Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

LeoBoon

Rank #49198 on Subscribers
LeoBoon Avatar Level 228 Comments: Mind Blower
Offline
Send mail to LeoBoon Block LeoBoon Invite LeoBoon to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Age: 25
Date Signed Up:3/12/2010
Last Login:10/31/2014
Location:London
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Thumbs: 2649 total,  2887 ,  238
Comment Thumbs: 3149 total,  3359 ,  210
Content Level Progress: 14% (14/100)
Level 126 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry → Level 127 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry
Comment Level Progress: 59% (59/100)
Level 228 Comments: Mind Blower → Level 229 Comments: Mind Blower
Subscribers:1
Content Views:41518
Times Content Favorited:138 times
Total Comments Made:312
FJ Points:5480
Favorite Tags: rage comic (2)

Show:
Sort by:
Order:

funny pictures

  • Views: 28288
    Thumbs Up 1959 Thumbs Down 67 Total: +1892
    Comments: 132
    Favorites: 122
    Uploaded: 09/06/11
    Stunt Plane Stunt Plane
  • Views: 19455
    Thumbs Up 586 Thumbs Down 45 Total: +541
    Comments: 11
    Favorites: 10
    Uploaded: 09/10/12
    Scumbag Michael Jackson Scumbag Michael Jackson
  • Views: 8280
    Thumbs Up 161 Thumbs Down 41 Total: +120
    Comments: 60
    Favorites: 2
    Uploaded: 09/18/14
    On this site, a truly unpopular opinion On this site, a truly unpopular...
  • Views: 1489
    Thumbs Up 25 Thumbs Down 3 Total: +22
    Comments: 5
    Favorites: 1
    Uploaded: 07/25/14
    The End The End
  • Views: 1444
    Thumbs Up 15 Thumbs Down 2 Total: +13
    Comments: 2
    Favorites: 1
    Uploaded: 01/20/12
    R.I.P Megaupload R.I.P Megaupload
  • Views: 2213
    Thumbs Up 19 Thumbs Down 7 Total: +12
    Comments: 0
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 09/14/12
    My thoughts exactly My thoughts exactly
1 2 3 4 > [ 22 Funny Pictures Total ]
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

user favorites

latest user's comments

#60 - It's funny how you leave after I present sourced evidence, and… 09/19/2014 on On this site, a truly... -1
#58 - You do realise that Wikipedia is sourced and you can check its…  [+] (2 new replies) 09/19/2014 on On this site, a truly... -1
User avatar #59 - bestfoxgirl (09/19/2014) [-]
I actually read that and if it's the only thing you read, then we don't have anything to talk about.

Try reading a history book instead of relying on random pieces of text from the internet.

You could also try to find the historical sources, but I seriously doubt you'll even try to pick a book, so I can't expect you to do that.

been nice talking to you, see ya.
User avatar #60 - LeoBoon (09/19/2014) [-]
It's funny how you leave after I present sourced evidence, and do not care to present any evidence of your own.
#56 - That is not true. Prior to Hiroshima, Japan had no intention t…  [+] (4 new replies) 09/19/2014 on On this site, a truly... -1
User avatar #57 - bestfoxgirl (09/19/2014) [-]
You do realize that there are documents and books confirming it and giving a wikipedia (lol) link with a couple of poorly written lines and without a source actually works against you, right?
User avatar #58 - LeoBoon (09/19/2014) [-]
You do realise that Wikipedia is sourced and you can check its sources yourself if you want?
Because you're too lazy and/or unwilling to click on a link that proves you wrong:

An historian's retelling of the event:
The intercepts of Japanese Imperial Army and Navy messages disclosed without exception that Japan's armed forces were determined to fight a final Armageddon battle in the homeland against an Allied invasion.
www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/894mnyyl.asp?page=3

A telegram from the Japanese Foreign Minister in July 1945, a month before the bombing:
We cannot accept unconditional surrender (understood fully your telegram No. 1416) in any situation.
www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/library/correspondence/togo-sato/corr_togo-sato.htm

The Japanese response to the threat of nuclear weaponry:
I consider the Joint Proclamation a rehash of the Declaration at the Cairo Conference. As for the Government, it does not attach any important value to it at all. The only thing to do is just kill it with silence (mokusatsu). We will do nothing but press on to the bitter end to bring about a successful completion of the war.
openlibrary.org/books/OL7357961M/Downfall

I realise the last one is a book, but I could find no online version.
User avatar #59 - bestfoxgirl (09/19/2014) [-]
I actually read that and if it's the only thing you read, then we don't have anything to talk about.

Try reading a history book instead of relying on random pieces of text from the internet.

You could also try to find the historical sources, but I seriously doubt you'll even try to pick a book, so I can't expect you to do that.

been nice talking to you, see ya.
User avatar #60 - LeoBoon (09/19/2014) [-]
It's funny how you leave after I present sourced evidence, and do not care to present any evidence of your own.
#49 - I have serious issues because I think that it's unacceptable f… 09/19/2014 on On this site, a truly... 0
#24 - By that logic, soldiers should be tried for murder when they k…  [+] (2 new replies) 09/19/2014 on On this site, a truly... -1
User avatar #26 - imadethistopost (09/19/2014) [-]
but you do have a point, life does have it's value, and should not be liberated from others so freely.
User avatar #25 - imadethistopost (09/19/2014) [-]
rules of warfare, geneva convention, self defense, defense in the third person, multiple other reasons where in killing is not considered murder, and i'm not a soldier.
#21 - In war it's not really a death threat, though. It's just... wa…  [+] (4 new replies) 09/19/2014 on On this site, a truly... -2
User avatar #23 - imadethistopost (09/19/2014) [-]
i don't believe title or position changes the name of an action.

terrorist, civilian, marine, immigrant, doesn't matter, suggesting such would mean that stature makes certain action more or less legal for certain individuals.

a death threat is a death threat, isis threatens to kill a reporter and does, we airstrike their controls nation.
User avatar #24 - LeoBoon (09/19/2014) [-]
By that logic, soldiers should be tried for murder when they kill an enemy combatant.
User avatar #26 - imadethistopost (09/19/2014) [-]
but you do have a point, life does have it's value, and should not be liberated from others so freely.
User avatar #25 - imadethistopost (09/19/2014) [-]
rules of warfare, geneva convention, self defense, defense in the third person, multiple other reasons where in killing is not considered murder, and i'm not a soldier.
#19 - I honestly cannot tell what you're trying to say here. Are you…  [+] (12 new replies) 09/19/2014 on On this site, a truly... -1
User avatar #55 - bestfoxgirl (09/19/2014) [-]
Japan wanted a peace treaty before US "threatened" them, and after that, too. Us just wanted to show USSR their new weapon

Why do you think they used it on defenseless civilians and not the IJA/IJN?
User avatar #56 - LeoBoon (09/19/2014) [-]
That is not true. Prior to Hiroshima, Japan had no intention to surrender, forcing the US to either invade by sea or drop the bombs. Only with the atomic bomb did Japan seek peace.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Japan.27s_leaders_refused_to_surrender
User avatar #57 - bestfoxgirl (09/19/2014) [-]
You do realize that there are documents and books confirming it and giving a wikipedia (lol) link with a couple of poorly written lines and without a source actually works against you, right?
User avatar #58 - LeoBoon (09/19/2014) [-]
You do realise that Wikipedia is sourced and you can check its sources yourself if you want?
Because you're too lazy and/or unwilling to click on a link that proves you wrong:

An historian's retelling of the event:
The intercepts of Japanese Imperial Army and Navy messages disclosed without exception that Japan's armed forces were determined to fight a final Armageddon battle in the homeland against an Allied invasion.
www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/894mnyyl.asp?page=3

A telegram from the Japanese Foreign Minister in July 1945, a month before the bombing:
We cannot accept unconditional surrender (understood fully your telegram No. 1416) in any situation.
www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/library/correspondence/togo-sato/corr_togo-sato.htm

The Japanese response to the threat of nuclear weaponry:
I consider the Joint Proclamation a rehash of the Declaration at the Cairo Conference. As for the Government, it does not attach any important value to it at all. The only thing to do is just kill it with silence (mokusatsu). We will do nothing but press on to the bitter end to bring about a successful completion of the war.
openlibrary.org/books/OL7357961M/Downfall

I realise the last one is a book, but I could find no online version.
User avatar #59 - bestfoxgirl (09/19/2014) [-]
I actually read that and if it's the only thing you read, then we don't have anything to talk about.

Try reading a history book instead of relying on random pieces of text from the internet.

You could also try to find the historical sources, but I seriously doubt you'll even try to pick a book, so I can't expect you to do that.

been nice talking to you, see ya.
User avatar #60 - LeoBoon (09/19/2014) [-]
It's funny how you leave after I present sourced evidence, and do not care to present any evidence of your own.
#20 - imadethistopost (09/19/2014) [-]
i'm marine, common sayings are: common sense does not apply, shut up and do.

and action or threats against japan, point was something worked.
User avatar #21 - LeoBoon (09/19/2014) [-]
In war it's not really a death threat, though. It's just... war. It's soldiers trying to kill each other, it would seem to me that it's assumed that death is going happen. Do you send emails to your enemies while stationed in a warzone promising to kill them good? It seems different to me from what is an actual death threat, which is, I would say, an intimidatory message within a civilian setting.
User avatar #23 - imadethistopost (09/19/2014) [-]
i don't believe title or position changes the name of an action.

terrorist, civilian, marine, immigrant, doesn't matter, suggesting such would mean that stature makes certain action more or less legal for certain individuals.

a death threat is a death threat, isis threatens to kill a reporter and does, we airstrike their controls nation.
User avatar #24 - LeoBoon (09/19/2014) [-]
By that logic, soldiers should be tried for murder when they kill an enemy combatant.
User avatar #26 - imadethistopost (09/19/2014) [-]
but you do have a point, life does have it's value, and should not be liberated from others so freely.
User avatar #25 - imadethistopost (09/19/2014) [-]
rules of warfare, geneva convention, self defense, defense in the third person, multiple other reasons where in killing is not considered murder, and i'm not a soldier.
#16 - In what context do you feel that harassment and death threats …  [+] (15 new replies) 09/19/2014 on On this site, a truly... -4
#18 - imadethistopost (09/19/2014) [-]
also our threats to nuke japan seemed to placate their asses.

so threats work as unpleasent as you find it.
User avatar #17 - imadethistopost (09/19/2014) [-]
when someone makes a death threat to someone they oppose to keep them from acting, when a group harasses the weak to remain the strong, or when a movement decides they are granted so by their god, any time someone threatens those who i've sworn to protect and serve, i don't mind.

i enlisted in the military so i could prove i can protect others weaker than myself from harm.

and death threats highlight those who would cause such harm.

death threats, like isis, the taliban, al qaeda, kim jon un, and all other dictator, warlords, and domestic threats make show us who are our enemies are.

threats are a tool used to single out those who are dangerous.
User avatar #19 - LeoBoon (09/19/2014) [-]
I honestly cannot tell what you're trying to say here. Are you saying that you can tell who the enemy is by who makes death threats against you and those who you protect? Isn't that an argument against making death threats, since the enemy might prefer to remain hidden, and would've remained if it hadn't resorted to pointless death threats?
Also, threatening Japan with nukes didn't end the war. Nuking them, twice, did.
User avatar #55 - bestfoxgirl (09/19/2014) [-]
Japan wanted a peace treaty before US "threatened" them, and after that, too. Us just wanted to show USSR their new weapon

Why do you think they used it on defenseless civilians and not the IJA/IJN?
User avatar #56 - LeoBoon (09/19/2014) [-]
That is not true. Prior to Hiroshima, Japan had no intention to surrender, forcing the US to either invade by sea or drop the bombs. Only with the atomic bomb did Japan seek peace.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Japan.27s_leaders_refused_to_surrender
User avatar #57 - bestfoxgirl (09/19/2014) [-]
You do realize that there are documents and books confirming it and giving a wikipedia (lol) link with a couple of poorly written lines and without a source actually works against you, right?
User avatar #58 - LeoBoon (09/19/2014) [-]
You do realise that Wikipedia is sourced and you can check its sources yourself if you want?
Because you're too lazy and/or unwilling to click on a link that proves you wrong:

An historian's retelling of the event:
The intercepts of Japanese Imperial Army and Navy messages disclosed without exception that Japan's armed forces were determined to fight a final Armageddon battle in the homeland against an Allied invasion.
www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/894mnyyl.asp?page=3

A telegram from the Japanese Foreign Minister in July 1945, a month before the bombing:
We cannot accept unconditional surrender (understood fully your telegram No. 1416) in any situation.
www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/library/correspondence/togo-sato/corr_togo-sato.htm

The Japanese response to the threat of nuclear weaponry:
I consider the Joint Proclamation a rehash of the Declaration at the Cairo Conference. As for the Government, it does not attach any important value to it at all. The only thing to do is just kill it with silence (mokusatsu). We will do nothing but press on to the bitter end to bring about a successful completion of the war.
openlibrary.org/books/OL7357961M/Downfall

I realise the last one is a book, but I could find no online version.
User avatar #59 - bestfoxgirl (09/19/2014) [-]
I actually read that and if it's the only thing you read, then we don't have anything to talk about.

Try reading a history book instead of relying on random pieces of text from the internet.

You could also try to find the historical sources, but I seriously doubt you'll even try to pick a book, so I can't expect you to do that.

been nice talking to you, see ya.
User avatar #60 - LeoBoon (09/19/2014) [-]
It's funny how you leave after I present sourced evidence, and do not care to present any evidence of your own.
#20 - imadethistopost (09/19/2014) [-]
i'm marine, common sayings are: common sense does not apply, shut up and do.

and action or threats against japan, point was something worked.
User avatar #21 - LeoBoon (09/19/2014) [-]
In war it's not really a death threat, though. It's just... war. It's soldiers trying to kill each other, it would seem to me that it's assumed that death is going happen. Do you send emails to your enemies while stationed in a warzone promising to kill them good? It seems different to me from what is an actual death threat, which is, I would say, an intimidatory message within a civilian setting.
User avatar #23 - imadethistopost (09/19/2014) [-]
i don't believe title or position changes the name of an action.

terrorist, civilian, marine, immigrant, doesn't matter, suggesting such would mean that stature makes certain action more or less legal for certain individuals.

a death threat is a death threat, isis threatens to kill a reporter and does, we airstrike their controls nation.
User avatar #24 - LeoBoon (09/19/2014) [-]
By that logic, soldiers should be tried for murder when they kill an enemy combatant.
User avatar #26 - imadethistopost (09/19/2014) [-]
but you do have a point, life does have it's value, and should not be liberated from others so freely.
User avatar #25 - imadethistopost (09/19/2014) [-]
rules of warfare, geneva convention, self defense, defense in the third person, multiple other reasons where in killing is not considered murder, and i'm not a soldier.
#13 - No. The community replying with scores of "I'l kill u…  [+] (2 new replies) 09/18/2014 on On this site, a truly... -1
#46 - anonymous (09/19/2014) [-]
Except anon said it wasn't a credible death threat and if you do receive an ACTUAL valid death threat to report it. He didn't say that fake ones were acceptable he said he won't take you seriously if you use them as an attempt to bolster a victim narrative.

Technically ALL shit talking and badmouthing in a community is toxic but if you seriously think some child tweeting you "1v1 me fgt i kill u" is anything remotely approaching something realistic then you have serious issues.
User avatar #49 - LeoBoon (09/19/2014) [-]
I have serious issues because I think that it's unacceptable for someone that says "i'l kill u fgt" to be part of a conversation?
#8 - Is FJ the cat or the guy?  [+] (3 new replies) 09/11/2014 on cartoon junk +5
#22 - tostito (09/11/2014) [-]
User avatar #58 - venegal (09/12/2014) [-]
That's more like it.
#36 - sirowlington (09/11/2014) [-]
Better than OC IMO. GG, have a thumb.
[ 312 Total ]

user's channels

Join Subscribe morbid-channel
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 1050 / Total items point value: 1400

Comments(0):

 

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
No comments!
 Friends (0)