Nagasaki - what was really targetted and why?

[Athanasius377]

It's not "his" flag. There was a CSA flag, and there was a CSA battle flag.

As someone who spent half a lifetime under the Stars and Stripes, IMO every flag that stood against the Stars and Stripes on the battleground belongs in a museum today, and nowhere else.

Anyone who continues to stand under an enemy battle flag continues to be an enemy.

I have changed my mind on the use of the CSA battle flag. Originally it was used as way to commerate those fallen confederate soldiers in cemeteries but from what I understand it’s use as such even at the turn of the 20th century was not uniform and became a symbol of rebellion and later outright racism. If you asked me 15 years ago I would have been more sympathetic towards its use as a commeration but no longer. To me, and a most of my family in Swainsboro Georgia would disagree, but the battle flag belongs only in a museum as a shameful reminder of a disgraceful past that need never to rise again. For all the virtue that proponents of the battle may marshal in its use those soldiers died in an act of rebellion against a lawful and licit government (the United States).

 

[Quort]

It's not "his" flag. There was a CSA flag, and there was a CSA battle flag.

As someone who spent half a lifetime under the Stars and Stripes, IMO every flag that stood against the Stars and Stripes on the battleground belongs in a museum today, and nowhere else.

Anyone who continues to stand under an enemy battle flag continues to be an enemy.

Spoken by one who is ignorant of what the Confederate battle flag stood for. At the time of the war, the South was the one who was fighting for the Constitution. Not the North, who flew your stars and stripes.

The South was the friend of the U.S. The North was the enemy. Your inability to distinguish the two just because the North, the victors, flew a certain flag is telling.

No, we will fly our Confederate flags and not confine them to any stupid museum. What are you going to do...kill us all?

Quort

 

[Quort]

I have changed my mind on the use of the CSA battle flag. Originally it was used as way to commerate those fallen confederate soldiers in cemeteries but from what I understand it’s use as such even at the turn of the 20th century was not uniform and became a symbol of rebellion and later outright racism. If you asked me 15 years ago I would have been more sympathetic towards its use as a commeration but no longer. To me, and a most of my family in Swainsboro Georgia would disagree, but the battle flag belongs only in a museum as a shameful reminder of a disgraceful past that need never to rise again. For all the virtue that proponents of the battle may marshal in its use those soldiers died in an act of rebellion against a lawful and licit government (the United States).

You're a product of the propaganda that is constantly forced on our society. Your ignorance of the war and times is showing.

Does that make you proud to be an American? Are you proud to be duped? Breath deep that smoke they are blowing up your backside.

Quort

 

[RDKirk]

Spoken by one who is ignorant of what the Confederate battle flag stood for. At the time of the war, the South was the one who was fighting for the Constitution.

The south was under the control of an ungodly demonic principality and was fighting to continue all ungodly manners of unspeakable evil, even while blaspheming God by calling it "good."

 

[Quort]

The south was under the control of an ungodly demonic principality and was fighting to continue all ungodly manners of unspeakable evil, even while blaspheming God by calling it "good."

As I said, breathe deep that smoke they keep blowing up your backside.

Quort

 

[SaintCody777]

There is a theory that Harry S. Truman was a "shabbos goy." And he intentionally chose Nagasaki because of its high Christian population. There was a document stated that Truman wanted to wipe away Japanese Christians. I could not find it online.

 

[gideon123]

"How immoral can one acceptably be in a war? Just as bad as the enemy?"

you missed the point of what i said. i doubt that the President made a moral decision of the total war. He had to weigh up his obligation to American parents. What do you tell one million families ... if their sons did not come home, and this was preventable? That kind of reasoning is more persuasive to a president.

 

[RDKirk]

There is a theory that Harry S. Truman was a "shabbos goy." And he intentionally chose Nagasaki because of its high Christian population. There was a document stated that Truman wanted to wipe away Japanese Christians. I could not find it online.

Nope. Already been proposed in this thread, and, no.

 

[Quort]

The south was under the control of an ungodly demonic principality and was fighting to continue all ungodly manners of unspeakable evil, even while blaspheming God by calling it "good."

What demonic principality? What ungodly manners of unspeakable evil? How did we blaspheme God?

Easy statements you make. Be more specific.

Quort.

 

[Athanasius377]

You're a product of the propaganda that is constantly forced on our society. Your ignorance of the war and times is showing.

Does that make you proud to be an American? Are you proud to be duped? Breath deep that smoke they are blowing up your backside.

Quort

You don't have a clue about what you are talking about. I'm from Georgia and those are my dead relatives in those cemeteries. If you bothered to look at a map you would have noticed Swainsboro is right in the middle of Sherman's "March to the Sea". The Civil War may be an academic exercise for most but not when one is literally surrounded by reminders of that war's effects. But how would someone from Elgin Illinois know anything about that?

Don't bother responding. I don't have time to trade barbs with a hostile troll. Peace

 

[Quort]

You don't have a clue about what you are talking about. I'm from Georgia and those are my dead relatives in those cemeteries. If you bothered to look at a map you would have noticed Swainsboro is right in the middle of Sherman's "March to the Sea". The Civil War may be an academic exercise for most but not when one is literally surrounded by reminders of that war's effects. But how would someone from Elgin Illinois know anything about that?

Don't bother responding. I don't have time to trade barbs with a hostile troll. Peace

Where do you get 'Elgin Illinois'?

I don't care that you come from Georgia. I care about your statement that the Confederate flag belongs in a museum as a reminder of a shameful past. If you truly are from the South you make quite a traitorous statement. For you to say such a thing proves you know nothing of the South in that war. You either are not from the South or you have simply breathed the smoke deeply they have been blowing up your backside.

I may be hostile, but I am no troll. And, don't make the statements you made and then call for 'peace'. I am quite willing to support any statements I have made.

Quort

 

[jamesbond007]

The war I went through was the Vietnam War and that wasn't a popular war. It was foisted upon us by a government that had its own political agenda and theories (which were wrong). What I learned was to question the government. Others, such as those who went through WW I and WW II, just WW II or war in the Middle East, have a different view. However, I do not want to rehash what happened in the past, but to apply what we have learned to the future. On one hand we oppose WMD, but on the other we (the US) build these same weapons. I can't help but think these weapons can and will be used against us as we will use it against others. For example, what if a dirty bomb was set off in the US? The conventional thinking is the citizens will want retaliation and won't be stopped from using WMDs against the country that did it. Thus, we fight the terrorists now to prevent this.

Since we are in conspiracy theories, and we are hearing these past military strategies, I wonder what is going to happen in the next world war? "And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not alarmed, for this must take place, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places." Matthew 24:6-7

I'm not one to state that we are "holier than thou." How can the US be? We condone, i.e. made lawful, many things in our society now that weren't in the past.

 

[gideon123]

"I can't help but think these weapons can and will be used against us as we will use it against others. "

Indeed. We are on a countdown to such events in the future.

My comments on this thread should not be construed as supporting a 'rationale' for why atomic weapons exist. They are horrible weapons. I was simply debunking conspiracy theories and encouraging people to understand what was happening in 1945.

Today we live in a world where no-one makes moral decisions about atomic weapons ... except the mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But the superpowers are involved in their own complicated games of weapons and strategies and 'calculated options'. Moral decisions never exist in these calculations. And so here were are today.

 

[Mountainmike]

You are correct about the drift in the discussion that has occurred, but at least it is centered on a matter of historic fact. That video which started us off with its various conspiracy theories is so lacking in credibility that this may explain the drift that has taken place.

With respect. That was the subject of the thread.

Nobody is suggesting that the purpose of the bombing was destruction of christianity.

The conspiracy is far more plausible.
Which is that - given 1/ the decision had already been taken to bomb Japan - so there was simply a matter of targetting and 2/ given that the weapons are so destructive that death on epic scale was inevitable - and the motive was terror, rather than military destruction , so in that sense one city was much like another.

So arguably all that mattered was a plausible reason for choosing a location, not the deep detail , so that at least there was a "defensible" argument for it being a military not terror attack - which is interesting morality if nothing esle!

So in conclusion - if the bombing was going to happen anyway - which by then it was! ...
It is then far less of a stretch to consider the planners ABUSED the opportunity presented, to aim the bombing at a hate of their own.

Given half the chance Satan or those he influences, would use the opportunity.

Indeed these are uncomfortable facts
1. Masonic influence is wide spread, and the militant parts of it are undoubtedly agains christianity - the brotherhood of death really exists as a secret society at Yale, which has certainly spawned a share of US people of influence, including some influential in the manhattan project.

2. It is not the first time the goal of destruction of Christianity has been stated as an end goal of a regime or society- In portugal in the early twentieth century the then atheist regime with masonic connections indeed openly stated it had the objective to "wipe out religion within a generation". So the goal is hardly far fetched.

And for those who believe in such it is also why our lady of Fatima came - and her words and later at Akita make "fire from the skies" an outcome of Gods anger, which has poignant meaning in Japan.

Perhaps it is not as far fetched as you think.

It begs many questions:
Nagasaki would have been last on a long list of military targets. Why was it made backup? Why did a high up administrator make it his own business to select the targets rather than leave to military targetters? Why attack it anyway? the skies over Kokura were far less cloudy than those over Nagasaki. Why the three mile miss?

Anyway it is my thread!
So the decision to bomb at all is off topic. It is what was targetted that is the thread and why was it chosen?






.

 

[Mountainmike]

I may be wrong but weren't the A bombs detonated way above ground anyway, like 2000 feet?

It is interesting to put yourself in the position of the bomb aimer, who has to prime the weapon - who must be thinking. "I hope this pressure sensor is set right......" . Bet his hands were shaking when he flicked the switch.

 

[chevyontheriver]

With respect. That was the subject of the thread.

Nobody is suggesting that the purpose of the bombing was destruction of christianity.

It is what was targetted that is the thread and why was it chosen?

Which is interesting in that people like Oppenheimer were astonished that Nagasaki would ever have been on the target list. I still think it was an opportunity to take a free shot, and 'missing' the target by miles seems sloppy if indeed it was a miss to hit the cathedral and not the harbor. This 'conspiracy theory' is not so far fetched.

 

[RDKirk]

Which is interesting in that people like Oppenheimer were astonished that Nagasaki would ever have been on the target list. I still think it was an opportunity to take a free shot, and 'missing' the target by miles seems sloppy if indeed it was a miss to hit the cathedral and not the harbor. This 'conspiracy theory' is not so far fetched.

Every large and medium-sized city was on the target list.

The order of the list would change based on the operational conditions of the day, which would include factors like weather, direction of smoke from previous attacks, whether intended damage had been done to previous targets necessitating a re-strike, perception of where enemy air defenses might be concentrating, most recent intelligence on the movement of targetable enemy forces, new materiel production location information, et cetera.

Let's not forget that the General LeMay's targeteers were still operating under the presumption that there would be a ground invasion, and they were still bombing toward that aim--taking out all military and materiel support that would defend against the invasion being their overarching goal.

There is no reason for Oppenheimer to have known what the logic targeting order was, and any surprise he might have was not based on his knowledge, but on what he didn't know.

 

[Albion]

With respect. That was the subject of the thread.

We can hold different views about that, but it seems evident to me that the conspiracy theory was the real subject, and the Nagasaki bombing was the example of how active and evil the alleged conspirators were, etc. etc.

 

[RDKirk]

With respect. That was the subject of the thread.

Nobody is suggesting that the purpose of the bombing was destruction of christianity.

The conspiracy is far more plausible.
Which is that - given 1/ the decision had already been taken to bomb Japan - so there was simply a matter of targetting and 2/ given that the weapons are so destructive that death on epic scale was inevitable - and the motive was terror, rather than military destruction , so in that sense one city was much like another.

So arguably all that mattered was a plausible reason for choosing a location, not the deep detail , so that at least there was a "defensible" argument for it being a military not terror attack - which is interesting morality if nothing esle!

So in conclusion - if the bombing was going to happen anyway - which by then it was! ...
It is then far less of a stretch to consider the planners ABUSED the opportunity presented, to aim the bombing at a hate of their own.

Given half the chance Satan or those he influences, would use the opportunity.

Indeed these are uncomfortable facts
1. Masonic influence is wide spread, and the militant parts of it are undoubtedly agains christianity - the brotherhood of death really exists as a secret society at Yale, which has certainly spawned a share of US people of influence, including some influential in the manhattan project.

2. It is not the first time the goal of destruction of Christianity has been stated as an end goal of a regime or society- In portugal in the early twentieth century the then atheist regime with masonic connections indeed openly stated it had the objective to "wipe out religion within a generation". So the goal is hardly far fetched.

And for those who believe in such it is also why our lady of Fatima came - and her words and later at Akita make "fire from the skies" an outcome of Gods anger, which has poignant meaning in Japan.

Perhaps it is not as far fetched as you think.

It begs many questions:
Nagasaki would have been last on a long list of military targets. Why was it made backup? Why did a high up administrator make it his own business to select the targets rather than leave to military targetters? Why attack it anyway? the skies over Kokura were far less cloudy than those over Nagasaki. Why the three mile miss?

Anyway it is my thread!
So the decision to bomb at all is off topic. It is what was targetted that is the thread and why was it chosen?






.

The credible information from the crew and others closely association with the actual operation is that Nagasaki was the best option at in the final planning moments based on changing situational circumstances. The operational situation of the moment drove the final decision to bomb Nagasaki.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

I heard that the Air Force was going to scrap all its laser guided and precision weapons and go back to B-29s and the Norden bombsight because it is so accurate.