Fraud ring undetected in Gov. for 10yrs [Archive]

Speelgoedmannetje

03-13-2004, 01:17 PM

Fade wrote:
In Amsterdam we see Anti-fraud official arrested for fraud (http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=19&story_id=5484).
You seem to forget that we actually we get and sue frauds. You ELECT frauds (does Nixon rings a bell?).

The Dutch might need some new laws on how you treat your animals. (http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=19&story_id=5519)

OK, this is sick, you have to search for it :lol:.
But that's just my opinion. Opinions shouldn't be laws in the first place

Do something about the people in charge of your court system. (http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=19&story_id=5517)
This was a false accuse, wich is dealt with months ago.

Fade

03-13-2004, 01:25 PM

@ Speelgoedmannetje
"This was a false accuse, wich is dealt with months ago."
--------------------

If it is a false charge why did they send him to jail yesterday for 15 months.

Maybe you really do need to read your own news more carefully.

that_punk_guy

03-13-2004, 01:35 PM

Fade wrote:
See you have failed again. The US had nothing to do with the Zimbabwe situation at all, but a British citizen did.

According to the very article you linked:

Amid reports he has homes in South Africa and in Hampshire, Britain, Mr Mann's nationality remains unclear - the Army will sign-up those Britons with dual nationality and citizens from the Commonwealth but has not confirmed Mr Mann was a member of the forces.

Aside from that, you're using the example of one person to justify your anti-Brit/Canadian/Dutch/whoever rants. Is your entire country to blame for Jeff Dahmer?

And aside from that, you are still sidestepping my original point. Would you like to comment on that?

FluffyMcDeath

03-13-2004, 01:36 PM

Fade wrote:
See you have failed again. The US had nothing to do with the Zimbabwe situation at all, but a British citizen did.

And nationals from other countries too. As to US involvement, it'll probably be a while before we know about that. But I wouldn't be too surprised. Just like any other great power they do like to overthrow other peoples governments. Remember Venezuella (oh, wait, that coup failed!!)

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=500711

Can't wait to see what we'll find out about Haiti one day. When an army forms in the Dominican Republic and gets equiped up with a load of new US sourced weapons a lot like the ones that got shipped by the US to the Dominican Republic and the local authorities don't notice them and let them cross over into Haiti, it doesn't look like such a home-grown and spontaneous movement.

Speelgoedmannetje

03-13-2004, 01:39 PM

Fade wrote:
@ Speelgoedmannetje
"This was a false accuse, wich is dealt with months ago."
--------------------

If it is a false charge why did they send him to jail yesterday for 15 months.

Maybe you really do need to read your own news more carefully.Sorry, thought of another one, who actually IS falsely accused.

But I do not think you get it. There's nothing wrong with our system, we GOT this guy behind steel bars.

Fade

03-13-2004, 02:43 PM

@ TPG
"The US directly affects lives outside of its borders more than any other country can. This is why people feel that they should have the chance to speak out about it."
-----------------

If you are asking me or the US to apologize because we are able and sometimes do, step up to the plate and help our friends, or sometimes knock down others that need knocking down, I will not. The same applies for our relative wealth. I will not. The US has worked hard for both its strength and wealth and the socialist minded among you will have to learn to live with it, or try to take it away from us.

In my opinion:
What Europe and especially the UK should be worried about, is the upcoming population shift in France, Italy and Germany. TPG, before you reach middle age, these three countries will be controlled by Muslims by way of population shift and there is nothing anybody can do about it. When that happens, they will be legally "Nuclear Armed".
Now that is something to be worried about, especially if there is a liberal government in power in the US at the time they start feeling their oats.

that_punk_guy

03-13-2004, 03:15 PM

Fade wrote:
If you are asking me or the US to apologize because we are able and sometimes do, step up to the plate and help our friends, or sometimes knock down others that need knocking down, I will not. The same applies for our relative wealth. I will not. The US has worked hard for both its strength and wealth and the socialist minded among you will have to learn to live with it, or try to take it away from us.

It's not just socialists who have a problem with the US essentially deciding which countries in the world are allowed to prosper based on their own interests.

In my opinion:
What Europe and especially the UK should be worried about, is the upcoming population shift in France, Italy and Germany. TPG, before you reach middle age, these three countries will be controlled by Muslims by way of population shift and there is nothing anybody can do about it.

...and this is worse than Christians controlling a country because...?

When that happens, they will be legally "Nuclear Armed".
Now that is something to be worried about.

Do you mean "they" as in Muslims? Again, why is that any worse than having Christians with their mitts on nukes? Of course it's worrying, I'm glad you're beginning to appreciate the security risks that nukes bring...!!

FluffyMcDeath

03-13-2004, 03:38 PM

Fade wrote:
@ TPG
The US has worked hard for both its strength and wealth and the socialist minded among you will have to learn to live with it, or try to take it away from us.

So you're saying we should quit complaining about the US pushing us all around, and instead pick up our pitchforks and go do something about it. I think some Arabs with a beef did that a while back. Are you suggesting that we all follow suit?

Fade

03-13-2004, 03:45 PM

"Do you mean "they" as in Muslims? Again, why is that any worse than having Christians with their mitts on nukes?"
---------------

Please don't act naive.

that_punk_guy

03-13-2004, 03:50 PM

Fade wrote:
Please don't act naive.

I'm not, I'm genuinely unclear as to who you were referring to at that point.

FluffyMcDeath

03-13-2004, 03:52 PM

Fade wrote:
"Do you mean "they" as in Muslims? Again, why is that any worse than having Christians with their mitts on nukes?"
---------------

Please don't act naive.

Perhaps he would just like to hear your reasoning. I would.

Fade

03-13-2004, 04:16 PM

Well I'll go ahead and say it. Do I, or will I ever trust a nuclear armed Muslim country, the answer is no. Do I think they would have used a Nuke on NY if they had had one? The answer is yes. As example, Spain has already arrested Muslims from Iran for the train bombings.

George Bush will be long gone before these countries are Muslem controlled and if the Democrats should happen to be in office and other European countries are attacked, I think the only help you will get from us will be lip service.

---------
@ TPG
"Of course it's worrying, I'm glad you're beginning to appreciate the security risks that nukes bring...!!"
--------

I am not just now beginning to fear what Nukes in the wrong hands might bring. I'll send you a pic for your site that shows what I did during the Cuban missile crisis.

KennyR

03-13-2004, 04:43 PM

Fade wrote:
Well I'll go ahead and say it. Do I, or will I ever trust a nuclear armed Muslim country, the answer is no. Do I think they would have used a Nuke on NY if they had had one? The answer is yes. As example, Spain has already arrested Muslims from Iran for the train bombings.

Pakistan haven't attacked the US yet, so I suppose that breaks your argument somewhat, eh?

Oh course you are right to mistrust religious fundamentalists with weapons of such power. I just wonder why you trust the one heading your own government.

George Bush will be long gone before these countries are Muslem controlled and if the Democrats should happen to be in office and other European countries are attacked, I think the only help you will get from us will be lip service.

And not even a headline news item, I bet. 200 people die in Spain, YAWN. American killed in Afghanistan, front page spread. Just admit it, America couldn't give a toss about the rest of the world, it's just determined nobody can challenge its bullyboy tactics.

Fade

03-13-2004, 05:09 PM

KennyR, my list of people that I wouldn't trust with a nuclear bomb also includes:
Communists
Fascist
Socialist
or any dictator.

As for countries
All of them!
But you know what? You can't unpiss a beer.

KennyR

03-13-2004, 05:11 PM

My list of people who can't be trusted with a nuclear bomb is the following:

Everybody.

And that includes the mini-nukes that the USA are now developing and talking about using in conventional warfare, as if the idea wasn't total and complete lunacy.

Speelgoedmannetje

03-13-2004, 08:41 PM

Fade wrote:
KennyR, my list of people that I wouldn't trust with a nuclear bomb also includes:
Communists
Fascist
Socialist
or any dictator.Yet none of these ever used one. The US however, did. Twice.

Fade

03-13-2004, 10:08 PM

@ Speelgoedmannetje
Yet none of these ever used one. The US however, did. Twice.
---------------

I sure am glad we did. Saved an estimated 1,000,000 American casualties by avoiding an invasion of Japan.

Glaucus

03-13-2004, 11:48 PM

Please don't act naive.Fine, if you promise to stop acting like an idiot!

- Mike

Glaucus

03-13-2004, 11:51 PM

My list of people who can't be trusted with a nuclear bomb is the following:

Everybody.Well said KennyR!!!

- Mike

Glaucus

03-13-2004, 11:57 PM

I sure am glad we did. Saved an estimated 1,000,000 American casualties by avoiding an invasion of Japan.That's the biggest crock of sh!t I've ever heard. Sure it saved some lives, but a million? Hardly! Regardless, the nukes could have still been used to defeat the japs, but they didn't need to target cities. They could have just as easily nuked an off-shore fleet. Sending a full carrier group to the ocean floor would have sent home the message just as well. Wipe out a couple of fleets, with a few hundred thousand soldiers on board and the Japs would have either surrendered or have been mopped up rather quickly by your forces (and with the European theater mopped up, more resources would have been allocated against Japan as well). Not only that, the Soviets were gearing up to take on Japan as well. So don't give me this nonsense that it was necessary. It was extreme overkill and no less cowardly then Osama's attack on 9/11.

- Mike

Speelgoedmannetje

03-14-2004, 04:10 AM

Fade wrote:
@ Speelgoedmannetje
Yet none of these ever used one. The US however, did. Twice.
---------------

I sure am glad we did. Saved an estimated 1,000,000 American casualties by avoiding an invasion of Japan.:-o
Hear hear who's the terrorist!

It was SOLELY aimed at civilians.
It had no strategic use whatsoever.

So it was really a terrorist action.

frankb

03-14-2004, 04:53 AM

I sure am glad we did. Saved an estimated 1,000,000 American casualties by avoiding an invasion of Japan.
The only thing the a-bomb did to Japan was kill off the two largest centers of christianity in Japan: Hiroshima and Nagasaki. How happy are you now?

Your blind faith in Republican "leaders" is just as bad as the faith that the muslims who flew into the Twin Towers in NY had in their "leaders".

Also, I am a staunch conservative. I make Rush Limbaugh look like a Stalinist. GW Bush is an idiot, doing the bidding of internationalist a-holes. The USA Patriot Act is a blatant unconstitutional grab of power. The freedom we have been enjoying for over 200 years is now officially gone. GW Bush's daddy's dream of the New World Order is here.

While you are looking at what is wrong with other countries, yours was stolen from right underneath you.

dezignersrepublic

03-14-2004, 05:15 AM

Fade is the new smerf

Glaucus

03-14-2004, 08:55 AM

The freedom we have been enjoying for over 200 years is now officially gone. GW Bush's daddy's dream of the New World Order is here.Although G Bush Sr. dreamed of a New World Order (ie, American Dominance), his dream was based on multi-lateralism. Bush Jr has gone beyond that and turned what could have been a bearable American leadership into what is now an intolerable American theocracy!

- Mike

Cyberus

03-14-2004, 10:10 AM

Fade wrote:

In my opinion:
What Europe and especially the UK should be worried about, is the upcoming population shift in France, Italy and Germany. TPG, before you reach middle age, these three countries will be controlled by Muslims by way of population shift and there is nothing anybody can do about it. When that happens, they will be legally "Nuclear Armed".

These countries will be controlled by Muslims? Err, IMO I doubt it very much - primarily because Muslims will still be in a significant minority and it would take hundreds of years for such a minority to gain real power [talking in terms of how you describe the situation] in any Western European country.

Secondly, and this is tied in with the point I have just made - it takes time for any shift in power, positions of office are ceded very slowly to those who do not represent the 'old guard', much more slowly than the acceptance of equality in that country's society, due to the insitutionalisation of political and judicial power.

My case in point is Britain:
Although by *no means* perfect, we have acheived a comparatively very liberal and egalitarian society in Britain. Many people are, like me, proud of what we have acheived together and the enrichment of our society that has resulted from the embracing of the varied cultures that have come to comprise this country.
However, we still do not have enough female MPs, ethnically Asian judges, ethnically Chinese newscasters, etc etc. This takes time in any society.
How long will it be until America has a black president - or even a female one for that matter? And yet yours is a country of 'immigrants'...

Finally, when you say that these countries will be 'controlled by Muslims'. What do you mean? Do you mean muslim *fundamentalists*?

All of the muslims I know from school and university are anything but, having become more secular in a quite secular society. You know, they're just like British people, funny that eh? Oh wait, they *are* British people! :lol:
Fundamenatlist Muslims are just a loud minority, giving reason, to those who need little reason, to hate *all* Muslims. Christians get just as hard a time - people see them ALL as bible-bashing evangelists with a screw loose, when again, these people are a loud minority.

Oh and one more point :-)
Even if it is the case that there is a fast enough rate of immigration from Muslim countries to the countries that you mention, which I doubt, countries in Europe are sure to be tightening their immigration controls in the next few years - there is already enough scaremongering going on about countries 'being taken over by foreigners', I'm sure these concerns will start to be voiced increasingly loudly by certain sections of the media in these countries.

adolescent

03-14-2004, 11:30 AM

Glaucus wrote:
I sure am glad we did. Saved an estimated 1,000,000 American casualties by avoiding an invasion of Japan.That's the biggest crock of sh!t I've ever heard. Sure it saved some lives, but a million? Hardly! Regardless, the nukes could have still been used to defeat the japs, but they didn't need to target cities. They could have just as easily nuked an off-shore fleet. Sending a full carrier group to the ocean floor would have sent home the message just as well. Wipe out a couple of fleets, with a few hundred thousand soldiers on board and the Japs would have either surrendered or have been mopped up rather quickly by your forces (and with the European theater mopped up, more resources would have been allocated against Japan as well). Not only that, the Soviets were gearing up to take on Japan as well. So don't give me this nonsense that it was necessary. It was extreme overkill and no less cowardly then Osama's attack on 9/11.

- Mike

Now that's a crock of sh!t I've ever heard. Comparing a war time act to an act of terrorism shows just how much your hatred for the US has clouded your judgement.

You talk like the Japanese were some docil force ready to surrender at any moment. History shows differently, and shows that even the Japanese civilians were ready to fight to the death to save their country. Also, remember that Japan was targeting US civilians at this time also.

I think Fade's 1 million count might about right, and would have cost the Japanese more civilian casualties than the two bombs combined.

Speelgoedmannetje

03-14-2004, 12:08 PM

adolescent wrote:
You talk like the Japanese were some docil force ready to surrender at any moment. History shows differently, and shows that even the Japanese civilians were ready to fight to the death to save their country.

But still, it's no excuse to use such excessive violence against unarmed men, women, and children (burning them alive in fact)

AND, with a blockade, they could easily bring Japan to it's knees. If you would read history properly, the reason of Japan to conquer other neighbouring countries (and especially China) was for the resources, wich Japan seriously lacked.

Glaucus

03-14-2004, 12:08 PM

Comparing a war time act to an act of terrorism shows just how much your hatred for the US has clouded your judgement. I have no hatred for the US and my judgement is not clouded. However it seems you failed to notice, the US DID terrorize Japan into surrendering. It certainly didn't take away Japan's ability to fight, as the Japanese fleet and army were completely untouched by these attacks (yes, the cities targetted were cities used to supply their war machine, but arguably those facilities could have been rebuilt elsewhere). By wiping out two cities with only two bombs forced the Japs to surrender as they believed to be facing complete annihilation. Of course, if the Japanese had only known that the US didn't have any more bombs to drop on them they may as well have fought on, and with even more vigor to revenge the civilian deaths inflicted on them.

The fact that the Japanese military was on it's heals - with at least 4 carriers at the bottom of the Pacific - and that Japan itself was well within ground based bomber range, tells me that Japan was not far off from defeat already.

- Mike

adolescent

03-14-2004, 12:20 PM

Terrorize? It was during a war. Maybe someone should have told the Japanese that war is hell, before they attacked Pearl Harbor. Using the atomic bombs stopped the war, which was the intention. Again, I agree with Fade. Had they not, there would have been a lot more losses on both sides.

Speelgoedmannetje

03-14-2004, 12:29 PM

How do you know 'ALL' the Japanese chose to attack Pearl Harbor?

And do you really think it's acceptable to burn children alive to achieve your goals?

Glaucus

03-14-2004, 12:43 PM

Had they not, there would have been a lot more losses on both sides. Had that been true about the "million lives saved", I may have agreed with you and Fade - and in fact there was a time when I did believe that until I decided to challenge that official government statement found it to be false. So far you've given nothing to support your claims that the bombs saved a million lives.

And for your info, much about war has to do with terror. Germans terrorized their enemies, as did the Russians, british, French, etc... Nothing new there.

- Mike

adolescent

03-14-2004, 12:46 PM

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
How do you know 'ALL' the Japanese chose to attack Pearl Harbor?

And do you really think it's acceptable to burn children alive to achieve your goals?

I never said 'ALL' Japanese choose to attack Pearl Harbor. The Japanese 'DID' attack Pearl Harbor. I don't get your point.

In this case, yes. Do you really think the Japanese wouldn't have used a similar weapon if they had the capability?

adolescent

03-14-2004, 12:57 PM

Glaucus wrote:
Had they not, there would have been a lot more losses on both sides. Had that been true about the "million lives saved", I may have agreed with you and Fade - and in fact there was a time when I did believe that until I decided to challenge that official government statement found it to be false. So far you've given nothing to support your claims that the bombs saved a million lives.

And for your info, much about war has to do with terror. Germans terrorized their enemies, as did the Russians, british, French, etc... Nothing new there.

- Mike

Simple math... Over a million US troops were to be redeployed for an invasion of Japan. The Japanese had over 2 million soldiers on their mainland, not to mention civilians, all willing to fight to their death. I think this could amount for well over million casualties.

that_punk_guy

03-14-2004, 01:06 PM

adolescent wrote:
Terrorize? It was during a war.

Then we're talking about war crimes. I doesn't make much difference to what happened really, does it?

Speelgoedmannetje

03-14-2004, 01:06 PM

adolescent wrote:
I never said 'ALL' Japanese choose to attack Pearl Harbor. The Japanese 'DID' attack Pearl Harbor. I don't get your point.You did say that ALL the Japanese citizens chose to engage war and that they got the bill:
Maybe someone should have told the Japanese that war is hell, before they attacked Pearl Harbor

In this case, yes. Do you really think the Japanese wouldn't have used a similar weapon if they had the capability? Yet you moan about Al-Qaida attacking with planes crashing into buildings (cowards, they are) while you're fighting your wars in the Middle East.

adolescent

03-14-2004, 01:20 PM

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
Yet you moan about Al-Qaida attacking with planes crashing into buildings (cowards, they are) while you're fighting your wars in the Middle East.[/quote]

But, I'm not fighting wars. You are generalizing all Americans? If you can't, or won't, see the difference between an act of war and a terrorist act than I can't help you. Fact is Japan was attacking US civilians also, and if they had the capability they would have done the same.

adolescent

03-14-2004, 01:21 PM

that_punk_guy wrote:
adolescent wrote:
Terrorize? It was during a war.

Then we're talking about war crimes. I doesn't make much difference to what happened really, does it?

War crime? Says who?

Speelgoedmannetje

03-14-2004, 01:45 PM

adolescent wrote:

that_punk_guy wrote:
adolescent wrote:
Terrorize? It was during a war.

Then we're talking about war crimes. I doesn't make much difference to what happened really, does it?

War crime? Says who?Says the Geneva Convention (attacking civilians=war crime)

Speelgoedmannetje

03-14-2004, 01:52 PM

If you can't, or won't, see the difference between an act of war and a terrorist act than I can't help youSo you think it's okay to do anything on battlefield to defeat your enemy? Like: raping (to keep the soldiers' morale high), torturing, burning civilians to scare the enemy away etc. etc.?

That's pretty much the same warfare being done in Africa.

KennyR

03-14-2004, 02:03 PM

adolescent wrote:
If you can't, or won't, see the difference between an act of war and a terrorist act than I can't help you.

It's quite simple really. If you do it to the enemy, it's called a guerilla war. If they do it to you, it's called terrorism.

After all, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not military targets and had no military significance. They were picked because they had been relatively untouched by previous bombing (because there was nothing strategically worth bombing), so the full effect of the A-bomb would be fully evident to everyone. No use destroying half an already destroyed city, who's going to notice? So instead they picked civilian targets.

And for me, that crosses the line from act of war into murder.

Not that the British have any right to talk - they did exactly the same to Dresden.

Speelgoedmannetje

03-14-2004, 02:09 PM

KennyR wrote:
Not that the British have any right to talk - they did exactly the same to Dresden.Exactly.

And btw. everyone seems to forget that also Tokyo has been bombed by the US, and since that city was made of wood, there were huge firestorms.
That bombardment costed 100.000 civilian lives.

adolescent

03-14-2004, 02:15 PM

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:

adolescent wrote:

War crime? Says who?Says the Geneva Convention (attacking civilians=war crime)

The 4th Geneva Concention was not adopted until 1949, until after WWII.

Speelgoedmannetje

03-14-2004, 02:17 PM

adolescent wrote:

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:

adolescent wrote:

War crime? Says who?Says the Geneva Convention (attacking civilians=war crime)

The 4th Geneva Concention was not adopted until 1949, until after WWII.That doesn't make it any less a war crime.
I mean, if someone collaborated with the Germans in WW2 in my country, after the war he/she was being thrown in jail, while what he/she was doing was legal during the war

Btw. before Geneva, there were already rules of war, wich included all this.

Fade

03-14-2004, 04:09 PM

@ Cyberus
These countries will be controlled by Muslims? Err, IMO I doubt it very much - primarily because Muslims will still be in a significant minority and it would take hundreds of years for such a minority to gain real power [talking in terms of how you describe the situation] in any Western European country.
---------------------

For Cyberus and all others with their heads in the sand.

Population growth
"Today, the Muslim birth rate in Europe is three times higher than the non-Muslim one. If current trends continue, the Muslim population of Europe will nearly double by 2015, while the non-Muslim population will shrink by 3.5 percent."
Source (http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/fellows/taspinar20030301.htm)

"France has the largest Muslim population in Western Europe"
Source (http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2004/01/30/2003096779)

"Within twenty years, Muslims will be a majority in France."
Source (http://www.science.co.il/Arab-Israeli-conflict/Articles/Milliere-2003-04-10.asp)

"In some places France already looks like a Muslim country"
Source (http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/11/caldwell.htm)

In the UK the Muslim population has gone from 82 thousand to 2.5 million in the last 30 years.
Source (http://eiscream.co.uk/muslims_in_britain.doc) (Sorry, it is a download)

Religion
"In an effort to heal rifts, a national organization recognized by Paris will represent
members of the nation's second-biggest religion."
Source (http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/mar2003/nf20030327_1660_db066.htm)

"At the heart of these discussions lies what some see as the alarming growth of Islamic fundamentalism in France and throughout Europe." Source (http://www.columbiapoliticalreview.com/article003.asp)

"This scenario raises the prospect of as many as 30 million North African immigrants seeking entry into Western Europe over the next two decades." Source (http://www.agbu.org/agbunews/display.asp?A_ID=100)

Non-assimilation
"In France, where immigrants from North Africa live; and in Germany, where immigrants from Turkey dwell, the phenomenon of marrying from one's sub-community or ethnicity or even to import a bride or bridegroom from the parent country is still common in the once immigrants and now nationality holder Muslims. Resultantly, the cultural non-assimilation has emerged instead of the cultural assimilation."
Source (http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.php?id=58015)

Result
"A growth of right wing movements in some parts of France that is often related to xenophobic and discriminating slogans against Muslims of these areas, shows that there is increasing tension and a development that disintegrates French society."
Source (http://www.islamonline.net/iol-english/dowalia/europe-14-1-2000/europe1.asp)

"Armed with the power of the vote and quickly learning the mechanics of lobbying, the Muslim street in Europe is on its way to having more political weight than the Arab street of Egypt or Saudi Arabia."
Source (http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/fellows/taspinar20030301.htm)

In an effort to placate Muslims, France tries this;
"PARIS - Struggling for ways to integrate its large Muslim minority, France is considering breaking centuries of European tradition by making an Islamic feast and a Jewish holy day official school holidays."
Source (http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=371489&contrassID=1&subContrassID=9&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y)

but then they turn around and do this;
"A furore in France over a bill to ban Islamic veils in schools deepened last night, when the government suggested that other headwear, and even beards, could also be prohibited if they bore a religious connotation."
Source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,11882,1127749,00.html)

KennyR

03-14-2004, 04:27 PM

Hell Fade, some of those links are just unashamed extreme-right propaganda. Take this one for instance:

"Within twenty years, Muslims will be a majority in France."

Is that twenty Earth years, or twenty Neptune years? :)

Taken from the same kind of people who say Arabs drink blood, I'm not really going to take it seriously.

If an fast-breeding immigrant population could really take over a country, we'd have a Latino president of the US. Don't listen to such inflammatory trash!

FluffyMcDeath

03-14-2004, 04:35 PM

adolescent wrote:

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
How do you know 'ALL' the Japanese chose to attack Pearl Harbor?

And do you really think it's acceptable to burn children alive to achieve your goals?

I never said 'ALL' Japanese choose to attack Pearl Harbor. The Japanese 'DID' attack Pearl Harbor.

So when you hear the rest of the world talking about democracies the Americans have overthrown and the diry wars they've run and the illegal invasions they've conducted, you will now undersatnd that it isn't hatred of "Americans" per se, but "Americans" in stead for the geopolitical entity that is America and as directed by the leaders.

the_leander

03-14-2004, 06:13 PM

As much as I dislike saying this KennyR, but Fade does have a point about non intergration, in the UK we have bradford as a prime example, known locally as Bradistan.

I guess its the old truism, all good lies are based in part in reality.

As for France (or indeed any western European country) becomming a Muslim nation... I doubt it. I doubt it very much.

You'll have to excuse me now as I feel the need to cry - the missus has not only beaten my highest score on my webpads puzzle game, but she has beaten it now so many times I no longer feature on the top 10 listing...

Fade

03-14-2004, 06:47 PM

Glaucus, either they tore that page out of Canadian history books, or you were absent on the day your school system taught the history of WWII.

Quote "They could have just as easily nuked an off-shore fleet."

You are ill informed. At this time both the Japanese Air and Naval forces had already been destroyed. There was no fleet to bomb, to use as an example. Yet they still would not surrender.
Also to show you the Japanese resolve not to quit, they still refused to surrender even after the first Atomic bomb was used.

Here is a short piece of a radio announcement broadcast worldwide after the first bomb was used.

Source: The following excerpt is taken from Who Built America? Courtesy of the Harry S. Truman Library.

Announcer: Good evening from the White House in Washington. Ladies and gentlemen the President of the United States.

Harry S. Truman: My fellow Americans, the British, Chinese and United States governments have given the Japanese people adequate warning of what is in store for them. The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. If Japan does not surrender, bombs will have to be dropped on her war industries and unfortunately thousands of civilian lives will be lost. I urge Japanese civilians to leave industrial cities immediately and save themselves.

Another Glaucus quote: (and with the European theater mopped up, more resources would have been allocated against Japan as well)

Hogwash. By the time Germany was defeated the European forces and resources were spent. It was all they could do just to occupy half of Berlin, and nobody wanted Russia involved in the war against Japan.

I think your lack of historical context should be an embarrassment to the Canadian school system.
------------------------

@ KennyR (still uninformed)
"After all, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not military targets and had no military significance."
----------------
Quote from:
Minutes of the second meeting of the Target Committee
Los Alamos, May 10-11, 1945

(2) Hiroshima - This is an important army depot and port of embarkation in the middle of an urban industrial area. It is a good radar target and it is such a size that a large part of the city could be extensively damaged. There are adjacent hills which are likely to produce a focussing effect which would considerably increase the blast damage. Due to rivers it is not a good incendiary target. (Classified as an AA Target)
KennyR's history book is missing some pages too.

adolescent

03-14-2004, 06:48 PM

KennyR wrote:
After all, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not military targets and had no military significance. They were picked because they had been relatively untouched by previous bombing (because there was nothing strategically worth bombing), so the full effect of the A-bomb would be fully evident to everyone. No use destroying half an already destroyed city, who's going to notice? So instead they picked civilian targets.

And for me, that crosses the line from act of war into murder.

Not that the British have any right to talk - they did exactly the same to Dresden.

Nagasaki was a major ship building city and large military port. Hiroshima had a large military base. They sound like military targets to me.

Edit: Sorry, Fade already covered this. I got home and saw it sitting there at the preview screen. :)

Glaucus

03-14-2004, 07:38 PM

You are ill informed. At this time both the Japanese Air and Naval forces had already been destroyed. There was no fleet to bomb, to use as an example. Yet they still would not surrender.You've out done yourself this time Fade. So Japan, with "no air force or navy", would still inflict up to a million casualties on America's still functional air force and navy (how their forces abroad would resupply and re-enforce themselves is beyond me). Hmmm... Sorry Fade, you can't have it both ways. You're now telling me that Japan needed to be bombed because it was defenceless.

Furthermore, if a nation such as Japan was indeed without offensive capability as you seem to suggest in your last post, then where's the urgency to nuke them? Fact is they don't need to surrender if they - as you claimed - had no air force or navy. They could have instead been neatly contained and left alone to collapse under their own weight.

Btw, thanks for mentioning the Soviet issue. I kinda hinted at it in my first post but it seems you didn't catch on. The fact that the Soviets were gearing up to take on Japan is most certainly the main reason Japan was nuked - on that we can agree! I'm sure it stung that Stalin's troops took down Hitler, I'm sure it would have been doubly sour if the Red Army saved the Americans from Japan as well! Japan was nuked not because America would have suffered a million casualties or that Japan was too stubborn to surrender. They were nuked to prevent the Soviets from embarrassing the Americans a second time.

- Mike

Glaucus

03-14-2004, 07:39 PM

Nagasaki was a major ship building city and large military port. Hiroshima had a large military base. They sound like military targets to me. That's like nuking San Diego and calling it a Naval base.

- Mike

Fade

03-14-2004, 07:54 PM

I really love your logic.

Why didn't the US just stop attacking the enemy before they were totally defeated?

War 101
Well, I guess they didn't want Japan to rebuild their war machine, and attack the US again. Duh!

Fade

03-14-2004, 08:05 PM

@ Glaucus
"That's like nuking San Diego and calling it a Naval base."
----------------------
I see you have never been to one of San Diego's Naval bases (http://www.sdboats.com/32ndst.htm).

adolescent

03-14-2004, 08:15 PM

Glaucus wrote:
[quote]
Btw, thanks for mentioning the Soviet issue. I kinda hinted at it in my first post but it seems you didn't catch on. The fact that the Soviets were gearing up to take on Japan is most certainly the main reason Japan was nuked - on that we can agree! I'm sure it stung that Stalin's troops took down Hitler, I'm sure it would have been doubly sour if the Red Army saved the Americans from Japan as well! Japan was nuked not because America would have suffered a million casualties or that Japan was too stubborn to surrender. They were nuked to prevent the Soviets from embarrassing the Americans a second time.

- Mike

Japan was nuked because it would not surrender. Then it was nuked again 3 days later for the same reason.

Your "embarassment" theory is funny if anything. When did the red army "save" the Americans from anything? They couldn't even save themselves or protect their homeland.

aardvark

03-15-2004, 12:45 AM

Oh course you are right to mistrust religious fundamentalists with weapons of such power. I just wonder why you trust the one heading your own government.
EXACTLY!

Glaucus

03-15-2004, 09:18 AM

Fade wrote:
@ Glaucus
"That's like nuking San Diego and calling it a Naval base."
----------------------
I see you have never been to one of San Diego's Naval bases (http://www.sdboats.com/32ndst.htm).
What's your point Fade?

- Mike

Glaucus

03-15-2004, 09:43 AM

Fade wrote:
I really love your logic.At least I'm consistant. You shot your own "million US casualties" argument in the foot by telling me Japan had to Navy or Airforce.

Why didn't the US just stop attacking the enemy before they were totally defeated?

War 101
Well, I guess they didn't want Japan to rebuild their war machine, and attack the US again. Duh!It's not likely that would have happened. Most likely outcome would have been the Soviets taking Japan, if the Americans didn't get there first. Never was there a need to nuke Japan if your intentions were to simply pacify them.

- Mike

Fade

03-15-2004, 02:35 PM

@ Glaucus
"At least I'm consistant. You shot your own "million US casualties" argument in the foot by telling me Japan had to Navy or Airforce."
------------------

I did not. The Japanese were, at this point, perfectly willing to turn every single person in Japan, no matter what age or sex, into a foot soldier. And most Japanese citizens would have volunteered to do this, had the Emperor asked, or demanded they do so.

The reason so many people on Okinawa committed suicide when invaded, was the government had told them that American soldiers were going to rape all the women and eat all the babies. The average Japanese believed this, and were willing to die before it could happen.

You do need to study up.

Speelgoedmannetje

03-15-2004, 02:46 PM

Fade wrote:
I did not. The Japanese were, at this point, perfectly willing to turn every single person in Japan, no matter what age or sex, into a foot soldier. And most Japanese citizens would have volunteered to do this, had the Emperor asked, or demanded they do so.Source?

Fade

03-15-2004, 04:28 PM

Here is one source (http://www.21stcenturyadventures.com/articles/TheOkinawanSuicideCliffs.html) but do a Google for Okinawan Suicide Cliffs.

I lived in Okinawa for a year and a half and have seen this place and film of the people while they were killing themselves. There are both military and civilian museums in Okinawa that have these pictures and films.

Quote from this source:
The capital city of Naha on the southeast end of the island was completely destroyed by bombing in October of 1944, six months before U.S. forces landed on the island. During the fighting, Japanese forces were dislodged out of Shuri Castle, an ancient area long inhabited by Okinawan rulers throughout history. The castle was destroyed (today a replica stands there) and the soldiers were forced to the southern cliffs where most jumped to their deaths rather than surrender.

Upon hearing that American "demons" would torture and kill their prisoners, many Okinawans committed suicide to face their death honorably rather than suffer at the hands of the enemy. Mothers jumped holding their children to save them both from severe cruelty.

There is a story of a schoolteacher who took her class out to the cliffs on June 19, 1945. They were dressed in uniform and sang their anthem before jumping off the cliffs. A monument is now dedicated to them at this site at Humeyuri-no-to.

The Americans were not the sole cause of death among the Okinawans. Some Japanese soldiers murdered Okinawan civilians for food and shelter.

Speelgoedmannetje

03-15-2004, 04:47 PM

I didn't ask for that Okinawan tragedy. Re-read my question.

Fade

03-15-2004, 06:03 PM

I'm sorry Speel, if you don't understand that Okinawa was and is a part of Japan, and of the concept of suicide before dishonor by the Japanese, and that the Emperor was considered a God whose wishes if not followed freely, would be carried out under penality of torture and death, then I think you should go find your history books again.

But to try, one more time.
100,000 Japanese soldiers died protecting Okinawa. When the remaining 4,000 soldiers had nothing left to fight with, they killed themselves rather than dishonor the Emperor by giving up. Civilians did the very same thing.

The battle of Okinawa, and how it was fought, was one of the main reasons for the use of the A Bomb on the mainland.
It was too costly in terms of killed and wounded soldiers, having cost almost 50,000 American casualties to stop 100,000 Japanese. Now equate that into mainland Japan which had maybe 75 million people.

Speelgoedmannetje

03-16-2004, 02:43 AM

Don't be so ignorant Fade.

I mean, any Japanese soldier would die for his country, as any soldier in any country would. It's quite extreme in Japan, but what makes you think EVERYONE in Japan would pick up the rifle against the Americans?

Your assumptions seems to be based on the stereotype idea of Japan,

Alike as everyone in the Middle-East are hot-headed terrorists.....

Dan

03-21-2004, 06:54 PM

adolescent wrote:
[quote]

Japan was nuked because it would not surrender. Then it was nuked again 3 days later for the same reason.
Japan was nuked because the nuke was invented, it´s as simple as that!!!!
Who better to fieldtest a new weapon on than the enemy?
If Japan hadn´t been at war with US I´m sure that a german city would been nuked instead. Or if there had been no WWII, a North Corean city.

Your "embarassment" theory is funny if anything. When did the red army "save" the Americans from anything? They couldn't even save themselves or protect their homeland.
They could protect their homeland, but it was at a terrible cost. They won the war on their front but, they indeed didn´t "save" the americans,they just liberated eastern europe from Hitler.