We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
THERE HAS BEEN a call for bibles at polling stations to be removed and voting to be held at non-religious venues.
The Citizens’ Assembly is meeting this weekend to discuss the manner in which referenda are held and Atheist Ireland made the call in a submission in advance of the meeting.
The submission cites research from Stanford University which found that the venue where voters cast their ballot can influence how they vote.
Michael Nugent and Jane Donnelly of Atheist Ireland argue that votes should be cast “in a secular environment”.
“Referendums should take place in a secular environment that is neutral between religious and atheistic beliefs. There should be no symbols or practices in polling stations that endorse either religion or atheism, and all voters should be treated equally,” the submission states.
The submission also takes issue with the presence of Christian bibles at polling stations, stating that it could “influence the outcome of a close referendum”.
This issue was raised on the day of the marriage equality referendum in 2015 when people queried the presence of bibles at polling stations.
At the time, the Referendum Commission attempted to explain the reason for the presence of bibles, tweeting:
Re queries on why bibles are at polling stations. In all elections and referendums they are for people to swear confirmation of identity. The Department of the Environment says bibles are there because they are the most commonly used and are not intended to offend anyone.
As Atheist Ireland points out in its submission, however, while there is an oath for people to swear to affirm their identity, there is no requirement that they swear on a bible.
The law in this area is contained in Section 111 of the Electoral Act 1992 and makes no reference to a bible or any other book.
The oath voters may have to swear is:
I swear by Almighty God (or — do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm — as the case may be) that I am the same person as the person whose name appears as AB on the register of Dáil electors now in force for the constitutency of….
While there is an option for voters to swear the oath without saying “Almighty God”, Atheist Ireland also wants a single standardised oath that does not require voters to reveal their religious or nonreligious beliefs.
The submission calls the labels the currents system “a religiously discriminatory oath process”.
This weekend’s meeting on the Citizens Assembly will discuss various issues surrounding how referendums are held including how campaigns are regulated.
All of the public sessions of the assembly are streamed on citizensassembly.ie.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Killing a city full of civilians. Worst act of terrorism the world has ever seen by a country mile.
What would you have done instead? A ground invasion which would have cost more lives?
More combatant lives yes . Civilians are not targets ever it’s a crime .
The intentional targeting of civilians is terrorism, just stating a point. I’m not a soldier I don’t know what the alternatives were.
Did you see the devastation left behind by the Russian advance on the Eastern front? More than two cities would have been flattened and well over a million have died had Truman and Eisenhower not made this decision
Re Reagan Smash
You don’t know your history.
The Japanese and the Emperor had already unconditionally surrendered.
The US only dropped the bombs to test their effects on civilians.
Only a fool who believes what they were spooned fed from school history books and corporate mainstream media would believe what you just said.
A ground invasion would also mean countless civilian deaths as well as raping, pillaging, slow deaths, fast deaths, mass suicide, watching all that happen to family members . The Bomb ended the war quickly. A ground invasion in Japan could have lasted a couple of years because they were so well dug in. Yes, targeting civilians is terrorism, but when you are fighting in a war as terrible as WW2, morality goes out the window and it becomes a matter of survival
Give that many of the soldiers were pretty much just scared 18 and 20 year old kids, you can’t draw much distinction between attacking civilians and attacking military.
Horgay H, I can put up with conspiracy theorists making wild assumptions, but rewriting history is a bit much..
Bomb dropped on Nagasaki – August 9
Japan announce unconditional surrender – August 15
Japan sign instrument of surrender – September 2
Why on earth would it be necessary to see what an atomic bomb would do by empirically researching it? They already knew? Nuclear physicists tend to be rather precise about this kind of thing
You can training and weapons
Conscripted soldiers are civilians in uniform.
Horgay, you are rewriting history!
They had not surrendered!!
And Horgay, I will find it ironic if you defend imperial japan because your always critical of “imperial” America.
Ben, very goid point that is all too often forgotten. Many of the boys lined up to invade the Japanese home islands were drafted. Better Japanese should suffer than these boys. All history now.
Any one know why Japan would not surrender or what they were fighting for? Aside from freedom from foreign rule?
Your obviously from some alternative universe
Only blowing, are you not aware that Japan had control of the Pacific Ocean, china, Korea, Singapore and several other Asian countries? They had bombed north Australia. They had India in their sights. And you say that they wanted to be free of foreign rule?! No one had ever invaded japan. They were never under anyone’s rule.
Do you not know your history???
So wrong!
Were you there
Horgay H, you’re an ignorant deluded buffoon and you are wrong.
Onlyblowingsmoke, culture is the main answer! Japanese teach dishonour in surrender, Saipan (of Roy Keane saga) is famous for the deaths of 22,000 civilians by suicide as they did not want to surrender to American troops.
Now apply that in scale to the main Japanese Islands!
Was it.
A horrendous deed in a different era that saved millions of lives because Japan would never have surrendered
Japan was trying to surrender, actually.
War hero? Lived to 93 while better men die in agony at younger ages.
Do you not think it would’ve frightened them enough into surrendering if had been dropped on an island of Japanese troops or maybe farmland?
@Dermot Lane
Tojo could have avoided the atomic bombings if he had accepted the Allies’ demand for unconditional surrender. He didn’t know that the atomic bombings would take place but he knew that millions of Japanese civilians would die in an Allied invasion of Japan.
The Japanese generals brought the calamity upon their country by invading China, Malaya, the Dutch East Indies and the Philippines and letting their soldiers rape, murder and pillage.
@Kugel Berg
All the Pacific islands outside Japan that the Japanese had held, plus Okinawa, had been seized by the Allies. Dropping the atomic bomb on an area that had a huge population was the only way of demoralising the Japanese so much that they would surrender unconditionally. Furthermore, the welfare of the Japanese public was the Japanese government’s responsibility, not the Allies’.
@Mike O Neill
The men on Enola Gay did what they had to do.
@CM
Yes, we are all mindless drones.
I don’t see how anyone could say for certain that if say one bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and the other on open farmland that Japan still wouldn’t have surrendered.
The surrender wasn’t unconditional, the Emperor was untouched. It was similar terms the Japanese already offered. The Russians were advancing from the West so they would have surrendered anyway but the Americans saw their chance to display their weapons to Russia. Don’t let reality or facts get in the way of a good story though. Fyi the US didn’t win the war in Europe and Saving Private Ryan wasn’t a documentary.
They kinda did Kugal, at Nagasaki they couldn’t see the target because of low cloud but dropped it anyway. It landed in a semi rural valley on the outskirts of the city, that’s why the death toll was much lower in Nagasaki
@Ciaran “The welfare of the Japanese public was the Japanese governments responsibility not the allies”… Wow really? Would you use the same reasoning in Israel bombing civilians in Pakistan? Not their responsibility eh? Disgusting comment.
I think if Israel starting bombing Pakistan we well and truly would have world war 3!
The last Japanese soldier to surrender did so in 1974.
“Sweet Enola Gay!”
I would say he was some man for a story.
Yea I blew up men, woman and children … Bet the kids loved that one from their hero.
Hopefully, he had had a painful death!
Why?
The man was only following orders. I have no problem with him. America has a lot to answer for though. Including the current Israel and Gaza conflict. Massive money has been provided to Israel by America. When trade and money is involved America is right in there and supports who ever gives them the best deal. Remember they used to provide Sadam Husain with money and weapons years ago until he pissed them off. America relies on people having short memories.
The world is full of educated idiots, do you think for one second that if this man refused to fly the plane that it wouldn’t have happened.
Why doesn’t my comment appear under the person I am replying to.
It is sad the amount of civilian casualties but it was a last resort. The Japanese would have fought to death, even every civilian was trained to fight to the death is there was a land invasion they didn’t have any choice it was the political mindset back then. After the first bomb japan still continued!
The two nukes done great things for Japan’s image around the world in fairness. Everyone goes on like “poor old innocent backwards Japan, crashing aeroplanes into boats and running at people with bayonettes instead of firing their guns. Sure they couldn’t have harmed a fly, and the hypocrite yanks nuked them!” Even in this thread everyone is saying of America “Act of terrorism! Atrocity! War crime! Where’s the justice for poor old Japan!? Why didn’t the yanks get the same trials the German’s got?!”
No one ever talks about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731 or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre and I think thats because the Japanese got to look like the victims after the war. Yeah the Americans dropped the bomb but the end of the day, every side in war has to do horrible things, I think the Japanese knew that just as well as anyone. They messed with the bull, and they got the horns.
I condemn the America in bombs .I’ll condemn the Japanese for her crimes too . Butchers are still butchers regardless of side to me any way .
Nazi concentration camp ex soldiers are hunted down and tried in court for war crimes.
Dropping these two bombs were war crimes in my book yet the people involved were never hunted down and tried in court.
I don’t see any difference between the two.
I guess America should have just forgotten about Pearl Harbour?
Because this was an act of war, the holocaust was not..
Pearl harbour was a strategic military target, however distasteful the Japanese sneak attack was.
Glen. Do you actually think anyone is interested in your opinion?
You have to post on everything….
Yes it was a military target, but it’s not like the Japanese said “let’s just target military targets and not civilian”. They chose Pearl Harbour because it was the best target. If they could have dropped a bomb of their own on Washington, they would have done it in a minute. In fact, the Japanese were much crueler than the Allies. Google “mass vivisections during WW2″, then tell me how moral you think the Japs were
Glen
You seem to of taken an interest in my opinion
No. Nobody does. But we’ll more tomorrow – from the journal junkie!!!
Glen
You have been trying to bust my chops for over a week now with no luck …. Your jealous your not the only glen on here aren’t you ….. Get over it it’s only a bloody name you big child grow up !
Stop your squabbling lads and stay on topic. No one wants their time wasted by having to read your childish jibes.
Sadly for us all. You lonely sado will be here again tommorow… (!)
Very interesting commentary on this death.
He played a small but crucial part in the bombing and lived to regret his actions. No doubt if he had refused, another would have taken his place. The war machine is to blame. More victim than hero, I would think.
It’s been well documented at this stage from declassified US war time records that the Japanese were in fact suing for peace and a cease fire before the bombs were dropped but were ignored.
It has been revealed that the US wanted to make a statement to Russia and China and ignored Japanese requests for peace and dropped the bombs anyway )c:
Google the documentary called ‘the power principle’
Absolute nonsense. The Japanese were in no way suing for peace. They were the most dedicated fighting force in the world.
At the time of the bombing they could not maintain air cover over the home islands the fleet was non existent . Yes many combatant lives would have been lost but civilians children wouldn’t have been turned to shadows on the ground
Are you suggesting that a ground invasion would not have resulted in the death of children?
A ground invasion would not be necessary to defeat an island nation.
So what would you suggest instead?
Japan offered to surrender, with conditions. The Americans wanted unconditional surrender. The Americans also wanted to test and demonstrate their new weapons of mass destruction, that’s why they dropped two different types as atomic bombs. It was an experiment and also a demonstration to the Russians.
#Types of atomic bombs
All true, Dermot. Conditional surrender is never a plausible option though. History has proven that multiple times. It only leads to a Cold War esque standoff
Destroy the Japanese fleet, they are no longer a threat. America weren’t an invading enemy, they would only need a ground invasion if they intended to occupy Japan.
Not the wiping out of two civilian cities no . And if you take your head out of the us write history book and look at evidence Japan was done .
@Dermot Lane
The Americans were right to demand unconditional surrender so that the perpetrators of the rampage of rape and murder that took place in the Pacific and South-East Asia would be punished, e.g. the Princess Alexandra Hospital massacre in Singapore, the Bataan Death March, the Burma Railway.
To anyone who red thumbed my comment above – the revised histroy of the era proves there was no need to drop the bombs, Japan had been neutralised! – I’m not going to bother posting links to the declassified US department of defense files…go ahead and try to disprove what I’m saying!.
Selective righteousness at work again! Amazingly warped knowledge of history on display here today.
May the man rest in peace!
What makes it worse is when Truman announced it he said ”the world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base”
The argument that it helped end the war and save the 1m or so US soldiers is not convincing to me.
Those were soldiers, it was their job to fight, so you killed civilians to save soldiers lives? What kind of solider with any sense of honor would be ok with that?
One was bad enough, two was over the top. The second one was clearly meant for Uncle Joe, and with that is the only argument I would ALMOST buy for dropping it. The argument goes that they knew the USSR was gonna have nukes sooner or later. Back then the big fear was a Soviet Invasion of Western Europe, the argument goes that by showing that they were willing to use nukes, the deterrent was maintained, the Soviets never moved for fear of those nukes, and ergo one Japanese city saved the world from a major nuclear exchange down the road.
It’s a good argument but leaves too much to Harry Trumans ability of prophecy.
Everyone today thinks the nazis were hung for the concentration camps, but the main focus of the trial was ”the crime of aggression” and ”crimes in the conduct of warfare”, genocide was not a properly defined crime at the time anyway. The allies hung them for murdering civilians on purpose, and that hypocrisy has endured to this very day with Blair and Bush walking free while the Milosoviches and Karadic’s faced life in prison.
Truman was president of the USA, of course an American soldier’s life was worth more than a Japanese citizens, that’s how it works
It was most definitely a war crime but the victors write the history books and less people died in wars in the second half of the century than did in the first.
@Killjoy that’s not how an honorable military works
Why do you think Operation Neptunes Spear was a special forces raid instead of a bombing mission?
Besides not having direct DNA evidence, they were worried even the smaller missile like a Hellfire would kill the children living at the compound and a bigger one from a B2 would crush nearby houses in the suburb.
So they decided to put 25 SEALS and 8 air crew in harms way to avoid killing civilians.
When the SEALS got there they were careful precisely because even though they are not Americans they did not want to kill civilians. They were very worried about hitting one of the kids to the point where at the end of the raid they gathered them up and tucked them into the guesthouse when they were about to blow their downed helicopter, just on the off chance shrapnel would go flying and hit one of them.
When one of the wives came towards them rushing them exasperated did they gun her down? No, one of them charged her shoving her into the corner so she’d be out of the way of the bullets, they could have assumed she was wearing a suicide vest and just put 2 shots in her head, but they took the risk.
No honorable solider kills a civilian and doing it with a bomb is no diff to doing it with a gun if it’s intentional.
The idea of saving more lives long term because conventional war MIGHT have killed more …is
Fair enough, but Japan’s civilian population would have been annihilated. They would have replaced their soldiers until nearly every last man and women was dead. Dropping the bomb was the lesser of two evils. More people both military and civilians would have died if conventional warfare had continued.
I’m not saying that armies should kill civilians, just that when it’s 300000 – 1000000 dead american soldiers on one end and peace not arriving for another year while the Soviet Union grabs a deeper foothold in western Europe, against the war being over in week’s time and no american casualties, it’s clear to see why the AMERICAN president chose the latter..
A lot of people would have thought the same about Hitler, they expected them to fight to the last as well, but his orders to destroy the Reich were not acrried about and in the end they just sighed and surrendered, stunned and exhausted.
The idea that the Japanese are these fanatical robots who would never have stopped is kinda racist.
They’re human just like us.
There was about 700 meters of Nazi Germany left when they surrendered? He did destroy the Reich, and the entirety of Eastern Europe..
Yes, they’re human but during their occupation of China they carried out brutal acts of savagery on Chinese civilians including killing competitions where competitors would race each other to kill as many Chinese with swords as they could within a specified time.
Not even to mention the sadistic human experimentation they carried out on POWs. They were just as bad, arguably worse than the Nazis during that time. Such was their fanaticism and sense of racial supremacy.
We only hear about the crimes of the Nazis and there’s very little attention given to the war crimes perpetrated by the Japanese. Germans today rightly or wrongly are instilled with a sense of guilt and their school curriculum places lots of emphasis on how bad Nazism was.
In Japan however, to this day their history books only have a couple of pages that mention war crimes. They don’t go into any detail and many Japanese today are ignorant of the crimes perpetrated by their country during that time.
@Killjoy I was referring to his order to Spear, which was not carried out. Yet they thought back then that Hitlers followers would blindly fight forever like they said about the Japanese.
@Qwerty, all true but war crimes were committed by all sides, they happen in wars, every single war.
The CIA experimented on people in the 50s.
Yes Ryan they are human like us – now! They were an indoctrinated race of subservient and vicious militarists during WW2. The proof of this is in how they behaved. The Pacific war was even more savage than the war in Europe because of Japanese fanaticism and blood lust. They believes everyone else was inferior and treated them as less than human. They also worshipped their Emperor as a God. Those of us living today cannot even imagine the savagery of the war and the consequences for humanity had the wrong sides won. Good men did terrible things so that civilised values could triumph over deluded racist mass murderers in Germany and Japan. This is the nature of total war. Let us hope we never have to experience it.
Funny how everyone is ignoring the millions of Chinese civilians the Japanese murdered horrifically. The prisoners of war they murdered, the Korean women they kidnapped and brought to Japan as sex slaves, etc… I love how so many of you are trying to re write history to suit your touchy feely agenda, as long as it is anti USA. The fact is the atomic bomb brought the war to an end far quicker than it would have. America was tired from the hundreds of thousands of men and women that they had lost fighting In Europe and the Pacific and the war was costing a fortune so it needed to end. As Ireland blissfully sat out the conflict, really you should all just go away and be thankful there are people out there that had enough balls to leave the security of their homes and come halfway across the world to fight a great injustice while Ireland sat and watched.
Can’t help but draw parallels between the Pacific war and the current conflict in Gaza. In terms of proportionality, doesn’t Americas response massively outweigh Japan’s tactics?This complete disproportionate response ended the war and saved lives in the long term even though the suffering inflicted on the Japanese was immeasurably more horrific than what is happening in Gaza, yet is there anyone who would argue that dropping the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a bad idea? Not likely.
I will cause it was a crime . If you want to fight boots on the ground and win with military blood civilians are not targets ,
Anyone that tries to justify the dropping of nuclear bombs on cities of old people, woman and children just so Japan, who were totally defeated, would sign over land and corporations to the people who control the US are despicable human beings.
The Japanese, military & civilian alike, were fanatical in their support of the Emperor!! He would have allowed the Japanese empire ‘Honourably’ fight to the last man in his name! The American’s hammered home their intent with the dropping of the A-Bombs forcing the Emperor to consider surrender and to seek terms. You can argue that the civilian population were unlawfully targeted in the instance of the Atomic Bombs being used, but truth be told they would have fought alongside or in replacement of soldiers once the allies had progressed into the Japanese mainland, such was their culture and the way they were raised!
Japan was spent at the time of the bombs no aircraft carriers .no large capital ships .low on fuel rubber and some metals ? No ally to help resupply . How long would it have lasted weeks not months not years .
As mentioned above, there could have been an effective display of atomic power over farmland, an island, anywhere but a densely populated city.
Why did they not surrender after the first bomb then ?
No matter how much duress a person is under they always have a choice! This man had a choice. He took the easy option and killed thousands of civilians.
And he saved the lives of thousands of his fellow Americans
But turned other human beings civilians to shadows on the ground
That’s what war is Mark.
It’s not some battle laid out where the honourable thing is done and women and children get treated well….not a bit of it.
Wars kills people wherever they are and they are indiscriminate.
This man was a soldier and he did his duty…if you had friends killed, mutilated and tortured by an enemy would you hold a high morale ground and not attack back with everything you had?
I doubt it.
Yes and the wonderful Japanese killed as many as 30 million Filipinos, Malays, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Indonesians and Burmese, at least 23 million of them ethnic Chinese they also raped 20,000 in Nanking
Fozz . War is sick and horrible it’s not a Hollywood film I know .but he was part of a crew that killed 1000s of civilians with this bomb . Targeting civilians is wrong and sick from 911 dresden Tokyo London Madrid canary warf Dublin gaza each and every one the act of butchers . You cannot forgive such act because the good guy done .
You don’t seem to understand that supposedly civilised nations are supposed to observe certain rules of engagement, one of which is to strive to minimise civilian casualties. In this instance, the US deliberately and needlessly chose to inflict maximum casualties among an entirely helpless and blameless civilian population. German officers were hanged at Nuremberg for far less. But hey, the Americans were on the winning side, and so this outright atrocity – one of the most appalling war crimes in history – gets chalked up as them ‘doing what they had to do’.
Maybe israel should drop a nuke on Gaza to suit you and that knob Foggy
There is massive eveidence that there was no need for thiose bombings – that were pit on as a demo for USSR – that were in Manchuria at the time fighting the Japanese – and beating them .
”The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey group, assigned by President Truman to study the air attacks on Japan, produced a report in July of 1946 that concluded (52-56):
”Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.”
and Ike
..General (and later president) Dwight Eisenhower – then Supreme Commander of all Allied Forces, and the officer who created most of America’s WWII military plans for Europe and Japan – said:
The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.
..
perturbed by my attitude….
Admiral William Leahy – the highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949, who was the first de facto Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who was at the center of all major American military decisions in World War II – wrote (pg. 441):
It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.
and MacArthur
..General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb.
The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.”
The bit about the retention of the emperor is important – that was a sticking point .
These guys were war criminals – just as the guys who used the gas were – following orders was /is no excuse .
Is moma proud of little boy today.
That bomb was only dropped to show the Russians that they had possession of it.At the time Japan were defenseless in the air especially after the failed kamikaze offensive and should be noted America actually killed more people when they firebombed Tokyo,a place that because of the building materials used at the time went up in flames like kindle.I know the death toll reports come in after the war but surly they knew there was no real need to “whip out the Nukes”
@Tomas Lyne
The Japanese still didn’t accept the demand for unconditional surrender before the atomic bombs were dropped. That means that, obviously, the fire-bombing of Tokyo didn’t work.
Amazing how a story like this brings comments such as ‘He was only following orders’ to explain his actions and then you have stories of nazi soldiers facing trial for war crimes getting the same explanation…double standards much?
In war the difference between a war crime and a ‘necessary evil’ is whether you are on the winning or losing side, even in the most justified wars the best you can expect is grey vs. a much darker shade of grey.
I often think when General Lee said ‘it’s good that war is terrible, or else we’ed grow too fond of it’ he was putting far too much faith in mankind.
Hiroshima in Numbers… August 6th 1945 = 08/06/1945 = 0+8+0+6+1+9+4+4+5 =33
Nagasaki in Numbers …August 9th 1945 = 09/06/1945 = 08/06/1945 = 0+8+0+8+1+9+4+4+5 =36
….The name of Satan is mentioned 36 times in the new testament and 36 is the triangular root of 666.
0+9+0+8+1+9+4+5=36
Go away with your nonsense….is Zeus also mentioned or how about Hades?
gbshh1te.
Break out the calculator man, coz your numbers is all wrong. Your first post is giving me a 37, but you is going all 33 on me. What you saying?
Inquiring Mind that’s just Frank he lives in his own personal universe and his conspiracy theories are as obscure as they come.
Call me a traditionalist, but I’m not quite sure how this one works out either?:
August 9th 1945 = 09/06/1945 = 08/06/1945 = 0+8+0+8+1+9+4+4+5 =36
You’re slipping Frank…
Avina Laaf … You obviously didn’t follow the correction in the follow up post… If this was a chat forum I would insert Roll Eyes.
It will be interesting to see what date the next major false flag will fall on when we add up the date… ….11, 111, 17, 777, 33. etc
So what am I missing about this bit?:
“August 9th 1945 = 09/06/1945 = 08/06/1945″
If you add up those two dates you get 33 and 36 respectively .. (I am using a portable device)
Another interesting fact ……
………………The 33rd parallel runs EXACTLY between Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Avina Laaf…. 9th August 1945 = 09/08/1945
August is the 8th Month
9 +8 +1+9+4+5 = 36
Is that clear now?
Not really Frank – you still haven’t explained what this is supposed to mean:
“August 9th 1945 = 09/06/1945 = 08/06/1945″
or was that just a random part?
I’d say you’d be great at calling out the Bingo.
Satanic Bingo! Grand prize a date with the Devil himself :-D
Avina Laaf…Made the correction.
.. you are trolling
An Inquiring Mind MH17 and UK 7/7 were perfect Bingo dates.
Crashed on 17 July 2014 = 17/07/2014 (2+0+1+4 =7) Total contains = 777
London Tube Bombing False Flag 7 /7 / 2005 (2+0+0+5 = 7) 777
Exactly. The New Testament is definitely a source of factual information
War hero my arse, he was a murder that got to live to long.
Nice handy killing in one go instead of dragging it out like Israel!
May he rot in hell.
Use precise geolocation data. Actively scan device characteristics for identification. Store and/or access information on a device. Personalised advertising and content, advertising and content measurement, audience research and services development.
These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work.
These cookies may be set through our site by our advertising partners. They may be used by those companies to build a profile of your interests and show you relevant adverts on other sites. They do not store directly personal information, but are based on uniquely identifying your browser and internet device. If you do not allow these cookies, you will experience less targeted advertising.
These cookies enable the website to provide enhanced functionality and personalisation. They may be set by us or by third party providers whose services we have added to our pages. If you do not allow these cookies then these services may not function properly.
These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not be able to monitor our performance.
Cookies, device or similar online identifiers (e.g. login-based identifiers, randomly assigned identifiers, network based identifiers) together with other information (e.g. browser type and information, language, screen size, supported technologies etc.) can be stored or read on your device to recognise it each time it connects to an app or to a website, for one or several of the purposes presented here.
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times an ad is presented to you).
Information about your activity on this service (such as forms you submit, content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (for example, information from your previous activity on this service and other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (that might include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present advertising that appears more relevant based on your possible interests by this and other entities.
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on your advertising profiles, which can reflect your activity on this service or other websites or apps (like the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects.
Information about your activity on this service (for instance, forms you submit, non-advertising content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (such as your previous activity on this service or other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (which might for example include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present content that appears more relevant based on your possible interests, such as by adapting the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find content that matches your interests.
Content presented to you on this service can be based on your content personalisation profiles, which can reflect your activity on this or other services (for instance, the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects. This can for example be used to adapt the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find (non-advertising) content that matches your interests.
Information regarding which advertising is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine how well an advert has worked for you or other users and whether the goals of the advertising were reached. For instance, whether you saw an ad, whether you clicked on it, whether it led you to buy a product or visit a website, etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of advertising campaigns.
Information regarding which content is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine whether the (non-advertising) content e.g. reached its intended audience and matched your interests. For instance, whether you read an article, watch a video, listen to a podcast or look at a product description, how long you spent on this service and the web pages you visit etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of (non-advertising) content that is shown to you.
Reports can be generated based on the combination of data sets (like user profiles, statistics, market research, analytics data) regarding your interactions and those of other users with advertising or (non-advertising) content to identify common characteristics (for instance, to determine which target audiences are more receptive to an ad campaign or to certain contents).
Information about your activity on this service, such as your interaction with ads or content, can be very helpful to improve products and services and to build new products and services based on user interactions, the type of audience, etc. This specific purpose does not include the development or improvement of user profiles and identifiers.
Content presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type, or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times a video or an article is presented to you).
With your acceptance, your precise location (within a radius of less than 500 metres) may be used in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
With your acceptance, certain characteristics specific to your device might be requested and used to distinguish it from other devices (such as the installed fonts or plugins, the resolution of your screen) in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
Your data can be used to monitor for and prevent unusual and possibly fraudulent activity (for example, regarding advertising, ad clicks by bots), and ensure systems and processes work properly and securely. It can also be used to correct any problems you, the publisher or the advertiser may encounter in the delivery of content and ads and in your interaction with them.
Certain information (like an IP address or device capabilities) is used to ensure the technical compatibility of the content or advertising, and to facilitate the transmission of the content or ad to your device.
Information about your activity on this service may be matched and combined with other information relating to you and originating from various sources (for instance your activity on a separate online service, your use of a loyalty card in-store, or your answers to a survey), in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
In support of the purposes explained in this notice, your device might be considered as likely linked to other devices that belong to you or your household (for instance because you are logged in to the same service on both your phone and your computer, or because you may use the same Internet connection on both devices).
Your device might be distinguished from other devices based on information it automatically sends when accessing the Internet (for instance, the IP address of your Internet connection or the type of browser you are using) in support of the purposes exposed in this notice.
The choices you make regarding the purposes and entities listed in this notice are saved and made available to those entities in the form of digital signals (such as a string of characters). This is necessary in order to enable both this service and those entities to respect such choices.
have your say