Actually if you read up I think they got the Uranium for this bomb from a German U-Boat that docked in Newport News,Va
Propaganda dittys going around when i was a kid ---
"You'll wonder where the yellow went- when an H-Bomb hits the Orient."
Hows that one Joe? Joe would rather Nuke than Fuck. What does that say about him?
I insist the Japs tried to surrender but the moneymen wanted to "Made in America- tested in Japan" them to start the Arms Race between the US and USSR and when expanded to include India/Pakistanand other Bomb buyers like England France and Israel netted them Trillions ever since. The revisionist history you guys are reading is a lie.
"You'll wonder where the yellow went- when an H-Bomb hits the Orient."
Hows that one Joe? Joe would rather Nuke than Fuck. What does that say about him?
I insist the Japs tried to surrender but the moneymen wanted to "Made in America- tested in Japan" them to start the Arms Race between the US and USSR and when expanded to include India/Pakistanand other Bomb buyers like England France and Israel netted them Trillions ever since. The revisionist history you guys are reading is a lie.
hno:
This always brings joy to my heart cause those bastards procure first blood. We took the correct action but what pisses me off is that we failed to take their stuff! Fuck them!
The inhumanity of some of these posts disgust me. Wether you believe it was the right thing to do or not how can you experience such joy over something so tragic?
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=433 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=jpTitle1>An intersting article on Hiroshima:</TD></TR><TR><TD class=jpTitleGap></TD></TR><TR><TD class=jpDivider></TD></TR><TR><TD class=jpTitleGapBottom></TD></TR><TR><TD class=jpTitle2>6 Aug 2008</TD></TR><TR><TD class=jpTitleGapBottom></TD></TR><TR><TD class=jpBody>In an article for the Guardian on the anniversary of the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, John Pilger describes the 'progression of lies' from the dust of that detonated city, to the wars of today - and the threatened attack on Iran.
When I first went to Hiroshima in 1967, the shadow on the steps was still there. It was an almost perfect impression of a human being at ease: legs splayed, back bent, one hand by her side as she sat waiting for a bank to open. At a quarter past eight on the morning of August 6, 1945, she and her silhouette were burned into the granite. I stared at the shadow for an hour or more, then walked down to the river and met a man called Yukio, whose chest was still etched with the pattern of the shirt he was wearing when the atomic bomb was dropped.
He and his family still lived in a shack thrown up in the dust of an atomic desert. He described a huge flash over the city, "a bluish light, something like an electrical short", after which wind blew like a tornado and black rain fell. "I was thrown on the ground and noticed only the stalks of my flowers were left. Everything was still and quiet, and when I got up, there were people naked, not saying anything. Some of them had no skin or hair. I was certain I was dead." Nine years later, when I returned to look for him, he was dead from leukaemia.
In the immediate aftermath of the bomb, the allied occupation authorities banned all mention of radiation poisoning and insisted that people had been killed or injured only by the bomb's blast. It was the first big lie. "No radioactivity in Hiroshima ruin" said the front page of the New York Times, a classic of disinformation and journalistic abdication, which the Australian reporter Wilfred Burchett put right with his scoop of the century. "I write this as a warning to the world," reported Burchett in the Daily Express, having reached Hiroshima after a perilous journey, the first correspondent to dare. He described hospital wards filled with people with no visible injuries but who were dying from what he called "an atomic plague". For telling this truth, his press accreditation was withdrawn, he was pilloried and smeared - and vindicated.
The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a criminal act on an epic scale. It was premeditated mass murder that unleashed a weapon of intrinsic criminality. For this reason its apologists have sought refuge in the mythology of the ultimate "good war", whose "ethical bath", as Richard Drayton called it, has allowed the west not only to expiate its bloody imperial past but to promote 60 years of rapacious war, always beneath the shadow of The Bomb.
The most enduring lie is that the atomic bomb was dropped to end the war in the Pacific and save lives. "Even without the atomic bombing attacks," concluded the United States Strategic Bombing Survey of 1946, "air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion. Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that ... Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
The National Archives in Washington contain US government documents that chart Japanese peace overtures as early as 1943. None was pursued. A cable sent on May 5, 1945 by the German ambassador in Tokyo and intercepted by the US dispels any doubt that the Japanese were desperate to sue for peace, including "capitulation even if the terms were hard". Instead, the US secretary of war, Henry Stimson, told President Truman he was "fearful" that the US air force would have Japan so "bombed out" that the new weapon would not be able "to show its strength". He later admitted that "no effort was made, and none was seriously considered, to achieve surrender merely in order not to have to use the bomb". His foreign policy colleagues were eager "to browbeat the Russians with the bomb held rather ostentatiously on our hip". General Leslie Groves, director of the Manhattan Project that made the bomb, testified: "There was never any illusion on my part that Russia was our enemy, and that the project was conducted on that basis." The day after Hiroshima was obliterated, President Truman voiced his satisfaction with the "overwhelming success" of "the experiment".
Since 1945, the United States is believed to have been on the brink of using nuclear weapons at least three times. In waging their bogus "war on terror", the present governments in Washington and London have declared they are prepared to make "pre-emptive" nuclear strikes against non-nuclear states. With each stroke toward the midnight of a nuclear Armageddon, the lies of justification grow more outrageous. Iran is the current "threat". But Iran has no nuclear weapons and the disinformation that it is planning a nuclear arsenal comes largely from a discredited CIA-sponsored Iranian opposition group, the MEK - just as the lies about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction originated with the Iraqi National Congress, set up by Washington.
The role of western journalism in erecting this straw man is critical. That America's Defence Intelligence Estimate says "with high confidence" that Iran gave up its nuclear weapons programme in 2003 has been consigned to the memory hole. That Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad never threatened to "wipe Israel off the map" is of no interest. But such has been the mantra of this media "fact" that in his recent, obsequious performance before the Israeli parliament, Gordon Brown alluded to it as he threatened Iran, yet again.
This progression of lies has brought us to one of the most dangerous nuclear crises since 1945, because the real threat remains almost unmentionable in western establishment circles and therefore in the media. There is only one rampant nuclear power in the Middle East and that is Israel. The heroic Mordechai Vanunu tried to warn the world in 1986 when he smuggled out evidence that Israel was building as many as 200 nuclear warheads. In defiance of UN resolutions, Israel is today clearly itching to attack Iran, fearful that a new American administration might, just might, conduct genuine negotiations with a nation the west has defiled since Britain and America overthrew Iranian democracy in 1953.
In the New York Times on July 18, the Israeli historian Benny Morris, once considered a liberal and now a consultant to his country's political and military establishment, threatened "an Iran turned into a nuclear wasteland". This would be mass murder. For a Jew, the irony cries out.
The question begs: are the rest of us to be mere bystanders, claiming, as good Germans did, that "we did not know"? Do we hide ever more behind what Richard Falk has called "a self-righteous, one-way, legal/moral screen [with] positive images of western values and innocence portrayed as threatened, validating a campaign of unrestricted violence"? Catching war criminals is fashionable again. Radovan Karadzic stands in the dock, but Sharon and Olmert, Bush and Blair do not. Why not? The memory of Hiroshima requires an answer.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
It's one thing to truly despise America, as TR does. I'm sure he has a reason for continuing to live here, but I promise you if I felt as he did I wouldn't.
But it's quite another thing for folks who claim to love America to condemn, 63 years later after the fact, a decision that decisively ended the war and saved tens of thousands of American lives. I wasn't around at the time, but from what I've read the decision to drop the bomb was almost universally supported. Americans realized who the enemy was, and how important it was that we defeated them. They realized there was no moral relativism between the US, with all of our faults, and the people responsible for the Bataan death march and the Nanking massacre.
It's indicative of why winning the war against terrorism is going to be so difficult. When large portions of the population care more about the rights of terrorists than the lives of American soldiers (and the Supreme Court backs them up); when a man who may well be the next President goes abroad and claims that the US engages in torture; when people want telephone companies prosecuted because they had the audacity to assist OUR government in attempting to identify and prevent terrorist plots - well, we're in trouble, folks.
But it's quite another thing for folks who claim to love America to condemn, 63 years later after the fact, a decision that decisively ended the war and saved tens of thousands of American lives. I wasn't around at the time, but from what I've read the decision to drop the bomb was almost universally supported. Americans realized who the enemy was, and how important it was that we defeated them. They realized there was no moral relativism between the US, with all of our faults, and the people responsible for the Bataan death march and the Nanking massacre.
It's indicative of why winning the war against terrorism is going to be so difficult. When large portions of the population care more about the rights of terrorists than the lives of American soldiers (and the Supreme Court backs them up); when a man who may well be the next President goes abroad and claims that the US engages in torture; when people want telephone companies prosecuted because they had the audacity to assist OUR government in attempting to identify and prevent terrorist plots - well, we're in trouble, folks.
From alense's article, if this part is true:
then the NY Times plus whoever got them to write that lie, did nothing short of committing treason.
Lying to the people to further an agenda that wouldn't be supported if the truth were told, in a country where the will of the people rules, is treason.
It's amazing how many who "love America" can support a treasonous act if it happens to support something they agree with.
then the NY Times plus whoever got them to write that lie, did nothing short of committing treason.
Lying to the people to further an agenda that wouldn't be supported if the truth were told, in a country where the will of the people rules, is treason.
It's amazing how many who "love America" can support a treasonous act if it happens to support something they agree with.
If "lying to the people to further an agenda that wouldn't be supported if the truth were told" is treason, then by my count at least 80% of our presidents are guilty of treason. Of course, that is NOT the definition of treason.
No one is claiming we're perfect. No government/country/institution comprised of human beings is going to be.
Maybe it's not the legal definition of the word, but it sure fits the everyday definition, which includes betrayal of trust, and yes indeed, most presidents have committed treason at some point or another, and yes, I am amazed at how many just look the other way when it happens, as if it's equivalent to stepping on someone's toe.
"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 almost defeated and ready to surrender...in being the first to use it, we...adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages."
---Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy,
Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during World War II
Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during World War II
I don't dispute there were those that believed this, and they may be right.
What's missing is the "they were trying to surrender part". Big, big, big difference, don't cha think?
That entire island was training for a US landing. Every one of them pukes would have died gladly taking as many US kids with them as they could.
The fact they wouldn't surrender after the 1st bomb was dropped should tell you the mindset that was going on at that time.
Glad as hell the bomb was dropped. Better them and theirs than mine.
bunch of sick fvks they were
Ask the Chinese what they think of those innocent people.
The fact they wouldn't surrender after the 1st bomb was dropped should tell you the mindset that was going on at that time.
Glad as hell the bomb was dropped. Better them and theirs than mine.
bunch of sick fvks they were
Ask the Chinese what they think of those innocent people.
ope:
Killing of 100,000+ Iraqi civilians was necessary too. I guess it was necessary for Hitler to kill 6 million jews?
Killing a few 100,000 people should not be a badge of honor. Japan was goated into the war, and war should be fought between soldiers.
Wow. What a brilliant post. I suppose the Japanese were
"goated" (OMG) into raping Nanking, slaughtering 300,000
CIVILIAN Chinese in the beginnings of World War II in the late
1930's.
Sigh.
Last edited:
Killing of 100,000+ Iraqi civilians was necessary too. I guess it was necessary for Hitler to kill 6 million jews?
Killing a few 100,000 people should not be a badge of honor. Japan was goated into the war, and war should be fought between soldiers.
I have to nominate this as the stupidest fucking post of the month.
And, why did it take them 9 days after the bombing of Hiroshima to
surrender - if they were soooo ready?
It took them another 6 days after the second bomb (Nagasaki). As
far as they knew, we had plenty more bombs coming towards their
other major cities, but it took them 9 days to surrender. Oh, but
they were soooo ready. Bullshit.
