You can find it if you look.
You tube banning supremacy and hate videos
- Thread starter Brent S
- Start date
Help Support Homesteading & Country Living Forum:
Somehow I think looking up how to manufacture drugs and make bombs just dosent seem like a good way to stay below the radar......
I did watch some videos about how to make rocket fuel from sugar, moonshine and potassium nitrate. Looked like a load of fun for me when I was a teen. We used to make homemade rockets all the time. With you tube now you can guarantee to kill yourself now!
I have to strongly disagree with that old saw about a terrorist vs. a freedom fighter being one's point of view.
A freedom fighter attacks military and/or police targets, while a terrorist attacks unarmed civilians. A suicide bomber who blows up a military barracks is a freedom fighter, while a suicide bomber who blows up a hospital or shopping mall is a terrorist.
In my definition, the USA has sometimes qualified as a terrorist nation. When we went into Panama to get Noriega, 75 innocent, unarmed civilians died for every enemy soldier that we took out, which seems inexcusable given our precise "smart" weapons that can hit a dime from a hundred miles away.
I would also define the destruction of Nagasaki (not Hiroshima) as a terrorist act.
Nagasaki was NOT a terrorist act. If you understood the Bushido code and the Japanese military, you would know why we dropped the second bomb. If the Emperor had not gotten his surrender publication out, we would have had to drop even more bombs, as the military did not want to surrender. Cultural thing, not terrorist or racist. Understand your enemy and history. Forget the P.C. crap.
I don't always believe in being politically correct....unless I'm trying to avoid a beat-down in a rowdy bar.
And I do believe that I understand Bushido--and what it means--at lot better than most people.....for reasons which I'd rather not go into.
I wasn't around in WWII, but I believe that we needed to show the Soviets (who were our allies, but also a potential future adversary) what we were capable of.
In a secret agreement, the Soviets agreed to side with us in our war against Japan after the Nazis were defeated, as the Soviets didn't want to engage different enemies on two fronts (a mistake made by Nazi Germany). At the time of the agreement, the Soviets explaoned that it would take four to six months to transport men, materiel, and other supplies across the vastness of Siberia, so they couldn't engage the Japanese immediately.
The japanese were on their last legs before we dropped the bomb, and here's the kicker: August 7 was when the Soviets agreed to fight the Japanese, and we dropped the Hiroshima device on August 6th.
I suspect that the Hiroshima device was sufficient to secure Japan's surrender, but we destroyed Nagasaki as a bonus....right on Russia's doorstep, as we wanted to establish who was going to be the boss after WWII.
This is why I tend to think of the Cold War as an extension of WWII.
One nuke is a bad day. But even a blind pig finds an acorn now and then. 2 nukes in a matter of days is a wet-your-pants event. The japs had no idea how many more we could produce. But we showed that it as not a fluke, that it was a repeatable devastating weapon and they had no choice but to do an unconditional surrender. "Unconditional" is a really deep word.
BTW, we only had the materials to make 3 nukes. The first was tested in the US, killing several scientists who didn't realize the power it held. The second & third hit Japan. That's all we had at the time.
BTW, we only had the materials to make 3 nukes. The first was tested in the US, killing several scientists who didn't realize the power it held. The second & third hit Japan. That's all we had at the time.
kevin L, if you understand the code of Busjido, then you should know that without the Emperors surrender announcement, the Japanese people --- old men, old women, children of both sexes and everybody capable of picking up any type of weapon, would have been obligated to fight to the death. The Japanese military were not convinced we had more than one bomb. Even after the second bomb they still wanted to fight and even stormed the Imperial Palace to prevent the Emperors surrender announcement from being distributed. The Russian were just trying to capitalize, as usual. MacArthur never planned to share any power with Russia, or anybody else for that matter.
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2015
- Messages
- 10,004
Pinterest of all sites. I don't use the site and always thought it was about arts and crafts.
The new Project Veritas video put it all in a new light.
The new Project Veritas video put it all in a new light.
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2016
- Messages
- 6,474
censorship ,,it will never be fairly done,so read or watch what you want to ignore the rest,,,,,,,,,,,,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRIME EXAMPLE
I used to watch Saturday Night Live but all the Trump bashing pisses me off so I will never watch it again or any who take part in it,,,,,,
the left feels it's ok to do this,,,I wonder how that show would have been perceived if the show had been anti Obama??????
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if I had control I would pull the plug on the show and black ball everyone who was a part of it
BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUTTTTT,,,,,,I have no say in it so I just don't watch
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRIME EXAMPLE
I used to watch Saturday Night Live but all the Trump bashing pisses me off so I will never watch it again or any who take part in it,,,,,,
the left feels it's ok to do this,,,I wonder how that show would have been perceived if the show had been anti Obama??????
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if I had control I would pull the plug on the show and black ball everyone who was a part of it
BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUTTTTT,,,,,,I have no say in it so I just don't watch
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2016
- Messages
- 6,474
I consider SNL as a campaign of hate for Donald Trump,,,,condoned by the Democratic Party/FARLEFT,,,,,,,,,,,,,
the show is being used as a POLITICAL WEAPON,,,and in my opinion should be censored
the show is being used as a POLITICAL WEAPON,,,and in my opinion should be censored
Last edited:
We had material for six nukes, and we were capable of producing a nuke every five weeks or so.
The "belief" at the time was that a massive land invasion of Japan by the U.S. would produce perhaps a hundred thousand American casualties and maybe five hundred thousand Japanese casualties, so dropping the nukes was this great humanitarian act.
I cry ********.
We imprisoned Japanese-Americans (many of these people were 4th generation immigrants) in concentration camps, but didn't do it to Italian-Americans or German-Americans.
Why?
Because the Japanese-Americans had almond-shaped eyes and high cheekbones....so it's not like they were real human beings like the rest of us or anything.
I think this was part of the decision to use nukes in the way that we did.
The Japanese seem to be--as a part of their culture--very practical.
Nagasaki was overkill, and probably unneccesary.
I have read that the Japanese govt knew they were loosing the war and were allready trying to negotiate an end before we dropped the bombs. After all the hard work and expense in research We wanted to show our might to both Russia and the world by using them. I am certain of one thing here, the bomb was a horrible thing and mostly women and children were killed by them both. I only hope in my lifetime I never see another one used. Mankind dosent seem to learn from past experience though.
The interment was a huge shame on out government and our country. pearl Harbor caused a huge over reaction of out government. Sort of like the 9-11 Patriot ACT. Sneak attacks tend to due that. Had we invade the mainland of Japan we would have have had to kill just about every living soul on the island. They were duty bound to not surrender. There would have been a mass, repeats of all the women and children committing suicide, just like at Saipan. Woman and children jumping off cliffs, rather than be captured by the American. The cities did not have much statistic value but would provide much research data. For the P.C. crowd, war is about destroying the enemy and doing it with the least amount of damage to your side. Some seem to forget the Dresden fire bombing we did in Germany. How many women and children do you think we burned alive there? War is a horror we should have learned to avoid by now. Since we can't seem to avoid it, we should do it the best we can.
I agree with your point about winning a war, and using ruthless methods to achive that end.
I think it's unconscionable that wars are dragging on and on (like the Vietnam War) with no resolution because the powers that be want to use half-measures so that they can have their cake, and eat it too.....while American soldiers keep dying.
My only point is that there were alternatives to bombing Nagasaki. I believe the real purpose of the bombings was to show the Soviets how big America's penis is, and how we were going to run things post WWII.
And no, I don't think war should be pretty. War is war, but the ultimate goal of war should be the concept of winning with as few innocent civilian victims as possible.
The goal of war is to completely devastate the enemy, without regard to their civilian population. Total war is so ugly is would become a major goal of every country to avoid. When you exempt the leaders and people of the nation you are fighting, it open the door for the next conflict. Refusal to admit the facts that the second bomb did force the Japanese to surrender is weak. Just because it may have had a second benefit of showing the Russians we had a bigger dick, was just a side benefit and no way deters from the fact the second bomb solved the problem of invading. Anything else was just icing on the cake. I ask, how many countries would risk a war if they were assured that every living person, including every leader, in their country would be killed if they lost? What population would allow their leaders to get them involved in that kind of war? When war becomes a civilized affair, it becomes viable.
There's a difference between war and genocide.
The Geneva Convention is a good thing, as I do believe that military objectives can be attained with a minimum of atrocities.
Will they happen? Sure. Will innocent civilians get killed? Of course.
There is a difference between war at terrorism.
All I'm saying is that there is still a moral compass in warfare.
When you make war as ugly and as painful as possible it will slow or even stop these wars but when you civilize war, Geneva convention, then it just facilitates more wars.
If you want to punch some guy and you know he can only punch you back, it is not much of a deterrent. If you know he will kill you and all your friends and family, That is a deterrent. We do not have nuclear war because is will kill everybody. No winners.
War should make the losing county cease to exit. No return of land or ownership to the losing people, all the surviving people are forced out of the country and the winners will now occupy and own the country. There should NOT be a moral compass in war, it should be don't go there or risk losing everything.
There is nothing good or honorable about war. It should be a winner take all. Too many war are fought over crap that could be resolved. If Germany or Japan understood that if they lost, their country would cease to exit, they may have decided to work out something. When the population know they will all be killed and any survivors forced out of their country, then there is an incentive for peaceful negotiations. The rich in the losing country will lose all their assets, along with the poor, everyday folks. No assets to return too, no war profiteering. Want to bet these wars would not happen. Nobody to finance them. Wars are expensive, if all the profit is removed, then the rich are not going to invest. Hell, many corporation in both Germany and Japan prospered during and even after the wars. Remove the incentive and leave only the horror and war will fade away.
If you want to punch some guy and you know he can only punch you back, it is not much of a deterrent. If you know he will kill you and all your friends and family, That is a deterrent. We do not have nuclear war because is will kill everybody. No winners.
War should make the losing county cease to exit. No return of land or ownership to the losing people, all the surviving people are forced out of the country and the winners will now occupy and own the country. There should NOT be a moral compass in war, it should be don't go there or risk losing everything.
There is nothing good or honorable about war. It should be a winner take all. Too many war are fought over crap that could be resolved. If Germany or Japan understood that if they lost, their country would cease to exit, they may have decided to work out something. When the population know they will all be killed and any survivors forced out of their country, then there is an incentive for peaceful negotiations. The rich in the losing country will lose all their assets, along with the poor, everyday folks. No assets to return too, no war profiteering. Want to bet these wars would not happen. Nobody to finance them. Wars are expensive, if all the profit is removed, then the rich are not going to invest. Hell, many corporation in both Germany and Japan prospered during and even after the wars. Remove the incentive and leave only the horror and war will fade away.
The only flaw that I can see in your argument is that unrestrained war existed for--literally--thousands of years before the Geneva Convention, and unrestrained warfare/genocide never seemed to prevent future wars.
The past unrestrained wars did not have the ability to eliminate entire population and replace them with their own people. With over population and the prospect of free land and resources. We could move millions of new land owner very quickly. Heck, we could turn the defeated country into our new prison system, minus the need for guards. Just let them be who they are. Sort of like 'Escape from New York" only with a different countries name on it. Keep the viable resources for the winner and let loose the dogs on any survivors. A win-win. The winning country gets new resources and eliminates their need to feed and house the criminals.
The real deterrent is nobody can be sure who will win the war and there will not be any do-overs or country rebuilds. One and done, forever. With this situation, even China would want North Korea to behave. N. Korea start something and we wipe them out and put our people on China's border. Not something China would enjoy. Same applies to Russia or all the other countries. No more middle of the road war fighting, full bore, take no prisoners and you can bet these countries will find a peaceful solution. With all the treaties and country alliances, even the big guy counties will have second thought about starting a shooting action. We take N. Korea, and china steps in and then our allies and then their allies and in the end only one group survives. No cease fires or that crap, all or nothing. There would never be another Vietnam or Desert Storm or any other stupid war. Iran would be stuck in Iran, no expansion, no war provocation, because they would be wiped off the face of the planet. Countries would be lined up to join the fight to get a piece of the country and it's assets. Iran would just cease to exist any more. When the politicians and generals know that not only they will be killed but all their families, neighbors, friends and their entire culture will die, that is a different situation.
The real deterrent is nobody can be sure who will win the war and there will not be any do-overs or country rebuilds. One and done, forever. With this situation, even China would want North Korea to behave. N. Korea start something and we wipe them out and put our people on China's border. Not something China would enjoy. Same applies to Russia or all the other countries. No more middle of the road war fighting, full bore, take no prisoners and you can bet these countries will find a peaceful solution. With all the treaties and country alliances, even the big guy counties will have second thought about starting a shooting action. We take N. Korea, and china steps in and then our allies and then their allies and in the end only one group survives. No cease fires or that crap, all or nothing. There would never be another Vietnam or Desert Storm or any other stupid war. Iran would be stuck in Iran, no expansion, no war provocation, because they would be wiped off the face of the planet. Countries would be lined up to join the fight to get a piece of the country and it's assets. Iran would just cease to exist any more. When the politicians and generals know that not only they will be killed but all their families, neighbors, friends and their entire culture will die, that is a different situation.
I wasn't around in WWll either, but my parents were. Italian-Americans were regarded as scum and pigs. There was unity in their own community,but they weren't thought of as "white people" by most Americans.
http://www.wishaw.50megs.com/_/Italian_American_Racism.html
Here are just a few quotes that I remember my parents talking about.
"Generally Italians were resented for three main reasons; providing very cheap labor, sending portions of their pay home to family in Italy, and speaking Italian in conversation with other Italians"
"During a mine foreman’s testimony, he was asked if an Italian was a white man; his response was “No sir, an Italian is a ****.” (this type of thinking).
"Adolph Hitler viewed America as an inferior, mongrel, nation. Americans held a similar view of its Italian residents. The Italian segment of the population was even further dissected into groups of Northern and Southern immigrants. The Northern group was considered to be the lesser of two evils, due to their lighter “Aryan” skin tone. Some anthropologists argued that the Southern “Mediterranean” group possessed “inferior African blood…and demonstrated a moral and social structure reminiscent of primitive and even quasi barbarian times. They are volatile, emotionally unstable, soon hot, soon cool, and when they talk their hands will be moving all the time.”
- Even in Italian communities, you must identify yourself as Italian or Sicilian. For example, if Pete says he is Italian and you can clearly see he has some Sicilian in him, Pete will get an eyebrow of suspicion. For example, Pete will have to say something like " My mother is Sicilian and my father is Italian." Even today, its kind of a big deal. Other people just say, "Oh, he's Italian."
I agree, Japanese people were treated poorly during WW ll, but it wasn't all roses for other people either. I am not sure they were put into concentration camps based off of looks.
The sneak attack on pear Harbor and easy identification made the Japanese an easy scape goat. Germans and Italians could blend in easier. TPTB always want or need a scapegoat to help distract the voters from their failings.
The sneak attack on pear Harbor and easy identification made the Japanese an easy scape goat. Germans and Italians could blend in easier. TPTB always want or need a scapegoat to help distract the voters from their failings.
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2015
- Messages
- 10,004
It's like people are always bitching about The View. Just turn it off. I've never been a viewer and never will be. I choose not to be.
Germans and Italians were treated horribly during WW2. There are some predominantly German communities/towns/cities here in TX, and it was ugly back in the 40's.
Kevin, I went back & verified we didn't have more nukes ready to launch after the first 2. In fact we 'stole' Little Boy from Germany. Some references:
https://history.stackexchange.com/q...tes-have-a-third-atomic-bomb-to-drop-on-japan
https://www.quora.com/How-many-nucl...ey-have-more-than-just-Little-Boy-and-Fat-Man
Do you have some references? Not arguing, just want to find the facts.
Kevin, I went back & verified we didn't have more nukes ready to launch after the first 2. In fact we 'stole' Little Boy from Germany. Some references:
https://history.stackexchange.com/q...tes-have-a-third-atomic-bomb-to-drop-on-japan
https://www.quora.com/How-many-nucl...ey-have-more-than-just-Little-Boy-and-Fat-Man
Do you have some references? Not arguing, just want to find the facts.
I'll get the references, but give me time.
