Do you think this is OK or not? (video of Watertown home raid)

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • dyna mo
    just a fucking jerk
    • Dec 2008
    • 68184

    #121
    i am watching the video for the 1st time, it's has a very anti-american tone.

    is oliver stone the new michael moore?


    here is the "documentary" it has some fantastic clips from hollywood movies to anchor stone's perspective.

    Comment

    • Relentless
      www.EngineFood.com
      • Aug 2006
      • 5697

      #122
      Originally posted by DWB
      None of that makes it acceptable. Dropping atomic bombs on civilians is not acceptable no matter how someone tries to spin it or write it in the history books. Man will always find a way to justify his horrific actions and senseless murder of others.
      The moral choice is not to begin war. I'm all for not having a war and I'm especially against never-ending wars against concepts like the war on terror or the war on drugs. However, during a war of last resort (like WWII was) any weapon that ends the war with fewer casualties and less damage is a good thing. The atomic bombs saved many more lives than they ended and did horrific damage on tiny locations compared o the widespread horrific damage that was ongoing on a global scale before they were dropped. As a moral exercise, BEFORE entering a war one should ask if we are wiling to use nuclear weapons. If the situation is not dire enough to say yes, then don't enter the war.thats why I was against the Iraq invasion but feel differently about our mission to destroy terrorist camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Germany with another eighteen months of R&D would have been a much bigger threat to life than those two nukes.

      As for intimidating Russia, that wasn't needed. They had just lost millions of people In a very bloody war and were not itching for a fight when the war ended. That friction started later and our use of the nukes is part of what caused it. The world dislikes a single nation having a huge militaristic advantage. It's another part of why cutting our military budget and spending more wisely would not hurt our national security. A narrower gap makes other nations feel more safe and less aggressive.
      Last edited by Relentless; 04-23-2013, 06:43 AM.


      Website Secure | Engine Food
      ICQ# 266-942-896

      Comment

      • _Richard_
        Too lazy to set a custom title
        • Oct 2006
        • 30991

        #123
        Originally posted by GAH
        I have to congratulate the US forces for their speedy apprehension of those two terrorists, that having surveillance cameras everywhere is a great thing, however intrusive it seems to be. To be able to identify those two within 24 hours was brilliant. Lessons have to be learnt each time anything like this happens, lots of good and bad things can be worked on. What saddened me after the final terrorist was captured, was the world news coverage showing thousands [of mainly youngsters] out on the street, shouting USA, USA, like it was a Ryder Cup victory (remember them?!), turning a grave situation into it a carnival atmosphere, police cars roaming, honking their horns in appreciation. This also seemed to be explained by the fact it was 420 day, they were all stoned ? cops too.

        The American reaction to such events tends to be different from anywhere else around the world, the National Guard on the streets, a no-fly zone, that every senator claimed their post contained Ricin, Louisiana closed down highways and harbours because someone accidentally left a briefcase near a post office. Obama desperate to appear on tv to petrify a nation as if aliens had landed and nuked New York. After Twin Towers idiot Bush told the word America was at war. The whole point of terrorism is to terrify, and America is brilliant at being that. And having most of the population armed didn't do much good, that should shut a lot of pro-gunners up.

        Those who read that British ex-Prime Minister Thatcher died the other week, should note how she reacted when the IRA attempted to kill her in 1994, they blew up the hotel, five died, many injured, and she was very lucky to escape the blast. Next morning, 9.30am, she strode out and acted as if nothing had happened. Again, when the IRA bombed the City of London, enormous destruction, yet 36 hours later the whole area was opened for business as usual. These things need to be played down when they can, or the terrorists really are winning [in America].

        Treat Tsarnaev as a criminal, not a terrorist, throw him in with the rapists, killers and not very nice people, don't make him special, by putting him in a quasii-prisoner of war detention camp, or killing him and making him and his brother martyrs.

        Comment

        • dyna mo
          just a fucking jerk
          • Dec 2008
          • 68184

          #124
          Originally posted by Robbie
          You're wrong. I watched a special on Showtime just a few weeks ago showing archived footage of the Generals in their own words saying that the bomb was not needed.
          Truman wanted to drop it to prove a point.

          Do some research. Don't believe what we were taught in school about it.
          ok, i watched the doc in its entirety, thanks for pointing me to it.

          for me, i think stone is on to something, but hasn't quite got it sorted out.

          as stone points out, truman was not in charge of dropping the bomb, groves was, groves is otr stating that truman didn't so much as say yes, he just didn't say no to already existing plans to drop the bomb(s). groves described truman as a boy on a toboggan.

          next, he goes on that the japanese communicate to the russians that they are willing to surrender conditionally, if the emperor can be kept.

          general kawabi says: we learned of hiroshima gradually, we learned of the manchurain invasion quickly.

          stalin had rushed to invade manchuria after learning of the successful test of the bomb

          for me, what stone is really trying to revise, is that truman blinked. truman backed off his requiring japan to surrender uncondtionally, at potsdam, he allows them to maintain the emperor. in that sense, yes, the bomb didn't have anything to do with it.

          but i don't think that changes the fact that the bombs did shorten the war. that's not to say that russia's entry would not have shortened the war. but based on the doc, the plan to drop the bombs was in motion via groves, truman had no real say, as did any of the other generals.
          Last edited by dyna mo; 04-23-2013, 08:06 AM.

          Comment

          • theking
            Nice Kitty
            • Sep 2002
            • 21053

            #125
            Originally posted by dyna mo
            ok, i watched the doc in its entirety, thanks for pointing me to it.

            for me, i think stone is on to something, but hasn't quite got it sorted out.

            as stone points out, truman was not in charge of dropping the bomb, groves was, groves is otr stating that truman didn't so much as say yes, he just didn't say no to already existing plans to drop the bomb(s). groves described truman as a boy on a toboggan.

            next, he goes on that the japanese communicate to the russians that they are willing to surrender conditionally, if the emperor can be kept.

            general kawabi says: we learned of hiroshima gradually, we learned of the manchurain invasion quickly.

            stalin had rushed to invade manchuria after learning of the successful test of the bomb

            for me, what stone is really trying to revise, is that truman blinked. truman backed off his requiring japan to surrender uncondtionally, at potsdam, he allows them to maintain the emperor. in that sense, yes, the bomb didn't have anything to do with it.

            but i don't think that changes the fact that the bombs did shorten the war. that's not to say that russia's entry would not have shortened the war. but based on the doc, the plan to drop the bombs was in motion via groves, truman had no real say, as did any of the other generals.
            I concur...the use of the A bomb shortened the war and saved lives for all involved.
            When you're running down my country hoss...you're walking on the fighting side of me!

            FOR THE LYING LOWLIFE POSTING AS PATHFINDER...http://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-pr...athfinder.html

            Comment

            • _Richard_
              Too lazy to set a custom title
              • Oct 2006
              • 30991

              #126
              Originally posted by dyna mo
              ok, i watched the doc in its entirety, thanks for pointing me to it.

              for me, i think stone is on to something, but hasn't quite got it sorted out.

              as stone points out, truman was not in charge of dropping the bomb, groves was, groves is otr stating that truman didn't so much as say yes, he just didn't say no to already existing plans to drop the bomb(s). groves described truman as a boy on a toboggan.

              next, he goes on that the japanese communicate to the russians that they are willing to surrender conditionally, if the emperor can be kept.

              general kawabi says: we learned of hiroshima gradually, we learned of the manchurain invasion quickly.

              stalin had rushed to invade manchuria after learning of the successful test of the bomb

              for me, what stone is really trying to revise, is that truman blinked. truman backed off his requiring japan to surrender uncondtionally, at potsdam, he allows them to maintain the emperor. in that sense, yes, the bomb didn't have anything to do with it.

              but i don't think that changes the fact that the bombs did shorten the war. that's not to say that russia's entry would not have shortened the war. but based on the doc, the plan to drop the bombs was in motion via groves, truman had no real say, as did any of the other generals.
              WW2 and the 'Unconditional Surrender'

              Some time during ww2, the allies started floating around this 'unconditional surrender' nonsense about how the war would end.

              so instead of another european war blowing itself out.. you had this added caveat that your surrender would be 'unconditional', whatever that meant.

              This meant you had no soldiers giving up, armies and governments fighting 'end game scenarios', cause for all they knew, everyone would end up dead

              So you had a war being dragged out for YEARS, because of two words

              same with Japan.

              Anyone who says 'this saved millions of lives', not only has no clue what they're talking about, is probably suspect MIC supporter

              Comment

              • dyna mo
                just a fucking jerk
                • Dec 2008
                • 68184

                #127
                Originally posted by _Richard_
                WW2 and the 'Unconditional Surrender'

                Some time during ww2, the allies started floating around this 'unconditional surrender' nonsense about how the war would end.

                so instead of another european war blowing itself out.. you had this added caveat that your surrender would be 'unconditional', whatever that meant.

                This meant you had no soldiers giving up, armies and governments fighting 'end game scenarios', cause for all they knew, everyone would end up dead

                So you had a war being dragged out for YEARS, because of two words

                same with Japan.

                Anyone who says 'this saved millions of lives', not only has no clue what they're talking about, is probably suspect MIC supporter
                i know you are just c&p'ing this comment but it truly lacks any real understanding of the aggression of germany and japan at that time.

                that aggression prompted the unconditional surrender, certainly not the allies and some random bullshit, as the above gibberish suggests.

                proof is the misunderstanding the unconditional surrender saved lives.

                i've never read anything that claimed the requirement for unconditional surrender saved lives, that's pretty silly.
                Last edited by dyna mo; 04-23-2013, 01:52 PM.

                Comment

                • georgeyw
                  58008 53773
                  • Jul 2005
                  • 9865

                  #128
                  I do not understand why people comply so easily.

                  I am not talking about back chatting or taking any aggressive stance towards the police.

                  I am saying, I would NOT run around with my hands on my head or let them pat me down without questioning them. Yes they would likely get their back up, however if I am 100% innocent of any wrong doing and these clowns break into my house. I am not going to be cooperative at all.

                  Think about it, you are in your house and these idiots start hammering on the door then drag you out. For what?

                  These officers have on average an extremely shit job that attracts lesser intelligent and educated people. That video is simply an example of giving a tin of fuel to a kid and a match. THen saying it is ok to set it on fire.
                  TripleXPrint on Megan Fox
                  "I would STILL suck her pussy until her face caved in. And then blow her up and do it again!"

                  Comment

                  • Mutt
                    Too lazy to set a custom title
                    • Sep 2002
                    • 34431

                    #129
                    The US should have brought Stalin to his knees when it had the upper hand with nuclear weapons. It would have spared hundreds of millions their freedom, no Iron Curtain, no Korean War, no Vietnam War.

                    Churchill wanted it, Patton wanted it - they were both branded kooks. History proved them right.
                    I moved my sites to Vacares Hosting. I've saved money, my hair is thicker, lost some weight too! Thanks Sly!

                    Comment

                    • _Richard_
                      Too lazy to set a custom title
                      • Oct 2006
                      • 30991

                      #130
                      Originally posted by dyna mo
                      i know you are just c&p'ing this comment but it truly lacks any real understanding of the aggression of germany and japan at that time.

                      that aggression prompted the unconditional surrender, certainly not the allies and some random bullshit, as the above gibberish suggests.

                      proof is the misunderstanding the unconditional surrender saved lives.

                      i've never read anything that claimed the requirement for unconditional surrender saved lives, that's pretty silly.
                      do you know that the bush family had very close ties to the nazi party?

                      and sorry, i was talking about the nukes that were dropped on Japan

                      it was a crime against humanity.

                      Comment

                      • dyna mo
                        just a fucking jerk
                        • Dec 2008
                        • 68184

                        #131
                        Originally posted by _Richard_
                        do you know that the bush family had very close ties to the nazi party?

                        and sorry, i was talking about the nukes that were dropped on Japan

                        it was a crime against humanity.
                        no, they didn't have very close ties to the nazi party. they invested in the recovery of germany in the 130s-ish like many wealthy americans and businesses did.

                        the slaughter of civilians caused by any war is a crime against humanity.

                        america didn't invent that, america does not hold a monopoly on that. you'll need to include all the other participants in war for your comment to be fair and accurate.

                        Comment

                        • Robbie
                          Leaner, Meaner, Faster
                          • Aug 2002
                          • 20960

                          #132
                          dyna_mo we are hijacking this thread...but I'd like to say something to you.

                          You're not the only educated person on here. And not the best educated either I would suspect. I'm sure there are much more educated folks on here than you or I.

                          Having said that...I graduated college in 1983.
                          And one thing that always stuck in my head was our Western Civ professor telling us at the end of the semester that pretty much everything he had taught us was complete bullshit and that "history is written by the victors of wars"

                          I'd keep that in mind before you get your thoughts set in stone on the subject of the United States dropping atomic bombs on highly populated cities. (not even military targets)

                          If ANY country ever did that we would immediately brand them a "terrorist nation" and all hell would break lose.
                          But WE are the only country that has ever done something so horrible.

                          It's just one of the many reasons that people around the world hate and fear the United States. Our goddamn govt. is a disgrace.
                          -Robbie
                          ClaudiaMarie.Com

                          Comment

                          • _Richard_
                            Too lazy to set a custom title
                            • Oct 2006
                            • 30991

                            #133
                            Originally posted by dyna mo
                            no, they didn't have very close ties to the nazi party. they invested in the recovery of germany in the 130s-ish like many wealthy americans and businesses did.

                            the slaughter of civilians caused by any war is a crime against humanity.

                            america didn't invent that, america does not hold a monopoly on that. you'll need to include all the other participants in war for your comment to be fair and accurate.
                            do i need to be fair and accurate when it comes to a subject of the needless deaths of countless women and children?

                            http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004...secondworldwar

                            can you read this and we can get back to the discussion? i don't want to type for awhile about shit that's already fact

                            Comment

                            • dyna mo
                              just a fucking jerk
                              • Dec 2008
                              • 68184

                              #134
                              Originally posted by Robbie
                              dyna_mo we are hijacking this thread...but I'd like to say something to you.

                              You're not the only educated person on here. And not the best educated either I would suspect. I'm sure there are much more educated folks on here than you or I.

                              Having said that...I graduated college in 1983.
                              And one thing that always stuck in my head was our Western Civ professor telling us at the end of the semester that pretty much everything he had taught us was complete bullshit and that "history is written by the victors of wars"

                              I'd keep that in mind before you get your thoughts set in stone on the subject of the United States dropping atomic bombs on highly populated cities. (not even military targets)

                              If ANY country ever did that we would immediately brand them a "terrorist nation" and all hell would break lose.
                              But WE are the only country that has ever done something so horrible.

                              It's just one of the many reasons that people around the world hate and fear the United States. Our goddamn govt. is a disgrace.
                              lol. every generation tries to rewrite history and that's part of what i like about it. i'm not clinging to anything. you mentioned "do some research" in reply to me and in reference to a showtime show, that's assuming less than you know, i let you know i've done research on this via college. not showing off in the slightest, my history degree and a nickel = 1 nickel.

                              nevertheless, it's unfortunate you can't chat about it. hell, i watched your documentary and came back here with pertinent points to chat about. too bad.

                              Originally posted by _Richard_
                              do i need to be fair and accurate when it comes to a subject of the needless deaths of countless women and children?

                              http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004...secondworldwar

                              can you read this and we can get back to the discussion? i don't want to type for awhile about shit that's already fact

                              ah, i'm done here.

                              Comment

                              • Robbie
                                Leaner, Meaner, Faster
                                • Aug 2002
                                • 20960

                                #135
                                dyna_mo my point is that history is written by the winners. Not by "every generation".

                                If the Axis Powers had won WW2 our history books would read a lot different. Different "heroes' and different "villains"

                                Watching that Oliver Stone documentary was eye opening for me. It's actually a series.

                                And despite the bias that he may have...one thing is for certain: His ability to do real research (money) with true historians trumps my knowledge and college degree as it does yours.

                                We learned in college what we were taught. Garbage in...garbage out (not everything, just saying that IF our history books aren't telling the real story then we didn't get taught the correct things).
                                -Robbie
                                ClaudiaMarie.Com

                                Comment

                                Working...