.. there are many ways the rich and the powerful, the dirty and the disgusting, hold sway over a defeated nation, but having their own “leaders” leave out the Who in that bomb, they are goners!

Again, Putin bombed Japan = In Japan and America, more and more people think Hiroshima bombing was wrong.

Japanese officials have marked the 78th anniversary of the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima without naming the US as the country responsible. Despite Washington carrying out the only two offensive uses of nuclear weapons in history, they chose instead to condemn Russia for its supposed “nuclear threat.”

“Japan, as the only nation to have suffered atomic bombings in war, will continue efforts towards a nuclear-free world,” Prime Minister Fumio Kishida said in a speech on Sunday. The path to such a world is becoming “increasingly difficult because of deepening divisions in the international community over nuclear disarmament and Russia’s nuclear threat,” he added.

While maintaining that the “devastation brought to Hiroshima and Nagasaki by nuclear weapons can never be repeated,” he still refrained from naming those responsible for the attacks in the first place. 

A US Army Air Force bomber dropped an atomic bomb over Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, killing up to 126,000 people, most of them civilians. Another nuclear bomb was detonated over the city of Nagasaki on August 9, killing up to 80,000 people, almost all of whom were civilians. Japan surrendered to the Allied powers a week later, bringing the Second World War to a close.

In his speech on Sunday, Hiroshima Mayor Kazumi Matsui also avoided naming the perpetrator of the bombing. Matsui called on world leaders to “confront the reality” of “nuclear threats now being voiced by certain policymakers” – another apparent reference to Russia. 

[Photo: The remains of the Prefectural Industrial Promotion Hall after the bombing of Hiroshima, seen here in a photo taken in September 1945. The hall was later preserved as the Hiroshima Peace Memorial. AFP/GETTY IMAGES]

+—+

The bomb or Jesus and the Jews. Read below:

And, so, Jesus is just an aside to the Hasbara, the Apartheid Nation, and Holly-Dirt, which is owned by the Jews, will make the tough black guy (sic-sic-sic) get on his hands and knees and kiss the feet of these Zionist and Jewish monsters:

The American Academy Award-winning actor Jamie Foxx has issued an apology for a since-deleted Instagram post which some people had construed as being a vocal attack on members of the Jewish community.

Foxx, who won numerous accolades for his portrayal of the iconic musician Ray Charles in the 2004 biopic ‘Ray,’ wrote on Saturday, “I want to apologize to the Jewish community and everyone who was offended by my post. I now know my choice of words have caused offense and I’m sorry. That was never my intent.”

Foxx’s apology follows a prior social media post issued by the actor which had stated: “They killed this dude named Jesus. What do you think they’ll do to you???! #fakefriends #fakelove.”

That’s the power of lies, and double down lies, until the dirty Catholic Church does more gymnastics to show how dirty it is, on so many levels:

Pope Benedict XVI has made a sweeping exoneration of the Jewish people for the death of Jesus Christ, tackling one of the most controversial issues in Christianity in a new book.

In “Jesus of Nazareth-Part II” excerpts released Wednesday, Benedict explains biblically and theologically why there is no basis in Scripture for the argument that the Jewish people as a whole were responsible for Jesus’ death.

Oh, the royal “we,” or the collectie “we” or just us, as in “we killed Jesus.”

The best-known text of this nature, however, is found in Matthew’s Gospel:

Now at the festival the governor was accustomed to release a prisoner for the crowd, anyone whom they wanted. At that time they had a notorious prisoner, called Jesus Barrabas. So after they had gathered, Pilate said to them, “Whom do you want me to release for you, Jesus Barabbas or Jesus who is called the Messiah?” For he realized that it was out of jealousy that they had handed him over. While he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent word to him, “Have nothing to do with that innocent man, for today I have suffered a great deal because of a dream about him.” Now the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowds to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus killed. The governor again said to them, “Which of the two do you want me to release for you?” And they said, “Barabbas.” Pilate said to them, “Then what should I do with Jesus who is called the Messiah?” All of them said, “Let him be crucified!” Then he asked, “Why, what evil has he done?” But they shouted all the more, “Let him be crucified!”

So when Pilate saw that he could do nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took some water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this man’s blood; see to it yourselves.” Then the people as a whole answered, “His blood be on us and on our children!” So he released Barabbas for them; and after flogging Jesus, he handed him over to be crucified. (27:15–26)

Why would the author of Matthew’s Gospel want to emphasize Jewish guilt rather than Roman guilt in bringing about the death of Jesus and, indeed, extend responsibility for this blood to the descendants (children) of those who were actually present? It seems unlikely that Matthew would want to “let the Romans off the hook,” exonerate them for an obvious act of injustice and sadism.

Most scholars think that Matthew himself was Jewish and that he wrote his Gospel for a congregation of Jewish persons who believed in Jesus as the Messiah. Thus Matthew exemplifies a typical theme in Christian preaching, insisting that he and his congregation bear personal responsibility for the death of Jesus and so share in atonement through his blood.

Matthew is not saying, “Those Jews are to blame for killing Jesus.” He is saying, “We Jews are responsible for killing Jesus. We can’t just blame Pilate and the Romans. His blood is on us.” (source)

+—+

So, anniversaries or not, the world today is more than insane. It’s filled with mad cow disease, these people are monsters because they are treated as vanguard, and they are nothing more than racists, hateful Five Eyes, the Gross Leaders of the UnFree world.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres remarked that “a nuclear weapon incinerated Hiroshima,” without mentioning who dropped the device. “And some countries are recklessly rattling the nuclear saber once again, threatening to use these tools of annihilation,” he added, without elaborating further. 

MONSTER:

This is a double blasphemy. UN Secretary is a Goebbels.

More and more lies, until these people are cornered dementia patients: Truth is . . .

The Bomb Didn’t Beat Japan. Stalin Did

The U.S. use of nuclear weapons against Japan during World War II has long been a subject of emotional debate. Initially, few questioned President Truman’s decision to drop two atomic bombs, on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But, in 1965, historian Gar Alperovitz argued that, although the bombs did force an immediate end to the war, Japan’s leaders had wanted to surrender anyway and likely would have done so before the American invasion planned for Nov. 1. Their use was, therefore, unnecessary. Obviously, if the bombings weren’t necessary to win the war, then bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was wrong. In the 48 years since, many others have joined the fray: some echoing Alperovitz and denouncing the bombings, others rejoining hotly that the bombings were moral, necessary, and life-saving.

Both schools of thought, however, assume that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with new, more powerful weapons did coerce Japan into surrendering on Aug. 9. They fail to question the utility of the bombing in the first place—to ask, in essence, did it work? The orthodox view is that, yes, of course, it worked. The United States bombed Hiroshima on Aug. 6 and Nagasaki on Aug. 9, when the Japanese finally succumbed to the threat of further nuclear bombardment and surrendered. The support for this narrative runs deep. But there are three major problems with it, and, taken together, they significantly undermine the traditional interpretation of the Japanese surrender.

Timing

The first problem with the traditional interpretation is timing. And it is a serious problem. The traditional interpretation has a simple timeline: The U.S. Army Air Force bombs Hiroshima with a nuclear weapon on Aug. 6, three days later they bomb Nagasaki with another, and on the next day the Japanese signal their intention to surrender.* One can hardly blame American newspapers for running headlines like: “Peace in the Pacific: Our Bomb Did It!”

When the story of Hiroshima is told in most American histories, the day of the bombing—Aug. 6—serves as the narrative climax. All the elements of the story point forward to that moment: the decision to build a bomb, the secret research at Los Alamos, the first impressive test, and the final culmination at Hiroshima. It is told, in other words, as a story about the Bomb. But you can’t analyze Japan’s decision to surrender objectively in the context of the story of the Bomb. Casting it as “the story of the Bomb” already presumes that the Bomb’s role is central.

Historically, the use of the Bomb may seem like the most important discrete event of the war. From the contemporary Japanese perspective, however, it might not have been so easy to distinguish the Bomb from other events. It is, after all, difficult to distinguish a single drop of rain in the midst of a hurricane.

In the summer of 1945, the U.S. Army Air Force carried out one of the most intense campaigns of city destruction in the history of the world. Sixty-eight cities in Japan were attacked and all of them were either partially or completely destroyed. An estimated 1.7 million people were made homeless, 300,000 were killed, and 750,000 were wounded. Sixty-six of these raids were carried out with conventional bombs, two with atomic bombs. The destruction caused by conventional attacks was huge. Night after night, all summer long, cities would go up in smoke. In the midst of this cascade of destruction, it would not be surprising if this or that individual attack failed to make much of an impression—even if it was carried out with a remarkable new type of weapon.

A B-29 bomber flying from the Mariana Islands could carry—depending on the location of the target and the altitude of attack—somewhere between 16,000 and 20,000 pounds of bombs. A typical raid consisted of 500 bombers. This means that the typical conventional raid was dropping 4 to 5 kilotons of bombs on each city. (A kiloton is a thousand tons and is the standard measure of the explosive power of a nuclear weapon. The Hiroshima bomb measured 16.5 kilotons, the Nagasaki bomb 20 kilotons.) Given that many bombs spread the destruction evenly (and therefore more effectively), while a single, more powerful bomb wastes much of its power at the center of the explosion—re-bouncing the rubble, as it were—it could be argued that some of the conventional raids approached the destruction of the two atomic bombings. (source)

And, so, RFK, JR. continues JFK’s legacy of lies, fear of the star, man, that dirty corrupt place of Nakba:

Should a person who defends and promotes a state that actively endorses Jewish supremacy be called a Jewish supremacist?

In the recent Globe and Mail commentary “Canada must rethink its friendship with Israel” establishment commentator Thomas Juneau noted that the current hard-right Israeli government “includes Jewish supremacists”. In response Norman Levine tweeted, “the term ‘Jewish supremacists’ borders on antisemitism. I’m shocked the editors at Globe and Mail allowed an article including that term to be published.”

While Levine’s objection is nonsense, Juneau’s use of the qualifier “includes” is absurd. Is anyone in Benjamin Netanyahu’s government not an aggressive Jewish supremacist?

Years before forming his current extremist government, Netanyahu declared that Israel was “not a state of all its citizens”. Referencing a 2018 law he wrote, “according to the basic nationality law we passed, Israel is the nation state of the Jewish people – and only it.” In recent days the Knesset adopted legislation that in certain circumstances gives Jewish Israelis milder punishment for rape and sexual assault than Palestinian citizens of Israel. They also passed a law – by a large margin – effectively allowing communities to exclude non-Jews.

According to Adalah, the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, more than 65 Israeli laws discriminate against non-Jews. Additionally, the World Zionist Organization, Jewish Agency and Jewish National Fund, which has quasi state status, are constitutionally committed to serving and promoting the interests of Jews and only Jews. In 2021 leading Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem published “A regime of Jewish supremacy between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea: this is apartheid.”

RE: On the Use and Misuse of the Term “Jewish Supremacist”

Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons, but since the USA, is the USI, we are run by an Israel-First, Israel Uber Alles World.

Conducting research on Israeli nuclear weapons has historically been very challenging, not least because Israel purposely does not acknowledge its own possession of nuclear weapons. Moreover, Western governments normally do not include Israel in their descriptions of nuclear-armed states. Additionally, Israeli nuclear whistleblowers have faced significant penalties; in 1986, former nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu was kidnapped by Israeli intelligence services and spent 18 years in prison after giving a detailed interview about Israel’s nuclear program to the Sunday Times (Myre 2004). This chilling effect means that individuals with knowledge of Israel’s nuclear program have been understandably reluctant to provide on-the-record information, which dilutes the ability of open-source researchers to analyze Israel’s nuclear forces. Thankfully, over the past two decades, historians like Avner Cohen and William Burr have contributed invaluable research that has made previously unknown nuances of Israel’s opaque nuclear policy available to the public.¹

Additionally, since 1997 a US law known as the Kyl-Bingaman Amendment has prohibited US companies from publishing satellite imagery at a resolution that is “no more detailed or precise than satellite imagery of Israel that is available from commercial sources.” For decades, this has meant that the majority of commercially available satellite imagery of Israel has been limited to a resolution of approximately two meters, making it very difficult to analyze in detail. However, in June 2020, the US Commercial Remote Sensing Regulatory Affairs Office announced that it would now allow commercial imagery providers to offer enhanced imagery of Israel at a resolution of 0.4 meters (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2020). The move was made in order to bring American imagery providers in line with their foreign counterparts, which had already been producing imagery at that level for several years. As a result, we have incorporated higher-resolution imagery into this article. (source: Nuclear Notebook: Israeli nuclear weapons, 2022)