Was Pearl Harbor allowed to happen?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 04:25 AM
link   

as posted by Twitchy
You smell anything yet?


Yes Twitchy, I certainly do. I "smell" you continuing to delve and dig in those very same historical revisionist cess-pools that you continue to dredge your information from. Talk about reading a book? Maybe you should read some that are not contrary to your line of thinking and presenting. I have read a number of those historical revisionist books, such as I indicated in a post above. They fail against the test of debate (as indicated in the two-three I linked for you) and fact.

How does that "smell"?





seekerof




posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

as posted by Twitchy
You smell anything yet?


How does that "smell"?

seekerof


man you guys are at it... yeah so um i'm just going to sit this one out


but seekerof, good luck

your going to need it



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Well, I would like to thank Seekorof and Twitchy for bringing so much information to this thread. You both seem to have a wealth of knowledge on this subject even though you don’t agree on the particulars. I think you both make valid points in your posts with good info to back them up. This is exactly why I started this thread because my knowledge on this subject was very limited and I wanted to learn more about it, so thanks.
Twitchy, the info that you have, do you believe it to be 100% reliable? I do not doubt you at all, but I would like to rule any inaccuracies out. Seekerof, I want to believe you but there seems to be so many discrepancies and blunders along the way that it’s hard to accept the truth that was laid out for us. If what we have been told is the truth then when are we going to learn from these disasters? I mean we were hit on December 41, and on September 01, so when are we going to put the arrogance and over confidence aside and learn something? Those two disasters could have been so much worse as we were essentially caught with our pants down. How many times can we let something like this happen before we are hit and can’t recover? It’s almost as if people want to believe in these conspiracies because they don’t want to believe that those in power are that damn clueless.



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 12:02 PM
link   
After the battle of little Big Horn, some people actually theorized that Sitting Bull was a renegade Army officer, trained at West Point. It was inconceivable to them that Custer could have been defeated by “ignorant Savages.”

After Pearl Harbor, some people (probably descendents of the people described above) theorized that Roosevelt knew about the attack in advance. It was inconceivable to them that the U.S. Navy could be so ignominiously defeated by “ignorant Japs.”

After 911, some people (the same as above, probably) theorized that the attack was a plot by George Bush. It was inconceivable to them that American could be so effectively attacked by “stupid Muslims.”



Anyone "smell" a pattern here?






[edit on 10-1-2005 by HowardRoark]

[edit on 10-1-2005 by HowardRoark]



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Anyone "smell" a pattern here?


Yes Howard, and when are we going to learn that arrogance and over confidence will always spell disaster. How many times must we endure getting our nose bloddied, so to speak, before we realize never to underestimate our enemies?



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
After the battle of little Big Horn, some people actually theorized that Sitting Bull was a renegade Army officer, trained at West Point. It was inconceivable to them that Custer could have been defeated by “ignorant Savages.”

After Pearl Harbor, some people (probably descendents of the people described above) theorized that Roosevelt knew about the attack in advance. It was inconceivable to them that the U.S. Navy could be so ignominiously defeated by “ignorant Japs.”

After 911, some people (the same as above, probably) theorized that the attack was a plot by George Bush. It was inconceivable to them that American could be so effectively attacked by “stupid Muslims.”



Anyone "smell" a pattern here?






[edit on 10-1-2005 by HowardRoark]

[edit on 10-1-2005 by HowardRoark]



all of this may be true, but i tend to believe that the us government is never surprised.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 09:37 PM
link   
From what I understand about WWII I would have to say yes, Pearl Harbor was allowed to happen. Days before the attack on Pearl Harbor was bombed Roosevelt was informed that the Japanese were planning to do so. The thing is, Roosevelt did absolutly nothing, but why?

At the begining of WWII Congress passed the Neutrality Act of 1939 that would keep America from entering the war in Europe. The reason this was passed was becuase of the depression effecting the U.S during this period. Plus many Americans were Isolationist meaning that they wanted to stay sepreate from World affairs. Roosevelt wanted to become involved in this war simply becuase he saw the threat that was Hitler. Hitler was attempting to expand his empire for his perfect race, the Aryans. Roosevelt knew that eventually Hitler would attempt to make conquor the U.S. Some people believe that this isn't true, but recently Hitler's second book was discovered. This book was the sequel to Mein Kampf and clearly stated that he intended to Conqour the U.S after all the allies in Europe had been destroyed. Roosevelt knew this, but there was a problem. He did not have the backing of the American people. And by time Hitler did attack the U.S all the allies in Europe would have been destroyed and America would have lost the war in less than half a year's time. Roosevelt needed a reason to enter the war. When he learned that the Japanese would be attacking pearl harbor he realized this would be the perfect oppurtunity to gain the backing of the American people and finally enter the war. So instead of attempting to stop it, he allowed it to happen.

The real question is not, "Did Roosevelt allow Pearl Harbor to happen", but, should Roosevelt be considered a hero or simply a Cowboy, like GWB?



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 08:50 AM
link   
had a story related to me by my father who served with a brit who was there on the sixth and had his ship slip and vacate pearl harbour 12 hrs before(on orders from the admiralty).just a story told over a few beers.



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 11:59 AM
link   
A British ship in Pearl Harbor in the days before 12/07/41?

That sounds a bit unusual to me. What was brittish ship doing at pearl in the dirst place?

The British had their hands full in indonesia, whay ould they have sent one of their ships off to Pearl Harbor?

Unless you can provide credible documentation that there was in fact a British ship at pearl on the 6th, I would consider that to be a "sea story."



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 10:24 AM
link   
sorry there bud,some things are just off the grid,like i said(just a story related to me over a few coolies).i'm not big on paperwork and sometimes there is just no way to confirm it.most of the stuff i hear is need to know and i'm just privy to it because of my trustworthy nature lol.



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 10:55 AM
link   
It is hard to believe this ridiculous conspiracy theory is still circulating!



The 'conspiracy' would require the complicity several dozen senior military officers in both services, Army and Navy. All of them would have to violate their oaths and military duty to comply. Many of the Army senior brass did not particularly like Roosevelt so it is unlikely they would have gone along with it. The prevailing U.S. Naval doctrine at that time (and the view held by FDR, King, et al) was battleships were still the primary offensive weapon and carrier use was fleet defense and reconnaissance. The absent carriers with the battleships still in port is PROOF there was no conspiracy. If there was a conspiracy the opposite would have occurred.

Public documents clearly show neither Roosevelt nor Churchill wanted a two front war. Germany was regarded as the primary threat and both wanted to put off dealing with Japan until after Germany was defeated. There is some speculative evidence Hitler knew of the attack in advance and tried to talk Japan out of it. Hitler did not want Japan to attack Pearl Harbor either because he knew that would bring the U.S. into the war sooner than he wanted (Hitler's original plans were to declare war on the U.S. in 1943 after all of Europe was conquered.)

As mentioned above, Monday morning quarterbacking with 20-20 hindsight shows all the dots were there, ready to be connected, but no one had actually connected them -- a lot like 9/11.



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Yeah Dave, it is alot like 9-11. It's alot like the USS Maine, Tonkin Gulf, and now that I think about it, it's alot like any other war that gets started when a few elites decide they need or want them. It doesn't take a mathematical genius to see a pattern here in justifying the need for foriegn wars. PNAC said they need another Pearl Harbor if that sufficiently represents the similarities for you.



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by skychief
 



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 12:13 AM
link   
you guys!!! this one old english dude that was in the english airfoce said to me the other day at work that the english naval ships intersected one of the german ships at sea and before they sunk the ship they captured the enigma code machine or something like that and that they cracked a code that the japanese were going to attack pearl harbor some 2 days before it happened but england didnt want to tell the US because they knew that without the US they couldnt win the war so they let the attack happen so the US can be forced into the war. wtf!!! crazy #... he said that he has access to like this one secret base in england and he said that in there there are secret documents about it and stuff and he told me not to tell anyone.. haha I am a bartender and he was at the bar having some drinks when he told me all this. haha

Mod Edit:



1b.) Profanity: You will not use profanity in our forums, and will neither post with language or content that is obscene, sexually oriented, or sexually suggestive nor link to sites that contain such content.


Please Review This Link

[edit on 15-5-2008 by MemoryShock]





top topics
 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join