The death throes of a conspiracy theory.

[tsig]

That's the beauty of it, though. I only need one trick to hammer you guys into a losing position. I don't need ten. I don't even need two. I only need one.

And of course, you're completely defenseless to do anything about it.

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

 

[tsig]

Gosh, this thread is just a parade of government truther dumb!

Ha, ha, ha! Teenagers conspiring with FDR! Ah ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

Good grief. What part of:



...Do you not get? Can you not decipher the English language? Do you not understand what that string of words means? Do you not understand what the word 'led' implies?

The McCollum memo constitutes a documented desire within our government to goad the Japanese into firing the first shot of the Pacific war. Pearl Harbor ended up being the target of that first shot.

Why should anyone believe that this was a surprise to our government when it happened? Because they said so?

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

It's a common sense/deductive reasoning thing.

You wouldn't understand.

Hilited your common sense/deductive reasoning thing.

 

[SpringHallConvert]

Hilited your common sense/deductive reasoning thing.

No, what you "hilited" was my reaction to a torrent of idiocy.

Trust me, if you could see yourselves through my eyes, you'd understand all the laughter. Maybe someday.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Trust me, if you could see yourselves through my eyes, you'd understand all the laughter. Maybe someday.

I'm sure you crack Josephine up all the time.

 

[JayUtah]

Which is why he's here in this thread now. His one-trick is played out over in 9/11 CT.

This would be the aforementioned one-trick.

And it appears the rest of thread that follows this is just him laughing and spewing insults. Boring.

 

[Mudcat]

SHC, I draw your attention to this:

A close reading shows that its recommendations were supposed to deter and contain Japan, while better preparing the United States for a future conflict in the Pacific. There is an offhand remark that an overt Japanese act of war would make it easier to garner public support for actions against Japan, but the document's intent was not to ensure that event happened.

Did a little (okay, a lot) of emphasizing to show you just exactly what is throwing you off. Namely an offhand remark in a document outlining some very sound tactical recommendations.

Now your idea that Roosevelt let it (the attack on Pearlharbor) on purpose... How I know it's a tactically and strategically stupid idea?

I can just imagine the scenario: The year is 1942 and I'm president of the Unitedstates of America, and Commander in Chief of the armed forces. The population are weary from a previous world war that taken a lot out of America. War looms again in the horizon as Germany makes a march to conquer the world, killing all who stand in their way.

And I receive reliable intel that assets I can easily protect in Hawaii are being targeted by Japan, who have been rattling their sabers (as it were) at us and our British allies alongside their German allies. My immediate response would be to authorize a preemptive strike on their fleet, use their thwarted attack as an example these guys aren't so tough and we can take them...

SHC only a complete moron would entertain the notion of a stand down in an anticipated attack.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

More like, "if X can't be proven, why not consider Y?".

Proof is for mathematics. There is evidence. The evidence points to X. You are free to imagine that Y, Z or any other letter you like is what really happened, but the actual evidence says X.

You're assuming presidents would have access to this information, as if presidents can, on demand, read through classified, top secret information whenever they feel like it.

Ha, ha, ha... so stupid.

Ah, yes. How silly of me. I stupidly imagined that the POTUS might have sufficient security clearance to be permitted to read documents concerning his predecessors decisions.

How would George H.W. Bush have been complicit? He was a teenager at the time, probably still in high school.

I meant, of course, why would he have kept quiet about the conspiracy after he became president. It was the fact that Bush fought and very nearly died in the war you say FDR contrived that made me choose him. Why would he of all people protect FDR?

If we imagine for a moment your fantasy was real, what evidence to support it would exist? What actual documents? Which people would know they existed, and why would they all keep quiet?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

SHC, I draw your attention to this:



Did a little (okay, a lot) of emphasizing to show you just exactly what is throwing you off. Namely an offhand remark in a document outlining some very sound tactical recommendations.

Now your idea that Roosevelt let it (the attack on Pearlharbor) on purpose... How I know it's a tactically and strategically stupid idea?

I can just imagine the scenario: The year is 1942 and I'm president of the Unitedstates of America, and Commander in Chief of the armed forces. The population are weary from a previous world war that taken a lot out of America. War looms again in the horizon as Germany makes a march to conquer the world, killing all who stand in their way.

And I receive reliable intel that assets I can easily protect in Hawaii are being targeted by Japan, who have been rattling their sabers (as it were) at us and our British allies alongside their German allies. My immediate response would be to authorize a preemptive strike on their fleet, use their thwarted attack as an example these guys aren't so tough and we can take them...

SHC only a complete moron would entertain the notion of a stand down in an anticipated attack.

The point here is that if the US doesn't fire the first shot, and Japan doesn't fire the first shot, then there will be no war. BUT, if Japan does fire the first shot then the issue of isolationism will be resolved very quickly, and the country unified for the war effort, which is exactly what happened.

 

[kookbreaker]

OK, so i had a busy morning and was at fencing practice last night. I see that SHC went running to the McCollom memo, which he seems to think says words to the effect of 'whatever initial attack the Japanese make, we must allow it to completely succeed no matter the devastation to the nation's military or morale.' Except it doesn't really say anything like that.

So SHC spends several posts trying to throw air in people's face thinking it is mud, all wile making his own laugh track.

...yeah....

 

[JayUtah]

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.

Nonsense. The obligation to provide persuasive evidence does not extend to precluding every speculative objection that could be raised. You're trying to rewrite affirmative claims of forgery and coverup as if they are somehow holes in someone else's story.

You seriously have no clue what an affirmative claim entails.

 

[SpringHallConvert]

You seriously have no clue what an affirmative claim entails.

False.

You claim Roosevelt had no foreknowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack. That's an affirmative claim. You need to prove it. If you can't, you're only speculating on incomplete evidence.

That makes you a conspiracy theorist, as you are theorizing about a conspiracy that either did or didn't happen. If you don't like that, tough. But don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger, pal.

 

[SpringHallConvert]

OK, so i had a busy morning and was at fencing practice last night. I see that SHC went running to the McCollom memo, which he seems to think says words to the effect of 'whatever initial attack the Japanese make, we must allow it to completely succeed no matter the devastation to the nation's military or morale.' Except it doesn't really say anything like that.

So SHC spends several posts trying to throw air in people's face thinking it is mud, all wile making his own laugh track.

...yeah....

Hey, nice straw man! It would look great in a corn field!

 

[JayUtah]

You claim Roosevelt had no foreknowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack. That's an affirmative claim.

Nonsense. I'm disputing the affirmative claim that he did.

Others have attempted to lecture you on the futility of proving a negative. I'm just going to assume you don't understand logic.

 

[SpringHallConvert]

SHC, I draw your attention to this:



Did a little (okay, a lot) of emphasizing to show you just exactly what is throwing you off. Namely an offhand remark in a document outlining some very sound tactical recommendations.

Now your idea that Roosevelt let it (the attack on Pearlharbor) on purpose... How I know it's a tactically and strategically stupid idea?

I can just imagine the scenario: The year is 1942 and I'm president of the Unitedstates of America, and Commander in Chief of the armed forces. The population are weary from a previous world war that taken a lot out of America. War looms again in the horizon as Germany makes a march to conquer the world, killing all who stand in their way.

And I receive reliable intel that assets I can easily protect in Hawaii are being targeted by Japan, who have been rattling their sabers (as it were) at us and our British allies alongside their German allies. My immediate response would be to authorize a preemptive strike on their fleet, use their thwarted attack as an example these guys aren't so tough and we can take them...

SHC only a complete moron would entertain the notion of a stand down in an anticipated attack.

Why, this is even dumber than some of the other things you government truthers have suggested. A preemptive strike? Then it's the United States who fires the first shot and it's the United States who becomes the aggressor.

Did you spend even three seconds thinking that through before you typed it out?

 

[SpringHallConvert]

Nonsense. I'm disputing the affirmative claim that he did.

Others have attempted to lecture you on the futility of proving a negative. I'm just going to assume you don't understand logic.

Why are you disputing the claim that he did? How can you possibly know he had no foreknowledge? Because he said so?

Face it, you're speculating. You want to believe Roosevelt, the concentration camp president, fought the good fight and was honest with the American people. You don't have anything to base this belief on, but you believe it anyway.

You're a conspiracy theorist.

 

[JayUtah]

Why are you disputing the claim that he did?

Because I find uncompelling the evidence supplied for that assertion.

How can you possibly know he had no foreknowledge?

I don't claim to know. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Face it, you're speculating.

No, you are. You have no idea who I am or why I believe what I believe. The rest of this post is simply you trying to fit me into the mold you've predetermined for me and others. Kindly stop talking and listen for a change.

 

[A'isha]

Why are you disputing the claim that he did? How can you possibly know he had no foreknowledge?

Because you can't prove that someone didn't know something. You can only prove that they did know something (generally through some form of document or testimony or other evidence where they acknowledged knowing it).

For example: prove you didn't know when Whitney Houston was going to die before it happened. Or that you didn't know when the earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan last year was going to happen before it happened. Or that 9/11 was going to happen before it happened.

 

[SpringHallConvert]

Proof is for mathematics. There is evidence. The evidence points to X.

False. The evidence is incomplete, and certainly doesn't point to X by default. It points to both X and Y at the same time. You choose to believe X while I choose to believe Y.

You are free to imagine that Y, Z or any other letter you like is what really happened, but the actual evidence says X.

The McCollum memo still disagrees with you. The McCollum memo, which represents an intent to provoke, says the evidence points to Y, that the attack was egged on and allowed to occur.

Ah, yes. How silly of me. I stupidly imagined that the POTUS might have sufficient security clearance to be permitted to read documents concerning his predecessors decisions.

You're right, that is pretty silly of you. Presidents don't get to just rifle through classified stuff whenever they feel like.

I meant, of course, why would he have kept quiet about the conspiracy after he became president. It was the fact that Bush fought and very nearly died in the war you say FDR contrived that made me choose him. Why would he of all people protect FDR?

Maybe because George H.W. Bush and Franklin Delano Roosevelt shared the same general interests and served the same types of people who got them elected?

If we imagine for a moment your fantasy was real, what evidence to support it would exist? What actual documents?

If the Roosevelt administration did sacrifice Pearl Harbor to enter the war, it would have been the kind of crime that the perpetrators would have spared no expense in covering up. It would either be destroyed or classified top secret. Some incriminating stuff might fall through the cracks, but not much.

Which people would know they existed, and why would they all keep quiet?

The Roosevelt administration/U.S. government national military-security state would know they existed, and they'd make sure the evidence was either destroyed or classified beyond prying eyes. Anyway, even if they had access to it, it does nobody in the current government any favors to release such information.

 

[SpringHallConvert]

Because I find uncompelling the evidence supplied for that assertion.

You mean, the evidence supplied by the U.S. government itself? Well, that's the first problem right there. You're operating under the self-imposed delusion that if the Roosevelt administration did allow Pearl Harbor to be attacked, they'd actually tell the American people about it or allow the evidence to leak out. You're also assuming the U.S. government would have properly investigated itself in the aftermath and would have released their true findings.

That's about as ridiculous as assuming that the Mafia would willingly release evidence of its crimes.

 

[JayUtah]

You mean...
You're operating...
You're also assuming...

Do you have any arguments that don't involve trying to put words in my mouth?