Sunday, February 11, 2007



Unless imperialist America and Israel can be stopped, this scene of complete devastation will soon be replicated in Iran (click photo to enlarge).

Once again America will be involved either carrying out the attack itself or it will use Israel, who it armed with nuclear weapons, as its proxy. The former is most likely because Israel would never be forgiven by its Middle East neighbours.

Regardless, the horror, the vapourising of all living things, the slow death of survivors either burned and/or irradiated, the genetic deformities that will take generations to stop, all will be similar but the outcome won't.

The dropping of atomic bombs on Japan, although unconscionable, did hasten the end of WW2 and may have saved many lives.

This time around, such an evil act will precipitate the final War of Civilizations from which no one will survive.

Why does no one stop this madness? Is the whole world blind?


pinkfem said...

yeah I think they are petty blind.
it does seem like the world is getting crazier.

dining_philosopher said...

"The dropping of atomic bombs on Japan, although unconscionable, did hasten the end of WW2 and may have saved many lives."

I am surprised that you bought into this bullshit Daniel. This is how the white man typically justifies the atomic bombs. What exactly makes you think that the bombs saved lives? And if you really think that the bombs saved lives what makes you think that Afghanistan and Iraq wars are not going to "save lives" by "prveenting human rights violations" and bestowing the gift of democracy on these countries. Dont believe everyhting you read in the history books Daniel. History books are probably the biggest and most effective of all western propaganda machines. Hiroshima and Nagasaki was utterly unnecessary. Even some goddamned white historians concede that Nagasaki was unnecessary.

I am surprised that you are justifying what is easily the worst crime against humanity.

Daniel said...

D.P., my friend, you are given to making sweeping generalisations on occasion.

If the allies had invaded and tried to occupy Japan, given the fanatical beliefs of the Japanese, the death toll would have been huge on both sides and certainly much larger than occurred as a result of the dropping of the two atomic bombs.

This does not mean I was justifying the use of atomic weapons or indeed any weapons. I'm against all war and violence. Rather I was pointing out that the death toll would've been far higher if they hadn't been used.

And I think that anyone who reads my blog would clearly see that I am not a person who believes what he is told no matter whether it be in a book or on a television set or in a newspaper or from the lips of an academic.

Speak out loudly against Bush and his war-mongering friends. I'm on your side!

Zoe said...

hmmm...Dan, Your argument is purely speculative, When the reality of the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki cannot be denied.
I don't feel that there is ANY 'good' reason for dropping an atomic bomb on a city.
Look at Bush's argument for invading Irac........He believed it was going to save his country from attack and the 'possibility' of killing many Americans, so his answer was to 'kill them before they kill us'!
There is no justification for beginning OR continuing a war in my opinion.
Imagine how many lives would have been saved if instead of dropping atomic bombs the allies had just surrendered! But then it's all about supremacy and we have to fight to the death over that of course!!!!!
The answer is NEVER more violence.

Zoe xxx

Daniel said...

"This blog...strongly opposes:
1. Militarism and War."

It's the number one point in my list of ten, Zoe!

In my post I made the point that the dropping of atomic bombs was unconscionable, was an evil act. I posted a photograph to show the horrific extent of the damage. I described the vapourising, the slow death of survivors, the genetic deformities. Nuclear weapons are even worse!

The surrender of Japan was hastened by the dropping of two atomic bombs and there was a saving in human lives as a result of the quick surrender. Them's the facts as they applied to a particular situation in WW2. But that doesn't justify using such horrific weapons!

My post is not about discussing the pros and cons of what happened in a particular situation in WW2 but trying to stop the beginning of WW3 and the use of nuclear weapons by America and Israel.

I'm a pacifist. I want all weapons destroyed, all armies disbanded. I want peace to reign on earth for the first time.

Seeking Utopia is my objective after all! I'm sure it's yours too, Zoe.

Cheers! xxxxxx

Zoe said...

My Dear Dan, yes I know your a pacifist and I understand the point you were making. I was just stating that the end of the war didn't have to come about with the atomic weapons that were used on Japan! And all THOSE lives may have been saved also. There were far more peaceful options that were never considered.

Zoe xxx

Daniel said...

It's a topic that I'll raise again once this current catastrophe is resolved, Zoe, assuming it is resolved without nuclear war.

Given the fanaticism of the Japanese towards their Emperor they'd have fought to the last man, women and child. The death toll using conventional means to conquer them would've been massive, in the millions. Carpet bombing as was done in Germany was another one of them.

If I'd had to make the choice given the many horrible options, I don't know what I would've done. Take care.

Cheers. xxxxxx

dining_philosopher said...

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one Daniel. But if you really think about it, you are justifying the US invasion of Iraq and "Shock and Awe" which resulted in thousands of "Collateral damage" deaths. Maybe you should go to the Holocaust victims (or their surviving relatives) in Japan and you should try to convince them that the death, injuries, devastation, genetic deformations, etc. were "necessary" to...what was it again? Thats right...Save lives!!!!

Like I said, a lot of historians agree that atleast the second bomb was unnecessary. There was atleast one US scientist who ran from pillar to post to prevent the dropping of the bombs. So, inspite of what the white historians say, the US knew exactly what kind of damage the bombs were capable of doing. The US, at the very least, could have dropped the bombs on empty, uninhabited areas as a warning sign to the Japanese government/regime. They *chose* not to do that for a very simple reason - they wanted to use the bombs as political tools to set the stage for world domination. Also, they wanted revenge for Pearl Harbour - plain and simple. I dont expect a white american to agree to the fact that it was about revenge (as was Afghanistan). But if a non-american is saying it was indeed about "saving lives", then I can imagine how effective the US propaganda has been over the years. Btw, I dont think I have come across many americans who say that they dropped the bombs to save Japanese lives - no, they wanted to save the lives of US soldiers or rather minimize thier own casualties. US did not care about the Japanese (in fact they even put US citizens of Japanese origin in concentration camps). "Saving lives of our soldiers" is also the reason behind current indiscriminatory ariel bombardment of Iraq and afghanistan and the resulting "collateral damage". And, in my opinion, this is a manifestation of supreme american cowardice.

Daniel said...

I think the point you make about dropping the atomic bomb on an isolated place has some merit. But then the Japanese were fanatics and might not have got the message.

However, I don't believe that America, at that stage, had ambitions to dominate the world. But I do agree it was about saving American lives in the main.

D.P. concentrating on what is happening now, or is about to happen soon, is probably more important than arguing about something that happened more than sixty years ago, something over which neither you or I had any say in.

Cheers and thanks for your comment.