Posts by Noah Harris33

The headline might seem a bit clickbaity, but it’s actually quite fitting for the situation I’m reporting here. I was having a perfectly normal cultural exchange with a fellow forum member—there wasn't even a disagreement, let alone any inappropriate language—and my post was immediately censored and deleted. After I reposted it with a brief little intro, I was hit with a one-day ban without a single word of explanation. To top it all off, the second attempt was also wiped out after two days (I guess that's their way of making the censorship less obvious?).

Below is the full text of the reposted message (including the intro). It should be obvious to anyone with half a brain that there isn't a single thing here that violates the forum rules, yet it’s clearly being flagged due to the moderation team's political biases. These biases have been common knowledge for a long time, but I’m starting to notice that censorship is on the rise. This forum is slowly but surely turning into a strictly controlled media outlet.
In the post below, there isn't a single claim that I wouldn't be able to argue convincingly—something I’ve already demonstrated in my previous posts, for that matter. As for everything else, what aren't outright claims are merely opinions, which don't violate any forum rules, nor is there anything "controversial" about them (unless, perhaps, you find an accurate historical quote from Moshe Dayan to be problematic).
For a bit of contrast, you might want to take a look at... Example. I’m posting this on the same page and regarding the same topic, where people are openly advocating for ethnic cleansing and land grabs. Honestly, some of the posts here are even worse—we're seeing blatant racism popping up in the threads. I’m not actually suggesting we delete these comments; if anything, they serve as the perfect illustration of how deep the rot of racist ideology runs within certain progressive circles. My point is simply to highlight the massive gap between the moderators' claims of being unbiased and the reality of what's actually happening on this board.

Preamble: This is a repost of a message that was spontaneously deleted. Since there wasn't any violation of the forum rules in the original post, I’m convinced this was just an unintentional error that won't happen again—so, no hard feelings. We're on a public forum, after all, and anyone is free to reply if they want to.

Quote:

tutamuta kaže: I honestly think they should be granted those citizenships. In my opinion, Benjamin Netanyahu was just talking out of his ass when he made that comment—likely because certain people are hitting the panic button over the idea of a few tens of thousands of new Arab citizens settling in Israel. It’s one of those classic catch-22 scenarios where you’re forced to act, yet acting is exactly what you aren't supposed to do. The apartheid system is already baked into the very fabric of Israeli law, effectively relegating Arab citizens to second-class status by default. But annexing territory without granting citizenship to the people living there? That takes things to a whole new level, and it creates a massive headache for the US-Israel propaganda machine. This might be where that "solution" Norman Finkelstein mentioned in the interview I linked earlier comes into play. Netanyahu talks big about seizing 30% of the land and granting citizenship to Arabs, but the reality might be much more calculated. He could end up annexing just 10%, leaving all those Arabs outside the new borders—geographically even more isolated and economically desperate (or, as you put it, an annexation right up to the doorstep). Then, he can spin the whole thing as a "painful compromise" he made to secure peace. Once the inevitable Palestinian backlash hits, they’ll just use that reaction as an excuse to shift the borders even further with a bulldozer, establishing a new status quo under the guise of the "deal of the century." Who knows? Maybe Netanyahu will even snag a Nobel Peace Prize and get a pat on the head from the Orange Peacock for being so useful. After all that, he can finally retreat into his corner of history's trash heap. I’m on the same page as you regarding the impossibility of a two-state solution under current circumstances, but I also believe a tiny, fragmented Palestinian state is a non-starter. Both options run directly into the wall of Zionist imperatives—essentially, there is no viable way forward until the fundamental reality of the situation shifts radically, for better or worse. The ideal Zionist approach is perfectly encapsulated in that old quote from Moshe Dayan: ""Let's say [the Palestinians] - we have no solution, and you will continue to live like dogs, and whoever wants will go, and we will see what this process will yield... In five years 200,000 [Palestinians] may leave and that would be a great thing."" That was the Israeli policy then, and it remains their vision for a "solution" today.

northernsailor8 said:I'm ignoring you. 🤦

🤣
Lying and censoring my posts isn't the same thing as ignoring them. If you had just ignored me, I wouldn't be angry at all—honestly, I wouldn't care. Can we agree on that moving forward? 😁

Supermoderators? Is "ignoring" arguments regarding censorship and the abuse of moderator powers considered acceptable behavior on this forum?

Is there any hope I can get a supermoderator to step in regarding this blatant censorship by moderator northernsailor8?

The last three posts on this thread show nothing but blatant bad faith and a total lack of actual arguments from northernsailor8. It’s also pretty telling how everyone went silent after that last post—it was a masterclass in hypocrisy. He’s out here making these wild accusations, claiming I’m "downplaying or inventing crimes," when his own post history is a roadmap of him doing exactly that, including outright defending the very atrocities he's accusing me of misrepresenting.

In the meantime, northernsailor8 wrote the exact same thing. novi post He deleted my post—which, for the record, followed every single rule and was a perfectly legitimate contribution based on my previous posts—just because I called out his blatant lie. He claimed, "Since the Japanese showed no willingness to surrender," a statement that is objectively false and directly contradicted by the very post he just nuked. By pushing this falsehood, northernsailor8 is intentionally engaging in what can only be described as the "relativization of war crimes." In my book, that kind of behavior doesn't just merit a warning; it deserves a full ban.

Here are a few historical quotes from my previous post—the one that northernsailor8 censored just so he could keep peddling his ahistorical nonsense and justify a disgusting crime:

Dwight Eisenhower Then there's Supreme Commander of All Allied Forces , and The officer Who created most of America ’ sa WWII military plans for Europe and Japan : The Japanese
The Japanese were already defeated and Ready to surrender because of The effective Sea blockade and The successful bombing with conventional weapons; dropping that horrific weapon was simply unnecessary.
I truly believed that, at that exact point in time, the Japanese were actively searching for a way to surrender while managing to save as much face as possible.

admiral William Leahy Chairman of The Joint Chiefs of Staff , and Who was AT The center of All major American military decisions in World War ii – wrote : IT is my opinion that The Use of this barbarous weapon AT Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in Our War against Japan
Chairman of The Joint Chiefs of Staff , and Who was AT The center of All major American military decisions in World War ii – wrote : IT is my opinion that The Use of this barbarous weapon AT Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in Our War against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and Ready to surrender because of The effective Sea blockade and The successful bombing with conventional weapons.

Douglas MacArthur
He responded that, from his perspective, there wasn't a single shred of military justification for dropping the bomb.

Under Secretary of The Navy Ralph bird : i think that The Japanese were Ready for peace , and They already Had approached The Russians and , i think , The Swiss:
Under Secretary of The Navy Ralph bird : i think that The Japanese were Ready for peace , and They already Had approached The Russians and , i think , The Swiss. Personally, I feel like the war with Japan was effectively over long before those atomic bombs were even dropped.

general Curtis LeMayShortly before the atomic bombs were dropped on Japan, an Army Air Force “hawk” went on the record stating:
The conflict would have wrapped up within two weeks. Honestly, the atomic bomb didn't play any role whatsoever in bringing the war to an end.

The Vice Chairman of The U. S. Bombing survey Paul Nitze:
My conclusion remains the same: even if we hadn't used the atomic bomb, Japan was likely to surrender in a matter of Months. From my perspective, Japan would capitulate by November 1945.

general Carter Clarke The military intelligence officer in charge of preparing summaries of intercepted Japanese cables for President Truman and his advisors:
We didn't need to pull the trigger, and deep down, we all knew it. To make matters worse, they were fully aware that we knew there was no actual necessity for it. We essentially treated them as test subjects for those two atomic bombs.

I really hope people don't walk away from this thinking that the forum moderation generally condones such shameless behavior, or worse, that they’re quietly enabling future censorship and a single moderator's personal vendetta.

northernsailor8 said:Next time you decide to start downplaying facts or making up war crimes, you’re going to get a ban, not just a warning. On this politics board, we don't allow people to throw around random, baseless estimates of casualties without any actual arguments to back them up.

Besides, there's a dedicated thread for official card appeals. This isn't the place for that.

First off, I’m filing a complaint regarding... Moderator abuse and censorship.No, I’m not talking about the "cardboard" argument—though, let's be honest, that whole idea is completely baseless anyway. This is why this is exactly the right thread for the discussion. If I had just been complaining about the cardboard (which, to be clear, I never did), I would have stuck to the existing topic.

Furthermore, I have to admit, I wasn't exactly surprised to see something this shameless. You’re actually one of the members here who relies most heavily on relativizing atrocities—specifically American ones—throughout your entire body of work on this forum. Honestly, I don't know how anyone with a conscience can stomach the way you downplay the millions of victims caused by American sanctions and those two aggressions against Iraq (just look at these posts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6And an even higher death toll from the American aggression in Vietnam and the rest of Indochina (take a look at the replies to northernsailor8's posts): 1, 2(and others on the same thread). That’s just a tiny sample of your usual, shameless, and unwavering defense of atrocities (there’s plenty more where that came from, if you want me to send them over), but it’s more than enough to show that you've completely tripped over your own feet. By your own logic and the very criteria you just laid out, you should be banning yourself—or at the very least, stepping down from the moderation team.

Look, unlike your massive essay, there isn't a single instance in my deleted post where I downplay any crimes or invent imaginary atrocities just to give you something to laughably accuse me of. My entire response was actually addressing the core issue—the justification of those atomic bombings—using solid arguments that you haven't even attempted to refute. Instead, you've just resorted to these tasteless threats. I wasn't "playing games" with casualty counts either, aside from the point that the US government has committed crimes throughout history on a scale that was, quite frankly, several times larger than anything done by the Japanese. I didn't dive into that specific claim in my original post because it would have been a total distraction from the main topic, but the fact remains: it’s an uncontroversial truth that is incredibly easy to prove. If that doesn't make sense to you, feel free to ask or try to dispute it, and I'll be happy to explain it to you—just like everyone else has had to do for you so many times before.

You've made your case, and now it's up to the supermoderator to weigh the validity of your accusations against my appeal.

Moderator northernsailor8 has taken (my) post, which I am quoting in its entirety below, and characterized it as trolling. Not only did he issue a ban, but—what is even worse—he deleted it. This means other users on the forum can't even see the reasoning behind the ban or the post itself. It feels like a move to dodge a debate on a topic where the moderator holds an opposing view that he perhaps cannot rationally defend. Despite being wiped, my post sticks strictly to the thread's subject (USA - Part II); it doesn't deal in unverified hearsay or inaccurate speculation, but relies on concrete historical facts supported by verifiable quotes and modern realities. If the moderator disagreed or found inaccuracies, he should have addressed them directly. Furthermore, my post isn't insulting and avoids any ad hominem attacks; it simply responds to another post that, unlike my banned one, actually fits the definition of trolling. In short, there is absolutely nothing in my post that would be considered problematic or inappropriate for the members and readers of this forum.

Banning and then deleting posts is a recurring pattern for moderator northernsailor8. Most other moderators wouldn't resort to this because it looks like ideological censorship and extreme bias—essentially an abuse of moderator authority. The OP of this thread summed up the situation perfectly recently:

I am requesting that the supermoderator review the post below. If you disagree with northernsailor8, please restore the deleted post to the thread. Additionally, if you don't agree with the "trolling" label, please lift the ban as well—though that is secondary. Once that is done, I am more than willing to engage in a discussion regarding the specific claims and facts from the deleted post, whether with northernsailor8 himself or other forum members.

I appeal to you all: let’s not follow global trends toward suppression. Let's keep this forum free from censorship.

Quote: cave troll said:Any sane person would have surrendered once Okinawa fell and all the allies had already capitulated.
On the contrary, the Japanese political and military leadership felt personally responsible for the millions dead in China, Indochina, and the Philippines, along with countless other horrific massacres. They had killed hundreds of thousands of people with machetes and bayonets like total savages from the Middle Ages.
They would have fought house to house if they hadn't been made aware that all of Japan was about to be turned to ash.

The highest-ranking officials in the American military and civil government during the era of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings testify unequivocally that Japan's surrender was guaranteed without nuclear weapons. Instead, the bombs were dropped as a (inhumane) experiment and a demonstration of power (primarily aimed at the USSR, but also the rest of the world). Why was it "necessary" to drop two bombs instead of one, and why target major cities without vital military objectives? Because they needed to test both uranium and plutonium bombs, and naturally, they chose to do so on as many ">" as possible.
You can find quotes from the most relevant figures on this subject right here (for instance, American generals like Dwight Eisenhower and Douglas MacArthur, among many others at the very top of the hierarchy):

Based on those quotes, it’s obvious that any serious, objective court would have labeled the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as massive war crimes, demanding the harshest possible penalties for Truman and everyone else held responsible.

It is an established fact that the Japanese committed a full spectrum of war crimes, mostly against nations they paid little to nothing in reparations. At the same time, there is no doubt that Americans have committed nearly all those same atrocities—along with a whole host of additional ones—on a scale several times larger (and we’re still doing it today). So, labels like "last barbarians from the Middle Ages" are really just a reflection of our own primitive culture (if you consider "Western" to be the standard), which sits at the very core of Western historical crimes that likely have no parallel in history.

What’s interesting is how the exact same people who claim the Japanese were barbarians needing to be "disciplined" by nukes now argue about modern relations in that part of the world. They point to Japan’s right and necessity to rearm to defend itself against the "threat from China"—essentially treating China as the new "Middle Age barbarian." In doing so, they conveniently overlook that Japan is currently led by Shinzo Abe’s revisionist government (who is the grandson of a top-tier WWII war criminal and his ideological successor). Against the will of the vast majority of Japanese citizens, this administration is working to flip their pacifist constitution into a pro-war one, all with the direct support and encouragement of the US government. This is all happening under the umbrella of the American "pivot to Asia," where the openly declared goal (which is certainly not "barbaric" or "medieval") is to encircle China due to this supposed "Chinese threat." In reality, it is a direct military and economic (via the TPP) threat aimed squarely at China.