ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Closed Thread
Old 21st June 2010, 10:56 AM   #81
timhau
NWO Litter Technician
 
timhau's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Looks like Finland. Smells like Finland. Quacks like Finland. Where the hell am I?
Posts: 12,489
I thought the start of both World Wars had something to do with a guy called Hilter, a Scottish person called McGoering and the North Minehead by-election.
__________________
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord, in his wisdom, doesn't work that way. I just stole one and asked Him to forgive me.
- Emo Philips
timhau is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st June 2010, 10:59 AM   #82
Vortigern99
Sorcerer Supreme
 
Vortigern99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 7,905
Marduk:

Touche!
__________________
"I'm 'willing to admit' any fact that can be shown to be evidential and certain." -- Vortigern99

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." -- Jimi Hendrix

Last edited by Vortigern99; 21st June 2010 at 11:05 AM.
Vortigern99 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st June 2010, 11:36 AM   #83
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,570
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
So who started WW1 and WW2?

Is that true? Let's start a little quiz. Here a list of possible candidates:

11) Other, namely...

The true "world" nature of "World War II" only came into play after the Pacific theater opened up. So, I would say that Japan started WWII.

Even you cannot actually believe that Jews controlled the Japanese government. I'm pretty sure you don't believe that Japan was tirelessly trying to root out Jews in China before they infected Japan with their Jewishness. Thus, you must agree that your whole "Teh Joos!" argument falls rather flat in the Pacific.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st June 2010, 12:24 PM   #84
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 13,114
Originally Posted by MG1962 View Post
..........Great summing up. Out of curiosity, have you ever read the details of the actual assination? If the Marx Brothers had of used it as the base of one their movies, they would have been considered to have had even greater comedy genius than their reputation already demands
Well, there's that, but generally, most of the violent anarchist movements of 19'th and early 20'th century are... surrealistic comedy gold.

In England for example you have some anarchist shooting a gun loaded with just a wad of paper at queen Victoria. (Still punishable by death.) Or another guy who jumps into her carriage with a loaded gun and... smacks her upside the head with it, apparently just managing to crumple her bonnet. It's stuff that you'd think "pull the other one" if it were in a novel, really.

Personally I blame it on lead water pipes
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st June 2010, 12:32 PM   #85
Marduk
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,183
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Well, there's that, but generally, most of the violent anarchist movements of 19'th and early 20'th century are... surrealistic comedy gold.
The Fenian dynamite campaign springs readily to mind
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Barrett_(Fenian)
Quote:
The main case against him rested on the evidence of Patrick Mullany (a Dubliner who had given false testimony before and whose price was a free passage to Australia) who told the court that Barrett had informed him that he had carried out the explosion with an accomplice by the name of Murphy
They also tried to blow up Scotland Yard, late in the evening when it was closed
Marduk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st June 2010, 12:51 PM   #86
Saggy
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,777
Originally Posted by Tolls View Post
As for books, Hew Strachan's (still?) in the throes of a 3 volume history, but only the first one is out, and that was nearly a decade ago now. He does have a smaller one volume one, called The First World War. That's if you want something that isn't simply battles.
Thanks for your response. What does Strachan have to say on the financial aspects of the lead up to the war.

I've remembered a book that I have, Engdahl's 'A Century of War' which analyzes England's entry into the wars as a result of its geopolitical strategy to establish and maintain dominance of energy (oil) resources. I think that's probably correct, and I'll reread that section of the book. Also I have Griffin's 'The Creature from Jekyll Island' which analyzes the US entry as a result of the machinations of the English and US financiers who would have been in dire straights had Germany won. This too sounds right.
Saggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st June 2010, 12:57 PM   #87
brantc
Muse
 
brantc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 541
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
The true "world" nature of "World War II" only came into play after the Pacific theater opened up. So, I would say that Japan started WWII.

Even you cannot actually believe that Jews controlled the Japanese government. I'm pretty sure you don't believe that Japan was tirelessly trying to root out Jews in China before they infected Japan with their Jewishness. Thus, you must agree that your whole "Teh Joos!" argument falls rather flat in the Pacific.
It has nothing to do with the Jews per se...

It just that the Rothschilds who happen to be one of the worlds wealthiest families, are Jewish.

I dont think that means anything to them at his point but they do control the worlds money system of which the Japanese are a part of.

And the Yakuza control Japans government. They get paid by the Rothschilds.

The American(IBS) bankers control America, which are controlled by Rothschilds.

So it would be very easy to start a war especially when you control the media.
That would be Rupert Murdoch(Jew) who is friends with, you guessed it, the Rothschilds.

"If my sons did not want wars, there would be none.” Gutle Schnaper (Mayer Amschel Rothschild’s wife speaking on her deathbed in 1849)

It has nothing to do with being Jewish but more to do with money although they sure think they are the chosen ones when you listen to Israelis talk.

PEOPLE WHO RUN THE WORLD
http://www.iosworld.org/people_who_run_the_world.htm

Last edited by brantc; 21st June 2010 at 01:06 PM.
brantc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st June 2010, 12:59 PM   #88
9/11-investigator
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 4,032
Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard View Post
The Saar Offensive during the Phoney War
However, the French did not take any action that was able to assist the Poles. Eleven French divisions advanced along a 32 km line near Saarbrücken against weak German opposition. The French army had advanced to a depth of eight kilometres and captured about 20 villages evacuated by the German army, without any resistance. However, the half-hearted offensive was halted after France seized the Warndt Forest, three square miles of heavily-mined German territory.

Sending 11 divisions into Germany along a 32 kilometre front is called war. Generally you don't "mobilise" divisions in another country you are at war with. Let me know if there are any other basic facts I need to explain to you.

Fine, you call it a war, the rest of the world prefers to call it the 'Phoney War'. You admit that the French went for a stroll and that no shooting took place and people got killed. That's not a war in anybodies book, except in those who are hell bent in winning a silly argument.
9/11-investigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st June 2010, 01:06 PM   #89
Chaos
Penultimate Amazing
 
Chaos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,519
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
Fine, you call it a war, the rest of the world prefers to call it the 'Phoney War'. You admit that the French went for a stroll and that no shooting took place and people got killed. That's not a war in anybodies book, except in those who are hell bent in winning a silly argument.
A war is a war. Only people like you, who insist on denying reality for the sake of their insane hatred, think otherwise.
Chaos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st June 2010, 01:16 PM   #90
9/11-investigator
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 4,032
Mighty interesting all these opinions about the initiators of both world wars.
Now lets hear the analysis of a professional, Patrick Buchanan. From his latest book "Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War" this quote from page xvii:

And it was Britain that turned both European wars into world wars. Had Britain not declared war on Germany in 1914, Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, and India would not have followed the Mother Country in. Nor would Britain’s ally Japan. Nor would Italy, which London lured in with secret bribes of territory from the Habsburg and Ottoman empires. Nor would America have gone to war had Britain stayed out. Germany would have been victorious, perhaps in months. There would have been no Lenin, no Stalin, no Versailles, no Hitler, no holocaust.

There we have it, Buchanan does not accuse Britain of starting the war(s), he accuses Britain of turning European wars into world wars. Since the topic of this thread is 'who started both world wars?', the answer given by Buchanan is firmly: Britain.

Anybody who wants to object? (rethorical question)

Last edited by 9/11-investigator; 21st June 2010 at 01:22 PM.
9/11-investigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st June 2010, 01:51 PM   #91
Skeptic Guy
Raccoon Death Squad Leader
 
Skeptic Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,990
Matthew has given some very good, and detailed answers, and yet 9/11-investigator is ignoring them. That's interesting.
__________________
"Our history is in part a battle to the death of inadequate myths" - Carl Sagan

Even Mother TeresaWP doubted.
Skeptic Guy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st June 2010, 01:54 PM   #92
Uzzy
Muse
 
Uzzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 965
Quote:
There we have it, Buchanan does not accuse Britain of starting the war(s), he accuses Britain of turning European wars into world wars. Since the topic of this thread is 'who started both world wars?', the answer given by Buchanan is firmly: Britain.

Anybody who wants to object?
You and Buchanan fail logic forever. Starting something is not the same as turning it into something else.
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth, whether it's scientific truth or historical truth or personal truth!" Captain Jean-Luc Picard, The First Duty.
Uzzy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st June 2010, 03:26 PM   #93
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 37,260
Originally Posted by Skeptic Guy View Post
Matthew has given some very good, and detailed answers, and yet 9/11-investigator is ignoring them. That's interesting.
Nah, it has been 9/11 Investigator's method of dealing with evidence he can't handle for ages.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st June 2010, 03:28 PM   #94
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 37,260
Originally Posted by Chaos View Post
A war is a war. Only people like you, who insist on denying reality for the sake of their insane hatred, think otherwise.
France Declared war on Germany within a day of Hitler's invasion of Poland. The means, except all for the insane and the extremly stupid, that they were at war. Just because active military operations are not conducted 24/7 does not mean two countries are not at war with each other.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st June 2010, 03:49 PM   #95
Vortigern99
Sorcerer Supreme
 
Vortigern99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 7,905
But we can as easily and as accurately declare "Had x not happened at y time, the rest of history would not have happened the way it did." If a young Yugoslav nationalist had not assassinated Ferdinand, if Europe had not been plunged into a political crisis, if Austria-Hungary had not issued its intentionally impossible ultimata, if Russia could have let go of its interest in Bosnia, if the Triple Entente had not been formed compelling Britain to side with Russia... a hundred billions what if's, all leading to a perfect and peaceful alternate reality, and none of them very useful for understanding this one.

Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
Mighty interesting all these opinions about the initiators of both world wars.
Now lets hear the analysis of a professional, Patrick Buchanan. From his latest book "Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War" this quote from page xvii:

And it was Britain that turned both European wars into world wars. Had Britain not declared war on Germany in 1914, Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, and India would not have followed the Mother Country in. Nor would Britain’s ally Japan. Nor would Italy, which London lured in with secret bribes of territory from the Habsburg and Ottoman empires. Nor would America have gone to war had Britain stayed out. Germany would have been victorious, perhaps in months. There would have been no Lenin, no Stalin, no Versailles, no Hitler, no holocaust.

There we have it, Buchanan does not accuse Britain of starting the war(s), he accuses Britain of turning European wars into world wars. Since the topic of this thread is 'who started both world wars?', the answer given by Buchanan is firmly: Britain.

Anybody who wants to object? (rethorical question)
__________________
"I'm 'willing to admit' any fact that can be shown to be evidential and certain." -- Vortigern99

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." -- Jimi Hendrix
Vortigern99 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st June 2010, 04:49 PM   #96
Chaos
Penultimate Amazing
 
Chaos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,519
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
France Declared war on Germany within a day of Hitler's invasion of Poland. The means, except all for the insane and the extremly stupid, that they were at war. Just because active military operations are not conducted 24/7 does not mean two countries are not at war with each other.
I still think "A war is a war" says it more pithily.
Chaos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st June 2010, 05:12 PM   #97
Matthew Ellard
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,583
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
Fine, you call it a war, the rest of the world prefers to call it the 'Phoney War'. You admit that the French went for a stroll and that no shooting took place and people got killed. That's not a war in anybodies book, except in those who are hell bent in winning a silly argument.
So the French went for a "stroll" did they? (With tanks...into Germany)

The French advanced against a pitifully inadequate German force in the west. Adolf Hitler had gambled on a Schlieffen Plan in reverse, throwing the bulk of his resources against Poland while leaving only weak covering forces in the west on the correct assumption that the French would be slow to move. The German army had a maximum of 25 divisions in the west, the bulk of which were inadequately trained and poorly equipped reserves. The mechanized and motorized troops had all been committed to the fighting in Poland, and artillery had been stripped from the West Wall.

Modern Char B heavy tanks supported French infantry, but the French government, fearful of retaliation against Paris, refused to authorize bombing, and the Royal Air Force readily complied with French requests to follow the same policy.
Matthew Ellard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st June 2010, 08:13 PM   #98
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 7,255
WWI was the result of an outbreak of mass stupidity in Serbia, the Austro-Humgarian Empire, Russia, France and England. Germany was a major, perhaps the major player in this outbreak of mass stupidity.

WWII, was the direct result of the Germans taking an insane bum off the streets and making him the leader of their country.
CORed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st June 2010, 09:17 PM   #99
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22,715
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
Mighty interesting all these opinions about the initiators of both world wars.
Now lets hear the analysis of a professional, Patrick Buchanan. From his latest book "Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War" this quote from page xvii:

And it was Britain that turned both European wars into world wars. Had Britain not declared war on Germany in 1914, Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, and India would not have followed the Mother Country in. Nor would Britain’s ally Japan. Nor would Italy, which London lured in with secret bribes of territory from the Habsburg and Ottoman empires. Nor would America have gone to war had Britain stayed out. Germany would have been victorious, perhaps in months. There would have been no Lenin, no Stalin, no Versailles, no Hitler, no holocaust.

There we have it, Buchanan does not accuse Britain of starting the war(s), he accuses Britain of turning European wars into world wars. Since the topic of this thread is 'who started both world wars?', the answer given by Buchanan is firmly: Britain.

Anybody who wants to object? (rethorical question)
Others have made better objections than I ever could.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st June 2010, 09:41 PM   #100
armageddonman
Muse
 
armageddonman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 501
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
Is is a general accepted fact that history is written by the victors.
You might want to tell this to the Serbs and Japanese.
__________________
Hail Eris! All Hail Discordia!
armageddonman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2010, 01:17 AM   #101
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 24,814
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
There we have it, Buchanan does not accuse Britain of starting the war(s), he accuses Britain of turning European wars into world wars. Since the topic of this thread is 'who started both world wars?', the answer given by Buchanan is firmly: Britain.

Anybody who wants to object? (rethorical question)
Suppose a skinhead attacks an old lady with the aim of stealing her pension money. As he knocks her to the ground, a passing off-duty soldier rushes to her aid and, after a brief fight, knocks him out. Who would argue that it was the soldier who started the fight, because the old lady wasn't putting up any resistance? And - which is, in fact, the only relevant question - who was culpable for the starting of the fight?

Buchanan's argument is the despicable apologetics of a moral vacuum. He's suggesting that Germany and Japan should have been allowed to kill and steal to their hearts' content, and that anybody opposing them was the real villain. Nobody with a shred of moral sense takes him seriously for a moment.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2010, 02:31 AM   #102
9/11-investigator
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 4,032
First a summary (mainly based on Buchanan’s book, in italics, page numbers refer to it) of the events that lead to the breakout of WW1. Although it is true that the war itself was a result of a chain reaction after the assassination in Sarajewo, there were a lot of factors that additionally enabled he war.

p. xiii: Of all the empires of modernity, the British was the greatest – indeed, the greatest since Rome – encompassing a fourth of the Earth’s surface and people.

Lebensraum, any one? Britain, always keen to pull a Monty Phyton on Germany ('tomorrow ze wurld') already had ze wurld in 1914.

p.xviii:Why did Britain declare war on Germany, twice? As we shall see, neither the Kaiser nor Hitler sought to destroy Britain or her empire.

p. xix: there is another reason I have written this book. There has arisen among America’s elite a Churchill cult… This Churchill cult gave us our present calamity… it was Churchill who was the most bellicose champion of British entry into the European war of 1914 and the German-Polish war of 1939.

It must be said that president Barry Soetoro (or whatever his real name and place of birth may be, this kind of joke the US has become) has send the Churchill statue back to Britain and said that Britain was ‘just another country’. This means that Britain will become ever more isolated which is good news for the rest of Europe, now united with a euro waiting in the wings to overtake the dollar, so we can deal with this Trojan horse once and for all.

p.xvi – Was it truly necessary that 50 million die to bring Hitler down? For WW2 was the worst evil ever to befall Christians and Jews and may prove the mortal blow that brings down our common civilization. Was it ‘The Unnecessary War’?

The 19th century (after 1815) was a relative peacefull century where conservative governments ruled the European nations. The great destabilising event however was the unification of Germany in 1870. Germany did not look for expansion.
Britain in 1905 elevated it’s Anglo-Japanese treaty into a full alliance.
In 1904 Britain formed the entente cordiale with arch enemy France ending centuries of hostilities.

p.6 – Unknown to the Cabinet and Parliament, a tiny cabal had made a decision fateful for Britain, the empire, and the world. Under the guidance of Edward Grey, the foreign secretary from 1905 to 1916, British and French officers plotted Britain’s entry into a Franco-German war from the first shot.

P7. – Churchill never repudiated his own support of the entente or secret understandings… In August 1907, Britain entered into an Anglo-Russian convention, ending their 80 year conflict… The Great Game was over and the lineups completed for the Great European war. In the Triple Alliance were Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy. Opposite was the Franco-Russian alliance backed by Great-Britain, which was allied to Japan. Only America among the great powers remained free of entangling alliances.
After the French defeat at Sedan and the abdication of Napoleon III a united Germany stretching from France to Russia and from the Baltic to the Alps had emerged as the first power in Europe.


Here is a map of the pre-WW1 situation (Poland, the ‘phoney’ official cause of WW2 does not even exist!).

Buchanan says that it was a major blunder of the German Kaiser not to prolongue it’s treaty with Russia in 1890. Russia had nowhere to turn to except France.

p.9 – The Kaiser’s folly in letting the Reinsurance Treaty with Russia lapse can hardly be overstated. While Germany was a ‘satiated power’… France and Russia were expansionist. Paris hungered for the Return of Alsace. Russia sought hegemony over Bulgaria, domination of the Turkish Straits to keep foreign war ships out of the Black Sea, and to pry away the Austrian share of a partitioned Poland.

To sum it up: Germany was the least motivated to start a war. Although my Anglo opponents here do not want to hear it, this cannot be said of the other participants of the war:
France: wanted Alsace back
Russia: wanted Bulgaria, dominance over the Bosporus and a piece of Poland
Britain: from it’s policy of ‘Splendid Isolation’ wanted to destroy Germany (more on this later)

p.10 – [The Kaiser] wanted only good relations with Britain… It was a British alliance for which [the Kaiser] strove all his professional life… Why did the Kaiser fail?... blame. But MacDonogh lays most of it on British statesmen and their haughty contempt of the Kaiser and Germany.

This same attitude can be observed from our Anglo friends here on the forum as well.
[To be continued]

Last edited by 9/11-investigator; 22nd June 2010 at 02:45 AM.
9/11-investigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2010, 02:36 AM   #103
Damien Evans
Up The Irons
Tagger
 
Damien Evans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 33,672
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Well, there's that, but generally, most of the violent anarchist movements of 19'th and early 20'th century are... surrealistic comedy gold.

In England for example you have some anarchist shooting a gun loaded with just a wad of paper at queen Victoria. (Still punishable by death.) Or another guy who jumps into her carriage with a loaded gun and... smacks her upside the head with it, apparently just managing to crumple her bonnet. It's stuff that you'd think "pull the other one" if it were in a novel, really.

Personally I blame it on lead water pipes
Some of the Tsarist Russia ones made them look like genius plans.
__________________
i loves the little birdies they goes tweet tweet tweet hee hee i loves them they sings to each other tweet twet tweet hee hee i loves them they is so cute i love yje little birdies little birdies in the room when birfies sings ther is no gloom i lobes the little birdies they goess tweet tweet tweet hee hee hee i loves them they sings me to sleep sing me to slrrp now little birdies - The wisdom of Shemp.
Damien Evans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2010, 03:09 AM   #104
9/11-investigator
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 4,032
Reviews of Buchanan's book:

Paul Craig Roberts:

http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=13078
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts05132008.html

TakiMag:

http://www.takimag.com/site/article/...ecessary_book/
http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article...essary_review/

Charles Goyette interview Buchanan about the book in this podcast:

http://antiwar.com/radio/2008/05/31/pat-buchanan-3/
9/11-investigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2010, 03:17 AM   #105
9/11-investigator
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 4,032
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Suppose a skinhead attacks an old lady with the aim of stealing her pension money. As he knocks her to the ground, a passing off-duty soldier rushes to her aid and, after a brief fight, knocks him out. Who would argue that it was the soldier who started the fight, because the old lady wasn't putting up any resistance? And - which is, in fact, the only relevant question - who was culpable for the starting of the fight?

Buchanan's argument is the despicable apologetics of a moral vacuum. He's suggesting that Germany and Japan should have been allowed to kill and steal to their hearts' content, and that anybody opposing them was the real villain. Nobody with a shred of moral sense takes him seriously for a moment.

Dave
Dave Rogers, with his despicable BS, tries to equate the largest mass murderers in history, the USSR, to an innocent old lady.

Disgusting.

This of course is the weak spot of Anglosphere... in order to pimp themselves as the 'good guys of history' they have to remain silent about their alliance with the most despicable people in history, the Soviets. It was Anglosphere who effectively surrendered the entire Eastern Europe to these criminals.

Anglosphere in reality is the weak link of the 'white race', people without pride in themselves or their own culture, always willing to do the dirty work of the Jews (be it Germany or Iraq), who in reality have subjugated them. Most of the Anglo's are too stupid to understand this, they just consume the positive interpretation of their own actions as provided by the Jews, while sitting in front of the telly.

Last edited by 9/11-investigator; 22nd June 2010 at 03:31 AM.
9/11-investigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2010, 04:08 AM   #106
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Skeptic Guy View Post
Matthew has given some very good, and detailed answers, and yet 9/11-investigator is ignoring them. That's interesting.
Ignoring the truth is his stock-in-trade.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2010, 04:23 AM   #107
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 24,814
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
Dave Rogers, with his despicable BS, tries to equate the largest mass murderers in history, the USSR, to an innocent old lady.
Impressive. Do you - for some bizarre reason - believe that the UK declared war on Germany in response to a German attack on the USSR? If so, your knowledge of history is laughable. If not, your dishonesty is despicable. I'm not aware of a third option.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2010, 04:36 AM   #108
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,306
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
So you support the official story v1.0 as proposed in the first post without any modifications?

No surprises here.

I assume you already catched your first crocodile today?
Contrary to what you think, skepticism doesn't necessarily involve rejecting everything.
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2010, 04:37 AM   #109
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,306
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
Could not have phrased it better myself to describe your mindset.
Translation: "Hey! He wrote his post in a way that I can cut out a piece of it and make it appear as though he meant something else. I can make a witty comment on that and it'll give me air miles points in my fantasy world. Woohoo!"
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2010, 04:37 AM   #110
Uzzy
Muse
 
Uzzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 965
Perhaps 9/11 guy could find the mention of the Soviets in this little known speech.

Quote:
"I am speaking to you from the Cabinet Room at 10, Downing Street.

This morning the British Ambassador in Berlin handed the German Government a final note stating that unless we heard from them by 11.00 a.m. that they were prepared at once to withdraw their troops from Poland, a state of war would exist between us. I have to tell you that no such undertaking has been received, and that consequently this country is at war with Germany.

You can imagine what a bitter blow it is to me that all my long struggle to win peace has failed. Yet I cannot believe that there is anything more or anything different I could have done and that would have been more successful.

Up to the very last it would have been quite possible to have arranged a peaceful and honourable settlement between Germany and Poland, but Hitler would not have it.
He had evidently made up his mind to attack Poland whatever happened; and although he now says he has put forward reasonable proposals which were rejected by the Poles, that is not a true statement.

The proposals were never shown to the Poles nor to us; and although they were announced in a German broadcast on Thursday night, Hitler did not wait to make comment on them, but ordered his troops to cross the Polish frontier.

His actions show convincingly that there is no chance of expecting that this man will ever give up his practice of using force to gain his will. He can only be stopped by force.
We and France are today, in fulfilment of our obligations, going to the aid of Poland, who is so bravely resisting this wicked and unprovoked attack on her people. We have a clear conscience. We have done all that any country could do to establish peace. The situation in which no word given to Germany’s ruler could be trusted and no people or country could feel themselves safe has become intolerable.

And now that we have resolved to finish it, I know that you will play your part with calmness and courage.

At such a moment as this the assurances of support that we have received from the Empire are a source of profound encouragement to us.

When I have finished speaking certain detailed announcements will be made on behalf of the Government. Give these your closest attention.

The Government have made plans under which it will be possible to carry on the work of the nation in the days of stress and strain that may be ahead. But these plans need your help.

You may be taking part in the fighting Services or as a volunteer in one of the branches of civil defence. If so you will report for duty in accordance with the instructions you have received.

You may be engaged in work essential to the prosecution of war for the maintenance of the life of the people – in factories, in transport, in public utility concerns or in the supply of other necessaries of life. If so, it is of vital importance that you should carry on with your jobs.

Now may God bless you all. May He defend the right. It is the evil things that we shall be fighting against – brute force, bad faith, injustice, oppression and persecution – and against them I am certain that the right will prevail."
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth, whether it's scientific truth or historical truth or personal truth!" Captain Jean-Luc Picard, The First Duty.
Uzzy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2010, 04:40 AM   #111
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,306
Originally Posted by MaGZ View Post
All you have to do is read the Protocols.
Or Harry Potter. Both are of equal historical value.
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2010, 04:41 AM   #112
Amazer
Graduate Poster
 
Amazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,352
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
Dave Rogers, with his despicable BS, tries to equate the largest mass murderers in history, the USSR, to an innocent old lady.
I was under the impression he was talking about Poland. I'm sure he'll clarify though.

Quote:
Disgusting.
Funny, coming from you.
Amazer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2010, 04:41 AM   #113
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 10,477
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
Mighty interesting all these opinions about the initiators of both world wars.
Now lets hear the analysis of a professional, Patrick Buchanan. From his latest book "Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War" this quote from page xvii:

And it was Britain that turned both European wars into world wars. Had Britain not declared war on Germany in 1914, Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, and India would not have followed the Mother Country in. Nor would Britain’s ally Japan. Nor would Italy, which London lured in with secret bribes of territory from the Habsburg and Ottoman empires. Nor would America have gone to war had Britain stayed out. Germany would have been victorious, perhaps in months. There would have been no Lenin, no Stalin, no Versailles, no Hitler, no holocaust.

There we have it, Buchanan does not accuse Britain of starting the war(s), he accuses Britain of turning European wars into world wars. Since the topic of this thread is 'who started both world wars?', the answer given by Buchanan is firmly: Britain.

Anybody who wants to object? (rethorical question)
Well, if you follow that sad excuse for logic...

If Serbia had agreed to those demands, the whole war wouldn't begin in the first place. Therefore Serbia started the war.
If Russia wasn't allied to Serbia, it wouldn't have intervened when Austria-Hungary invaded the latter, drawing in France and Britain alongside. Therefore Russia started the war.
If Germany wasn't allied to Austria-Hungary, the Entente would face a lone, crumbling empire, and there would never be a world war. Therefore Germany started the world war.
If France hadn't honored the alliance with Russia, there wouldn't be a world war either, therefore France started the world war.

I could go on, but anyone with at least one brain cell can figure it out.

McHrozni
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2010, 05:43 AM   #114
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 24,814
Originally Posted by Amazer View Post
I was under the impression he was talking about Poland. I'm sure he'll clarify though.
There seems very little point clarifying anything to 9/11-investigator. Clarity runs counter to his objectives.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2010, 05:53 AM   #115
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,582
Originally Posted by Saggy View Post
Thanks for your response. What does Strachan have to say on the financial aspects of the lead up to the war.
I don't think he covers that in the one-volume version (it's not a big book by any means). Can't guarantee it, though, since they all tend to blur into one. I think he covers that in the first volume of the biggie, though...Call To Arms? However, the financial aspect really isn't considered a major cause of the war, mainly because those in power knew a large European war would be long and drawn out, and costly. Not good for business.

Originally Posted by Saggy View Post
I've remembered a book that I have, Engdahl's 'A Century of War' which analyzes England's entry into the wars as a result of its geopolitical strategy to establish and maintain dominance of energy (oil) resources. I think that's probably correct, and I'll reread that section of the book. Also I have Griffin's 'The Creature from Jekyll Island' which analyzes the US entry as a result of the machinations of the English and US financiers who would have been in dire straights had Germany won. This too sounds right.
Not convinced. It's the sort of argument that seems to imply that the first world war was driven by business. Business played a part (how could it not), but to see it as the driver is to look at he wrong thing. After all, if the US businessmen (and others, British ones were as bad) were so concerned about a German victory then why were they so quick to screw the Russians sourcing arms?
Tolls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2010, 06:11 AM   #116
dtugg
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,885
Originally Posted by brantc View Post
It has nothing to do with the Jews per se...

It just that the Rothschilds who happen to be one of the worlds wealthiest families, are Jewish.

I dont think that means anything to them at his point but they do control the worlds money system of which the Japanese are a part of.

And the Yakuza control Japans government. They get paid by the Rothschilds.

The American(IBS) bankers control America, which are controlled by Rothschilds.

So it would be very easy to start a war especially when you control the media.
That would be Rupert Murdoch(Jew) who is friends with, you guessed it, the Rothschilds.

"If my sons did not want wars, there would be none.” Gutle Schnaper (Mayer Amschel Rothschild’s wife speaking on her deathbed in 1849)

It has nothing to do with being Jewish but more to do with money although they sure think they are the chosen ones when you listen to Israelis talk.

PEOPLE WHO RUN THE WORLD
http://www.iosworld.org/people_who_run_the_world.htm
lol
dtugg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2010, 06:17 AM   #117
9/11-investigator
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 4,032
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Impressive. Do you - for some bizarre reason - believe that the UK declared war on Germany in response to a German attack on the USSR? If so, your knowledge of history is laughable. If not, your dishonesty is despicable. I'm not aware of a third option.

Dave
Dave introduces 3 characters: a skinhead (English word for an initially English phenomenon), an innocent old lady and a brave soldier off-duty. I am trying to figure out the mapping here...

Brave soldier - Britain, right?
Skinhead - Germany, right?
Innocent old lady - must be Poland then right?

Not let me get this straight: 'innocent lady' (we will discuss the 'innocence' of the Poles later on) gets robbed on the street at the same time by 2 skinheads, one called Heinz and one called Iwan. Next a 'brave' off-duty soldier called Billy passes by, shouts from the other side of the street (without intervening, he is not as 'brave' as he thinks he is) 'do not do that!' and walks on. Small detail: he only shouts at Heinz, not at Iwan. A year or so later he gives skinhead Iwan weapons for free so he can rob a few more innocent ladies. In the meantime Billy boards in an areoplane and starts to bomb hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians into oblivion, always from great altitude. On the ground meanwhile the real work is done by Russians (80%) and Americans (15%). The English (5%) confine themselves to get a beating at El-Alamein and said bombing of civilians. Oh yes, and landing in Normandie when the show is almost over. It is clear to all that Billy never cared about the 'innocent old lady' but only aimed at Heinz (real reason: Heinz, who did appear on the scene only in 1870, got too powerful in the eyes of Billy and henced needed to be destroyed. That was the real motivation behind WW1, Versailles and WW2, Nuremberg --> holo-lie).

This is the moral universum the likes of Dave Rogers are keen to dwell in.

As I said, there is no end to Anglo perfidy.

Last edited by 9/11-investigator; 22nd June 2010 at 06:36 AM.
9/11-investigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2010, 06:31 AM   #118
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 13,114
Originally Posted by Damien Evans View Post
Some of the Tsarist Russia ones made them look like genius plans.
Heh. Indeed. Sometimes I wish I knew what were those guys smoking.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2010, 06:44 AM   #119
Saggy
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,777
Originally Posted by Tolls View Post
Not convinced. It's the sort of argument that seems to imply that the first world war was driven by business. Business played a part (how could it not), but to see it as the driver is to look at he wrong thing. After all, if the US businessmen (and others, British ones were as bad) were so concerned about a German victory then why were they so quick to screw the Russians sourcing arms?
How can you be 'not convinced' before seeing the argument? Both Engdahl's and Griffin's books are absolute must reading to begin an escape from the fairy tale studies of history and econ that are the norm. I'll make the effort to outline Engdahl's argument and post it in a few days. While I think Engdahl's argument might be simpler, Griffin's might be more interesting because he analyzes the financing of wars in the 19th century, how Napoleon antagonized the bankers, then had to get a loan ... etc., etc., but it requires more historical context (which I don't know) to evaluate. Concerning the US businessmen ... Griffin goes into great detail describing the machinations of the bankers to get the US involved when late in the game it appeared that Germany might prevail, in particular the plotting around the Lusitania. Had Germany won the bankers would have lost everything as they had financed the war for Britain. I think this is a matter of record.
Saggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2010, 06:50 AM   #120
excaza
Illuminator
 
excaza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,593
Originally Posted by Saggy View Post
How can you be 'not convinced' before seeing the argument? Both Engdahl's and Griffin's books are absolute must reading to begin an escape from the fairy tale studies of history and econ that are the norm. I'll make the effort to outline Engdahl's argument and post it in a few days. While I think Engdahl's argument might be simpler, Griffin's might be more interesting because he analyzes the financing of wars in the 19th century, how Napoleon antagonized the bankers, then had to get a loan ... etc., etc., but it requires more historical context (which I don't know) to evaluate. Concerning the US businessmen ... Griffin goes into great detail describing the machinations of the bankers to get the US involved when late in the game it appeared that Germany might prevail, in particular the plotting around the Lusitania. Had Germany won the bankers would have lost everything as they had financed the war for Britain. I think this is a matter of record.
No mention of Jews, you're slipping Saggy.
__________________
excaza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:35 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.