For Keith Willshaw...

"Denyav" wrote in message
...
For more info check out:
"Who paid the Piper? . The CIA and cultural Cold War". By Frances
Saunders.

On sale now on paranoia street no doubt. Remember folks, lack
of evidence is proof of two conspiracies, the original and the cover up.
The lack of evidence for the cover up is proof of three conspiracies,
and so on, head for the big conspiracy sale near you, pay your money
and be told what you want to here as people make themselves rich
at your expense.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

I see,"deny everything" and "stick to official version",seem to be only
ways to
find the truths.

It worked in 1861,it worked in 1898,it worked in 1941, so,why not in 2001
or
2004?.


Again, listing dates does not equal proving conspiracy.

I didn't realize Lincoln had caused the 30 or 40 years of build up to the
secession and the told The Confederates they should shoot first and Sumter
was
a nice target. http://www.tulane.edu/~latner/FinalO...rder_intro.htm

Read "Truth of war conspiracy of 1861" by Johnstone.
BTW Author of this book based his case solely on official records published by
US War department.

Wow, I think you are right. The Navy blew up their own boat in Havana Harbour
in 1898 because the Spanish wouldn't cooperate and do it for them.
http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq71-1.htm

So whats your point?
In 1898 new empire was in need of colonies so motto was:
"Evil Spanians destroyed Maine,REMEMBER MAINE,teach evil Spanians a lesson"

Rest is history
(Of course Spanians nothing to do with Maine sinking)

Kimmel was trying to simply improve his image in the history books.

For FDR&Co much more than improving their standing in history books was in
stake.

Now, denyev, you have proved your point [editor's note: the shovel broke]
when
and where will the next trumped up attack occur?

Unfortunately,unlike previous three cases,this time it looks like that
politicians and military failed to capitalize on success of PSYOP at the start.
If whole operation crumles it does not matter if you execute a PSYOP
succesfully or not.Morever if whole operation fails the planners of such PSYOPs
are usually first to go.
Let me clarify this, for example if US had lost Spanish -American war,the
masterminds of Maine incident would be the first ones to go,not Generals or
Admirals who lost actual battles.

BTW I hope some recent high profile resignations helps you to understand what I
mean.

Again, listing dates does not equal proving conspiracy.

If you did not understand 1861,you cannot understand 1941.
If you did not know what happened in 1898,you cannot understand what happened
in 2001.

Its an 150 years old tradition of US government.

"Denyav" wrote in message
...
1)Ft.Sumter
2)USS Maine
3)Pearl Harbor
4)9/11

Relisting them does not equal proving them. but feel to relist them a few
more times.

It establishes the existence of a pattern or govenment culture.

It does no such thing, note the dates - they are different govts, composed
of different people from markedly different backgrounds.



Its always easier to get an Arson suspect with prior Arson convictions
convicted than an Arson suspect without any prior convictions.


Except your "suspect" isn't the same person you loon.

Relist the dates again. you'll feel better.

It does no such thing, note the dates - they are different govts, composed
of different people from markedly different backgrounds.

You make me laugh,succesful operations set patterns.
Nobody wants to repeat failures but eveybody wants to use proven methods.(at
least till first failure),
Ourcome of 1861 operation was good,the ourcome of 1898 operation very good,the
outcome of 1941 operation was excellent.
So why not stick to proven methods

Except your "suspect" isn't the same person you loon.


Maybe not same "person" but definitely the same "entity"

Denyav twisted the electrons to say:
So, if we where to accept your premise that the White House knew not only
that the Japanese where coming but also the day they would be "arriving",
why not warn Pearl Harbour?
Good Question,but I think Kimmel gave a very clear answer to this question
during interview in 1958.

You "think", but you're not sufficiently sure to actually tell us what it
was he might have said?

After all, if you're planning on joining a
war it's generally considered an advantage not to lose large amounts of
men and equipment on day 1!
Amounts of men and equipment lost in Pearl Harbor is very insignificant in
comparison with manpower and production resources of US,as the later
developments in war proved.

How many fewer trained, and available for service, men did the USN have
through to say the beginning of February the next year? Saying that it
was insignificant next to the size of the USN in late 1944 is hardly
relevant as it would take the USN 3 years to get to that size ...

No need to sortie the fleet if you still want a "sneak attack", just get
them placed on alert - ie: all anti-aircraft guns manned and ready and a
decent CAP (with the rest of the fighters on +5/+15) overhead.
Pearl Harbors shortcomings were well known,in fact during pre-attack
meetings Kimmel always maintained that only viable defense would be
the keeping the fleet in open sea and his views shared by everybody.

Maybe, but if you're the government and for some reason you want a sneak
attack to occur then you'll make sure that such a viewpoint is ignored.
Afterall, Pearl Harbour is only 40 feet deep and has reasonably narrow
and twisted entrances which coupled with netting should deal with the
threat from torpedo bombers and/or submarines. High-level and/or dive
bombing can thwarted by a combination of a waiting CAP followed by
anti-aircraft fire.
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

On 13 Jun 2004 03:47:48 GMT, (Denyav) wrote:

I didn't realize Lincoln had caused the 30 or 40 years of build up to the
secession and the told The Confederates they should shoot first and Sumter
was
a nice target. http://www.tulane.edu/~latner/FinalO...rder_intro.htm

Read "Truth of war conspiracy of 1861" by Johnstone.
BTW Author of this book based his case solely on official records published by
US War department.

Care to provide the ISBN? No sign of such a book on Amazon.

Peter Kemp

Care to provide the ISBN? No sign of such a book on Amazon.

Original book by H.W.Johnstone was published in 1921.
I heard they they were going to reprint it,but I don know if its reprinted.
If not, only way to find this book is either to buy an used old one or find it
in a library.

You "think", but you're not sufficiently sure to actually tell us what it
was he might have said?

Here exactly what he said during 1958 interview:
"My belief is that Gen.Short and I were not given information available in
Washington and were not informed of the impending attack because it was feared
that the action in Hawai might deter the Japanese from making the attack.Our
president had repeatedly assured the American People that the US would not
enter the war unless we were attacked.The Japanese attack on the Fleet would
put United States in the war with full support of the American Public".

Thats exactly what he said in 1958 interview.
I dont know what he said in Naval court that exonarated him,as the trancripts
and actual findings of this court were not released,only the conclusions of
Court were released,but its safe to assume his defense based was he said in
1958.
The decision of this court,only panel that Kimmel was allowed to present his
case and defend himself,was overturned by Forrestal and King.

If you want to learn what Kimmels relatives and experts said in more recent
Congressional hearings which paved way for the passage of a Bill exhonorating
Kimmel you might want to check out:
Http://www.ukans.edu/carrie/docs/texts/kimmel.htm

In article ,
on 12 Jun 2004 05:51:59 GMT,
Denyav attempted to say .....

In which alternate reality

1)Ft.Sumter
2)USS Maine
3)Pearl Harbor
4)9/11

This kind of operations should be a thing of the past,but you can not prevent
the recurrence of such events by covering them up.


You are making less and less sense.
Please try providing some proof, some ducumentation of what it is you are
trying to say.

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.