Civilized Discussion and Debate (spam not permitted)

[Chanak]

[QUOTE=Magrus]...I wouldn't put it past Bush...[/QUOTE]

Bush has already demonstrated what he is willing to do in order to accomplish his agenda both at home and abroad. Out and out lies and deception employed by his administration justifying the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq are just major highlights. His administration has sunk hundreds of billions of dollars into the so-called War on Terror, funding invasions of other countries, creation of a new department, and pushing through legislation making formerly unconstitutional surveillance of private citizens, seizure of property and indefinite imprisonment, and appropriations power all legal in the eyes of the law. This was more than FDR and his famous relative could ever dream of accomplishing in their day - unless they wished to face impeachment, of course.

In the words of Thomas Jefferson, a people who are willing to trade their freedom for security do not deserve freedom at all.

[Dottie]

I think it is far fetched to belive either the bombs in London, the 9/11 attack or the lack of warning prior to pearl harbour was the result of an informed decision of respective gouverment. Granted, its not unheard of in history to dress up as a desired adversary and fake an attack, but it is quite rare. This, I think, is because the gains are actually quite small compared to the risk you take. You can often get nearly the same effect by just stating that you are under attack. Now, why would Blair gamble with his position to achive very little personal gain? It doesn't make sense imo.

[Fiona]

If you consider the benefits to Mr Blair and his colleagues they make quite a long list. He was in a very weak position prior to these bombs and he has been getting a good press for the way he responded. He and his friends are very certain of their worth and the truth of their views. They have been prepared to lie about very serious matters in order to get their own way (eg over the Iraq war). I do not detect any serious moral doubt about lying to achieve their purposes since they seem to believe that the end justifies all means. At the same time they are obsessed with identity cards and other attacks on personal liberty. They have not been finding it easy to get these bills through and the bombs have helped with that agenda. If you take the "cui bono" view there is a lot to be said for Magrus's contention. I do not believe that considerations of morality would have prevented the principals from taking such action.

Having said all that I still believe it is unlikely. Far from being easier to engineer or allow such an action from a position of power, I think it far harder. Unless we are to suppose that Mr Blair planted the bombs himself with the help of eg David Blunkett and other loyal members of the government (there would have to be at least 4) then a lot of people would have to know about the plan. Whether it was made by others and allowed after it had been detected; or whether it was hatched inside government circles many people would have had to know. I am not convinced that such a thing could be kept secret, because it is so heinous that most people would have refused to remain discreet, no matter the cost. That is my belief in any case.

At the same time I have no reason to accept that government and the military are efficient enough to do this without error. While I accept that Magrus has a point when he says that it would suit the government to have us believe they are not capable of such action, it also suits them to have us think they are competent.

[Chanak]

@Dottie: I don't think it's very far-fetched at all. The highest levels of US government were aware of the Japanese fleet in the Pacific Ocean, and where they were going. US Naval Intelligence was busy intercepting the transmissions of the fleet and as I noted, most Japanese ciphers had been broken. This is pretty damaging evidence IMO, though admittedly enough slivers of doubt remain to cloud the issue.

Of course, since I know nothing of the attacks in London save what I have heard through news reports, I'm not implying a similar thing happened with that. Like Magrus, however, I can't help but wonder. President Roosevelt had everything to gain and nothing to lose at Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt wanted the US to declare war on both Japan and Germany, and made no secret about his intentions. Many American lives were lost in that attack. The deaths of so many Americans due to such naked aggression helped to unite the country like it never had been before. Americans were then willing to "do whatever it takes" to defeat the Japanese...including allowing the federal government to give itself sweeping "temporary" powers (which, over 60 years later, it still hasn't relinquished) and essentially take over industry. The internment of Japanese-Americans in prison camps was a shameful, disgusting development that wouldn't have been possible without the loss of so many lives at Pearl Harbor. It's possible that, had some sort of response been ordered to counter the approaching Japanese armada, things would have happened differently. There's no doubt that Roosevelt would have had the support of Congress in declaring war regardless, but would he have been able to take the extreme measures he did otherwise? I think not.

@Fiona: You raise some good points. Like Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 tragedy, time will tell.

[Lestat]

[QUOTE=Fiona]I am not convinced that such a thing could be kept secret, because it is so heinous that most people would have refused to remain discreet, no matter the cost.[/QUOTE]

While I'm a little less suspicious of Blair's & Bush's motives and thus think that even they would refrain from doing such things (but on the other hand are fully capable of milking it for every political benefit they can get out of it), Fiona here points to the main weakness in conspiracy theories: they all assume that the US or UK government is capable of maintaining consistently high levels of secrecy over longer periods of time. And there is quite some evidence they are not: Watergate, the intelligence failures leading up to the Iraq war, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, the Valery Plame/Karl Rove case.

In maintaining secrecy terrorists have the better structure: small cells of people highly dedicated to "the cause", compared to large bureaucracies with people who might not be really dedicated, or who are motivated by personal gain.

[Dottie]

@Fiona:
I don't agree Blair position was weak. Despite making decisions that more than half of england seem to strongly disagree about he still had just won a election with a good margin. He have no real contenders in England as far as I can see.

I agree with you regarding the difficulties of such a task though.

lol at Blair and David Blunkett. I could really imagine...

@Chanak:
But would the situation be any different if Japan had made a sneak attack but only inflicted small losses? I seriously doubt it. I think the attempt would be enough to give Teddy what he wanted. Isn't it much more likely that this was a simple intelligence screw up that WW2 and the rest of the history displays in abundance?

[Fiona]

@ Dottie

Although Blair won election he did not do so because he or his policies are popular, in my view. He won because, as you say, there is no opposition. Mrs Thatcher was in a similar position and when it came to it she had no allies. At least that's the way I see it. She destroyed her party and Blair will/has done the same. The fact that his majority was so reduced even thought there is no credible alternative supports my view, I think

[Curdis]

The example cited of historical precedence, Pearl Harbour, is not considered by most scholars to be an example of a deliberate 'letting it happen'.

1. Though the diplomatic ciphers were known the Japanesse fleet generally used different codes and had been exercising strict radio silence. The USA knew the Japaneese fleet were at sea in the Pacific but had no way of knowing where.

2. The decrypted diplomatic signal declaring war was decoded hours before the attack but the information it contained did not indicate the target.

3. The vast majority of the relevant documents were unsealed in 1995 and no evidence has been found, despite an extensive amount of interest, to support the claim. Chief among the items of evidence being scrutinised was the orders which saw the Pacific Carrier Fleet out of habour at the time (This has long been sighted as a pragmatic move which indicated a deliberate act of deception).

4. That the eventual outcome suited the political forces in power definitely goes to motive but is not evidence in itself.

In summary. I'd like to see some actual evidence to support the; Pearl Harbour, deliberate act of ommission, contention before excepting it as an example of historical similarity.

In my post in the 'Bombs in London' thread I point out that the cost to risk of this being deliberate on any level is logically unacceptable, and cite the consequences of recent playing of bomb politics in Spain.

While it is certainly possible, and like the issue of child sex offenders targeting World Vision child sponsorships, is ignored at our peril, the likelihood needs to be considered. The likelihood of this being a deliberate act, or act of ommission, on behalf of the Blair government is pretty much zero.

There are enough examples of real things to rail against without boxing at shadows. Blair has, since my last post, used the bombings as a further justification for introducing more draconian 'anti-terror' powers. The current crop of politicans are very good spin doctors, and it is important to keep your on on the ball.

[boo's daddy]

Magrus, you are not alone.

http://pilger.carlton.com/print/124759

I don't buy it for London though. I agree with Lestat in that keeping it secret would be very hard, and risky.

9/11, well it's hard to believe as well. However, I think that it's pretty evident that the PNAC crowd seized their opportunity with both hands.

Also, being based in England, I don't see any political benefits for Bliar from the bombings. Everyone knows that this is probably a result of our involvement in Iraq, you even get think tanks saying so, yet Bliar has to insist that it isn't, which makes him look like even more of an idiot.

[Chanak]

@Curdis: It might never be possible to fully bring to light all the details concerning Pearl Harbor. While I certainly concede that any sort of ironclad proof supporting high-level duplicity in the attack does not exist on record, there are nevertheless enough holes in the fabric of the political climate and historical details at the time to lead me to believe that it was anything but a surprise attack. I must leave it at that, however, as I certainly can't (and do not) claim to be privy to knowledge or proofs that no one else has access to. Those who might shed more light on behind-the-scenes action are not alive to tell the tale - over 60 years have passed, and as someone who is all too familiar with the tracking and filing of documents in archives, it is likely that a great deal of critical documentation is simply lost.

I have never been - and still am not - a big proponent of conspiracies. At worst, opportunities for political gain are seized by those seeking to gain more power and influence to accomplish their goals. At best, human error or incompetence is the culprit. In the middle of these two extremes - as I believe is the case with the bombings in London, based on reports I have heard and read - is a murky area that intelligence gathering and surveillance simply can't penetrate, regardless of motives. Brilliant minds can analyze and produce likely scenarios which terrorists and other criminals might be likely to create...yet equally brilliant criminal minds may in turn produce ways to evade even the most stringent counter-measures and vigilance. I certainly believe that Blair is eating up this opportunity, but I don't think any duplicity is involved.

I tend to be suspicious of the motives of the federal government of my own country, and this is not without merit. I personally have not run afoul of federal (and also state) authority at any point in my life, and in fact have spent over half of my career working for state or federal government in one way or another, sometimes in classified settings. Perhaps my experiences during military service demonstrated to me that the official story is one thing, while what actually happened is another story altogether. The information the public was fed by CNN and other news sources during Operations Desert Shield/Desert Storm and the official statements of the Bush Sr. Administration at that time are rife with spin and omissions. These factors combine to make me wonder what actually took place when I peruse what is often perceived (and popularly supported) as historical fact in American history. Pearl Harbor is, to me, yet another link in a chain of highly questionable events where the U.S. federal government has the appearance of evil.

[Curdis]

@Chanak, We appear to be in complete agreement, in principle. The key word is questionable. It is always helpful to consider the possibilities for this sort of callous act, and I too am aware that there are many in positions of power (particularily in the military) for whom the ability to perform with callous disregard is essentially a job requirement.

Where I feel we diverge is with likelihood. All I am suggesting is that it was/is incredibly unlikely that in any of the examples listed there was any target government initiation or assistance by act of ommission. The sealed archives which have been openned contain a wealth of information which was sealed for 50 years because ALL of the participants would no longer be in active service. While I haven't personally read through all the Pearl Harbour information myself, on unrelated matters I have done some similar research and the detailed nature, and extent, of the records kept makes the whole idea of deliberate supression extremely unlikely. As a side note to this it has been my experience that the most callous of those in charge at the time took some pains to ensure that the record of their deeds were adequately recorded, and subsequently sealed.

Pearl Harbor is, to me, yet another link in a chain of highly questionable events where the U.S. federal government has the appearance of evil.

I'm happy to let this one go if you tell what it is that was done that is, or appeared to be, evil. I'm reasonably certain that the US government didn't order the Japanesse navy to attack Pearl Harbour, is the allegation that not enough was done to prevent it?

[Magrus]

[QUOTE=Curdis] I'm reasonably certain that the US government didn't order the Japanesse navy to attack Pearl Harbour, is the allegation that not enough was done to prevent it?[/QUOTE]


[QUOTE=Chanak]The US had been closely monitoring the activity of the Japanese fleet in the Pacific...and in fact, prior to the Pearl Harbor attack, had successfully broken most Japanese cryptological systems. Thus the transmissions of the Japanese fleet were by and large an open book to US Naval intelligence, and it was no secret that the Japanese fleet was on its way to Pearl Harbor...with a force that could easily roll over the American forces already stationed there.

What was done in response to oppose the Japanese fleet? Nothing.[/QUOTE]

I thought he made that clear already with this?

The government knew what was happening, that there was war heading their way and one of the US military bases was the target of a large hostile force moving this way. Nothing was done, they waited. Even if they didn't have the ability to fight off the invaders, or reach them in time...they could have notified Pearl Harbor, had the place evacuated and allowed those soldiers, and innocent civilians to escape with their lives.

[Curdis]

[QUOTE=Magrus]I thought he made that clear already with this?

The government knew what was happening, that there was war heading their way and one of the US military bases was the target of a large hostile force moving this way. Nothing was done, they waited. Even if they didn't have the ability to fight off the invaders, or reach them in time...they could have notified Pearl Harbor, had the place evacuated and allowed those soldiers, and innocent civilians to escape with their lives.[/QUOTE]Well that is clear if you accept that these statements are in fact accurate and true, which I do not. Chanak has stated that he doesn't wish to debate the facts about Pearl Harbour and I am happy to leave it at that. If you want to take up this part of the issue read this account of the evidence.

What I am interested in explicitly determining is, given that the Japanesse were going to attack anyway (which I believe is not being discussed) just what was the "evil " act that the US government committed. It is one thing to make an allegation, but what explicitly could the US have done to prevent the attack or diminish its effects?

To forestall some of the likely responses:

Crews at action stations. And some were due to a similtaneous submarine attack, but 24/7 during peacetime?
Fleet at sea. And what about the threat of submarines, but also how long for and where?
Air arm in the air. Again, how long for and where?
Mainland reinforcements. What if it was a cunning decoy for an attack on say San Fransisco?

The US were already engaged in long range reconnaissance flights, in the area, at the time, and were trialling long range radar, in the area, at the time. The 20/20 hindsight goggles may make it seem that not everything was being done, but there is plenty of evidence to suggest that a reasonable, in the circumstances, appropriate level of care was being continuously maintained. The Japanesse, not the US government chose where and when, knowing that a Sunday morning would be a really good time for a decreased vigilance.

The thesis which I believed was being discussed is that there is a long history of "evil" acts of government inaction or initiation and that Pearl Harbour and the London Bombings are examples. I am putting the case for Pearl Harbour to be removed as a salient example.