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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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!!!!

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.  

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.