You don't have to believe it, but it is what actually happened. My evidence comes from a Newsweek article from 1963 from Eisenhower, so the fact that you consider this a falsehood flies in the very face of history. Have you heard the phrase Correlation does not imply causation? Just because the Japanese were nuked twice and surrendered afterwards does not mean that they surrendered because of the bombs, but because you believe that this was the case would this not be considered revisionist?
Your uncle, like my grandfather who fought in Guadalcanal, saw Japan through the lens of the military. Is it true that there were many soldiers willing to die for their emperor? Of course, but to suggest that this was the only facet to the Japanese soldier would be a falsehood within itself that was magnified by pro-war propaganda during that time period. My first-hand accounts come from the American side, the Japanese side, and the side of a civilian who lived during the Japanese occupation, and it paints a much more human picture. My grandfather spoke of a sea of Japanese soldiers coming at him and him having to use his bayonet (this is more aligned to your first-hand account), the Japanese soldier spoke of the sheer terror he experienced in Okinawa and how he wanted to flee but never could, and the civilian spoke about how his father befriended a Japanese officer and how he named his son in the officers honor. I also lived in Japan for 3.5 years in Yokosuka and spoke with survivors of the fire bombings and how they cared more about their own lives and families than some emperor. Our propaganda is so black-and-white, when in reality WWII is incredibly grey with no moral high ground to be found.
You say that I dont know what Im talking about because you believe that this is how it is and thats the end of it. Is there harm in knowing the story of a former or current enemy? Is it taboo to question the official narrative that should have been questioned in greater number in order to prevent such wanton slaughter? I encourage you to look into this matter deeper and know the Japanese perspective; your mind will be changed like mine was.
Care to explain what you are referring to when you mention The Communist Manifesto? If you are to respond using the communist manifesto perhaps you should find out what parts of it I agree with then use that to formulate a response. Right now it seems like your assumption gives off an impression that you are grasping at straws, and I certainly dont want you to appear in that light. It certainly does not help that you are a 50 year old man who uses such a very cool meme, bro. You dont need to use that meme; you are more mature than that.
Now time to get on to the crux of the discussion.
Like I stated in my response to KWCrazy, my source was a Newsweek article from 1963 that quoted Eisenhower. Though you make the argument of hindsight 20/20, but then again you are not sure about that. Time will be much better looking more deeply into that premise while using facts to support it rather than just it in order to win an argument.
You state that love is not effective when dealing with Islamists. Again, thats just another premise without fact. Look into the demands that these Islamists are making: They want us out of the Middle East, and they want us to stop interfering with sovereign nations in the Middle East. It would also help to understand who made these groups to begin with and why; from there we can work on a solution that doesnt involve interfering with sovereign nations and meddling with their politics, which caused this problem to begin with. To start you can research Sayed Kotb and go from there.
Regarding draw Muhammad day: Do what you will. If you feel that engaging in such sophomoric behavior is essential to winning a war and flushing out crazies instead of using more peaceful (mature) approaches then we as a people deserved to be wept for.
Re: Hijackers you missed the point entirely. The point was that Afghanistan and Iraq was not the problem behind the event, and Saudi Arabia was the hotbed. UBL funded the attack, but he was not the mastermind. UBL was kept around solely because his financial power by Anwar al-Zawahiri whos failed Islamist revolutions (the people wanted liberalism) in local nations needed a rebranding and a new enemy. They found that new enemy in the American people (and the west) themselves, and 9/11s purpose on the Islamist end was to cause an invasion, a western invasion, that would crystalize in peoples minds that they were right all along. This is why there is a steadily growing membership in insurgent groups from 01 to today.
In your mind the pretext was exactly what the George W Bush regime stated, and I for a time believed it as well and even joined the military after high school in 03. You state that elections were held bravo, now take a look at the candidates and their background and youll see that it was tantamount to choosing Coke or Pepsi.
All of this is distorted, but I promise you that the distortion is coming from those who are benefitting from the GWOT. I only benefit from peaceful pursuits and my interest is finding out the root causes of this conflict so that this problem can be addressed before more lives are lost.
.
