Obama is visiting Japan to meet with world economic leaders this week, and he plans to stop at Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park and deliver remarks about war and nuclear proliferation. The visit, preceded by similar visits by U.S. Ambassador Caroline Kennedy and Secretary of State John Kerry, is controversial … -LA Times
Three top politicians from the US have recently visited Hiroshima. Obama’s upcoming meeting will doubtless be broadcast to the world and reinforce the seriousness and responsibility that rests upon his shoulders.
But what if the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear explosions didn’t happen? What if the cities were somehow firebombed like Tokyo?
We wouldn’t be suspicious normally. But so much in the 20th century seems to be a lie. In the past several hundred years almost every major war seems to have been artificial.
Both 20th century world wars are presented as the result of German aggression, but closer study reveals that both wars were likely engineered by British and American banking interests, among others.
Various international alliances were formed that almost guaranteed violence. And in the case of World War I, the two greatest opponents of impending war – Archduke Ferdinand and Rasputin – were attacked.
Ferdinand was shot and Rasputin was stabbed but lived. But most history books don’t mention Rasputin’s murder because the attacks seem to have been coordinated, giving rise to a perception the war was set in motion on purpose. It didn’t just “happen.”
When it comes to World War II, there is plenty of evidence that the West funded Hitler and Germany to set off yet another war.
The Japanese were brought into the war based on Pearl Harbor attacks. But in this Internet era, it has become increasingly clear that Roosevelt knew about the attacks and wanted them to happen.
In the past few years has it become general knowledge that Lyndon Johnson’s announcement about the Gulf of Tonkin attack was incorrect. There was no attack. But the war started anyway.
George Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction to invade Iraq.
Just in this past year, it’s become clear that a main reason to invade Libya had to do with Muammar Gaddafi’s intention to create a pan-African currency backed by gold.
There are in fact plenty of questions about the bombing both at Hiroshima and Nagasaki – and we have already written an article about it HERE.
We pointed out, for instance, that much footage of nuclear explosions seem to be faked. (It doesn’t even make sense that they are filmed, given the supposed force of the explosions.)
In Japan it was even illegal to question the official story about Nagasaki and Hiroshima. This was punishable by imprisonment and execution.
Questions have been raised on numerous fronts regarding the twin bomb blasts – about shadows supposedly etched into streets and walls, for instance.
Photographs seem to have been aggressively retouched to emphasize damage. US personnel reportedly stated they were asked to exaggerate the number of dead and wounded.
Yet, the damage to both small cities does seem to resemble firebombing. Wood buildings burned but stone and concrete ones did not. In Hiroshima both the hospital and the train station survived.
Even the story of the main witnesses to the blast, a group of Jesuits, has come under scrutiny. Somehow the group emerged, unscathed and un-irradiated after the bomb blast only a few blocks away.
They later attributed their good fortune to the protection of the Virgin Mary.
None of this means that the official story is untrue. Only that significant questions have been raised (in this Internet era) and no doubt will continue to be asked.
When it comes to the West’s wars, it seems nothing is clear or simple.
Biden, Caroline Kennedy and now Barack Obama … once they visit Hiroshima and reflect, ceremonially, on the awesome responsibility of being able to destroy the earth with just a few weapons, they take on larger-than-life characteristics.
Certainly, Obama’s visit to Hiroshima will be accompanied by a major surge of media discussing the bombing and its horror. Obama it is said, will not apologize for what happened. This lack of apology itself resonates with the seriousness of the larger conversation.
Presumably nuclear weapons exist and are as terrible as they are made out to be. But there is certainly no public investigation of military claims – then or now.
We return continually to what we see increasingly as the “miracle” of the mid 20th century. In a time span of 30 years, the US government somehow invented nuclear weapons and traveled to the moon.
Yet some 60 years later it could not build a national, health care website.
Are military men and intelligence agents trustworthy? Do politicians always tell the truth? Are people getting a full accounting of nuclear weapons – how many are real and how widely they are actually deployed?
Conclusion: The Internet has revealed so much else that is false or questionable in the 20th and 21st century. Given the seriousness of nuclear weapons and the horror that accompanies any contemplated usage, more questions should be raised about their creation, deployment and potential usage. These questions should be pursued in the face of the inevitable non answers.