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 22nd June 2010, 06:51 AM   #121
Saggy
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,777
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
Reviews of Buchanan's book:

Paul Craig Roberts:

http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=13078
Wow !
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, 06:54 AM   #122
Marduk
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,183
"The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing."
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 22nd June 2010, 06:57 AM   #123
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: 25,340
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
Not let me get this straight: 'innocent lady' (we will discuss the 'innocence' of the Poles later on)
I think it would be more interesting to see where you got the word "innocent" from. Do you always feel it necessary to misrepresent your opponents' positions, so that it's only the misrepresentations you need to address?

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, 07:04 AM   #124
Dr. Tobias Fünke
Thinker
 
Dr. Tobias Fünke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 180
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post

Here is a map of the pre-WW1 situation (Poland, the ‘phoney’ official cause of WW2 does not even exist!).
What is the point?
Dr. Tobias Fünke 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, 07:05 AM   #125
9/11-investigator
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 4,032
Originally Posted by excaza View Post
No mention of Jews, you're slipping Saggy.
Do not worry, I will address them later on.
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, 07:12 AM   #126
9/11-investigator
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 4,032
Originally Posted by Saggy View Post
Wow !
From Paul Craig Roberts' review of Buchanan's book:

Buchanan's latest book is by far his best. It is spellbinding from his opening sentence: "All about us we can see clearly now that the West is passing away." As the pages turn, the comfortable myths, produced by history written by the victors, are swept aside. The veil is lifted to reveal the true faces of British and American exceptionalism: stupidity and deceit.

PCR was member of the Reagan government.

PCR and Buchanan have not touched the H-word yet. In time they will.

Buchanan hides himself behind his favorite formulae that drives the Jews nuts: "WW2, the war where 50 million Christians and Jews died", a clever formulation that leaves open as to how many Jews Buchanan thinks were killed in the war.

PCR recently has declared that he opposes that people are being thrown in jail over the H-word controversy. "What kind of truth needs protection", PCR asks rethorically.

Both Buchanan and PCR are aware of "the true faces of British and American exceptionalism: stupidity and deceit".

PCR continues (italics): Both world wars began when England, for no sound or sensible reason, declared war on Germany. Winston Churchill was a prime instigator of both wars. He seems to have been a person who needed a war stage in order to be a "great man... The American President Woodrow Wilson shares responsibility with Britain and France for the Versailles Treaty, which dismembered Germany, stripping her of territory and putting millions of Germans under foreign rule, and imposed reparations that Britain's greatest economist, John Maynard Keynes, correctly predicted to be unrealistic. All of this was done in violation of assurances given to Germany that there would be no reparations or boundary changes. Once Germany surrendered, the assurances were withdrawn, and a starvation blockade forced German submission to the new harsh terms."

Buchanan produces one historian after another to testify that British miscalculations and blunders, culminating in Chamberlain's worthless and provocative "guarantee" to Poland, brought the West into a war that Hitler did not want, a war that destroyed the British Empire and left Britain a dependency of America, a war that delivered Poland, a chunk of Germany, all of Eastern Europe, and the Baltic states to Joseph Stalin, a war that left the Western allies with a 45-year cold war against the nuclear-armed Soviet Union.

People resist the shattering of their illusions, and many are angry with Buchanan for assembling the facts of the case that distinguished historians have provided.


--> the average Anglo JRef poster

Churchill admirers are outraged that their hero is revealed as the first war criminal of World War II. It was Churchill who initiated the policy of terror bombing civilians in noncombatant areas. Buchanan quotes B.H. Liddell Hart: "When Mr. Churchill came into power, one of the first decisions of his government was to extend bombing to the noncombatant area."

I repeat: it was the British, not the Germans who started to bomb civilians. The Anglos threw 20 times as much on Germany as Germany (reluctantly forced to retaliate) threw on Britain.

In 2001 the Glasgow Sunday Herald reported Churchill's plan to drop 5 million anthrax cakes onto German pastures in order to poison the cattle and through them the people. Churchill instructed the RAF to consider drenching "the cities of the Ruhr and many other cities in Germany" with poison gas "in such a way that most of the population would be requiring constant medical attention."

In Holland every town has a Chirchilllaan named after the maniac. It will be a benchmark of progress to see these names replaced in some not too distant future.

British historian F.J.P. Veale concluded that Churchill's policy of indiscriminate bombing of civilians caused an unprecedented "reversion to primary and total warfare" associated with "Sennacherib, Genghis Khan, and Tamerlane."

MacDonogh's book, After the Reich, dispels the comfortable myth of generous allied treatment of defeated Germany. Having discarded all moral scruples, the allies fell upon the vanquished country with brutal occupation. Hundreds of thousands of women raped; hundreds of thousands of Germans died in deportations; a million German prisoners of war died in captivity.

In the German army soldiers were punished if caught at raping women. It hardly occured. 1 million Germans died in captivity, 5 times as much as died in German concentration camps, the latter died as a consequence of the war.

The wrong party won the war, one is tempted to think.

But hey, these thoughts would be bad for your career.

For the moment.

Last edited by 9/11-investigator; 22nd June 2010 at 07:44 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, 07:14 AM   #127
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,701
Originally Posted by dtugg View Post
lol
Seconded.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

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, 07:19 AM   #128
Marduk
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,183
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
As I said, there is no end to Anglo perfidy.
Careful now, thats almost racist against Anglos
(or at least it would be if anyone knew what an anglo was)
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 22nd June 2010, 07:19 AM   #129
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: 25,340
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
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.
Well, no. Iwan waited until Heinz and Billy were already fighting, then ran off with her money. And Heinz had already beaten up a few other old ladies on the same street, and taken all their money.

Incidentally, I never knew Stalin was Welsh.

Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
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.
So your argument is that Britain started World War Two by not fighting the Germans?

Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
Small detail: he only shouts at Heinz, not at Iwan.
But discussed with his friend Pierre exactly what they could do about Iwan once they'd dealt with Hans. Since they didn't really know how to deal with Hans at the time, they decided there was even less they could do about Iwan.

Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
A year or so later he gives skinhead Iwan weapons for free so he can rob a few more innocent ladies
because Iwan had explained that he didn't intend to rob any more old ladies, and would help stop Hans instead. Perhaps Billy was a bit foolish to believe Iwan.

Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
In the meantime Billy boards in an areoplane and starts to bomb hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians into oblivion, always from great altitude.
I think you meant "starts to drop bombs on Hans". Blurring the definition between fact and fantasy may work for you, but I'd rather be consistent.

Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
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.
Of course, ignoring Billy's brother Jack will lead you to false conclusions. But please tell us more about your theory of how the Allies lost the battle of El Alamein. Conventional historians seem to have got this terribly wrong, but no doubt Rommel's retreat all the way to Tunisia was part of his strategic master plan.

Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
Oh yes, and landing in Normandie when the show is almost over.
Yes, if you ignore everything Britain did in WW2 then it looks like Britain didn't do anything in WW2. Germany was a long way from beaten in early June 1944; Operation Bagration and the Falaise Pocket were yet to come.

Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
This is the moral universum the likes of Dave Rogers are keen to dwell in.
Keen to dwell in reality? I've never thought of it that way. Yes, there were moral grey areas in WW2, more than simplified history likes to dwell on, but its origins are fairly well-understood. Blaming the entire conflict on Britain, while at the same time complaining that Britain took virtually no part in it, is inconsistent to the point of insanity.

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, 07:33 AM   #130
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: 25,340
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
From Paul Craig Roberts' review of Buchanan's book:
This just in: Right-wing extremist and supporter of insane 9/11 theories cites review of right-wing extremist's book by supporter of insane 9/11 theories. Sane people unimpressed.

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, 07:50 AM   #131
9/11-investigator
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 4,032
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
This just in: Right-wing extremist and supporter of insane 9/11 theories cites review of right-wing extremist's book by supporter of insane 9/11 theories. Sane people unimpressed.

Dave
Paul Craig Roberts a right wing extremist??!!

Substantiate please.

To the neutral bystander: Dave Rogers will be unable to substantiate his smears. What was it again according to PCR? Oh yes, stupidity and deceit is the hallmark of the Anglo.

We are all ears Dave.

(Dave will quietly drop the subject)

Tip for Dave: why don't you try to portray PCR as a hater?

For non-Anglo's: 'hate' is the new ridiculous Anglo judicial play thingy, introduced by Jewish anti-white organizatons like the ADL and SPLC.

Last edited by 9/11-investigator; 22nd June 2010 at 08:11 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, 08:07 AM   #132
9/11-investigator
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 4,032
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Well, no. Iwan waited until Heinz and Billy were already fighting, then ran off with her money. And Heinz had already beaten up a few other old ladies on the same street, and taken all their money.
You mean Austria? The Austrians looked far happier then the Iraqies when they were incorporated into the Anglo empire.

Quote:
Incidentally, I never knew Stalin was Welsh.
New to me also.

Quote:
So your argument is that Britain started World War Two by not fighting the Germans?
Exactly. They carried out the half baked attempt in cutting the Swedish iron ore supply lines but got their asses whipped in a matter of days. WW2 was won by the Russians with some aid from side-kick US. The Brits only made themselves useful merely by killing civilians.

Quote:
But discussed with his friend Pierre exactly what they could do about Iwan once they'd dealt with Hans. Since they didn't really know how to deal with Hans at the time, they decided there was even less they could do about Iwan.
If this were true (it is not) it would have been far more sensible to let Hans and Iwan fight each other to death. This is what Buchanan says as well. But here is where the revisionism of Buchanan stops. Reason: he cannot go further because he then has to touch the Jews, something Buchanan cannot do otherwise he would get the Helen Thomas treatment. Buchanan has to introduce the idea of stupidity to explain the behaviour of Churchill. In reality Churchill was operating in defense of Jewish interests.

Quote:
because Iwan had explained that he didn't intend to rob any more old ladies, and would help stop Hans instead. Perhaps Billy was a bit foolish to believe Iwan.
What, Anglos making mistakes? Impossible.

Quote:
I think you meant "starts to drop bombs on Hans". Blurring the definition between fact and fantasy may work for you, but I'd rather be consistent.
Of course that's what I mean.

Quote:
Of course, ignoring Billy's brother Jack will lead you to false conclusions. But please tell us more about your theory of how the Allies lost the battle of El Alamein. Conventional historians seem to have got this terribly wrong, but no doubt Rommel's retreat all the way to Tunisia was part of his strategic master plan.
My bad.

Quote:
Keen to dwell in reality? I've never thought of it that way. Yes, there were moral grey areas in WW2, more than simplified history likes to dwell on, but its origins are fairly well-understood. Blaming the entire conflict on Britain, while at the same time complaining that Britain took virtually no part in it, is inconsistent to the point of insanity.
Britain never accepted the rise of Germany, who got too powerful in their eyes. Hence it needed to be destroyed.
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, 08:13 AM   #133
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,257
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
This just in: Right-wing extremist and supporter of insane 9/11 theories cites review of right-wing extremist's book by supporter of insane 9/11 theories. Sane people unimpressed.

Dave
Wait... he quoted Paul Craig Roberts? The guy who tried to peddle the "free fall" fallacy regarding the Twin Towers? The guy who thinks DRG's Debunking 9/11 Debunking was actually more credible than the NIST report?? The guy who's so paranoid he's actually stated a belief that future MIHOP 9/11 type events will occur?

You can tell who's a credulous, foolish thinker by the sources he cites. Is that ever demonstrated so clearly as it is here?
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."
ElMondoHummus 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, 08:41 AM   #134
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,701
Originally Posted by Marduk View Post
Careful now, thats almost racist against Anglos
(or at least it would be if anyone knew what an anglo was)
Perhaps he doesn't like the French or Canadians either, because I'm certainly not on his side.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

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, 08:50 AM   #135
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: 25,340
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
Paul Craig Roberts a right wing extremist??!!
No. Learn to read for comprehension - although, since your main aim is misrepresentation, I suppose there's no real need. Paul Craig Roberts wrote the review, and he's a supporter of insane 9/11 theories, same as you. Buchanan is the right wing extremist who wrote the book. I'd have thought, since you were the one who raised it, that you'd be able to remember that detail for a few minutes at least.

Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
(Dave will quietly drop the subject)
(9/11-investigator will try to deflect attention away from his laughable inability to comprehend others' posts - or, indeed, his own).

Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
Tip for Dave: why don't you try to portray PCR as a hater?

For non-Anglo's: 'hate' is the new ridiculous Anglo judicial play thingy, introduced by Jewish anti-white organizatons like the ADL and SPLC.
This thing where you put words into other people's mouths and then condemn them even though they never used those words - you're quite good at it, aren't you? Do you find it convinces anyone of anything other than that you're a shameless liar?

But I see that you freely admit that Britain started World War Two by not fighting anyone. At this point, your entire house of cards has already fallen apart. If Britain indeed took no effective part in WW2, then the declaration of war on Germany was an irrelevant piece of paper. I think, at some point, you need to decide which of your contradictory accusations you really want to make, and which one you want to quietly pretend you never made. At the moment you're just making yourself look stupid.

As for not knowing who won the battle of El Alamein, that reveals an extraordinary level of ignorance of the events of WW2. l suggest you learn at least the rudiments of modern history before proclaiming yourself an expert on it.

ETA: You might, for a start, consider which battle of El Alamein you meant.

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

Last edited by Dave Rogers; 22nd June 2010 at 09:20 AM.
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, 09:04 AM   #136
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,727
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.
Oh dear.

Look, you (or the people you are summarising) are implying that the US bankers plotted around the Lusitania (1915) because they feared a German victory...while at the same time screwing Russia over (whether intentionally or not) with arms deals that were rather one-sided, right through 1916. Do you not see the slight problem with that argument?
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, 10:31 AM   #137
grunion
Philosopher
 
grunion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 8,088
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
Paul Craig Roberts a right wing extremist??!!

Substantiate please.

To the neutral bystander: Dave Rogers will be unable to substantiate his smears. What was it again according to PCR? Oh yes, stupidity and deceit is the hallmark of the Anglo.

We are all ears Dave.

(Dave will quietly drop the subject)

Tip for Dave: why don't you try to portray PCR as a hater?

For non-Anglo's: 'hate' is the new ridiculous Anglo judicial play thingy, introduced by Jewish anti-white organizatons like the ADL and SPLC.
Your fictitious interpretation of Dave Rogers' comment clearly and correctly identifying Buchanan as the right wing wacko and Roberts as the conspiracy nutcase doesn't say much for your uninspired rehashing of Revisionist history as described in your OP. Anti-semitic and racist doggerel further undermine whatever shred of credibility you may have had among the less informed who may be interested in your spurious argument.

Ah, but you are only asking questions, aren't you. What an original trick.
__________________
“Of all the offspring of Time, Error is the most ancient, and is so old and familiar an acquaintance, that Truth, when discovered, comes upon most of us like an intruder, and meets the intruder's welcome.”
― Charles Mackay, 1841 - Extraordinary Popular Delusions And The Madness Of Crowds
grunion 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, 10:38 AM   #138
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 37,651
Originally Posted by Marduk View Post
"The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing."
A Message From Hell, I See........
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 22nd June 2010, 10:41 AM   #139
coalesce
Illuminator
 
coalesce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,638
Wrong, wrong, you're all wrong!!

Both wars were started by teh gehys.

Now may I go back to my bagel?

Michael
__________________
"I want the kids in bed by nine, the dog fed, the yard watered and the gate locked. And get a note to the milkman NO MORE CHEESE!"

“Of all sad words of tongue or pen, the saddest are these, 'It might have been.”
coalesce 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, 01:16 PM   #140
Skeptic Guy
Raccoon Death Squad Leader
 
Skeptic Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,990
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Nah, it has been 9/11 Investigator's method of dealing with evidence he can't handle for ages.
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
Ignoring the truth is his stock-in-trade.
Still ignored.
__________________
"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 22nd June 2010, 02:10 PM   #141
dtugg
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,885
Hitler fanboy caught being dishost? Well, I for one am shocked.
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, 02:39 PM   #142
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by dtugg View Post
Hitler fanboy caught being dishost? Well, I for one am shocked.
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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, 02:45 PM   #143
Saggy
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,777
Originally Posted by Tolls View Post
Oh dear.

Look, you (or the people you are summarising) are implying that the US bankers plotted around the Lusitania (1915) because they feared a German victory...while at the same time screwing Russia over (whether intentionally or not) with arms deals that were rather one-sided, right through 1916. Do you not see the slight problem with that argument?
Do you not see the slight problem with that argument?



Not really. Don't know the details on the arms deal, but I'd imagine bankers would love to screw both sides of any war in every deal. The result would be that the Russians would get the arms, win the war, and bonus, be indebted indefinitely to the banks. A win win.
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, 03:38 PM   #144
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 37,651
Originally Posted by Saggy View Post
Do you not see the slight problem with that argument?



Not really. Don't know the details on the arms deal, but I'd imagine bankers would love to screw both sides of any war in every deal. The result would be that the Russians would get the arms, win the war, and bonus, be indebted indefinitely to the banks. A win win.
Is it just me or do CT Loons have simply NO IDEA of what Bankers actually do in the real world?
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 22nd June 2010, 03:55 PM   #145
Saggy
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,777
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Is it just me or do CT Loons have simply NO IDEA of what Bankers actually do in the real world?
Read 'Confessions of an Economic Hitman' ... you might learn something, then again, you might not.
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, 05:16 PM   #146
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,495
Originally Posted by Saggy View Post
Read 'Confessions of an Economic Hitman' ... you might learn something, then again, you might not.
It's already been shredded to pieces here at JREF.
Sword_Of_Truth 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 PM   #147
MG1962
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,252
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
Churchill admirers are outraged that their hero is revealed as the first war criminal of World War II. It was Churchill who initiated the policy of terror bombing civilians in noncombatant areas. Buchanan quotes B.H. Liddell Hart: "When Mr. Churchill came into power, one of the first decisions of his government was to extend bombing to the noncombatant area."

I repeat: it was the British, not the Germans who started to bomb civilians. The Anglos threw 20 times as much on Germany as Germany (reluctantly forced to retaliate) threw on Britain.
History would appear to disagree wth you

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing...n_World_War_II

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotterd...aids_1940-1945
MG1962 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, 07:55 PM   #148
Matthew Ellard
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,693
Originally Posted by Saggy View Post
Read 'Confessions of an Economic Hitman' ... you might learn something, then again, you might not.
Then again some of us have high degrees in economics and history and laugh at the concept that banks caused WW1.
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 22nd June 2010, 08:23 PM   #149
Matthew Ellard
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,693
Originally Posted by MG1962 View Post
History would appear to disagree wth you
One of the odd behaviour patterns adopted by most Holocaust Deniers is the illogical claim that Churchill was responsible for every evil act of the war. Churchill wasn't even prime minister when war was declared.

I haven't done any research to explain this however I have a couple of theories.
1) Because Holocaust Deniers quote each other and the movement is driven by the commercial sale of books from an elite to junior holocaust deniers, certain "best selling" themes are going to "evolve" as their "main gripes". Churchill has become a "main theme"

2) Because Germany subdued France so quickly, german wartime propaganda in the west concentrated on Churchill. Because holocaust deniers can't read Russian and anti-Russian wartime propaganda, they are still regurgitating original war time propaganda as promoted by the few pseudo-Nazis who work within todays holocaust denier movement.

3) Jealousy! Churchill was a fat, witty man who drank too much and made military mistakes early in his career yet he beat Hitler the non-drinking, military genius, who lead the master race and used propaganda to state German superiority. For someone like 9/11 who believes in european superiority Churchill is a stumbling block.

Regarding Bombing Civilians
Wikipedia has a good summary of national policy here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strateg...g_World_War_II

When the war began on 1 September 1939, Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the then-neutral United States, issued an appeal to the major belligerents to confine their air raids to military targets.[15] The French and the British agreed to abide by the request which included the provision "that these same rules of warfare will be scrupulously observed by all of their opponents".[16] Germany also agreed to abide by Roosevelt's request and explained their bombing of Warsaw as within the agreement because it was a fortified city—Germany did not have a policy of targeting enemy civilians as part of their doctrine prior to World War II.

The United Kingdom's policy was formulated on 31 August 1939: if Germany initiated unrestricted air action, the United Kingdom "should attack objectives vital to Germany's war effort, and in particular her oil resources". If Germany confined attacks to purely military targets, the RAF should "launch an attack on the German fleet at Wilhelmshaven" and "attack warships at sea when found within range".[19] The government communicated to their French allies the intention "not to initiate air action which might involve the risk of civilian casualties"


I have already informed 9/11 of this but he is ignoring my posts. In the Saar Offensive during the Phoney War, which 9/11 denies occured, the French did not bomb German troops as they feared counter-bombing retaliation against Paris.
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 22nd June 2010, 09:26 PM   #150
MG1962
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,252
Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard View Post
One of the odd behaviour patterns adopted by most Holocaust Deniers is the illogical claim that Churchill was responsible for every evil act of the war. Churchill wasn't even prime minister when war was declared.
Well to be truthful (as an Australian)I dont have a high opinion of Churchill either. However he was a man of his time and he made decisions based on what was best for Britian.

But all that aside, the thing everyone has to remember WW2 was a truely horrible time, and by the end of it the lines between the good guys and bad guys had become badly blurred. Particularly the intentional targeting of civilians.

The victors got to express their outrage at Nuremberg, but admitted their own guilt by the creation of the war crimes commission, and the whole crimes against humanity legislation.

But as you suggest, many try to lessen the crimes of the Nazis by focusing on the actions of others. Great....so people thinl Churchill should have been charged with war crimes. It still does not excuse the action of Hitler and his plonker mates
MG1962 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 23rd June 2010, 02:41 AM   #151
Chaos
Penultimate Amazing
 
Chaos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,519
Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard View Post
Then again some of us have high degrees in economics and history and laugh at the concept that banks caused WW1.
Don´t need a high degree in anything for that. Just a brain and the willingness to use it.
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 23rd June 2010, 03:18 AM   #152
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: 25,340
Originally Posted by MG1962 View Post
Well to be truthful (as an Australian)I dont have a high opinion of Churchill either. However he was a man of his time and he made decisions based on what was best for Britian.

But all that aside, the thing everyone has to remember WW2 was a truely horrible time, and by the end of it the lines between the good guys and bad guys had become badly blurred. Particularly the intentional targeting of civilians.

The victors got to express their outrage at Nuremberg, but admitted their own guilt by the creation of the war crimes commission, and the whole crimes against humanity legislation.

But as you suggest, many try to lessen the crimes of the Nazis by focusing on the actions of others. Great....so people thinl Churchill should have been charged with war crimes. It still does not excuse the action of Hitler and his plonker mates
In fact, it goes further than that. 9/11-investigator simply ignores the crimes of the Nazis, and pretends that the lesser wrongdoings of the Western Allies were not only their only actons, but were carried out in a vacuum. Look at the way, for example, that he's conveniently forgotten the German annexation of Czechoslovakia (for the time being; he'll no doubt respond to this with some extraordinary mental gymnastics over the Munich Agreement that will assert that Germany was entirely within its rights to annexe the Sudetenland while at the same time Britain and France were entirely culpable for allowing Germany to do so, and he'll then conveniently forget that Germany almost immediately broke the Munich Agreement by annexing the remainder of Czechoslovakia), British financial support and weapons supply to Finland in the Winter War against the USSR, the bombing of Rotterdam, and anything else that doesn't fit his idealogy - like, for example, the very existence of Japan.

What is truly ironic, of course, is that through all this he accuses anyone who disagrees with him of black-and-white thinking. I've yet to see anyone on this thread assert that the Allies were entirely virtuous in all their actions in both World Wars; in fact, I think most would agree that neither side came out of WW1 with a great deal of credit. And yet, this is the strawman view of history that 9/11 tries to attack. And how does he do so? By a simply inversion; he attacks a fictitious Germany-bad, Allies-good position by asserting that everything Germany did was good and everything the Allies did was bad. In fact, his thinking is far more black-and-white than anyone else's in this thread; he's just defining black and white in the opposite sense to the one he likes to pretend everyone else uses.

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 23rd June 2010, 03:28 AM   #153
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 40,354
Originally Posted by Uzzy View Post
There are better fantasy novels out there, to be honest.
Sure ones that are not actually plagiarized for example.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle 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 23rd June 2010, 03:43 AM   #154
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,701
Originally Posted by Saggy View Post
Read 'Confessions of an Economic Hitman' ... you might learn something, then again, you might not.
Sure. Read Rael's book if you want to believe in aliens.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

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 23rd June 2010, 04:06 AM   #155
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,727
Originally Posted by Saggy View Post
Do you not see the slight problem with that argument?



Not really. Don't know the details on the arms deal, but I'd imagine bankers would love to screw both sides of any war in every deal. The result would be that the Russians would get the arms, win the war, and bonus, be indebted indefinitely to the banks. A win win.
Deals, plural.

You see the problem is, though, that the Russians often didn't get the arms they were paying for...resulting in a shortage of arms and ammunition. Hastening the collapse, and threatening defeat for the west. Not the actions of people who were apparently steering this whole thing to make a profit, and who had to get the US into the war because they feared defeat, at a time when they were failing to support Russia...

In other words, it really doesn't hold water.

Not that I expect you to take any of that on board.
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 23rd June 2010, 04:12 AM   #156
Saggy
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,777
Originally Posted by Tolls View Post
Deals, plural.

You see the problem is, though, that the Russians often didn't get the arms they were paying for...resulting in a shortage of arms and ammunition. Hastening the collapse, and threatening defeat for the west. Not the actions of people who were apparently steering this whole thing to make a profit, and who had to get the US into the war because they feared defeat, at a time when they were failing to support Russia...

In other words, it really doesn't hold water.

Not that I expect you to take any of that on board.
You see the problem is, though, that the Russians often didn't get the arms they were paying for...

Why not, pray tell. As a result of the purposeful actions of the bankers? Sounds very unlikely. Let's have the full story.
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 23rd June 2010, 05:20 AM   #157
Uzzy
Muse
 
Uzzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 965
Is 9/11 guy really once again bringing up the 'Britain started area bombing first' canard? The one repeatedly shot down like the Luftwaffe over Dover? Do we have to bring up Wielun, Frampol and Rotterdam again?
__________________
"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 23rd June 2010, 06:20 AM   #158
MG1962
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,252
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
What is truly ironic, of course, is that through all this he accuses anyone who disagrees with him of black-and-white thinking. I've yet to see anyone on this thread assert that the Allies were entirely virtuous in all their actions in both World Wars; in fact, I think most would agree that neither side came out of WW1 with a great deal of credit. And yet, this is the strawman view of history that 9/11 tries to attack. And how does he do so? By a simply inversion; he attacks a fictitious Germany-bad, Allies-good position by asserting that everything Germany did was good and everything the Allies did was bad. In fact, his thinking is far more black-and-white than anyone else's in this thread; he's just defining black and white in the opposite sense to the one he likes to pretend everyone else uses.

Dave
I definately agree with you. The history of the first 50 years of the 20th Century is so interlocked with cause and effect momments, you can't remove one set of facts without severely corrupting sets of facts around it
MG1962 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 23rd June 2010, 08:30 AM   #159
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,727
Originally Posted by Saggy View Post
You see the problem is, though, that the Russians often didn't get the arms they were paying for...

Why not, pray tell. As a result of the purposeful actions of the bankers? Sounds very unlikely. Let's have the full story.
From memory, it was largely a mixture of rather unscrupulous business men making a fast buck (or pound), and shipments simply never being sent...or being delayed for lengthy periods (ie incompetence at the factory end).

Now, I might be misinterpreting your scenario (but I don't think I am), but I'm reading it that you think there was some cabal of business men and bankers who engineered the war, and when presented with a possible German victory then engineered the US entry into the war via the Lusitania (which you mentioned earlier). Since they were powerful enough to achieve that, then I would expect them to be powerful enough to ensure that important arms shipments were actually, you know, shipped.

If they couldn't achieve that, then I have to say the idea they could manipulate the war in any meaningful way really strikes me as unlikely in the extreme.
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 23rd June 2010, 08:44 AM   #160
Saggy
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,777
Originally Posted by Tolls View Post
From memory, it was largely a mixture of rather unscrupulous business men making a fast buck (or pound), and shipments simply never being sent...or being delayed for lengthy periods (ie incompetence at the factory end).

Now, I might be misinterpreting your scenario (but I don't think I am), but I'm reading it that you think there was some cabal of business men and bankers who engineered the war, and when presented with a possible German victory then engineered the US entry into the war via the Lusitania (which you mentioned earlier). Since they were powerful enough to achieve that, then I would expect them to be powerful enough to ensure that important arms shipments were actually, you know, shipped.

If they couldn't achieve that, then I have to say the idea they could manipulate the war in any meaningful way really strikes me as unlikely in the extreme.
it was largely a mixture of rather unscrupulous business men making a fast buck

Big surprise (not).

Now, I might be misinterpreting your scenario (but I don't think I am), but I'm reading it that you think there was some cabal of business men and bankers who engineered the war, and when presented with a possible German victory then engineered the US entry into the war via the Lusitania (which you mentioned earlier).

Mostly right. There are two aspects .... the British entry was 'engineered' by the ruling elite to preserve their world dominance and access to energy resources .... this is the subject of Engdahl's book and is obviously correct. Second, the US financed the war as Britain was broke ! at the start. When it became clear that the Germans might win, the banking interests engineered the US entry. This is covered in detail in Griffin's book. I think it is correct.

Since they were powerful enough to achieve that, then I would expect them to be powerful enough to ensure that important arms shipments were actually, you know, shipped.

You are making unwarranted and irrelevant assumptions just to advance some of kind paper thin argument.

If they couldn't achieve that, then I have to say the idea they could manipulate the war in any meaningful way really strikes me as unlikely in the extreme.

This is practically a non-sequitur and absurd. You should read Griffin's book to see the actual dynamics of what happened.

That is, if you are allowed to read anything not on the ADL approved reading list !

Last edited by Saggy; 23rd June 2010 at 08:49 AM.
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
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 09:36 AM.
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.