Thread: An Attack Rumor

I think it's authentic.

The top-in-commands of USA were indeed aware of the impending threat, I thought it was common knowledge? But I guess one do not talk loud about that over there..

There are some great documentaries out there which dwells into that.

Yes, that is true. They did know about it, and being the normal morons that we have in the government they ignored it. Just like how they got reports of 9/11 was going to happen and they ignored that as well.

We also got reports that Iraq had stockpiles of WMD's, but some people think those reports should have been ignored. What distinguishes reports that need to be acted on and reports that should be ignored? At least the WMD report came from several countries and several factions of the U.S. government.

Still, the Pearl Harbor soldiers should have had some kind of plan in case of an attack. 9/11 warnings were too vague for the necessary actions to happen.

Of Course there was prior knowledge of Pearl Harbor. I've never seen that document before but it doesnt surprise me. Think of all the benefits that the elites and the defense industry would get by starting another war. The main one was the fact that Wilson's League of Nations was totally rejected by the US, so the orchestrators of that organization had to try to make another world governing body. And what do you know, as soon as we get out of WW2 the United Nations is created, and the American People are more accepting of it because of the hackneyed notion that it will "end all future wars."

But look whats happened since then. The United Nations has been either involved in or directly the cause of every war that the United States has entered ever since WW2 ended. In fact, most of the "peacekeeping" operations that they are involved in end up killing more people than if they had just stayed out of it. Basically, although there was prior knowledge of a Japanese Attack on the US, it was allowed to happen because the elite bankers, defense industry, and promoters of world government needed it.

We also got reports that Iraq had stockpiles of WMD's

I thought Bush senior sold them the WMD? Isn't that what made the alleged reports kind of... rediculous?

Originally Posted by Invader

I thought Bush senior sold them the WMD? Isn't that what made the alleged reports kind of... rediculous?

I think he did (Or was it Reagan?), but that was before the Hussein regime went Islamoterrorist and became our enemy. When they used sarin gas in an attack on the Kurds, we started to think, "Oh shit, these people are nuts." The financial incentives for Palestinian bombings in Israel put up danger signs too. So did their take over of Kuwait. Giving WMD's to any questionable government is crazy, even if they are our ally against a common enemy. I can express some understanding for giving the Hussein regime WMD's, but I majorly disagree with it, and they turned out to be like a large scale Manson family.

I was looking at a world history book this morning and thinking about how the relations among nations are so much like professional wrestling. The way European nations played alliance musical chairs in the 18th century looks profoundly stupid, for example. If really advanced aliens are watching Earth, they think this is a moron planet.

Like everyone else here, I had heard that the US government was "made aware" about Japanese intentions but ignored it.

Originally Posted by Jeff777

Like everyone else here, I had heard that the US government was "made aware" about Japanese intentions but ignored it.

I think they saw the planes on their radars, but they thought that it was just their pilots doing a test run or something.

I forgot what I was told in history class about that...

People also say that the government wanted to enter the war, and so ignored it on purpose. Some people believe the same about 9/11. When the people of the country refuse to support a war, the government needs to do something to gain support. Its no uncommon for that type of stuff. In fact we did the same thing for WW1, by putting ships in positions where they might accidentally be attacked.

That happened for the spanish-american war and the vietnam war as well. I'm dubious of claims that it happened for 9/11. I think the bush administration were just idiots. gulf of tonkin my ass.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

That happened for the spanish-american war and the vietnam war as well. I'm dubious of claims that it happened for 9/11. I think the bush administration were just idiots. gulf of tonkin my ass.

With the track record that you're apparently aware of, why do you find it so hard to believe they would do the same thing with 9/11?

I'm not calling you out. I'm just curious.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If really advanced aliens are watching Earth, they think this is a moron planet.

I can't say the idea hasn't crossed my mind already.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

With the track record that you're apparently aware of, why do you find it so hard to believe they would do the same thing with 9/11?

I'm not calling you out. I'm just curious.

Mainly because the two that I mentioned involved poorly documented attacks on military vessels whereas this one was an attack on civilians with a shit ton of witnesses.

For example, the sinking of the u.s.s maine, which helped to precipitate the spanish american war, was just assumed to be an attack from the spanish. This laid the the groundwork for the war and, surprise, we ended up with all of spains overseas territories including cuba and the philippines.

Here's wikipedia on the gulf of tonkin which gave johnson the excuse to blow up our scene in vietnam. I linked to the "later statements" part. Check the NSA report part too.

Originally Posted by Hercuflea

Of Course there was prior knowledge of Pearl Harbor. I've never seen that document before but it doesnt surprise me. Think of all the benefits that the elites and the defense industry would get by starting another war. The main one was the fact that Wilson's League of Nations was totally rejected by the US, so the orchestrators of that organization had to try to make another world governing body. And what do you know, as soon as we get out of WW2 the United Nations is created, and the American People are more accepting of it because of the hackneyed notion that it will "end all future wars."

But look whats happened since then. The United Nations has been either involved in or directly the cause of every war that the United States has entered ever since WW2 ended. In fact, most of the "peacekeeping" operations that they are involved in end up killing more people than if they had just stayed out of it. Basically, although there was prior knowledge of a Japanese Attack on the US, it was allowed to happen because the elite bankers, defense industry, and promoters of world government needed it.

Hindsight is 20/20

The government of Louisiana, the government of New Orleans, and about half of the people in New Orleans were warned that a category 5 hurricane about as big as the Gulf of Mexico was on its way to fuck them up. They did nothing.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The government of Louisiana, the government of New Orleans, and about half of the people in New Orleans were warned that a category 5 hurricane about as big as the Gulf of Mexico was on its way to fuck them up. They did nothing.

The storm isn't what really fucked them up. The (inadequate) levees are what fucked them up.

But are you trying to exonerate the federal government for Pearl Harbor, with that post, or just assign blame toward the local government for Katrina? I'm not quite clear.

And philosopher, I'm going to bed soon, but I will read the wiki entry tomorrow. Thanks for the link.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

The storm isn't what really fucked them up. The (inadequate) levees are what fucked them up.

But are you trying to exonerate the federal government for Pearl Harbor, with that post, or just assign blame toward the local government for Katrina? I'm not quite clear.

I wasn't exonerating the federal government for the Pearl Harbor warning. I am no military expert, but I have never understood why a military base was thrown off so bad when attacked. They should have prepared for such a thing in major detail in the first place. If the military really did have that letter about the warning, they should have at least informed the soldiers who were threatened. For all I know, the military gets crazy letters like that every time the mail comes, but the base should have been prepared for attack even if there never was a letter. I don't get it.

I said what I said about Katrina because it is another example of poor planning by government. The governments of Louisiana and New Orleans knew the storm would seriously fuck up New Orleans because they knew about the weakeness of the levees in the midst of a strong enough hurricane. I saw a documentary on the Discovery Channel or TLC in like 2002 about what would happen to New Orleans if a category 4 or 5 hurricane ever hit. They nailed it. They showed a cartoon illustration of exactly what did end up happening a few years later. It pisses me off that the local governments had their heads up their asses when they knew Katrina was coming. They should have been making sure the people knew what was about to happen, and they should have been using school buses to get everybody without a vehicle out of there. That screw up happened, and all I ever heard after that was how much Bush sucked. Bush apparently did suck, but it was a local responsibility first. The federal government could not even give assistance until the governor of Louisiana requested it. Katrina hit on Monday, and the governor requested federal assistance on Tuesday (or maybe Monday). She should have requested it on Friday or earlier.

I don't think government should ever really be trusted to do anything. If New Orleans were a business, the Katrina nightmare would not have happened.

I base my entire political view point around this. I find there are three fundamental laws that nearly always apply to government. Government is wasteful. Government is incompetent. Government is evil.

I find that always to be true. You can find ton of examples of the government putting people at risks to get support for something political. In this case, getting support for wars. And you can find ton of examples of government clearly ignoring obvious and glaring warnings, because they are simply incompetent. The entire bureaucratic system is made be inefficient.

Why do you think people are going nuts over health care? We all know the government is going to screw it up. Anyone who thinks government can run health care efficiently is a moron.

Everyone is running around trying to push socialism on us but we all know that socialism never works. It always gets screwed up by governments.

So yea, the government is probably to blame for all of that. The levees broke because of cost cutting and the government not wanting to do their job. I am sure they had hurricane evacuations plans as well. They either just ignored them, or the person in charge just couldn't be bothered to actually read them. Just like they either didn't bother to read the reports for pearl harbor. Or just ignored them. Or worse yet, figured they would take the hit, and use it for their political advantage. You can take your pick on which you think it is, but none of them are even remotely acceptable.

Originally Posted by Alric

Everyone is running around trying to push socialism on us but we all know that socialism never works. It always gets screwed up by governments.

No one's trying to push socialism on us, but what they are pushing for is an increase of the size of the federal government and what it has control over. Socialism involves a workers controlled means of production, i.e. collective, public ownership of production, not the government controlling health care or bailing out companies, that's just the government intervening in the private sector.

Originally Posted by Catbus

No one's trying to push socialism on us, but what they are pushing for is an increase of the size of the federal government and what it has control over. Socialism involves a workers controlled means of production, i.e. collective, public ownership of production, not the government controlling health care or bailing out companies, that's just the government intervening in the private sector.

Oh really? Well if it's not socialism, then its straight up communism.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...festo/ch02.htm

By the way...the government IS controlling the means of production. They just bought the biggest Auto production company in the country! They have been running Amtrak for a long time, and now its broke and nobody rides it, but because the government is by definition a financial parasite it will not get rid of it. The government cannot create production, it can only facilitate it, and thats the best scenario. In all other cases the government is spending more money than is created by its expenditures. It taxes the private sector.

It is socialism. We have taxes up to 50 percent of our income, when you factor everything in, and the government is trying to get control of most of the economy. Like Hercuflea pointed out, they already own large production companies, and they are trying to get their hands on more.

Originally Posted by Hercuflea

Oh really? Well if it's not socialism, then its straight up communism.

No. Communism involves the withering away of the central state (at least, the more authoritarian leftists believe that, one of which I'm not), so having a large government would be pretty contradictory.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...festo/ch02.htm

The Communist Manifesto was written in 1848, and most leftists (and I don't mean liberals, but actual class-strugglist leftists) don't see it as still completely relevant. Either way, it's not the Bible, why not pick and choose?

Originally Posted by Hercuflea

By the way...the government IS controlling the means of production.

And I'm not advocating that.

Originally Posted by Hercuflea

They just bought the biggest Auto production company in the country! They have been running Amtrak for a long time, and now its broke and nobody rides it, but because the government is by definition a financial parasite it will not get rid of it. The government cannot create production, it can only facilitate it, and thats the best scenario. In all other cases the government is spending more money than is created by its expenditures. It taxes the private sector.

Once again, I agree with that because I'm not arguing for a big government.

Originally Posted by Alric

It is socialism. We have taxes up to 50 percent of our income, when you factor everything in, and the government is trying to get control of most of the economy. Like Hercuflea pointed out, they already own large production companies, and they are trying to get their hands on more.

If you want to call that socialism, then fine, call it socialism. But that isn't what I support.

Originally Posted by Catbus

No. Communism involves the withering away of the central state (at least, the more authoritarian leftists believe that, one of which I'm not), so having a large government would be pretty contradictory.

That is what they say should eventually happen, but it is not part of the definition. Everybody nation that has ever tried "communism" has had an enormously powerful (over its people) government headed by a ruthless dictator. Scaring the bejesus out of the public is the only way they have been able to get anybody to work. Even that has been extremely weak compared to capitalism. When it comes to advancing inventiveness and quality work, there is no substitute for greed. If somebody thinks he/she knows of one, I would love to hear about it.

Originally Posted by Catbus

No one's trying to push socialism on us, but what they are pushing for is an increase of the size of the federal government and what it has control over. Socialism involves a workers controlled means of production, i.e. collective, public ownership of production, not the government controlling health care or bailing out companies, that's just the government intervening in the private sector.

Originally Posted by Catbus

No. Communism involves the withering away of the central state (at least, the more authoritarian leftists believe that, one of which I'm not), so having a large government would be pretty contradictory.


The Communist Manifesto was written in 1848, and most leftists (and I don't mean liberals, but actual class-strugglist leftists) don't see it as still completely relevant. Either way, it's not the Bible, why not pick and choose?

And I'm not advocating that.

Once again, I agree with that because I'm not arguing for a big government.

If you want to call that socialism, then fine, call it socialism. But that isn't what I support.

So then you DO agree that they are pushing socialism on us?