9/11, and pearl harbor

i think their might be a connecion between pearl harbor and 9/11.
some think roosevelt knew the japs were planning to attack, and let them just to get a backdoor entry into WW2. after the attack, america WANTED to join the war.so maybe we knew the terrorist were going to attack, or the lack of. IF thier were no terrorist, and we did a inside job, it could be for the same reasons. it would give our government a way to justify going into iraq to the american people.
all we want their is really, oil. we didnt ever have a problem with saddam using musturd gas, until their was a problem with oil. so to justify going into iraq (again) and getting control of the oil, we staged a attack on america.


this is my first thread guy, and im not to big on the 9/11 theorys, but this idea just made sense to me. tell me what ya'll think.

reply to post by secretmonkeypants


There is documentation from the Royal Navy to Churchill about the Japanese fleet heading to Pearl Harbour. It is not known whether Churchill communicated this to Roosevelt but historians generally assume he did know ahead of time.

Roosevelt had America pretty much in the war already with the law, I forget the name, that allowed him to sell weapons to Allied forces as long as they paid cash and picked them up themselves but he desperately wanted a full fledged commitment to the war and just needed a reason to get America behind him.

Pearl Harbour definetly gave him the reason he needed.

[]reply to post by secretmonkeypants


I thought the US never liked saddam..didn't the US try to get rid of him before and failed? Although I disagree withthe statement that the US didn't have a problem with him I do agree that the US went to Iraq mainly for the oil..there are a lot of things that don't add up with 911..what are the chances that the jets we're performng a drill that same day?? And building 7 falling for no reason..or from controlled demolitions that same day after the towers were hit..things don't add up but its hard for me to believe it was an inside job. Have you heard of operation northwoods?? It was a false flag operation in the JFK era but he never signed it an it didn't happen..

Originally posted by Authenticated
[]reply to post by secretmonkeypants

 

I thought the US never liked saddam..didn't the US try to get rid of him before and failed? Although I disagree withthe statement that the US didn't have a problem with him I do agree that the US went to Iraq mainly for the oil..

yea i see what you mean. but what i meant was, that we never tried to intervene until oil was in jepordy. what better exuse to go over thier, than to have "them" attack us.

Actually we supported Saddam while he was fighting Iran. Like it or not, if your not going to take over the world you sometimes have to pick the lesser of two evils.

As far as 9/11 is concerned I have my doubts it was done by us. If you were tasked for creating a reason for America to go with Iraq and had unlimited resources what would you come up with.

Certainly nothing as elaborate as 9/11 where you would need hundreds of people involved where a hundred things have to go just perfectly right and where the chance of failure or being found out is extremely likely.

They could have just had a muslim park a low-yeild nuke in a suitcase somewhere or any number of thousands of more safe scenarios to achieve their results.

Yes there are some things that don't add up with 9/11 but there are plenty of things that do. When you step back and look at the big picture I just don't see why they would try and pull of something this insanely complex just to go to war.

I bet if it was set-up and you tried to repeat it you wouldn't be able to in another 100 attempts. Just way to many things could go wrong that people would find out about.

It more than likely did happen the way it's portrayed even though there are questions about it and things that don't look right.

reply to post by secretmonkeypants


You know how you know Pearl Harbor was planned? There were two aircraft carriers that were supposed to be docked with the fleet. But early that morning they were "called off" for exercises at another island. Mostly battleships were destroyed, and those were quickly becoming antiquated. It was the first "only Aircraft carrier" exercises in the last 60 years

reply to post by kro32


i agree with you. i dont really believe that it was a inside job. but this is just a theory i came up with, and thats all it will ever be. a theory.

I hate to be the one to say it but EVERY time there's a MAJOR WAR and it involves the USA, it is almost certain that they had something to do with it. They either1) Provoked it, or 2) Be part of a pre-coordinated plan just for the simple fact of the "Economy"...PEACE doesn't not make money, WAR does!

Originally posted by TheEnlightenedOne
I hate to be the one to say it but EVERY time there's a MAJOR WAR and it involves the USA, it is almost certain that they had something to do with it. They either1) Provoked it, or 2) Be part of a pre-coordinated plan just for the simple fact of the "Economy"...PEACE doesn't not make money, WAR does!

Yes, every major war that included the USA, the USA is involved. You get the first prize in stating the obvious.

As to the economic advantages of war - that's an old wives tale spread by those who have little understanding of economics. Business loves peace. There are pockets of industry that excel during war time but they are few and far apart. Happy, comfortable people love to produce and more importantly, consume. For all the money GM made during World War II it pales in comparison to what they grossed during the 50's, 60's and 70's. Even the "military-industrial complex" prefers peace to war. War time budgets have this bad habit of consuming low profit margin items like bullets, boots, uniforms, and light vehicles. The MI complex makes it money on the real big ticket items, aircraft carriers, new fighters and bombers, new weapons systems, at cost research and development and the like and hot wars have a bad habit of putting those items on the back burner while budgets concentrate on feeding and transporting troops and buying sandbags.

Nope, wars are generally caused by actual bad people trying to do actual bad things, not murky conspiracies involving shadowy figures planning world domination by misdeirection.

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by TheEnlightenedOne
I hate to be the one to say it but EVERY time there's a MAJOR WAR and it involves the USA, it is almost certain that they had something to do with it. They either1) Provoked it, or 2) Be part of a pre-coordinated plan just for the simple fact of the "Economy"...PEACE doesn't not make money, WAR does!

Nope, wars are generally caused by actual bad people trying to do actual bad things, not murky conspiracies involving shadowy figures planning world domination by misdeirection.

Do those bad people get their own themesong XD.

Seriously though, I heard at least part of the fleet was pulled out. Its hard to imagine none of Americas allies noticed a task force on their way to Pearl Harbour.

reply to post by Skerrako


USS Enterprise (CV 6) was due in port at 7 AM, Dec 7, but was delayed by high winds and heavy seas which
forced the task force to reduce speed to allow escorting destroyers to keep up

Aircraft from ENTERPRISE were flying into Pearl Harbor and were caught in the attack - Several SBD dive
bombers were shot down

Lexington (CV 2) was ferrying aircraft to Midway Island

Saratoga (CV 3) was on west coast replenishing

Hornet (CV 8) had just been comissioned and was training off Norfolk Va

Yorktown (CV 5) was in the Atlantic as was Ranger (CV 4) and Wasp (CV 7)

Amazing how a little ignorance goes so far ....

Originally posted by hooper
[As to the economic advantages of war - that's an old wives tale spread by those who have little understanding of economics. Business loves peace. .

need i remind you of what pulled us out of the great depression? i do believe its known as world WAR 2.
i rest my case

Originally posted by TheEnlightenedOne
I hate to be the one to say it but EVERY time there's a MAJOR WAR and it involves the USA, it is almost certain that they had something to do with it. They either1) Provoked it, or 2) Be part of a pre-coordinated plan just for the simple fact of the "Economy"...PEACE doesn't not make money, WAR does!

Thus, the reason why these conspiracy people have all the credibility of a Nigerian gov't official offering to share his millions with us in exchange for a small deposit- spouting idiotic drivel exactly like this.

To the rest of the world, Japan genuinely and truly did launch a plan of conquest of Asia and the Pacific, and all you need to do is listen to what happened to Nanking under the Japanese to see that. To the rest of the world, North Korea genuinely and truly did invade South Korea in an attempt to subjugate it under its communist banner, and all you need to do is visit the 38th parallel and see just how hard core militarized it is. To the rest of the world, North Vietnam genuinely and truly did invade South Vietnam to subjugate it under it's own communist banner, and all you need to do is visit Saigon to see it ain't Saigon anymore- it's Ho Chi Minh City now. America maye or may not have had side dealings to advance its political interests, but the fact of the matter is there are still countres and organizations out there who have national agendas distinct and separate from what the US wants. To deny this is being uninformed and ignorant.

If you're so sick and twisted with hate that you'd want to piss on America and sneer at everything it stands for at every opportunuty, it's your right as a free citizen, but you need to know that openly siding in with Kaiser Wilhelm, Tojo, Hitler, Kim Il Sung, Pol Pot, Bin Laden, etc., to advance your America bashing agenda is only making you look stupid and foolish, not America or anyone else. Not everything going on in the world is some secret US plot to take over the world, dude.

Originally posted by Skerrako
reply to post by secretmonkeypants

 

You know how you know Pearl Harbor was planned? There were two aircraft carriers that were supposed to be docked with the fleet. But early that morning they were "called off" for exercises at another island. Mostly battleships were destroyed, and those were quickly becoming antiquated. It was the first "only Aircraft carrier" exercises in the last 60 years

Probably because it's the first war that used them. Aircraft carriers were new technology lol. But yes that is part of theory to FDR having prior knowledge of an attack.

Originally posted by TheEnlightenedOne
I hate to be the one to say it but EVERY time there's a MAJOR WAR and it involves the USA, it is almost certain that they had something to do with it. They either1) Provoked it, or 2) Be part of a pre-coordinated plan just for the simple fact of the "Economy"...PEACE doesn't not make money, WAR does!

Don't forget that alot of wars we have been involved with happened because we didn't take any action to prevent it.

We were aware of ww1 and ww2 and could have taken action prior to all out hostilities but refused to do anything.

Had we supported the French at the battle of Dien Bien Phu we could have prevented Vietnam or at least left it for the French to fight.

Now when we send troops around the world people throw a fit that we are interferring yet they are the same one's to complain when a bigger problem happens that could have been prevented.

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by TheEnlightenedOne
I hate to be the one to say it but EVERY time there's a MAJOR WAR and it involves the USA, it is almost certain that they had something to do with it. They either1) Provoked it, or 2) Be part of a pre-coordinated plan just for the simple fact of the "Economy"...PEACE doesn't not make money, WAR does!

Yes, every major war that included the USA, the USA is involved. You get the first prize in stating the obvious.

As to the economic advantages of war - that's an old wives tale spread by those who have little understanding of economics. Business loves peace. There are pockets of industry that excel during war time but they are few and far apart. Happy, comfortable people love to produce and more importantly, consume. For all the money GM made during World War II it pales in comparison to what they grossed during the 50's, 60's and 70's. Even the "military-industrial complex" prefers peace to war. War time budgets have this bad habit of consuming low profit margin items like bullets, boots, uniforms, and light vehicles. The MI complex makes it money on the real big ticket items, aircraft carriers, new fighters and bombers, new weapons systems, at cost research and development and the like and hot wars have a bad habit of putting those items on the back burner while budgets concentrate on feeding and transporting troops and buying sandbags.

Nope, wars are generally caused by actual bad people trying to do actual bad things, not murky conspiracies involving shadowy figures planning world domination by misdeirection.

Well your not entirely correct. Business my love peace but economy's love war. Had it not been for ww2 who knows if we would have ever gotten out of the great depression. FDR halted the spread of it, at tremendous cost, but he didn't end it. Only the war did that.

By 1943 I believe, America actually had more jobs than workers to fill them so war is certainly not bad for economics.

Originally posted by secretmonkeypants

Originally posted by hooper
[As to the economic advantages of war - that's an old wives tale spread by those who have little understanding of economics. Business loves peace. .

need i remind you of what pulled us out of the great depression? i do believe its known as world WAR 2.
i rest my case

Better read a little economic history. Thats not quite true. Again, a very simplistic version of history.

Originally posted by secretmonkeypants
need i remind you of what pulled us out of the great depression? i do believe its known as world WAR 2.
i rest my case

No, I do believe it's known as MASSIVE GOV'T SPENDING. The gov't started buying everything from tanks to uniforms to paintbrushes in gigantic quantities and the manufacturers of these goods hired literally anyone who wanted to work in order to meet the demand, so everyone had money. It's the same "trickle down theory" philosophy Reagan used back in the 80's but without the subsidies of foreign countries buying stuff from us to help them beat off the Germans and Japanese. In both cases, the gov't still had to borrow heavily via war bonds and treasury bills to sustain that level of spending.

Where your simplistic theories fall apart is that there was no corresponding massive gov't spending after 9/11. The gov't didn't buy any more airplanes, shoelaces, or ladders than it was buying before, nor was it pushing people to buy gov't bonds in movie theaters like they did back in 1943, so if you want to wallow in these sinister sounding "staged attacks for the sake of profits" conspiracies you're going to have to find another way of doing it.

reply to post by kro32

Well your not entirely correct. Business my love peace but economy's love war. Had it not been for ww2 who knows if we would have ever gotten out of the great depression. FDR halted the spread of it, at tremendous cost, but he didn't end it. Only the war did that.

By 1943 I believe, America actually had more jobs than workers to fill them so war is certainly not bad for economics.

Again, read a little history. By 1940 America was already beginning to emerge from the depression. Some will even argue that the war slowed the recovery down, there may have been work but the product of that labor and capital was what some refer to as a "false economy", war goods and service have very little to no multiplier effect in the economy. Now you want to talk about government spending that helped the economy tremendously? Lets talk the GI Bill. That put billions into a limping economy, building houses, sending GI's to school, starting business, etc. Probably some of, if not the best, expenditure of federal funds in the history of the USA and arguably the world.

But, in conclusion, the idea that businesses would conspire to start wars in order to improve the economy - total nonsense for a wide range of reasons, including, but not limited to, people have this bad habit of restricting their spending during periods of stress and uncertaintity.

What I once read, is that Pearl Harbor was partly an inside job. The Japanese were provoked into attacking Pearl Harbor - in order to draw the USA into World War 2. Warfare is good for business. The companies can sell their weaponry - even to both sides. The ships at Pearl Harbor at the time were going to be decommissioned soon, anyway. (Soon can be a month to e.g. a year's time.) People I mentioned this to, in the American Military strongly disagreed, and said that some ships there certainly weren't going to be, and that there were even some fairly new. But, it wouldn't have mattered to those concerned if there were a few good ships sacrificed.