Study: Many Blacks Cite AIDS Conspiracy

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Study: Many Blacks Cite AIDS Conspiracy

jmercer said:
Sounds like you need to do a little research on the state of the Japanese populace at that point in the war.
Click to expand...


Feel free to present actual evidence that "the Japanese civilian populace was being prepared to fight to the death".
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Study: Many Blacks Cite AIDS Conspiracy

jzs said:


Feel free to present actual evidence that "the Japanese civilian populace was being prepared to fight to the death". [/B]
Click to expand...

Sure. Give me a few days, I'll dig it up. It's pretty much well documented that the Japanese government was doing this well before the final days of WW II.

I noticed you didn't challenge anything else in the post. :)

Another reason the allies weren't in the mood to accept anything less than unconditional surrender and the disbandment of the Japanese military was about the cannablism practiced by the Japanese on captured Allied troops. Would you like some documentation on that, as well? I have that a bit more handy.
 
Okay, I’ll take this bait, even if it's meant for another fish, and I apologize if this derails the thread further. Unfortunately, I have only two sources. Here is a bit from Gerhard L. Weinberg’s A World At Arms: A Global History of World War II (1994, Cambridge UP):
If in private there was as yet no disposition to surrender, in public the process for mobilization for defense against invasion continued apace. . . . and on June 12 [1945] the Diet passed legislation requiring all males 15-60 and all females 17-40 years old to join The Peoples’ Volunteer Fighting Crops. Simultaneously, an equivalent of martial law was declared as the nation prepared to ward off the anticipated assault (878).
Click to expand...
And this from Richard B. Frank’s Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire (Random House, 1999):
On April 8 [1945], frenzied staff officers in Tokyo complete a sprawling master defense plan for the impending struggle for the Homeland and the contiguous areas, crowned as Ketsu-Go (“Decisive” Operation). . . . The incorporation of the civilian population into the defense scheme represented the third singular feature of Ketsu-Go (85-86).
Click to expand...
also
When the effort to make the defense of the Marianas the decisive battle failed by June 1944, the War Journal of Imperial Headquarters concluded:
We can no longer direct the war with any hope of success. The only course left is for Japan’s one hundred million people to sacrifice their lives by charging the enemy to make them lose the will to fight (88).
Click to expand...
Frank devotes a three-page section of the book (188-190) specifically to civilian mobilization. He briefly discusses the Patriotic Citizens Fighting Corps (what Weinberg calls The Peoples’ Volunteer Fighting Crops). Most telling is this passage from 189:
A mobilized high-school girl, Yukiko Kasai, found herself issued an awl and told: “Even killing just one American soldier will do. You must prepare to use the awls for self-defense. You must aim at the enemy’s abdomen.” Many civilians found themselves drilling with sharpened staves or spears.
Click to expand...
Physical evidence, however, of anyone being specifically trained to “fight to the death” as opposed to simply fighting might be harder to come by, but circumstantial evidence surely implies that this was the Japanese mind-set, and the Americans thought it was as well. Japanese fatality rates are almost beyond reasoning: at Saipan, with 30,000 Japanese soldiers, only 921 were taken prisoner (Frank, 28); according to Weinberg, of the slightly more than 20,000 Japanese soldiers at Iwo Jima only 200 were taken alive (868). Over 100,000 Japanese soldiers had died at Okinawa, as well as tens of thousands of civilians. Fatality rates exceeding 95 percent were the norm, not the exception. Surrender was simply not something the Japanese accepted. Indeed, after the second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, Emperor Hirohito had to cast the deciding vote to surrender and not to continue fighting, as the eight members of Japan's war council were split four to four.

Edited to correct a publication date.
 
Thanks for the info, Oregon_Skeptic - this pretty much matches my understanding of what was happening then, too. :)

If anyone's interested in the cannibalism and other war-crimes commited during WWII by the Japanese military and government, there are references on the web... but probably the most concise and best researched source is the following:

Hidden Horrors: Japanese War Crimes in World War II
Author: Yuki Tanaka
ISBN: 0-8133-2718-0 (Hardcover)
ISBN: 0-8133-2717-0 (Paperback)

Be forewarned - it's a very painful read.

I should make it clear at this point that I consider the Japanese civilians of that era as victims of their own government - much like I consider the German civilians were as well. I have a great respect and liking for the Japanese and German cultures of today, and I admire the transformation they have undergone since WWII, and the strength of the peoples over the decades that enabled those changes.
 
The Japanese weren't the only civilians being bombed in WWII.

Brits, Germans, Italians, Russains, Phillilpinos, on and on.

So here we are. World War Two. In a black conspiracy theory about AIDS. :D
 
Hey, don't forget that we also covered the American Revolution and the American Civil War. ;)
 
Luke T. said:
The Japanese weren't the only civilians being bombed in WWII.

Brits, Germans, Italians, Russains, Phillilpinos, on and on.

So here we are. World War Two. In a black conspiracy theory about AIDS. :D
Click to expand...

Does this mean I get an internet law named after me, just like Godwin?
 
Here's another correction Luke T

The United States had slavery for less than 100 years
Not hundreds
 
kedo1981 said:

The United States had slavery for less than 100 years
Not hundreds
Click to expand...

Oh, please.

If you're going to pick nits, at least pick legitimate nits; although
the United States had slavery for less than 100 years, the American colonies had slavery for more than 150 years prior to that. The blacks in the colonies were also "American blacks" and, by and large, enslaved.

If you have any other factual misrepresentations to make about Luke's statement that "American blacks were enslaved for hundreds of years and are discriminated against to this day," please let me know.
 
new drkitten said:
Oh, please.

If you're going to pick nits, at least pick legitimate nits; although
the United States had slavery for less than 100 years, the American colonies had slavery for more than 150 years prior to that. The blacks in the colonies were also "American blacks" and, by and large, enslaved.

If you have any other factual misrepresentations to make about Luke's statement that "American blacks were enslaved for hundreds of years and are discriminated against to this day," please let me know.
Click to expand...

I understand your point, but as long as we're picking nits... what kedo said isn't really a misrepresentation - especially if you look at it from a detailed historical (and even legal) perspective.

We weren't the "American colonies" prior to 1776, we were "British colonies in North America". (Or the "New World", if you prefer.) We were fully subject to both British rule and law, considered British citizens (although treated like second-class ones, which was a major justification for the war) and we had a formal British governor appointed over us at the time.

So, if you want to get really nit-picky, you should say that until 1776, British colonists maintained slaves on the North American continent. After we declared independence, we abolished slavery 89 years later. (Although we abolished the slave trade prior to that.) :D

I might also point out that in 1787, 5 states out of 13 abolished slavery at the Constitutional Convention - so even including all of America in that statement is inaccurate, and was inaccurate 11 years after the formation of the USA.

I fully understood the message that Luke was saying, and nothing mentioned here takes away from it - so I took it in the spirit that it was given. :)
 
jmercer said:
I understand your point, but as long as we're picking nits... what kedo said isn't really a misrepresentation - especially if you look at it from a detailed historical (and even legal) perspective.

We weren't the "American colonies" prior to 1776, we were "British colonies in North America". (Or the "New World", if you prefer.)
Click to expand...

No, they were the "American" colonies, as opposed to (for example), the "Indian" colonies (which at the time usually meant "the British colonies in the West Indies," but would also become more ambiguous when colonies were established in India proper), the "Asian" colonies, the "Australian" colonies, and so forth. By no stretch of the imagination could you consider blacks living in Georgia (which last time I checked was part of North America) not to be "American blacks."

The vast majority of "American blacks," by which read, "blacks inhabiting North America," or even "the American continents in general," were black slaves in one of the various slave-holding British colonies. The free blacks in the non slave-holding colonies such as Massachusetts were little more than statistical noise in the demographics.
 
new drkitten said:
No, they were the "American" colonies, as opposed to (for example), the "Indian" colonies (which at the time usually meant "the British colonies in the West Indies," but would also become more ambiguous when colonies were established in India proper), the "Asian" colonies, the "Australian" colonies, and so forth. By no stretch of the imagination could you consider blacks living in Georgia (which last time I checked was part of North America) not to be "American blacks."
Click to expand...

Well, I don't want to turn this into a nit-picking session... I think we have better things to discuss.

Setting aside semantics over "American colonies" vs. "British colonies in America" (I grant that the nomenclature is a non-issue - I only used it to make a point about governmental responsiblity, etc.), I'm not clear on what you're trying to say in this paragraph about blacks in Georgia.

One of the Southern colonies, Georgia started out as a proprietary colony but eventually became a Royal colony in 1752. And this was all obviously before the creation of the United States... I guess I'm just not clear on what you mean by "American blacks" prior to the Revolutionary war period. Unless we're talking at cross-purposes,and you're referring to the physical geography, while I'm referring to the political map of the region?

new drkitten said:
The vast majority of "American blacks," by which read, "blacks inhabiting North America," or even "the American continents in general," were black slaves in one of the various slave-holding British colonies. The free blacks in the non slave-holding colonies such as Massachusetts were little more than statistical noise in the demographics.
Click to expand...

I agree - they were by far in the minority of the (post- revolution, I can say it!) American blacks. However, just to be clear - while they were colonies, slavery was permitted in all of the colonies.

The 5 states (Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin) that abolished slavery were able to do so because they weren't dependent on it, unlike the other 7. However, my point still stands that slavery was universally permitted for only the first 11 years of the US's existence. Sadly, it took 78 more years to finish the job. :(

(edited for punctuation and some clarifications)
 
The point was that you can't point out "well Americans had slavery for hundreds of years" as any kind of causation that the .gov created or spread the aids virus among black Americans , it’s just not true.
 
kedo1981 said:
The point was that you can't point out "well Americans had slavery for hundreds of years" as any kind of causation that the .gov created or spread the aids virus among black Americans , it’s just not true.
Click to expand...

The version I heard of the aids rumour is that it was created to kill off the third world countries (the black non-Americans, in a way).

Anyway, the truth of this particular rumour aside, slavery (like the holocaust, like the slaughter and salting of Carthage, like many many other examples) does make a supporting point - that governments will do terrible things for unreasonable reasons if they think they can get away with it.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Study: Many Blacks Cite AIDS Conspiracy

Luke T. said:
The atom bomb was dropped on an enemy waging war against the United States. The black airmen infected with syphillis were not combatants against the U.S.
Click to expand...

Ah, but there's a conspiracy theory for that too.

After examination of the historical evidence, the testimonials of survivors and eyewitnesses, the subsequent investigations as well as the film record, it is hard not to reach the conclusion that the blast at Port Chicago was in fact an atomic explosion -- which, if so, would make it the world's first atomic detonation.
What really needs to be investigated further is whether or not this device was deliberately detonated by the military, using low-ranking (black) personnel as guinea pigs to test its effects.
Click to expand...

http://www.dreamscape.com/morgana/sinope.htm
 
Luke T. said:
Try this one.
Click to expand...

Thanks! Funny! And all too true...

Fortunately for me, the discussion centered around the Pacific front and not the European front - maybe I'm starting a new trend. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom