The death throes of a conspiracy theory.

[The Dark Lord]

I have only a passing interest in Pearl Harbor and WW2, and I'm utterly destroying the government truthers' "expert" in this thread.

Surely you guys have somebody better than what you've put forward so far? Right? Right?

Keep patting yourself on the back. That will show us!

 

[SpringHallConvert]

Did you read that link I gave you? All forty volumes? And have you read the Gallup Polls for 1939-1941? Read all the editorials in the NYT, Chicago Trib, LA Times, the Dallas and Miami papers? No, you haven't. I have. Have you read the Congressional Record for those years? Do you know which Congressmen voted for expansion of the Navy and which against? No, you don't. You watch one hour-long show on The Conspiracy Whacko Channel and you think you can support your side of this?

Prove it. Put your links into your own words for me. Summarize them. Buttress them by copying and pasting the choice quotes for me. For all I know you're lying about this crap you're linking here.

You're not impressing me at all with this amateur posturing.

 

[SpringHallConvert]

This is what I mean by utterly unprepared. You're not even a good troll.

Just as I figured, you have no response.

According to you, we're supposed to believe that the concentration camp president wouldn't have sacrificed American servicemen at Pearl Harbor to get the United States involved in WW2. And why? Because you say so. As soon as somebody challenges you, all you've got is:

"Well, uh, you're a, uh, uh, uh, TROLL!"

You government truthers got anybody else to carry the banner for your side in this debate, or is this the best it's going to get?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I have only a passing interest in Pearl Harbor and WW2, and I'm utterly destroying the government truthers' "expert" in this thread.

Surely you guys have somebody better than what you've put forward so far? Right? Right?

"Utterly destroying" doesn't mean pooping in your nappy and running from the facts. Just sayin'.

And bye, you don't measure up.

 

[SpringHallConvert]

"Utterly destroying" doesn't mean pooping in your nappy and running from the facts. Just sayin'.

And bye, you don't measure up.

You don't have any facts. At least not any that you can put into your own words. All you've got are links. An endless supply of links. Have you ever done any of your own arguing, or do you always just let your links do your arguing for you?

Good riddance. Oh, and be sure to send your replacement into this thread. Maybe somebody who can string more than three sentences together before referring to Wikipedia.

 

[timhau]

So reality is a he said/she said game?

For him/her, it could be the-voices-in-my-head-say -game.

 

[kookbreaker]

I have only a passing interest in Pearl Harbor and WW2, and I'm utterly destroying the government truthers' "expert" in this thread.

Surely you guys have somebody better than what you've put forward so far? Right? Right?

You're a legend in your own mind. How nice for you.

I've said it before: Conspiracy theories are the opiates of the self-impressed.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Prove it. Put your links into your own words for me. Summarize them. Buttress them by copying and pasting the choice quotes for me. For all I know you're lying about this crap you're linking here.

You're not impressing me at all with this amateur posturing.

If anybody else wants more info, go to the conspiracy resources links at the top of the forum. My links are there.

 

[MG1962]

Spring your silly little mind games fail because you seem to think that Pearl Harbor occurred in isolation. You have to equally assume the British were in on it because they allowed Japanese forces to attack Malaya the same day.

Even if Pearl Harbor had not occurred, or successfully repelled, the US would still have been in the war because of the invasion of the Philippines the same day. So whatever game you are playing, frankly you are not very good at it

 

[Spindrift]

Spring your silly little mind games fail because you seem to think that Pearl Harbor occurred in isolation. You have to equally assume the British were in on it because they allowed Japanese forces to attack Malaya the same day.

Even if Pearl Harbor had not occurred, or successfully repelled, the US would still have been in the war because of the invasion of the Philippines the same day. So whatever game you are playing, frankly you are not very good at it

I know he hates FDR, but he should read the entire "Day of Infamy" speech, especially this part:

Yesterday the Japanese Government also launched an attack against Malaya. Last night Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong. Last night Japanese forces attacked Guam. Last night Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands. Last night the Japanese attacked Wake Island. This morning the Japanese attacked Midway Island.

Japan has, therefore, undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our nation.

So even if the Japanese had done no damage in Hawaii, the other attacks were more than sufficient to cause the USA to go to war. Does his conspiracy theory mean that all those attacks were allowed to happen?

 

[MG1962]

I know he hates FDR, but he should read the entire "Day of Infamy" speech, especially this part:



So even if the Japanese had done no damage in Hawaii, the other attacks were more than sufficient to cause the USA to go to war. Does his conspiracy theory mean that all those attacks were allowed to happen?

Well his complete refusal to click on any links supplied by Kookbreaker and Gawdzilla suggests we are part of some sad game he is trying to play. If the US wanted to bait the Japanese into an attack they would not have tried to reinforce the island. Strategically the US completely miss read the Japanese intention, and rather than producing a deterrent created a plumper target for their intentions.

And all that is obvious to us arm chair generals with a full pack of hindsight. In December 1941 the US could only play the cards they had, and when we look back, it is clear history suggests they played their hand very well

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

On the other hand, we could change just one thing about how Kimmel ran the US Fleet and Pearl Harbor would not have been attacked.

 

[MG1962]

On the other hand, we could change just one thing about how Kimmel ran the US Fleet and Pearl Harbor would not have been attacked.

But the presence of the ships only changed the axis of the Japanese attack. They had always intended to take out Pearl and cripple the US fleets ability to operate deep into the western Pacific

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

But the presence of the ships only changed the axis of the Japanese attack. They had always intended to take out Pearl and cripple the US fleets ability to operate deep into the western Pacific

But the Imperial General Headquarters were only convinced of the benefits of the attack by Yamamoto's guarantee that there would be a worthwhile bag of ships in port during the attack. Infrastructure was not discussed and not targeted at any point in the planning of the attack.

 

[MG1962]

But the Imperial General Headquarters were only convinced of the benefits of the attack by Yamamoto's guarantee that there would be a worthwhile bag of ships in port during the attack. Infrastructure was not discussed and not targeted at any point in the planning of the attack.

No - and will have to find you a reference, but the original plan was to disable the dry dock completed in '33 (?) And flatten all the supply and support facilities that had been improved through the rebuilding in the 30s

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

No - and will have to find you a reference, but the original plan was to disable the dry dock completed in '33 (?) And flatten all the supply and support facilities that had been improved through the rebuilding in the 30s

A reference would be nice, thanks. The planning I've seen was to get the ships wherever they were. Lahaina Anchorage, on the west side of the Big Island, was their ideal attack point, the torps would run properly even if the modified fins failed to perform, and the ships would be in deep water, not settled to the bottom with their main deck still dry.

This whole plan flew in the face of the "One Big Battle" scenario the IJN had been having wet dreams about for many years, and, in point of fact, tried to create a few times during the war.

 

[tsig]

Sure I can.

You say: The history of Pearl Harbor is X.

I say: The history of Pearl Harbor is y.

You say: I don't need to prove x, but you need to prove y.

I say: Why do I have to prove y when you haven't proven x?

You say: Uh, just because, uh, the burden of proof is on you, but not me!

I say: Why is that? Why do you hold yourself to a different standard?

You say: Uh, just because, huh, the burden of proof is never on me, only on you!

I say: Ha, ha, ha! You fail!

So reality is a he said/she said game?

Why, is that all you got from that?

The quote speaks for itself.

 

[tsig]

Yeah, my bad. He could have been killed. The idea that FDR and Co. would casually kill over two thousand Americans to get into a war in the Pacific that MIGHT get them into a war in Europe, and establish a drain on resources needed to fight that European war, by starting off with a defeat when a win or draw was quite possible is the most absurd thing about this mythology.

Ahh, but FDR and Co. knew that battleships were obsolete so they let the Japs have them and saved the carriers./CTer off

CTers have a remarkably casual attitude toward the deaths of others.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Ahh, but FDR and Co. knew that battleships were obsolete so they let the Japs have them and saved the carriers./CTer off

CTers have a remarkably casual attitude toward the deaths of others.

I have a 1944 document submitted to the Congressional Record called "Airplane Vs. Battleship."

 

[tsig]

Why? We already know Roosevelt was the kind of scumbag who would allow the building and operating of concentration camps, in which thousands of American citizens were caged like animals, so why would anyone assume he was above sacrificing 2,000 American servicemen to get into a war to save England and the Soviet Union?

Here, let me break it down for you:

President of a nation with concentration camps = scumbag, no questions asked.

Scumbag = The kind of person who would allow the killing of his countrymen to get into a war.

The kind of person who would allow the killing of his countrymen to get into a war = The kind of person who would imprison his countrymen for their ethnicity

The kind of person who would imprison his countrymen for their ethnicity = Scumbag

We've come full circle here. Catching on yet?

Are you trolling for answers?