14
   

Fellow Bostonians: How many of us wished we had an assault weapon last night?

 
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Sat 4 May, 2013 04:32 pm


The BACKGROUND CHECKS/INVESTIGATION democrats want to
put in place are designed to facilitate the future confiscation of weapons.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 May, 2013 05:16 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
And that will surely blow some kid into smithereens - or the kid will kill somebody.

Just showing "what can happen." Records show I'm right.

You're the one exposing your family and friends to violence. I don't own a gun.
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Sat 4 May, 2013 06:34 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

I don't own a gun.


I do own a gun.
George
 
  5  
Reply Sat 4 May, 2013 06:55 pm
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
I don't own a gun.
I do own a gun.
My gun can beat up your gun.
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Sat 4 May, 2013 07:33 pm
@George,
George wrote:

H2O MAN wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
I don't own a gun.
I do own a gun.
My gun can beat up your gun.

Two against one
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 May, 2013 09:24 pm
@McTag,
McTag wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both military targets. No civilians targeted in either instance.

Somebody should tell the survivors. They've been misinformed up to now.

No, they know.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 4 May, 2013 09:24 pm
@BillRM,

cicerone imposter wrote:
When America nuked the two Japanese cities they killed 140,000+ innocent people

Collateral damage is unfortunate, but they were still military targets bombed at the height of a brutal war.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 4 May, 2013 09:26 pm
@BillRM,

cicerone imposter wrote:
Another 2 million died in the nest 5 years because of radiation and millions have died since because of cancer linked to radiation.

CI sure is a retard.

There have only been a couple thousand deaths from A-bomb radiation after 1945.

Total casualties from the two A-bombs, radiation included, are no more than 200,000.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 4 May, 2013 09:27 pm
@McTag,
McTag wrote:
I wrote that, to show you that the USA does in fact deliberately target civilians, is doing so now, and has done so for decades.

Seems a rather futile effort to try to prove something that very clearly isn't true.


McTag wrote:
Remember when they were trying to find, (and simultaneously kill), Osama bin Laden? How many bomber strikes were made on places he was believed to be, but was not? Scores of non-combatants, families, women, children, were killed in those actions alone.

Osama bin Laden was not a civilian target.


McTag wrote:
Your definition of a "terrorist" is someone who deliberately targets civilians. So the Pentagon is full of them.

Not one person who has ever served in the Pentagon has ever targeted civilians.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 May, 2013 09:49 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

And that will surely blow some kid into smithereens -
or the kid will kill somebody.
That is what he is SUPPOSED to do,
if the (defensive) circumstances r appropriate.
It's the reason that I began carrying a .38 revolver when I was 8,
until I upgraded to a .44, for better stopping power.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 May, 2013 09:58 pm
@oralloy,
The IMPORTANT thing
is that nuking the Japs
saved AMERICAN lives.

We did not run WWII for the benefit of the enemy.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 May, 2013 10:16 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
And how often have you the need for your firepower during your shitty life?
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 May, 2013 10:36 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Why would you think his life has been shitty?
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  3  
Reply Sun 5 May, 2013 01:17 am
@cicerone imposter,
Once; that was enuf; (mildly humorous, I thawt, at the time).
My life has been comfortable -- rife with beauty & hedonic delight; better than most.
I 've never had cause for complaint.

Your choice of words befouls and defines u.





David
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  2  
Reply Sun 5 May, 2013 02:34 am
@oralloy,

Quote:
Not one person who has ever served in the Pentagon has ever targeted civilians.


Always a pleasure to correspond with you.

See my note to David.
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 May, 2013 02:39 am
@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:
The IMPORTANT thing
is that nuking the Japs
saved AMERICAN lives.


So the propaganda has it. That's the official line and justification. But Oliver Stone has just released a series of historical TV documentaries which puts the reasons for the nuclear strikes on Japan in a different light.
OmSigDAVID
 
  3  
Reply Sun 5 May, 2013 03:51 am
@McTag,
McTag wrote:


Quote:
The IMPORTANT thing
is that nuking the Japs
saved AMERICAN lives.


So the propaganda has it. That's the official line and justification
It was not just propaganda.
It was the Constitutionally required
dispositive criterion. Less than that
wud have been treason, by Truman.

If it helped qua intimidating the commies,
that was a nice extra benefit.

It is (theoretically) possible that some of
what Stone says might have a factual basis.





David
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 May, 2013 04:29 am
@McTag,
McTag wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Not one person who has ever served in the Pentagon has ever targeted civilians.

Always a pleasure to correspond with you.

You're pleasant to talk to too, but it's a shame you're so evil.
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 May, 2013 04:32 am
@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:
It is (theoretically) possible that some of
what Stone says might have a factual basis.


That's the closest to honesty that any of the "Freedoms" brigade have ever got so far.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 May, 2013 04:33 am
@McTag,
McTag wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
The IMPORTANT thing
is that nuking the Japs
saved AMERICAN lives.

So the propaganda has it. That's the official line and justification. But Oliver Stone has just released a series of historical TV documentaries which puts the reasons for the nuclear strikes on Japan in a different light.

The reason Japan was nuked was because we were locked in a brutal war with them, and the A-bombs were a means of attacking them.

As such, the idea that "saving lives was the goal" is overthinking it a bit. It was more a matter of just attacking them on all fronts until they surrendered.

It is certainly true that the projected casualties from the proposed invasion were daunting, and we would have wanted to avoid that invasion if at all possible. But the idea that "the decision to use the bombs was based in a belief that they would make invasion unnecessary" isn't really true. No one really knew what it would take to make Japan surrender. All we could do is keep hitting them as hard as we could until they finally gave up.

I doubt that anything Oliver Stone says has even a bit of truth to it, but I confess to not knowing what he has to say about the A-bombs.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 12/18/2018 at 10:47:38