• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The death throes of a conspiracy theory.

SpringHallConvert said:
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?
Click to expand...

Hey, it's your paranoid delusion, excuse me for playing along. Please continue the serial spamming of your baseless accusations. I'm all ears.
 
The Dark Lord said:
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.
Click to expand...

I wish all fundementalist religious beliefs were as insignificant and unimportant as these CT fundies.
 
kookbreaker said:
What, doing a bunch of IKYABWAI taunts?
Click to expand...

That's not a taunt. That's simply spinning a bad argument back around on the person who argued it.

The historical narrative stands and is accepted by all professional & amateur historians excepting a handful of nutcase cranks.
Click to expand...

Logical fallacy. Argumentum ad populum. Appeal to popularity.

It doesn't matter how many people believe something to be true. What is is what is, not what a majority says it is.

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.
Click to expand...

If you are too lazy to summarize your own links, why should I put the time in to read through them searching for your arguments?

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

Still arguing a logically fallacious argument, I see.

Carry on.

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

You guys sure can dish it out, but certainly can't take it when it's returned.
 
SpringHallConvert said:
Logical fallacy. Argumentum ad populum. Appeal to popularity.

It doesn't matter how many people believe something to be true. What is is what is, not what a majority says it is.
Click to expand...

So when the majority of researchers and historians agree on an outcome of history that is an appeal to popularity. Then how do you distinguish this from an appeal to popularity when scholars say one thing and the general population another?
 
MG1962 said:
So when the majority of researchers and historians agree on an outcome of history that is an appeal to popularity. Then how do you distinguish this from an appeal to popularity when scholars say one thing and the general population another?
Click to expand...

Is this a serious question. Honestly?
 
The Dark Lord said:
It doesn't even make any sense. If they knew Pearl Harbor was going to happen, they would have mounted a counter attack. America would have still got in the war and six Japanese aircraft carriers might have been sunk.
Click to expand...

How does this scenario make any sense? If the United States had laid a trap for the Japanese at Pearl Harbor and sprung it before the Japanese could mount their strike, then the cream of the Japanese Imperial Navy would have been in total ruins and the war would have been effectively over before it even started. Had this occurred instead of the "surprise" attack at Pearl Harbor, it's very unlikely that the American people would have supported a total war policy against Japan and the other Axis powers.

Roosevelt had to have his Pearl Harbor event to justify full American entry into that war. Nothing less than an "unprovoked, surprise attack" and a few burning battleships would have sufficed to accomplish that.
 
SpringHallConvert said:
How does this scenario make any sense? If the United States had laid a trap for the Japanese at Pearl Harbor and sprung it before the Japanese could mount their strike, then the cream of the Japanese Imperial Navy would have been in total ruins and the war would have been effectively over before it even started. Had this occurred instead of the "surprise" attack at Pearl Harbor, it's very unlikely that the American people would have supported a total war policy against Japan and the other Axis powers.

Roosevelt had to have his Pearl Harbor event to justify full American entry into that war. Nothing less than an "unprovoked, surprise attack" and a few burning battleships would have sufficed to accomplish that.
Click to expand...

History of naval warfare disagrees with you.
 
MG1962 said:
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
Click to expand...

False. You claim the narrative of events surrounding the attack on Pearl Harbor is correct. You are the one that has the burden of proof. I no more have to prove you wrong than you have to prove yourself correct.
 
The Dark Lord said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hey, nice misrepresentation of my position!

I guess if you can't argue rationally you might as well just make stuff up.
 
SpringHallConvert said:
How does this scenario make any sense? If the United States had laid a trap for the Japanese at Pearl Harbor and sprung it before the Japanese could mount their strike, then the cream of the Japanese Imperial Navy would have been in total ruins and the war would have been effectively over before it even started. Had this occurred instead of the "surprise" attack at Pearl Harbor, it's very unlikely that the American people would have supported a total war policy against Japan and the other Axis powers.

Roosevelt had to have his Pearl Harbor event to justify full American entry into that war. Nothing less than an "unprovoked, surprise attack" and a few burning battleships would have sufficed to accomplish that.
Click to expand...

Please. Hitler merely declaring war was enough to get people to support completely destroying him. But somehow the Japanese actually trying, but failing, to attack Pearl Harbor wouldn't be enough. Yeah right.
 
Last edited:
SpringHallConvert said:
Translation:

"I can't argue against anything you just said, so I'll throw nonsense out instead."
Click to expand...

No, I meant exactly what I said. The history of naval warfare disagrees with you. Hell, the history of any kind of warfare disagrees with you, as do basic frigging tactics. More things you have zero knowledge in.
 
Last edited:
MG1962 said:
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
Click to expand...

That still doesn't answer the question.

Why would the Japanese need to have been "in on" the U.S. government's conspiracy to simply allow the attack to occur without interdiction? The Japanese were going to attack either way, so why would they have been invited in on the conspiracy?

You guys are arguing some incredibly stupid stuff here.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom