| Home | RSS Feeds |
| Funny Pictures | Funny Videos |
| Funny GIFs | YouTube Videos |
| Text/Links | Comic Editor |
| User Rankings | Channels |
| Copyright Removal Request | |
| |
zionist americans
Uploaded by: mithrander
| |
Links are not allowed.
You are allowed to post every 1 minute on the same page.
You are allowed to post every 1 minute on the same page.
Remaining character count: 1000
#69
-
cancerousiguana (09/18/2012) [+]
(26 replies)
Soooo... you're pretty much just TRYING to start a shitstorm.
#77 to #71
-
wheresthefudge (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.
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.
#691 to #610
-
wheresthefudge (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.
#695 to #694
-
teoferrazzi (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/
"...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/
#97 to #71
-
imcoolashell (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 fucking ignorant
this picture does not take into account the motivations behind such rash actions which is why the people who post this are so fucking ignorant
#98 to #80
-
drewbridge ONLINE (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.
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** (09/18/2012) [-] have you heard of
*Bataan Death March
*Nanking Massacre also known as the Rape of Nanking
*Bataan Death March
*Nanking Massacre also known as the Rape of Nanking
#141 to #90
-
Chuckaholic (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.
#499 to #141
-
N. Korean citizen (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.
#495 to #163
-
JuliusC (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
#179
-
PunxsatownyPhil (09/18/2012) [+]
(6 replies)
>Japan invades China
>Fucks its shit up royally
>Conquers most of Pacific
>Counter with an embargo
>Pearl Harbor
>Push them back across Pacific
>Villagers on islands commit suicide before surrender
>Nobody surrenders
>Atrocities, atrocities everywhere
>Home Islands are left
>Choose not to invade but bomb strategically important cities
>Kill less people than the firebombing of Tokyo total
>Not genocide of Japan that invasion would have caused
>Japan becomes great ally
>MFW when people call me a zionist terrorist
>Fucks its shit up royally
>Conquers most of Pacific
>Counter with an embargo
>Pearl Harbor
>Push them back across Pacific
>Villagers on islands commit suicide before surrender
>Nobody surrenders
>Atrocities, atrocities everywhere
>Home Islands are left
>Choose not to invade but bomb strategically important cities
>Kill less people than the firebombing of Tokyo total
>Not genocide of Japan that invasion would have caused
>Japan becomes great ally
>MFW when people call me a zionist terrorist
#527 to #179
-
nengcaste **User deleted account** (09/19/2012) [-] Japan didnt surrender becuase of the nuclear nukes but because the ussr declared war to them, and the problem with the nuclear bombing is not the people they killed but that the united states set a precedent to further nuclear warfare
#362
-
vixq (09/19/2012) [+]
(19 replies)
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
tl;dr: comment 353
#370 to #362
-
icantusecaps **User deleted account** (09/19/2012) [-] True, only thing is that if we were in pre-nuke Hiroshima and our enemy said "Y'all better surrender or we'll bomb you" we'd yawn and think "Dude we'll just hide in our basements, y'aint got shit".
Now people know what could happen.
Now people know what could happen.
#531 to #362
-
epicarianas (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.
#528 to #362
-
nengcaste **User deleted account** (09/19/2012) [-] In my country terrorists give warnings before blowing up things and they are still terrorists.
Its not about how many japanese died or if it was really the bombings or the invasion of the ussr what made japan surrender, the USA set a precedent to the use of nuclear warfare against civil population, which is an historical and inexcusable national sin
Its not about how many japanese died or if it was really the bombings or the invasion of the ussr what made japan surrender, the USA set a precedent to the use of nuclear warfare against civil population, which is an historical and inexcusable national sin
#396 to #362
-
Loon (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 shit 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.
#378 to #362
-
insanepain (09/19/2012) [-] comment 353 is short as fuck, you're comment is like a novel.... So what the fuck are you saying tl;dr for you twat?
(and everybody doesn't give a fuck that you warned them, terrorists blew shit up, you blew shit up, end of story.)
(and everybody doesn't give a fuck that you warned them, terrorists blew shit up, you blew shit up, end of story.)
#190
-
srskate (09/18/2012) [+]
(28 replies)
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.
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.
#220 to #217
-
digeredoo (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.
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.
#224 to #220
-
mithrander (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
#228 to #225
-
mithrander (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 ?
is that fine ?
#65
-
drewbridge ONLINE (09/18/2012) [+]
(112 replies)
> Without being provoked, Japan randomly bombs our Harbor, killing thousands of Americans and destroying dozens of boats and airplanes
=
> Americans are terrorists
=
> Americans are terrorists
#68 to #65
-
mithrander (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 fuck about japan
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 fuck about japan
#75 to #68
-
drewbridge ONLINE (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 shitload of civilians. It wasn't terrorism, they were fighting a war.
#728 to #727
-
techketzer (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.
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.
#148 to #65
-
Chuckaholic (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.
#656 to #175
-
cruzslzr ONLINE (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?
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?
#183 to #175
-
Chuckaholic (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 ;).
#249 to #162
-
techketzer (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.
The Red Army decimating the Japanese mainland army within days and setting sail for Tokyo with 1,5 million men did.
#312 to #270
-
techketzer (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.
"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.
#335 to #328
-
drewbridge ONLINE (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 fuck 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.
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.
#372 to #335
-
techketzer (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.
But yeah, sure, and Hitler committed suicide because he got the gas bill.
#682 to #421
-
techketzer (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.
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.
#701 to #682
-
drewbridge ONLINE (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 dogshit 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.
"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 dogshit 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.
#702 to #701
-
techketzer (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.
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 ONLINE (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.
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.
#704 to #703
-
techketzer (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.
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.
#719 to #705
-
techketzer (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.
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.
#721 to #719
-
drewbridge ONLINE (09/20/2012) [-] "What were the Americans/Britishs' other choices besides bombing them?"
Not bombing them.
Holy cow, you're a fucking detective. Too bad I didn't think of that.
Not ALL of the leaders agreed. They were split in their decisions.
Not bombing them.
Holy cow, you're a fucking detective. Too bad I didn't think of that.
Not ALL of the leaders agreed. They were split in their decisions.
#99 to #93
-
colesy (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.
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.
#109 to #107
-
drewbridge ONLINE (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?
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 (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.
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 (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 bullshit 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.
I love people like you, testing others and exposing their bullshit 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.
#245 to #194
-
techketzer (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
But I don't doubt the reasons for your government to go to war were entirely altruistic and humanitarian.
lol
#159 to #120
-
drewbridge ONLINE (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?
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?
#137 to #82
-
techketzer (09/18/2012) [-] You keep referring to the US armed forces of WW2 as "we".
Where exactly were you stationed, if I may asked?
Where exactly were you stationed, if I may asked?
#757 to #514
-
techketzer (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 nigger and my English is most likely superior to yours. So fuck 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 fuck 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 fuck off, bitch. :)
#685 to #514
-
techketzer (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.
" over 20+ posts"
The Department of Redundancy Department called, they want their redundancy back.
#736 to #733
-
techketzer (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)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(rhetoric)
#743 to #741
-
techketzer (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.
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.
#745 to #743
-
JuliusC (09/21/2012) [-] i can read you fuck, 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 fucking 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 fuck off faggot
#746 to #745
-
techketzer (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.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(rhetoric)
This is getting very repetitive very fast.
#748 to #747
-
techketzer (09/21/2012) [-] "ive already proven your point to be invalid"
No. No, you didn't. You came up with some bullshit 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?
No. No, you didn't. You came up with some bullshit 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?
#749 to #748
-
JuliusC (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 bumfuck 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.
#750 to #749
-
techketzer (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 niggers 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.
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 niggers 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.
#66 to #65
-
techketzer (09/18/2012) [-] dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism
The US government has never been reluctant to employ terrorism to further their cause.
The US government has never been reluctant to employ terrorism to further their cause.
#186 to #164
-
drewbridge ONLINE (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.
"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.
#353
-
fyaq (09/19/2012) [+]
(5 replies)
act of war =/= terrorism
they did it to end a war.
i doubt most people thumbing this up know what zionism is...
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** (09/19/2012) [-] I had a conversation with a conservative awhile ago.
Turns out if you're not 10000% behind Israel and want to give them a bj despite the fact that they and Palestine have done so much shit that it's immoral to choice either "side" you're an anti-zionist.
Turns out if you're not 10000% behind Israel and want to give them a bj despite the fact that they and Palestine have done so much shit that it's immoral to choice either "side" you're an anti-zionist.
#415 to #411
-
icantusecaps **User deleted account** (09/19/2012) [-] To be honest he "seems" libertarian but sticks to conservative even though it's main party doesn't seem to "small gubernmit" anyway.
Of course you can debate that but I'm reaching my breaking point of political debates.
Of course you can debate that but I'm reaching my breaking point of political debates.
#420 to #418
-
icantusecaps **User deleted account** (09/19/2012) [-] I wish every other conservative I know was you.
It's weird because I live in New York and EVERYONE besides my school is conservative.
Elderly people live in my neighborhood so that might mean something.
It's weird because I live in New York and EVERYONE besides my school is conservative.
Elderly people live in my neighborhood so that might mean something.
#500 to #464
-
I Am Monkey (09/19/2012) [-] The Japanese Empire is without question one of the most evil countries in history. The shit 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.
#663 to #464
-
cruzslzr ONLINE (09/19/2012) [-] As an american soldier this infuriates me about as much as bad acting in porn. I am glad as fuck 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 fucking planet.
I will sure as fuck think of them next time I go zero in at the range.
I will sure as fuck think of them next time I go zero in at the range.
#57
-
thewildcat (09/18/2012) [+]
(2 replies)
Let's be honest here.
WWII is the bloodiest conflict ever fought in human history. The Germans mass murdered millions of innocent people. The Soviets allowed tens of millions of their own people to die while killing millions of innocent people. The Japanese killed tens of millions of people (more innocent people than Germany) and the Chinese killed more of their people than the Japanese. Austria helped the Nazis, as did the Poles. Britain and Canada don't have halos either. For the UK I would bring up many of their own incidents in the Middle East and India like the Indian Partition that led to millions of innocents being killed in Pakistan and India.
My point is stop trying to go, "hurr durr you're country did this bad thing aren't you terrible." In retrospect Hiroshima and Nagasaki don't compare to some of the other mass killings committed by other countries nonetheless. The Rape of Nanking for example.
We weren't there. You don't know what's going through people's minds, but one thing is for certain EVERYONE was happy that the war was just over. It's easy to make a judgment call 70 YEARS after the fact without having to have fought. None of us will ever know what it's like to fight in a war as chaotic and horrible as WWII, nor will any of you ever have that kind of struggle whether you have to make the decision to wipe out tens of thousands of people in an instant hoping to end an already incredibly bloody conflict. Sso stop acting like you're a bunch of historical experts.
WWII is the bloodiest conflict ever fought in human history. The Germans mass murdered millions of innocent people. The Soviets allowed tens of millions of their own people to die while killing millions of innocent people. The Japanese killed tens of millions of people (more innocent people than Germany) and the Chinese killed more of their people than the Japanese. Austria helped the Nazis, as did the Poles. Britain and Canada don't have halos either. For the UK I would bring up many of their own incidents in the Middle East and India like the Indian Partition that led to millions of innocents being killed in Pakistan and India.
My point is stop trying to go, "hurr durr you're country did this bad thing aren't you terrible." In retrospect Hiroshima and Nagasaki don't compare to some of the other mass killings committed by other countries nonetheless. The Rape of Nanking for example.
We weren't there. You don't know what's going through people's minds, but one thing is for certain EVERYONE was happy that the war was just over. It's easy to make a judgment call 70 YEARS after the fact without having to have fought. None of us will ever know what it's like to fight in a war as chaotic and horrible as WWII, nor will any of you ever have that kind of struggle whether you have to make the decision to wipe out tens of thousands of people in an instant hoping to end an already incredibly bloody conflict. Sso stop acting like you're a bunch of historical experts.
#477
-
wtfmang (09/19/2012) [+]
(6 replies)
I don't mean to be a moral douche, but I'm tired of seeing all this shit 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 fucking annoying.
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 fucking annoying.
#482 to #477
-
CottonTail (09/19/2012) [-] If you stare longing there's a dialogue next to the ferociously sexy chick.
#314
-
lentothekagamine (09/19/2012) [+]
(1 reply)
what the fuck does this have to do with the jewish zionist movement?
#326 to #315
-
mattmanhemi (09/19/2012) [-] i just want to inform you that no where on the hat does it say "alone"
#129
-
ohgodshifty (09/18/2012) [+]
(7 replies)
I wonder if OP ever realized the fact that this was published by a newspaper that resides in America, a place in which open criticism of the government isn't met with gruesome mutilation or grisly death, unlike much of the world. So, mithrander, it's because of their policies of tolerance and free speech that you were even able to use this piece as ammunition to bash the States. On their behalf, I'd like to say "You're welcome". Now go try that shit somewhere else and report back how much it hurt when they cut off your hands. That is, if you can type with your nose.
#170 to #153
-
ohgodshifty (09/18/2012) [-] Check my use of terminology in my first post. I'm Swedish, you fucking idiot. Learn to read. I just live in America as an exchange student. Don't criticize a culture you don't understand or bash political ideologies that are obviously beyond your level of comprehension.
#591
-
kustomforce (09/19/2012) [+]
(2 replies)
Zionism is the belief that the Jewish people need a homeland to live in and that this land should be Israel.
how the FUCK does that have anything to do with the post?
pic semi-related
how the FUCK does that have anything to do with the post?
pic semi-related
#587
-
tweetyftw **User deleted account** (09/19/2012) [+]
(1 reply)
"Okay people, move along, there's nothing to see here in the comment section"
#414
-
motposters (09/19/2012) [+]
(1 reply)
We warned Japan to surrender or face utter destruction,. They didn't listen.
911 was just kinda - BAM-
911 was just kinda - BAM-
#305
-
insevin (09/19/2012) [-] Which terrorist group took over the pacific and far east with mass murder, who wouldn't give up even when fckd on all fronts but their home islands? Must have taken a lot to force them to relent huh?
#585 to #557
-
newsmyrna (09/19/2012) [-] I cant believe I'm defending fox news here but there is no way in hell that Fox News would ever put something like that on their network. They are the America can do no wrong channel. They are the 100% pro military, pro Republican, pro conservative news network.
