Member of the Month

PartyBullshiit
March, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Taliban uses HIV needles in their bombs

profile picture
timmi
Posts: 12874 - Karma: 3,460
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1285251/HIV-needles-buried-bombs-Taliban-uses-despicable-tactics-fight-British-troops.html

holy hell, time to leave.
Jun 9 2010 1:13PM
0 0
profile picture
Arabian.
Posts: 9632 - Karma: 54
Jesus fuck. That's a scary meatball. I guess if you really want someone out, you really want someone out.
Jun 10 2010 12:57AM
0 0
profile picture
Arabian.
Posts: 9632 - Karma: 54
Click for larger image
Jun 10 2010 1:00AM
0 0
profile picture
Clevinger
Posts: 394 - Karma: 8
Also, they seem to have grossly underestimated what it takes to scare a seasoned EOD.
Jun 10 2010 1:07AM
0 0
profile picture
Bukkakeskitrip
Posts: 5677 - Karma: 95
fffffffffuuuuuuuuucccck that man
Jun 10 2010 3:45AM
0 0
profile picture
feihlination
Posts: 8356 - Karma: 1,084
hey, hows it going?

1. i never said i dont hate the taliban. but you know what the only way out of afghanistan is? get schools there and bring the moderate taliban on your side to give you an educated ally. you cant win this war with bombs.

in this context, this article increases hate towards ALL taliban when actually they are trying to get moderate taliban into their boat.




2. uhuhuhu, a dick move. so, lets say, they have the best technique/needle thing going on and the transmission rate is 40 %. fucking 40 %. if they would bury another fucking bomb close to the obvious one, they might raise the kill-rate to 100%. seems a lot worse to me.



3.1. i dont like the argument regarding how it would have been worse to invade. in a "regular" invasion, casualties are mainly combattants. in hiroshima and nagasaki (without research!!!), i guess that over 95% of the casualties were civilian. and what i said is that americans never said "sorry, was kinda uncool" because they won the war and there was no need for excuses. imagine your stance on nuclear weapons if the nazis had dropped a nuclear bomb over the US/UK....


3.2. and i dont say that its no problem that they use HIV as a weapon (although we dont know if they actually do) and its not as bad because "we" used napalm and nuclear weapons. every war is bullshit and 1,000 swords can kill as much people as a gas attack and not necessarily less cruel.

Jun 10 2010 4:37AM
0 0
profile picture
steezeeepolizeee
Posts: 8756 - Karma: 796
Reminds me of the biological war in canada with the natives between upper and lower canada. lil different though i guess
Jun 10 2010 7:17AM
0 0
profile picture
Steezy_IN_KC
Posts: 2033 - Karma: 1,607
end it all... drop a nuke... only logical next play for us... kill em all
Jun 10 2010 7:26AM
0 0
profile picture
theline
Posts: 1507 - Karma: 92
dude. it's not a big deal. i have aides. i make them carry my shit.
Jun 10 2010 8:12AM
0 0
profile picture
feihlination
Posts: 8356 - Karma: 1,084
sig worthy
Jun 10 2010 9:23AM
0 0
profile picture
pomme-de-terre
Posts: 3915 - Karma: 703
penis.



this thread is officially retarded. the site this article is from is a joke, therefore, all arguments are rendered invalid.
Jun 10 2010 9:37AM
0 0
profile picture
ECB
Posts: 6991 - Karma: 618
i have one
Jun 10 2010 9:40AM
0 0
profile picture
feihlination
Posts: 8356 - Karma: 1,084
therefore, my "troll" argument is rendered valid.


so dope
Jun 10 2010 9:42AM
0 0
profile picture
wolvmatt
Posts: 361 - Karma: 10
Your signature is wrong.  It was TJ that said that.
Jun 10 2010 2:19PM
0 0
profile picture
C.Wood
Posts: 2524 - Karma: 180
Nuke them, they deserve it.


no but that is pretty f*cked to be honest.
Jun 10 2010 3:41PM
0 0
profile picture
Riser
Posts: 73 - Karma: 60
I'll call bullshit. The Daily Mail isn't news. There's a group on facebook which is a list of 70-odd things that have been claimed on one day or another to BOTH prevent and cause cancer.

FABRICATED

RACIST

SCAREMONGERING

BULLSHIT

If you've ever read it, you'll know how retarded it is. And it's a bestselling newspaper. Fuck's sake england
Jun 10 2010 6:13PM
0 0
profile picture
Crack.
Posts: 6020 - Karma: 86
thank you
Jun 10 2010 6:20PM
0 0
profile picture
feihlination
Posts: 8356 - Karma: 1,084
ok, so why did they stop fighting after the bombs? ok, hiroshima (some military targets) and nagasaki (industrial city) were destroyed, but without looking up, i would say that japan still got some cities and soldiers "who would never stop fighting".

your argument is contradicting in itself. you said they would never stop fighting and gladly accept total destruction before surrender. but they surrendered after two cities were wiped out.

in your logic, they would rather take 20 more atomic bombs to end it with style than to surrender. dude, please grow up.



worst member ever.
Jun 11 2010 4:38AM
0 0
profile picture
Astomp
Posts: 10090 - Karma: 344
i will agree to disagree^ skierman is a neat dude. not the worst.

to many what ifs. factual what ifs. all that shit. we dropped to retardedly devistating bombs. they surrendered. thats the facts. who of us know how ready they were to surrender. that was a hot minute ago.
Jun 11 2010 8:37AM
0 0
profile picture
feihlination
Posts: 8356 - Karma: 1,084
yeah, youre right, noone knows how much people would have died if the war was ended "conservatively". noone knows whether an invasion would have been needed etc. but his argument was plain bullshit, i think we can agree to that.




still, the bombs were used, when the geneva protocol (1924/5) already "outlawed" gas, biological and chemical weapons. FACT.
Jun 11 2010 9:06AM
0 0
profile picture
LMPJibbin
Posts: 1607 - Karma: 17
after the "AIDS bandit" i knew someone would try to do something like this
Jun 11 2010 9:12AM
0 0
profile picture
Squid.
Posts: 1904 - Karma: 23
are you retarded?

American casualties from a ground invasion of Japan. Read up on Operation Downfall; Allied casualties were predicted in the millions and Japanese casualties were predicted to be even higher. So used the bombs saved the lives of millions of Americans, Europeans, AND Japanese. 300,000 dead Japanese people vs millions dead.

The Japanese who wouldn't surrender previously decided to surrender after the bombing because they realized the insane power of the weapons and realized that they would be utterly wiped out if they continued fighting.

And wtf does the Geneva Protocol have to do with this? Nukes are neither gas, biological nor chemical weapons.
Jun 12 2010 10:08AM
0 0
profile picture
rexalicious.
Posts: 551 - Karma: 57
wow. thats so sad.
Jun 12 2010 10:37AM
0 0
profile picture
Juice.Doctor
Posts: 2791 - Karma: 293
we honestly should just end these mother fuckers. obama, call in the nuke. fighting in this war has no point what so ever. what will we get out of it if we win? its just dumb.
Jun 12 2010 10:52AM
0 0
profile picture
Astomp
Posts: 10090 - Karma: 344
juice, what the fuck is juice. its not a war. its a conflict. and there are way more innocent civilians then taliban. they estimate around 20-30 thousand insurgents at the moment. but i bet thats a fabricated number.
Jun 12 2010 11:34AM
0 0
profile picture
vailsux.com
Posts: 1769 - Karma: 440
probably is.
Jun 12 2010 1:00PM
0 0
profile picture
skiierman
Posts: 28699 - Karma: -5,563
i wouldn't doubt for a second it was that large, especially when they're fighting gorilla warfare.
Jun 12 2010 4:14PM
0 0
profile picture
feihlination
Posts: 8356 - Karma: 1,084
no i am not retarded. but you have to be jesus, since you know everything that would have been.

you just think of two alternatives
A: drop the nuke
B: ground-invade japan

but there were tons of ways to end this war and everybody knew it. effective, conservative bombing of military and economical targets combined with (an already working) sea blockade is also an option. noone knows how and when japan would have surrendered, but the nuke was not the only way to do so without MILLIONS of victims.


and you said, they would never stop fighting, right? but why did they do it then? your argument is invalid, sorry to say it. they were NOT wiped out and still surrendered. so this "fight until the end"-argument is not valid. because in "your" (i put you in a box with skiierman, sorry) eyes, their honour wouldnt allow them to surrender BEFORE being wiped out.


and the geneva protocol has a lot to do with it. gas/biological and chemical weapon were outlawed because of what....? because they were considered "barbarian" and inhuman. just read the wiki article about the moral controversies (regarding hiroshima/nagasaki) and imagine what would you think about nuclear weapons if the germans produced 2 of them and dropped them on the UK/US. pretty much end of question.
Jun 12 2010 5:05PM
0 0
profile picture
Squid.
Posts: 1904 - Karma: 23
No, but unlike you, I've actually done research beyond wikipedia.

There was literally nothing left of Japan to bomb. Kyoto was deemed to valuable to Japanese culture, so that city was left relatively untouched, but seriously look up the casualties of the firebombing of Tokyo for example. I'm pretty sure there were more people were killed than at Nagasaki, and all them died horribly.

So yeah, figuring that the goal was to end the war in the Pacific Theater quickly, there was only one choice. All other options would have lead to more American deaths.

The Japanese Army was prepared to FIGHT to the death. They realized that there was no way they could actually fight against nukes; they would only be wiped out if they continued.

And mentioning Geneva Protocol still is irrelevant. I understand the point you are trying to make, but nukes just don't fall under the umbrella of biological and chemical weapons

Jun 12 2010 6:02PM
0 0
profile picture
feihlination
Posts: 8356 - Karma: 1,084
i have to be honest (being a college student), that wiki is good enough for me. it is controlled by some fanatics all the time and for a general overview and basic knowledge its a clear A+. its not like other sources (besides scientific magazines/books) are perfect.

yeah, tokyo was attacked with firebombs (and more people died, yes). i am not saying that this is not as bad or better or whatever, but it doesnt make the hiroshima/nagasaki bombings less wrong, ok?

the japanese army (represented by leading officers) actually tried to overthrow the government to block the announcement of the capitulaion, so i guess THEY were ready to fight on anyway.

ok, i understand your point with the geneva protocol and you are right, nukes were not "outlawed" in 1945.


and you didnt jump on my comparison with germany. what if germany dropped a bomb on london/new york/boston/washington/moscow or whatever? the responsible person would have faced a trial for genocide in nuremberg and be hanged rightaway.

i am in no way defending anything germany ever did in WWII, but other countries did a lot of bullshit too and were able to cover it up simply because germany fucked up harder.





Jun 12 2010 6:29PM
0 0
profile picture
Squid.
Posts: 1904 - Karma: 23
Bombing an enemy country in a time of war would be considered genocide. And to be honest if Germany's nuclear program was successful back then, I don't think there would be many people left who could hold those responsible accountable.

Don't get me wrong, I (and most other Americans) understand how horrific nukes really are. The point I'm trying to make is that those bombs were vital to the prevention of further Allied deaths. I think there should have been more time between the first and second bombings, but in the end, the nukes did their exactly their job, which was to end the war in the Pacific.

Seriously though, it should be a countries #1 priority to protect its citizens. Think of the millions of families that would be torn apart if there was a ground invasion of Japan. Once you consider the loss of not thousands, but millions of lives, you should be able to see that using the bombs was a good idea.
Jun 12 2010 8:43PM
0 0
profile picture
Astomp
Posts: 10090 - Karma: 344
much agreed on this point. to many lives woulda been lost. millions. agreed. just a thought or two here.

now squid or anyone else how many lives were effected by the nuclear fall out and after effects. was there quality of life low enough to just be considered useless? do you think the victims after the bombs had blablablown were still messed up or born messed up in such a way that they were fucked for the rest of their lifes. maybe in long run that number did reach millions. or what about 300,000 gone definitely would effect baby boom fucking. just little thoughts. 300,000 with possible baby making capabilities gone im sure would have to somewhere meet up with millions too.
Jun 13 2010 8:50AM
0 0
profile picture
Squid.
Posts: 1904 - Karma: 23
The nukes weren't responsible for 10 million Japanese deaths. A ground invasion of Japan would have been.
Jun 13 2010 10:59AM
0 0
profile picture
feihlination
Posts: 8356 - Karma: 1,084
a problem with that theory is that the US-military vastly underestimated the casualties of a ground invasion and STILL dropped the bomb. and as i said, a ground invasion was not the only option.

it just leaves a sour taste in your mouth when a 2-billion weapon program is looking for justification, a literally untouched city is chosen to "observe" the effects of an atomic bomb and when the US controlled and censored information after the bomb and said that there was no radiation effect.

and whether or not this thing was a good option to do whatever is not the question. we are talking about a moral thing. wiping out a fucking city with one bomb, without the possibility of at least pretending to hit military targets,etc
Jun 13 2010 11:14AM
0 0
profile picture
skiierman
Posts: 28699 - Karma: -5,563
just stop talking. like japan's army during the war, you don't know when to admit defeat and just stop fucking trying. you REALLY have little grasp of what you're talking about and i fucking mean that.
Jun 13 2010 1:11PM
0 0
profile picture
Squid.
Posts: 1904 - Karma: 23
refer to skiierman's post. You really are wrong. Allies wiped out Tokyo overnight
this is how it looked afterward
Click for larger image
this is how hiroshima looked after the nuke
Click for larger image

same effect, less American lives at risk
Jun 13 2010 1:38PM
0 0
profile picture
dex.
Posts: 2973 - Karma: 62
based off the shit you say on here...i'd have to guess you're an insane vietnam vet
Jun 13 2010 1:58PM
0 0
profile picture
Klutch
Posts: 241 - Karma: 18
Gnartron is completely right, this is basic high school social stuff here guys. Atleast in Canada, I'm not to familiar with the states education system.
Jun 13 2010 3:42PM
0 0
profile picture
PimpingPanda
Posts: 102 - Karma: 4
"no one in the entire state of new jersey is allowed to pump gas themselves(sic)"
Really??? No person in the entire state of New Jersey is allowed to pump gas themselves??
So how does the gas get into the car? Robots? The employees are people so they can't pump it according to what you said.

Hey smartypants, tell me, what weighs more, a pound of lead or a pound of feathers?
Jun 13 2010 3:52PM
0 0
profile picture
PimpingPanda
Posts: 102 - Karma: 4
Are they hot females and do you make them give you bj and take it anally too? That would way increase your badness.

"shit, girlfriend number 1 is out of town, and girfriend number 2 and 3 are having girls nights out. Aide 1, give me a blow job, and then I am going to buttfuck aide 2"
Jun 13 2010 3:56PM
0 0
profile picture
WVskiing
Posts: 3007 - Karma: 1,948
The terrorist  are HIV positive
Jun 13 2010 4:03PM
0 0
profile picture
feihlination
Posts: 8356 - Karma: 1,084
http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

a lot of intelligent people share my view. kinda weird, huh?



gnartron and squid: you have good points and you explain them well, i respect your opinions.

skiierman: quality post above, really, you SMASHED my arguments. i guess you dont recognize irony. that was ironic. you do nothing but calling people dumbfucks. shut up.
Jun 13 2010 4:23PM
0 0
profile picture
feihlination
Posts: 8356 - Karma: 1,084
"...when we didn't need to do it, and we knew we didn't need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn't need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs."

BRIGADIER GENERAL CARTER CLARKE


Jun 13 2010 4:29PM
0 0
profile picture
skiierman
Posts: 28699 - Karma: -5,563
it has to be harsh with some kids who clearly have no idea what they're talking about and won't admit to it.

oh wait he went on wikipedia! omg never mind, he's clearly intelligent on all subject matter.
Jun 13 2010 7:48PM
0 0
profile picture
feihlination
Posts: 8356 - Karma: 1,084
show me 10 things on wikipedia (you have found yourself) that are straight up bullshit, superman. i dare you motherfucker.

i really hate this bashing on wiki, when everybody uses it. only random "intelligent" (IRONIC, watch out) guys like you have to pretend that wiki is below their niveau to make them more badass. YOU ARE BADASS skiierman (IRONIC, got it?).



oh wait, skiierman, i have the solution, you have to change your language on wikipedia, i guess you have "simple english" turned on. i can understand that things are a little simplified there, although i am not sold whether it is already too simple for you.
Jun 14 2010 4:25AM
0 0
profile picture
musick13
Posts: 913 - Karma: 44
Getting AIDs is now able to "Fucking Blow" in at least three ways

(literialy)
Jun 14 2010 9:16AM
0 0
profile picture
skiierman
Posts: 28699 - Karma: -5,563
the internet is truly destroying the minds of the future...

wikipedia has been proven to be accurate but you're missing the point. to know what the fuck you're talking about, about ANY subject matter, you have to look at various sources. this is what researching is all about you ignorant fucking child. just because you read one article or look at one page hardly makes you eligible to talk among people who KNOW what the fuck their talking about- even less trying to make an argument with them. go back to fucking grade school because you obviously missed the basics of how to function as a positive contributer to society.
Jun 14 2010 11:59AM
0 0
profile picture
feihlination
Posts: 8356 - Karma: 1,084
and again a positive post by the worst member ever.

yes, i could read 30 articles about the bombings, no problem. but if i remember only a third of the wiki article in two years from now i am pretty set.
but i know that you dont know even half the stuff of gnartron/squid. you just repeat your standard-sentence you learned in school: "the bombings saved millions of lives". btw, i am half german/austrian, so i am pretty much a nazi (in your narrow-minded brain), why are you even talking to me?


seriously, we need to stop it here and go on in another thread sometime.

but your argument with positive contributer is funny. i guess your 23k+ posts saved a lot of puppies and children in africa. oh wait...
Jun 14 2010 12:17PM
0 0
profile picture
skiierman
Posts: 28699 - Karma: -5,563
just stop. i think a lot of people who know whats going on here can agree to that. its getting sad. i've learned that with idiots like you its best not to get into extreme detail about something they clearly have little concept of. its like getting wrapped up in an argument about which ski is better for pow when the other person has only skied twice in their life.
Jun 14 2010 12:29PM
0 0
profile picture
feihlination
Posts: 8356 - Karma: 1,084
again you dont say anything.

its just blablabla "dumbfuck" blablabla "idiot" blablbla "little concept" blablbla yadda yadda.




i am just representing the part of worlds population who think that these bombs should never have been dropped. its not like i am saying that aliens killed the US president and that the bombs were developed by mutant hippos in a secret program in antarctica. admit that there are other opinions like yours and life is easier.
Jun 14 2010 12:33PM
0 0
profile picture
Astomp
Posts: 10090 - Karma: 344
you are representing you/yourself. not the world.

but this has grown retarded. nothing good is coming from it anymore.
Jun 14 2010 1:44PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-4)