Military Atheists fight for your rights, please return the favor

Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Military Atheists fight for your rights, please return the favor

Sgt. Justin Griffith of the (awesome!) Rock Beyond Belief project is looking for help from fellow Foxhole Atheists. Spread the word and help him out if you can:

Quote:

***Seeking pictures of foxhole atheists***

I’ve got a special project coming up that requires a few pictures of very out foxhole atheists. Candidates need to be willing to appear on a patriotic poster, potentially to be hung in a government building. I need high end resolution (but nothing ridiculous… don’t jam my poor deployment internet connection with 10MB pictures).

This is a draft (click to embiggen)

Support ALL the troops, Support Foxhole Atheists

(Read more)

(Read more)

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote:potentially to be hung

Quote:

potentially to be hung in a government building

 

 

wait wut?

 

 

 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10610
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
If I knew any I'd ask. Not

If I knew any I'd ask. Not many people I know who've entered the military. Although I doubt Canadian uniforms are being sought anyway.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
I don't believe I have any

I don't believe I have any 'rights'. So you can all just stop fighting for me, and send me a tax refund for all the money waisted fighting for my so called rights.

War is just natures way of dealing thinning out the herd. Since we don't have any predators to kill us when we overpopulate, we have to do it to our own species.

And WTF are we still sending people in battle anyways? We have drones, missiles and robots that can do all the killing while the operator is in the safety of an air force base in Nevada. Let the idiots after the 72 virgins be the ones that die in battle.

This macho 'going into battle' is such BS. If he really believes that fighting is so necessary, why not go to college and learn to make high tech weapons or join the CIA? Much more effective. This sending men into battle is so low tech. But that is what sheep still want to do.

 

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4493
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:I don't believe I

EXC wrote:

I don't believe I have any 'rights'. So you can all just stop fighting for me, and send me a tax refund for all the money waisted fighting for my so called rights.

War is just natures way of dealing thinning out the herd. Since we don't have any predators to kill us when we overpopulate, we have to do it to our own species.

And WTF are we still sending people in battle anyways? We have drones, missiles and robots that can do all the killing while the operator is in the safety of an air force base in Nevada. Let the idiots after the 72 virgins be the ones that die in battle.

This macho 'going into battle' is such BS. If he really believes that fighting is so necessary, why not go to college and learn to make high tech weapons or join the CIA? Much more effective. This sending men into battle is so low tech. But that is what sheep still want to do.

 

Because a man on the ground is cheaper, easier, and there are still tech limitations. Battlefield tech has improved considerably and we do use robots and drones quite effectively, but the day where a war could be won without humans on the ground is still a ways off and the day where we have enough robots and drones is even further off.

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:EXC

Beyond Saving wrote:

EXC wrote:

I don't believe I have any 'rights'. So you can all just stop fighting for me, and send me a tax refund for all the money waisted fighting for my so called rights.

War is just natures way of dealing thinning out the herd. Since we don't have any predators to kill us when we overpopulate, we have to do it to our own species.

And WTF are we still sending people in battle anyways? We have drones, missiles and robots that can do all the killing while the operator is in the safety of an air force base in Nevada. Let the idiots after the 72 virgins be the ones that die in battle.

This macho 'going into battle' is such BS. If he really believes that fighting is so necessary, why not go to college and learn to make high tech weapons or join the CIA? Much more effective. This sending men into battle is so low tech. But that is what sheep still want to do.

 

Because a man on the ground is cheaper, easier, and there are still tech limitations. Battlefield tech has improved considerably and we do use robots and drones quite effectively, but the day where a war could be won without humans on the ground is still a ways off and the day where we have enough robots and drones is even further off.

When you add in all the costs of verterans benefits and taking care of the injured and widows, tech can be much cheaper. It's mainly because there are people that don't want to fight a war this way. There is so much macho-hero BS wrapped up in sending in the troops. And there is religion to help convince young men they should do this.

By sending in boots on the ground, we are playing right into the enemies strategy. They hide as civilians, while we spend all this money for troops that get injured and killed until we grow weary of war. I think the only people that need be in harms way are CIA spies and police. And we should not be policing Iraq or Afganistan anymore.

 

“The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.” General George S. Patton

 

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13607
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I've only known 2 Foxhole

I've only known 2 Foxhole atheists. One died quite a few years back. He was in his 90s and had served in WW2 combat in Europe. The other I lost contact with when I moved down here. He was a Vietnam vet.

But in any case, this is such an important event. The military needs more open atheists. It will be the only way to break the back of the monopoly of meme that only Christians deserve any power or rank in our military.

Worthy cause so to those atheists who do serve, please help out if you can. If gays can raise their voices and gain their rights in our military, atheists can and should do the same.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brotolemaeus
Posts: 12
Joined: 2011-09-19
User is offlineOffline
 I am an open foxhole

 I am an open foxhole atheist, and though it has given me a share of trouble, it is worth doing. Groups such as MASH and rock beyond belief are a sight for sore eyes in an environment that is anything from underhandedly snubbing to outright hostile against anyone who isn't a professed christian. You would not believe how many times I have had to refute the belief stated as fact that this is a judeo-christian country founded by christians; or that it is actually god's army.

On the note of why we still have boots on the ground, I am a 35M human intelligence collector and having physical contact and presence is the only way to win the trust and cooperation of the population. Drones and airstrikes get kills, but protection patrols and humint missions win hearts, minds, and factions.

 

“I join you [John Adams], therefore, in sincere congratulations that this den of the priesthood is at length broken up, and that a Protestant Popedom is no longer to disgrace the American history and character.”
“In every country and in every age the priest [any and every clergyman] has been hostile to liberty; he is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.” Thomas Jefferson


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10610
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
The day people are no longer

The day people are no longer on the ground in war is the day machines have surpassed us in every capacity, and annihilated us (because if we were conquered by machines that had surpassed us, those machines would use us). People can pull off things that simply can't be matched by any tech. Brotolemaeus really only scratches the surface with military intel, something that ONLY people can provide. But infantry are similar. No automated tank can match a well trained and determined strike force.
The airforce would have done away with pilots if a joystick were sufficient for air combat, but there's a feel to flying that's missing when you aren't actually in the air, and moving your fighter isn't as intuitive.
The navy would be little more than missile platforms, but navies typically have more contact with external powers than any other branch, and missiles aren't that great at extended communication.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10610
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
You really need people on

You really need people on the ground who know, or at least can learn, the situation in conflicts. Winning a war requires versatility, and people have always proven to be the most versatile weapon in warfare.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:You really need

Vastet wrote:
You really need people on the ground who know, or at least can learn, the situation in conflicts. Winning a war requires versatility, and people have always proven to be the most versatile weapon in warfare.

We won the battles of Hiroshima and Nagasaki without anyone on the ground, just superior USA technology.

But, Maybe you're right, dick waving from 10,000 miles away just ain't as effective as being there:

" War is a whole lot of men standing out on a field, waving their pricks at one another." George Carlin

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10610
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
No, Japan was on the verge

No, Japan was on the verge of surrender anyway. The terrorism merely sped it up by a week or two.
AND it still took pilots to deliver those bombs.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13607
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:No, Japan was

Vastet wrote:
No, Japan was on the verge of surrender anyway. The terrorism merely sped it up by a week or two. AND it still took pilots to deliver those bombs.

Many speculate that those bombs were more a display to Russia to say, "Look what we have".

I recently saw documentaries of those bombs and even the shots to day of shadows of humans burnt into the concrete that still exist today in Japan. It is severely haunting.

More and more if we want to avoid war, we must as a species see all forms of suffering the same and not make special one's suffering as more important than others.

The people that are murdered by Jewish bombs, where schoolchildren die, suffer the same as Japan's dead, suffer the same as the victims of 9/11. It is because we still collectively on far too big a scale fail to see others as being part of the same species.

We need a global museum to human suffering. A display of history in all corners, that shows our capacity to be cruel to each other. It should cover every war in every nation in human history. It should show in graphic detail every needless death over the dogmatism of the state and of religion.

We need to learn more and more that labels do not matter and in the end we all want the same thing. We want safety, shelter, food and love. Unless we focus on that, the divisions of humanity will continue to distract us needlessly from that common humanity.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Vastet

Brian37 wrote:

Vastet wrote:
No, Japan was on the verge of surrender anyway. The terrorism merely sped it up by a week or two. AND it still took pilots to deliver those bombs.

Many speculate that those bombs were more a display to Russia to say, "Look what we have".

 

Brian, many people can think whatever they want to.  Just as many people are unaware that Truman had informed Stalin of the matter weeks earlier.

 

Also, Vastet, you can call it terrorism if you want to but there are a couple of other point which are relevant.  We had already destroyed a number of cities in Europe with conventional bombs because we had already gone to civilian bombing a couple of years earlier.  That and if we had had an active missile program, we would have been using them and not risking hundreds of bomber sorties over Germany.

 

The larger motivation was that we had come to the point where such things were thinkable and we wanted to test them on real cities so that we could go in and analyze the damage so that we could figure out the "best" way to use them.

 

As far as the surrender goes, I think it is relevant that we had to use two of them.  They and we were both on the verge of suing for peace as we were both nearly bankrupt at the time.

 

Additionally, we only had one more bomb ready to go with a three week lead time to make another one.  So the probable target would have been Tokyo.

 

 

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
One idea mentioned on a

One idea mentioned on a recent documentary was that if only one bomb was dropped then there would have been a likelihood that they would assume the US only had one such bomb, being it was such completely new type.

A tragic aspect that was also brought up in that doco was that US assumed that most civilians would take shelter as usual in an air raid. However, since it was only one aircraft, which wasn't what they expected for a bombing raid, people actually came out into the street in curiosity, so increasing the casualties...

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10610
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
The reason the bombs were

The reason the bombs were terrorism is because they were deployed on civilians, when plenty of military bases would have been sufficient. You can argue till your face turns red on why, it doesn't matter worth a fuck. ALL that matters is that the targets were civilian, hence the action was terrorism BY DEFINITION.
/passionate rant

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:The reason the

Vastet wrote:
The reason the bombs were terrorism is because they were deployed on civilians, when plenty of military bases would have been sufficient. You can argue till your face turns red on why, it doesn't matter worth a fuck. ALL that matters is that the targets were civilian, hence the action was terrorism BY DEFINITION. /passionate rant

Oh, the poor innocent Japanese.

Well let's see here.

1.) The US was in a state of war with Japan that commenced when Japan attacked The United States and before the US had an official declaration from Japan.  I know they tried to slide that declaration on the appropriate desks a minute or two before the first bomb dropped on the ships in Pearl Harbor but they couldn't even manage to give that much notice.

2.) If Japan had not surrendered the US was going to invade their main Island with an estimated deathtoll on the American side of around 1 million and on the Japanese side of several million, with most of those being civilian defenders.

3.) Total civilian death toll in Japan from the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki cost the Japanese between 150,000 - 246,000 civilians.

5.) Total civilian death toll in Japan from Allied fire bombing of various Japanese cities (not including the atomic bombs) was between 330,000 - 900,000 civilians.

6.) For six months before the atomic bombings, the United States intensely fire-bombed 67 Japanese cities.  Calls from the United States for Japan to surrender were ignored.

7.) Six days after the bombing of Nagasaki, Japan announced its surrender to the Allies.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
But really, all sides during

But really, all sides during WWII were attacking civilian targets.  Crush their spirit kind of thing.

Americans didn't start that practice during the war.  Nor did America start following along with everyone else starting with the atomic bombs.  Everybody had been bombing each other's cities for years at that point.

By your definition everyone was a terrorist during WWII.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10610
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Blah blah blah. Japan made a

Blah blah blah. Japan made a strike on a legitimate MILITARY target, and the American pussies swing at two fucking CITIES with MILLIONS (people didn't stop dying the day after the bomb dropped smart ass) of CIVILIANS. Take your bs propaganda to someone who cares.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Pacioli
atheist
Pacioli's picture
Posts: 64
Joined: 2011-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Terrorism?

Vastet wrote:
The reason the bombs were terrorism is because they were deployed on civilians, when plenty of military bases would have been sufficient. You can argue till your face turns red on why, it doesn't matter worth a fuck. ALL that matters is that the targets were civilian, hence the action was terrorism BY DEFINITION. /passionate rant
Bombing civilians from the air certainly started before World War 1, in fact from balloons before aircraft flew if Wikipedia is to be believed. In WW2 the English bombed Berlin in 1940 and Americans joined in when they entered the war.

In any event, killing civilians has been normal military practice long before aircraft were invented. It makes it difficult to see what is the specific point of labelling the atomic bomb attacks terrorism, as if to distinguish them from any other killing of civilians in an attack on a non-military target.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10610
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Never before was an entire

Never before was an entire city wiped out with one bomb. Let alone 2 cities.
As for the rest, I guess there was nothing wrong with 9/11 then, and it wasn't terrorism either.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Pacioli
atheist
Pacioli's picture
Posts: 64
Joined: 2011-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Never before

Vastet wrote:
Never before was an entire city wiped out with one bomb. Let alone 2 cities.

At some point in previous history, never before were two people killed with one weapon. After that, we kept getting better at it, so to speak. 

Quote:
As for the rest, I guess there was nothing wrong with 9/11 then, and it wasn't terrorism either.

Please try not to make ridiculous comments. You are depleting planetary resources of straw.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10610
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Hypocrite. Same shit, same

Hypocrite. Same shit, same pile, same smell.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Pacioli
atheist
Pacioli's picture
Posts: 64
Joined: 2011-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet, are you addressing

Vastet, are you addressing anyone or anything, or merely spluttering?

Seriously, if you think I condoned any terrorist attack whatsoever, quote where I did that. Use of illiberal quantities of personal prejudice to interpret my posts reflects only on you, and is not an argument.

You appear to be equating efficiency of killing with terrorism rather than the target and nature of attack with terrorism. If that is so, it would explain why you make patently silly claims about the meaning of other people's posts in this thread.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10610
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Typical bullshitter can't

Typical bullshitter can't tell one act of terrorism from another. Either any attack on civilians to coerce a government to action is terrorism, or none are. Period.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Pacioli
atheist
Pacioli's picture
Posts: 64
Joined: 2011-09-17
User is offlineOffline
No Vastet, you are failing.

Where is the quote from me in which I condoned terrorism, Vastet, the one for which I have already asked you? You are unable to come up with any support for your ad hominem attacks.

My post #19 stated that civilians have been targets of the military in aerial bombardment since before WW1 and in all forms of war throughout history. I made no commentary on the practice, merely observed that this bombing was not novel or even rare in its target type.

Your response was to say that never before had a single bomb done the trick, as if that were a concluding proof of terrorism rather than the nature of the target. You are unable to deny that carpet bombing and firestorms destroyed other cities in WW2, Hamburg and Dresden for example, and other people have mentioned Japanese cities. Therefore, the "single bomb" is a question of efficiency, not nature of the act. I made that point about efficiency rather than target in #21 and more extensively in #23.

Around that, you have resorted solely to ad hominem statements.

If you believe every attack on a civilian target is terrorism, then what is so interesting about the weapon? If you believe, as you implied, that the weapon makes the difference, please present your unique definition of terrorism. Your latest post appears to retreat from the latter, that the bomb was significant, to a general comment about attacks on civilians. Go for it, but do not tell lies along the way about my posts.

 

Vastet wrote:
Period.
 Ah, yes, that mighty ender of arguments, where someone imagines that using the word "period" carries utter conviction for whatever they spoke before.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10610
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
No, I won. You've failed.

No, I won. You've failed. Your pitiful attempt to extend the argument past its conclusion is pointless. You made the first ad hominem attack, I merely returned fire. If you can't take the heat, don't light the match.

As for your strawman regarding me accusing you of any position, I recommend you reread the topic, or take remedial English courses to improve your reading comprehension. I made no such accusation. I said targetting cities with civilian populations was terrorism. I followed it up by showing that if Japan wasn't terrorism, then neither was 9/11. That's it.

You have failed to challenge these points, instead going into irrelevant details that have nothing to do with my premise. You lost before you even posted.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Pacioli
atheist
Pacioli's picture
Posts: 64
Joined: 2011-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet's straw depletion continues

Vastet wrote:
No, I won. You've failed. Your pitiful attempt to extend the argument past its conclusion is pointless. You made the first ad hominem attack
Where? Quote me the post, Vastet. Where did I attack you personally? In #21 I referred to ridiculous comments and have defended that by reference to your failure to support your claims against me. Do you consider an attack on your argument a personal attack on yourself? If so, why? If not, what is your basis of claim?

Quote:
I merely returned fire.
You have failed to answer my two previous requests for a shred of evidence for your clear implications in #20, #22 and #24 that I condoned terrorism or otherwise did not distinguish it. Instead, you have initiated ad hominem attacks to which I have yet to respond in like fashion.

Quote:
If you can't take the heat, don't light the match.

Quote:
As for your strawman regarding me accusing you of any position, I recommend you reread the topic, or take remedial English courses to improve your reading comprehension.
I will let my english comprehension speak for itself over time. I invite other people to re-read posts #19-#24. They need no reiteration from me to make my point.

Quote:
I made no such accusation. I said targetting cities with civilian populations was terrorism. I followed it up by showing that if Japan wasn't terrorism, then neither was 9/11. That's it. You have failed to challenge these points, instead going into irrelevant details that have nothing to do with my premise.
Why would I be challenging something I never discussed? I asked you to quote any post, any, in which I condoned terrorism or otherwise did not distinguish it as clearly implied by your posts #22 and #24. Three times now, Vastet.

Third failure?

Quote:
You lost before you even posted.
Is that like saying "period"?

 


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Blah blah blah.

Vastet wrote:
Blah blah blah. Japan made a strike on a legitimate MILITARY target, and the American pussies swing at two fucking CITIES with MILLIONS (people didn't stop dying the day after the bomb dropped smart ass) of CIVILIANS. Take your bs propaganda to someone who cares.

Whiney baby.  The American "pussies" kicked serious ass so bad the Japanese went from being super agressive militants to just focusing on corporate profit lines.  We cut of their nation's balls.  And they still haven't grown them back.

We win.  You cry.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Never before

Vastet wrote:
Never before was an entire city wiped out with one bomb. Let alone 2 cities. As for the rest, I guess there was nothing wrong with 9/11 then, and it wasn't terrorism either.

Neither bomb took out the entire city.  Jeeze, read up on some facts.

9/11 is a different matter.  We didn't even know we were supposedly in a war when 9/11 happened.  Japan most certainly knew they were in a war when we nuked them.  They knew because they started it.

So tough shit for them.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10610
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
^ Idiots think I'm still

^ Idiots think I'm still paying attention to their fail.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:^ Idiots think

Vastet wrote:
^ Idiots think I'm still paying attention to their fail.

Apparently you are.  You're still posting.

I got an idea.  Go hold a protest over it in downtown Nanking.

Good luck.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:Vastet

Watcher wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Blah blah blah. Japan made a strike on a legitimate MILITARY target, and the American pussies swing at two fucking CITIES with MILLIONS (people didn't stop dying the day after the bomb dropped smart ass) of CIVILIANS. Take your bs propaganda to someone who cares.

Whiney baby.  The American "pussies" kicked serious ass so bad the Japanese went from being super agressive militants to just focusing on corporate profit lines.  We cut of their nation's balls.  And they still haven't grown them back.

We win.  You cry.

Ironically, Japan is kicking America's ass in just about every measure of quality of life. I'd rather be a Japanese citizen than an American citizen, though I'm even happier as a Canadian citizen (though being Japanese would still be cool, with all the high tech gadgets and samurai swords 'n shit). (And nothing against American citizens, either. It's the societal situation I'm talking about, not the people.)

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!