What About the Old Pearl Harbor?

gretavo's picture

Call me crazy. I just got Day of Deceit by Robert Stinnet, a book that has gotten somepublicity in the mainstream press despite its "shocking" claim that FDR knew full well the Japanese were going to attack and Let It Happen On Purpose. He cites evidence that we had broken all the necessary Japanese codes and that on top of that the Japanese were quite brazenly or carelessly repeatedly breaking radio silence.

FDR LIHOP is certainly not a shock to any of us I'm sure. But something unthinkable is nagging at the back of my mind. What if Pearl Harbor was not LIHOP but MIHOP? How would we know? I looked up pictures of the attack and it's hard to find any evidence that in fact it was the Japanese causing all the big explosions.

It's not just the seemingly nonexistent visual confirmation though. Think about it. We have the official story which is "complete surprise"--no one saw it coming, yatta yatta. We've heard that one in regard to 9/11.

But wait! says a revisionist--maybe it was LIHOP! After all, we HAD gotten intelligence about an impending attack, but the fact was covered up so that FDR could convince war-averse Americans of the need to get into a war. Now that sounds like classic 9/11 limited hangout LIHOP, and indeed it looks like more and more people are accepting it as the truth about Pearl Harbor, judging by the mainstreaminess of Stinnet's book.

That was my first suspicion--why would the powers that be allow this? If they are almost succeeding in totally covering up something that happened 6 years ago, why allow the truth to come out about something that happened over 60 years ago? How is the idea of FDR sacrificing innocent American lives so as to get us into a war any better than the idea that Bush would do the same thing? What if this is limited hangout after all?

One of the problems we have with the official 9/11 narrative is that it supposes that "al Qaeda" really believed they could pull off something that was clearly impossible. We know they would never have attempted it. UNLESS maybe they knew they would be allowed to succeed. But then why help your avowed enemy in that way? What is more likely is that they would NOT have attempted such an absurd attack because it would have little chance of success. That's just ONE reason why we know it wasn't LIHOP on 9/11--the otehr being that since the demolition was clearly not prepared by al Qaeda the demolishers would have had to have an unbelievable amount of faith in the ability of al Qaeda to pull off their stunt.

Now Pearl Harbor... Did the Japanese really think that they could sail across the Pacific with a bunch of aircraft carriers and their supporting entourage without being detected? That they were not walking (sailing) into a trap of some kind? After all, FDR left the Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor like sitting ducks, according to Stinnet, against the better judgement of the military commanders. Back to the Japanese--according to Stinnet there is evidence that they broke radio silence repeatedly--why on earth would they do that and jeopardize their mission? I read somewhere else that the Japanese had actually warned the US that they would attack in response to the problems FDR was causing to provoke them (involving securing oil supplies) but that the message wasn't translated in time. Huh? That also sounds familiar!

So to recap, and I admit this is just an inkling--I have yet to really dig--it seems that evidence for the Japanese having attacked Pearl Harbor is much like evidence for the official conspiracy theory of 9/11. The stupid are told the unbelievable version (complete surprise) and the skeptics are told a limited hangout version (well, it wasn't a surprise because we had the intel, but it was either ignored out of incompetence or willfully to justify a war) and they can all argue about it in that context. Also a presumption of guilt based on alleged confessions by the alleged perps are used to make any other, more sinister arguments (MIHOP) moot.

So I ask--what hard evidence is there that the destruction at Pearl Harbor was the result of bombing by the Japanese and not by disguised American or Allied planes? Given that after shocking and aweing the Japanese with the nukes we occupied their country and totally ran it for years after, can we be sure that "confessions" and "autobiographies" and an entire false history could not have easily been put together for posterity (us?)

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
casseia's picture

Micro Nukes at Pearl Harbor

Sorry -- just mis-read your last paragraph and made myself laugh.

After Tarpley's presentation at the Arizona conference, he really got into it with a questioner who was blaming PH on FDR. Evidently, Tarpley lays the PH LIHOP blame squarely on Churchill, arguing that the Brits had broken the code that would have been applicable in this case (and the Americans had broken another) and deliberately withheld the information. There's potential meta-Truth extrapolation to be had here, I feel, without knowing just what direction to take it in. That is, Tarpley seems to prefer to shift blame away from American executives, either in the context of admiring them (FDR) or holding them in such complete contempt that he refuses to believe they had anything other than a peripheral role (3 heart-attack 4 pacemaker Cheney.)

The thought I keep returning to these days is the almost perverse irony that in the end I may be a LIHOPPER after all -- in the sense that the people who once seemed to me to have been players, ie the Cheney cabal, can be more accurately described as having let it happen, perhaps. The sleight-of-hand act of the century has to do with WHO was let do WHAT. Hint: the real actors didn't have to depend on ISI for pork-chop money.

Annoymouse's picture

LI- MI- and BIHOP

"The thought I keep returning to these days is the almost perverse irony that in the end I may be a LIHOPPER after all -- in the sense that the people who once seemed to me to have been players, ie the Cheney cabal, can be more accurately described as having let it happen, perhaps."

AMEN!
Thats the problem i have with the Li-Mi-blabla. It leaves only TWO chances: Al-Quaida versus the Bush administration who either Li-hoped or Mi-hoped...
And i find it kinda strange that on THIS site, where it often is heard that blaming Bush + co. is not what it should be all about, those terms get used alot. Which doesnt make sense to me as they are so black + white.
For some people in the Bush admin, i'd say the term 'LIHOP' fits pretty well, actually. But that doesnt mean they LIHOP'd an Al-Quaida plan!!
So i guess that makes me a BIHOPER ?

-em74

gretavo's picture

like any shorthand

it leaves a lot to be desired, I agree. I also agree that the various IHOP terms erroneously imply that it was BushCo that was running the pancake shop in every case. In this case I was using the terms to facilitate an analogy with the "old Pearl Harbor". I'll be more careful in the future, thanks for pointing that out y'all...

As for Tarpley defending FDR, two things--Stinnet's book makes it pretty clear that we did NOT depend on the British for any Japanese code breaking. Remember that Tarpley is an old Larouchie and that FDR is a demigod in the Larouche pantheon along with various geometers and musical composers.

What I'm getting at here (other than giving the haters another way to hate me!) is that we constantly need to remind ourselves to challenge our assumptions. I personally at this point am ambivalent about this Pearl Harbor theory. My next logical step will be to seek out stories from the era in the Japanese press to see how the "suprise attack" is discussed, and I'll report back on that.

casseia's picture

I wasn't criticizing your use of LIHOP so much...

I do think they're terms that are becoming less and less useful, mostly because of what they conceal (what was the IT? WHO was let? etc etc)

My point was sort of the complement of your correct identification of Tarpley as a Larouchie and thus an FDR-worshipper -- he's a Brit hater, too. Tarpley seems to take issue with Stinnet's assertion that FDR Co. knew everything they needed to know about the codes -- he certainly indicated that he was familiar with the Stinnet book -- but *I* haven't looked into it, so my interest is limited to wondering what part of Tarpley's agenda might be revealed in his treatment of PH.

Tarpley gets flak -- and rightly so -- for deflecting any serious consideration of the Israeli state or its intelligence apparatus in 9/11, but I wonder what he would say off the record about British intelligence.

This is an interesting essay for anyone who takes an interest in Tarpley's underlying agenda: The Versailles Thesis

gretavo's picture

i'll check it out...

the standard anti-Zionist position points out the high percentage of Zionists present at the conference (representing various countries) to explain how it led to WW2 which led to the formation of Israel on the basis of the "holocaust".

Keenan's picture

PIHOP?

I got this book when it first came out in 2000. It was pretty shocking to me at the time, though compared to what I know about 9/11 MIHOP it seems almost tame in comparison.

But, the fact that Stinnet layed out the eight step plan of FDR to provoke an attack, it seems to go beyond LIHOP. Perhaps you could call it PIHOP - Provoke It to Happen On Purpose?

I thought it was interesting that Stinnet felt the ends justified the means and supported FDR's teasonous actions, because the stupid and stubborn masses just couldn't be trusted to understand what our superior leaders knew was best for the country - "we had to join the fight for freedom" (Ahhhem...cough!...BULL SHIT...cough!)

Stinnet's only complaint about the deception was that his friends - a couple of officers in the Navy - were unfairly scapegoated for the "incompetence" cover story. Pretty lame...

Interesting theory, though, about the possibility that it may have really been MIHOP with no actual Japanese planes involved in the attack. I hadn't considered that before.

bruce1337's picture

Another hypothesis:

It's being publicized to establish parallels to another "just war" triggered by deception, knowledge of which will hit mainstream somewhere in 2008.

The theory that the entire PH attack was staged seems exceedingly absurd at face value. If we suppose there was no evidence for japanese culpability, it would have taken a major amount of friendly fighters and pilots to pull it off -- and there was no IDF as with the Liberty, yet.
_________________________________
happiness is either here or nowhere

gretavo's picture

not disagreeing with your hypothesis

but on the other hand I don't think it would have taken that many friendly fighters to fake the attack. then again, if someone can point me to film or photographs of a swarm of enemy fighters I might believe that... problem is the photos I've seen don't sem to show many (maybe one in an entire series) of planes, just a lot of ships blowing up...

E Vero's picture

you should ask Ryan Dawson

He's up on a lot of this and is actually living in Japan right now. I just read his book; it reads like a "how the world really works" for the upcoming generation. (Yes, I know it needed a lot of editing, but the book was interesting nonetheless.) Do you ever read his site (http://www.rys2sense.com/anti-neocons/)?

E

gretavo's picture

not often but i like what i've seen

i actually did Japan studies as a minor in college, so it shouldn't be too hard to research this... :)

Lazlo Toth's picture

Interesting analysis G

You might be on to something. Lock your front door now, and if a pizza guy wearing an FDR mask comes around and rings your doorbell, don't answer it

gretavo's picture

LOL

I only order from nice right-wing pizza outlets like Domino's... :) Like I said, this is a shot in the dark, but hell, we've beaten 9/11 to death... :)

Big_D's picture

Hmm, ...

Now that I think about it. Isn't Pearl Harbor unique in the fact that It's the ONLY non-staged, as in the Japanese actually did attack us even if provoked, 'false-flag' event? You may be on to something here.

gretavo's picture

the parallels just really bother me...

and like I said, it shouldn't be too hard to satisfy ourselves of the truth if in fact the Japanese DID send their fleet across the Pacific to launch this attack. I would start by looking at Japanese newspapers of the time and seeing how they describe it, see if anyone took issue with the accounts, etc. I'm not trying to make myself look like Real Moonbat, I just realized that I've always taken the official PH story for granted without ever seeing definitive proof! When you google Pearl Harbor and look at the images that come up, there's a bunch from the summer 2001 MOVIE and only a few from the actual event! As with the holocaust, imagery is provided in Hollywood films that don't exist in real life, like images of people actually being gassed, or oversized crematorium ovens that apparently appear in Schindler's List but that have never been seen in real life. Obviously Spielberg is aware of the problem of accounting for so many burned corpses when considering only the use of the actual regular one person at a time crematorium ovens found in the camps. There was obviously more than one in each camp but when you're talking millions of victims and a limited timeframe (the camps were not in operation for as long as the war lasted...)

Whether you accept the official stories or not it's interesting how some history gets a little help filling in the gaps when other episodes are completely downplayed...

Big_D's picture

Swindler's List

I don't accept anything that can't stand under critical analysis. And yes, it's very telling when a myth needs to be propped up by lies & omissions. It really burns my ass for Swindler's List to be passed off as anything other than the fiction it was based on. The level of intellectual dishonesty is just... insane.

Tahooey's picture

talk about parallels

have you guys spent any time looking into OKC? It's damn near obvious. Personally I'm convinced OKC and 911 were perpetrated by an overlapping group of co-conspirators. IMO the fact that one was done while a Democrat was in the White House and the other Republican is very illustrative to those who still see a big difference between Democratic and Republican parties.

“Many engineering deadlocks have been broken by people who are not engineers at all. This is simply because perspective is more important than IQ.” (Nicholas Negroponte)

Big_D's picture

Yep, just as blatant as 9-11.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/PARTIN/okm.htm

Coverup in Oklahoma

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7268764172883869415&q=okc+bombing&hl=en

OKC Bombing Revisited

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5203044754799014874&q=Coverup+in+Oklahoma&hl=en

gretavo's picture

oh absolutely OKC was a sham

i have the video of the local news reports talking about the unexploded bombs on the main site... it disappeared from youtube but I put it here in lo res...

http://wtcdemolition.com/OKCitybombs.wmv

Annoymouse's picture

OKC

Ive not yet spent any time looking into OKC, but, i do remember when i first heard about it. That was on 911, when i was glued to the TV , and they (the main swiss tv station SF) had this live interview/coverage with a correspondent in new york. That was a few hours after the towers were blown up. This guy said that he heard people saying "that this could have been an inside job , as it seems to have been the case in OKC. Many witnesses report explosions...". Cant remember the exact words, but something along that line. It certainly made me think quite a bit, which is why i remember that short sequence. Hmmm, i have to get hold of those 911 newsvideos, theres probably some interesting things to find in there.....thanks for reminding me.
m74

bruce1337's picture

What about the Lusitania?

_________________________________
happiness is either here or nowhere

gretavo's picture

interesting question

The debate there was--was the Lusitania an innocent passenger ship or was it in fact carying military contraband in violation of America's neutrality. I don't think the Germans ever denied firing on it, I think the controversy was that they only intended to disable it but because of the explosive contraband aboard the damage ended up being much worse...

But to reiterate, if anyone has anything that would indicate that Pearl Harbor was indeed an attack that the Japanese acknowledged WHEN IT HAPPENED please share! I would not put much stock in things like the autobiographies of those involved published during the American occupation, for obvious reasons. I'd like to see the headlines in the Asahi Shimbun proclaiming the successful strike, plus corroborating stories as one would expect in all major Japanese publications of the day......