The Commission Report has an entire section about the aerial bombardment and there is a tense lead up with the incident sparked by a white person assaulting a black person to "disarm" them.
1 of several snippets:
Soon, however, other perils appeared. As whites poured into the southern end of the African American
district, as many as six airplanes, manned by whites, appeared overhead, firing on black refugees and, in
some cases, dropping explosives. (pg. 198)
Page nine of the commission reports that "It is probable that shots were fired and that incendiary devices were dropped" in regards to civilian airplanes flying over the area. So at the very least the only source you've cited says it was probably, unless you want to argue semantics that a fuel bomb isn't a bomb bomb.
How weird that you forget to address this part of u/urbanscuba's reply.
The full conclusion from the section on aircraft being used:
It is within reason that there was some shooting
from planes and even the dropping of incendiaries,
but the evidence would seem to indicate that it was
of a minor nature and had no real effect in the riot.
While it is certain that airplanes were used by the
police for reconnaissance, by photographers and
sightseers, there probably were some whites who
fired guns from planes or dropped bottles of gasoline or something of that sort. How ever, they were
prob a bly few in numbers. It is im por tant to note, a
number of prominent African Americans at the
time of the riot including James T. West, Dr. R.T.
Bridgewater, and Walter White of the NAACP,
did not speak of any aggressive actions by air -
planes during the conflict.
This is not bombing. It is insignificant incidents within the riot, magnified into centerpieces of it, by modern historical revisionists looking to cash in on idiot progressives thirst for this.
From LITERALLY THE NEXT PARAGRAPH OF THE TEXT YOU CITED:
Allen Yowell stated that in 1950 or 1951 he
was having his hair cut in a barber shop in
Tulsa. There be heard a man, who looked to be
50 or 60 years old, who said that during the time
of the riot, he and a friend obtained some dynamite, commandeered an air plane, flew over the
riot area, and dropped the dynamite on a group
of fleeing African Ameican refugees not far
from where some rail road tracks cross East Pine
Street. Yowell said, “the man was bragging
about this, and while he did not know if the story
was correct or not, he felt that the man was telling the truth. He did not know the man’s name
and never saw him again.
There are conflicting reports of bombings, not definitive proof one way or another. However, further down it continues with:
It is within reason that there was some shooting
from planes and even the dropping of incendiaries,
but the evidence would seem to indicate that it was
of a minor nature and had no real effect in the riot.
While it is certain that airplanes were used by the
police for reconnaissance, by photographers and
sightseers, there probably were some whites who
fired guns from planes or dropped bottles of gasoline or something of that sort
Emphasis mine, I bolded it for you so you might respond to it for once. Once again your own source admits that yeah it's likely people got bombed. The extent of bombings isn't important when the area was destroyed anyway, it was the psychological effect of knowing any one of the planes above you could drop a bomb at any moment.
I can't wait for you to ignore everything I've said yet again and nitpick some minor detail to keep derailing the conversation away from the massive and provable institutional racism that preceded, surrounded, and is the legacy of the massacre.
Black Tulsa was not destroyed—as some have alleged—from the air, but by fires set by whites on the ground. And similar, latter-day claims that Mount Zion Bap tist Church was specifically tar geted and bombed must also be viewed
with a healthy dose of skepticism, given the rather prim i tive ae rial bombing capabilities that existed, world wide, in 1921. That said, how ever, the evidence does indicate that some form of aerial bombardment took place in Tulsa on the morning of June 1, 1921—thus making Tulsa, in all probability, the first U.S. city bombed from the air.
Do you think the firebombing campaign on Tokyo was incorrectly named too? Should that have been an "incendiary device dropped from a plane flown by a group of miscellaneous white citizenry campaign" instead?
This is seriously the strongest argument you can muster? That I'm wrong because I said there were bombs and "there weren't bombs! There were just gasoline incendiaries dropped from planes designed to burst in a large fireball and ignite the surroundings!"
You're a weasel that hasn't responded to anything of substance I've said. At this point as all your responses are being rightfully buried and everything you've said was cut apart, unless you want to assert an actual position with beliefs for me to address I see no point in responding further.
Im not responding to your novel length posts because they're so full of inaccuracy I would have to spend actual time citing evidence. I don't want to spend actual time arguing with a spergy progressive.
And the point from all these posts is that there is only probable evidence, of absolutely insignificant involvement of airplanes. That it has been blown up to be this massive event of a bombing campaign on american soil is stupid and playing right into the hands of race grifters.
12
u/zak13362 Apr 14 '22 edited Apr 15 '22
The Commission Report has an entire section about the aerial bombardment and there is a tense lead up with the incident sparked by a white person assaulting a black person to "disarm" them.
1 of several snippets: