L.O.L.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Ahh, yes, naturally, out comes the ludicrous old canard about America being bad for ending the war with the atom bomb.

Can't wait seeing you peddle the "necessary evil that saved a million of our boys" sweet tale alongside the "necessary mainland invasion" BS too.

War was already over.

Food for thought.

[Admiral Breetai]

Well, if you'll bear with me, I'd argue there's a bit of a difference between taking pride that your ancestors happened to be on the British Isles before someone else's and thinking yourself wholly distinct and separate people. For the comparison to be apt Saxons would have to think of themselves as Saxons first and foremost with a culture/history completely distinct from "Being an Englishman". Taking pains to protect this culture from contamination and working to undo or reverse any effect the Normans might have had.

there's a movement to restore Angeleash to its pure Germanic roots and numerous county's utilize gealic and other such languages in their documents and street signs. This divide is still quite potent.

All I meant was that the tribes of Normans and the Saxons more or less effectively blended into one tribe of people. Saxons don't go around rioting destroying their cities to protest Norman oppression and Normans don't self-congregate voting in lockstep for politicians based solely on the fact they are Norman descended like themselves.

This in fact does still occur.

again the problem isn't "diversity' the problem is the trash you're letting into your country.

That and Muslims are abominations..

So I think calling Britain a diverse or mixed nation, and thus why it was "great", simply because of that is a bit wonky.

History would disagree, again they went into a great many third world shitholes and impose British culture on said shitholes and ripped them out of the muck and mire of barbarism and savagery and many of those countries collapse when the Uk left not because they left but because they abandoned the superior culture.

Perhaps.

I was pretty explicit.

Remind me to try and stay on your family's good side. But wow...that's 40k level right there.

No one quite does purges, cultural proscription and warfare quite like South Americans..we're also arguably the whitest countries in the world given everything south of Brazil has a population demographic of 95% white plus.

The war against Paraguay for example involved Brazil and Argentina handing them a peace treat that was designed to be unacceptable (it made them abolish their borders, their army and pay 25% of their GDP for a century to BR and AR) just so they could go in and exterminate 90% of the masculine population of the country and it was mostly because they didn't like the idea of mestizos having a military.

[Khas]

That and Muslims are abominations..

I'd just like to point out that here in the U.S., the way Christianity is practiced in some regions can be just as bad as the way Islam is practiced in the Middle-East.

Also:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYV7KWQ-fY4

Then again, the relationship between the Cross and the Crescent is basically the relationship between Stannis and Renly Baratheon. Which one's Stannis and which one's Renly is up for you to decide.

A big problem with the current state of Islam has to do with some overly-religious chunderheads with way too much power getting their way in the Middle East during the Middle Ages. Before they arrived, the Islamic world was actually more tolerant and progressive than the Christian one (and Medieval Muslim scholars actually helped preserve much of the knowledge of Rome). But like always, some chucklefucks who thought that God spoke to them directly came in and ruined it for everyone. I've met quite a few politically secular Muslims who were some of the nicest people I've ever met. And most of the Holier-than-thou-death-to-the-infidels-you-will-burn-in-hell fuckwits I've met were self-proclaimed "Good Christians".

[Admiral Breetai]

I'd just like to point out that here in the U.S., the way Christianity is practiced in some regions can be just as bad as the way Islam is practiced in the Middle-East.

,mmmno the only place in the world where Christianity gets even remotely as violent and rapey and genital mutilation prone in any thing resembling the near industrial scale its practiced in Islam is inside China and South Korea where Hellfire and Brimstone Evangelism has become as militant as it was in the lead up to the civil war and married to the ardent ol'fashion racism of the region.

a bunch of dumbass good ol'boys throwing up god hates fags signs and sick freaks like David Koresh do not make for an alarming pattern and certainly not on the same scale..nor are the sheer volume of corpses comparable.

]Also:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYV7KWQ-fY4

..wow a Carlos Mencia skit as narrated by a Fedora tipper

I needed that in my life about as much as I need to be hung upside down naked with jumper cables on my balls.

Then again, the relationship between the Cross and the Crescent is basically the relationship between Stannis and Renly Baratheon. Which one's Stannis and which one's Renly is up for you to decide.

that's I feel...a gross over simplification..but as a stannis fan I feel compelled to cry Deus Volt now.

A big problem with the current state of Islam has to do with some overly-religious chunderheads with way too much power getting their way in the Middle East during the Middle Ages.

I'd actually argue picking a rather ill advised fight with the Mongols and having your entire region turned into a post apocalyptic wasteland that still hasn;t recovered has more to do with it than the fanatics...granted you could argue they were the cause of that.

Before they arrived, the Islamic world was actually more tolerant and progressive than the Christian one (and Medieval Muslim scholars actually helped preserve much of the knowledge of Rome).

This is a historical lie, they were both mutually reprehensible but one was responding to multi-century long invasion that resulted in the loss of half of one of the largest regions in Europe and the other was..the aggressor. By that virtue one side looks a great deal less shitty, beyond that in Europe things were marginally better for non Christians than they were in the ME and the so called examples of tolerance most people tout out, were either Chinese Muslim in buddhist/Confuciust courts or were of Christian slaves elevated to high positions of power who were often promptly "accidented" away the moment their skills were not needed.

But like always, some chucklefucks who thought that God spoke to them directly came in and ruined it for everyone. I've met quite a few politically secular Muslims who were some of the nicest people I've ever met. And most of the Holier-than-thou-death-to-the-infidels-you-will-burn-in-hell fuckwits I've met were self-proclaimed "Good Christians".

Mohamed who, from the very start hated westerners (understandable, he was warring primarily against Vandal descended half arabs after all), was an extremely violent, militaristic person..a necessary product of his time. the problem with Islam stems from two things...the first being that its a form of Arabic parasitism...and secondly that they never learned how to set aside the sword.

So I stand by what I said the religion should be destroyed..its done nothing but bring darkness, despair and incest to the world.

[Khas]

So I stand by what I said the religion should be destroyed..its done nothing but bring darkness, despair and incest to the world.

While the world probably would be better off without organized religion, I'm still uncomfortable (to say the least) with the idea of condemning nearly a quarter of the world's population for something as trivial as how they worship the Skyfoogle.

EDIT: Basically, what I'm saying is that you can't assume that nearly 2 BILLION people are all identical - you have to judge them on a person-by-person basis.

And again, HOW THE FUCK DID WE GET TO THIS TOPIC WHEN THIS THREAD WAS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT SDN'S ENCYCLOPEDIA DRAMATICA PAGE!?!?!?!?!?

[Mr. Oragahn]

So I stand by what I said the religion should be destroyed..its done nothing but bring darkness, despair and incest to the world.

While the world probably would be better off without organized religion, I'm still uncomfortable (to say the least) with the idea of condemning nearly a quarter of the world's population for something as trivial as how they worship the Skyfoogle.

EDIT: Basically, what I'm saying is that you can't assume that nearly 2 BILLION people are all identical - you have to judge them on a person-by-person basis.

Not to say that certain religions (notably old ones and often times pagan) have no problem living alongside others.
Historically, abrahamisms have been the most intolerant religions of all, not to say incredibly hypocritical.
But these days, most christian currents have done a full reverse and now verge on the completely idiotic opposite, teaching about full love and complete acceptance of about every single POS as long as said POS can pray in a church.

And again, HOW THE FUCK DID WE GET TO THIS TOPIC WHEN THIS THREAD WAS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT SDN'S ENCYCLOPEDIA DRAMATICA PAGE!?!?!?!?!?

We probably have SDN spies trying to derail the topic.
Scumbags! :( :(

[Mr. Oragahn]

Remind me to try and stay on your family's good side. But wow...that's 40k level right there.

No one quite does purges, cultural proscription and warfare quite like South Americans..we're also arguably the whitest countries in the world given everything south of Brazil has a population demographic of 95% white plus.

You may find somehow similar percentages in some Eastern European countries.
Nevertheless, might you provide a bit more details about the ethnical origins of the people who make up your country and the neighbouring southern ones too?
Are there traces of distant Asian tribes? What about African ones?
Thx.

The war against Paraguay for example involved Brazil and Argentina handing them a peace treat that was designed to be unacceptable (it made them abolish their borders, their army and pay 25% of their GDP for a century to BR and AR) just so they could go in and exterminate 90% of the masculine population of the country and it was mostly because they didn't like the idea of mestizos having a military.

[Admiral Breetai]

You may find somehow similar percentages in some Eastern European countries.
Nevertheless, might you provide a bit more details about the ethnical origins of the people who make up your country and the neighbouring southern ones too?
Are there traces of distant Asian tribes? What about African ones?
Thx.

pre-colombian? In the north you had olmec offshoots and to the center you had disparate tribes whose genetic makeup I couldn't tell you. Mapuche's are some of the most simplistic fucking people on the planet though, their music barely has two notes in it and their woodcarving and wool work is so subpar as to be barely above caveman tech. Granted, there are not that many left in Argentina, Chile has more of them.

People have been trying to connect the Emishi and Ryukyu peoples to southern Natives for about 90 years now, to my knowledge no such connection has ever been made though. Funnily enough there's alot of the same genetic markers one finds in ancient Egyptian remains and Phoenician and Judean peoples in Brazilian natives along the coast as far as odd curiosities go.

There are no Afro-Argentines, there used to be but most were expelled to Uruguay or slaughtered, the ones who remained intermarried with the Gauchos and created a sort of southern Creole style people. I had a neighbor who was from the last family of pure Afro Argentines left and they were dwindling.

There's a huge Indo-Aryan (Think Freddie mercury from Queen style) and Ottoman Turk descended population in Cordoba and Mendoza and in Buenos Aires, but the move was a century or so back. It's mostly Italian, Spanish and a heaping assload of German and Scottish.

south, south America is pretty racially homogenous. Even Brazil, is fairly either one or the other...the famous "mixed race" population all the media hypes about is actually a very large and very crapped on minority. Afro-Brazilians and White Brazilians did this thing where they apartheid the brown folk and contained them in the ghettos and crappier cities.

Brazil's got frighteningly large influx of Muslims though...

[Mr. Oragahn]

You may find somehow similar percentages in some Eastern European countries.
Nevertheless, might you provide a bit more details about the ethnical origins of the people who make up your country and the neighbouring southern ones too?
Are there traces of distant Asian tribes? What about African ones?
Thx.

pre-colombian? In the north you had olmec offshoots and to the center you had disparate tribes whose genetic makeup I couldn't tell you. Mapuche's are some of the most simplistic fucking people on the planet though, their music barely has two notes in it and their woodcarving and wool work is so subpar as to be barely above caveman tech. Granted, there are not that many left in Argentina, Chile has more of them.

People have been trying to connect the Emishi and Ryukyu peoples to southern Natives for about 90 years now, to my knowledge no such connection has ever been made though. Funnily enough there's alot of the same genetic markers one finds in ancient Egyptian remains and Phoenician and Judean peoples in Brazilian natives along the coast as far as odd curiosities go.

There are no Afro-Argentines, there used to be but most were expelled to Uruguay or slaughtered, the ones who remained intermarried with the Gauchos and created a sort of southern Creole style people. I had a neighbor who was from the last family of pure Afro Argentines left and they were dwindling.

There's a huge Indo-Aryan (Think Freddie mercury from Queen style) and Ottoman Turk descended population in Cordoba and Mendoza and in Buenos Aires, but the move was a century or so back. It's mostly Italian, Spanish and a heaping assload of German and Scottish.

south, south America is pretty racially homogenous. Even Brazil, is fairly either one or the other...the famous "mixed race" population all the media hypes about is actually a very large and very crapped on minority. Afro-Brazilians and White Brazilians did this thing where they apartheid the brown folk and contained them in the ghettos and crappier cities.

Brazil's got frighteningly large influx of Muslims though...

Many thanks A.B.
Regarding the genetic markers you mention early on, it seems that in more or less minor archeology, claims are being made that branches of European ancestry moved out from Egypt northwards when other literally decided to cross the ocean, perhaps even earlier than the former group.
Phoenicians and Hebrews sharing some markers isn't surprising: Hebrews got into Egypt at some point and from there happened the usual thing with interethnic breeding. Egyptians had enough influence at some point so as to also explain some of their genetic features could be found as far as the Levant. Plus the Hyksos probably took slaves too during their reign.
Similarities were also recently found between the well known artistic representation of the Egyptian gods and godesses and a specific godess from one of the pre-colombian pantheons.
And then there's the Canary Islands trail, as one could put it. I don't know much about the worthiness of this topic, could be really fringe stuff at the moment.

[Admiral Breetai]

Many thanks A.B.
Regarding the genetic markers you mention early on, it seems that in more or less minor archeology, claims are being made that branches of European ancestry moved out from Egypt northwards when other literally decided to cross the ocean, perhaps even earlier than the former group.
Phoenicians and Hebrews sharing some markers isn't surprising: Hebrews got into Egypt at some point and from there happened the usual thing with interethnic breeding. Egyptians had enough influence at some point so as to also explain some of their genetic features could be found as far as the Levant. Plus the Hyksos probably took slaves too during their reign.
Similarities were also recently found between the well known artistic representation of the Egyptian gods and godesses and a specific godess from one of the pre-colombian pantheons.
And then there's the Canary Islands trail, as one could put it. I don't know much about the worthiness of this topic, could be really fringe stuff at the moment.

Well the genetic markers for Egyptians, Phoenicians and Jews can be found as far as Cherokee Indians, granted I think its more a curiosity than anything else, but a lot of people however. Use it to argue Pre-colombian contact, something that's pretty dubious in my mind. granted its bad enough the Brazilian government has destroyed archaeological sites that suggest Egyptian and Greek pottery or grain ships being found off the Brazilian coast...I don't personally put much stock in it. The Cherokee do and have been fighting to get the government of Israel to recognize them as a Jewish peoples.

Phoenicians via Carthage did manage to penetrate as far as the Congo though..and ancient peoples especially Romans, Egyptians and Carthaginians/Phoenicians had the tech but little in the way of social pressures or reasons to do it and its not like genetic weirdness isn't common place. Ramses the Great of all people...shares a lot of DNA with the Yamato dynasty of Japan..to the point where Naruhito has joked that he's a cousin to the pharaohs.

[2046]

Ahh, yes, naturally, out comes the ludicrous old canard about America being bad for ending the war with the atom bomb.

Can't wait seeing you peddle the "necessary evil that saved a million of our boys" sweet tale alongside the "necessary mainland invasion" BS too.

War was already over.

Oh. Funny, since they didn't surrender until after the second bomb, and the bomb was specifically referenced in the Emperor's surrender announcement.

The Japanese empire was weakened, but they were perfectly willing to fight on for the best terms. Only absolute victory could end their threat for good in the region.

It did.

All it cost the US and her allies was two bombs, some aircraft fuel, and the USS Indianapolis. Sounds like a bargain, to me. But please, don't let me stop you from choosing to pretend that those pesky Jew-saving Americans were the bloodthirsty badguys. Not that anything would, of course.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Ahh, yes, naturally, out comes the ludicrous old canard about America being bad for ending the war with the atom bomb.

Can't wait seeing you peddle the "necessary evil that saved a million of our boys" sweet tale alongside the "necessary mainland invasion" BS too.

War was already over.

Oh. Funny, since they didn't surrender until after the second bomb, and the bomb was specifically referenced in the Emperor's surrender announcement.

The Japanese empire was weakened, but they were perfectly willing to fight on for the best terms. Only absolute victory could end their threat for good in the region.

It did.

All it cost the US and her allies was two bombs, some aircraft fuel, and the USS Indianapolis. Sounds like a bargain, to me. But please, don't let me stop you from choosing to pretend that those pesky Jew-saving Americans were the bloodthirsty badguys. Not that anything would, of course.

First of all, the Japanese didn't surrender because of the second bomb, even it had to be mentionned in the surrender announcement. The Soviet regime openly going to war against Japan is what had the Emperor throw the glove. Until that time, Japan was left to wonder what the URRS was to do and was hoping they'd actually be a mediation party.

Secondly, having the Emperor be removed wouldn't remove the war assets. If the country was dangerous, removing one man, no matter how important he was, wouldn't change anything to the country's power.

Thirdly, I see we've got another fairy tale here, namely that Japan was a danger in the region prior to the double bombing. Not so.
In the last month of the war, the country was completely blockaded, besieged by warships, its skies completely dominated by foreign forces virtually making the whole country open to metaphorical rape and plunder by aerial firepower, and more than 20%, perhaps 30%, of its urban assets were completely destroyed. Its war production capacity was reduced to a ridiculous percentage of what it once was.

As for the vaunted unbreakable will to fight, it's perhaps good to know that as soon as December 1944 they had already begun procedures towards a surrender. Now, iirc, by the early second quarter of 1945 (I think it's around April but I'd have to check old files), they had even changed their government for a new one with the clear order to find about any possible way, any agreement, to have their surrender accepted. Minus one single clause: letting the Emperor remain. A small price to pay, he'd have been reduced to nothing more than a symbolic figure, a puppet of sorts, especially in an occupied country. It's particuarly ironic considering that after the surrender, his family wasn't even deposed from the seat of nobility they wanted to maintain.

[Admiral Breetai]

I'm with Darkstar on this, claiming Truman unleashed a weapon yet untested in combat whose potential upper yield was anyone's guess and whose long term damages were unknown and incalculable at the time, solely out of some sadistic sense of jingoism when the guy was proven to be the exact opposite of a War monger (Re: Macarthur wanting wanting to dump something like twenty nukes into China and Truman throwing him out of the army for it) is about as valid as saying 9/11 was an inside job

or da joooooss

[Mr. Oragahn]

I'm with Darkstar on this, claiming Truman unleashed a weapon yet untested in combat

Nukes, especially back then, were hardly "combat" weapons. They still largely remain terror weapons, considering the yields involved and how they're meant to be used even today.
Besides, the most immediate destructive effects of this weapon were already known, thanks to the Trinity test.
And frankly, what's there to be puzzled about with something that makes a big arse boom and huge fireball, as seen in the test in the desert?

whose potential upper yield was anyone's guess

The lower end yield is what would have mattered more and either the bomb would fail to detonate or it would release several kilotons worth of energy. By that I mean more than a dozen KT.
The first bombing on civilians would have sufficiently proved the reliability of the weapon in a so-called "combat" situation. A second bombing would have served no necessary purpose, as far as testing on human populations goes.

So excuse me A.B., but what kind of silly rationalization is that anyway? Poor US forces were taking a biiiig risk with their unthreatened huge bombers because they didn't know if their new toy would release 8 or 30 kt on the face of people so... well, they had to throw one at them, at least, just to be sure? o_O

and whose long term damages were unknown and incalculable at the time,

Not that they were particularly necessary to be known as the immediate damage (heat and blast) was already known, but the mysteries were mainly about the fallout, not too much about the effects of radiation on organic tissues.

solely out of some sadistic sense of jingoism when the guy was proven to be the exact opposite of a War monger (Re: Macarthur wanting wanting to dump something like twenty nukes into China and Truman throwing him out of the army for it)

Just picking a nutcase even crazier than Truman doesn't make the latter any less unreasonnable.
Reason would have led him to say "okay let's have them keep that silly 'emperrrrrror' clown in place for annual festivals if that makes them happy. We bombed them back to the dark ages. They are so neutered it does not matter anymore. No need to kill more civilians and scorching cities for the sake of some silly and cute superstition."
Now that is something that sounds like reason.

is about as valid as saying 9/11 was an inside job

or da joooooss

Bzzt! Reptilians bro. All reptilians. And illuminazi and stuff.
I think...

[Khas]

Technically, the Japanese government was split between those who wanted to surrender, knowing the war was lost, those who knew the war was lost but wanted to fight to the bitter end thanks to the perverted form of Bushido that was being used as indoctrination at the time, and those who thought the war could still be won.


Also, the Japanese government kept feeding its citizens propaganda about "decisive victories" against the Americans... despite the fact that everyone with a map could see that each "decisive victory" was a little bit closer to the home islands than the previous one.

Furthermore, the Americans and other Allies had no way of knowing that Japan might have been considering surrender, considering that the Japanese government was bullshitting its own citizens about how bad the situation was, they sure as hell wouldn't let THAT little bit of info loose to their enemies.

And finally, there's one point to remember. In war, no side is ever clean.