It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

America Bombed Her own Ships?....Pearl Harbour Revisited

page: 3
27
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by xizd1
 


I dodn't think he's being cold blooded. He pointed out that if the Fleet had been at sea, it would have much more horrible. A safe bet would be we would have lost every capital ship(sunk at sea). The japs would have straffed the crews in the water. HMS Hood only had a handful of surviors and there were no German planes involved. Casualties : 10.000 KIA of more, less wounded.

Sad to say but it was better we were caught in port.




posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by KRISKALI777
 


While the statement "Bombed her own ships" is a stretch a charge of planned negligence would be more in line. I'm not a historian but that does not exclude me from commenting. In the very least the Navy put all her eggs in one basket at Pearl Harbor. The seclusion of the Hawaiian Islands does not excuse a poor defensive game plan. Why have warships at all if there is no chance of war? If there is even the slightest chance of being attacked and that must have been considered, why risk nearly every ship in the fleet? It seems fishy now and should have raised concerns then but I'm certain the media hype of the time over-ruled common sense following the attack. Some things never change.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by seagull
 


Say it isn't so Seagull!

Pearl Harbor is one of the most well known examples of "allowing your opponent to strike first so that you are in a position to do what you desire".
1. The carriers going out on exercises right before Dec. 7th. With NO battleship escort! unheard of prior to WWII.
2.First week of Dec., intelligence intercepted the Japanese diplomatic "purple" code which instructed the destruction of all secret papers and preparation for evacuation.
3.Dec. 4th warning from Aussie intelligence that the Japanese task force was spotted moving toward PH.
4.1932 and 38 the US theoretically destroyed PH while being observed by Japanese military attaches.
5. The Nov. 25 diary entry from Secy. of War Stimson: "how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves."

And there is so much more.
Roosevelt and his clan KNEW that PH would be attacked and allowed it to happen, therefore ensuring Americas entry into WWII.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   
My father and his brothers were WWII vets, and they have always said Roosevelt wanted in on the war. But he needed something to unite the country. Pearl Harbor did just that. The ones who suffered were the GI's who enlisted en mass the day after. I worked with an ex-sailor who was on a carrier in the Gulf of Tonkin when the incident happened and he had always stated the incident never happened. Viet-Nam was another war that shouldn't have happened. The America GI has suffered since the end of WWII. Korea and the Nam did more to tear this country apart and divide us more than anything else. Apathy runs rampant now. The draft was from 1940 until 1972/73, now very few citizens know and understand what the military is about and what it is for. Since I retired in 1992 the military has been cut in half and moth balled and has had a hard time meeting the comitments with full time GIs. These great and wonderful warriors need some one in the power structure who cares for them. It is the same old song, same words as always.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by KRISKALI777
 


Very interesting point, I also believe there is a lot of info never told about WW2, My father told me stories about those years in Europe, some stories doesn't match with the books. One little example : The people where concerned about american troops advancing, vandalizing small villages and raping women at will. So, when Polish army recover my fathers region, everybody thank the Lord. Of course, my father never said nazis were good neither.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   
If you want to get technical, America fired and sunk a Japanese mini sub in international waters before Pearl Harbor was bombed. Yes it was on its way to attack Pearl Harbor, but it was not there. (It is kind of like Minority Report debate, if you stop something before it happens would it have happened)

@ Kris, you’re the president or a higher up in the American government, If the Japanese are willing to attack you on Dec 7th 1941. You knew it was coming on say Dec 1st 1941. What do you do? Honestly, I am going to have fun with this but it’s a serious question. Dec 1st 1941 you find out that the Japanese wants to attack Pearl Harbor, if you put the military on alert, Japan would either 1) hear about through a spy network, 2) realize that America was ready for the attack and pull back the attack say sorry we were on a training mission and we got lost. Or do you leak it to the press, and when the Japanese read about it on Dec 2nd 1941, they would call you a lying warmonger and not attack you. Would the American people believe you (the government) and start mobilizing for war, or would the American people say false flag, I am going back to listening to Superman on the radio. Do you call up Heroheto and be like, “Yo, H-dog, why you trying to play America like that. Pull back your ships and planes” Again, the end result is, America was not attacked plus the military is not mobilized for war. For whatever reason, the Japanese decided to not attack Pearl Harbor on Dec 7th 1941, do you think they would changed their minds about taking over America (or at least part of America) No, they would have taken over the whole Pacific, including everything in English (British/UK, whatever you want to call the British empire) control and came after America bigger and stronger and more experienced then before. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor ended up saving lives, it would be a crappy decision to have to make if you were the leader of America, but one I can understand making.

@ Vitchillo, From 1932 to almost 1942 you are talking about 2 generation of planes, and around 5 generation of enlisted men. Comparing 1932 plans to 1942 plans is like comparing an Atari against a Wii. Saying that plans in 1932 couldn’t pull off Pearl Harbor probably was true like saying while playing an Atari system that there is no way that you could have a wireless controller that mimics your motion. (On side note, there was neither kamikazes pilots nor shots for that mater at Pearl Harbor)



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   
america didnt "bomber her own ships" but she did allow them to be bombed by inaction. its to be expected, japan has little to none natural resources so they must buy them. america wanted to openly help britian (not just secretly send stuff) so we stopped selling to japan and didnt prepare for an attack. it should have been obvious an attack would come. i have always believed we allowed the bombing just like the germans created gays and AIDS but that is besides the point



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   
also some missed points about "intercepted communications"
if you act on "stolen secure enemy communications" then even the action must be cautious because when you let them know they are now on an intelligence "party line" they change the code, encryption, or device.

many intelligence comm systems can change at a moments notice, and can take years to for you to gain the advantage back, hence loosing the initial advantage. If we had known, what uncertainty did we have? Did we have enough concrete information to risk a bad knee jerk reaction, only to not be able to monitor the communications from that point on. how do you know its not an enemy "probing" your intelligence to see if their security has been breeched. very, very fine lines. many very tough decisions, all with lives in the balance. then as stated before, the attitude of the military was very different. lots of "compartmentalism" leading to poor communications.

and I have to tell ya'll, this thread has a title, and generally the conversation should stick to that. hi-jacks drive me nuts. if the topic was gov involvement in getting us into wars, state that up front, start the topic, and please stick to the topic at hand. PLEASE don't try to change it in the middle of a good discussion.

thanks

dr



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 05:39 PM
link   
Don't forget the radar station on Oahu that did see the planes a bit early:

Radar at Opana Point



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   
America didn't bomb their own ships, but we did have advanced warning from Australia and other countries the fleet was headed that way and it was ignored to get America into the war.
Before Pearl Harbor the majority of Americans were adamant not to get into the war and wanted to be isolated from it all, after pearl harbor the majority of Americans were ready to gear up and kick some ass over it.
This kind of thing has be recurring throughout our history.
Just like 9/11. Except in 9/11 I believe not only they allowed it to happen, but they either greatly assisted or we did it ourselves through one of our 3 letter agencies and their paid cronies.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Dark Ghost
 


Wow, thanks for all the responses guys- for the most part, its been enjoyable to read these (since I can imagine this subject is a touchy one);thankyou for the intelligent debate and high level of decorum (for the most part).

Dark Ghost- maybe you should put your claws away?



I am sorry to hear that you have lost loved ones in these events. No offence, but the analogy you gave between these events and that of a parent that lets their child play on a busy road is very poor.


I am sorry if you do not appreciate my analogy; it may be too infantile for your palate!
I did not loose loved ones at Pearl Harbour; many of my family were WWII veterans though- it was a comment to mark respect to service personnel (LEST WE FORGET)-which is commonly used in memory of WWI Australian veterans.
Anyway Dark Ghost, how would you voice the analogy of this then?



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by amyfriend
 


Amy; one easy solution to your problem: If you don't like a particular thread for whatever reason-DO NOT PARTICIPATE IN IT!
There are plenty other threads that may be worthy of your attention.

Ohhh, and Huggss.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Hi Proto,
some really good points you raised; I enjoyed reading your post



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by TheCounselor
 





I think it's the op's attempt to reverse engineer American History.


I suppose everyone that has contributed to this thread that doesn't hold your view is nothing more than an idiot?

Go watch the evening news my friend; you'll need to know what happened in the world today! Then come back and enlighten me with divine guidance.


[edit on 11/16/2009 by KRISKALI777]



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Hemisphere
 


Hi Hemi,
just aquote from the OP:



One tale that my grandfather told many times to me growing-up, was that America allowed her own ships to be bombed during WWII; giving her the 'green-light' to enter the war.


Note the 'America allowed' part.
The thread name was a little controversial; newspaper headlines are not considered crimes either.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by thinline
 


Hi thinline,
man there is a lot of 'what ifs' in there.
I guess the problem is we only ever hear about false flags, after the event.
Some points being that:
1: service personnel are obligated to follow orders
2: there is perhaps no time to debate the potential nature of false flag, when the hour of war is at hand
3: How many people are going to honestly question intelligence, and the military network at crucial moments
4: Even when there is blatant evidence, people still feel obliged to trust their elected leaders.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
There's always more to the story then what we're told... Always. I've always found that a little odd, as well. We can find Saddam fairly quickly, Iraq is, after all, a fairly large place...


There's even been debate over that. Saddam's capture was reported on Dec. 14 2003, and these images were released of the "fox hole" he'd been hiding in...





However, there's a bit of an issue there. Ripe dates can easily be seen on the tree in the background. This naturally timestamps the pictures months before December because Iraqi dates are harvested in Aug-Sept...

Western media, of course, glossed over this fact; however, I've heard many Iraqis instantly took issue with this because the photos released were clearly "out-of-season".

[edit on 11/16/09 by redmage]



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
An unfortunate habit in modern times is to blame and shame the USA for everything the bad elements in her government and/or intelligence agencies based in the country have done.


Until people feel responsible, they will make no effort to change things.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Symbiote
 


Hi Symbiote,
well said! It surprises me that for some people there is no distinction between the political drivel of governments, and a countries people.
The American Government, as with all governments are awash with corruption, and blatant acts of sabotaging their constituents in the name of globalization.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by KRISKALI777
I am sorry if you do not appreciate my analogy; it may be too infantile for your palate!
I did not loose loved ones at Pearl Harbour; many of my family were WWII veterans though- it was a comment to mark respect to service personnel (LEST WE FORGET)-which is commonly used in memory of WWI Australian veterans.
Anyway Dark Ghost, how would you voice the analogy of this then?


No need to get feisty. Your analogy was poor, but I do agree with your argument on false-flags. I just think who you are labelling as the bad guys is very general, and you may be doing it for your own political views. But there is no need for us to derail from the topic at hand.

In reply to your question on how I would voice an analogy that compares to the events of Pearl Harbour?

Example: Imagine a PTA committee where one parent is adamant children should be taught mandatory self-defence. He or she secretly conspires with a friend to stage a robbery on a student so the need for self-defence seems more appealing to other PTA members.

A day after the "robbery" is staged and much fuss is made about the incident, there is a unanimous vote to include mandatory self-defence as part of the school curriculum.

A few years later, it is reported from one of the individual's friends that the person admitted to planning and staging the robbery because they felt strongly that self-defence should be mandatory for students.

Conclusion: This individual instigated a false-flag for reasons of fulfilling their own beliefs and agenda. The other members of the PTA were not aware of her actions and to say that the school or even the PTA were complicit in this act of deception is very misleading.

That analogy might not be the best, but I think it is a stronger analogy and more reflective of what took place.

[edit on 16/11/2009 by Dark Ghost]



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join