*DAMN R6 Forum

This really pissed me off, and i thought those of the GameRanger community would also be pissed off.  On 13 FEB 2003, someone frome the (R.O.D) clan made the following comments while waiting to play on Ace's Dedicated Server:

"(R.O.D) 51FR3D: i declare war on you GOD SUCKER"
"(R.O.D) Xnakon: TWO TOWER"
"(R.O.D) Xnakon: AH AH AHA HA"
"(R.O.D) 51FR3D: lol"
"(R.O.D) Xnakon: 6000 DEAD IN TOWER"
"(R.O.D) Xnakon: 6000 AMERICAN AH AH AH"
"(R.O.D) Xnakon: LOL"

And then later in the game, (R.O.D) 51FR3D had this to say
"(R.O.D) 51FR3D: YOU CALL 9-1-1 IS FOR YOU :-)"

It is disgusting.  I was wondering perhaps if there is a such thing as a petition permaban for GameRanger, cause I'll be the first to sign it.  I would encourage everyone to put these two on block cause that is just so tasteless.  

(R.O.D) Xnakon:  GR ID# 112843
(R.O.D) 51FR3D:  GR ID# 66452

I would invite you all to visit www.clandea.com for the actualy screen shot of their text cause i am not making this up.  It's right on the front page, click "here's the proof 52 kbs" to see the screenshot.  

BTW, if you are wondering why it sounds all messed up, it's because our 2 freinds here are French Canadiens.  Please leave your opinions on this matter.

-[DEA] GOD >:(

I don't even know what to say about this.  I can't imagine where in their sick minds they thought that would be funny.  I'll be the second to sign that petition GOD.

Should they be banned...i dont know.

I dont like what they did, its wrong..just wrong.  In fact it pisses me off.  That reminds me of when this dude told  me about when he visited Pear Harbor, this Jap family stood there and laughed while their 4 year old son pissed on the monument!  If i was there i would have kicked his ass than shot his parents. GRRR!...MEOW!

Ban their asses, if they cant respect other countries problems or misfortune.

But its a judgment call, whatever happens happens

Sick? Yes, in my American opinion. But you forget a couple things.

Everyone is entitled to have their own opinion.

Evill is not American.

Hate to piss on your parade but I don't think your petition will do much.

To be honost i don't think the petition would do much either, but if 90 percent of GR wants those 2 off, then who knows, maybe evill would.  I figured its wortha try or at least get ppl to start blocking these 2 as if they were banned.  Democracy rocks.

i hate to say this guys, but these guys dont deserve to be banned, just for making ignorant and insensitive, even offensive comments about somthing. if thats how it worked, we would have to boot a hell of a lot other of ppl from gamerranger as well, including the scores of americans who have make offensive and stupid comments about "euros" and arabs. no offense to you god, but this is ridiculous and i wouldnt sign a petition, even if everyone on gamerranger does, because these two knuckleheads have the right to say whatever the hell they want no matter how offensive or vile you or i thinkk it may be.

that being said, i am gonna remember these two fucktards' account #s and bombard them with pm insult until they block me. if we all do this we can make gr hell for them and they wont come back-> same result as a permaban without the fascism. i think that a much better solution.

Anyone that laughs at it or says we got what we deserve is a sick and twisted bastard.  Better then anything, just have everyone put him on ignore so he can't join any games.  That is the best and most effective punishment you will find.

One other thing, the second comment you posted about the "call 9-1-1" could be completely innocent from the way I'm reading it.  911 is the emergancy telephone number, not just a date in our history.  So I wouldn't jump on the second guy just based on that.

There are things you just shouldn't joke about, like a dead child.  Terrorist attacks (all of them) fall into this category for me.  So Xnakon can rot in hell, and is now on my ignore list.  

Just wondering how far this goes...
If someone says they got what they deserved after we bomb Bagdad and kill more than 4000 Iraqi civilians are they sick and twisted

If someone says Saddam gets what he deserved if he is assassinated are they sick and twisted?

If Bush were to get assassinated and someone says he got what he deserved would it be sick and twisted?

I agree that nothing is funny about the 9/11 attacks, everyone who died there was innocent (except the hijackers) and in no way deserved it.  Perhaps the US goverment deserved something for what they've done to Muslim countries, but the people don't control the goverment and thus aren't the ones who should have the debts recipricated upon.

That 51FR3D totally meant it in terms of 9/11, he made that comment right after we all joined the game.  Plus he was laughing at what his freind was saying.  So hes a douche bag.  

In response to ghost bondo or whatever, there is a difference between intentionally killing 1000 of unarmed civilians and accidentally killing civilians while trying to take out enemy soldiers.  Terrorism is illegal warfare.

Just put these silly ho's on ignore so they can keep eachother company. They both seem to enjoy one anothers company so much why not make it so the only people they can play with are eachother. I will happily ignore these two assholes. Oh BTW didn't Saddam gas his own people ? Why yes I think he did. Did we not give support to Bin Ladden to help fight Saddam ? Why yes I think we did. I will ignore them and that is that.

     For those who are proud to be Americans, let me remind you what "free speech" means. It means that anyone is free to say whatever they want (as long as it's not hurting anyone else; no shouting "fire" in a crowded theater). Anyone. Whatever. Yeah, these idiots aren't American, but you are, and America's idea of basic human rights does not include the phrase "only for Americans". The true test of a freedom is when it is used for something unpopular. I'd personally like to shoot all Neo-Nazis in the head, but they have a right to believe what they wish, and say what they wish. That is free speech.

This is a little off the topic, but signing a petition isn't facism.  It's the definition of democracy, the will of the people decide.  If Evill on his own just said, i don't like you, you're gone, then yes, that's facism.  

That being said, I also agree that a petition would probably be ineffective.  It would take about 5 minutes to set up a completely new account, and that can be done over and over.  So banning never really works.  To me its not about banning they guys, but more the principal of the matter.  Its a symbol of all the people who sign saying that what these idiots said is inappropriate and won't be tolerated.

I completely agree with the right of free speech.  And sure these morons should be allowed to express they're idiotic views.  I also believe that all the rest of us who disagree have the right of free speech to collectively say that these 2 guys are idiots and need to go somewhere else.  And this is essentially what we are all doing right now.  The word is getting out, and good luck on them getting into any decent games after this.

The US intentionally killed about 200,000 unarmed civilians without any intent on taking out enemy soldiers with the atomic bombs...that was illegal warfare and thus terrorism as well...the two single greatest acts of terrorism at that.

The motives behind the boming of Hiroshima and Nagasaki aren't that black and white.  I agree that it was a horrible act, but if the US didn't drop the bomb, the alternative was an invasion of the Japanese mainland, which would have prolonged the war in the pacific at least another 2 years and would have ended up killing millions more in US soldiers, and Japanese soldiers and civillians.  Because of the bomb, the Japanese surrendered within a week, ending WWII.  It wasn't "illegal warfare" because a declaration of war existed between the 2 countries for 4 years.  It wasn't a pretty solution, and probably wasn't even the best solution, but it was certianly better than the other clear alternative which would have ended up killing way more innocent non-combatants than the 2 bombs did.

Attacking civillians has never been considered proper under the rules of war so having a declaration of war doesn't really make the act less "illegal".  It truly is something that could have been prosecuted as a war crime.

I do understand that it saved lives...but Japan may have surrendered if the bomb was dropped on a military target instead.

I'm not going to make a ruling on if dropping the bomb was worth it or not, I'm just saying, by most definitions, it was an act of terrorism.

I guess thats the main problem with the atomic bomb.  Its far from being surgical.  There are bases in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and i'm sure we hit some of them, but the blast radius of an atomic bomb is so huge, that there is really no way killing a select few people.  Even if the bomb was dropped directly over a base, its gonna wipe out everything within 10-20 miles of the place, and then the radiation is gonna kill everyone else off withing a couple hundred miles.  The technology back in the 50s was nothing compared to what it is today.  Surgical strikes weren't even thought of yet.  The guidence systems back then were about as sophisticated as throwing the bomb out the window.  I read somewhere that almost 80% of the bombs dropped never hit their intended targets.  So there was really no way of hitting what you wanted to.  That was the way it went with everyone.  The germans terrorized the britons with the A1 and A2 bombs.  The Allies did the same on Berlin.  The idea of war was a very different thing back then.  "Terrorism" as we think of it now hadn't even begun until the 70s.  

The US wanted to end a war that they had been in for too long, that the Japanese had started with an incredibly crude and brute show of force.  It was horrible, and may not have been right, but i don't think you can say that that and the attacks on the twin towers the same thing.

Anyways, this has gotten way off the point.  BAN R.O.D!!!!

:)

The only thing hilarious about the attacks were that Bush said they were random. I dont agree with the terrorists on any leval but I do agree that we do things that make them ram planes into our building, however extreme a response that may be.

Got to this one a bit late, but WHOA THERE!!

You need to go back and look at why those targets were chosen, and what the rules of war were at the time.

The unarmed civillians were not the targets.  The factories, shipyards, war machine of Japan was.  If you want to talk about killing civilians, talk about the fire bombing of Tokyo.  Or the bombing of London.

But targeting factories and infrastructure was common practice and acceptable back in WW2, even though it was known that the weapons were not accurate and would kill many unarmed civilians.  

You need to look up what terrorism is.  You also need to look up how many civilians would die (estimated) if the USA hadn't dropped the bombs (hell, it even took two).  It has been estimated that it not only saved American lives, but many, many Nipponese lives.  We can't know for sure, but I'll take their word for it in the lack of any other evidence.

Firefly, Terrorism started before that.  Even if you just go modern day, the PIRA was planting bombs in the 60's.  I've read about others in the 50's, but nothing I can back up, my memory isn't that good today.

As for war crimes.  There is not a country that participated in WW2 that couldn't be found guilty of some war crime.  Look at what the Nippon's did in China (you think that Hitler killed a lot of Jews?  It was a drop in the bucket compared to what happened in China).  When it comes down to it, it's a matter of who was less guilty, not if they had any guilt.  Because everyone had some that was involved.  So the A-bombs were actually not the great killing fields that some make them out to be.  Not when compared to other examples.  Or other alternatievs.  

Nipponese?  Come on Bucc, do you really need to use racial slurs?

The US dropped a second bomb without giving Japan a chance to surrender really (lord knows our goverment doesn't move that fast).  Secondly, while there certainly were military oriented things, there were also better military targets that could have been picked...pehaps Kyoto (said to be the most strategic target but passed over because it was beautiful and should be saved).

terrorism-systematic use of violence, terror, and intimidation to achieve an end.

Dropping the atom bomb was violence to achieve an end...so I guess it was terrorism.

Then again, you as a poster use intimidation to achieve the end of having someone be a dumbass so I guess you are a terrorist as well  ;D

Nippon is actually a correct name for Japan too.  It is not a slur (Nip is a slur).  It wasn't meant as a slur, it just happens to be the way I read it more often in my readings.  So, don't accuse if you don't know.


They were given a chance, they were communicated with.  And it wasn't like people weren't dieing every day inbetween.  The war was still going on.


Passing over targets for valid reasons doesn't mean that these targets weren't also valid.  You implied that they were chosen to kill innocent civilians.  No, they were targeted for strategic reasons.  Like I said, if they had been trying to just kill people, they would have gone after, say, Tokoyo.  


By this reasoning, the dropping of any bomb, or any war, or many other things would be known as terrorism.  

Now, let me give you the definition from my dictonary.

Terrorism -  The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence to intimidate or coerce societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Ok, I'm going to admit something I did wrong Bondo.  Listen up.  I have told you to look up the meaning of words many times.  I apologize.  I know see my mistake.  I should have told you to go out and buy a goddamned good dictionary.  Throw that American Heritage away (Yes, I even know that it was word for word out of the "Second College Edition of The American Heritage Dictonary".  You may have gotten it from somewhere else, but it's word from word in there too.  At least get to the third edition, which is better.  But no wonder you use some of those broad, and frankly, stupid statements.  That is an aweful definition of Terrorism that you read.

So, now, I think you'll see, that by this definition, it puts in a key word that makes dropping the bombs not terrorism.  They weren't unlawful.  It was a declared war.  They were stregic targets.  Nuclear weapons were not banned in any way (no way they could have been).  

The atomic bombs were no more terrorism then the mustard gas used in WW1.  Until it was looked upon, and agreed upon that it was bad, it wasn't unlawful (which happened after the war).  It may be traggic and many other bad things, but not terrorism.

I agree, nipponese, nippons or japs are racial slurs and theres no need for them. but it does give you a good idea of what the mentality was in the US. first off the attacked us, we knew about some of the stuff happening in china and to US, british and australian POWs and on top of that we had just had our worst suspicions about hitler confirmed when we discoverd the extent of the holocost. the assumption does the "nippons" were doing the same or possibly worse to the chinese. we had dehumanized the enemy to such an extent that it didnt matter whether we unleashed our new doomsday device on them. am not saying this was right, i am just saying thats the way ppl thought. and surrender is somthing that nobody expected from the japanese without the doomsday threat. the best would probably have been to scare the shit out of them by dropping "fat man" on mount fuji and "little boy" on the emperor's palace.

as to your definition of terrorism, the one i learned was somthing like this: "spectacular acts of violence meant to capture public attention". now, you could say that using the a-bomb fits this description, but i think thats somwhat far-fetched personally.

umm, my insulting u was probably a little exessive, bondo and i apologize. youre definately much less of a dumbass than i tought, but you ARE obviously a drama-queen. youre arguments have gotten a lot better, so i guess the criticism was constructive. kudos and again sorry bout the dissage. :) kinda feel like an ass now.

You can take the dick out of the ass but you can't take the drama out of the bi  ;D

Oh and Bucc, I happen to have a Webster's II New College Dictionary.  According to the cover it's been updated for the 21st Century  :o

Anyway, my point about the atom bombs is that they could have been dropped not on a city but over water perhaps or over land that was less populated to give a less lethal example.  Then pehaps use the second in a more devestating manner.

Abe, first someone needs to show me where Nippon isn't a proper name for Japan.  Japs and Nips are slang.  Japaneese and Nipponese are not, and not meant to be.  Slope, gook, and those are slurs.  The first time I read Nippon and Nipponese was in the biogrophy of Japan's most famous pilot.  So until you show me I'm wrong, back off with accusing me of racial slurs.

Second, we knew about what the Nipponese were doing in China long before we knew about the concentration camps in Germany (or at least pubically).  Both the USA and UK (and Aussies, and Canooks) had forces in China.  I don't think those films they showed of tossing up children and catching them on bayonetts were special effects either.  And I'm not even judging the actions, just pointing out that these things did happen.  


Bondo, I really don't want to think about you with a dick in your ass, please don't use that image anymore.

Throw it out Bondo, it's a piece of shit.  Grab an Oxford.  Updated shit is still updated shit.  You can't honestly tell me you think that was a good definition of terrorism you found in it, can you?

As for a demonstration over water, that was discussed (more or less, it was discussed to just test a demonstration of them for all to see).  It was decided that 1) they didn't want to risk it not going boom in front of them because that would be worse and 2) it still wouldn't convince them.  

You can play monday morning quarterback with the dropping of the A bombs all you want.  My bottom line there is that it was a tough call, and I don't think they could have done it much better under the circumstances they had.  But by no stretch could I consider that terrorism, or, how did you put it, "the biggest single terrorist act ever".

     In the Japanese language, the word for Japan is "Nippon". The word Nipponese is an anglicization, but that does not make it a slur. It is not common, but again, that does not make it a slur. It has the same meaning as "Japanese," so once again, it's not a slur.

Just want to jump in here with an opinion. I know I'll knock this discussion even further off track, but something needs to be corrected.

There are very few things in this world that I could be considered an expert on, but as a Japanese American you can consider this opinion canon:

"Japanese" OK
"Nipponese" OK
"Japs" Don't use this around any Japanese Americans unless you want your teeth knocked out. (God Bless America and our take no crap attitude!) This is a slur as much as the N* word is.
"Nips" Ditto.

Not to pick Buccanneer and no hard feelings against him. I actually agree with much of what he has said so far, but he is off base on the ethic thing. I'm frankly baffled that many people seem to now, magically think that "japs" and "nips" are acceptable terms.

Try reading it again then Bigfoot.

I'm not for Nips or Japs.  I didn't use those terms except to point out that they were slurs, not Nipponese or Nippon as I had used them.

Bondo and Abe accused me of using a slur when I used the term "Nipponese".  

So thanks to both you and Loth for adding to the correctness of that term for me.

Im sorry but this particular attack was one of hate.  They wanted to attack the americans just because they hate us, no other reason.  We didnt do that in www2 with Japan at all, we didnt just say, "Hey, I think i hate the Japanese, lets drop this huge bomb on em cause it will kill alot of em."  Every damn country was participating in "Strategic bombing,"everyone is guilty, BUT IM NO HAPPY ABOUT IT AND CERTAINLY NOT LAUGHING AT ANY COUNTRY'S MISFORTUNE DURING THAT TIME.  It's not a question of whos doing what and wheather or not its terrorism "ghost of bondo" but rather being so insensitvie at laughing at it.  You can say what ever you want in terms of free speach, but you are responsible for your words and actions.

Democracy owns!

For the record, it is figirative speak...my girlfriend wouldn't like that happening any more than you do.  

I'll consider getting a new dictionary...not a high priority exactly although I agree it was a vague definition...that is why I made the light comment of you being a terrorist.  Terrorist has gone to the level where it no longer means one who terrorizes.  Terrorize still has a more open definition I think.

Anyway, sorry about my mistake about Nipponese...I thought you were mixing Nip and Japanese.  Now I've learned something new.

For the record, I know that.  I said I don't want to think about it, I could care less what you do.  I don't want to think what you will do with your girlfriend, once you actually meet her either.  It wasn't a gay reference, it was a YOU reference.


Accepted.  And if you thought the definition was weak, you should never have used it.  Making light of it or not, you used a weak definition to defend an argument.  It still demonstrates what Loth and I were talking about.

BlaBlaBla ...

Dead americans, dead jews, dead irakis, dead afghans. all the same shiat. dont count the number of the bodys but take a close look on whats going on around you.

For my taste: No innocent persons should be killed - no matter where they live or what fucker goverment they (americans / irakis. lol funny.) have.

those 2 idiots will be booted from my hosts, but they should not be banned - if we would ban every nationalistic, warmonging or respectless person, this forum and whole GR would be emty.

Freedom of speech, even when the spoken stuff is just bullshit!

Bander ~ (p.s.: i also agree basically 100% with Bondos 1st post on this issue)

word!!! (beside the fact that bombing two(!) big cities and killing EVERYONE being there for sure violated the geneva convention rules. thinking on nagasaki and hiroshima and hearing Bushaneer arguments and "it was all ok" ... **** ALL FOLOWING PERSONAL INSULTS DIRECTED TO BUSHANEER, DELETED BY BANDER HIMSELF AFTER HE RED HIS LAST POST (wich was not that stupid) ***

hell yeah: and i am damn proud on that long sentence in fucking english above, even if i cant compare my e-skillz to mr. bushaneer, the king of wisdom and justice. (hehehe! bondo - very cool avatar. tnx for "deine solidarit?t" mit meinem kleinen scheissland ;)

exactly as osama could have sent his 3 planes into an emty  mall or something, just to show his "powers".

But Bushaneer once again uses 2 different kinds of logic. one for his homeland, and a different one for the rest of the world.  

Bander ~

I didnt start this to debate whether or not 911 is the same as bombing iraqis.  

\Bander the whole point is, I think it is despicaple to Make fun of any situation like 911 or bombing iraqi civilians.  Come on, if you got slaughtered by a suicide bomber, would you like someone laughing at your death.

God, it may not have been meant to go this way, but it sure as hell did. Welcome to the *DAMN forums. It is despicable, but you cant really do anything to them. One of the things that makes this country so great is that you can say whatever the fuck you want (atleast right now).

Buc,

Perhaps you weren't being clear enough in your previous post. You wrote:

"Japs and Nips are slang.? Japaneese and Nipponese are not, and not meant to be.? Slope, gook, and those are slurs."

With these lines, you seem to be implying that Japs and Nips are not slurs, they are slang. Slang, I think everyone agrees, is not pejorative per se. I accept your explanation, but I think you might agree that you could have been easily misread here.

     It probably would have... except the Geneva Convention was created put into force following WWII. Using the nukes was not a war crime, and honestly, I doubt that it would be even under the Geneva Convention. America and Russia wouldn't have agreed to a treaty that deprived them of their biggest boomstick.

I sure as hell can try to do something, and if a large number of ppl block those 2, then mission accomplished.

I'll smite them

Bander, knowing that your english isn't that good, I'll ask you to look at my posts again.  What I said was:

1) it wasn't a war crime or illegal at the time, because it wasn't.
2) in WW2 it was common for all sides to bomb / kill civilians (look at London, Stalingrad, China and Germany for just some examples).
3) being not a war crime or illegal, it was a war act, not an act of terrorism.  
4) if you look at estimates of how many people would have died on both sides if the bombs hadn't been dropped, they all point to more dead people (civilians and military).  
5) that the powers that were considered the plans that Bondo stated he thinks would be better (as we learned in history classes and by reading Oppi's autobiography in university).  
6) that it's easy to mondy morning quaterback and say what they could have done better, but they didn't have that luxary, since people were dieing everyday the war continued.
7) that those were not JUST civilian targets, but valid stratigic targets of the WW2 era.
8) that all nations involved comitted some war crimes in WW2.

Here's what I don't get.  People would rather that the US had done the normal carpet bombing of WW2, killing all those people and destroying all those cities with conventional bombs instead of A-Bombs.  As if A-bombs were the mark of the devil himself, and those people would be less dead if they had died under the explosion of thousands of bombs instead of two.

So Bander, if you get: "it's all ok" out of that, you are wrong.  What you should get is that it was not terrorism, and normal for that period of our world.


Bigfoot, right you are and my bad.  I called them slurs in a previous post, but called them slang that time for some reason.  It was just a mistake.  I was trying to defend myself after being accused of using the slur, (which I hadn't) and wasn't paying enough attention to how I said it.

All lot of Targets they had picked to bomb had bad weather and things that day like fog or something (not sure what) but, they choose Hyroshima and the other places as like a sorta last resort location. if thats all wrong sorry for this waste of a post