Login or register


Last status update:
Gender: male
Age: 26
Date Signed Up:3/17/2012
Last Login:9/25/2016
Location:The Netherlands
Comment Ranking:#747
Highest Content Rank:#14558
Highest Comment Rank:#46
Content Thumbs: 96 total,  176 ,  80
Comment Thumbs: 63176 total,  73660 ,  10484
Content Level Progress: 80% (4/5)
Level 8 Content: New Here → Level 9 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 80.9% (809/1000)
Level 349 Comments: Sold Soul → Level 350 Comments: Knight Of Funnyjunk
Content Views:13118
Times Content Favorited:14 times
Total Comments Made:10489
FJ Points:48939

latest user's comments

#5 - I'm a guy. Every girl I know sucked dick without eve…  [+] (1 reply) 09/15/2016 on pat 0
User avatar
#6 - catfishy (09/15/2016) [-]
Shit man last time i talked to a girl was around 8 years ago i have no fucking idea what human
interaction even is.
#2 - As a little kid I always died a little bit inside when this part came.  [+] (3 replies) 09/11/2016 on Dumb and Dumber +309
User avatar
#7 - ucantstopdafunk (09/12/2016) [-]
Just think of the guys in the nest town to get the job, they are probably fairly happy.
#27 - ognuggetry (09/12/2016) [-]
id be disappointed
User avatar
#28 - shadowblaziard (09/13/2016) [-]
I dont have a car, but I can pretend I am one
#50 - To be fair, it is kind of a dick move killing 200,000 civilians.  [+] (48 replies) 09/11/2016 on MOTHER FUCK, MOTHER FUCK! +8
#155 - furiousmarshmellow (09/12/2016) [-]
It is kind of a dick move to rape and murder up to 300,000 civilians.

Or capture 75,000 U.S. and Filipino troops and force them to walk 65 miles to their prison camp without provisions.

Or destroy a U.S. Naval Base on U.S. territory simply because the U.S. stopped supplying your war crimes.
#139 - reycall (09/12/2016) [-]
didnt stop nip land from killing more
User avatar
#69 - mcstorms (09/12/2016) [-]
Might be biased , because I am American but we gave japan two warnings to surrender the war.
User avatar
#104 - godisbert (09/12/2016) [-]
USA wanted an uncontiditional surrender, Japan, knowing that they were very hard to invade, didn't accept that.
User avatar
#221 - mcstorms (09/12/2016) [-]
That's not our problem. A warning was given they ignored it. We retaliated a second warning was given. They had a full 72 hours to respond, and they didn't.
User avatar
#66 - azumeow (09/12/2016) [-]
This was literally standard warfare protocol for almost every nation involved. The US just happened to do it in two bombs rather than 2,000
User avatar
#60 - kilotech (09/12/2016) [-]
the predicted collateral collateral as in civilians not even including soldiers from either side in a traditional infantry invasion was far larger than the people who died in the nuclear blasts, shootouts in the middle of heavily populated areas tend to kill people in said city
User avatar
#65 - thesovereigngrave (09/12/2016) [-]
Not to mention Japanese civilians likely would've been actively attacking Allied troops, thanks to Imperial propaganda.
#54 - thatguyontheright (09/12/2016) [-]
The civilians that died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were warned by the Americans, stating the US not at war with them, but their military. The Air Force dropped leaflets explaining the US had a super weapon that was intended to be used on their cities and said to evacuate. They had fair warning.
User avatar
#63 - limberlarry (09/12/2016) [-]
They werent actually. The US had a policy of warning targets before strategic bombing and they did drop leaflets warning hiroshima and nagasaki they were both targets of said bombing. They did not however announce a new superweapon or give any indication that the bombings in those two cities would be out of the ordinary
#51 - notwalkingwaffles (09/11/2016) [-]
**notwalkingwaffles used "*roll picture*"**
**notwalkingwaffles rolled image**
Pretty much this.
When you drop nukes on a city, you're not just going for the millitary installments.
You know there are going to be civilian casualties and you know they're going to be vast.
But if some planes fly into a building or two full of civilians, then it's time to tear up the entire middle east, spending a decade looking for the guy who did it only to find him in his house.
#58 - anon (09/12/2016) [-]
You do realize that precision bombing was pretty much impossible at the time, right? Oh, and before you say 'muh Norden Bombsight', that only worked as intended at a maximum altitude of 15,000 feet and only under PERFECT weather conditions, and that's assuming that it was calibrated properly.
User avatar
#193 - notwalkingwaffles (09/12/2016) [-]
And that makes dropping nuclear warheads on civillians a-o-kay
#55 - baconsmylife (09/12/2016) [-]
We airdropped mkre than 5 million leaflets over Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and 33 other potential targets warning them of possible incoming nukes on August 1st. On August 6th we dropped little boy on Hiroshima. We dropped more leaflets after Hiroshima before we dropped Fat Man on August 9th. picture is the leaflets we dropped after Hiroshima.
#195 - notwalkingwaffles (09/12/2016) [-]
**notwalkingwaffles used "*roll picture*"**
**notwalkingwaffles rolled image**
On the other hand, expecting your enemy to evacuate major fucking cities might be a tad more than slightly ambitious. When ISIS bombs civillians and then warns that more will die unless you subdue to their demands we call it terrorism, and also generally being a cunt.
#197 - baconsmylife (09/12/2016) [-]
eh but it was kinda to attempt to reduce civilian casualties. We bombed Hiro and Naga for strategic purposes.
User avatar
#204 - notwalkingwaffles (09/12/2016) [-]
Sure, I mean, reducing civilian casualties is a thing I'm all for, but maybe don't blow up a big city with hundreds of thousands living in them then.
But meh, I'm too uninformed about the strategical advantages of the atomic bomb compared to others that were available in that time in relations to this specific scenario to discuss anything except my distaste for horribly killing citizens, yet I find it difficult to imagine that there were no alternatives to the nuke that would not obliterate a fuckton of civillians and completely fuck up the country's infrastructure - thus harming civilians - when it came to attacking military bases.
#169 - anon (09/12/2016) [-]
Ok. Lets just evacuate all 33 potential targets.
Oh wait...our country is the size of a communion wafer. Fuck it, let's build some electronics.
History is viewed through a peephole. The tiny bit we see is horrendously distorted.
User avatar
#196 - notwalkingwaffles (09/12/2016) [-]
Historical voyeurism?
#182 - anon (09/12/2016) [-]
Connect the dots


Awareness feels awkward.
#174 - anon (09/12/2016) [-]
I am oldenglishassassin
Forgot my old password
#140 - baconsmylife (09/12/2016) [-]
The goal was always unconditional surrender of Japan, wether that be via rebellion, military desertion or 2 big ass booms, made no difference.
#141 - nightmarexnxnxnxnx (09/12/2016) [-]
Well it does make a difference. Americans level up two cities full of civilians of practically a defeated country with nuclear warheads and then cry havoc when two of their skyscrapers are blown up.

#144 - baconsmylife (09/12/2016) [-]
One was during war time after the surrender of every other member of the axis powers, the other was a terrorist attack with the sole purpose of killing civilians.
#147 - nightmarexnxnxnxnx (09/12/2016) [-]
Human lives are still human lives. Are you saying it is okay to murder civilians in war time now? The last time I checked it was called a war crime, and 200k people is no small number, to say nothing of the genetical damage caused by radiation to survivors.
#183 - deckbox (09/12/2016) [-]
the point is EVERYONE would have been a soldier and would have taken up sharpened sticks and chicken wire and knives and whatever to hand, kids old people everyone would be tryiing to kill you, it would be like battling a zombie horde , every single civilian a fanatical killer trying to end you. millions of them
#184 - nightmarexnxnxnxnx (09/12/2016) [-]
I am not really sure if you are being serious or not, but I am laughing my ass right now. GJ.
#154 - baconsmylife (09/12/2016) [-]
Dropping nukes was the conservative option though, you think less than 200 thousand people would have died if we had to invade Japan? The Japanese imperial military was fanatical, their most well known attack was carried out by crashing planes into a navy base. Nukes were the fastest and most humanitarian way to end the war without further bloodshed.
#157 - nightmarexnxnxnxnx (09/12/2016) [-]

It's a wonder that their troops were reluctant to surrender when those who did were used for target practice.

Yeah, they resorted to unconventional warfare because they were at huge disadvantage. Such fanaticism.

''Nukes were the fastest and most humanitarian way to end the war without further bloodshed.''

That is bullshit and you know it. There were attempts at peace talks already in motion by the time the nukes dropped. The truth is US wanted to test them out on live targets, as simple as that. The war was almost over and US knew this was their last chance to try them out.

The nukes were by far the bloodiest solution out of all available.
#173 - baconsmylife (09/12/2016) [-]
"R.J. Rummel professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii until his death en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolph_Rummel estimates the civilian victims of Japanese democide at 5,424,000. Detailed by country: China 3,695,000; Indochina 457,000; Korea 378,000; Indonesia 375,000; Malaya-Singapore 283,000; Philippines 119,000, Burma 60,000 and Pacific Islands 57,000.
Rummel estimates POW deaths in Japanese custody at 539,000 Detailed by country: China 400,000; French Indochina 30,000; Philippines 27,300; Netherlands 25,000; France 14,000; Britain 13,000; British Colonies 11,000; US 10,700; Australia 8,000"

"resorted to unconventional warfare because they were at huge disadvantage"
- try again en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Japanese_Army#Fanaticism_and_war_crimes

"attempts at peace talks already in motion" your talking about this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#Events_at_Potsdam
tldr: japan refused

You aren't making this debate very hard. had to edit because the spoiler didnt work right.
Had to delete and remake because the spoiler didn't work right.
#189 - anon (09/12/2016) [-]
#179 - nightmarexnxnxnxnx (09/12/2016) [-]
Contrary to what had been intended at its conception, the Declaration made no mention of the Emperor at all. Allied intentions on issues of utmost importance to the Japanese, including whether Hirohito was to be regarded as one of those who had "misled the people of Japan" or even a war criminal, or alternatively, whether the Emperor might become part of a "peacefully inclined and responsible government" were thus left unstated.

Yeah good going. The whole point the Japanese were trying to negotiate was to keep the model of their government, point which was left ambiguous. The conditions did not mention that the emperor will remain in reign and thus the Japanese refused.

that "[w]e do not intend that the Japanese shall be enslaved as a race or destroyed as a nation, but stern justice shall be meted out to all war criminals, including those who have visited cruelties upon our prisoners."

This is also awfully ambiguous. Nowhere it is written ''We guarantee the Japanese shall not be enslaved as a race or destroyed as a nation'' it is only written that ''We do not intend'', leaving it possible for that exact scenario to occur.
#163 - baconsmylife has deleted their comment.
#171 - nightmarexnxnxnxnx (09/12/2016) [-]
I read the second article, it directly corresponds to the article I have linked in previous post. Did you read that?

Also, yeah, we all know that Japan committed war crimes, and they were also put under trial for that. Right in 1946. The question is however, when if ever will be US put under trial for crimes of their own military.

A wrong against a wrong does not make a right. The point is US are responsible for many atrocities too, but their government was NEVER put on trial where and I will quote: "The tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence...and shall admit any evidence which it deems to have probative value".


Also, a good deal of the POW deaths can be attributed to the lack of resources. Again you people forget about the economic situation the Japan was in during the WW2.
#178 - baconsmylife (09/12/2016) [-]
At no time have I said the US weren't responsible for any "atrocities", however, I still believe that to equate the actions of the allied powers and the US during WW2 and the deliberate killing of american citizens by a terrorist organization is ridiculous at best.
#181 - nightmarexnxnxnxnx (09/12/2016) [-]
I just find the hypocrisy laughable. Death of two hundred thousands of civilians by nuclear weapons and radiation poisoning is swept under the rug with ''we did it to save lives'' yet a death of few hundred of people at best is an international sensation, warranting a war.

#185 - baconsmylife (09/12/2016) [-]
"The September 11 attacks killed 2,977 people and injured more than 6,000 others, not including the 19 terrorists responsible for the attacks" -not a few hundred at best. And again, one intended to force the surrender of a country that had already killed millions of citizens, the other a deliberate attack on civilians, the US government, and Flight 93 crashed because of the actions of the people on board possibly the white house/president.
#186 - nightmarexnxnxnxnx (09/12/2016) [-]
My bad, I underestimated the damage, but still, that is even at best one 40th of how many were killed in atomic bombings. Also, how the heck do those who have also murdered hundreds of thousands of civilians have ANY right to judge?

Also, the first one was also a deliberate attack on a city full of civilians, with nuclear warheads no less. Who is going to judge those who approved this heinous crime?
#192 - baconsmylife (09/12/2016) [-]
Cities in japan weren't targeted because of their civilian population though Places like kyoto were ruled out of the target list temporarily before being replaced with Nagasaki for "historical, religious and cultural significance" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Choice_of_targets

"At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of both industrial and military significance. A number of military units were located nearby, the most important of which was the headquarters of Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's Second General Army, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan,[106] and was located in Hiroshima Castle. Hata's command consisted of some 400,000 men, most of whom were on Kyushu where an Allied invasion was correctly anticipated.[107] Also present in Hiroshima were the headquarters of the 59th Army, the 5th Division and the 224th Division, a recently formed mobile unit"- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Hiroshima_during_World_War_II

"The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest seaports in southern Japan, and was of great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials"- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Nagasaki_during_World_War_II
#194 - nightmarexnxnxnxnx (09/12/2016) [-]
That doesn't change the fact there was a high concentration of civilians in both cities, and bombing them with nuclear weapons is just as immoral as what Japanese were doing. No trials however occurred over this act of mass murder and I ask why?

It just goes to show it is okay to murder civilians if you are on the winning side, and that is in my opinion nowhere near being moral.
#199 - baconsmylife (09/12/2016) [-]
its not moral, war is never moral, but to be completely honest I'm convinced more citizens and military would have died as a result of an invasion of Japan than died in the bombings. The nukes to me were the less immoral of multiple extremely immoral options.
I also believe that the emperor of Japan would have seen his own country burn in almost its entirety before surrendering. if he ever would have even done so There was even an attempted coup by the staff office of the Ministry of War of Japan because they were convinced the emperor wasn't going to surrender even after Nagasaki- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident

I've enjoyed debating you tonight, maybe we can do it again sometime. For now however, I'm tired and going to sleep. Goodnight.
#200 - nightmarexnxnxnxnx (09/12/2016) [-]
All that is based on assumptions of the us government on what if scenarios, and those assumptions don't make their actions any less criminal.

In the end we will never now what would have truly happened if the nukes didn't drop, but I honestly think that US government should have been held responsible for what they have done. All morality goes to hell when only the side of the defeated is subject to trials by law.

Also, the way the trials occurred in 1946 rubs me off the wrong way, especially the "The tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence...and shall admit any evidence which it deems to have probative value" line.
#203 - baconsmylife (09/12/2016) [-]
Yeah I read that last bit on one of the pages I used and thought that sounded pretty fucky. At least we can agree in something.
#175 - baconsmylife (09/12/2016) [-]
you responded while I was remaking the reply, read again.
#160 - kalaark (09/12/2016) [-]