Posted on 12/06/2006 4:07:08 PM PST by NonZeroSum
December 7, 1946
HONOLULU (Routers) Five years after the sinking of the battleships in Pearl Harbor, many still question the official government story of what happened on that fateful day, and who was responsible. Some believe that the Roosevelt administration did it themselves, deliberately, making it look like Japanese religious fanatics were responsible, in order to drag the country into a war that they could get by no other means, to benefit arms merchants and the Jews.
The controversy has been renewed by a recently released film documentary, titled "Loose Ships." It makes a compelling case against the Shinto extremist theory, citing inconsistent eyewitness reports, mistaken radar readings, and structural analysis of the sunken battleships.
"It makes no sense to think that Japanese Shintoists could have done this," explains one of the film's producers. "Shinto is a deeply spiritual religion, derived from Buddhism, worshiping nature. A Shintoist would never have desecrated Pearl Harbor with all of that leaking and burning diesel fuel and oil. It is fundamentally a religion of peace."
He points out that many eyewitnesses saw American planes in the air that day, and that the radar images that many claim, preposterously in his view, were of the attacking Japanese aircraft, were actually a squadron of American B-17s on its way to Hickam Air Force Base, perhaps to take part in the plot. The Truman administration itself has admitted that there was a group of bombers in the area that morning, on its way from the mainland, though a War Department spokesman claimed that it was too far away and in the wrong direction to appear on radar at that point in time.
The documentarian went on to expand on his theory. "We don't think that Japanese aircraft would have the range to get here all the way from Japan, but if by some miracle they did, it was probably to protect Honolulu, in which many Japanese live, from the administration plot. That's probably what people were seeing."
Some have examined the wreckage of the Arizona, and claim that it wasn't brought down by aerial bombs, but by charges planted on the ship beforehand.
"Look at those two huge circular holes in the front and rear of the sunken ship," he said. "No bomb is big enough to make a hole that size, and do it so cleanly. It was obviously a shaped charge of some kind. It's just not possible to take down ships that big with the little bombs that are carried in those little Japanese airplanes."
"They killed thousands of sailors for their filthy war, and many of them died a long and horrible death in air pockets. And take a look at the roster of the people who died on the Arizona. How many Jewish names do you see there? I think they were warned ahead of time."
"It was all part of the Zionist neo-liberal conspiracy to drag America into a needless war of choice."
In response to suggestions that the Japanese used aircraft carriers, and that many of the Japanese planes were torpedo bombers, and that the large holes were the empty sockets for the gun turrets, that were removed afterward, he scoffed. "That's all just Franklin Delano Rosenfeld administration propaganda," he sneered knowingly.
Some enterprising and innovative people have carried the analysis further. In one sequence shown in the documentary, a man built a wooden model of the ship in his pond, and filmed himself dropping lit firecrackers on it from above, to demonstrate how preposterous was the notion that ships could be sunk by bombs. They seemed to have no effect other than a slight scorching of the deck, and the sturdy little toy remained afloat.
He was proud of his own small part in uncovering the cover up. "Other than the fact that the ship is wood, which is much weaker than steel, and I used firecrackers instead of iron bombs, and that there was no ammunition magazine aboard to explode, this is a perfect simulation of what the Roosevelt administration claims happened to the Arizona. But there the ship floats, to show to one and all the administration's lie. And how convenient of Roosevelt to die a year and a half ago, so he can avoid having to answer these questions."
ping
And as the Iraq Study Group recommends playing nice with Iran and Syria as they ship tons of weapons into Iraqto kill our citizens, the game contines. . .
MacArthur's disrespect to Truman during the Korean war did not improve Dads opinion of Doug one bit, either. Dad credited Truman with saving Dads life with his decision to drop the bomb.
So did I, but only because of the extreme nature of the end of the article.
This was a big deal at one time, though. In 1963 I was in high school and we were being taught how to debate.
The question I was given was whether Roosevelt allowed the Pearl Harbor attack.
It seemed ridiculous to me at the time, but we were given the historical record that the conspiracists were citing.
I wouldn't go that far, but I wouldn't be surprised to see an opportunistic liberal to seize an opportunity to get his social agenda passed.
Remember, we're talking about a guy who gave Stalin half of Europe.
Technically speaking, we heard this after it was said in 1946 (if this article isn't a gag).
Sounds more like Extraterrestrial musings, because this stuff is from outer space.
A Shintoist would never have desecrated Pearl Harbor with all of that leaking and burning diesel fuel and oil. It is fundamentally a religion of peace."
Yeah, okay.......that religion of peace mantra rehashed.
The Truman administration itself has admitted that there was a group of bombers in the area that morning, on its way from the mainland
That nails it.....American aircraft activity at the bastion of the Pacific Ocean. Duh.
The documentarian went on to expand on his theory. "We don't think that Japanese aircraft would have the range to get here all the way from Japan, but if by some miracle they did, it was probably to protect Honolulu, in which many Japanese live, from the administration plot. That's probably what people were seeing."
Protect Honolulu? Was LSD around then?....I think so.
"It was all part of the Zionist neo-liberal conspiracy to drag America into a needless war of choice."
It was the Joos; yeah that's it. Go away, (substitute words of your choice) vermin.
Some enterprising and innovative people have carried the analysis further. In one sequence shown in the documentary, a man built a wooden model of the ship in his pond, and filmed himself dropping lit firecrackers on it from above, to demonstrate how preposterous was the notion that ships could be sunk by bombs. They seemed to have no effect other than a slight scorching of the deck, and the sturdy little toy remained afloat.
How did your rubber duckie fare in your scientific bathtub experiment?
Are you unfamiliar with the concept of satire?
Are you familiar with the blurring of satire and reality in our society?
Go through this post line for line, and you'll find people who are dead serious about these 'musings'.
LOL!
No one has ever seriously claimed that Roosevelt had charges planted on the Arizona. It's obviously satire of modern 911 conspiracy nuts using today's sixty-fifth anniversary as a hook.
Okay, you win. Feel better?
I would believe that was the purpose of this posting...making fun of the conspiracy nutz that are convinced that the Bush administration was behind 9/11. I have sent this to two people I know that are strong believers of this line of thinking. Good parody, like is one, can draw out the silliest lines of thought. Well done.
Thank you. I can not believe the number of posters that look at this like it is a real article instead of what it really is...making fun of those that think Bush was behind 9/11. I guess looking at sources and thinking is something new for some.
I would have to agree with another poster, who in all seriousness mentioned the blurring of reality.
For good satire to be...well...satire, it must in some way be indistinguishable from reality. Personally, I am well aware of, and recognizant of satire. The problem is that in todays world, satire is often indistinguishable from reality.
In this case, take the the guy in the article dropping firecrackers on a wooden boat to illustrate his point. Can anyone, with a straight face, tell me that is not something that is not only easily imaginable in some quarters of society, but actually has direct analogs?
There is a well known guy who gets up in front of people and shows the 9/11 buildings falling while using his pointer to focus on areas in the video that he thinks are special charges planted to bring down the buildings. This is not satire. It is reality. In a sane world, yes. But this is not a sane world. In a sane world, there would not be leaders of countries announcing their opinion that the Holocaust was a sham, a media creation.
If you put up satire that had content describing President Bush eating Arabic babies as lunch, we *might* recognize that as satire. However, there are some people in the world where that might be put accepted as a valid and truthful observation.
Such as the liberal arm of American politics in the USA.
(The last line was semi-satire, by the way...)
That was exactly the point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.