Thread: An Attack Rumor

Having never seen this before, I don't quite know of the authenticity of it, but it's just the kind of thing that leaves you shaking your head.

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 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

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...

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?