Ive heard the goverment knew about the pending attack on pearl harbor but chose to let it happen so we'd have an excuse to join the war.... thoughts?
pearl harbor
- Thread starter allaboutlove
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
K
kenisyes
Guest
This is true. The documents were declassified at the normal 25 year time lapse in 1966. I was in college at the time, and heard it in history class. The actual event was that the patrols were lessened by presidential directive, so the Japanese could slip through in greater numbers. The thinking was that the president needed the war manufacturing push to save the economy, and wanted to help our friends in England, and America was a pacifist country at the time, as the parents of that generation had fought WWI, as the "war to end all wars."
G
Grey
Guest
Gulf of Tonkin/ Pearl Harbor aren't necessarily conspiracies, they let it happen. Of course we know we'd probably be better off if we didn't go to war with the North Vietnamese, I'm not sure what would happen if we prevented Pearl Harbor without military clashes between the Japanese.
D
Daniel2013
Guest
Franklin D. Roosevelt was apparently haunted by the spirits of all of the sailors that died in the attack, every night after Pearl Harbor. They marched through his bedroom. He grew sick swiftly and died before his time.
"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.'"
Matthew 5:21
"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.'"
Matthew 5:21
G
Grey
Guest
Yeah... letting your enemy attack your own country, and kill your own people... yeah, that's not a problem, that's perfectly fine.
And the Gulf of Tonkin wasn't a "let it happen";
the Gulf of Tonkin incident was fabricated out of thin air... there was no attack at all.
Our own government admitted that years later... it's on film.
I'm not into crazy theories, but the stuff in this thread is all just public historical record.
Last edited:
G
Grey
Guest
I never said it was good Maxwell. Gulf of Tonkin was originally a skirmish two days before the alleged Gulf of Tonkin occured, the U.S captain insisted the North Vietnamese fired first, and the government allowed this without further investigation and blew it out of proportion.
Several decades later, our government admitted there WAS NO ATTACK on the USS Maddox.
Like I said, I'm not into conspiracies... but this has become a matter of public record.
I'm sure plenty of people will be happy to discuss all of this.
I'm exiting the thread, as this isn't really my thing.
You guys have fun.
: )
B
BishopSEH
Guest
Pearl Harbor was supposed to be a bloodless attack, destroying ships but not American lives. However, as any ground commander can tell you no battle in all of history has ever gone as planned and the Japanese got there early while some of the ships were still manned. Our brave servicemen had no choice to to engage to protect their very lives, though they didn't know it was a staged attack at the time.
Our naval fleet at the time of WWII was old and in bad shape but without a war there was no way we could have upgraded. As a previous poster noted, we had become pacifistic.
We all know the high cost that was paid in life during that war, Imagine just for a moment, what would have happened if we had waited for the war to come here? How much greater the lost of life of our allies and of the Jewish people would have been had not the most godly country on earth not entered into the fray?
Like all those from military families I dearly wish the war had never happened but I also wish that we had simply stood up and gone to war because it was the right thing to do and not as a result of outrage at having been attacked.
Our naval fleet at the time of WWII was old and in bad shape but without a war there was no way we could have upgraded. As a previous poster noted, we had become pacifistic.
We all know the high cost that was paid in life during that war, Imagine just for a moment, what would have happened if we had waited for the war to come here? How much greater the lost of life of our allies and of the Jewish people would have been had not the most godly country on earth not entered into the fray?
Like all those from military families I dearly wish the war had never happened but I also wish that we had simply stood up and gone to war because it was the right thing to do and not as a result of outrage at having been attacked.
D
danschance
Guest
I can't locate any solid proof that Pearl was allowed to be attacked by Japan. If you think you have some hard proof, I would like to see it.
K
kenisyes
Guest
http://mises.org/books/pearl_harbor_greaves.pdf
is the most recent detailed study. The quote below is the conclusion of the author from pp. 888-889 (numbering in the pdf file, not in the original book). The evidence itself occupies almost 900 pages, but is most detailed.
"It is now evident that the stage was set for a Japanese attack on U.S. territory by President Roosevelt’s decisions and actions. He was responsible for squeezing the Japanese economically until they were forced to try to use force to seize the resources they needed and to prevent the U.S. Fleet from trying to stop them. It was thanks to Roosevelt’s decisions and actions that an unwarned, ill-equipped, and poorly prepared Fleet remained stationed far from the shores of continental United States, at a base recognized by his military advisers as indefensible and vulnerable to attack. Given that situation, it is not strange that the Fleet was surprised by the attack of Japanese torpedo planes and bombers that fateful Sunday morning, December 7, 1941. And then when the extent of the damage was known, it was Roosevelt who orchestrated a cover-up to make Admiral Kimmel and General Short scapegoats and to conceal any negligence on the part of the administration. The revelation herewith of the address Roosevelt would have made to Congress on December 8 or 9, if the December 7 attack had not intervened, indicates that Roosevelt would have ordered the U.S. armed forces to take the offensive against the Japanese, without waiting for an attack on U.S. territory. Thus the attack on Pearl Harbor became FDR’s excuse, not his reason,for calling for the United States’s entry into World War II. "
In summary: the patrols were pulled back due to shortage of manpower. It was an error in judgment, perhaps, but was politically motivated to protect our treaties with England (which we had no Constitutional right to act on by military action).
p. 323 (actual written order of lowered priority for Hawaii), 330-1(the political dilemma), 361 (motivation), and 381#2 (the beginning of the conspiracy) seem to be the best I can recommend for a quick shortcut to these conclusions (as I have stated).
I found this book referenced in Wikipedia's article Attack on Pearl Harbor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
is the most recent detailed study. The quote below is the conclusion of the author from pp. 888-889 (numbering in the pdf file, not in the original book). The evidence itself occupies almost 900 pages, but is most detailed.
"It is now evident that the stage was set for a Japanese attack on U.S. territory by President Roosevelt’s decisions and actions. He was responsible for squeezing the Japanese economically until they were forced to try to use force to seize the resources they needed and to prevent the U.S. Fleet from trying to stop them. It was thanks to Roosevelt’s decisions and actions that an unwarned, ill-equipped, and poorly prepared Fleet remained stationed far from the shores of continental United States, at a base recognized by his military advisers as indefensible and vulnerable to attack. Given that situation, it is not strange that the Fleet was surprised by the attack of Japanese torpedo planes and bombers that fateful Sunday morning, December 7, 1941. And then when the extent of the damage was known, it was Roosevelt who orchestrated a cover-up to make Admiral Kimmel and General Short scapegoats and to conceal any negligence on the part of the administration. The revelation herewith of the address Roosevelt would have made to Congress on December 8 or 9, if the December 7 attack had not intervened, indicates that Roosevelt would have ordered the U.S. armed forces to take the offensive against the Japanese, without waiting for an attack on U.S. territory. Thus the attack on Pearl Harbor became FDR’s excuse, not his reason,for calling for the United States’s entry into World War II. "
In summary: the patrols were pulled back due to shortage of manpower. It was an error in judgment, perhaps, but was politically motivated to protect our treaties with England (which we had no Constitutional right to act on by military action).
p. 323 (actual written order of lowered priority for Hawaii), 330-1(the political dilemma), 361 (motivation), and 381#2 (the beginning of the conspiracy) seem to be the best I can recommend for a quick shortcut to these conclusions (as I have stated).
I found this book referenced in Wikipedia's article Attack on Pearl Harbor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
G
Graybeard
Guest
just find out which 2 NeoCons were THERE.
it was a false flag.
it takes a lot to get a war started.
its a full time job for some people.
no, no one is conspiring to attack any other nation under false pretenses.
How to Build U.S.-Israeli Coordination on Preventing an Iranian Nuclear Breakout
WashingtonInstitute WashingtonInstitute·233 videos
[video=youtube;fsvDWZTVP3E]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsvDWZTVP3E&feature=youtu.be[/video]
Published on Sep 24, 2012
Dennis Ross, Patrick Clawson, and David Makovsky discuss how the United States and Israel can regain the initiative in halting Iran's progress toward nuclear weapons.
Preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is the declared policy of both the U.S. and Israeli governments. This past spring and summer, The Washington Institute convened strategic dialogues with a small group of knowledgeable and influential Israelis and Americans to discuss bilateral consultation on advancing the policy of prevention. In the wake of those meetings, Patrick Clawson and David Makovsky have written a soon-to-be-released report regarding the various issues and tensions that affect such consultation. The report includes a variety of proposals for how the United States and Israel can get back the initiative in halting Tehran's nuclear progress.
To discuss their findings, The Washington Institute held a Policy Forum luncheon with the authors, joined by Ambassador Dennis Ross, in Washington, DC, on Friday, September 21, 2012.
Dennis Ross rejoined The Washington Institute as counselor in December 2011 after serving as special assistant to President Obama, senior director for the central region at the National Security Council, and special advisor to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, focusing on Iran. Previously, he played a leading role in shaping U.S. involvement in the peace process for more than twelve years, dealing directly with the parties in negotiations.
Patrick Clawson is director of research and head of the Iran Security Initiative at the Institute. A Persian speaker, he is the author or editor of eighteen books and studies on Iran as well as more than 150 articles on the Middle East. Previously, he served at the National Defense University, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund, among other institutions.
David Makovsky is the Ziegler distinguished fellow at the Institute, where he directs the Project on the Middle East Peace Process and has chaired two rounds of U.S.-Israeli dialogue on Iran. His publications include a just-released New Yorker essay on Israel's 2007 bombing of Syria's nuclear reactor titled "The Silent Strike."
.......
FBI Investigating NeoCon Lobbyist For False Flag Terrorism Threats
Wednesday, September 26, 2012 23:32
Mr. Clawson said last Friday in a meeting that included the Atlantic Counsel he was not advocating anything but that getting the President to move on the matter of going to war with Iran would be hard and that a iranian submarine could just go down one day and never come back up … He then asked, “who would know?”
Clawson used historical false flag attacks as examples such as Pearl Harbor and the Gulf of Tonkin to show how false flags are effective in a Presidents call to war.
FBI Investigating NeoCon Lobbyist For False Flag Terrorism Threats | Alternative
Nicely stated, Bishop. Most decisions - probably all major decisions - in war have significant consequences and people die either way. We can discuss all we want after the fact, but someone has to make the decisions that take into consideration the "greater good".
