fearlessly proclaiming the truth & the other truth! voice of the teknoshamanic institute
Paranoia Strikes Deep
Published on August 1, 2005 By kingbee In Politics

sixty years ago this saturday--august 6, 1945--the first atomic bomb ever used as a weapon of war exploded about 2000' above the city of hiroshima, japan. 

in an instant, the city was flattened; 80,000 of the estimated 250,000 people located there were killed instantly.  another 60,000 would eventually fall victim to radiation produced by the bomb.

three days later, a similar bomb was exploded over the japanese city of nagasaki.

at the time, the usa was the only nation on earth to construct atomic weaponry.  20 years later, the world was divided into two major geopolitical factions, both of which had much more powerful and sophisticated nuclear devices.  there were also several nations capable and willing to build their own atomic weapons.  45 years later, one of the two factions began crumbling into oblivion.  still other nations were determined to possess nuclear bombs.  60 years later, 9 nations now possess nuclear weapons.

so far, somehow, mankind has managed to avoid using another one  of these weapons.

as more nations--as well as groups of seemingly apocalyptic terrorists--seek to possess them--we come ever closer to the day when the next nuclear device is used to wreak the horror of instant mass destruction somewhere in the world.  we're as likely target as any other people or place.

terrorists--whether domestic or foreign--have demonstrated a penchant for action on dates of historical relevance.

the murrah federal building was bombed on april 19 for example;  april 19 being both  the day our revolution began when  minutemen first attacked colonial britain.  it's also the anniversary of the destruction of the self-styled lamb of god, david koresh and a great many of his followers.  

september 11 marked the 79th anniversary of the british mandate in palestine.

i could be just paranoid...or perhaps i'm reading too much into this, but i can't think of a more auspicious and relevant date than august 6 for al-quaeda or some similar group to try and bring it all back home to us. 


Comments (Page 2)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Aug 01, 2005
It could be, though, that they have seen since 9-11 that we don' react the same way that many Europeans react...

Does that include the Europeans in London?

I tend to oversimply things.

I think we've all done that at times. I'm not just nit-picking. I have a problem with yet another 'them' and 'us' developing between the US and Europe.
on Aug 01, 2005
That was why I used the word "many". There were people who reacted that way in London, as evidenced by some of the comments made, but probably around as many as we have here.
on Aug 01, 2005
but probably around as many as we have here


Yes, I think that's the truth of the matter.
on Aug 02, 2005
Probably quite a bit since they know that if we do it, there won't be anyone left over there to carry on. They "may be" ignorant. But STUPID they ain't!


it's not a question of ignorance or stupidity. if you truly believe those who are martyred get to use the diamond lane to an eternity in paradise, why fear death for you & yours? more importantly, why concern yourself with what happens in this existence since no matter how good it gets, it can't be but imperfect? if the world ends tonite, the conflict ends with it. those who are favored get their reward; the others are doomed for infinity.


Mainly because they're in this to win? At least in their eyes. And "you and yours"? When your talking nuke in a "small" country there ain't no you and yours , it's "EVERYONE"! Not everyone is interested in becoming martyred!
on Aug 02, 2005
"Mainly because they're in this to win?"


If that were true, it wouldn't be so bad. In reality terrorism is a major world business, generating untold wealth in donations, arms sales, drugs, etc. The last thing these people want is peace, whether it be Islamic or any other flavor.
on Aug 02, 2005
If that were true, it wouldn't be so bad. In reality terrorism is a major world business, generating untold wealth in donations, arms sales, drugs, etc. The last thing these people want is peace, whether it be Islamic or any other flavor.


Maybe I didn't state my opinion plain enough. When I say "win"....they see anything where we (US) lose as a win for them. Hence the comment.
on Aug 06, 2005
Fortunately you were wrong..probably because the Japanese no longer have evil intentions against us. They are however in danger of fostering such feelings, with their rewriting of the textbooks to gloss over the atrocities committed by their armies. They point out that other colonising powers do the same thing. That is true, and they are criticised for it. This does not change what the Japanese are doing. Full commendation to the way the Germans still deal with their dark past.
on Aug 07, 2005
september 11 marked the 79th anniversary of the british mandate in palestine.


It was also the 28th anniversary of the overthrow and death of Salvador Allende, a democratically elected socialist President in Chile (and one of my favorite world leaders) in a US-supported coup.
on Aug 07, 2005
LOL, love how you use the word "US_supported" there, as if that really means much. We've been down the Allende path before. As with other historical figures "Democratically elected" doesn't necessarily guarantee Democratic rule. Hitler claimed to be socialist at first too, though all the 'nationalizing' he did oddly didn't seem to end up 'socializing' much...
on Aug 07, 2005

Hitler claimed to be socialist at first too, though all the 'nationalizing' he did oddly didn't seem to end up 'socializing' much...

he also came to power under a type of democracy.

on Aug 07, 2005
As with other historical figures "Democratically elected" doesn't necessarily guarantee Democratic rule.


What exactly does 'democratic rule' mean? If it means rule by the oligarchy chosen by the people in democratic elections, then I'm afraid democratic elections do guarantee it. At least for the first term. If it goes over without another election then it becomes tyranny.

Otherwise it's still extremely democratic.

In any case the US did support the assassination of the democratically elected ruler of Chile. It's hardly a contentious point just because you believe, that he acted against the wishes of the vast majority o his country. His supporters can say that he acted in accordance with their wishes with just as much evidence as you, particularly considering how primitive statistical analysis was in the 70s.
on Aug 07, 2005
LOL, love how you use the word "US_supported" there, as if that really means much. We've been down the Allende path before. As with other historical figures "Democratically elected" doesn't necessarily guarantee Democratic rule. Hitler claimed to be socialist at first too, though all the 'nationalizing' he did oddly didn't seem to end up 'socializing' much...


How can you compare Allende to Hitler with a straight face?

Are you saying that had Allende, a President with respect for the constitution, lived, he would have dismantled the democratic system in Chile? That is just plain ridiculous. Had there not been a coup, there would be new elections in 1976, and Allende would not have run because he would be ineligible (can't serve 2 consecutive terms). Why are you claiming he was ruling undemocratically and comparing him to Hitler? Is it simply because you disagree with him? I'll remember that the next time someone compares Bush to Hitler and you criticize him for it.
on Aug 07, 2005
"Are you saying that had Allende, a President with respect for the constitution, lived, he would have dismantled the democratic system in Chile?"


Respect for the consitution... because you say so?

Are you saying that there weren't people in Chile, including the CHILEANS who deposed him, who believed that? You like to paint this as a covert US mission, but in reality many people in Chile were aghast at the means Allende was using for 'reform'. It wasn't the US military that deposed him, so I think your homogenous characterization of Chile is a tad off. Many feared he was going to be the Castro of Chile.

My point about Hitler was that people who get voted into office often don't obey the spirit of the instutitions that put them there. I don't think the nationalization of private property against the will of legitimate owners is in line with the spirit of democracy. My opinion, of course.
on Aug 07, 2005
Fortunately you were wrong..probably because the Japanese no longer have evil intentions against us


i don't know if fortune played a part in it tho i gotta admit to regularly attempting to alter pro ball games by betting against my preferred outcome. in any event, this is one time i'm really happy to have been wrong.

i wasn't really concerned about the japanese. despite its shameful refusal to take responsibility for the death and destruction it inflicted attempting to conquer asia and the pacific--not to mention the consequences we're still dealing with ie, north korea--japan has shown no desire to involve itself with nuclear weapons.

hopefully it won't ever happen. i'm not optimistic (for a lotta reasons). about the best i can say is this: at least we made it thru one more day.
on Aug 07, 2005
Respect for the consitution


we know how pinochet dealt with the chilean constitution. he wrote a new one and fixed the plebiscite to ensure it was adopted.

of course there were chileans who were opposed to having land to which they held title redistributed. oligarchs generally hold title to a lotta land. that's what makes em oligarchs.

for a time i was friends with a chilean chick who once told me chile had been largely unoccupied until the spanish showed up...and that there were no indigenous peoples still living there. i'm sure she believed it. her parents were wealthy landowners.

considering the way they governed the us, nixon and kissinger had no business ordering the cia to interfere in chile's domestic affairs.
3 Pages1 2 3