations
User avatar #93 to #87 - drewbridge
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
Does that make Americans terrorists?
User avatar #99 to #93 - colesy
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
i never even implied that americans were terrorists.
i am merely pointing out the events at pearl harbour were not unprovoked
however the first definintion of terrorism in techketzer's definitions #66 seems to fit pretty well now that you ask.
even if you disagree, the firebombings of germany towards the end of the war are definitely acts of terrorism and, in my opinion, war crimes.
User avatar #106 to #99 - drewbridge
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
That still is not a reason to attack.

Hey, maybe the Japanese were provoking Americans by Attacking the Chinese, eh?
User avatar #107 to #106 - colesy
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
well many historians disagree with you.

And what makes you think that would provoke america? what did america have to do with the chinese?
User avatar #109 to #107 - drewbridge
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
From December 1937, events such as the Japanese attack on the USS Panay and the Nanking Massacre (more than 200,000 killed in indiscriminate massacres) swung public opinion in the West sharply against Japan and increased their fear of Japanese expansion,[16] which prompted the United States, the United Kingdom, and France to provide loan assistance for war supply contracts to the Republic of China.


Well, by massacring people and blowing things up and killing the Japanese provoked. Of course the US is the bad guy, right?
#120 to #109 - colesy
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
sorry, my question was loaded; i knew the answer, i was just checking you knew your facts even if they are from wiki.

The attack on USS Panay was a blunder, it was moored at nanjing and the japanese assumed it was chinese and therefore attacked it.

and the "rape of nanjing" was an unforgivable event that sickened me when i read about it but had nothing to do with the U.S so why did they intervene?

also i think you are misinterpreting me: i'm not saying americans are the bad guys and japanese are the good guys, i'm purely showing you that history isn't as simple as black and white, there isn't a right and wrong answer; it all depends on the point of view.

it just happens to be my view that america could have kept out of the war entirely if they continued their isolationist policy and didn't meddle with the affairs of japan and china.

Evidently your view is that america fought the "good fight" and perhaps they did, but you have conveniently forgotten about the fact they dropped an atomic bomb right on top of a childrens hospital in hiroshima and scorched thousands of civilians in dresden and other german cities without military targets (Britain also partook in this) purely to intimidate the germans. This is my opinion is 10 times worse than pearl harbour as there was no important reason for it.
#140 to #120 - techketzer
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
"sorry, my question was loaded; i knew the answer, i was just checking you knew your facts even if they are from wiki. "

I love people like you, testing others and exposing their ******** when they can't deliver. Happened to me once and I hated it, but I completely deserved it.
So thank you for doing that and making a discussion better for all involved.

Just a quick off topic thing I wanted to say.
User avatar #194 to #120 - drewbridge
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
Also, it's hard to abide by isolationism when the civilized planet around you is completely crumbling, and all your allies are losing their countries. We'd seem like a total dick for not helping.
#245 to #194 - techketzer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
Also, "you"'d never get back get the money "you" loaned them.

But I don't doubt the reasons for your government to go to war were entirely altruistic and humanitarian.
lol
User avatar #264 to #245 - drewbridge
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
Because all nations go to war in the name of being good humanitarians. Why, I can name some right now. Here's a list:









User avatar #308 to #264 - techketzer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
That's a damn good list. Very accurate.
You forgot to list the US, though.
User avatar #159 to #120 - drewbridge
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
I didn't really check anything on the Panay. I was mainly talking about the Nanking.

I was also confident that japan attacked us out of fear that we would attack them.

Dropping an atomic bomb as opposed to what, exactly?
User avatar #730 to #159 - colesy
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/20/2012) [-]
well i know the alternatives were losing a lot more american lives but i just found it slightly disturbing that all throughout the war america left hiroshima and Nagasaki relatively untouched so they could test the damage the atom bomb would do.
User avatar #734 to #730 - drewbridge
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/21/2012) [-]
Actually, I heard they singled out those cities because they hadn't bombed them yet. It was a list of like a dozen ones, and they chose those. You may be right, though
User avatar #758 to #734 - colesy
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/23/2012) [-]
As i said before history isn't black and white, there are countless different views on every aspect
#137 to #82 - techketzer
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
You keep referring to the US armed forces of WW2 as "we".

Where exactly were you stationed, if I may asked?
User avatar #177 to #137 - drewbridge
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
I was stationed at Ft. ***********************, in France. Yes, I obviously served in WW2, and my every intention by saying "we" was to imply that I am infact a decorated combat veteran.
User avatar #193 to #177 - techketzer
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
You do realise that I have no way to tell you from some 13yo keyboard warrior, though?
User avatar #514 to #193 - JuliusC
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
says the man with over 20+ posts on this content
User avatar #757 to #514 - techketzer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/22/2012) [-]
"so i speak with one minor redundancy and you decide my language inst adequate? i don't speak like a redneck or a ****** and my English is most likely superior to yours. So **** off bitch."

Ah, so you admit it. :)
No, a single tautology does not make your language inadequate.
Completely missing capitalization and punctuation does. That's just neglect.

So your English is better than mine? Congratulations, you speak better English than a foreigner does. You must be so proud of yourself.

And no, you **** off, bitch. :)
#685 to #514 - techketzer
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
What I said is still accurate. I have no way of knowing that guy.

" over 20+ posts"
The Department of Redundancy Department called, they want their redundancy back.
#714 to #685 - JuliusC
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/20/2012) [-]
24: #122
25: #164
26: #198
27: #208
28: #233
29: #187
30: #689
actually i miscounted, its 30
-1, hahaha, 0, hahaha, 1, hahaha 1 faggot-> techketzer
#720 to #714 - techketzer
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/20/2012) [-]
You completely missed the point.
User avatar #733 to #720 - JuliusC
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/21/2012) [-]
if youre speaking of the "over 20+" being redundant, well no, in american English thats slightly excessive, not quite redundant
User avatar #736 to #733 - techketzer
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/21/2012) [-]
"Tautology (from Greek tauto, "the same" and logos, "word/idea") is an unnecessary repetition of meaning, using dissimilar words that effectively say the same thing (often originally from different languages). It is considered a fault of style and was defined by A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (Fowler) as "saying the same thing twice," if it is not apparently necessary for the entire meaning of a phrase to be repeated. If a part of the meaning is repeated in such a way that it appears as unintentional, or clumsy, then it may be described as tautology. "

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(rhetoric)
User avatar #741 to #736 - JuliusC
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/21/2012) [-]
again, in the way i worded my statement (although it couldve gone without the over or +) is not quite redundant in american speech, however saying "that tiny small bug there" is redundant
User avatar #743 to #741 - techketzer
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/21/2012) [-]
"Tautology (from Greek tauto, "the same" and logos, "word/idea") is an unnecessary repetition of meaning, using dissimilar words that effectively say the same thing (often originally from different languages). It is considered a fault of style and was defined by A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (Fowler) as "saying the same thing twice," if it is not apparently necessary for the entire meaning of a phrase to be repeated. If a part of the meaning is repeated in such a way that it appears as unintentional, or clumsy, then it may be described as tautology. "

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(rhetoric)

You really have a hard time reading, don't you?
1+1=2, no matter how many yanks may say otherwise.
#744 to #743 - JuliusC
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #745 to #743 - JuliusC
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/21/2012) [-]
i can read you ****, i was simply stating that in AMERICAN english it is excessive but not quite so grammatically incorrect as to be redundant and requiring change. Youve obviously never taken a ******* language course before have you, if a population speaks in different mannerisms, accents and pronunciations, it becomes a dialect and a perfectly acceptable form of language. So **** off faggot
User avatar #746 to #745 - techketzer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/21/2012) [-]
"Tautology (from Greek tauto, "the same" and logos, "word/idea") is an unnecessary repetition of meaning, using dissimilar words that effectively say the same thing (often originally from different languages). It is considered a fault of style and was defined by A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (Fowler) as "saying the same thing twice," if it is not apparently necessary for the entire meaning of a phrase to be repeated. If a part of the meaning is repeated in such a way that it appears as unintentional, or clumsy, then it may be described as tautology. "

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(rhetoric)

This is getting very repetitive very fast.
User avatar #747 to #746 - JuliusC
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/21/2012) [-]
says the faggot pasting the same ******* thing into every goddamn comment like its relevant anymore, ive already proven your point to be invalid and yet you are still posting the same ********, **** you and your ******** sense of language
#748 to #747 - techketzer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/21/2012) [-]
"ive already proven your point to be invalid"
No. No, you didn't. You came up with some ******** excuse how supposedly most of the US make that mistake regularly, but you did not do anything to my point.

"Tautology (from Greek tauto, "the same" and logos, "word/idea") is an unnecessary repetition of meaning, using dissimilar words that effectively say the same thing."

"over 20+" is a tautology, no matter how or from where you look at it.
So give the redundancy back to the Department of Redundancy Department, will you?
User avatar #749 to #748 - JuliusC
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/21/2012) [-]
yes it is redundant, BUT it, used in american dialect, IS grammatically correct you nitwit. Its not an excuse and Americans are not incorrect in this use as it is a DIALECT, i don't get how this is so hard for you to understand. If a group of people decide to make up their own ******* language it is perfectly valid. You would know this if you ever took a language course. People can speak however they like, regardless of what other people say dialects differ from one another and what may be incorrect for some may be correct for others.
User avatar #754 to #749 - techketzer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/22/2012) [-]
Fix your language and I might consider taking you seriously.
User avatar #756 to #754 - JuliusC
0 123456789123345869
(09/22/2012) [-]
so i speak with one minor redundancy and you decide my language inst adequate? i don't speak like a redneck or a ****** and my English is most likely superior to yours. So **** off bitch.
#750 to #749 - techketzer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/21/2012) [-]
The grammar was never in question. If you had any kind of language skill you'd have realised that.

It's your style that sucks ass. Of course you can deviate from standard language any way you like, if you feel comfortable talking like ghetto ******* and rednecks, that is.
Apparently you do, and what the hell, so be it. It's your choice.

I'm not saying you're talking wrong, I'm just laughing at you.
User avatar #751 to #750 - JuliusC
0 123456789123345869
(09/21/2012) [-]
god damn youre ignorant, well you cant fix stupid so gooday
User avatar #732 to #720 - JuliusC
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/21/2012) [-]
>missing the point
you called my "20+" redundancy, i corrected you, i dont see the fail
#713 to #685 - JuliusC
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/20/2012) [-]
here lets count
1: #249
2: #312
3: #328
4: #372
5: #682
6: #702
7: #704
8: #137
9: #193
10: #685
11: #215
12: #236
13: #241
14: #245
15: #308
16: #140
17: #79
18: #119
19: #156
20: #184
21: #683
22: #66
23: #78
cont...
User avatar #711 to #685 - JuliusC
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/20/2012) [-]
well actually you have 29 posts so yes 20+
User avatar #196 to #193 - drewbridge
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
Said the literalist.
User avatar #215 to #196 - techketzer
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
I see no fault with that. What is your point?
User avatar #219 to #215 - drewbridge
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
> implying that I was saying I served when obviously I have not

> logic of geniuses
User avatar #236 to #219 - techketzer
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
You referred to the US forces of WW2 as "we".
That is more than merely an implication.
User avatar #238 to #236 - drewbridge
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
I was intending to identify with the US as a whole. Didn't feel like saying "The US forces" since I live here.
User avatar #241 to #238 - techketzer
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
> logic of geniuses
#127 to #74 - whyisthissohard **User deleted account**
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #148 to #65 - Chuckaholic
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
About 2,400 people died at pearl harbour, most were military. Hundreds of thousands died during or because of the bombing. It's a different scale, it's like getting punched in the face and retaliating with a chainsaw to the testicles.
User avatar #162 to #148 - drewbridge
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
Again, dropping the bomb as opposed to what? Attrition?
User avatar #165 to #162 - Chuckaholic
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
What are you trying to argue? I'm not understanding your point.
User avatar #175 to #165 - drewbridge
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
To ending the war.
Also, I know it's like beating a dead horse, but Japan did attack us first.
User avatar #656 to #175 - cruzslzr
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
It's not beating a dead horse
they provoked us and thought we'd give in like little bitches
it's like if a bully at school pushes you slightly
are you gonna sit there and take it and see if he gets more aggressive next time or are you gonna man up and tell that guy to shove it?
User avatar #183 to #175 - Chuckaholic
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
Oh, that's different. If you want to justify the bombings with that then go ahead. That's an argument, pearl harbour is justification for starting not for finishing it the way it did. The prevention of further conflict could possibly justify it, we may never know. I was just saying that you were using the wrong argument initially mate, that's all ;).
User avatar #191 to #183 - drewbridge
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
I do agree it was a bit of an overkill, but I don't see much else that could have made it turn our any better.
User avatar #249 to #162 - techketzer
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
The bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not end the war. You don't pummel an empire into unconditional surrender by destroying two harbors.

The Red Army decimating the Japanese mainland army within days and setting sail for Tokyo with 1,5 million men did.
User avatar #270 to #249 - drewbridge
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
(And I'm sure they (The Russians) did it in the name of being altruistic and good humanitarians, of course. Why else?)
User avatar #312 to #270 - techketzer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
"End their fighting with us." Yes. The Red army did when it destroyed the Japanese Kwantung Army and made Japan surrender to the Allies.

"And I'm sure they (The Russians) did it in the name of being altruistic and good humanitarians, of course. Why else?"
Of course. Stalin was the kindest, most gentle and loving altruistic humanitarian in history.
User avatar #324 to #312 - drewbridge
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
I don't think Japan surrendered solely because of the soviet union. Mainly because they didn't.
User avatar #328 to #324 - techketzer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
But you'd think they surrendered because of losing two harbors?
User avatar #335 to #328 - drewbridge
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
Obviously they knew we had nuclear weapons and knew we - sorry - "The current Americans who were soldiers, generals, and politicians directing and fighting the war with the Japanese in April, 1945", as you'd like me to put it - didn't give a **** if we bombed their cities with them, they also know the allies were going to persist and invade (and did).

Not that I'm a general or anything, but when the homeland is invaded and nuked twice simultaneously, it's time to start considering your options.
User avatar #372 to #335 - techketzer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
An army of 1,5 million men and over 10.000 tanks and artillery pieces that already wiped out their greatest asset in negotiation and you still think two harbors made the difference?

But yeah, sure, and Hitler committed suicide because he got the gas bill.
User avatar #421 to #372 - drewbridge
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
Like the Germans. They couldn't fight a war on several fronts. And the US had more bombs, and planned on continuing to nuke their cities. Starting to think about how either brave or stupid the Japanese were.
User avatar #682 to #421 - techketzer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
"Like the Germans. They couldn't fight a war on several fronts."
But they could and they did. And for several years it looked like against all odds, they would defeat and conquer all of Europe.
Hell, they might have. Even Soviet Russia could have fallen under slightly different circumstances.

"Starting to think about how either brave or stupid the Japanese were."
That's an idiotic notion. They had a strategical gambit going for terms of a peace treaty that would allow them to keep some of their conquered mainland.
That's what they held out for and that's the reason they broke after the Soviets destroyed the Kwantung Army.

The bombs, believe it or not, were insignificant.
Just another wanton atrocity amidst the madness that is war.
User avatar #701 to #682 - drewbridge
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
That's because the Germans were good at destroying countries that were smaller/equal to their size, and right next to them. Not so good at holding out against stronger countries that were farther away and couldn't be touched as easily.

"strategical gambit going for terms of a peace treaty that would allow them to keep some of their conquered mainland. "
"Once they beat the living ******* out of us, we have a plan that will allow us to retain what little dignity and land we will have left."
True, however, just because they had a plan doesn't mean it is a very good one.

The bombs did help convince Japan's leaders to think more seriously and be more lenient about their surrender.
User avatar #702 to #701 - techketzer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
You mean the Germans were better at defeating enemies that were easy to beat than enemies that were hard to beat, which they had a harder time defeating?
Huh. Makes sense. Good thing you told me, I'd have never figured that out on my own.
Oh gods, I am having way too much fun with this.

"The bombs did help convince Japan's leaders to think more seriously and be more lenient about their surrender."
"lenient" is a hell of a way to misspell unconditional.
And no, they didn't. Not in any way the Soviets hadn't already. Completely unnecessary.
#703 to #702 - drewbridge
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
Sorry I had to dumb it down for you so you could understand.

You know what I meant, sweetheart. Go deal with your period and stop being such a bitch.
And I can't stop you from believing that nuclear bombs that wipe out cities were not even a slightly a convincing argument to the Japanese.
User avatar #704 to #703 - techketzer
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
Go stick it, buddy. If lousy insults are the best you can do the I think we're done here.

You may not want to understand, but I'll try to explain my point one more time:
You cannot drive a nation into deeper desperation than an unconditional surrender.
After the loss of their mainland army, the Japanese did exactly that.
The nukes were unnecessary. They were to late to change anything. Had they never been dropped, the war would have ended exactly the same way.

Except for >200.000 innocents who would have lived instead of being burnt or irradiated, but I guess human lives mean nothing to you.

Good day, sir.
User avatar #705 to #704 - drewbridge
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
Not everyone in Japan agreed on an unconditional surrender.


What were the Americans/Britishs' other choices besides bombing them?
User avatar #719 to #705 - techketzer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/20/2012) [-]
Those in charge did. "You" could have had an end to the war in January '45 already had you been willing to let them insist on their emperor retaining his status.

Seriously, what's the point in prolonging a war for half a year in order to circumvent a condition you're not going to challenge anyway?
Showing some muscles to the Soviets, I guess, just like with the bombs.

"What were the Americans/Britishs' other choices besides bombing them?"
Not bombing them. Wouldn't have changed a thing for "you", and hey, you'd have saved two bomber flights plus the cost of the bombs.
User avatar #721 to #719 - drewbridge
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/20/2012) [-]
"What were the Americans/Britishs' other choices besides bombing them?"
Not bombing them.

Holy cow, you're a ******* detective. Too bad I didn't think of that.

Not ALL of the leaders agreed. They were split in their decisions.
User avatar #722 to #721 - techketzer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/20/2012) [-]
What kind of answer were you expecting on a question that stupid?
Ask yourself that.

Yeah? So what some disagreed?
Japan surrendered in August '45 despite some thinking otherwise.
What's your point?
User avatar #723 to #722 - drewbridge
0 123456789123345869
(09/20/2012) [-]
Those were horrible, unsatisfying answers.
User avatar #266 to #249 - drewbridge
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
End their fighting with us.
#530 to #65 - nengcaste **User deleted account**
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #724 to #65 - techketzer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/20/2012) [-]
**** the reply cap. Really kim jong, do away with it.

"Those were horrible, unsatisfying answers."
Just because your standards may be skewed doesn't make them wrong, now does it?
User avatar #725 to #724 - drewbridge
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/20/2012) [-]
> What kind of answer were you expecting on a question that stupid?
> Yeah? So what some disagreed?

those aren't answers.
User avatar #726 to #725 - techketzer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/20/2012) [-]
Those are answers to empty, nondescript questions.
User avatar #727 to #726 - drewbridge
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/20/2012) [-]
Sorry, but you're a ******* idiot. You gave me sarcastic sassy remarks instead of anything reasonable. Get the **** out of here, dumbass.
User avatar #728 to #727 - techketzer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/20/2012) [-]
Again, stick your stupid insults.

I gave you proper answers. You ignored them and misunderstood them on purpose.
Now you suddenly realize you want a decent discussion after all?
Go and read what I wrote, it's still there.
We'll continue from that point once you properly acknowledge me.
User avatar #729 to #728 - drewbridge
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/20/2012) [-]
I see now I am not going to get a cent of intelligence or good reason out of you. Instead of answering me, you're deluding it and mocking me for asking. **** off.
User avatar #68 to #65 - mithrander [OP]
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
not all the americans are terrorists but the one who support it and who serve it like soliders because they don't have manners,when you drop a bomb on a certain land,that means that it doesn't matter with you if you kill a little child,a pregnant woman or an old man,that's why the american government is terrorist.
i understand that you want to protect your family,but the principle is to be a man and fight a man.
btw i'm not a japaneese,and i don't give a **** about japan
User avatar #75 to #68 - drewbridge
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
Britain and the US bombed Germany in WW2. You bet your ass THOUSANDS of civilians died because of that. Germany bombed Britain and every other European country, and it killed a ******** of civilians. It wasn't terrorism, they were fighting a war.
User avatar #79 to #75 - techketzer
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
They were fighting a war with terrorist methods.
User avatar #86 to #79 - drewbridge
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
Indeed.

Obviously, they marred the existential Purity and Holiness of War by doing so. War clearly means civilians are exempt from conflict.
User avatar #119 to #86 - techketzer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
I wasn't judging, I was stating the obvious because it seemed some did not recognize it.
No need to get cynical.
User avatar #145 to #119 - drewbridge
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
Well, then every single country in World war 2 committed acts of terrorism.
User avatar #156 to #145 - techketzer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
Yes. Yes, they did.
User avatar #166 to #156 - drewbridge
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
My question is, how would you fight a war without doing any of that?
User avatar #184 to #166 - techketzer
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
You cannot. That is what makes war so awfully horrid.
User avatar #504 to #184 - JuliusC
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
oh, you again, i expected to see your comments somewhere in this post. i actually kind of agree with this comment.
#406 to #184 - yepiratematey
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
I like you.
#683 to #406 - techketzer
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
Awww :3
User avatar #353 - fyaq
Reply +16 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
act of war =/= terrorism

they did it to end a war.

i doubt most people thumbing this up know what zionism is...
#364 to #353 - icantusecaps **User deleted account**
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #411 to #364 - fyaq
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
that doesnt sound like a conservative O.o
but people are weird so
#415 to #411 - icantusecaps **User deleted account**
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #418 to #415 - fyaq
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
im a conservative, but mostly dont give a **** as long as you dont force others to conform to you or harass them
#420 to #418 - icantusecaps **User deleted account**
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#464 - pornzmon
Reply +15 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
just leaving this here
(click to enlarge)
User avatar #521 to #464 - corundum
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
...****, man.
User avatar #663 to #464 - cruzslzr
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
As an american soldier this infuriates me about as much as bad acting in porn. I am glad as **** they got the bombings and I want them to provoke us again so we can destroy them and their sick-minded ways out of this ******* planet.
I will sure as **** think of them next time I go zero in at the range.
User avatar #500 to #464 - I Am Monkey
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
The Japanese Empire is without question one of the most evil countries in history. The **** they did is unbelievable. People complain about the nukes because they don't know dick about them, either because they're European and it doesn't involve them or they're american and they don't know their own history.
User avatar #469 to #464 - grayham
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
Thank you for making that clear.
(not sarcasm)
#477 - wtfmang
Reply +12 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
I don't mean to be a moral douche, but I'm tired of seeing all this **** about Hiroshima, and 9/11 justifying it.

We we're currently at war, both sides, there was death, and we just happened to have an advantage on hand.

Then 9/11, when there was a bombing, we just labeled it as terrorism, because there was no war.

Not justifying anything, I just hate all these tards following the same trend because it is really ******* annoying.
User avatar #518 to #477 - lastofthedovakhiin
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
I would rape Mad Moxxi till her vagina bled semen and blood.
User avatar #665 to #518 - cruzslzr
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
COMMIE!
*goes for m-4*
User avatar #708 to #665 - lastofthedovakhiin
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
You sunk my battleship.
#482 to #477 - CottonTail
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
If you stare longing there's a dialogue next to the ferociously sexy chick.
#483 to #482 - wtfmang
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
The only way people read..
#485 to #483 - CottonTail
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
Comment Picture
#314 - lentothekagamine
Reply +12 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
what the **** does this have to do with the jewish zionist movement?
User avatar #322 to #314 - Marker
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
You're not the only one confused, my good man.
#172 - skwirl
Reply +11 123456789123345869
(09/18/2012) [-]
I'll just leave this here.
#280 to #172 - NolanNasty
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
YES because you totally won both wars alone... yup
User avatar #310 to #280 - mattmanhemi
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
do you have a disability where you cant correctly read words on a hat
#315 to #310 - NolanNasty
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
no... but i am ridicul..ridic... very sleepy =3
#326 to #315 - mattmanhemi
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
i just want to inform you that no where on the hat does it say "alone"
#329 to #326 - NolanNasty
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/19/2012) [-]
that picture... it is mezmerizing...
that picture... it is mezmerizing...