Japan Offered to Completely Surrender Long Before the US Nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Some ugly US history.
Seems the US wanted to show off their nukes in the most cruel way possible.
Supposedly, the US even wanted to nuke the moon back in the 50s as a show of force!
UPDATE: I knew nothing of the Barnes review before I found that story; I don't necessarily endorse anything else in that publication. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that the story I linked to is false. Trohan's story is found widely on the internet, curiously mostly by right-wing websites. But here is a relatively non-controversial source.
Further, even if the Japanese didn't offer complete unconditional surrender (though their surrender offer was very close to unconditional), this in no way JUSTIFIED the nuking of a HUNDRED THOUSAND INNOCENT CIVILIANS.
Seems the US wanted to show off their nukes in the most cruel way possible.
Supposedly, the US even wanted to nuke the moon back in the 50s as a show of force!
UPDATE: I knew nothing of the Barnes review before I found that story; I don't necessarily endorse anything else in that publication. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that the story I linked to is false. Trohan's story is found widely on the internet, curiously mostly by right-wing websites. But here is a relatively non-controversial source.
Further, even if the Japanese didn't offer complete unconditional surrender (though their surrender offer was very close to unconditional), this in no way JUSTIFIED the nuking of a HUNDRED THOUSAND INNOCENT CIVILIANS.
posted by spooked at 11:07 PM
20 Comments:
BTW, here's the REAL story of the atomic bombings:
http://www.theenolagay.com/study.html
What part of "Unconditional Surrender" do you not understand?
Next question: When is your post on holocaust denial coming, Spooky?
hey swort of a moron.
go buy a protractor!
The story is generally accurate, but the source is very tainted. I'm surprised you were not aware of the Barnes Review. And what's up with the moon stuff? That's the wrong ball to keep your eye on!
even on a slow day spookd busts out more 9/11 than almost any other 2 bloggers combined.
i think the moon post was a welcome diversion - i also enjoyed the classical pianist post a couple months ago.
by the way, 3 out of 4 mail delivery persons, when given a choice, will choose a peach snapple over a lemon snapple every time.
be kind to your local federal agents!
h.
Anyone interested in this subject should read "Downfall - The End Of The Imperial Japanese Empire", by
Richard B. Frank.
I'm surprised that no one (here) has mentioned the possibility that President Bush authorized the use of a secret weapon or weapon system as a test on 9/11 and message meant to intimidate China and Russia.
Spooked is lying.
He knew Barnes Review was a neo-nazi site. Just as he has known for a long time now that Killtown is himself a neo-nazi white supremacist, yet he refuses to remove the numerous links to KKKclowns blogs and other wites from his reccomended list.
Spooked is a nazi, plain and simple.
Early baby...! Of COURSE Prez Bush "...authorized the use of a secret weapon or weapon system as a test on 9/11 and message meant to intimidate China and Russia."!
And of COURSE detonating a nuclear weapon on our own people would certainly show THSOE damn former and current communists! Why, they'd be quaking in their boots! Its bnot like THEY have nukes or delivery systems.
And everyone kept it a Super Duper Doubel Secret Squirrle Secret and nobody leaked it to the Wash Post or the NY Times and EVERYONE went home happily ever after!
You are so stupid.
Sword of Truth - smear all you want - it does not change the facts that you never address.
The moon stuff was fine - it was the Barnes Review that bothered me, because it opens up the "Holocaust denier" smear. My view on the Holocaust is:
(1) it's real - read The Cunning of History which is the best book I've seen on it
(2) even if there were exaggerations, shut the hell up about it if you want to also talk about 9/11 because it's too late and too controversial and we should not let it interfere with preventing 9/11 lies from becoming history.
So I'm sensitive to this which is why I was concerned about the Barnes Review being cited on any subject.
I think the purpose of 9/11 may have been to destroy constitutional government in the United States. I don't think it was to intimidate Russia, whose criminal leaders appears to have engaged in similar false flag terror against its people as our criminal leaders.
I think the purpose of 9/11 may have been to destroy constitutional government in the United States.
This from someone whines about others "smearing" people?
You're a hypocrite and a liar yourself, Ningen.
wow lets see how long we can keep people focused on this instead of how in the world 2 ea. 1/4 mile high massive steel/concrete towers could turn completely into dust in only 10 seconds each!
Sword of truth, you're going to have to explain your point better. How am I smearing and being a hypocrite and a liar? I know your MO is just throwing out insults, but even insults should make a little sense.
Uhhh... the towers took EIGHTTEEN seconds to collapse.
Sucks to be you, dumbass.
Hi, they who call themselves "Sword of Truth." Do you have an answer to my question of how I am smearing, etc.?
NIST said 10 seconds, but 18 is fine. Still means energy was added. Do you or your employers care to explain how that happened, sword of lies?
the 911 commission said it took 10 seconds as well. wow that means both NIST and the 911 commission have proven that sword of truth is merely swort of a liar!
(but if sword knew anything about 9/11 other than what he has read in his latest edition of "phony professor magazine" he would know that.)
swort of sucks to be you, swort of a liar!
You mean someone actually gets *money* to point out how crazy you idiots are???
Where do I sign UP!!!!!!
Seriously.
But aside from that point, until you can tell me how much potential energy is contained in a 1000 foot skyscraper and how that is released when the top quarter or fifth of the structure collapses on itself, to claim as you did that "energy was added" is not only irresponsible, it is downright stupid.
Send me an application to join the paid debunkers, please. Its like....free money!
ya right professor.
the top 1/4 of the structure was itself being disintegrated simultaneous with the lower 3/4.
go build a bicycle powered search engine out of coconuts.
There is that word "debunked" again. It's good that you brought it up because it only reminds everyone that the Govt's version of 9.11 has been debunked.
Anonymous professor, it would be downright irresponsible for you to not reply -- as anonymous says, the top part was gone early in the process. And the bottom had far more mass, both in terms of number of stories and column width. Your potential energy argument is wrong - care to reply?
it is to since you have
Post a Comment
<< Home