M
miles
Guest
Ishmael said:Now you know why I have him and all of his alter egos (LT/Bob/Rob) on ignore.
Ishmael
Bob=Rob?
Hmmmm.
Why Islam is disrespected
- Thread starter Ishmael
- Start date
Bob=Rob?
Hmmmm.
Can someone please direct me to the last post that had at least something to do with the original subject "Why Islam is disrespected".
I somehow lost my orientation here. All those alts are getting me dizzy.
Ok, so what exactly has the Chrysanthemum Throne to do with the Mullahs ?
I somehow lost my orientation here. All those alts are getting me dizzy.
Ok, so what exactly has the Chrysanthemum Throne to do with the Mullahs ?
Veryknowing
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2003
- Posts
- 1,287
Gringao said:
says the guy who just said
Gringao said:
Didn't you just say you were leaving?
Or are you going to concede properly this time?
Either fuck off, or stop spouting all that manure from that hole you think is your mouth.
You wanted to put in your two cents, and then you decide to runaway when you can't defeat the point.
Lovelynice
wet at present
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Posts
- 5,696
Gringao said:
BZZZT!
Now that is what I call a display of ignorance and making big claims without doing your research.
Protecting the Emperor's status was the only condition that the Japanese required for surrender.
It is historical FACT that the Japanese surrender - even after the nuclear bombs were dropped on Hiroshima & Nagasaki - was still conditional.
On Aug. 10, the day after Nagasaki, a message came from Tokyo accepting the terms of the Potsdam Declaration, but ''with the understanding that the said declaration does not comprise any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of His Majesty as a sovereign ruler.''
The Japanese surrendered on the condition that they keep Emperor Hirohito. That is a condition. "Unconditional" means no conditions. Look it up
Better do your own, LN. The surrender was unconditional, as outlined in the official Instrument of Surrender document.
Have a look yourself
Have a look yourself
M
miles
Guest
Gringao said:
Stop confusing the issue with facts.
LovetoGiveRoses
Southern Gentleman
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2002
- Posts
- 16,796
Rex1960 said:
Very early in the morning there Rex. Or have you stayed up all night?
Why is Islam disrespected?
woody54
Liberal critic Downunder
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2002
- Posts
- 10,741
Gringao said:
I thonk you need a comprehension lesson. Reread your document in terms of what VK has already pointed out.
The Military command surrendered unconditionally but acting for the Emperor who was still right in there afterwards...
From your document..
We hereby undertake for the Emperor, the Japanese Government and their successors to carry out the provisions of the Potsdam Declaration in good faith,
Where does your confusion arise?
woody54 said:
There's no confusion. The Japanese on August 10 tried to tie surrender to the condition of maintenance of the Emperor as head of the Japanese state. In the Instrument of Surrender, they no longer required that stipulation. The surrender was unconditional, as the text clearly states (unequivocally accepting the Potsdam conditions, unlike their Aug. 10 statement).
Further down in the document, the Emperor subordinates himself to the Allied Command, up to and including dissolution of his office.
Lovelynice
wet at present
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Posts
- 5,696
Gringao said:
That isn't a copy or scan of the original document. There are no signatures.
I've never seen an official document of this kind which has no signatures or even a stamp on it.
The version that was eventually signed may be different from this, as the link you have is to an unsigned document.
Lovelynice said:
Oh, brother...what an objection. No matter, here they are
Or shall I sneak into the National Archives and have the originals FedEx'ed to you for perusal?
Lovelynice
wet at present
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Posts
- 5,696
Gringao said:
I've already seen that site. The surrender terms are not readable on the images shown.
By the way, there were twenty copies made, but only the original would have any legal meaning. The others may have been altered, you know.
On top of which, the page that is shown as signed is not the page that has the accepted conditions. In a legal contract, they makes it disputable as to whether the signed paper has bearing on the conditions which are all entirely on a seperate paper.
Last edited:
Lovelynice
wet at present
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Posts
- 5,696
Gringao said:
I think you really should.
Afterall, you never defeated VK's argument that the historical result was that the USA accepted the same conditions of surrender as the Japanese originally offered.
Veryknowing
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2003
- Posts
- 1,287
Hey, Gringao, what's the matter. You can't stick to a goodbye?
I thought you were going?
You still haven't beat my point.
The dropping of nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unnecessary, and were unjustified. You also can't show that either city was a valid military target.
I thought you were going?
You still haven't beat my point.
The dropping of nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unnecessary, and were unjustified. You also can't show that either city was a valid military target.
Lovelynice said:I think you really should.
Afterall, you never defeated VK's argument that the historical result was that the USA accepted the same conditions of surrender as the Japanese originally offered.
Read the surrender documents and see what "conditions" the Allies accepted.
In short, just because the Allies allowed the Emperor to continue after the occupation does not mean this was a condition that was accepted at the time of surrender. The Instrument of Surrender makes amply clear that had the Allies decided the Emperor was an impediment to the pacification of Japan, he would have been removed from that status.
VK thinks that if he repeats the same specious nonsense long enough it will become fact. Are you of the same kidney, Miss?
Lovelynice
wet at present
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Posts
- 5,696
Veryknowing said:
It's because these rightwingers never can justify it.
They can't deal with the truth that there wonderful government is run by evil people who gladly slaughter hundreds of thousands, even millions of innocent civilians, and are no better than any other national government.
Veryknowing said:
I said goodbye to you and your endless, pointless repitition of nonsense. There was no reason to continue.
We might discuss whether H and N were legitimate targets, but there's no discussion about whether Japan had accepted Allied surrender terms, for they most certainly had not.
Similar threads
