Skip to comments.An atomic attack on Fortress America by pious men with beards isn't a matter of if but when.
Posted on 07/18/2005 6:15:01 AM PDT by Gengis KhanEdited on 07/18/2005 6:47:57 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
ONE wonders what Osama bin Laden and his ilk learned from Hiroshima.
The decision to incinerate the Japanese city and another, Nagasaki, was not taken in anger. White men in gray business suits and military uniforms, after much deliberation, decided that the United States could not give the Japanese any warning, that although it could not concentrate on a civilian area, it should seek to make a profound psychological impression on as many inhabitants as possible. They argued that it would be cheaper in American lives to release the nuclear genie.
(Excerpt) Read more at chron.com ...
The Iranians must not be allowed to produce nuclear weapons!
Whether it's us or the Israelis or whomever, they must be stopped.
First off, I don't think that getting or making a nuke has gotten enough simpler to bring one into the US undetected. Of course, maybe I'm just out of the loop and there are nukes that fit into an IPOD that won't give off enough rad to kill and wilt ever living thing within sight.
Fools. They can damage us. We can utterly obliterate them. They will go the way of Carthage.
" I fear we have awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve...
If they bomb those cities on the list they will wipe out the elitist, globalist numbskulls who keep us vulnerable, with open borders and PC idiocy.
The rest of us would be then be free to eradicate them.
I support their plan.
Losing the CFR would be a small sacrifice.
If they ever did nuke a US city, are grandchildren will someday ask, "Gandpa, what WAS a Muslim?"
Hey Ajnin, you think you're so smart. Don't you know that Bush created terrorist's that are using MS-13 guys to smuggle nukes into the country? And nobody can detect them because, ...well because it's all Bush's fault?
The Men in Beard wont be using Iranian nukes anyway, they will be using Paki nukes. Those are the ones you should be wary of.
This crappy nuke story is starting to ticking me off like a Dick Durbin Story.
"...The decision to incinerate the Japanese city and another, Nagasaki, was not taken in anger. White men in gray business suits and military uniforms, after much deliberation, decided that the United States could not give the Japanese any warning, that although it could not concentrate on a civilian area, it should seek to make a profound psychological impression on as many inhabitants as possible."
The above is a great example of a very poor sentence. The guy's prose proves he is no English teacher. But he seems to be trying to say that Americans were cold-hearted in fighting the Japanese. The facts are that the decision was made in a total war context and the Japanese started the total war and the Japanese fire-bombed civilian areas too. By bringing foreward such a quantum leap in technology, the atomic bomb gave the Japanese something of an "out" from their mindset against the dishonor of surrender.
Which therefore holds the copyright and therefore publication in toto here is a violation of FR Rules.
The rest of us would be then be free to eradicate them. I support their plan.
Losing the CFR would be a small sacrifice.
Just heard from my wife that the young woman who designed her company's web sites is now confirmed as killed in the London bombings.
Then looked up at the screen and saw that - never though I'd see the day when someone here was supporting plans to use nuclear weapons against his own country - to me, that seems even sicker than the London bombers.
I'd like to believe this - but I don't.
The people I'm talking about are far more a threat than a bunch of diaper heads.
I'm quoting the Strategy Page, and it seems about right. They seem to think there are about twenty million supporters and a few hundred thousand terrorists and wannabes. I think they are probably about right. Remember, the vast majority are indifferent, which gives the terrorists and their supporters plenty of room to hide. The folks who ARE on our side have to deal with the indifferent who get outraged that they are prosecuting their (terrorist) co-religionists on behalf of infidels.
I like how the excerpt of the article equates the American decision makers of 1945 with the Muslim terrorists of today. Very nice moral relativism there, very nice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.