the biggest arseholes I've ever run across!!

[Stretch]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Pearl Harbour - The Mother Of All Conspiracies[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]'President Roosevelt (FDR) provoked the attack, knew about it in advance and covered up his failure to warn the Hawaiian commanders. FDR needed the attack to sucker Hitler to declare war, since the public and Congress were overwhelmingly against entering the war in Europe. It was his backdoor to war.'[/FONT]
Pearl Harbor - Mother of All Conspiracies

 

[Outta here]

Stretch,the other thread you posted which is a duplicate of this one with a different title has been removed.

 

[Stretch]

Stretch,the other thread you posted which is a duplicate of this one with a different title has been removed.

'tis the story of me life mate :-(

 

[gopher]

When a Democrat writes anything like that about Republicans he gets categorized as a tin hat or tin foil wacko. Let's see when/if you get nailed with anything like that.

 

[Cliffy]

Stretch,

One of the first things I heard while watching 911 was a News anchor say, "This looks like another Pearl Harbour." And it was.

But don't go saying anything like this about Zionists or the Israeli government or you will be in front of a human rights commission so fast you won't know what planet you are on.

 

[Kreskin]

Maybe all of the claims of conspiracy theories are a conspiracy.

If Bush tripped over a foot stool these bloggers would be claiming it to be part of grand plan. If one or two of these stories have any merit, the other million don't. Those sites discredit themselves with the neverending overkill.

 

[Stretch]

Maybe all of the claims of conspiracy theories are a conspiracy.

If Bush tripped over a foot stool these bloggers would be claiming it to be part of grand plan. If one or two of these stories have any merit, the other million don't. Those sites discredit themselves with the neverending overkill.

nah mate, we'd be claiming it was KARMA!

 

[barney]

Pearl is 1 of 3 very suspicious attacks on US assets that all resulted in the triggering of a conflict:

1. The extremely suspicious sinking of the Maine (to the point of it being accepted as an almost certain false flag case among historians--outside of the USA of course), which triggered the Spanish American War.

2. The all-too convenient attack on Pearl Harbour, which triggered the USA's involvement in WW2.

3. The factually ambiguous destruction of the World Trade Centre, which "justified" the US invasion of Afghanistan and was distorted to help justify their invasion of Iraq.

Let's look at the BLATENTLY OBVIOUS similarities for just a moment shall we?

1) Sinking of the Maine:

- USA wants something that can only be gotten through war with rival (in this case, Spain’s Caribbean and Pacific assets—mainly Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines).

- Rival (Spain) has virtually nothing to gain from a war with the USA.

- A media campaign in favour of war gets population all riled up against rival (Spain).

- Rival (Spain) conducts morally outrageous sneak attack (sinking Maine with all crew, although surprisingly no officers on board).

- Attack provides USA with justification for war.

2) Attack on Pearl Harbour:

- USA wants something that can only be gotten through war with rival (in this case, war with Japan means justification for war against Germany; success means virtual future economic and political of both Europe and East Asia—outside of China and Russia, and only because of Communist opposition).

- Rival (Japan) has virtually nothing to gain from a war with the USA.

- A media campaign in favour of war gets population all riled up against rival (Japan).

- Rival (Japan) conducts morally outrageous sneak attack (sinking some ships and bombing American military personnel who are not warned of the impending attack).

- Attack provides USA with justification for war.


3) Attack on the World Trade Centre:

- USA wants something that can only be gotten through war with rival (in this case, war with Afghanistan means that they can corner the South Asian energy market and have a base on the border of a rival state, Iran).

- Rival (Afghanistan) has virtually nothing to gain from a war with the USA.

- A media campaign in favour of war gets population all riled up against rival (Afghanistan).

- Rival (Afghanistan) conducts (in this case merely assists) in morally outrageous sneak attack (bringing down some important buildings full of people who have no idea of the danger).

- Attack provides USA with justification for war.

In all cases, information of the attack is known by the US regime beforehand.


Not that I mean to imply anything, but could there be just a microscopically tiny bit of a pattern there...perhaps?


If any (need I say the last) of these were to be proven to be true cases of "false flag" or assisted false flag attacks, they would definitely prove beyond any doubt that the respective US regime(s) have indeed been run by the biggest arseholes anyone has ever run across—at least outside of arseholes like the nasty parade of psychos they've helped put in power over the years (as if the psychos they didn't put into power weren't enough).

 

[Cliffy]

Americans (and Canadians) think that for some reason they are important and necessary part of government. Fact is, other than being mindless consumers, their government(s) couldn't care less. They are run by corporate interests and all they care about is their bottom line.

 

[barney]

The illusion is that, as stated in my little comparison above people (in that case, Americans) think that their lives are somehow sacred and even the most corrupt government would never cross the line of allowing them to come to harm, let alone harming them. This is a mistake. One that people in this part of the world at least clearly haven't learned from.

 

[Kreskin]

It's easy to make any event look suspicious. Name any event you don't think is suspicious and we'll write one of the conspiracy theories.

 

[barney]

It's easy to make any event look suspicious. Name any event you don't think is suspicious and we'll write one of the conspiracy theories.

I dunno...I tend to think every event of this nature is suspicious to some degree. We just happened to be discussing Pearl so I figured I'd post a general comparison with the two other major war-triggering events in US history.

When a government lies and then takes measures to conceal the truth from its citizenry, they call it a conspiracy right? So that's what seems to have happened in all three cases. It's a conservative theory; sticking pretty closely with the official statement and then using some logic to figure out the motive (i.e. as opposed to more radical theories that imply the US directly in 9/11 and so on but that are very difficult to prove).

In this case, I looked at Pearl and thought about what the official justifications reasons for US involvement were, then did a simple cost/benefit analysis and >poof< suspicion. Same with 9/11. The Maine is pretty conclusive but I figured I should add it as it runs along almost exactly the same lines.

What can I say? All 3 examples have a common feature: the US regime knew of the imminent danger but chose not to act (proven via hard evidence in all three cases). As a result, Americans died in an attack that could have been avoided.

As to the motive: Why? Just because the guys running the show are aresholes doesn't mean they're stupid: if they let these things happen, they didn't do it just for the hell of it; there's got to be some gain (also known as a motive). Just look at what they stand to gain and what they stand to lose.

So, use 9/11 as an example:

Reasons for neglecting report of terrorist threat:
a) to allow it to take place
b) incompetence

At that level of government in the most powerful country in the world, you don't just forget stuff. It actually can't happen. It has to be deliberately shelved. No debate really unless there's some other reason that no one has yet to put forward.

Reasons for allowing it to take place:
a) as a means of defending some future action
b) market stress test

They may be corrupt arseholes but fiscal lunatics they are not. Especially when you consider the events following.

Nature of future action:
a) to justify war with culprit
b) ...I can't even think of anything

It's really 2+2=4 as far as 9/11 is concerned.

Reason for war:
a) revenge
b) to corner energy market via pipeline and get base near Iran

People and their passions take revenge. States are cold, calculating entities. There has to be a reason to spend billions. And considering the measures that were taken to make it happen, revenge would be like crying cheater after rigging the game yourself.

Cost: a few civilians die in necessary terrorist attack, soldiers (traditionally known as cannon fodder) die keeping the locals down

Benefit: huge pipeline deal (that suffocates competitors), base near Iran, billions in defence contracts all within their own economy


I mean, feel free to give me a better motive for US governments overlooking this stuff.

 

[Kreskin]

The eyewitness accounts of GWB's behavior in the hours after the 911 would suggest he was completely unprepared for it; scrambling to find a cellphone and appearing completely out of his league. Surely he would've been better coached for being Presidential during this important and expected event.

Just go to a place like Rense.com and look around. They are for most part wacked out nuts. Yesterday the chief nut on that site

was claiming some other news source was a totalitarian fascist organization conspiring to keep the truth from the public because that workplace blocked his site. Just look at the guys write-up. Hearst 'News' Corp Bans Rense! . Does he appear credulous as the world authority on everything? Perhaps it's people like him who are working for the grand plan because the more they go on about everything the less credibility they have.

 

[missile]

When there are real conspiracies going on all around us[like the Coalition mess in Ottawa], why look into real historical events and call them such? Offhand,I'd say these people have read far too many of those alternate history stories or are fans of Mel Gibson[whose Conspiracy Theory has been showing the last few days on cable]

 

[barney]

The eyewitness accounts of GWB's behavior in the hours after the 911 would suggest he was completely unprepared for it; scrambling to find a cellphone and appearing completely out of his league. Surely he would've been better coached for being Presidential during this important and expected event.

Putting aside that the official story I am familiar with put out by the media that says something about Bush not reacting either way when told of 9/11, you wouldn't really expect someone in a serious position of power who was involved in a conspiracy to act like he/she knew all along would you? Not really the best example considering Bush wasn't the most...uh...'involved' of Presidents...

That said, AFAIK top public officials are frequently kept as distant from the events in question in order to prevent inevitable PR disasters should they be in any way implicated (Nixon's fall would be an example of one US administration having made that mistake). Although in the case of Pearl and NYC, the case is not so much of complicity but rather one of deliberate negligence for some political/economic/military gain. The seriousness of the crime is not the minor act of distorting or concealing information bur rather that it allowed for the deaths of American citizens (i.e. preventable deaths).

In the case of Pearl, the sacrifice was also material but notice that the forces at Pearl were composed mostly of obsolete ships and aircraft. The only truly valuable ships were the two carriers and they just happened to leave port just prior to the attack. Even though the reason for this last minute movement was explained, the suspicious coincidence of the move outweighs the non-suspicious nature of the explanation.

It's not really a question of focusing on details though, it's about looking at the big picture and just using common sense. Common sense dictates that so many coincidences within such a short time frame are at the very least suspicious. And given the high benefits vs. the low costs for the regime involved, the conspiracy theory (i.e. that of deliberate negligence for future gain on the part of said regime) is legitimate if nothing else--hardly the product of lunatic conspiracy nuts.

When there are real conspiracies going on all around us[like the Coalition mess in Ottawa], why look into real historical events and call them such? Offhand,I'd say these people have read far too many of those alternate history stories or are fans of Mel Gibson[whose Conspiracy Theory has been showing the last few days on cable]

Real historical events...see my answer above please.

And if the Coalition is your idea of conspiracy, then maybe you need to read up a little more on how your government works. If there were to be a conspiracy--of deliberate negligence--in Canada, it could only be on the part of Harper's government (being in power and all that); the Coalition would at most be a biased but nevertheless legitimate political reaction to that.

(And please try to stay on topic: as in actually arguing over the validity of realistic conspiracy theories (as in, not stuff with no base in reality--or at least explain yourself if it does but none of us are aware of it). Jeez, you sound like the conspiracy nuts you're criticizing.)

 

[EagleSmack]

It is now known that the USS Maine was sunk because of an explosion in it's magazines and the US used it as a touch pin to fight Spain.

9/11...well we can go on and on and we sometimes do.

But give me a break about Pearl Harbor. The Japanese attacked Pearl for a number of reasons. From a Japanese standpoint they have made some pretty good arguments as to why they did it and what they thought it would accomplish. One of the greatest and truly unbiased books about the Pacific War was from the same author that wrote Flags of our Fathers. The book is called "Flyboys". I think some Canadians would LOVE it as it talks about US atrocities as well as Japanese atrocities. But I still thought it was very balanced.

The US KNEW war was coming and figured that the Japanese would strike first in the Phillipines, Hong Kong or in that area. The US Base at Pearl Harbor was caught unaware and it was the sneak attack that actually gave the US a warcry which the Japanese did not need.

Heck I am surprised some of you haven't said that it was the "Missing" US Carriers that actually launched the attack and the Japanese had nothing to do with it.

 

[thomaska]

It is now known that the USS Maine was sunk because of an explosion in it's magazines and the US used it as a touch pin to fight Spain.

9/11...well we can go on and on and we sometimes do.

But give me a break about Pearl Harbor. The Japanese attacked Pearl for a number of reasons. From a Japanese standpoint they have made some pretty good arguments as to why they did it and what they thought it would accomplish. One of the greatest and truly unbiased books about the Pacific War was from the same author that wrote Flags of our Fathers. The book is called "Flyboys". I think some Canadians would LOVE it as it talks about US atrocities as well as Japanese atrocities. But I still thought it was very balanced.

The US KNEW war was coming and figured that the Japanese would strike first in the Phillipines, Hong Kong or in that area. The US Base at Pearl Harbor was caught unaware and it was the sneak attack that actually gave the US a warcry which the Japanese did not need.

Heck I am surprised some of you haven't said that it was the "Missing" US Carriers that actually launched the attack and the Japanese had nothing to do with it.

Actually I think the WTC planes took off from those carriers...right after they got done faking the moon landings.

 

[barney]

It is now known that the USS Maine was sunk because of an explosion in it's magazines and the US used it as a touch pin to fight Spain.

Exactly, and it is highly likely (given historical evidence and more importantly IMO, common sense) that it was set off by Americans, not Spaniards. The fact that the USA was already stirring up the population for war at the national level makes high level knowledge, if not complicity (i.e. the specifics of the "touch pin" could have been executed at lower levels) almost certain.

9/11...well we can go on and on and we sometimes do.

Not about what I said we can't. Maybe about more, shall we say, 'eccentric' theories like direct complicity in actually bringing the buildings down for instance (not that it's beyond all probability, just that there is insufficient evidence to take it beyond mild suspicion). What I said implicates the Bush administration and other elements of the establishment in deliberate negligence resulting in the deaths of a couple thousand of their fellow citizens (the law says that's tantamount to murder). The reasons are good ones (as in, the benefits outweigh the costs) and I have stated the main ones above.

But give me a break about Pearl Harbor. The Japanese attacked Pearl for a number of reasons. From a Japanese standpoint they have made some pretty good arguments as to why they did it and what they thought it would accomplish.

The US KNEW war was coming and figured that the Japanese would strike first in the Phillipines, Hong Kong or in that area. The US Base at Pearl Harbour was caught unaware and it was the sneak attack that actually gave the US a warcry which the Japanese did not need.

The crime on the US regime's part lies in, again, deliberate negligence causing death (namely the deaths of many of the US military personnel stationed at Pearl). The "murderous" nature of the Japanese "sneak" attack served as you said, as a warcry which ensured full support of the war.

And you don't get into a war for no reason whatsoever; there has to be a motive and from a state's perspective (that's 'state' as in, country--for you Americans), that means there has to be something to be gained. Merely assisting the Allies is not a benefit, it's a necessary cost. The benefit comes from knowledge of what happens to powerful countries that get into a war in which their territories are directly affected: they are left very weak even when they win, which leaves any outside participants like the USA on top. Decades following the war, the European economy was very much in the hands of the USA. As for Japan, given the situation in China combined with the American military production boom (very much a result of the popular effects of the Pearl Harbour "atrocity"), victory was practically inevitable for the USA. The benefits would be the total domination of the Japans and, as a result of the collapse of the European colonial system, economic domination of the entire Pacific Rim.

Heck I am surprised some of you haven't said that it was the "Missing" US Carriers that actually launched the attack and the Japanese had nothing to do with it.

The evidence against that far outweighs evidence for it (assuming there is any factual evidence). That means there’s no good reason suspect it. The thing about the carriers is that their loss would have represented a significant cost (note that American Naval thinking had already adapted to the concept of naval air power as the new form of naval warfare outside of submarine warfare, so the loss of some antiquated battle wagons is a reasonable cost whereas the loss of carriers is not). Combine that with evidence that the attack was almost certainly known of beforehand, and their last minute move becomes suspicious, in addition to strengthening the initial case.


All these benefits achieved, in great part by merely withholding some vital information that cost the lives of some unimportant Americans and obsolete hardware. You got a better theory? Post it.

 

[Risus]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Pearl Harbour - The Mother Of All Conspiracies[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]'President Roosevelt (FDR) provoked the attack, knew about it in advance and covered up his failure to warn the Hawaiian commanders. FDR needed the attack to sucker Hitler to declare war, since the public and Congress were overwhelmingly against entering the war in Europe. It was his backdoor to war.'[/FONT]
Pearl Harbor - Mother of All Conspiracies

Man, I thought you were talking about the liberals.....

 

[EagleSmack]

Exactly, and it is highly likely (given historical evidence and more importantly IMO, common sense) that it was set off by Americans, not Spaniards. The fact that the USA was already stirring up the population for war at the national level makes high level knowledge, if not complicity (i.e. the specifics of the "touch pin" could have been executed at lower levels) almost certain.

Well you speak of evidence so where is your evidence that it was done on purpose. All of the evidnence reflects that it was an accident deep in the bowels of the ship that touched off the powder magazines. However the US used this as an excuse to fight Spain.

Not about what I said we can't. Maybe about more, shall we say, 'eccentric' theories like direct complicity in actually bringing the buildings down for instance (not that it's beyond all probability, just that there is insufficient evidence to take it beyond mild suspicion). What I said implicates the Bush administration and other elements of the establishment in deliberate negligence resulting in the deaths of a couple thousand of their fellow citizens (the law says that's tantamount to murder). The reasons are good ones (as in, the benefits outweigh the costs) and I have stated the main ones above.

I think you are over reaching. Deliberate negligence. Come on now. You are saying because we got caught with our pants down on 9/11 that Bush is complicit in murder. Please.

The crime on the US regime's part lies in, again, deliberate negligence causing death (namely the deaths of many of the US military personnel stationed at Pearl). The "murderous" nature of the Japanese "sneak" attack served as you said, as a warcry which ensured full support of the war.

Calling us a regime sort of shows your cards and that you are biased. I guess the Canadian Regime can be complicit in sending their soldiers to Hong Kong to get slaughtered and captured. And the Canadian Regime can be complicit in murdering their own soldiers at Dieppe.

Your speed at which you would accuse people of murder lends me to believe that you think that leaders of countries are not human and infallible of mistakes. Would you be so quick to convict yourself of murder if you were in charge?

And you don't get into a war for no reason whatsoever; there has to be a motive and from a state's perspective (that's 'state' as in, country--for you Americans), that means there has to be something to be gained. Merely assisting the Allies is not a benefit, it's a necessary cost. The benefit comes from knowledge of what happens to powerful countries that get into a war in which their territories are directly affected: they are left very weak even when they win, which leaves any outside participants like the USA on top. Decades following the war, the European economy was very much in the hands of the USA. As for Japan, given the situation in China combined with the American military production boom (very much a result of the popular effects of the Pearl Harbour "atrocity"), victory was practically inevitable for the USA. The benefits would be the total domination of the Japans and, as a result of the collapse of the European colonial system, economic domination of the entire Pacific Rim.

If you remember the German's were part of the Axis and Germany declared war. It was very much in the benefit of everyone to see the axis destroyed. When the Germans invaded Poland in September of 39' the British and French didn't see $$$ signs. They saw a threat to their existence.

The leaders of the US at the outset of WWII did not say...

"Great! Now we can make a bundle!"

The US was pretty much broke at the end of the war. Just as we are broke now and the Iraq war is a HUGE drain on our treasury.

The evidence against that far outweighs evidence for it (assuming there is any factual evidence). That means there’s no good reason suspect it. The thing about the carriers is that their loss would have represented a significant cost (note that American Naval thinking had already adapted to the concept of naval air power as the new form of naval warfare outside of submarine warfare, so the loss of some antiquated battle wagons is a reasonable cost whereas the loss of carriers is not). Combine that with evidence that the attack was almost certainly known of beforehand, and their last minute move becomes suspicious, in addition to strengthening the initial case.

I was being facetious and you should have been able to see that. The idea that FDR KNEW an attack on Pearl Harbor was going to happen is heresay and just another conspiracy. Sometimes war plans DO work.

The Japanese set out to catch the US Fleet at Pearl and they were successful. That was their goal. Mission Accomplished. Their intention and their belief was that we would not be able to stomach a long protracted war with them. Their altered Bushido Code led them to believe we were a race of mongols and incapable of fighting them. Their intention was for us to sue for peace very quickly. They believed that their fighting spirit would achieve victory for them and over our industrial capacity.

The Japanese inital attack in the Pacific Theater as a whole was planned and conducted successfully. What you say is that we pretty much let them have their way in December 1941 so we could gain. If we were ready for a carrier attack on December 7 what would we have lost? We would still be at war...we would still have been attacked...we still would have won.

All these benefits achieved, in great part by merely withholding some vital information that cost the lives of some unimportant Americans and obsolete hardware. You got a better theory? Post it.

Done.