6 ms·

So this tells us its OK to lie as long as 200 people die and you can tie up the evidence for a couple decades. I'll remember that when I'm teaching my kids its

So this tells us its OK to lie as long as 200 people die and you can tie up the evidence for a couple decades. I'll remember that when I'm teaching my kids its bad to lie about stealing an extra cookie. Thanks CIA, etc

orangepurple 4y ago
People still believe the Pearl Harbor attack was an inevitable occurrence or a radar detection and communications problem almost 100 years later. President Roosevelt told General Marshall to send a message to the Hawaiian commanders: "Don't interfere with Japan's overt act of war. The United States desires that Japan commit the first overt act." Maybe in 100 years the questions and evidence presented in the 5 hour documentary "September 11: The New Pearl Harbor (2013)" will be answered and/or justified.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Sebguer 4y ago
  Can you source that quote? The closest I can find that made it to actual commanders is: "If hostilities cannot repeat not be avoided the United States desires that Japan commit the first overt act. This policy should not repeat not be construed as restricting you to a course of action that might jeopardize your defense." Which is very different from the conspiratorial intent you're implying.
  - orangepurple 4y ago
    Yep, I believe that's the exact quote. The US started putting impossible demands on Japan to suffocate them economically and militarily and when it was obvious that Japan was pushed to the breaking point the attack on Pearl Harbor was "allowed" to justify the ensuing war back home. Interestingly I see a lot of parallels in the war in Ukraine right now. The US and EU started arming bordering countries and applying extreme economic sanctions on Russia in rapid succession and "everyone" was surprised that the invasion occurred. Now everyone sees Russia as the overt oppressor. Mission accomplished? https://www.learnliberty.org/blog/did-the-us-provoke-japans-attack-on-pearl-harbor/ https://www.learnliberty.org/blog/did-the-us-provoke-japans-...
    - yongjik 4y ago
      > The US started putting impossible demands on Japan to suffocate them economically and militarily ... This is the same historical revisionist nonsense floated by Japanese right wing to claim that Japan was somehow "forced" to attack America and WW2 was a just war of defense.
    - alamortsubite 4y ago
      > The US and EU started arming bordering countries and applying extreme economic sanctions on Russia in rapid succession and "everyone" was surprised that the invasion occurred. Precisely what sanctions did the US and EU levy before Russia invaded Ukraine?
    - MichaelCollins 4y ago
      Japan had plenty of oil and energy to sustain peaceful operations. They "needed" more oil to wage their land war in China and naval conquest across the Pacific. They tried negotiating with the Dutch to get oil from the Dutch East Indies. When these negotiations failed, they hatched a plan to take that oil by force. The subsequent oil embargo against Japan was a response to that. The reason they picked a fight with America was because the American occupied Philippines was located directly between Japan and the Dutch East Indies. They knew that to take the Dutch East Indies they would need to take the Philippines as well, so they decided to destroy the US Navy first. Internet commenters like to make a big deal out of the oil embargo, saying that America twisted Japan's arm and forced them into a war. This is not true. Japan's arm was twisted by their own imperial ambition which demanded that oil. If they never had that ambition they would not have needed that oil in the first place, nor would they have been slapped with an oil embargo.
    - macintux 4y ago
      Or maybe neighbors were armed because Russia has a long history of invading them.
      - thriftwy 4y ago
        In Europe, everybody has a long history of being invaded by everybody else, so trying to spin that as "Russia bad" requires a very myopic outlook. Russia also has a long history of being invaded from the West. That's why Russia is super nervious about NATO expansion.
MichaelCollins 4y ago
1. You should never use the CIA as a moral example for your children. 2. With respect to lying about hundreds of people dying, is that really a surprise to you? Just a few possible examples off the top of my head. RMS Lusitania, claimed to be carrying tens if not hundreds of tons of undeclared high explosives, which would have made it a 'legitimate' target for the u-boat that sank it. This is officially denied, but the Royal Navy has since endeavored to destroy the wreck and warn divers away from investigating it. K-219, a Soviet ballistic missile sub, sank in early October 1986. Later that month USS Augusta, an American attack submarine, went in for repairs to a smashed radar dome. The US Navy denies any connection between the two. K-129, another Soviet ballistic missile sub, sank in 1968. The US Navy figured out where it was before anybody else, claiming to have found it using sonar buoys and Bayesian search techniques. A few days after K-129 sank, USS Swordfish went into port for repairs after a supposed collision with sea ice. The US Navy denies any connection between the two. MS Estonia was a ferry that sank in 1980 when the front loading doors failed. Allegations that the ferry was being used to smuggle military hardware were denied by everybody, then the wreck was deliberately buried under thousands of tons of gravel so that nobody can inspect it. 1988, the US Navy shoots down Iran Air Flight 655. The US Navy claims it was self-defense because their Aegis cruiser misidentified the Airbus A300 as an Iranian F-14.
- thriftwy 4y ago
  Unfortunately, if the USA may repeatedly hit-and-run Soviet/Russian submarines it sounds like a worthy tactic instead of an accident. Blame should be on the Soviet/Russian side for failing to counter.
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    If there were collisions, I think they were probably accidents. For one, deliberate collisions would risk the loss of the American submarine too. They weren't built for ramming. Secondly, the circumstance of an accidental collision seems very believable. Such collisions would not have been freak accidental encounters; the main mission of US attack subs at the time was to tail Soviet ballistic missile subs very closely and not be detected. The Soviet submarine commanders had some inkling of this, and responded by making erratic maneuvers to "clear their baffles" (essentially, look behind themselves, where their sonar was otherwise blind.) Trailing an unpredictable submarine very close is inherently risky. I think the blame falls on the circumstance of the Cold War itself, which compelled both sides to believe their actions were necessary.

orangepurple 4y ago

People still believe the Pearl Harbor attack was an inevitable occurrence or a radar detection and communications problem almost 100 years later. President Roosevelt told General Marshall to send a message to the Hawaiian commanders: "Don't interfere with Japan's overt act of war. The United States desires that Japan commit the first overt act." Maybe in 100 years the questions and evidence presented in the 5 hour documentary "September 11: The New Pearl Harbor (2013)" will be answered and/or justified.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Sebguer 4y ago
Can you source that quote? The closest I can find that made it to actual commanders is: "If hostilities cannot repeat not be avoided the United States desires that Japan commit the first overt act. This policy should not repeat not be construed as restricting you to a course of action that might jeopardize your defense." Which is very different from the conspiratorial intent you're implying.
- orangepurple 4y ago
  Yep, I believe that's the exact quote. The US started putting impossible demands on Japan to suffocate them economically and militarily and when it was obvious that Japan was pushed to the breaking point the attack on Pearl Harbor was "allowed" to justify the ensuing war back home. Interestingly I see a lot of parallels in the war in Ukraine right now. The US and EU started arming bordering countries and applying extreme economic sanctions on Russia in rapid succession and "everyone" was surprised that the invasion occurred. Now everyone sees Russia as the overt oppressor. Mission accomplished? https://www.learnliberty.org/blog/did-the-us-provoke-japans-attack-on-pearl-harbor/ https://www.learnliberty.org/blog/did-the-us-provoke-japans-...
  - yongjik 4y ago
    > The US started putting impossible demands on Japan to suffocate them economically and militarily ... This is the same historical revisionist nonsense floated by Japanese right wing to claim that Japan was somehow "forced" to attack America and WW2 was a just war of defense.
  - alamortsubite 4y ago
    > The US and EU started arming bordering countries and applying extreme economic sanctions on Russia in rapid succession and "everyone" was surprised that the invasion occurred. Precisely what sanctions did the US and EU levy before Russia invaded Ukraine?
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    Japan had plenty of oil and energy to sustain peaceful operations. They "needed" more oil to wage their land war in China and naval conquest across the Pacific. They tried negotiating with the Dutch to get oil from the Dutch East Indies. When these negotiations failed, they hatched a plan to take that oil by force. The subsequent oil embargo against Japan was a response to that. The reason they picked a fight with America was because the American occupied Philippines was located directly between Japan and the Dutch East Indies. They knew that to take the Dutch East Indies they would need to take the Philippines as well, so they decided to destroy the US Navy first. Internet commenters like to make a big deal out of the oil embargo, saying that America twisted Japan's arm and forced them into a war. This is not true. Japan's arm was twisted by their own imperial ambition which demanded that oil. If they never had that ambition they would not have needed that oil in the first place, nor would they have been slapped with an oil embargo.
  - macintux 4y ago
    Or maybe neighbors were armed because Russia has a long history of invading them.
    - thriftwy 4y ago
      In Europe, everybody has a long history of being invaded by everybody else, so trying to spin that as "Russia bad" requires a very myopic outlook. Russia also has a long history of being invaded from the West. That's why Russia is super nervious about NATO expansion.

MichaelCollins 4y ago

1. You should never use the CIA as a moral example for your children. 2. With respect to lying about hundreds of people dying, is that really a surprise to you? Just a few possible examples off the top of my head. RMS Lusitania, claimed to be carrying tens if not hundreds of tons of undeclared high explosives, which would have made it a 'legitimate' target for the u-boat that sank it. This is officially denied, but the Royal Navy has since endeavored to destroy the wreck and warn divers away from investigating it. K-219, a Soviet ballistic missile sub, sank in early October 1986. Later that month USS Augusta, an American attack submarine, went in for repairs to a smashed radar dome. The US Navy denies any connection between the two. K-129, another Soviet ballistic missile sub, sank in 1968. The US Navy figured out where it was before anybody else, claiming to have found it using sonar buoys and Bayesian search techniques. A few days after K-129 sank, USS Swordfish went into port for repairs after a supposed collision with sea ice. The US Navy denies any connection between the two. MS Estonia was a ferry that sank in 1980 when the front loading doors failed. Allegations that the ferry was being used to smuggle military hardware were denied by everybody, then the wreck was deliberately buried under thousands of tons of gravel so that nobody can inspect it. 1988, the US Navy shoots down Iran Air Flight 655. The US Navy claims it was self-defense because their Aegis cruiser misidentified the Airbus A300 as an Iranian F-14.

thriftwy 4y ago
Unfortunately, if the USA may repeatedly hit-and-run Soviet/Russian submarines it sounds like a worthy tactic instead of an accident. Blame should be on the Soviet/Russian side for failing to counter.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  If there were collisions, I think they were probably accidents. For one, deliberate collisions would risk the loss of the American submarine too. They weren't built for ramming. Secondly, the circumstance of an accidental collision seems very believable. Such collisions would not have been freak accidental encounters; the main mission of US attack subs at the time was to tail Soviet ballistic missile subs very closely and not be detected. The Soviet submarine commanders had some inkling of this, and responded by making erratic maneuvers to "clear their baffles" (essentially, look behind themselves, where their sonar was otherwise blind.) Trailing an unpredictable submarine very close is inherently risky. I think the blame falls on the circumstance of the Cold War itself, which compelled both sides to believe their actions were necessary.