• Yes. Terror breeds terror.

  • No. America is the one that kills terrorists.

48% 14 votes
52% 15 votes
  • First of all, lets go back to the Cold War. Imagine that there was a country called Country X. Now Country X was a thriving place where everyone lived happily. Now imagine a Country Y coming to Country X and claim that country for themselves. This restricted Country X's movement. So a Country Z funded weapons to the people of Country X and Country X drove Country Y away. Later on, Country Z attacked Country X and started claiming that land and started calling the people who drove Country Y away terrorists. However, Country Z was the one spreading terror through Country X. THEY were the terrorists. Country X was only fighting for their freedom. What do you know? Country X= Afghanistan Country Y= Russia Country Z= America Freedom fighter of X= Taliban The Taliban were the freedom fighters. America were the terrorists

  • USA = the only country in the history of humanity to ACTUALLY use atomic/nuclear weapons to kill INNOCENT people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And even funnier, when you bring up this argument you have people trying to justify this genocidal/massmurder/terrorist activity because 'MERICA did it. But if anyone else does anything they are the bad guy. One standard is good enough buddy.

  • I believe america breeds terror because of the fact that we create enemies purposefully I believe 9/11 was an inside job nobody does anything to just do it I believe we either hired people to do it or we did it ourselves to wage war for oil all we had to do was create fear.

    Posted by: B2
  • Maybe if we stop killing innocent civilians and bombing the fuck out of countries that haven't provoked us in our "regime change" wars, there won't be terrorists after all. We cause many of these issues.

  • Yes, very much so. Extremely high levels of aggression, coupled with an equally high horse of hypocritical moralism, born from incredible ignorance. Makes for one of the worse empires in history

  • Lol we've been fighting terrorism. Wot in tarnation?

  • The US is not an aggressor. The US simply reacts.

  • The united states, in a way, is the Peacekeeper of the world. They essentially fund many other countries counter-terrorism and militaries, and even then they don't rival the US's. We also happen to be a MAJOR contributor to the United Nations, which, without, World War III would have already happened. Although the US, time and time again has hired terrorists to kill the same terrorists they hired to kill the same ... etc. Most of the time, this was because the original state was corrupt, and had ambitions of conquest. Without the US, and it's bases, as well as supporters (including insurgents), Other countries would hold this influence, would you really want that?

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
DavidMGold says2017-05-07T19:02:53.3628587Z
America is essentially the only country in the world capable of fighting Islamic Terrorism on an international scale. This is a complete moral inversion of reality that only finds an audience among left wing herds devoid of basic reasoning abilities and basic knowledge about the world.
reece says2017-05-07T19:36:51.6588587Z
Kinda like the War on Drugs. ...Eh, nope. That got worse too.
DavidMGold says2017-05-08T03:32:48.1583090Z
The War on Drugs is metaphorical and merely refers to the government prohibition against drugs, which fails to understand the economic force working against it - huge profit incentives that ironically wouldn't exist in a competitive free market that accelerates the proliferation of those very substances to all 50 states. The problem regarding Islamic Terrorism stems from the totalitarian ideology of the Qur'an, Sunnah, and has a long 1,400 year history. It is one of the primary drivers of conflicts throughout the world as we've seen in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan, Sudan, Somalia, Kenya, Nigeria, Libya, India, Myanmar, Thailand, Philippines, and elsewhere with a global effort to carry out another Holocaust in Israel. It has visited atrocities in European cities and the USA. You're talking about entirely unrelated issues. Again, your poll question is a moral inversion of reality.
reece says2017-05-08T05:08:04.5315745Z
@DavidMGold What they both have common is what happens when you actively push human nature into a corner. 'Economic forces' are the ones that tend to want status quo, and they'll use the government to enforce it. The government's job is meant to encourage intrapreneurship instead of taking big money to dwindle it.
DavidMGold says2017-05-08T06:50:08.1420259Z
Reece, there is nothing analogous here. Convoluted, unsubstantiated and ultimately worthless assertions that don't address the issue in question. The prohibition of drugs in the US is unrelated to the efforts to combat Islamic terrorists. The failure of prohibition is a failure to grasp the economic reality of a highly lucrative black market with massively inflated profit margins that creates an incentive for every criminal element to distribute and proliferate such substances. The other is a totalitarian ideology that promises heavenly rewards of the ultimate XXX-rated paradise in Jannah to all would-be Jihadists that die killing the kuffar and boasts a huge constituency among the largely illiterate, culturally backward parts of the world whereby a 7th Century Arabian pirate turned warlord is the unquestionable perfect example of human conduct. The failure there is the absurd and disgusting declarations of Presidents like George W. Bush or Barack Hussein Obama calling it a religion of peace despite the overwhelming empirical evidence to the contrary. Meanwhile, the Saudis have outspent the former USSR 100 to 2 exporting whabbism to mosques throughout the US, buying into universities with multi-million dollar donations, establishing Islamic Studies on campus while the US trails the EU in this insane notion that Western countries have no choice but to import unlimited numbers of settlers to replace their aging populations that have become the national equivalent of a panda bear. American foreign policy is less Sun Tzu or Clausewitz and more Mr. Rogers and Cornel West.
reece says2017-05-08T08:12:03.0291745Z
@DavidMGold You completely ignored what I said and went straight to your talking points. I just explained what the similarity between the prohibition of drugs and the efforts to combat Islamic terrorism is. Please try to reason. The failure of prohibition is a failure of the status quo (the pharmaceutical industry) trying to get rid of its competition. We basically agree on this. For terrorism on the other hand, there's a point when ideology just becomes a moral justification to oppress others. What causes this? You treat someone like a criminal, they'll act like a criminal. For Saudi Arabia, would you support the US breaking ties with them?
Axonly says2017-05-08T08:28:08.3124259Z
"With the terrorists you have to take out the families". Yikes.
lawlypants says2017-05-08T21:52:04.0189016Z
DavidMGold, who died and made you the expert on Islamic Jurisprudence bud? Watching your tv screen doesn't make you an expert on Islamic Jurisprudence, sorry to burst your delusional bubble. USA = the only country in the history of humanity to ACTUALLY use atomic/nuclear weapons to kill INNOCENT people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And even funnier, when you bring up this argument you have people trying to justify this genocidal/massmurder/terrorist activity because 'MERICA did it. But if anyone else does anything they are the bad guy. One standard is good enough buddy.
DavidMGold says2017-05-08T21:57:33.0683737Z
Reece, there's a clear record here of me explaining and breaking down two separate issues to explain the falsity of your analogy. On the other hand, you haven't even begun to explain anything confusing economic force (a 300% markup) with your just recently defined "staus quo" that turns out to be the Pharmeseutical Industry, which as dumb as blaming Anheuser-Busch Brewing for alcohol prohibition in the 1920s and is ironic in the sense that those involved in the black market drug trade literally resort to eliminating their competitors. All of which isn't even addressing the libelous accusation of the poll question, the ideological underpinnings of Islam, the moral capitulation of Western political elites to Islamic blasphemy codes, and the disastrous foreign policy that doesn't even address your infatuation with the Saudi Theocratic Monarchy that funds most American mosques and Islamic centers on campus. Aside from oil, which Americans discovered and developed until the Saudi Government took over in 1988, it offers the world nothing of value exporting whabbism to the world.
DavidMGold says2017-05-09T01:47:56.6735621Z
Lawlypants, no..Countless hours study and I would annihilate an egotistical ignoramus in the opening of any such exchange if you could even manage to step up into the ring. Who are you fooling here and yes, I'm calling your bluff. Thank you, your remark on your vote caught my attention and I was looking for the opportunity to dispell this contemptuous accusation. The US was faced with a costly (an estimated million American casualties) hat would have resulted in millions of Japanese casualties. Hitting those two cities spared the lives of millions and brought about a swift conclusion to a bloody conflict. That incessant reference to South Park's bastardized "Merica" doesn't validate your emphatic, faulty moral incoherence.
reece says2017-05-09T03:12:46.1065009Z
@DavidMGold It seems to me that you're totally oblivious to corruption in the American government. The pharmeseutical Industry is no exception. There's a correlation between politicians that take their money, and then try to create and/or enforce policies against substances that would cut into the profit of these companies. Don't you actually want the 'black market drug trade' to be fought in the courts, and not in streets? Then support legalisation. So, would you support the US breaking ties with Saudi Arabia? You didn't answer my question.
lawlypants says2017-05-10T17:37:34.0004175Z
DavidMGold , I am calling your bluff as well and my original post already predicted and covered the typical response I hear when I bring up anything bad the US does, aka being the ONLY country in human history to ACTUALLY use nukes to kill INNOCENT people: "And even funnier, when you bring up this argument you have people trying to justify this genocidal/massmurder/terrorist activity because 'MERICA did it. But if anyone else does anything they are the bad guy. One standard is good enough buddy." Not convinced by your typical one-sided unreasonable rhetoric, didn't hear anything new or compelling from you, and my position still stands where it was. Sorry bud.
DavidMGold says2017-05-11T02:42:38.0481123Z
Lawlypants, you're quite literally trying to sustain your premise by completely ignoring my response and regurgitating your premise. Like Islam, and most any other topic, you're arguing from a complete lack of historical knowledge regarding the Pacific Theatre during the Second World War. Truman was confronted with the horrible decision to invade Mainland Japan, which would have lead to over a million Allied casualties (in addition to thousands of POWs the Japanese planned to execute) and millions of Japanese casualties (as Truman observed, it would have been a greater Battle of Okinawa from one end to another). The decision to hit Nagasaki and Hiroshima, both major military-industrial targets, was the breakthrough that allowed the Emperor to override the Military Commanders seeking decisive battle and end the war. Through sheer ignorance, you're omitting the entire context of the decision and I'll gladly kick you off the soapbox for neglecting the millions of lives saved by it. On the contrary, you're offering the same accusation...Verbatim and in quotes. Attitude is not a good substitute for knowledge.
reece says2017-05-11T03:05:55.2465123Z
'You're quite literally trying to sustain your premise by completely ignoring my response and regurgitating your premise.' Sounds familiar.
Anonymous says2017-05-11T14:46:36.2893171Z
It was almost a blessing that the United States used Nuclear Weapons before anyone else did as we were the only civilized nation that was competent enough to realize that they were too dangerous to use in conventional warfare. If the Soviets had discovered and used it first they likely would have used nuclear weapons on us. Also, who cares? This was over 71 years ago; it was proven if we hadn't used the bombs that many more people would have died. Perhaps you should mention how the imperial army killed thousands more of their own people than the bombs did.
Anonymous says2017-05-11T15:05:28.3189171Z
It was almost a blessing that the United States used Nuclear Weapons before anyone else did as we were the only civilized nation that was competent enough to realize that they were too dangerous to use in conventional warfare. If the Soviets had discovered and used it first they likely would have used nuclear weapons on us. Also, who cares? This was over 71 years ago; it was proven if we hadn't used the bombs that many more people would have died. Perhaps you should mention how the imperial army killed thousands more of their own people than the bombs did.
DrCereal says2017-05-11T17:42:04.9477171Z
@SciGuy While our sitting present once asked in an interview why we can't use nukes. Yep, we really understand how dangerous they are.
DavidMGold says2017-05-12T02:01:05.0611353Z
Reece, you ought know (habitual offender) and he literally posted the exact comment verbatim in parentheses. Challenged, debunked...
reece says2017-05-12T02:22:00.0811353Z
DavidMGold, typical.
DavidMGold says2017-05-12T02:28:46.0711353Z
DrCereal, says the follower of a crackpot totalitarian ideology that murdered and killed millions of people throughout the 20th Century. And no one even paused when the messiah of the American Left, Barack Hussein Obama, legalized Iran's covert..Unlawful nuclear weapons program and amazingly turned over $1.7 billion in addition to billions more unfrozen for a Theocratic Islamic Dictatorship that has been held liable for billions in US courts for terrorist attacks that directly targeted and killed Americans in addition to the 1,100 US soldiers they eliminated in Iraq and the cash bounties for their Taliban proxies fighting NATO in Afghanistan. I'm amazed after 8 years of foreign policy disasters and piles of bodies in Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Afghanistan that left wingers would be less than pompous about foreign policy or war and peace issues. Your heartthrob, Ernesto "Che" Guevara, terrified the Soviets with his demand that they launch a nuclear strike on the USA from Cuba so much that he deserves more credit than JFK for Khrushchev pulling ICBMs out of the hands of genocidal maniacs in Cuba.
DavidMGold says2017-05-12T02:43:59.0143353Z
Sciguy, you only have to remember that Pavlov's dogs here are reflexively conditioned into these attitudes on America and won't be dissuaded by the facts.
DrCereal says2017-05-12T04:23:52.2691353Z
@DavidMGold Can't rely on facts so you result to mentioning irrelevant things to make me look bad? Cute.
Anonymous says2017-05-12T15:48:49.8245994Z
President Trump did ask rhetorically why we can't use nuclear weapons, however, it is clear that he said that only to shock his interviewer. I doubt we will ever use nuclear weapons again as a civilized country in the west. However, the same cannot be said for the Koreans who have repeatedly taken actions of malice against peace and stability within the world. We have checks and balances in the states, just because a person wants to use nuclear weapons does not mean such a desire shall ever come to fruition.
Anonymous says2017-05-12T15:55:44.0513994Z
David, I couldn't care less. I enjoy debating reece in the comments and I enjoy listening to opinions contradicting my own. They can happily omit facts and opinions from this conversation just as you can, however, it may leave some sort of distaste for one another.
DrCereal says2017-05-12T17:42:18.8625714Z
@Sciguy Though I doubt the explanation your offered to explain Trump's actions, I admire your response to DavidMGold. I'm really glad to hear someone say they like listening to views that are contrary to their own because that's the only way actual debate occurs.
lawlypants says2017-05-15T16:51:03.8120207Z
DavidMGold , I am calling your bluff as well and my original post already predicted and covered the typical response I hear when I bring up anything bad the US does, aka being the ONLY country in human history to ACTUALLY use nukes to kill INNOCENT people: "And even funnier, when you bring up this argument you have people trying to justify this genocidal/massmurder/terrorist activity because 'MERICA did it. But if anyone else does anything they are the bad guy. One standard is good enough buddy." Your whole shtick, which I've heard from plenty of other people (it's nothing new), is that the US used nukes in order to save lives and "most likely" so many lives were saved as a result of their use. Well then buddy, by that logic, everyone else could argue that all other countries in existence should get together and completely nuke the USA off the face of the map for all the sh*t they are causing around the globe, kill all approximately 320 million Americans, who consume more than 25% of the worlds resources like fat slobs, and use those resources to save the lives of the rest of the 7 billion people on the planet. HUR DUR. So, AGAIN: Not convinced by your typical one-sided unreasonable rhetoric, didn't hear anything new or compelling from you, and my position still stands where it was. Sorry bud.
Anonymous says2017-05-15T19:49:49.4338687Z
Lawlypants - though you refuse to retract your point, thus making it stand, it still is not in any way coherent. You insist that the United States is a terrorist state because of the country's use of nuclear weapons then hypocritically interject other nations should eradicate Americans entirely; who is more of a terrorist, the terrorist or the terrorist that follows it?
lawlypants says2017-05-15T22:29:12.0154687Z
Sciguy - "though you refuse to retract your point, thus making it stand, it still is not in any way coherent. " ---It isn't "coherent" why? Because you can't read? Or is it because you have 7 flags sticking out of the rear of your Ford9999 diesel "compensation-truck" so America is infallible? Scroll back up and carefully read what I wrote. The logic of my argument doesn't take a rocket science Ph.D to understand. It is simple----> If you can justify your terroristic bullsh*t by dropping nukes on people (which is what the US has done and is the only country in the world to have done it), then everyone else can ALSO justify their own terroristic bullsh*t. I am for the truth, logic, rational, and reasoning, to name a few things. The USA doing all the sh*t that it does across the globe and the retards who try to defend that bullsh*t, doesn't represent any of that. I am against hypocrisy and I am against terrorism, that is what the USA stands for, based on their actions across the globe and based on their track record during their tiny little 240 year history so far, and I don't just blindly attach my loyalty to some "flag" buddy, because reasonable, logical, rational, scientific, and MORAL people don't do that.
DavidMGold says2017-05-15T23:01:24.9958687Z
Sciguy, my axiom stands and I have done nothing here but demonstrate a willingness to engage opposing views. The problem is these aren't even close to legitimate or sustainable positions. Scroll up and read the comment by B2 on his vote. Here we have a crackpot expressing an "opinion" that the 911 attack was an inside job or subcontracted to "others" despite any factual basis and ignoring an overwhelming preponderance of information to the contrary. These kooky beliefs are more indicative of a psychosis as opposed to thoughtful or rational viewpoints. I will not legitimize this sort of nonsense under the auspices of people being entitled to their opinions. The level of imbecilic is intolerable, especially when he identifies oil as the motive. I will engage but it is completely worthless, ignorant, dangerous, and stupefying.
DrCereal says2017-05-15T23:30:49.8706687Z
@DavidMGold He wasn't simply "engaging" in argument. He said, "I enjoy listening to opinions contradicting my own." This is what you don't understand. You can't even fathom considering another viewpoint that isn't your own.
DavidMGold says2017-05-16T00:52:35.9146687Z
Lawlypants, you're repeating the same premise (third times a charm?) and ignoring the very specific, detailed rationale that quite literally saved the lives of over a million Americans and thousands of POWs though I'm no doubt sure you have welcomed their deaths or even the defeat of the US. Do me a favor and stop parroting my remark back at me and it won't deter me from pointing out the emperor has no clothes! You don't know anything about the Secon World War, the Pacific Theatre or Imperial Japan nor do you display any appetite for such historical knowledge. You have an easily dismissed attitude, and that's it. The fact remains the US did save over a million lives on their side and millions on the side of Imperial Japan. The only "shtick" here is your aversion to the facts and context while flaunting your ignorance. What you go on to call logic is a wild, irrational tangent highlighting the perversity and Sadomasochism of self-loathing American leftists. The "shit" you refer to across the globe in reality is the US attempting to hold the world together at a tremendous cost in the trillions and more amazingly you somehow believe that justifies the genocide of every single person living in the United States. In a rational society, you'd be banished to North Korea but in a rational world North Korea wouldn't exist. The US purchases and consumes 25% of the coal, oil and natural gas sold on the world market, which you conflated to resources in general and ignore the fact that the US is the largest producer of oil and natural gas while only second to China in coal production (despite the litany of federal regulatory hurdles). Amazingly, the superiority of the United States in the allocation or production of energy, which is vital is bizarrely derided by you as laziness (and we all know you consume no resources in your monastic basement dwelling). The irony being you know absolutely nothing about the world beyond the confines of your American suburb, which leads to this distorted, romantic outlook that doesn't realize there is a failed Narco state on the southern border and is the second deadliest country in the world. I wouldn't mind walking you through the impoverished, backward countries and failed states of Latin America, South America, the Caribbean, the African Continent, the Middle East, the Caucasus region, Southeast Asia, or the bloated, dying Welfare States of Europe. Of course you don't hold these people or their governments accountable for their utter failure to even attain modest goals like basic literacy. I'm amused when people like you romanticize about the peoples of the world blinded to the fact that many of them would make your worst hillbilly caricature look civilized and sophisticated in comparison. Once again; you're ignoring facts, specificity, and context to sustain your premise by repetition alone. Misusing words like rhetoric doesn't excuse you from addressing the refutation of your claim. Finally, if you insist on apologizing..Apologize for the correct transgressions rather than your hopeless regurgitation of libel.
DavidMGold says2017-05-16T01:19:56.4262687Z
DrCereal, I give them the consideration they merit and I have no tolerance for the ludicrous, the preposterous, the falsehoods, and claims that are demonstrably false. The fact that they're asserted doesn't warrant undo respect or protection. It's more along the lines of Issac Asimov's remark about the false notion that your ignorance is just as good as my knowledge.
Anonymous says2017-05-16T15:02:27.6754431Z
I can absolutely concur with your lecture, David! Very good.
lawlypants says2017-05-16T15:32:12.9238431Z
DavidMGold, You and everyone else on this website hold absolutely no merit or credibility with me when it comes to understanding the affairs of the world. As far as I am concerned, you haven't left your little backwoods American town but you want to get online and lecture people about what's happening around the world and the reasons behind it as if you've been there and done that and have a 100% comprehensive understanding of the intricacies of what is happening across the globe. You don't. And if you claim you do, then I am going to claim I do as well. We both can't be right. OOPS. Your argument: ---> When the USA causes sh*t across the globe = "IT WAS JUSTIFIED! America is an angel and is infallible and can do no wrong ." / ---> If anyone else does the exact same thing = "TERRORISTS! SAVAGES! MONSTERS! HOW DARE THEY!" That's an argument that a delusional, retarded, immoral, chimpanzee, would make, bud. I haven't moved even an inch in my stance, I've actually become even more solidified in my stance. And I don't need to make new arguments bud, my first post covered and predicted the typical retard logic I hear when I bring up the atomic bombing of japan. Nothing new. Sowwy. Lol
DrCereal says2017-05-16T19:53:41.3758431Z
@David My only problem with your replay is the statement, "I have no tolerance for the ludicrous, the preposterous, the falsehoods, and claims that are demonstrably false." This statement is a little problematic because these "claims" seem to be everything in disagreeance with you. This is not only the farthest from open-minded that you could be, but it's also a little hypocritical because I've seen one of your polls where you are blatantly wrong. (I'm referring to the one where you try to claim fascism is a "left-wing ideology".) When I speak of consideration, I mean truly considering an idea. I don't mean reading something and immediately disagreeing with it if it goes against your views.
DrCereal says2017-05-16T19:56:03.0862431Z
Reply*
DavidMGold says2017-05-16T22:26:34.3307534Z
Lawlypants, thank you for conceding that you quite literally know nothing about the world (validating my criticism 100%) despite a very long-winded diatribe attempting to lump anyone and everyone into your category of ignorance (a good psychological example of projection) for the purpose of failing to defend your bumbling remarks on resources and the aching for the genocide of your country. I especially enjoy this notion that unless I understand the "intricacies" of the world at 100% (an impossible standard no one on earth could meet) then we must excuse the fact that while you're closer to 0 that we must allow you to claim to know something knowing nothing. Stop wasting our time. I'm all too happy to delve into what the United States is doing around the world but despite my efforts to nudge you into a coherent discussion of specific issues you steadfastly and resolutely refuse to exercise any cerebral function opting for your own frantic concoction of a grossly oversimplified false dichotomy of angels and monsters. Heaping together a negative set of adjectives does not validate, justify or sustain your implacable and irrational position here. There is nothing remarkable about substituting America's use of atomic weapons during the Second World War for "shit across the globe" (which you lack the knowledge to even expound upon) to give the appearance of progression when in fact you're back to circular reasoning. When pushed, we find you have no new arguments and couldn't manage to sustain your premise. Your an ignoramus and stomping up & down on a soap box hasn't improved what amounts to misdirected rage for a simplistic, homogeneous world outside the Continental USA that doesn't exist. The Americans brought an end to the deadliest war of the 20th century that cost the lives of 20 million soldiers and many more civilians saving the lives of another million soldiers to invade Mainland Japan preventing the execution of thousands of Allied POWs who were to be executed as well as the lives of millions of Japanese soldiers and civilians who were being prepared for a decisive battle resulting in the abandonment of Japanese Militarism and expansionist policies to become a peaceful ally and important trading partner. Excuse me if I'm not persuaded by a know nothing, done nothing, 27 year old that hasn't ever left nest spewing venom and seething with rage on behalf of a crackpot dictator in North Korea, empire building mullahs in Iran, theocratic savages in Afghanistan, a fallen dictator in Iraq, or Islamic mass murderers in Syria fighting to establish an Islamic Empire over the world enslaving humanity under the dictates of a 7th century Arab warlord. Hurry on to Waziristan..You can replace Adam Gadahn.
DavidMGold says2017-05-16T22:43:42.5735534Z
DrCereal, there's nothing problematic about a willingness to give every argument consideration based on the merits nor rejecting them on the same merits. On my poll regarding Fascism, I was absolutely right and beat back your attempted challenge with relative ease, but here I find you asserting I was incorrect on the matter! I don't owe anyone a conciliation prize for failing to defend or sustain their position. If you have an argument, make it. The fact someone clings to their position and doubles down having lost the debate doesn't indicate a close-mindedness on my part but on their part. I explain why my disagreement and reasons for rejecting it. You're faulting me for disagreeing no matter the reason(s). FYI, your spelling correction was easily forgiven and I won't harangue people for understandable typing mistakes.
lawlypants says2017-05-17T00:50:59.6939534Z
DavidMGold, Again: You and everyone else on this website hold absolutely no merit or credibility with me when it comes to understanding the affairs of the world. As far as I am concerned, you haven't left your little backwoods American town but you want to get online and lecture people about what's happening around the world and the reasons behind it as if you've been there and done that and have a 100% comprehensive understanding of the intricacies of what is happening across the globe. You don't. And if you claim you do, then I am going to claim I do as well. We both can't be right. OOPS. Your argument: ---> When the USA causes sh*t across the globe = "IT WAS JUSTIFIED! America is an angel and is infallible and can do no wrong ." / ---> If anyone else does the exact same thing = "TERRORISTS! SAVAGES! MONSTERS! HOW DARE THEY!" That's an argument that a delusional, retarded, immoral, chimpanzee, would make, bud. I haven't moved even an inch in my stance, I've actually become even more solidified in my stance. And I don't need to make new arguments bud, my first post covered and predicted the typical retard logic I hear when I bring up the atomic bombing of japan. Nothing new. Sowwy. Lol
DavidMGold says2017-05-17T01:09:07.4039534Z
Lawlypants, and one more time...How many times do I need to flush before you go away?
Anonymous says2017-05-17T18:51:03.0995743Z
LawlyPants - You repeatedly resort back to the use of atomic power in the second world war claiming it was wrong for the United States to use it. Your arguments are simply that the individuals who perished during the attacks were innocent though thousands more were spared- and unlike you, Allied Commanders knew this. I would suggest that you leave military matters to the military while you engage your coloring book.
lawlypants says2017-05-23T22:18:34.7059442Z
Sciguy, Your argument: ---> When the USA causes sh*t across the globe = "IT WAS JUSTIFIED! America is an angel and is infallible and can do no wrong ." / ---> If anyone else does the exact same thing = "TERRORISTS! SAVAGES! MONSTERS! HOW DARE THEY!" That's an argument that a delusional, retarded, immoral, chimpanzee, would make. I don't need to make new arguments lol, my first post covered and predicted the typical retard logic I hear when I bring up the atomic bombing of Japan. Nothing new. Sowwy lol. And how do you know it spared lives? Are you some kind of all-knowing omnipotent being that already understands the infinite different directions a scenario could have played out? No? Or do you enjoy sucking off the military's testicles when it's convenient for your arguments, which I don't consider arguments in the first place lol. And if you want to leave "military matters" (whatever that means) to the military, then it would be a good idea to take your own advice and keep quiet on the topic little fella, because ya'know, one standard is good enough and hypocrazy is not good lol. But I guess the next thing you are going to claim is that you are an omnipotent, ninja/ufc fighter/navy seal/ special forces / army/ air force / /model / genius / military soldier expert right? Somebody here is delusional about reality and history and politics and science, and I'm wagering it ain't me lol.
DavidMGold says2017-05-24T03:57:46.3300086Z
Lawlypants, you're oblivious, puerile and idiotic. That's not his argument, and that's not my argument, but rather your ridiculous premise that you repeat ad nauseam. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Unfortunately, DDO doesn't provide us with the crayons to make it any more simple. When challenged, it becomes your counter-argument and you finish, it becomes your conclusion. It's a total inability to reason. The Allied invasion of Mainland Japan would have resulted in the deaths of over 1 million Allied soldiers and millions of Japanese soldiers and civilians. It doesn't require omnipotence, but rather a decent working knowledge of history. You're ignorant of the entire history of the Second World War in the Pacific Theatre. I admit it is a little amusing to watch you struggle, like a toddler trying to walk, with the context and history. Mostly, it's a pitiful display. Attempting to mimic a fictional character from South Park is simply sad. Then you leap to incredible extremes in your strawman argument by supposing historical facts are farfetched attempts to claim being a Navy Seal, which highlights your grotesque irrationality. Move along, little caboose, no one is going to die here climbing up your ego and jumping down to your IQ.
lawlypants says2017-05-24T16:30:07.0560730Z
DavidMGold, ---> "The Allied invasion of Mainland Japan would have resulted in the deaths of over 1 million Allied soldiers and millions of Japanese soldiers and civilians. It doesn't require omnipotence, but rather a decent working knowledge of history. " Would have resulted?? How the hell do you know this, and why are you saying it with such delusional confidence? What study of history? Yo dude, at no other time in the history of humanity were nukes/atomic bombs dropped for you to go back and extrapolate any conclusions about what could have happened otherwise. DUUURRRR. If you and your US-military-testicle-suckers are happy with your fairy-tale justification stories that nukes were dropped on Japan and killed hundreds of thousands of INNOCENT civilians because you THINK in your genocidal/terroristic/delusional head that it brought a better outcome (wasn't a very good outcome for the civilians in Japan moron) than if those bombs weren't dropped, you still don't get rid of the FACT that the US killed innocent people. Instead of dodging my extremely relevant argument like the retarded kid in the playground, why don't you answer my question: Why shouldn't China drop a nukes at vital civilian spots in the US "for the greater good?" You are delusional and I completely disagree with you, you make no sense. Sorry not sorry buddy.
DavidMGold says2017-05-25T09:33:41.9568474Z
Lawlypants, let's get this straight from the outset: do not ever address me as "yo dude." I'm not one for your pasty-faced millennial Xbox live friends. As I've said before, you literally have no knowledge of the history of the Second World War in the Pacific Theatre. You're a cretin with a single track that consists of the world's dumbest and shortest narrative that you apply to an event that you don't have the intelligence or knowledge to properly evaluate beyond this me too liberal outrage and contrived indignation. I'd like to formally lodge a complaint with the household and public school system that produced you. It comes from knowledge of the history of events during the war such as the 36 day battle between Japan and the US that resulted in the deaths of almost every one of the 22,060 Japanese soldiers entrenched on the island and 26,000 American casualties or the brutal 82 day Battle of Okinawa (as a precursor for the invasion of Japan) that resulted in 62,000 American casualties while almost all of the Japanese soldiers (110,000 killed) fought to the death and as many as 150,000 (50%) of the populace died as well. Studies by the Joint Chiefs of Staff studied the challenges of invading the Mainland and reasonably calculated the resulting casualties that the United States would have sustained. As Winston Churchill expressed his surprise, noting those who never would have to experience the front, said we should have sacrificed a million American lives and half a million British lives rather than use the bomb. This is exponentially true in your case. We can look at conventional aerial bombing campaigns that resulted in far greater casualties than the use of the bomb. So you go back to the event that ended the war, with no knowledge of the war, the history of Imperial Japan, and act as though the US flew across the ocean to hit two Japanese cities and therefore pretend anything done over the next 70+ absent any detail, context, or explanation falls under your false dichotomy of bad United States/Good Saddam, North Korea, Taliban, ISIS. It literally spares you the burden of having any knowledge or information much less seriously thinking a worldview through before expounding on one. I don't need basement dwelling mommy's boy on his second childhood confusing the 129,000 casualties with "hundreds of thousands" while denigrating the military that's forced to protect even indolent little duds spewing invective anonymously on the Internet. Mitsuo Fuchida, the Japanese pilot who led the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor made it precisely clear when he told General Tibbets (who piloted the plane that hit Hiroshima), "You did the right thing. You know the Japanese attitude at that time, how fanatic they were, they'd die for the Emperor ... Every man, woman, and child would have resisted that invasion with sticks and stones if necessary ... Can you imagine what a slaughter it would be to invade Japan? It would have been terrible. The Japanese people know more about that than the American public will ever know." Of course you'll slur and spit your way past grasping and fathoming that remark to ignorantly bemoan the fact that millions of people weren't added to the long list of casualties while pretending your opinion on the matter isn't completely worthless and childish. It would also help if you didn't bungle and fumble about while trying to throw around insults like retard. Oy vey, you've never bothered to ask that astoundingly stupid question, but I will respond that the United States has not launched any surprise aerial bombardment on a Chinese target followed by a declaration of war as the Japanese had done following years of Imperial conquests throughout East Asia and to honor an alliance with Nazi Germany and Italy resulting in over 110,000 dead American soldiers during four years of intense, brutal fighting with the prospect of million casualties to secure the Mainland as a result of a refusal to surrender. You confuse this with a call to launch a surprise, unprovoked nuclear genocide on American cities without the slightest pretense as to what constitutes a "greater good." Your psychopathy is just as dangerous as that of an ISIS sympathizer.
lawlypants says2017-05-25T15:57:10.6893738Z
DavidMGold, "Your psychopathy is just as dangerous as that of an ISIS sympathizer." Says the guy trying to justify that it was okay to use atomic bombs to kill INNOCENT people in Japan. Scroll back up and read "DUDE", I don't consider YOU or anyone else on the interwebs a credible source of information on history/science/religion/politics, so spewing your personal opinions and cherry-picked numbers without providing any credible references isn't going to get you ANYWHERE with me (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Debate_over_bombings ) . X number of Americans were already dying, the Japanese were committing suicide attacks and were willing to sacrifice their life (like any other soldier is supposed to do, cuz ya know, that's something called DUTY, hur dur) and because my pretend fantasy-land imagination is telling me it was the best option for the best outcome, that it was the "right" thing to do. By that logic we gotta use nukes on across the middle east and the USA and canada, because those "muslims" are willing to fight for their cause until death, so get the nukes ready, HUR DUR. You and everyone else are WAY out of their league to be making calls like that, trying to justify the bombing INNOCENT civilians which is BLATANT genocide/terrorism/mass murder, regardless whether it was during war-time or not or some other deluded rationale (but delusional chimpanzee-atheists have no clue what "right" and "wrong" and morality is so it would make sense they would try to justify these dumb@ss genocidal/terrorist/mass murder decision to kill INNOCENT people). By people like you and your rationality, everyone can justify the use of nukes on each others INNOCENT CIVILIAN populations. Let's all just go crazy with nukes and pretend we are angels after half the rest of the world is dead. This is retard logic, dude.
Iwantolearn says2017-07-19T13:00:02.6806391Z
America support terrorism and anti government groups so they can unbalence sttes and get oil cheap
Mharman says2017-07-25T20:09:59.2865589Z
Reese, this is an incredibly biased poll which only results in you miking a fool of yourself. Regardless, calling the US a "terrorist state" is one of the most anti-American things one can say.
reece says2017-07-26T05:54:27.8399657Z
Mharman, would you be calling my anti-Saudi too for calling them a terrorist state?
Mharman says2017-07-26T21:44:14.8383288Z
Yes. However, I do not see that as a bad thing.
reece says2017-07-27T02:59:08.2005238Z
Who's their largest arms trader? Doesn't that show you something? Okay, how about 90 percent of people killed in US drone strikes "were not the intended targets" of the attacks? How about double tapping: when the drone turns around to bomb the first responders? How about the term fun-sized terrorists? That's what drone operators call children they've targeted.
Mharman says2017-07-28T13:48:38.8436063Z
What does that have to do with what I just said?
reece says2017-07-29T06:15:33.7692478Z
Why is calling America a terrorist state a bad thing?
Mharman says2017-07-29T18:29:59.6388495Z
Because we a country of freedom, not terrorism; saying such things is anti-American, unpatriotic, and to a minor extent, a betrayal.
DrCereal says2017-07-29T20:25:37.4786569Z
@Mharman You just said the dumbest thing I've read all day.
Mharman says2017-07-29T22:41:07.8972917Z
Calling a spade a spade is not stupid. If you think America is a bad country, than you can move to ones that are tolerant of radical Islam, and hope you don't get run over by a truck, driven by a radical Islamist screaming "ALLAHU AKBAR!" at the top of his lungs.
DrCereal says2017-07-30T03:30:50.3733411Z
@Mharman Demonstrating that there are worse countries doesn't make the U.S. a good country.
NDECD1441 says2017-07-30T04:44:09.9450831Z
Well, actually to be fair, it really depends on your definition of terrorists. The term was invented in the cold war with the Russia, USA and afghanistan story in which the US spread terror among the "terrorists".
ShadowbannedAlready says2017-07-30T20:46:26.7063233Z
To all the folks that were dumbfounded and bewildered by this proposition: lol, please stick your heads out of your asses. Yes, the u.s. "fights terrorism" and we damn well should, BUT ONLY BECAUSE WE BASICALLY CREATED THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE. If OUR criminal agencies hadn't had free reign to arm and train the taliban FOR DECADES, there's a 100% chance that groups like Isis wouldn't even exist today, let alone retain power. So yes, the u.s. government has been a terrorist state for years, and have been "aiding and abetting" terrorism since long before that and right up into the obummer administration. But go ahead touting your superior use of reasoning and moral highground. The entire world mocks and hates us at your expense.
Mharman says2017-07-30T21:50:54.1020249Z
Are you saying you don't think America is a good country?
DrCereal says2017-07-30T22:20:00.8343729Z
@Mharman. Yes, but that's irrelevant.
NDECD1441 says2017-07-30T23:44:46.2073604Z
@Mharman Yes. America isn't a good country and it has only got worse with its current president. However, the question is whether or not it is a terrorist country, not a good one.
Mharman says2017-07-31T01:35:12.2857279Z
Yikes.. It truly is scary how anti-American.
Mharman says2017-07-31T01:35:55.4523114Z
You lefties are.
NDECD1441 says2017-07-31T01:48:21.9085797Z
I am not even american. Not even a lefty (though i am a southpaw). I just understand the stats of the country and its history. Not all of the history anyway, that is my friend's domain. All I am saying is that it was America who invented the terrorists and that they arent a good country. Ok I will meet you halfway and they are not bad, however, they 100% are not good. It also includes the president. If I didnt know any better, I'd think that his next plan was to nuke all news reporters who dont ask "nice" questions.
reece says2017-07-31T02:21:26.1471411Z
Mharman, you totally ignored what I said about Saudi Arabia's #1 arms trader and how the US spreads terrorism through their drone operations. Even though I'm not American, isn't dissent the highest form of patriotism?
reece says2017-07-31T02:31:07.1453897Z
Mharman, a new study recently came out showing 45% of Republicans want to shut down bias and inaccurate media. Little do they know, that would include Fox News as well. If Fox News was getting shut down, they would bitch about free speech until the cows come home. The hypocrisy.
DrCereal says2017-08-03T15:35:00.3204704Z
@Mharman, good argument. Also, do you even know what the left is?
Mharman says2017-08-05T22:58:24.4868636Z
Oh f it all. There's no convincing you. You are beyond the point of no return.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.