So you hold no animosity or grudges against anyone, despite what evil they may have rendered or their past history? Wow if you were a Catholic I would elect you for sainthood....:biggrin:
Amended
- Thread starter Sheldon
- Start date
So you hold no animosity or grudges against anyone, despite what evil they may have rendered or their past history? Wow if you were a Catholic I would elect you for sainthood....:biggrin:
Glockster20
Clinging to God and guns
Ummm.... animosity towards Christians and Christianity for sure.
Humm, so by this line of reasoning his approval of the Mosque could be in reality an In Your Face Christians and not so much of approval of the actual Mosque, logical very logical of you.....:biggrin:
Cocked _and_Locked
Banned
Why don't you guys ever get tired of the same view all the time?
You know: the one from inside your own anus?
You know: the one from inside your own anus?
I may get banned for entering into this conversation but it is exactly this type of response that has made many want to leave.
thanks glockster for the post!
leasantry:I just wonder what they're going to do when someone opens a strip club on one side, a liquor store on the the other, a porn store across the street and the "Naked Cowboy" shows up?
Dennis Miller was on O'Rielly last night talking about it. He absolutely WENT OFF on it!
Of course, that assumes that there's a contractor in NYC that will actually build the thing. There probably is one but they're going to get hung up on a lot when they try to get bids submitted.
Dennis Miller was on O'Rielly last night talking about it. He absolutely WENT OFF on it!
Of course, that assumes that there's a contractor in NYC that will actually build the thing. There probably is one but they're going to get hung up on a lot when they try to get bids submitted.
Bohemian
New member
Could not resist crying b.s. on theicemanmpls when he claimed to be in this photo previously...
The aforementioned post like 99% of his posts are pure b.s. and reek of a forum infiltrating Obamabot, in my opinion...
Walker Evans (1903- 1975) is known as one of the most influential photographers of the 20th century.
Walker Evans 'Sharecropper's Family, Hale County, Alabama ,1936'
Link Removed
Link Removed
Back to the thread...
No Mosque at ground zero...
The aforementioned post like 99% of his posts are pure b.s. and reek of a forum infiltrating Obamabot, in my opinion...
Walker Evans (1903- 1975) is known as one of the most influential photographers of the 20th century.
Walker Evans 'Sharecropper's Family, Hale County, Alabama ,1936'
Link Removed
Link Removed
Back to the thread...
No Mosque at ground zero...
Wow he needs to take a chill pill, back on your meds please before your next reply.....
so his Sarcasm went zing right over your head, man we are literally taking some of these post way too seriously here.... N on the last... +1++
N for this old man enough for one day, it's time to go pick up a new Victory 8 ball.....
Bohemian
New member
Cocked _and_Locked
Banned
Believe cartoons, or belive the facts. Any reader here should be insulted to think the gypsy has to dumb down his message to mere cartoons. I believe some of you are smarter than that:
This Mosque has less to do with 9/11 than the religious intolerance and hatred that spawned it and stands in the minds of American bigots everywhere today.
Ground Zero Mosque: Was Obama right to speak up?
Mon Aug 16, 7:20 am ET
New York – President Obama has thrown himself into the debate over a mosque set to be built two blocks from Ground Zero. While hosting the White House's traditional dinner to celebrate the commencement of Ramadan, Obama vocally defended the right of the project's backers to build an Islamic community center at the controversial spot. His remarks provoked an immediate wave of outrage from opponents of the project, who argue that its construction would be insensitive to the families of those who died on 9/11. Obama then told reporters on Saturday that he was commenting only on the rights of the mosque's backers to build it, not on the "wisdom" doing so. Should the president have gotten involved in this contentious debate? (Watch The Week's Sunday Talk Show Briefing about the president's comments)
Any president would have done the same: There was "nothing remarkable" in Obama's words, says John Nichols at The Nation. He was simply maintaining the "presidential tradition" of defending freedom of religion. George W. Bush "would almost certainly have done the same thing" — as would whoever eventually succeeds Obama.
Obama missed the big picture: But this controversy "doesn't have anything to do with the free exercise of religion," say the editors of the National Review. Critics of the mosque argue that this project is "unseemly and ill-considered," not that Muslims have no right to build it. If Obama wanted to speak on behalf of America, he would have "respectfully" urged the backers of the mosque to move it elsewhere. Instead, he offered us nothing but "lawyerly hair-splitting."
Why "clarify" a fine defense of the project? Obama's speech on Friday was "courageous and inspiring," says Glenn Greenwald at Salon. So why did he almost immediately diminish it by "parsing his remarks to be as inoffensive as possible"? Supporting the mosque would be "an important substantive stand." His "clarification" just makes him sound "pedestrian and even slightly irritating."
The right thing, if not the popular thing, to say: With these "late, vacillating" pair of statements, writes Michael Gerson at The Washington Post, Obama exasperated both supporters and critics of the mosque. But "there is a difference between being a commentator and being president." The pundits can sound off as much as they like, but Obama's job is to defend the Constitution. That much he did.
Mon Aug 16, 7:20 am ET
New York – President Obama has thrown himself into the debate over a mosque set to be built two blocks from Ground Zero. While hosting the White House's traditional dinner to celebrate the commencement of Ramadan, Obama vocally defended the right of the project's backers to build an Islamic community center at the controversial spot. His remarks provoked an immediate wave of outrage from opponents of the project, who argue that its construction would be insensitive to the families of those who died on 9/11. Obama then told reporters on Saturday that he was commenting only on the rights of the mosque's backers to build it, not on the "wisdom" doing so. Should the president have gotten involved in this contentious debate? (Watch The Week's Sunday Talk Show Briefing about the president's comments)
Any president would have done the same: There was "nothing remarkable" in Obama's words, says John Nichols at The Nation. He was simply maintaining the "presidential tradition" of defending freedom of religion. George W. Bush "would almost certainly have done the same thing" — as would whoever eventually succeeds Obama.
Obama missed the big picture: But this controversy "doesn't have anything to do with the free exercise of religion," say the editors of the National Review. Critics of the mosque argue that this project is "unseemly and ill-considered," not that Muslims have no right to build it. If Obama wanted to speak on behalf of America, he would have "respectfully" urged the backers of the mosque to move it elsewhere. Instead, he offered us nothing but "lawyerly hair-splitting."
Why "clarify" a fine defense of the project? Obama's speech on Friday was "courageous and inspiring," says Glenn Greenwald at Salon. So why did he almost immediately diminish it by "parsing his remarks to be as inoffensive as possible"? Supporting the mosque would be "an important substantive stand." His "clarification" just makes him sound "pedestrian and even slightly irritating."
The right thing, if not the popular thing, to say: With these "late, vacillating" pair of statements, writes Michael Gerson at The Washington Post, Obama exasperated both supporters and critics of the mosque. But "there is a difference between being a commentator and being president." The pundits can sound off as much as they like, but Obama's job is to defend the Constitution. That much he did.
This Mosque has less to do with 9/11 than the religious intolerance and hatred that spawned it and stands in the minds of American bigots everywhere today.
theicemanmpls
Banned
It is all about healing
America lost twice as many people then 911 during only one battle with the Empire of Japan.
Can anyone explain why we allow the memorials to the Japanese?
The Mosque in question is not being built at ground zero. It is three city blocks away.
It wasn't the nation of Islam who piloted those aircraft. It was a terrorist unit from Saudi Arabia.
Their religion happens to be Islam.
Saudi Arabia is America's friend, right? Where did Billy Bob get the gasoline to fuel up his Ford 350? But he hates them A-rabs.
I think some people are way out of touch and lack the intelligence to know the difference.
Casualties and losses
USA
6,822 dead[2]
19,217 wounded[1]
USS Bismarck Sea (CVE-95), sunk 21 February 1945, 318 crewmen lost
Japan
17,845–18,375 dead[1]
216 captured[1]
The Battle of Iwo Jima
Main article: Battle of Iwo Jima
The invasion of Iwo Jima began on February 19, 1945, and continued to March 26, 1945. The battle was a major initiative of the Pacific Campaign of World War II. The Marine invasion, known as Operation Detachment, was charged with the mission of capturing the airfields on the island which up until that time had harried U.S. bombing missions to Tokyo. Once the bases were secured, they could then be of use in the impending invasion of the Japanese mainland.
US postage stamp, 1945 issue, commemorating Battle of Iwo Jima.The battle was marked by some of the fiercest fighting of the War. The Imperial Japanese Army positions on the island were heavily fortified, with vast bunkers, hidden artillery, and 18 kilometers (11 mi) of tunnels.[7][8] The battle was the first U.S. attack on the Japanese Home Islands and the Imperial soldiers defended their positions tenaciously. Of the 21,000 Japanese soldiers present at the beginning of the battle, over 20,000 were killed and only 1,083 taken prisoner.[9]
One of the first objectives after landing on the beachhead was the taking of Mount Suribachi. At the second raising of a flag on the peak, Joe Rosenthal photographed five Marines: Ira Hayes, Mike Strank, Rene Gagnon, Harlon Block, Franklin Sousley, and U.S. Navy corpsman John Bradley raising the U.S. flag on the fourth day of the battle (February 23). The photograph was extremely popular, being reprinted in thousands of publications. It won the Pulitzer Prize for Photography that same year, and ultimately came to be regarded as one of the most significant and recognizable images of the war, and possibly the most reproduced photograph of all time.[10]
Within the next month of fighting, three of the six soldiers raising the flag were killed: Strank, Block and Sousley.
After the fall of Mt. Suribachi in the south, the Japanese still held a strong position throughout the island. General Tadamichi Kuribayashi still had the equivalent of eight infantry battalions, a tank regiment, two artillery and three heavy mortar battalions, plus the 5,000 gunners and naval infantry. With the landing area secure, more troops and heavy equipment came ashore and the invasion proceeded north to capture the airfields and the remainder of the island. Most Japanese soldiers fought to the death. On the night of March 25, a 300-man Japanese force launched a final counterattack. The Marines suffered heavy casualties; more than 100 were killed and another 200 Americans were wounded. The island was officially declared "secured" the following day. The number of American casualties was greater than the total Allied casualties at Battle of Normandy on D-Day.
Even after Iwo Jima was about to be declared secured, about three thousand Japanese soldiers were left alive in the island's warren of caves and tunnels. Those who could not bring themselves to commit suicide hid in the caves during the day and came out at night to prowl for provisions. Some did eventually surrender and were surprised that the Americans often received them with compassion - offering them water, cigarettes, or coffee.[11] The last of these stragglers, two of Lieutenant Toshihiko Ohno's (whose body was never found) men, Yamakage Kufuku and Matsudo Linsoki, lasted six years, surrendering in 1951[12] (another source gives the date of surrender as January 6, 1949).[13]
The U.S. military occupied Iwo Jima until 1968, when it was returned to Japan.
It has been reported that many of the Japanese remains in Iwo Jima are missing their skulls.[14] It is possible that the souvenir collection of body remains continued also in the immediate post-war period.[14] (See American mutilation of Japanese war dead)
[edit] Reunion of honor
On February 19, 1985, the 40th anniversary of the day that U.S. forces began the assault on the island, veterans from both forces gathered for the Reunion of Honor just a few meters away from the spot where U.S. Marines had landed on the island.[15] During the memorial service a granite plaque was unveiled with the message:
On the 40th anniversary of the battle of Iwo Jima, American and Japanese veterans met again on these same sands, this time in peace and friendship. We commemorate our comrades, living and dead, who fought here with bravery and honor, and we pray together that our sacrifices on Iwo Jima will always be remembered and never be repeated.
It is inscribed on both sides of the plaque, with the English translation facing the beaches where U.S. forces landed and the Japanese translation facing inland, where Japanese troops defended their position.
After that, the Japan-U.S. combination memorial service of the 50th anniversary was held in front of this monument in March 1995. The 55th anniversary was held in 2000, followed by a 60th reunion in March 2005
Battle of Iwo Jima - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
America lost twice as many people then 911 during only one battle with the Empire of Japan.
Can anyone explain why we allow the memorials to the Japanese?
The Mosque in question is not being built at ground zero. It is three city blocks away.
It wasn't the nation of Islam who piloted those aircraft. It was a terrorist unit from Saudi Arabia.
Their religion happens to be Islam.
Saudi Arabia is America's friend, right? Where did Billy Bob get the gasoline to fuel up his Ford 350? But he hates them A-rabs.
I think some people are way out of touch and lack the intelligence to know the difference.
Casualties and losses
USA
6,822 dead[2]
19,217 wounded[1]
USS Bismarck Sea (CVE-95), sunk 21 February 1945, 318 crewmen lost
Japan
17,845–18,375 dead[1]
216 captured[1]
The Battle of Iwo Jima
Main article: Battle of Iwo Jima
The invasion of Iwo Jima began on February 19, 1945, and continued to March 26, 1945. The battle was a major initiative of the Pacific Campaign of World War II. The Marine invasion, known as Operation Detachment, was charged with the mission of capturing the airfields on the island which up until that time had harried U.S. bombing missions to Tokyo. Once the bases were secured, they could then be of use in the impending invasion of the Japanese mainland.
US postage stamp, 1945 issue, commemorating Battle of Iwo Jima.The battle was marked by some of the fiercest fighting of the War. The Imperial Japanese Army positions on the island were heavily fortified, with vast bunkers, hidden artillery, and 18 kilometers (11 mi) of tunnels.[7][8] The battle was the first U.S. attack on the Japanese Home Islands and the Imperial soldiers defended their positions tenaciously. Of the 21,000 Japanese soldiers present at the beginning of the battle, over 20,000 were killed and only 1,083 taken prisoner.[9]
One of the first objectives after landing on the beachhead was the taking of Mount Suribachi. At the second raising of a flag on the peak, Joe Rosenthal photographed five Marines: Ira Hayes, Mike Strank, Rene Gagnon, Harlon Block, Franklin Sousley, and U.S. Navy corpsman John Bradley raising the U.S. flag on the fourth day of the battle (February 23). The photograph was extremely popular, being reprinted in thousands of publications. It won the Pulitzer Prize for Photography that same year, and ultimately came to be regarded as one of the most significant and recognizable images of the war, and possibly the most reproduced photograph of all time.[10]
Within the next month of fighting, three of the six soldiers raising the flag were killed: Strank, Block and Sousley.
After the fall of Mt. Suribachi in the south, the Japanese still held a strong position throughout the island. General Tadamichi Kuribayashi still had the equivalent of eight infantry battalions, a tank regiment, two artillery and three heavy mortar battalions, plus the 5,000 gunners and naval infantry. With the landing area secure, more troops and heavy equipment came ashore and the invasion proceeded north to capture the airfields and the remainder of the island. Most Japanese soldiers fought to the death. On the night of March 25, a 300-man Japanese force launched a final counterattack. The Marines suffered heavy casualties; more than 100 were killed and another 200 Americans were wounded. The island was officially declared "secured" the following day. The number of American casualties was greater than the total Allied casualties at Battle of Normandy on D-Day.
Even after Iwo Jima was about to be declared secured, about three thousand Japanese soldiers were left alive in the island's warren of caves and tunnels. Those who could not bring themselves to commit suicide hid in the caves during the day and came out at night to prowl for provisions. Some did eventually surrender and were surprised that the Americans often received them with compassion - offering them water, cigarettes, or coffee.[11] The last of these stragglers, two of Lieutenant Toshihiko Ohno's (whose body was never found) men, Yamakage Kufuku and Matsudo Linsoki, lasted six years, surrendering in 1951[12] (another source gives the date of surrender as January 6, 1949).[13]
The U.S. military occupied Iwo Jima until 1968, when it was returned to Japan.
It has been reported that many of the Japanese remains in Iwo Jima are missing their skulls.[14] It is possible that the souvenir collection of body remains continued also in the immediate post-war period.[14] (See American mutilation of Japanese war dead)
[edit] Reunion of honor
On February 19, 1985, the 40th anniversary of the day that U.S. forces began the assault on the island, veterans from both forces gathered for the Reunion of Honor just a few meters away from the spot where U.S. Marines had landed on the island.[15] During the memorial service a granite plaque was unveiled with the message:
On the 40th anniversary of the battle of Iwo Jima, American and Japanese veterans met again on these same sands, this time in peace and friendship. We commemorate our comrades, living and dead, who fought here with bravery and honor, and we pray together that our sacrifices on Iwo Jima will always be remembered and never be repeated.
It is inscribed on both sides of the plaque, with the English translation facing the beaches where U.S. forces landed and the Japanese translation facing inland, where Japanese troops defended their position.
After that, the Japan-U.S. combination memorial service of the 50th anniversary was held in front of this monument in March 1995. The 55th anniversary was held in 2000, followed by a 60th reunion in March 2005
Battle of Iwo Jima - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
wooddoctor
New member
Cocked and locked why you are so insistent that the Muslim religion is such a peaceful one. The radical ones will strap on bombs the smarter ones are infiltrating through political correctness. Would you rather see this nation rule by Muslims or Christians?
"This Mosque has less to do with 9/11 than the religious intolerance and hatred that spawned it and stands in the minds of American bigots everywhere today." WTF You cant honestly beleive that.
"This Mosque has less to do with 9/11 than the religious intolerance and hatred that spawned it and stands in the minds of American bigots everywhere today." WTF You cant honestly beleive that.
Cocked _and_Locked
Banned
I don't view muslim any different than buddhist, christian, jew, agnostic, atheist, or anyone else, for that matter. I'm just defending their right to equal treatment in the face of unjust attacks by uninformed bigots.
Peaceful? Some of their radical elements are definitely quite violent. Your inference that I am saying they are "peaceful" as a blanket assumption is just that: your assumption. I cannot even see where you get that from anything I've posted.
Oregon Vet
NRA Life Since 03/1985
Muslims and terrorism
I've been reading this thread a little bit, and I'm curious. I'll put some words down here in a list. Maybe I have been missing something. Would several or all of you, after these words I have listed, please list the number of suicide bombers or terrorist bombings of theaters, restaurants etc that the members of each word have done. Let's just see how they compare.
Christian religions with the two main groups consisting of:
Catholics:
Protestants:
Judaism:
Buddhist:
Hinduism:
Muslim/Islam:
If the suicide bombers, random terrorist bombers, kidnappers appear to come from one group of people, then there is something inherently wrong with that group of people and their religion.
Top 10 Groups by Fatalities
Those in blue are religious terrorists.
Terrorist Group # of Fatalities
1. Al-Qaeda (International) 3460
2. Al-Qaeda Organization in the Land of the Two Rivers (Iraq) 1647
3. Hezbollah (Lebanon) 838
4. Taliban (Afghanistan) 617
5. Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) 598
6. Hamas (West Bank/Gaza/Israel) 597
7. Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) (Sri Lanka) 576
8. Riyad us-Saliheyn Martyrs' Brigade(Chechnya/Russia) 514 9
9. Armed Islamic Group (Algeria) 506
10. Ansar al-Sunnah Army (Iraq) 500
Most do seem to come from the Muslims and the Islamic religion.
Catholics and Protestant terrorists seem to restrict themselves to the Provos/IRA/PIRA in the UK and Northern Ireland against the British. In the past thirty years the IRA has lost 275-300 out of their total of about 10,000 members. They are responsible for about 1,800 deaths.
But, getting back to the Muslims:
Denmark is having its problems with Muslims too, a clip from an article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/12/opinion/12iht-edoped.html?_r=1
Personal opinion: The USA needs to make a level playing ground concerning terrorists. Our military people need to play by the terrorists rules. Exterminate them like the animals they are.
Guess what. It isn't ever going to happen because the wrong people are making the decisions.
It is like, for example, a wild animal going on a rampage and killing men, women, and children. For instance a cougar/mountain lion/puma.
There WILL be those who, no matter how many have been killed, will be crying for the cougar/mountain lion/puma and that we NEED to trap him/her and release him/her back into the wilds because the animal didn't know what it was doing.
No, first one on the scene with a gun: KILL IT, before it kills more innocent people.
It is like terrorists. Kill them, no trials, no waste of time, just kill them. It won't happen. Too many people like those above. Crying that "WE" drove them to become terrorists.
I don't care what religion you are, there is NO way I can accept the fact that someone with 20 pounds (or more) of TNT strapped to their body walking into a really busy restaurant and blowing themselves and dozens of others up being a good thing to do.
My opinion of course.
Ken
081710 1700
I never proof read this, so it probably contains grammar/spelling mistakes.
I've been reading this thread a little bit, and I'm curious. I'll put some words down here in a list. Maybe I have been missing something. Would several or all of you, after these words I have listed, please list the number of suicide bombers or terrorist bombings of theaters, restaurants etc that the members of each word have done. Let's just see how they compare.
Christian religions with the two main groups consisting of:
Catholics:
Protestants:
Judaism:
Buddhist:
Hinduism:
Muslim/Islam:
If the suicide bombers, random terrorist bombers, kidnappers appear to come from one group of people, then there is something inherently wrong with that group of people and their religion.
Top 10 Groups by Fatalities
Those in blue are religious terrorists.
Terrorist Group # of Fatalities
1. Al-Qaeda (International) 3460
2. Al-Qaeda Organization in the Land of the Two Rivers (Iraq) 1647
3. Hezbollah (Lebanon) 838
4. Taliban (Afghanistan) 617
5. Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) 598
6. Hamas (West Bank/Gaza/Israel) 597
7. Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) (Sri Lanka) 576
8. Riyad us-Saliheyn Martyrs' Brigade(Chechnya/Russia) 514 9
9. Armed Islamic Group (Algeria) 506
10. Ansar al-Sunnah Army (Iraq) 500
Most do seem to come from the Muslims and the Islamic religion.
Catholics and Protestant terrorists seem to restrict themselves to the Provos/IRA/PIRA in the UK and Northern Ireland against the British. In the past thirty years the IRA has lost 275-300 out of their total of about 10,000 members. They are responsible for about 1,800 deaths.
But, getting back to the Muslims:
Denmark is having its problems with Muslims too, a clip from an article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/12/opinion/12iht-edoped.html?_r=1
What Denmark can teach America about dealing with Muslims --- and what we ignore at our own risk
Muslims NEED to police the ANIMALS within their ranks. They talk, talk, talk about don't compare all Muslims with the Muslims who are terrorists. Then THEY, the rest of the Muslims, NEED to get the mentally sick (the Muslim terrorists) under control. Killing them all if that is what is needed. Killing just them. NOT innocent men, women, and children, and then screaming they are 'freedom' fighters.
Personal opinion: The USA needs to make a level playing ground concerning terrorists. Our military people need to play by the terrorists rules. Exterminate them like the animals they are.
Guess what. It isn't ever going to happen because the wrong people are making the decisions.
It is like, for example, a wild animal going on a rampage and killing men, women, and children. For instance a cougar/mountain lion/puma.
There WILL be those who, no matter how many have been killed, will be crying for the cougar/mountain lion/puma and that we NEED to trap him/her and release him/her back into the wilds because the animal didn't know what it was doing.
No, first one on the scene with a gun: KILL IT, before it kills more innocent people.
It is like terrorists. Kill them, no trials, no waste of time, just kill them. It won't happen. Too many people like those above. Crying that "WE" drove them to become terrorists.
I don't care what religion you are, there is NO way I can accept the fact that someone with 20 pounds (or more) of TNT strapped to their body walking into a really busy restaurant and blowing themselves and dozens of others up being a good thing to do.
My opinion of course.
Ken
081710 1700
I never proof read this, so it probably contains grammar/spelling mistakes.
6shootercarry
New member
America lost twice as many people then 911 during only one battle with the Empire of Japan.
Can anyone explain why we allow the memorials to the Japanese?
The Mosque in question is not being built at ground zero. It is three city blocks away.
It wasn't the nation of Islam who piloted those aircraft. It was a terrorist unit from Saudi Arabia.
Their religion happens to be Islam.
Saudi Arabia is America's friend, right? Where did Billy Bob get the gasoline to fuel up his Ford 350? But he hates them A-rabs.
I think some people are way out of touch and lack the intelligence to know the difference.
Casualties and losses
USA
6,822 dead[2]
19,217 wounded[1]
USS Bismarck Sea (CVE-95), sunk 21 February 1945, 318 crewmen lost
Japan
17,845–18,375 dead[1]
216 captured[1]
The Battle of Iwo Jima
Main article: Battle of Iwo Jima
The invasion of Iwo Jima began on February 19, 1945, and continued to March 26, 1945. The battle was a major initiative of the Pacific Campaign of World War II. The Marine invasion, known as Operation Detachment, was charged with the mission of capturing the airfields on the island which up until that time had harried U.S. bombing missions to Tokyo. Once the bases were secured, they could then be of use in the impending invasion of the Japanese mainland.
US postage stamp, 1945 issue, commemorating Battle of Iwo Jima.The battle was marked by some of the fiercest fighting of the War. The Imperial Japanese Army positions on the island were heavily fortified, with vast bunkers, hidden artillery, and 18 kilometers (11 mi) of tunnels.[7][8] The battle was the first U.S. attack on the Japanese Home Islands and the Imperial soldiers defended their positions tenaciously. Of the 21,000 Japanese soldiers present at the beginning of the battle, over 20,000 were killed and only 1,083 taken prisoner.[9]
One of the first objectives after landing on the beachhead was the taking of Mount Suribachi. At the second raising of a flag on the peak, Joe Rosenthal photographed five Marines: Ira Hayes, Mike Strank, Rene Gagnon, Harlon Block, Franklin Sousley, and U.S. Navy corpsman John Bradley raising the U.S. flag on the fourth day of the battle (February 23). The photograph was extremely popular, being reprinted in thousands of publications. It won the Pulitzer Prize for Photography that same year, and ultimately came to be regarded as one of the most significant and recognizable images of the war, and possibly the most reproduced photograph of all time.[10]
Within the next month of fighting, three of the six soldiers raising the flag were killed: Strank, Block and Sousley.
After the fall of Mt. Suribachi in the south, the Japanese still held a strong position throughout the island. General Tadamichi Kuribayashi still had the equivalent of eight infantry battalions, a tank regiment, two artillery and three heavy mortar battalions, plus the 5,000 gunners and naval infantry. With the landing area secure, more troops and heavy equipment came ashore and the invasion proceeded north to capture the airfields and the remainder of the island. Most Japanese soldiers fought to the death. On the night of March 25, a 300-man Japanese force launched a final counterattack. The Marines suffered heavy casualties; more than 100 were killed and another 200 Americans were wounded. The island was officially declared "secured" the following day. The number of American casualties was greater than the total Allied casualties at Battle of Normandy on D-Day.
Even after Iwo Jima was about to be declared secured, about three thousand Japanese soldiers were left alive in the island's warren of caves and tunnels. Those who could not bring themselves to commit suicide hid in the caves during the day and came out at night to prowl for provisions. Some did eventually surrender and were surprised that the Americans often received them with compassion - offering them water, cigarettes, or coffee.[11] The last of these stragglers, two of Lieutenant Toshihiko Ohno's (whose body was never found) men, Yamakage Kufuku and Matsudo Linsoki, lasted six years, surrendering in 1951[12] (another source gives the date of surrender as January 6, 1949).[13]
The U.S. military occupied Iwo Jima until 1968, when it was returned to Japan.
It has been reported that many of the Japanese remains in Iwo Jima are missing their skulls.[14] It is possible that the souvenir collection of body remains continued also in the immediate post-war period.[14] (See American mutilation of Japanese war dead)
[edit] Reunion of honor
On February 19, 1985, the 40th anniversary of the day that U.S. forces began the assault on the island, veterans from both forces gathered for the Reunion of Honor just a few meters away from the spot where U.S. Marines had landed on the island.[15] During the memorial service a granite plaque was unveiled with the message:
On the 40th anniversary of the battle of Iwo Jima, American and Japanese veterans met again on these same sands, this time in peace and friendship. We commemorate our comrades, living and dead, who fought here with bravery and honor, and we pray together that our sacrifices on Iwo Jima will always be remembered and never be repeated.
It is inscribed on both sides of the plaque, with the English translation facing the beaches where U.S. forces landed and the Japanese translation facing inland, where Japanese troops defended their position.
After that, the Japan-U.S. combination memorial service of the 50th anniversary was held in front of this monument in March 1995. The 55th anniversary was held in 2000, followed by a 60th reunion in March 2005
Battle of Iwo Jima - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Healing? This entire issue has done nothing but enrage US citizens!! No peace will be had after what was done that September morning. It's far to fresh in the minds of Americans. Perhaps in another 50 or 60 years we can revisit this bullshit request and see if the pain and hurt has subsided. I say lets wait and see...:biggrin:
In the interim we can look at and perhaps focus on, more pressing issues such as the economy or perhaps the enforcing of our immigration laws rather than ignoring them.
The reason we have an agreement with Japan, $$$... Yea good old dollars baby... They are a country that we do business with. Lots of cars and electronics... They like the money... So do we... Islam is a religion and we have nothing to profit or gain from them.
So I say embrace the nation of Islam and be peaceful if that's what makes you happy. Allow the rest of us to snub our noses and say "HELL NO, not there!!" If we feel like we want to, and most of us do. Read the polls and think about why...
Put it to a vote, not here but where it counts...Allow the citizens of the USA to decide. It's our country and we should have final say as to what flies here and what is unacceptable. Getting sick of being told what's good for us by whining socialist liberals... Sellouts....
The public voting will never happen because the liberal side of the USA got their small victory and elected a Muslim as their leader... He has doomed himself... His approval rating is at an all time low. Besides who gives a rats ass what the president has to say. He has not been listening to the citizens of the US so now it's time for the citizens to stop listening to him... Hey it's easy, just call us racists. Yea that's the ticket.. How about opinionated. I prefer that label...It's closer to the truth...
This topic has had the sh!t kicked out of it here on this site. And guess what? You and your cohort are about the only 2 still thinking it's a good idea.
The pain must be agonizing for you to submit to this punishment day in and day out. Either that or you ran short of cash to pay the dominatrix...
Anyway... I've written it many times many ways, Merry Ch... Whoops that's not it... No mosque at or within 10 city blocks of ground 0 in NY...
Peace...
Bohemian
New member
The Original World Trade Center 7 Build Complex Covered 8 City Blocks...
I do not think there should be any new Mosque's allowed to be built any where in Manhattan...
Building a Mosque anywhere near ground zero is raising a Victory Flag for Al Qaeda and Islamofascists world wide...
Link Removed
Link Removed
Link Removed
Link Removed
Cocked _and_Locked
Banned
Why does everyone keep referring to it as a mosque, when the mosque is just one small part of a larger community center that will benefit the entire community, not just muslims?
Answer: Because it makes a nice political football in election year. Great fodder for people like the gypsy to throw around here and elsewhere. From the New Yorker, 16 AUG 2010:
The gypsy's message has nothing to do with muslims, a mosque in NY or anything remotely connected to terrorism. It's about your vote and your mind. Go for it. Be gullible. Why not - it's your country, or so you thought. :to_pick_ones_nose:
Answer: Because it makes a nice political football in election year. Great fodder for people like the gypsy to throw around here and elsewhere. From the New Yorker, 16 AUG 2010:
Where the “Ground Zero mosque” is concerned, opposition is roughly proportional to distance, even in New York. According to a recent poll, Manhattanites are mostly for it, Staten Islanders mostly against. Community Board No. 1 endorsed it, twenty-nine to one. That’s the council that represents a corner of Manhattan that includes both Park51 and the 9/11 site—and us, too, in the not too distant future. The New Yorker is set to move from 4 Times Square to 1 World Trade Center, once it gets built. Opinion here is divided, depending on whether one’s subway ride will be longer or shorter. No one has a problem with Park51.
Read more Park51, the proposed mosque near Ground Zero : The New Yorker
Read more Park51, the proposed mosque near Ground Zero : The New Yorker
The gypsy's message has nothing to do with muslims, a mosque in NY or anything remotely connected to terrorism. It's about your vote and your mind. Go for it. Be gullible. Why not - it's your country, or so you thought. :to_pick_ones_nose:
New Threads
-
Hunter Constantine or Phlster Enigma, for running?
- Started by sigsag1
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
Members online
No members online now.