Merged Roosevelt's Rotten Record:Communism, Treachery, Betrayal

[kookbreaker]

See what I mean?

No.

You guys will do anything to get out of trying to prove Roosevelt was truly surprised by the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor.

So, when you say 'do anything' you actually mean 'ask for evidence that Roosevelt knew', yes?

 

[kookbreaker]

Well, I'm not surprised you'd find these people informative.

Yeah! Them people with all their actual information instead of real SHC arguments like 'oh yeah?' and 'nuh-uh!!'

You are quoting an empty-suit scumbag like Newt Gingrich in your signature, after all.

And do you know why he is quoting the man or has trolling made you irony-impaired?

 

[332nd]

SHC responses since asked to prove his claim of "I asked first": 2

Proof offered: 0

 

[dudalb]

Six Iowa class battleships were started; four were completed. The Kentucky (BB 66) was originally laid down on March 7, 1942. Only a small section had been completed before the slip was needed for other work; the work was restarted later and the ship was laid down again on December 6, 1944. The Illinois (BB 65) was laid down on January 15, 1945. Its start had been delayed by more pressing work.





Ah, yes, the Montana class. 70,000 tons full load, 925 feel long, 28 knots, twelve 16" main guns. Interestingly, its armour was designed to protect against the 'heavy' 2,700 lb. 16" shell. The ships would have been too wide for the Panama canal locks then in existence.

A number of the tactical naval wargames out have the Montana class ships as a "what if". A slugging match between them and the Yamatos are a lot of fun.

 

[dudalb]

Yeah! Them people with all their actual information instead of real SHC arguments like 'oh yeah?' and 'nuh-uh!!'



And do you know why he is quoting the man or has trolling made you irony-impaired?

Anybody familiar with Cleon;'s political views would find the idea of him quoting Newt Gringrich in an approving way drop dead funny.

 

[Mudcat]

See what I mean?

You guys will do anything to get out of trying to prove Roosevelt was truly surprised by the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor.

Your only piece of evidence for "Roosevelt knew it was coming" so far seems to be a mere footnote in a memo that the president may or may not have seen. Not very strong evidence there, SHC.

Meanwhile in historical reality:
Japan launched an un-anouched attack that the president never received any actionable intelligence report warning of the attack and the attack landed, killing thousands in the process. Without any evidence to the contrary the only reasonable conclusion was that it was a successful sneak attack.

 

[Biscuit]

IIRC correctly they suspected Japan would launch an attack but they didn't know where and hadn't considered Pearl harbor as one of the targets.

 

[Hans]

SHC responses since asked to prove his claim of "I asked first": 2

Proof offered: 0

He's just a troll doing troll things, lol

 

[SpringHallConvert]

Japan launched an un-anouched attack that the president never received any actionable intelligence report warning of the attack and the attack landed, killing thousands in the process.

Can you provide credible evidence for this claim?

Without any evidence to the contrary the only reasonable conclusion was that it was a successful sneak attack.

No, you first have to prove the prior claim. How do you really know what actionable intelligence the president received? Remember, we have no choice but to rely on the U.S. government's word here, and if the government did allow the attacks, it's not like they'd willingly admit it or release evidence that they were complicit.

 

[332nd]

SHC Responses since claim: 3

Proof of claim provided: 0

 

[Biscuit]

How do you really know what actionable intelligence the president received? Remember, we have no choice but to rely on the U.S. government's word here, and if the government did allow the attacks, it's not like they'd willingly admit it or release evidence that they were complicit.

I see what you did here. A lack of evidence is all the evidence you need.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Can you provide credible evidence for this claim?



No, you first have to prove the prior claim. How do you really know what actionable intelligence the president received? Remember, we have no choice but to rely on the U.S. government's word here, and if the government did allow the attacks, it's not like they'd willingly admit it or release evidence that they were complicit.

Established historical record is that it was a surprise attack. IF you want to claim otherwise then it's up to you to support that claim.

Saying you don't believe the govt isn't enough. Multiple lines of evidence support the current record. What have you got?

 

[SpringHallConvert]

I see what you did here. A lack of evidence is all the evidence you need.

A 'lack of evidence' leads to 'speculation' and 'theorizing'.

You guys are faced with a lack of evidence, and this means you are speculating and theorizing about what really happened with Roosevelt and Pearl Harbor. You don't know what really happened, you only think you do. You are Pearl Harbor conspiracy theorists who subscribe to the "official" conspiracy theory approved by the U.S. government and court historians.

There's nothing wrong with that, as long as you are honest about it.

 

[Cleon]

Well, I'm not surprised you'd find these people informative.

You are quoting an empty-suit scumbag like Newt Gingrich in your signature, after all.

There's nothing empty about Newt's suit. It's filled with ego, hubris, and good old-fashioned chutzpah.

Anybody familiar with Cleon;'s political views would find the idea of him quoting Newt Gringrich in an approving way drop dead funny.

Not nearly as funny as I do.

 

[SpringHallConvert]

Established historical record is that it was a surprise attack.

Who says it's "established"? Just because it's in a bunch books doesn't mean it's "established". Tons of conspiracy theories are listed in books. Your conspiracy theory just happens to be the one approved by the U.S. government.

IF you want to claim otherwise then it's up to you to support that claim.

No, it doesn't work that way. Your conspiracy theory doesn't get to be "right" by default. It's nobody's responsibility to prove it wrong. It's your responsibility to prove it right, and none of you have done that. Until you do it's just another conspiracy theory competing among other conspiracy theories.

Saying you don't believe the govt isn't enough.

By the same token, saying you do believe the government isn't enough either.

Multiple lines of evidence support the current record. What have you got?

Correction:

Multiple lines of evidence *which are controlled and disseminated by the U.S. government* support the current record.

This is the functional equivalent of letting a Mafia control the investigation and narrative around a diamond heist and then believing them when they tell you they weren't involved. They can selectively show you evidence that proves they weren't involved, but are you automatically going to believe them?

No, not unless you are a total moron.

 

[332nd]

SHC responses since claim: 5

Proof offered: 0

 

[DGM]

*which are controlled and disseminated by the U.S. government*

And your proof for this is what? Your claim.

 

[332nd]

He's just a troll doing troll things, lol

True... but his floundering can be useful.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

IIRC correctly they suspected Japan would launch an attack but they didn't know where and hadn't considered Pearl harbor as one of the targets.

The idea was a possibility, but a weak one. We didn't know the IJN could refuel their ships at sea for such a voyage, the "obvious" axis of advance was south, Oahu was supposed to be a "fortress", etc. The Army was charged with keeping the Fleet safe when it was in port, and Gen. Short was under the assumption that the Navy was doing long distance recon. There were mistakes enough to go around, of course.

 

[DGM]

Multiple lines of evidence *which are controlled and disseminated by the U.S. government* support the current record.

So you admit we have evidence you just dismiss it for reasons you can't substantiate.


Glad you cleared that up.