The death throes of a conspiracy theory.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Do you have anything more specific than a link to a bunch of other links, which probably lead to even more links?

What possible proof do you have that our government was taken completely by surprise by the attack at Pearl Harbor? Or are you just speculating?

http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/congress/

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Do you have anything more specific than a link to a bunch of other links, which probably lead to even more links?

What possible proof do you have that our government was taken completely by surprise by the attack at Pearl Harbor? Or are you just speculating?

The President's naval attache's son was killed at Pearl Harbor.

 

[SpringHallConvert]

100% of the existing evidence points to it being a surprise.

Allow me to correct that statement for you to more accurately reflect reality:

100% of the existing evidence that the government has made available to the public points to it being a surprise.

There's a difference here. Government truthers have a hard time spotting it because they've been conditioned since birth to believe, by default, whatever the government tells them about any event that occurs. You see, the government controls the Pearl Harbor narrative, and it's in the government's best interest to make the attack look like a surprise, so that's what the government has chosen to do.

Therefore, all discussion about Pearl Harbor is essentially speculative.

 

[SpitfireIX]

The President's naval attache's son was killed at Pearl Harbor.

Sorry, but that's incorrect. John Beardall, Jr. was indeed aboard the Raleigh, but he survived both the attack and the war. However, this is a point I've brought up before. If FDR knew the attack was coming, then Captain [edit: later Rear Admiral] Beardall knew the attack was coming, because he was the one who provided FDR with Magic intercepts. So why didn't Beardall Sr. warn his son to get a weekend pass (as so many others did) or just arrange to have him transferred elsewhere?

 

[SpringHallConvert]

The President's naval attache's son was killed at Pearl Harbor.

So, what does that prove? He could have been unintended collateral damage. The government couldn't couldn't predict with any accuracy who would and who wouldn't survive an attack at Pearl.

 

[The Dark Lord]

Allow me to correct that statement for you to more accurately reflect reality:



There's a difference here. Government truthers have a hard time spotting it because they've been conditioned since birth to believe, by default, whatever the government tells them about any event that occurs. You see, the government controls the Pearl Harbor narrative, and it's in the government's best interest to make the attack look like a surprise, so that's what the government has chosen to do.

Therefore, all discussion about Pearl Harbor is essentially speculative.

Unless you can show that the existing evidence is wrong or incomplete it stands and sane people are not going to take your religious beliefs seriously.

Of course, you cannot do that, seeing as how your religious beliefs are based solely on faith. Thus your vague, completely unsubstantiated insinuations that maybe evidence that your religious beliefs are true is being suppressed by the evil Jews that secretly control everything.

 

[SpringHallConvert]

http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/congress/

What specifically constitutes your evidence here and could you put it in your own words?

 

[SpitfireIX]

Allow me to correct that statement for you to more accurately reflect reality:



There's a difference here. Government truthers have a hard time spotting it because they've been conditioned since birth to believe, by default, whatever the government tells them about any event that occurs. You see, the government controls the Pearl Harbor narrative, and it's in the government's best interest to make the attack look like a surprise, so that's what the government has chosen to do.

Affirmed consequent. People can also believe the government because the evidence supports the government's version of events.

Therefore, all discussion about Pearl Harbor is essentially speculative.

No. We have numerous historical accounts from the surviving participants, both American and Japanese, that discredit all of the "popular" (for lack of a better term) Pearl Harbor conspiracy theories.

Further, even granting for the sake of argument that the government has proof that the Pearl Harbor attack was allowed to happen, why did the administrations of Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush pass up the opportunity to tear down the greatest liberal icon of the 20th Century by releasing this proof?

 

[The Dark Lord]

Further, even granting for the sake of argument that the government has proof that the Pearl Harbor attack was allowed to happen, why did the administrations of Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush pass up the opportunity to tear down the greatest liberal icon of the 20th Century by releasing this proof?

Because in reality, they were controlled the the same evil Jew billionaires that controlled FDR.

 

[SpringHallConvert]

Unless you can show that the existing evidence is wrong or incomplete it stands and sane people are not going to take your religious beliefs seriously.

Likewise. Unless you can show that the existing evidence is correct or complete it doesn't stand and sane people are not going to take your religious beliefs seriously.

 

[TJM]

There's a difference here. Government truthers have a hard time spotting it because they've been conditioned since birth to believe, by default, whatever the government tells them about any event that occurs. You see, the government controls the Pearl Harbor narrative, and it's in the government's best interest to make the attack look like a surprise, so that's what the government has chosen to do.

Therefore, all discussion about Pearl Harbor is essentially speculative.

I guess the Japanese Government was in on it too. Crafty NWO, got ops going everywhere.

 

[The Dark Lord]

Likewise. Unless you can show that the existing evidence is correct or complete it doesn't stand and sane people are not going to take your religious beliefs seriously.

The evidence stands as valid unless shown otherwise. Of course, you cannot do that. Your pathetic attempts at reversing the burden of proof are not going to work.

 

[Craig4]

Yes, because, as we all know, it's "psychotic" to hate a man who oversaw the construction and operation of concentration camps in America, which were used to cage thousands of innocent people - including completely defenseless women and children - against their will. Such men should be celebrated and revered!

Do you hate the memory of Hitler as well?

 

[SpringHallConvert]

Affirmed consequent.

False. Improper use.

People can also believe the government because the evidence supports the government's version of events.

Sure, the evidence that the government has made available supports the government's version of events, but that doesn't necessarily mean that that was the real sequence of events.

No. We have numerous historical accounts from the surviving participants, both American and Japanese, that discredit all of the "popular" (for lack of a better term) Pearl Harbor conspiracy theories.

What surviving participants? People at ground level? Sailors on ships? How would any of them really know what went on between Roosevelt, Stimson, and other high-level officials?

Further, even granting for the sake of argument that the government has proof that the Pearl Harbor attack was allowed to happen, why did the administrations of Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush pass up the opportunity to tear down the greatest liberal icon of the 20th Century by releasing this proof?

There are two assumptions here:

1. It's an assumption that these administrations would have had access to such powerful intelligence. No administration has access to everything.

2. It's an assumption that the two parties would desire to damage the opposing party to that extent. That would be an example of cutting one's nose off to spite one's face. In other words, if the Reagan administration had come clean about Pearl Harbor, and showed the American people that the event that triggered U.S. entry into WW2 was all based on a massive, murderous lie, U.S. government prestige would have been devastated. Destroying U.S. government prestige and having the American people distrust their government more than they already do does not do the Republican Party any favors. Not to mention, they would have also had to explain why Republicans in government during and the Roosevelt administration weren't more vigilant and why Republicans in government after the Roosevelt administration didn't come forward sooner.

 

[SpringHallConvert]

The evidence stands as valid unless shown otherwise. Of course, you cannot do that. Your pathetic attempts at reversing the burden of proof are not going to work.

Likewise. The evidence stands as invalid unless shown to be valid. Of course, you cannot do that. Your pathetic attempts at reversing the burden of proof are not going to work.

Nobody makes this easier for me than you do.

 

[SpringHallConvert]

I guess the Japanese Government was in on it too. Crafty NWO, got ops going everywhere.

This is brilliant. Tell me something, why would the Japanese government need to have been "in on" a conspiracy within the U.S. government to simply allow the Japanese to attack?

 

[kookbreaker]

Likewise. The evidence stands as invalid unless shown to be valid. Of course, you cannot do that. Your pathetic attempts at reversing the burden of proof are not going to work.

What, doing a bunch of IKYABWAI taunts?

The historical narrative stands and is accepted by all professional & amateur historians excepting a handful of nutcase cranks. The links provided to you more than amply demonstrate this if you bothered to look at them. But that would be work, wouldn't it? You don't want that at all.

If you have issue with this level of acceptance by historians throughout the world then you had best present some evidence rather than whining.

Nobody makes this easier for me than you do.

I'm sure your chest-beating does wonderful job of impressing yourself.

 

[MG1962]

Likewise. Unless you can show that the existing evidence is correct or complete it doesn't stand and sane people are not going to take your religious beliefs seriously.

No you have it the wrong way around - you claim the narrative of events surrounding the attack on Pearl Harbor is wrong - you are the one that has the burden of proof

 

[The Dark Lord]

Likewise. The evidence stands as invalid unless shown to be valid. Of course, you cannot do that. Your pathetic attempts at reversing the burden of proof are not going to work.

Nobody makes this easier for me than you do.

LOL. That's the best you can do. You really suck at logic.

Every single trial in history if your "standards" of evidence were valid:

Defense attorney: All the evidence against my client is invalid because the state can't prove that it wasn't faked thus you must acquit him. Ignore the fact that I can't show any of it to be invalid.

(Jury deliberates for five minutes)

Foreman: We the jury find the defendant not guilty.


Thankfully, your religious beliefs have no effect whatsoever on the real world.

 

[MG1962]

This is brilliant. Tell me something, why would the Japanese government need to have been "in on" a conspiracy within the U.S. government to simply allow the Japanese to attack?

Because the Japanese had a plan to attack Pearl Harbor years before the United States needed the Japanese to have a plan to attack Pearl Harbor