Login or register


Last status update:
Date Signed Up:1/15/2010
Last Login:10/22/2016
Comment Ranking:#1083
Highest Content Rank:#5597
Highest Comment Rank:#793
Content Thumbs: 59 total,  92 ,  33
Comment Thumbs: 13539 total,  16777 ,  3238
Content Level Progress: 0% (0/5)
Level 1 Content: New Here → Level 2 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 11.1% (111/1000)
Level 312 Comments: Wizard → Level 313 Comments: Wizard
Content Views:6488
Times Content Favorited:4 times
Total Comments Made:4913
FJ Points:11657

latest user's comments

#15 - >targeting unarmed civilians >not ragging on israel …  [+] (3 replies) 12/28/2015 on Hamas is at it again 0
User avatar
#16 - hitbyadriveby (12/29/2015) [-]
There is a massive difference between unintentional civilian casualties and TARGETED atttacks on civilians. Israel attacked military objectives while HAMAS is busy planting bombs in order to kill civies.
User avatar
#18 - hitbyadriveby (12/29/2015) [-]
Very interesting article. But still from the quotes I've read, there is nothing to suggest they were TARGETING civilians.

First sergeant, Infantry, Gaza Strip: The following quote can be very misleading.

“There were no rules of engagement. If you see anyone in that area, that person is a terrorist. In this context, it was simple. They told us they have intelligence that there are practically no civilians remaining in the area, and so if someone comes towards us, that person is a terrorist.”

Notice how shoot first, think later was implemented after intel stated that there were "no civilians remaining in the area".

“The rules of engagement were very, very lax. I wouldn’t say that they shot anything that moved -- but they didn’t request authorization [to fire], either.”
Although I wouldn't condone such protocol, I wouldn't suggest that it's intent was to SPECIFICALLY target civilians, or to impose terror on them.

I understand why people are against what Israel did in Gaza, but to compare them to HAMAS is a bit unreasonable.
#5 - depends on what you mean. One samurai vs one centurion, almost…  [+] (13 replies) 12/28/2015 on Conflicting Philosophies +22
User avatar
#10 - thejammer (12/28/2015) [-]
Well if relate what the balls are wearing, it seems to be an optio (not a centurion) from the 1st century A.D against a samurai from the 19th century A.D. This is at least a 1,800 year difference. Me just telling you that should explain why the Japanese would crush the Romans. Regardless, Japan's army at that time had roughly 6 million men, against what Rome's army had at the time, 450,000 men (which is being generous). Even with Rome's citizen infantry, they would be absolutely crushed. The samurai weren't men just wielding katanas and knives, they had advanced saddles, arguably more disciplined men, and most importantly, guns.
Tl;DR: Japan beats Rome easily.
User avatar
#13 - alcantara (12/28/2015) [-]
If you think the Samurai were disciplined in the 19th century, you obviously know nothing about the Samurai beyond what you saw in the Tom Cruise movie; by the 19th century, the Samurai had seen hundreds of years of peace, were more of a scholar class than a warrior class, were more well versed in indebtedness than swordsmanship and were more likely to sell their daughter into a brothel than sell their sword for service - and make no mistake, originally the Samurai were a hereditary form of sellswords, with much the same values.

Romanticisation of Samurai comes from the late Tokugawa, ironically the post-Samurai Japanese army was closer to the Western idea of Samurai than the Samurai themselves.
User avatar
#54 - thejammer (12/28/2015) [-]
Are you really trying to argue this?
User avatar
#60 - alcantara (12/28/2015) [-]
Given I literally just finished a University course that covered Japan 1600-1952, and thus know just how destitute the Samurai were by the 19th century, sure, I'm arguing the point.
User avatar
#63 - thejammer (12/28/2015) [-]
So you think that because of how undisciplined the Samurai were, they'd lose against an army from the early Iron Age?
User avatar
#71 - ruderoody (12/28/2015) [-]
Dude I hate to tell you this but it's not just about time period, just because the Romans were from the first century doesn't mean shit you have to take account of training, equipment, the quality of said equipment, tactics, logistics, and whole slew of other things.
User avatar
#66 - alcantara (12/28/2015) [-]
I'm thinking that by the 19th century, most of them didn't bother to practice with a sword but rather spent their time studying and travelling to bring technology and medical knowledge back to Japan (particularly via Rangaku) and those who did try to maintain their warrior roots were often so drunk that they couldn't aim the primative firearms at their disposal - but then, they would likely have been in so much debt to the emerging commercial elite (effectively the merchant wing of the Chōnin) that they would have sold their sword, armour, stipend, place in the barracks and rather likely their daughter to a brothel in order to pay for their drinking and gambling habits (if not their indulgence in Ukiyo).

The Samurai would have had better equiptment, had they not sold it, but even if they had their equiptment most would be unable or ineffective in using it - they were lapse in their peacetime training whereas the Roman has the advantage of a pan-European conquest in which to harness their fighting capabilities. Were we to take the myth of the Samurai, then yes, the Samurai would win, but the myth is just that - a myth. And on technology, the Japanese got it from the West, we have no reason to believe a Roman could not take it from the Japanese.
User avatar
#70 - thejammer (12/28/2015) [-]
You're right, the Samurai were definitely more laid back during their peace time in the 19th century. However, you're forgetting that most men fighting were infantrymen and that centurions were upperclass officers aswell. Not to mention what would just happen in battle. The Samurai were cavalry archers and would easily pick off the Romans like the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Carrhae. Also, they had weapons such as matchlocks, cannons, and even gatling guns.
User avatar
#72 - alcantara (12/28/2015) [-]
Now I know you're talking out of your arse; gatling guns were Meiji era, by which time the Samurai weren't the active warrior class of Japan and thus weren't the ones using the gatling guns (Meiji effectively abolished the Samurai in favour of an army in 1873, that army was the one that used modern western weapons and eventually wiped out the Samurai with ease in 1877).
User avatar
#73 - thejammer (12/28/2015) [-]
I'll give you that but there have been reports of gatling guns being bought from the United States.
User avatar
#74 - alcantara (12/28/2015) [-]
Yeah that was by the Meiji government for use by the army.
User avatar
#75 - thejammer (12/28/2015) [-]
If you say so.
#65 - grovesimus has deleted their comment.
#148 - At least for me, I see the plot, almost the point of star wars…  [+] (1 reply) 12/27/2015 on Force Awakens 0
User avatar
#149 - asotil (12/27/2015) [-]
That's all well and good, now tell me why the Original Trilogy plot officially means fuck all and why SW7 couldn't have just made its own plot separate from the events of the original movies?

I'll give you the answer: JJ was fucking broke
#127 - God its almost like movies need conflict what  [+] (3 replies) 12/27/2015 on Force Awakens -1
User avatar
#146 - asotil (12/27/2015) [-]
When you undo the entire plot of an ended series just to continue making sequels, it's a cash grab

Star Wars 7 should not exist. The entire Original Trilogy story was made completely irrelevant so they could make more Nostalgia Bucks with another movie. That's it
User avatar
#148 - Endofzeeworld (12/27/2015) [-]
At least for me, I see the plot, almost the point of star wars when you look at the entire lore, that the struggle against the Dark Side is never complete, that you never truly defeat evil, that the war is never ending, and that the light side must be ever vigilant against the dark.
User avatar
#149 - asotil (12/27/2015) [-]
That's all well and good, now tell me why the Original Trilogy plot officially means fuck all and why SW7 couldn't have just made its own plot separate from the events of the original movies?

I'll give you the answer: JJ was fucking broke
#17 - Not just white people. Things are fine when you are surrounded…  [+] (4 replies) 12/25/2015 on Superman in the 50s +5
User avatar
#44 - Maroon (12/25/2015) [-]
why would there be racial tension somewhere where 80% of the population is one race?
#19 - anon (12/25/2015) [-]
It's primarily the ghetto-ass trash places that are poor and may have gangs in the area that are terrible.
#63 - anon (12/25/2015) [-]
Ask yourself why those people exist. They're not born terrible people, after all. As with most persons, they are a product of their environment, and these ghettos exist because no one cared to help them before it got too bad.

This is a product of our eurocentric society which looks down on integration, and prefers to keep other cultures in bubbles for convenience.
User avatar
#22 - Endofzeeworld (12/25/2015) [-]
True. Although I do live in the city with the highest youth murder rate per capita in CA (salinas), Our school district is divided in such a way as to where most of the gang kids go to a different HS than I do.