TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- London knew about attacks
Pages (4): « 1 2 3 [4]

A MOSQUE in South London wrote to police two years ago to express concern about a man who is now a key suspect in the failed July 21 bombings in London, a trustee of the mosque said overnight.
Stockwell Mosque asserted in its letter to a senior district police official that Hamdi Issac, 27, was among a group of people involved in "inciting racial and religious hatred in the community".
It said the group had been spreading extremist views and literature, and targeting moderate leaders of the mosque for abuse.
"We believe that this group is trying to undermine both the authority and moderate approach of the centre's management, imams and community," the letter said.
"They have an agenda to turn this centre into another Finsbury Park mosque," a Muslim centre of worship in north London formerly known as a meeting point for Islamist hardliners.
Issac, alias Osman Hussein, 27, is suspected of trying to detonate a bomb at Shepherd's Bush Underground station in west London as part of a four-pronged attempt to repeat the July 7 bombings that killed 56 people.
The Ethiopian-born Briton was arrested on July 29 in Rome where he is fighting extradition.
Mosque tried to alert police

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Sigh ... plese not this conspiracy theory again. I'm a history buff, and WW2 is a particular fascination, so what have you got and make sure it's good.

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=408

http://www.thenewamerican.com/depar...1999/070499.htm

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2...7no12_facts.htm

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/turin3.html

http://www.usni.org/NavalHistory/Ar...Hborgquist6.htm

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/WOO203A.html

http://news.independent.co.uk/world...ticle175167.ece

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Sigh ... plese not this conspiracy theory again. I'm a history buff, and WW2 is a particular fascination, so what have you got and make sure it's good.

Man, I expected you to be more informed.

EDIT: US foreknowledge of Pearl Harbour is'nt even debatable anymore.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=408 http://www.thenewamerican.com/depar...1999/070499.htm http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2...7no12_facts.htm http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/turin3.html http://www.usni.org/NavalHistory/Ar...Hborgquist6.htm http://globalresearch.ca/articles/WOO203A.html http://news.independent.co.uk/world...ticle175167.ece

Hello TrancerX. Yes many of your sources seem to reference a book by Robert B. Stinnett called Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor. I�ve actually read that book so perhaps I can shed some light on several flaws with Stinnett�s contention. Stinnett�s primary contention is that American code breakers were able to break the main operational code of the Japanese navy (5-Num Code) in advance of the attack and thus knew of the impending attack. Stinnett characterizes that not only did the Americans break the code, but the British, Dutch, and the nationalist Chinese by the fall of 1941. However, Stinnett consistently implies that the code was fully cracked and readable by the fall of 1941. What Stinnett fails to provide in his source notes is how much of the code was cracked. Granted in 1942, advancement of understanding of 5-Num Code allowed for quite a few brilliant naval victories, Stinnett�s sources never extrapolate as to how much of the code was known and read in the fall of 1941. As a matter of fact, if you go to page 334 of his book, you can see quite clearly in a relatively obscure footnote the following statement: �There is no reliable evidence, found by the author, that establishes how much of the 5-Num text could be deciphered, translated, and read by naval cryptographers in 1941." As such Stinnett never provides indisputable evidence of his thesis.


I also noticed that one of your sources consistently mentions a book by John Toland called Infamy: Pearl Harbor and its Aftermath. A book that I can recommend is Gordon Prange�s careful analysis of Pearl Harbor in At Dawn We Slept. In that, Prange refutes one of Toland�s principal claims that the US picked up intercepted signals of the Nagumo task force by December 2nd. In the book Prange writes of his correspondence to Masataka Chihaya, a former Imperial Navy officer:

"Regarding Toland's claim that the U.S. picked up radio signals of the Nagumo Force [Air Fleet One, the fleet commanded by Admiral Nagumo which attacked Pearl Harbor] on December 2, I made a double check with Genda [Commander Genda was Nagumo's Air Officer, and had designed the attack plan and the training plans] and Ishiguro, then communications staff officers of the Second Carrier Division [the two carriers, Soryu and Hiryu--two of the six carriers involved]. Both of them claim that there couldn't be absolutely any such case, since they both made utmost care of keeping radio silence even by sealing transmitter keys . . ." (page 742)

Prange continues to dispute Toland�s account from the American side by going directly to primary sources:

"Ogg [Robert L. Ogg, a 20-year-old electronics expert in the 12th Naval District (west coast), whom Toland claims told him he picked up a signal from the First Air Fleet, and identified by Toland as "Seaman Z"] directly contradicted Toland's assertion that he, Ogg, had told Hosmer [Ogg's immeidate superior] that these transmission could be from 'the missing carriers.' Not until December 7 did he associate the signals with the Pearl Harbor Task Force."

"Nevertheless, he believed the Japanese broke radio silence, but not to any great extent. He reasoned the some ships "in a storm situation" must have violated radio silence. But, according to contemporary Japanese accounts, there was no such "storm situation." The Task Force encountered unusually favorable weather, considering the route and time of year. The ships met with some fog, high seas, winds, and light rain, but no major storms.

"In short, Ogg's account, although obviously given in good faith, is not sufficient to override the Japanese testimony as well as the tactical reasons for radio silence." (page 743)

In other words, Prange establishes that there is no substantiated primary source evidence to fully support Toland�s thesis.

Now I know that you have provided a number of sources that make numerous claims, and I shall do my best to address them after I do sufficient researching on the matter. To be honest, however, it would make things easier on the both of us, if you reference historical analyses that have been published. I say this because most historical published readings have been peer reviewed. Thus primary sources are checked, secondary sources are verified, and if there are no substantive contradictions, the claims are entered in the record as historical fact. If you�re making a particular claim, please reference primary sources. If people are providing personal accounts who are they making these claims/statements to? If there are documents asserting something, what is the date/title of these documents? Some of the sites are making claims with no footnotes and no references whatsoever. That makes things (conveniently?) difficult to dispute. Sorry for being so nitpicky, but I used to study to be a historian so the veracity of source material is of principle concern to me before I regard something as fact.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Man, I expected you to be more informed. EDIT: US foreknowledge of Pearl Harbour is'nt even debatable anymore.

Well, since I'm clearly misinformed without the need for any debate, I guess there's no need to enlighten you on my expectations of you. Thanks and have a good one.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Hello TrancerX. Yes many of your sources seem to reference a book by Robert B. Stinnett called Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor. I�ve actually read that book so perhaps I can shed some light on several flaws with Stinnett�s contention. Stinnett�s primary contention is that American code breakers were able to break the main operational code of the Japanese navy (5-Num Code) in advance of the attack and thus knew of the impending attack. Stinnett characterizes that not only did the Americans break the code, but the British, Dutch, and the nationalist Chinese by the fall of 1941. However, Stinnett consistently implies that the code was fully cracked and readable by the fall of 1941. What Stinnett fails to provide in his source notes is how much of the code was cracked. Granted in 1942, advancement of understanding of 5-Num Code allowed for quite a few brilliant naval victories, Stinnett�s sources never extrapolate as to how much of the code was known and read in the fall of 1941. As a matter of fact, if you go to page 334 of his book, you can see quite clearly in a relatively obscure footnote the following statement: �There is no reliable evidence, found by the author, that establishes how much of the 5-Num text could be deciphered, translated, and read by naval cryptographers in 1941." As such Stinnett never provides indisputable evidence of his thesis. I also noticed that one of your sources consistently mentions a book by John Toland called Infamy: Pearl Harbor and its Aftermath. A book that I can recommend is Gordon Prange�s careful analysis of Pearl Harbor in At Dawn We Slept. In that, Prange refutes one of Toland�s principal claims that the US picked up intercepted signals of the Nagumo task force by December 2nd. In the book Prange writes of his correspondence to Masataka Chihaya, a former Imperial Navy officer: "Regarding Toland's claim that the U.S. picked up radio signals of the Nagumo Force [Air Fleet One, the fleet commanded by Admiral Nagumo which attacked Pearl Harbor] on December 2, I made a double check with Genda [Commander Genda was Nagumo's Air Officer, and had designed the attack plan and the training plans] and Ishiguro, then communications staff officers of the Second Carrier Division [the two carriers, Soryu and Hiryu--two of the six carriers involved]. Both of them claim that there couldn't be absolutely any such case, since they both made utmost care of keeping radio silence even by sealing transmitter keys . . ." (page 742) Prange continues to dispute Toland�s account from the American side by going directly to primary sources: "Ogg [Robert L. Ogg, a 20-year-old electronics expert in the 12th Naval District (west coast), whom Toland claims told him he picked up a signal from the First Air Fleet, and identified by Toland as "Seaman Z"] directly contradicted Toland's assertion that he, Ogg, had told Hosmer [Ogg's immeidate superior] that these transmission could be from 'the missing carriers.' Not until December 7 did he associate the signals with the Pearl Harbor Task Force." "Nevertheless, he believed the Japanese broke radio silence, but not to any great extent. He reasoned the some ships "in a storm situation" must have violated radio silence. But, according to contemporary Japanese accounts, there was no such "storm situation." The Task Force encountered unusually favorable weather, considering the route and time of year. The ships met with some fog, high seas, winds, and light rain, but no major storms. "In short, Ogg's account, although obviously given in good faith, is not sufficient to override the Japanese testimony as well as the tactical reasons for radio silence." (page 743) In other words, Prange establishes that there is no substantiated primary source evidence to fully support Toland�s thesis. Now I know that you have provided a number of sources that make numerous claims, and I shall do my best to address them after I do sufficient researching on the matter. To be honest, however, it would make things easier on the both of us, if you reference historical analyses that have been published. I say this because most historical published readings have been peer reviewed. Thus primary sources are checked, secondary sources are verified, and if there are no substantive contradictions, the claims are entered in the record as historical fact. If you�re making a particular claim, please reference primary sources. If people are providing personal accounts who are they making these claims/statements to? If there are documents asserting something, what is the date/title of these documents? Some of the sites are making claims with no footnotes and no references whatsoever. That makes things (conveniently?) difficult to dispute. Sorry for being so nitpicky, but I used to study to be a historian so the veracity of source material is of principle concern to me before I regard something as fact.

LOL - I knew I was going to be getting myself into something when I posted those for you.

Anyway, pardon my huge digression, but my grandfather joined the American Volunteer Group in China (he received RAF wings) to help guard the main supply route from the Japanese, like two or three years before we even entered the war. I have some nice pictures of him flying over the Hump (in formation), along with quite a few others of the Flying Tigers. I even have one of him standing next to his flipped-over plane following one of the three occasions that he was shot down. There are also some cool pictures of life in Burma. Heck, I even have a beautiful, autographed picture given to him by Claire Chennault. I really do need to make some good digital copies of these as many are of tremendous historic value.

I also find it quite sad that the CIA later turned Chennault's airline into Air America, but that's another story for another time.

Now, we bring you back to our regularly scheduled program...

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X [color=#33ccff]LOL - I knew I was going to be getting myself into something when I posted those for you. Anyway, pardon my huge digression, but my grandfather joined the American Volunteer Group in China (he received RAF wings) to help guard the main supply route from the Japanese, like two or three years before we even entered the war. I have some nice pictures of him flying over the Hump (in formation), along with quite a few others of the Flying Tigers. I even have one of him standing next to his flipped-over plane following one of the three occasions that he was shot down. There are also some cool pictures of life in Burma. Heck, I even have a beautiful, autographed picture given to him by Claire Chennault. I really do need to make some good digital copies of these as many are of tremendous historic value.

That's awesome. I'm quite envious. I've always been fascinated with WW1 and WW2 so I've made it a point to read up on those subjects whenever I can. I've never had the opportunity to meet a primary source however. I think I'm much more fascinated with the daily doldrums of the war (because that in itself usually involves great sacrifice and bravery) than strategic and tactical initiatives which are pretty thoroughly documented in historical sources. That's why I'm such a huge fan of Ambrose because he often captures the human element of these huge endeavors. I've never had the opportunity to know anybody explicitly involved in these conflicts (and ask all the questions I have) so I'm jealous .

Much respect to your grandfather. The flying tigers are (positively) embodied in history which is more than I can say for many of our achievements.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider That's awesome. I'm quite envious. I've always been fascinated with WW1 and WW2 so I've made it a point to read up on those subjects whenever I can. I've never had the opportunity to meet a primary source however. I think I'm much more fascinated with the daily doldrums of the war (because that in itself usually involves great sacrifice and bravery) than strategic and tactical initiatives which are pretty thoroughly documented in historical sources. That's why I'm such a huge fan of Ambrose because he often captures the human element of these huge endeavors. I've never had the opportunity to know anybody explicitly involved in these conflicts (and ask all the questions I have) so I'm jealous . Much respect to your grandfather. The flying tigers are (positively) embodied in history which is more than I can say for many of our achievements.

I'm also related to General Eisenhower (his mother was from my paternal grandfather's side of the family), but I've been seriously slacking in my research of my family's geneology so that's about as much as I know. It's honestly been difficult, since the majority of my family's records were destroyed in the Great Baltimore Fire

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Well, since I'm clearly misinformed without the need for any debate, I guess there's no need to enlighten you on my expectations of you. Thanks and have a good one.

What's your profession/career/job if you don't mind me asking?

quote:

Originally posted by occrider The flying tigers are (positively) embodied in history which is more than I can say for many of our achievements.

but to say that their written history is completely accurate would be fallacious.

quote:

The Board concluded the AVG was created to fill a wartime need, albeit initially in direct support of the Chinese since the U.S. had not entered the war. However, military histories indicate that while "... the need for protection of the Burma Road gave validity to his [Chennault's] case ... the opportunity for gaining valuable combat experience against Japanese-type aircraft was an especially persuasive consideration." Furthermore, military records show that authorization to "induct" the AVG into the U.S. Armed Forces was given immediately after Pearl Harbor, indicating plans had existed early on in the AVG's conception to eventually transform the AVG into a U.S. military unit. In summary, such documentation tends to support the applicant's conclusion that "The AVG was specifically created to circumvent existing neutrality laws that prohibited the U.S. at that time from direct military involvement. President Roosevelt knew that war with Japan was inevitable. The AVG was specifically created by the President to establish air bases within bombing range of Japan on China's friendly soil." http://www.warbirdforum.com/vets.htm

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z What's your profession/career/job if you don't mind me asking?

I'm pretty sure he works for Freddie Mac

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Sigh ... plese not this conspiracy theory again. I'm a history buff, and WW2 is a particular fascination, so what have you got and make sure it's good.

--

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo don't do it TheNobleEu. he'll make you wish you had a better education.

I laughed at the notion "London knew about the attacks," insinuating it was a nonsensical as anyone knowing about Pearl Harbour, or 9-11, or any of a hundred other historical events, where governments claim they knew about an event "but let it happen" for an array of political reasons, insidious or no. As I stated, better for governments to appear somewhat incompetent than totally ineffectual.

I never stated any support or ownership of the Pearl Harbour conspiracy theory -- I was mocking it. You people around here need to lay off the E, then go look up the word "context" and possibly also "irony, sarcasm and satire" -- because few of you have any clue what's being said around here most of the time. I agree, "I wish indeed I had a better education" than that of you two, who cherry-pick out one phrase in two paragraphs to comment on, totally misrepresent it, and then respond with subsequent and total irrelevancy.

If you wanna bash a particular theory, mindset, or opinion, go right ahead (and I'll probably enjoy it) -- but don't make such childish efforts to depict someone as holding to a theory you want to flame when they clearly and obviously do not (not just me, I see positions thrust onto people here all the time they don't espouse). Person A decides their goal in posting is to ad hominem person B; person A then says person B thinks Pinochet was really cool and proceeds to flame -- even though person A never said any such thing. This is laughable, grade school tactics and just makes you look intellectually challenged and totally dishonest (OCC, if anyone around here should know better it's you). I cannot breathe for the smoke being generated by the burning straw man armies.

BTW I'm glad however you don't buy the whole "US-knew-about-Pearl-Harbour-and-let-it-happen-to-rally-support-for-US-entry-into-the-War-which-really-wasn't-our-problem." It's generally codified American historical fact by now (where it is simularly better for one's ego to say one knew about it and let it happen then to admit one got a severe thrashing they never saw coming), see the ignorant, patriotism-induced remarks above.

Toodles,
-N

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z What's your profession/career/job if you don't mind me asking?

My offical title is operational risk analyst. And TrancerX was correct about who I work for.

quote:

laughed at the notion "London knew about the attacks," insinuating it was a nonsensical as anyone knowing about Pearl Harbour, or 9-11, or any of a hundred other historical events, where governments claim they knew about an event "but let it happen" for an array of political reasons, insidious or no. As I stated, better for governments to appear somewhat incompetent than totally ineffectual. I never stated any support or ownership of the Pearl Harbour conspiracy theory -- I was mocking it. You people around here need to lay off the E, then go look up the word "context" and possibly also "irony, sarcasm and satire" -- because few of you have any clue what's being said around here most of the time. I agree, "I wish indeed I had a better education" than that of you two, who cherry-pick out one phrase in two paragraphs to comment on, totally misrepresent it, and then respond with subsequent and total irrelevancy. If you wanna bash a particular theory, mindset, or opinion, go right ahead (and I'll probably enjoy it) -- but don't make such childish efforts to depict someone as holding to a theory you want to flame when they clearly and obviously do not (not just me, I see positions thrust onto people here all the time they don't espouse). Person A decides their goal in posting is to ad hominem person B; person A then says person B thinks Pinochet was really cool and proceeds to flame -- even though person A never said any such thing. This is laughable, grade school tactics and just makes you look intellectually challenged and totally dishonest (OCC, if anyone around here should know better it's you). I cannot breathe for the smoke being generated by the burning straw man armies. BTW I'm glad however you don't buy the whole "US-knew-about-Pearl-Harbour-and-let-it-happen-to-rally-support-for-US-entry-into-the-War-which-really-wasn't-our-problem." It's generally codified American historical fact by now (where it is simularly better for one's ego to say one knew about it and let it happen then to admit one got a severe thrashing they never saw coming), see the ignorant, patriotism-induced remarks above. Toodles, -N

Huh? You're extremely unclear in your mockery. You said:

quote:

"London knew about attacks?" *cough*PearlHarbour*cough* *cough*9/11*cough*

Which appears to insinuate a correlation between all those events in their nature (the coughing implies obviousness). You then say:

quote:

Comes a time (for some governments, quite often) when it is better to manufacture a situation that makes the government appear simply incompetent, rather than totally ignorant, out-of-touch, and ineffectual. -Noble

Where you equate incompentance on the part of the government (which I agree with) with ... ignorance, out-of-touchness, and ineffecutality ... in other words, incompetance. So how is a reader supposed to infer mockery from your statement as a whole? Once again you seem to assign blame on the reckless misinterpretations of everyone else to understand you when perhaps the error of communication rests on your shoulders? Just a thought.

quote:

Blair Knew About London Attacks By Anadolu News Agency (aa) Published: Monday, December 19, 2005 zaman.com For the past two days, Britain�s Tony Blair government has become the new target of heavy criticism over the London subway bomb attacks. After it surfaced that British intelligence had issued a clean report on two individuals who were the suspects in the attacks, The Sunday Times claimed Prime Minister Blair was pre-warned of the bomb attacks that occurred on July 7. The paper reported Blair had turned down a detailed investigation last week since he was afraid of not sufficiently assessing the intelligence information sent to him.

http://www.zaman.com/?bl=internatio...051219&hn=27691

77 Mind The Gap



For you Brits on the other side of the Pond:
http://www.officialconfusion.com/77/

[[ LINK REMOVED ]]




http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2771569

If this were true, how much of a stretch would it be to connect it to other similar events...

Edit: i just finished the video, thats just sick, how can the british people live with all that BS, seriously, any briton here care to enlighten us?

Ludicrous Diversion via bt:

magnet:?xt=urn:btih:WXDCYLNP4E2B34RNNFNO3SFQZZVKPAZF

or

google B5C62C2DAFE1341DF22D695AEDC8B0CE6AA78325

The torrent was released a month ago and still active.

Holly ... ... shit!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.