View Full Version : Recent History
So what is the reason for trying to change perception of history?
Bad grades at skool?
A nasty experience in the library?
Bad memory?
I don't get the motive, you can't actually change anything, it has already happened.
Perhaps if I seek enlightenment, all will become clear. :confused
Aaldtimer
24-May-10, 02:46
You're beginning to sound like your Avatar in her condition these days!:confused
What? you mean serene, in control, firm resolve, barking ? :lol:
You might find the answer in John Tosh's book "The Pursuit of History". There's a review of it here (http://www.helium.com/items/660325-book-reviews-the-pursuit-of-history-by-john-tosh-with-sean-lang)
So what is the reason for trying to change perception of history?
Bad grades at skool?
A nasty experience in the library?
Bad memory?
I don't get the motive, you can't actually change anything, it has already happened.
Perhaps if I seek enlightenment, all will become clear. :confused
History is constantly changing as new evidence comes to light.
Yesterday the Guardian published newly released documents which prove Israel tried to sell nuclear weapons to Apartheid South Africa in the 1970s.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/23/israel-south-africa-nuclear-documents
History changed.
I would not for a minute doubt your word Fred old chaps but how has this "evidence" changed history ??
Did either of the parties to this "agreement" actually use these nuclear weapons - now that would have changed history.:eek:
btw, I have never actually met a Guardian reader, have met a few peeps who cut it into little squares for hanging in the outhouse, but actually reading it, never.:confused
John Little
24-May-10, 10:55
So what is the reason for trying to change perception of history?
Bad grades at skool?
A nasty experience in the library?
Bad memory?
I don't get the motive, you can't actually change anything, it has already happened.
Perhaps if I seek enlightenment, all will become clear. :confused
Because if you control the version of history that people believe then it becomes possible to manipulate outcomes.
Consider; if you bring up a child to despise black people and think them inferior, then you get a society that wants and supports apartheid.
If a society thinks Jews are the rats under Germany’s floorboards, that they are a master-race and the Jews plot to keep them down, then you can preach genocide.
If you think people who go against your holy book then you can kill them nastily because they offend God.
The first thing Lenin did in education, post revolution was to order the rewriting of all History textbooks used in schools. Hitler did the same – and he was copying Mussolini.
If you control the perceptions that society has, of how things came to be as they are, then it becomes possible to some extent – even a great extent, to predict and control outcomes.
That is why mendacious polemics have to be opposed wherever they crop up on public forums – because they are not only poisonous to young minds, but can bring about violence, death and disaster if left unchecked.
Because if you control the version of history that people believe then it becomes possible to manipulate outcomes.
Consider; if you bring up a child to despise black people and think them inferior, then you get a society that wants and supports apartheid.
Imagine.
http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0999/9909019.html
The Drunken Duck
24-May-10, 11:38
Imagine.
http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0999/9909019.html
Yes .. Just Imagine.
http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/Offensive_Cartoons.asp
Yes .. Just Imagine.
http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/Offensive_Cartoons.asp
Try to see the difference between a cartoon for adults in a newspaper and the official version of history printed in textbooks and taught as fact to all schoolchildren.
You might find the answer in John Tosh's book "The Pursuit of History". There's a review of it here (http://www.helium.com/items/660325-book-reviews-the-pursuit-of-history-by-john-tosh-with-sean-lang)
Thanks Gronnuck, I will try to get hold of a copy of said tome. It doesn't fill me with confidence though, as the (joint) Author states his own bias from the outset :( and the review uses three words I have never seen before-bit like an LJ post :lol:
Thanks Gronnuck, I will try to get hold of a copy of said tome. It doesn't fill me with confidence though, as the (joint) Author states his own bias from the outset :( and the review uses three words I have never seen before-bit like an LJ post :lol:
Try Orwell's 1984 instead then.
So what is the reason for trying to change perception of history?
Bad grades at skool?
A nasty experience in the library?
Bad memory?
I don't get the motive, you can't actually change anything, it has already happened.
Perhaps if I seek enlightenment, all will become clear. :confused
like youre avatar you are a bit confused. You are confusing history with history books. one is what happened, the other is whast you was taught happened.
anyone searching for truth will question what others have taught them and think for themselves if it is true or even likely
like youre avatar you are a bit confused. You are confusing history with history books. one is what happened, the other is whast you was taught happened.
anyone searching for truth will question what others have taught them and think for themselves if it is true or even likely
Looks like you've got the last bit nailed [lol]
. whast you was taught happened.
Looking at this post Ducati's reference to bad grades at skool seems to have some relevance:lol:
The Drunken Duck
24-May-10, 14:18
Try to see the difference between a cartoon for adults in a newspaper and the official version of history printed in textbooks and taught as fact to all schoolchildren.
Yes, because children don't read newspapers or take any notice of what their parents or other adults say at all do they ??, ever been to an Arab country and seen their attitudes for yourself ?? .. of course you haven't. Which means you are just talking balls. As per usual.
Just in case you didn't notice, it was the Palestinian Media Group raising the issue.
Yes, because children don't read newspapers or take any notice of what their parents or other adults say at all do they ??, ever been to an Arab country and seen their attitudes for yourself ?? .. of course you haven't. Which means you are just talking balls. As per usual.
Just in case you didn't notice, it was the Palestinian Media Group raising the issue.
Look the thread is about why people question the official version of history as taught in schools.
If you are not capable of comprehending the difference between that and a newspaper cartoon then I do not think there is anything more I can add.
Look the thread is about why people question the official version of history as taught in schools.
If you are not capable of comprehending the difference between that and a newspaper cartoon then I do not think there is anything more I can add.
Actually I should have made it clearer. The thread is about why barking mad conspiracy theorists attemp to twist perception of history to suit there own agenda.
The thought comes to me that perhaps Fred & Pegasus are actually relatively sane and merely using the .org as practice and a sounding board for their entries in "The World's Greatest Liar Contest".
Don't know where it is being held this year, probably somewhere in the USA as normal :cool:
Actually I should have made it clearer. The thread is about why barking mad conspiracy theorists attemp to twist perception of history to suit there own agenda.
perception of history should be twisted to suit the thruth then we can learn from what happened do you agree?
perception of history should be twisted to suit the thruth then we can learn from what happened do you agree?
Absolutely! now we just need to agree on what is truth :eek:
Absolutely! now we just need to agree on what is truth :eek:
lets start with the eisenhower death camps then truth or fiction in youre opinion?
Actually I should have made it clearer. The thread is about why barking mad conspiracy theorists attemp to twist perception of history to suit there own agenda.
So you think that the conspiracy theorists are conspiring to alter history?
So you think that the conspiracy theorists are conspiring to alter history?
Perception of history, to alter history you need a time machine :lol:
Tubthumper
24-May-10, 17:13
I wonder what is the motivation for being a conspiracy obsessive? What do they hope to gain? What pushes their buttons?
They have no chance of changing the way things are. Indeed if it turns out that they are correct in their assumptions about Rothschildren, Jews, Reptiles and so on, there's a good chance they will be killed.
What posseses them to keep banging on and on and on....
I wonder what is the motivation for being a conspiracy obsessive? What do they hope to gain? What pushes their buttons?
They have no chance of changing the way things are. Indeed if it turns out that they are correct in their assumptions about Rothschildren, Jews, Reptiles and so on, there's a good chance they will be killed.
What posseses them to keep banging on and on and on....
That is the point of the thread-not learned anything yet though :(
every time I see my Avatar a feel the urg to sit up straight-anyone else?
Tubthumper
24-May-10, 17:25
every time I see my Avatar a feel the urg to sit up straight-anyone else?
Every time I see your avatar it feels like someone's running an angle grinder lightly across my undercarriage.
No offence but could you change it please?
Every time I see your avatar it feels like someone's running an angle grinder lightly across my undercarriage.
No offence but could you change it please?
oooh is that with a 10,000 RPM wire brush?
I'm trying, I keep getting invalid file coming up-I think it is THEM
The thought comes to me that perhaps Fred & Pegasus are actually relatively sane and merely using the .org as practice and a sounding board for their entries in "The World's Greatest Liar Contest".
Don't know where it is being held this year, probably somewhere in the USA as normal :cool:
Its held in the Lake District and I won it last year.
Tubthumper
24-May-10, 18:05
I'm trying, I keep getting invalid file coming up-I think it is THEM
An invalid file - is that what the tortured German POWs would use to cut through the bars and escape from their captivity? Well, according to the Pegaserse view of the photos that is...
Perception of history, to alter history you need a time machine :lol:
So who do you think runs this organisation of conspiracy theorists who are conspiring to change our perception of history?
John Little
24-May-10, 18:32
S'obvious ain't it!
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/
It's THEM!!
Tubthumper
24-May-10, 19:35
Its held in the Lake District and I won it last year.
Just noticed that one Baz. Congratulations, you kept that quiet!
:lol:
So who do you think runs this organisation of conspiracy theorists who are conspiring to change our perception of history?
I'm sure if you looked at your list of membership subscriptions you will find it :Razz
Just noticed that one Baz. Congratulations, you kept that quiet!
:lol:
I didnt really win it. I lied.
John Little
24-May-10, 20:33
LOL!!! He gotya there Tubs!!! :lol:
Tubthumper
24-May-10, 20:50
Blast! I TOLD you I was gormless!!
John Little
24-May-10, 21:59
Anyway, to return to the main thrust of the thread, some of what Pegasus and Fred are saying is strangely familiar.
I wonder if they've ever come across this site.
http://www.realityreviewed.com/
Now this really is a station along the District line!
Tubthumper
24-May-10, 22:00
Well, as a known schizo, we (tubthumper) can safely say that the teapot is on the other handlebar now!
Classic conspiracy obsessive behaviour: Getting beat? Unable to answer? Looking like a fruitcake? Well why not cowp the board and run away.
I'm just surprised that the 'B' word wasn't used!:cool:
John Little
24-May-10, 22:05
Oh but he was original though Tubs - very witty. Called me Friar Tuck,
I've never been called that before.....:roll:
Tubthumper
24-May-10, 22:08
Anyway, to return to the main thrust of the thread, some of what Pegasus and Fred are saying is strangely familiar.
I wonder if they've ever come across this site.
http://www.realityreviewed.com/
Now this really is a station along the District line!
Wow, fruitcake city!:eek: That's like the site of that nutjob republican from Aberdeen, but much worse! That's rabid!
Peganoid is looking for intelligent people to agree with him on the conduct of the German invasion of Russia. I wonder, is that intelligent as in 'can spell properly and offer a reasoned argument' or intelligent as in 'anyone who agrees with me'?
He seems to have it in for incomers as well. I wonder why?
John Little
24-May-10, 22:12
I can't imagine. Well I'm off to bed for now - I have no doubt whatsoever that there will be some sort of rejoinder - there always is.
So if Ducati doesn't throw his toys out of the pram too :lol: and close this thread we will see what the morrow may bring.
Goodnight.
Anyway, to return to the main thrust of the thread, some of what Pegasus and Fred are saying is strangely familiar.
I wonder if they've ever come across this site.
http://www.realityreviewed.com/
just watched the video on that site with all those Jews meeting with the president of Iran. really ineteresting. dont get this friendly view broadcast by the doom merchants. thanks for the reference
John Little
25-May-10, 08:46
Somehow I thought you would find it congenial.
Blast! I TOLD you I was gormless!!
see tubthumper we agree on something at last
Tubthumper
25-May-10, 16:50
see tubthumper we agree on something at last
Pegasus, please! :roll: You haven't earned the right to be humorous until you stop pretending you can't type properly.
John Little
25-May-10, 17:46
Ah - but Fred has! Did you see his joke?
He made me laugh!
Anyway, to return to the main thrust of the thread, some of what Pegasus and Fred are saying is strangely familiar.
I wonder if they've ever come across this site.
http://www.realityreviewed.com/
Little john i have been searching today and quite a few sites have pieces about the eisenhower death campes that few people seem to have heard of at school.
This site you recommended as well has loads of material an da video dealing with the eisenhower death camps. did you see it there? its not lableed and you have top lcick on a picture.
The main thrust of the thread is aboyt discobering truth rather than blindly accepting what we are each and every one of us taught at the school
i suppose t5hat there were horribly things going on on each side and that the wiinning side gets to write the history books that our kuds learn from
we should always try top figure out recent history since otherewise we cannot learn from past mistakes?
Little john i have been searching today and quite a few sites have pieces about the eisenhower death campes that few people seem to have heard of at school.
This site you recommended as well has loads of material an da video dealing with the eisenhower death camps. did you see it there? its not lableed and you have top lcick on a picture.
The main thrust of the thread is aboyt discobering truth rather than blindly accepting what we are each and every one of us taught at the school
i suppose t5hat there were horribly things going on on each side and that the wiinning side gets to write the history books that our kuds learn from
we should always try top figure out recent history since otherewise we cannot learn from past mistakes?
You're wasting your time pegasus, they live in a world of "us" and "them" where everything "they" do is bad and everything "we" do is good, or at least excusable. The "them" may change from Nazi to Communist to Muslim but its always the same, they can do no right and we can do no wrong.
You can point out the atrocities committed by Nazis because then they have an excuse to hate the Nazis, they don't realise that by hating the Nazis they become the Nazis. But they don't know how to acknowledge the attrocities committed by "us" without hating themselves, so our atrocities have to be justified.
Boozeburglar
27-May-10, 01:36
You cannot help but generalise.
We do not automatically become like the things we hate.
Hate can be a liberating thing.
You cannot help but generalise.
We do not automatically become like the things we hate.
Hate can be a liberating thing.
"Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one."
Friedrich Nietzsche
Boozeburglar
27-May-10, 02:12
"One does not hate as long as one has a low esteem of someone, but only when one esteems him as an equal or a superior." Nietzsche
Metalattakk
27-May-10, 02:26
Little john i have been searching today and quite a few sites have pieces about the eisenhower death campes that few people seem to have heard of at school.
This site you recommended as well has loads of material an da video dealing with the eisenhower death camps. did you see it there? its not lableed and you have top lcick on a picture.
The main thrust of the thread is aboyt discobering truth rather than blindly accepting what we are each and every one of us taught at the school
i suppose t5hat there were horribly things going on on each side and that the wiinning side gets to write the history books that our kuds learn from
we should always try top figure out recent history since otherewise we cannot learn from past mistakes?
Pegasus, please! :roll: You haven't earned the right to be humorous until you stop pretending you can't type properly.
You're right. He's trying far too hard. Cracks appearing in Pegro's armour?
Boozeburglar
27-May-10, 02:36
I think he is just following the advice that the lizards only eat the educated.
Metalattakk
27-May-10, 03:03
I think he is just following the advice that the lizards only eat the educated.
Hey, just 'cause they're out to get him doesn't mean he can't be deluded.
John Little
27-May-10, 06:42
Little john i have been searching today and quite a few sites have pieces about the eisenhower death campes that few people seem to have heard of at school.
This site you recommended as well has loads of material an da video dealing with the eisenhower death camps. did you see it there? its not lableed and you have top lcick on a picture.
The main thrust of the thread is aboyt discobering truth rather than blindly accepting what we are each and every one of us taught at the school
i suppose t5hat there were horribly things going on on each side and that the wiinning side gets to write the history books that our kuds learn from
we should always try top figure out recent history since otherewise we cannot learn from past mistakes?
I actually answered this on a thread called 'Monstrous' which somebody closed down. This was my answer.
"And one more thing.
As the Wehrmacht retreated they stripped Holland, Belgium and Northern France of food. Britain was on tight rationing and U boats were sinking every ship they could trying to make it over the Atlantic.
As the Allied forces advanced they found that they had to assume responsibility for feeding millions who had no food, providing heat and light for the same, dealing with millions of displaced people and somehow beating the Nazis. In remoter parts of Holland they had to parachute scarce food to the civilian population.
The British people went short during the winter of 1944-45 or we could not have done this.
You know something - if the Wehrmacht prisoners had a hard time of it after they surrendered - I couldn't give a dam.
(Oh- and that comes from 'Tinker's dam, deriving from the small coin, usually a halfpenny that people gave to the poor in late 18th century and early 19th century England and nothing to do with 'damn'.) "
I have not changed my mind.
As to Dr Neville Jone's site- I would not know where to begin. It makes as much sense to me as does David Ickes's site.
, which you may be familiar with-
http://www.davidicke.com/
Words fail.
they live in a world of "us" and "them" where everything "they" do is bad and everything "we" do is good, or at least excusable. The "them" may change from Nazi to Communist to Muslim but its always the same, they can do no right and we can do no wrong.
Interesting Fred and on the whole pretty true. You however take completely the opposite view, so who is right? :confused
John Little
27-May-10, 08:54
The Wehrmacht were interned I suspect because of fear of werewolves. That the werewolves did not manifest themselves in their Obersalzburg stronghold is not really relevant - the Allies expected them and thought it would be a bitter fight.
I expect that was why Eisenhower would not be very happy with Patton. But he still made him military governor of Germany.
Patton died of a broken neck through whiplash in a car accident - he had no seatbelt.
I actually answered this on a thread called 'Monstrous' which somebody closed down. This was my answer.
"And one more thing.
As the Wehrmacht retreated they stripped Holland, Belgium and Northern France of food. Britain was on tight rationing and U boats were sinking every ship they could trying to make it over the Atlantic.
As the Allied forces advanced they found that they had to assume responsibility for feeding millions who had no food, providing heat and light for the same, dealing with millions of displaced people and somehow beating the Nazis. In remoter parts of Holland they had to parachute scarce food to the civilian population.
The British people went short during the winter of 1944-45 or we could not have done this.
You know something - if the Wehrmacht prisoners had a hard time of it after they surrendered - I couldn't give a dam.
(Oh- and that comes from 'Tinker's dam, deriving from the small coin, usually a halfpenny that people gave to the poor in late 18th century and early 19th century England and nothing to do with 'damn'.) "
I have not changed my mind.
As to Dr Neville Jone's site- I would not know where to begin. It makes as much sense to me as does David Ickes's site.
, which you may be familiar with-
http://www.davidicke.com/
Words fail.
You do not understand? I find that hard to believe.
When you have just made excuses for the inhumane treatment of German prisoners, said you don't care if they starved, don't care if they died of exposure, don't care if they died of infectious diseases because they deserved it, they were the enemy, they were not human.
Now imagine yourself a German in WWII and apply your same logic to the Jewish population of Europe as you applied to the Germans in the American concentration camps.
I had a friend who spent the end of the war in a German POW camp after he flew a glider into Arnhem. The Germans could have used the same arguments as you, blamed him for the destruction of the German cities, blamed him for the chronic food shortages in Germany, decided he didn't deserve to eat, didn't deserve to live because he was British therefore responsible for the plight of the German people.
There was no bubble in time in mid 20th century Germany when German people became monsters, they were ordinary people like people in Britain today. There was no change of consciousness, change in circumstances, change in reasoning which lead to the Holocaust, the conditions are the same today and I see them in your posts.
When you have just made excuses for the inhumane treatment of German prisoners, said you don't care if they starved, don't care if they died of exposure, don't care if they died of infectious diseases because they deserved it, they were the enemy, they were not human..
The German PoW's were never starved to the best on my knowledge, I lived next to a PoW Camp from 1946 to 1949, when I say lived I mean 100 yards away. I was the only child in a two mile area and was adopted by the Prisoners, I was in that camp at every opportunity, not all Prisoners of War were Nazis. My Father lived in a farm cottage with no electricity, no running water in the house, no toilet, the Prisoners lived in heated huts, electricity, showers and toilets that flushed and ate better than we did
John Little
27-May-10, 10:02
My great uncle is 92 - he took part in 37 combat drops during world war two and was a founder member of the SAS. He fought at Cassino where his two best mates were blown apart near him by a shell. He was also at Arnhem.
Today is the 70th anniversary of the start of the Dunkirk evacuations. In 1940 my great uncle was blown across a road and knocked unconscious against a tree. He had good mates who carried him to the beach.
He was evacuated as the rearguard held the Germans back.
When the fighting was over the SS massacred British prisoners outside Calais.
Their atrocities are uncountable. Look up Lidice, Oradour sur Glane. Look up what the SS did to Kiev Dynamo football team when a team of super-race could not beat them.
The war against Russia they dubbed the great racial war. Hundreds of thousands of Russian prisoners of war died.
You are working yourself into a fine ersatz fury over the fate of German prisoners in 1945. There must be quite a rush of self-righteous endorphins to your head right now.
Well whack yourself out on it Fred- beat your breast, pour ashes on your head and tear out your beard if you wish.
I could not give a flying fig about this matter.
As they sowed, so they reaped.
My great uncle is 92 - he took part in 37 combat drops during world war two and was a founder member of the SAS. He fought at Cassino where his two best mates were blown apart near him by a shell. He was also at Arnhem.
Today is the 70th anniversary of the start of the Dunkirk evacuations. In 1940 my great uncle was blown across a road and knocked unconscious against a tree. He had good mates who carried him to the beach.
He was evacuated as the rearguard held the Germans back.
When the fighting was over the SS massacred British prisoners outside Calais.
Their atrocities are uncountable. Look up Lidice, Oradour sur Glane. Look up what the SS did to Kiev Dynamo football team when a team of super-race could not beat them.
The war against Russia they dubbed the great racial war. Hundreds of thousands of Russian prisoners of war died.
You are working yourself into a fine ersatz fury over the fate of German prisoners in 1945. There must be quite a rush of self-righteous endorphins to your head right now.
Well whack yourself out on it Fred- beat your breast, pour ashes on your head and tear out your beard if you wish.
I could not give a flying fig about this matter.
As they sowed, so they reaped.
Those German prisoners were human beings, same as me.
If, like you, I were to see them as anything less I would be doing exactly what the Nazis did to the Jews.
So what about the million Iraqis who died when the British government, knowing the consequences, denied them supplies for their water treatment plants. What about over half a million Iraqi children? As we sow so should we reap? Would a Muslim have the right to blame us for their deaths, declare us inhuman and decide we didn't deserve to live?
John Little
27-May-10, 10:24
Those German prisoners were human beings, same as me.
If, like you, I were to see them as anything less I would be doing exactly what the Nazis did to the Jews.
So what about the million Iraqis who died when the British government, knowing the consequences, denied them supplies for their water treatment plants. What about over half a million Iraqi children? As we sow so should we reap? Would a Muslim have the right to blame us for their deaths, declare us inhuman and decide we didn't deserve to live?
Fred - as I recall, we have been here before and it is getting rather like a dog chasing its tale. I reiterate that the responsibility for this has something to do with a guy called Saddam Hussein......
And Fred - Muslims kill Muslims every day. Lots of them.
Fred - as I recall, we have been here before and it is getting rather like a dog chasing its tale. I reiterate that the responsibility for this has something to do with a guy called Saddam Hussein......
And Fred - Muslims kill Muslims every day. Lots of them.
Hear Hear John, Fred never acknowledges Saddam Husseins crimes against his own Iraqi people
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/internationalhumanrights/p/saddam_hussein.htm
Fred - as I recall, we have been here before and it is getting rather like a dog chasing its tale. I reiterate that the responsibility for this has something to do with a guy called Saddam Hussein......
And Fred - Muslims kill Muslims every day. Lots of them.
So are you claiming that the Holocaust was the fault of the Jews? That they had only themselves to blame? Their leader did declare them the enemies of Germany so what was Hitler supposed to do? How could he do anything but round up the German Jews?
Christian killed Christian in WWII, those Germans starved to death in the American concentration camps were no doubt Christian, so if Christian can kill Christian that gives Muslim the right to kill Christian?
If you can justify our murdering over a million Iraqis with our sanctions how come you cant understand how the Nazis could justify murdering Jews?
The Drunken Duck
27-May-10, 10:58
Fred - as I recall, we have been here before and it is getting rather like a dog chasing its tale. I reiterate that the responsibility for this has something to do with a guy called Saddam Hussein......
And Fred - Muslims kill Muslims every day. Lots of them.
Hear Hear.
A few weeks back over 100 Iraqi's were killed in one day by other Iraqi's, a few days after that over 20 were again killed by other Iraqi's. Never mentioned by some, if they had been killed in airstrike you can bet it would have been !!, They never mention the rape, murder, looting and environmental vandalism of Kuwait by their beloved angelic Iraqi's. Or the sadistic torture of our POW's in 1991 while we fed watered and returned their POW's. Or the RMP's beaten to death and robbed by Iraqi civilians who later paraded around in their posessions. Yet when a dozen or so Afghans are killed by mistake in an airstrike due to bad intel, the Outrage Bus is fired up by these self proclaimed experts and driven at high speed, fuelled by their ill informed, random and laughingly malicious drivel. The silence at the deaths of over 100 Iraqi's were deafening, but it should come as no surprise. While they parade themselves around as some kind of all knowing moral conscious what they REALLY care about are just using issues and events they have no perception or knowledge of to have a dig at their own society and country at every opportunity. It makes them feel big and clever in what I would bet are lonely, sad and unfulfilled lives. They are not fussy, any such stick will do such is the depth of loathing they have for a society they criticise at every turn yet continue to live in. They just talk, talk and talk some more but don't actually DO anything. If they had an ounce of the integrity or character they ponce about lecturing others on they would pack their bags, sod off and allow the oxygen on these lands to be used by people who are not walking talking wastes of it.
Better yet we deport them and drop them in Iraq or Afghanistan for a reality check.
Interesting Fred and on the whole pretty true. You however take completely the opposite view, so who is right? :confused
But I don't take the opposite view at all.
I say both were wrong, both the German persecution of Jews and the American persecution of Germans, I say they were one and the same thing. When I see photos of Abu Ghraib I see Auswitch.
It's others who take opposite views, I view an atrocity as an atrocity as who committed it. I see persecution as persecution be it German persecution of Jews, American persecution of Germans, our persecution of Muslims or even when someone on a forum is persecuted for the beliefs of his father.
northener
27-May-10, 11:15
I'd like to publicy apologise for all the bad things that happened in WW2.
It was wrong of people sixty years ago to allow many of these things to happen. Luckily, sixty years later, we have a small number of people who are willing to highlight the mistakes of two generations ago and attach blame.
How can we possibly move on until these diligent souls have highlighted every single incident and pointed the finger? Their cleansing of our addled minds and their ability to shine a torch of truth into the darkness must be a great comfort for those of us too ignorant and lazy to understand the 'truth'.
Yet every time I talk to anyone who has been directly involved in any conflict, they all appear to believe that nothing will be gained by constantly raking over violent episodes in C20th history - regardless of who did what to whom. The only people who appear unwilling to do this are those who choose to use the past as a weapon to enable them to peddle their own version of the 'truth' and use this 'truth' for their own political or religious ends.
(edit):
I don't include ongoing armed conflicts in my above statement. I'm referring to WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam etc.
That is not strictly true Fred. On many previous threads you have subjected the British and USA and Israel to extreme criticism for their behaviour in a variety of circumstances. When offered evidence of outragous behavior from "the other side" you have either ignored it, or seek to justify in the light of historical world events.
Essentially, everything 'we' do is wrong, everything 'they' do is right or can be justified.
That is not strictly true Fred. On many previous threads you have subjected the British and USA and Isreal to extreme criticism for their behaviour in a variety of circumstances. When offered evidence of outragous behavior from "the other side" you have either ignored it, or seek to justify in the light of historical world events.
Essentially, everything 'we' do is wrong, everything 'they' do is right or can be justified.
Or could it be you just don't understand how to think outside "us" and "them". That you automatically assume that anyone who criticises "us" must be one of "them".
Or could it be you just don't understand how to think outside "us" and "them". That you automatically assume that anyone who criticises "us" must be one of "them".
I don't assume, but when you offer incontrovertible evidence at every turn.....
I don't assume, but when you offer incontrovertible evidence at every turn.....
Evidence? Post your evidence.
The biggest thing that i have learnt after compleating my history degree is that the bare facts count for nothing. Everyone has somesort of feeling or opinion and biasis about everything and when eveidence or 'sources' are dissused, contemplated and interpretated everyone comes up with varying conclusions. after reading countless volumes regarding the highland clearances and jacobite rebellions the truth is very hard to come across. one thing to remember is that everyone who writes and publishes history books, articles and data does so because they already have the conclusion in mind.
This make life much harder for the reader, for example 6 differing history books on the subject of the highland clearances give no thought to the owners of the land, similpy focusing upon the people and communities removed. this does not give the full picture and leaves the other side of the 'story' untold. which is not what history is about!
As such history is then what ever anyone wants it to be, but seldom ever the true facts.
God I need a life!!!
Evidence? Post your evidence.
Well I am certainly not going to rake through a gerzillion of your posts!
But lets just have an example:
Tell us how you feel about a number of, let's call them Islamic Extremists, hijacking a number of commercial airliners and crashing them (complete with passengers and crew) into two buildings at the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon Building killing many thousands of people.
John Little
27-May-10, 12:17
So are you claiming that the Holocaust was the fault of the Jews? That they had only themselves to blame? Their leader did declare them the enemies of Germany so what was Hitler supposed to do? How could he do anything but round up the German Jews?
Christian killed Christian in WWII, those Germans starved to death in the American concentration camps were no doubt Christian, so if Christian can kill Christian that gives Muslim the right to kill Christian?
If you can justify our murdering over a million Iraqis with our sanctions how come you cant understand how the Nazis could justify murdering Jews?
Scuse me? did I justify that? I missed that bit
And I don't justify killing Jews - or even want to.
Do you?
The biggest thing that i have learnt after compleating my history degree is that the bare facts count for nothing. Everyone has somesort of feeling or opinion and biasis about everything and when eveidence or 'sources' are dissused, contemplated and interpretated everyone comes up with varying conclusions. after reading countless volumes regarding the highland clearances and jacobite rebellions the truth is very hard to come across. one thing to remember is that everyone who writes and publishes history books, articles and data does so because they already have the conclusion in mind.
This make life much harder for the reader, for example 6 differing history books on the subject of the highland clearances give no thought to the owners of the land, similpy focusing upon the people and communities removed. this does not give the full picture and leaves the other side of the 'story' untold. which is not what history is about!
As such history is then what ever anyone wants it to be, but seldom ever the true facts.
God I need a life!!!
And a spell checker :lol:
John Little
27-May-10, 12:23
But I don't take the opposite view at all.
I say both were wrong, both the German persecution of Jews and the American persecution of Germans, I say they were one and the same thing. When I see photos of Abu Ghraib I see Auswitch.
It's others who take opposite views, I view an atrocity as an atrocity as who committed it. I see persecution as persecution be it German persecution of Jews, American persecution of Germans, our persecution of Muslims or even when someone on a forum is persecuted for the beliefs of his father.
You'd better be careful Fred. There are people out there who think that Auschwitz, the 6 million dead, the persecution of the Jews etc is all a big conspiracy made up by Zionists to justify what crimes they commit. There might even be some of them on this board.
Evidence? Post your evidence.
For me the evidence is in the perception your posts project and how they make me feel and understand. For example If your point of view about the history of the Second World war would influence anyone to think that maybe Hitler was justified in being bad because we were bad then your out of order.Your saviour Churchill (whether you acknowledge it or not) called the nazis a stain on Europe and I would suggest anyone who paints another picture using individual psycholgy and the freedom we have to express it, as a weapon, is standing outside history, almost Godlike, judging and condemning at every turn. If your trying to change the Zietgeist of the 1930/40s from your armchair in the early 21 century then you can expect and deserve all the crap you get thrown at you whether your right or wrong and I would argue you were well wrong and just a little right.
The biggest thing that i have learnt after compleating my history degree is that the bare facts count for nothing. As such history is then what ever anyone wants it to be, but seldom ever the true facts.
Sometimes bare facts are necessary to be acknowledged hundreds of years in the future when the Nazi stain on Europe has been long forgotten and a thousand freds have manipulated the Zeitgiest of the 1930s and 40s from the safety of their armchair in their front rooms. The Nazis were bad and wrong and we were bad and right just to confirm freds theory of them and us mentality and those are bare facts I hope never gets lost.
When I see photos of Abu Ghraib I see Auswitch.
There is absolutely no way you can compare the two. IMO.
You're wasting your time pegasus, they live in a world of "us" and "them" where everything "they" do is bad and everything "we" do is good, or at least excusable. The "them" may change from Nazi to Communist to Muslim but its always the same, they can do no right and we can do no wrong.
You can point out the atrocities committed by Nazis because then they have an excuse to hate the Nazis, they don't realise that by hating the Nazis they become the Nazis. But they don't know how to acknowledge the attrocities committed by "us" without hating themselves, so our atrocities have to be justified.
youre right fred. But the clique on here is more than just blind they seem out to deceive by stifling debate. this is wilful.
iom beginnogn to see that nazi = communist = capatalist = ? and that the actions of hitler, eisenhower, stalin and churchill were all designed to kill as many as possible (60 millioj wasnt it in ww2?). havnt figured out fdr yet.
I think that ww2 was fought to plan and that Hitlers strange behavior all over russian, the eastern desert and dunkirk at least if not others was to kill as many of his own soldiers as possivle. stalin did the same, so did churchill. and so did eisenhower who was wrongly described as an idiot.
they were all working to plan and who made billions out of it all? (shh the clique wont like this)
I actually answered this on a thread called 'Monstrous' which somebody closed down. This was my answer.
"And one more thing.
As the Wehrmacht retreated they stripped Holland, Belgium and Northern France of food. Britain was on tight rationing and U boats were sinking every ship they could trying to make it over the Atlantic.
As the Allied forces advanced they found that they had to assume responsibility for feeding millions who had no food, providing heat and light for the same, dealing with millions of displaced people and somehow beating the Nazis. In remoter parts of Holland they had to parachute scarce food to the civilian population.
The British people went short during the winter of 1944-45 or we could not have done this.
You know something - if the Wehrmacht prisoners had a hard time of it after they surrendered - I couldn't give a dam.
(Oh- and that comes from 'Tinker's dam, deriving from the small coin, usually a halfpenny that people gave to the poor in late 18th century and early 19th century England and nothing to do with 'damn'.) "
I have not changed my mind.
As to Dr Neville Jone's site- I would not know where to begin. It makes as much sense to me as does David Ickes's site.
, which you may be familiar with-
http://www.davidicke.com/
Words fail.
i am familiar with dr jones site now thanks and i hgave been familiar with mr ickes site for quite some time. both have some interesting stuff.
btw i dont agree with ickes new book "the lion sleeps no more" since he talks of aliens on the moon
neither of them can be considered dangerous tho i accept that they donot promoytethe world accordiong to Little john and Tubthiumper.
northener
27-May-10, 17:04
youre right fred. But the clique on here is more than just blind they seem out to deceive by stifling debate. this is wilful.
iom beginnogn to see that nazi = communist = capatalist = ? and that the actions of hitler, eisenhower, stalin and churchill were all designed to kill as many as possible (60 millioj wasnt it in ww2?). havnt figured out fdr yet.
I think that ww2 was fought to plan and that Hitlers strange behavior all over russian, the eastern desert and dunkirk at least if not others was to kill as many of his own soldiers as possivle. stalin did the same, so did churchill. and so did eisenhower who was wrongly described as an idiot.
they were all working to plan and who made billions out of it all? (shh the clique wont like this)
May I refer the honourable gentleman to my post upon the 'Clique' thread?
May I refer the honourable gentleman to my post upon the 'Clique' thread?
good post and i agree with most of it but in my short time here i have witnessed for myself very personal attacks on fred by the same group of posters that attack me for asking questions. then theres Andfield who follows Anfield around like some demented stalked. then theres talk of past memebers who are both themselves and there father (were they also born of a virgin and walk on water?) - all by the same little bunch.
that to me says clique
good post and i agree with most of it but in my short time here i have witnessed for myself very personal attacks on fred by the same group of posters that attack me for asking questions. then theres Andfield who follows Anfield around like some demented stalked. then theres talk of past memebers who are both themselves and there father (were they also born of a virgin and walk on water?) - all by the same little bunch.
that to me says clique
Ahh welcome to the Org :eek:
It seems to me that there’s an endless flame war going on. Its a big team get the small team sort of thing but neither is very big. (in any thing but vociferous comment) It stays mainly on the general boards but threads started by either team or any threads that either team join soon become derailed by off topic posts and personal attacks/ defences. No one will give any ground and they drag along endlessly like blindfolded boxers competing for some sort of endurance prize. Around this dull trollish spectacle good posters try to continue a sensible conversation whilst manoeuvring around the entrenched troll army’s and avoiding the flames of either fire.
I thought this sort of thing was against the rules., cross posting, personal attacks, derailing threads, perusing personal flame wars.......still who cares....
Welcome to the org....
One day all this will be deleted and a coherent thread will be erected from the rubble.
Its history will be written anew!!!
Its history will be written anew!!!
Not again! :eek:
Hear Hear John, Fred never acknowledges Saddam Husseins crimes against his own Iraqi people
What about churchils crimes against his own people? he is suposed to be the "greatest" briton of all time.it looks like his crimes were the planned systematic, widespred extermination of whites. The inbred bully hated the working class witha vengance.
Not many will acknoledge the truth about the real Churchill—the Churchill that few know—is that he was “a man of the state: of the welfare state and of the warfare state” in Professor Ralph Raico’s turn-of-phrase.
"The truth about Winston Churchill is that he was a menace to liberty, and a disaster for Britain, for Europe, for the United States of America, and for Western Civilization itself."
A lot of history is myth!
John Little
27-May-10, 18:32
Okay Dafi - point taken. I abstain.
Over to you. ;)
I was just having a say John, dont pass it to me....lol... i abstain as well.
The voice of one man wont make a difference here. I see little point in getting in to one of these lame back and forward threads.
John Little
27-May-10, 20:06
Fine Dafi - I wisnae going to reply anyway. Ye're right - it ain't worth it.
You put things into perspective.
What about churchils crimes against his own people? he is suposed to be the "greatest" briton of all time.it looks like his crimes were the planned systematic, widespred extermination of whites. The inbred bully hated the working class witha vengance.
Not many will acknoledge the truth about the real Churchill—the Churchill that few know—is that he was “a man of the state: of the welfare state and of the warfare state” in Professor Ralph Raico’s turn-of-phrase.
"The truth about Winston Churchill is that he was a menace to liberty, and a disaster for Britain, for Europe, for the United States of America, and for Western Civilization itself."
A lot of history is myth!
You seem to be in the minority pegasus, 447,423 people have a different opinion to you
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/2509465.stm
You seem to be in the minority pegasus, 447,423 people have a different opinion to you
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/2509465.stm
447,000 ?
Now that is a big clicky :)
Tubthumper
27-May-10, 20:27
I'd say most people in the UK would disagree. History might be bunk, but it's what makes us what we are, for better or worse.
I've asked before; what is it these people want? They offer nothing, they have no answers, they revel in conflict (provided it's the low risk kind, e.g. online with no actual human interaction).
Something else about them; they never post about their own experience, or about their own lives. Never. It's all second hand and it's never happy or positive.
Why is that? Why do they only ever bring their despair and gloom?
John Little
27-May-10, 20:29
Fregasus wants to enlighten you Tubs - to make you see the truth. It is a holy mission.
For me the evidence is in the perception your posts project and how they make me feel and understand. For example If your point of view about the history of the Second World war would influence anyone to think that maybe Hitler was justified in being bad because we were bad then your out of order.Your saviour Churchill (whether you acknowledge it or not) called the nazis a stain on Europe and I would suggest anyone who paints another picture using individual psycholgy and the freedom we have to express it, as a weapon, is standing outside history, almost Godlike, judging and condemning at every turn. If your trying to change the Zietgeist of the 1930/40s from your armchair in the early 21 century then you can expect and deserve all the crap you get thrown at you whether your right or wrong and I would argue you were well wrong and just a little right.
But Churchill was a racist, a white supremacist. When he was Under-Secretary for the Colonies he played a vital role in establishing the apartheid system in South Africa. He campaigned for a system of Afrikaner self rule which excluded the Black African from voting, and he got it with the Union of South Africa Act.
He was also a eugenicist. In 1910 when he was Home Secretary he tried to introduce forced sterilisation. He circulated pro eugenics literature among members of the government advocating the forced sterilisation of "criminals, paupers and unemployables, prostitutes and ne'er do wells".
How can you see such a man as a hero?
Well I am certainly not going to rake through a gerzillion of your posts!
Then you have no evidence.
The Drunken Duck
27-May-10, 20:36
But Churchill was a racist, a white supremacist. When he was Under-Secretary for the Colonies he played a vital role in establishing the apartheid system in South Africa. He campaigned for a system of Afrikaner self rule which excluded the Black African from voting, and he got it with the Union of South Africa Act.
He was also a eugenicist. In 1910 when he was Home Secretary he tried to introduce forced sterilisation. He circulated pro eugenics literature among members of the government advocating the forced sterilisation of "criminals, paupers and unemployables, prostitutes and ne'er do wells".
How can you see such a man as a hero?
Nobody's Perfect.
Scuse me? did I justify that? I missed that bit
Yes, first you said it was Saddam Hussein's fault when I'm pretty sure he wasn't part of the British government which imposed sanctions. Then you implied that because Muslims kill Muslims we should be allowed to.
And I don't justify killing Jews - or even want to.
Well you use the exact same logic as those who did.
John Little
27-May-10, 20:42
Well - like Duck said, nobody's perfect.
I don't feel like arguing. Dafi's right.
You'd better be careful Fred. There are people out there who think that Auschwitz, the 6 million dead, the persecution of the Jews etc is all a big conspiracy made up by Zionists to justify what crimes they commit. There might even be some of them on this board.
Yes, there are people trying to pretend we didn't kill half a million Iraqi children as well.
There is absolutely no way you can compare the two. IMO.
You mean one was done by "us" and the other was done by "them"?
northener
27-May-10, 20:52
But Churchill was a racist, a white supremacist. When he was Under-Secretary for the Colonies he played a vital role in establishing the apartheid system in South Africa. He campaigned for a system of Afrikaner self rule which excluded the Black African from voting, and he got it with the Union of South Africa Act.
He was also a eugenicist. In 1910 when he was Home Secretary he tried to introduce forced sterilisation. He circulated pro eugenics literature among members of the government advocating the forced sterilisation of "criminals, paupers and unemployables, prostitutes and ne'er do wells".
How can you see such a man as a hero?
And the same could be said of a lot of people from a different era, Fred.
You're doing a fine job of demonstrating exactly what I meant about people looking back into history and using modern attitudes and perceptions to criticise someone from the safe distance of a few decades and an understanding of 'how things could have been better'.
This is the same man who was vociferous in his opposition to Germanys' National Socialist movement when most of Britains' elite and politicians were more than happy to pretend everything was going to pan out and that appeasement was a way forward. How do you square that one?
Life isn't black and white, Fred. Life is normally a shitty blend of colours.
John Little
27-May-10, 20:54
Petrol on the flames N. Rubber balls bounce - always.
Tubthumper
27-May-10, 20:57
That's another thing. I can't figure out who they're against.
They bemoan the fate of German POWs and vilify the person generally credited with pulling our nation from being subsumed by the Nazis. What is that about?
Always with the blame, always with the twisting, always with the second-hand outrage.
I ask again - what is it they want? Or who is it they wish annhialated? Us??
And the same could be said of a lot of people from a different era, Fred.
You're doing a fine job of demonstrating exactly what I meant about people looking back into history and using modern attitudes and perceptions to criticise someone from the safe distance of a few decades and an understanding of 'how things could have been better'.
This is the same man who was vociferous in his opposition to Germanys' National Socialist movement when most of Britains' elite and politicians were more than happy to pretend everything was going to pan out and that appeasement was a way forward. How do you square that one?
Life isn't black and white, Fred. Life is normally a shitty blend of colours.
Well now this belief that Churchill opposed appeasement comes largely from a book called "The Gathering Storm", the first volume of a set of works called "The Second World War" written by Winston Churchill.
If you examine parliamentary records from the thirties Churchill rarely opposed the government, he was in favour of appeasing Mussolini over Abyssinia and was sympathetic to Franco.
John Little
27-May-10, 21:10
Well now this belief that Churchill opposed appeasement comes largely from a book called "The Gathering Storm", the first volume of a set of works called "The Second World War" written by Winston Churchill.
If you examine parliamentary records from the thirties Churchill rarely opposed the government, he was in favour of appeasing Mussolini over Abyssinia and was sympathetic to Franco.
Have you done that Fred???
I'm impressed.
[QUOTE=weegie;713086]The biggest thing that i have learnt after compleating my history degree is that the bare facts count for nothing. Everyone has somesort of feeling or opinion and biasis about everything and when eveidence or 'sources' are dissused, contemplated and interpretated everyone comes up with varying conclusions. after reading countless volumes regarding the highland clearances and jacobite rebellions the truth is very hard to come across. one thing to remember is that everyone who writes and publishes history books, articles and data does so because they already have the conclusion in mind.
This make life much harder for the reader, for example 6 differing history books on the subject of the highland clearances give no thought to the owners of the land, similpy focusing upon the people and communities removed. this does not give the full picture and leaves the other side of the 'story' untold. which is not what history is about!
As such history is then what ever anyone wants it to be, but seldom ever the true facts.
Weedgie, you sound exhausted. I can imagine why. This astonishing thread continues like a Louisiana oil slick slithering under your door. You need a rest. Grab a bottle of port from the University cellar and collapse into a comfortable arm-chair. Look, there's Fred scrabbling desperately away on reply no. 2003 to his latest discovery of the weekend in 1920 when CHurchill and Hitler broke the bank at Monte Carlo and waltzed away all night long under a gibbous moon.
Don't laugh - this is alternate history and quite the thing up at Oxbridge.
But it does illustrate an important point.
History is a matter of judgement. Of well-informed and rational judgement. Publish and put it in the hands of the reading public. They will tell you if it is right or wrong - publish or perish!
I regret to say, Fred, that your judgement is hopeless. As off course as a drunken albatross.!
If you can convince anyone with the farrago of nonsense displayed by you on this web site, dumped on the poor Caithness folk who seem to treat you with a lot of kindness, more perhaps than you deserve, then I would happily grab one of those armchairs, light up a Cuban cigar and play my Jelly Roll Morton records all night long.
But that is too much to hope for.
northener
27-May-10, 21:23
Well now this belief that Churchill opposed appeasement comes largely from a book called "The Gathering Storm", the first volume of a set of works called "The Second World War" written by Winston Churchill.
If you examine parliamentary records from the thirties Churchill rarely opposed the government, he was in favour of appeasing Mussolini over Abyssinia and was sympathetic to Franco.
And in 1938 Churchills comments regarding the threatened partition of Czechoslovakia were?
Then you have no evidence.
Ah the ignoring strategy again- loverly.
What about these 'ere Islamic Extremists?
John Little
27-May-10, 21:47
Yes, first you said it was Saddam Hussein's fault when I'm pretty sure he wasn't part of the British government which imposed sanctions. Then you implied that because Muslims kill Muslims we should be allowed to.
Well you use the exact same logic as those who did.
OKay Fred - let's dance.
I did not say Saddam Hussein was part of the British government. I said he was to blame for the sanctions. We have argued about this before and my point was a simple one. If he had chosen not to ignore the sufferings of his own people and complied with what the UN was asking, then the sanctions would not have been applied.
But he stalled on weapons inspections and continued his belligerence towards the Kurds in the north and the Shias in the south. Saddam did not care much about most Iraquis anyway because they were Shias and he was Sunni and he was not very religious anyway. He brought on his country what was eminently avoidable.
What I implied was that among the millions of people who die violently year on year there is nothing unusual in killing Moslems. More people have died since WW2 in war than died in that war. We live in an age of perennial conflict. Why should you be so surprised that Moslems die?
And that |Moslem bombers kill Moslems who disagree with them, and innocent bystanders.
And what is a Moslem- Sunnis deny that Shias are Moslems and vice versa - and what of Wahabbis, Ismailis and various other sects?
Why all the vicarious anger Fred?
What is new here?
northener
27-May-10, 21:56
Odd that we hear no support for the troops who tried to help the Muslim communities in the Balkans back in the Nineties.
No condemnation of the massacre of Muslims at Srebenica who were killed by those who cannot be classed as the 'usual Western suspects'.......
And in 1938 Churchills comments regarding the threatened partition of Czechoslovakia were?
You can read them for yourself.
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1938/mar/24/foreign-affairs-and-rearmament
OKay Fred - let's dance.
I did not say Saddam Hussein was part of the British government. I said he was to blame for the sanctions. We have argued about this before and my point was a simple one. If he had chosen not to ignore the sufferings of his own people and complied with what the UN was asking, then the sanctions would not have been applied.
But he stalled on weapons inspections and continued his belligerence towards the Kurds in the north and the Shias in the south. Saddam did not care much about most Iraquis anyway because they were Shias and he was Sunni and he was not very religious anyway. He brought on his country what was eminently avoidable.
What I implied was that among the millions of people who die violently year on year there is nothing unusual in killing Moslems. More people have died since WW2 in war than died in that war. We live in an age of perennial conflict. Why should you be so surprised that Moslems die?
And that |Moslem bombers kill Moslems who disagree with them, and innocent bystanders.
And what is a Moslem- Sunnis deny that Shias are Moslems and vice versa - and what of Wahabbis, Ismailis and various other sects?
Why all the vicarious anger Fred?
What is new here?
The British government knew that if they withheld supplies for water treatment plants from Iraq that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis would die. They withheld the supplies, over a million Iraqis died more than half of them children.
It was the British government who made that decision, not Saddam Hussein.
Iraq didn't even have any weapons of mass destruction, Saddam complied with the UN ruling and destroyed them, the reason for the sanctions did not even exist. We killed those children for nothing.
northener
27-May-10, 23:06
You can read them for yourself.
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1938/mar/24/foreign-affairs-and-rearmament
Thanks for the conformation of what I said.
Proves beyond a doubt that Churchill was all for standing up to the Nazi threat by not giving in and also trying to ally Yugoslavia and other states against Germany.
Blimey, we agree on something.
Iraq didn't even have any weapons of mass destruction, Saddam complied with the UN ruling and destroyed them, the reason for the sanctions did not even exist. We killed those children for nothing.
thats certainly true.
Needless death and destruction all the time. there is no point to history unless we learn why things happened and we stop them happening agein. the fact that wars and destruction and corruption are still happeneing, just like ww1 and ww2 shows that we have not learnt anything. we just get taught the same old rubbish in school and then tell everyone how clever we are that we have "stuidied" it. what a joke.
Anyway, the original question remains unanswered.
Why do some people want to change perception of History.
I feel it may be that while we should learn from history, these people have an interest in us learning their lesson. :eek:
Tubthumper
28-May-10, 07:32
I think that as humans we need something solid to hang our hats on, to confirm our place in the universe and to confirm that we have a point in existing. As religion has reduced in its influence, people need to know where they stand. Most are not happy with placing themselves anywhere near the top of any 'order' so they look to established fact as published to confirm their place as one of the plebs. And are happy not to question their existence any further.
Others however cannot reconcile themselves to the fact that the world is as it is; they (through a lack of social understanding, or interaction) have always been unhappy to accept any published fact that doesn't lead to a confirmation of their perception of how the world should be. The internet merely opens access to a million points of view and allows one to pick and choose what bits of evidence we choose to use.
Unfortunately, due to their innate lack of empathy with humanity, some are unable to understand this and become obsessive about a particular issue that they cannot reconcile (e.g. why do people die?). And the irony is they start picking up on the material placed on the net by others in their same condition which serves to reinforce their belief that there is a conspiracy. Like Robinson Crusoe and his footprints on the beach.
I think there's an autism spectrum issue at play, connected with too convenient access to the net and the increasing social marginalisation of the obsessive net user (due to lack of meaningful work, lack of social skills etc.). The logical progression is to become a zealot trying to spread the proper word to the ignorant, and suffering persecution for one's beliefs.
And just like with a religion, I suppose the end result would see a desire to remove that which inconveniently doesn't fit the world that one knows to be correct. Sometimes in an impolite manner!
northener
28-May-10, 07:56
I think that as humans we need something solid to hang our hats on, to confirm our place in the universe and to confirm that we have a point in existing. As religion has reduced in its influence, people need to know where they stand. Most are not happy with placing themselves anywhere near the top of any 'order' so they look to established fact as published to confirm their place as one of the plebs. And are happy not to question their existence any further.
Others however cannot reconcile themselves to the fact that the world is as it is; they (through a lack of social understanding, or interaction) have always been unhappy to accept any published fact that doesn't lead to a confirmation of their perception of how the world should be. The internet merely opens access to a million points of view and allows one to pick and choose what bits of evidence we choose to use.
Unfortunately, due to their innate lack of empathy with humanity, some are unable to understand this and become obsessive about a particular issue that they cannot reconcile (e.g. why do people die?). And the irony is they start picking up on the material placed on the net by others in their same condition which serves to reinforce their belief that there is a conspiracy. Like Robinson Crusoe and his footprints on the beach.
I think there's an autism spectrum issue at play, connected with too convenient access to the net and the increasing social marginalisation of the obsessive net user (due to lack of meaningful work, lack of social skills etc.). The logical progression is to become a zealot trying to spread the proper word to the ignorant, and suffering persecution for one's beliefs.
And just like with a religion, I suppose the end result would see a desire to remove that which inconveniently doesn't fit the world that one knows to be correct. Sometimes in an impolite manner!
Nail ,em up!
Nail some sense into 'em!
..sorry, couldn't resist it.
Anyway, the original question remains unanswered.
Why do some people want to change perception of History.
I feel it may be that while we should learn from history, these people have an interest in us learning their lesson. :eek:
Because history is a series of lies and omissions.
Lets take one recent example, the toppling of the statue of Saddam Hussein.
Here is the official history:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/9/newsid_3502000/3502633.stm
The truth is entirely different, the entire episode was carefully stage managed to fool the people that we were liberating Iraq not invading them.
The square was almost empty, the Iraqi public were kept out by American tanks blocking every road. What seemed to be a crowd was actually a small group of the supporters of Ahmed Chalabi, they had been flown in from America the day before.
So which do you believe? History or truth?
http://www.graven-images.org.uk/temp/2PHOTO.gif
Because history is a series of lies and omissions.
Lets take one recent example, the toppling of the statue of Saddam Hussein.
Here is the official history:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/9/newsid_3502000/3502633.stm
The truth is entirely different, the entire episode was carefully stage managed to fool the people that we were liberating Iraq not invading them.
The square was almost empty, the Iraqi public were kept out by American tanks blocking every road. What seemed to be a crowd was actually a small group of the supporters of Ahmed Chalabi, they had been flown in from America the day before.
So which do you believe? History or truth?
http://www.graven-images.org.uk/temp/2PHOTO.gif
History!........:lol:
You seem to have lost interest in the subject of taking the opposing view, did you not understsnd the question?
The Drunken Duck
28-May-10, 09:20
Because history is a series of lies and omissions.
Lets take one recent example, the toppling of the statue of Saddam Hussein.
Here is the official history:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/9/newsid_3502000/3502633.stm
The truth is entirely different, the entire episode was carefully stage managed to fool the people that we were liberating Iraq not invading them.
The square was almost empty, the Iraqi public were kept out by American tanks blocking every road. What seemed to be a crowd was actually a small group of the supporters of Ahmed Chalabi, they had been flown in from America the day before.
So which do you believe? History or truth?
http://www.graven-images.org.uk/temp/2PHOTO.gif
Oh. My. God.
Well lets see.
Option 1 .. It happened as described by the BBC and in fact all the other world media, miltary personnel and Iraqi Civilians who were also there said it did.
Option 2 .. The world has been hoodwinked and the only person who knows the "truth .. ;)" is a man called fred who posts on a Community Website in the North of Scotland.
Up the dosage Fred.
History!........:lol:
You seem to have lost interest in the subject of taking the opposing view, did you not understsnd the question?
I think you just proved the point I have been making all along. People would rather believe the "we are good they are bad" lie than believe what really happened. People would rather live in a false reality which they are comfortable with than accept the truth.
Boozeburglar
28-May-10, 09:28
I can't help but wonder what Stavro thinks of all this.
Boozeburglar
28-May-10, 09:30
I think you just proved the point I have been making all along. People would rather believe the "we are good they are bad" lie than believe what really happened. People would rather live in a false reality which they are comfortable with than accept the truth.
For an intellectual hermit you make a lot of assumptions about people in general.
I can't help but wonder what Stavro thinks of all this.
Well why not take a look and find out.
You can find every thread started by Stavro on this forum easily enough, here is the link:
http://forum.caithness.org/search.php?searchid=595859
Or you can check out the videos he has posted to Youtube, he posted links here himself in the past. Check out the "The Portrait" thread in the link above, as what the clique says he obviously did not try to hide his identity.
http://www.youtube.com/user/StavroJones#p/u/2/IoLl7Xy9MHA
Or I have links to his web sites if anyone wants them though they wont tell you much, there is nothing political or religious on them.
But I wonder if you really want to know or if you prefer to just believe.
I think you just proved the point I have been making all along. People would rather believe the "we are good they are bad" lie than believe what really happened. People would rather live in a false reality which they are comfortable with than accept the truth.
Well if that is the case why can't you just feel smug and leave us to it?:Razz
John Little
28-May-10, 11:48
I think you just proved the point I have been making all along. People would rather believe the "we are good they are bad" lie than believe what really happened. People would rather live in a false reality which they are comfortable with than accept the truth.
For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
Mar 1:2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
We are not worthy of thy message.
A miracle! A Miracle!
northener
28-May-10, 11:58
I think you just proved the point I have been making all along. People would rather believe the "we are good they are bad" lie than believe what really happened. People would rather live in a false reality which they are comfortable with than accept the truth.
So what is your opinion of what happened during the Irish revolts of the 1640's and the siege at Drogheda?
Seeing as you have a simplistic approach to peoples' perceived view of history, would you care to enlighten me regarding the above incidents? It should be an open and shut case using your applied logic. One side must be completely right and the other completely wrong.
Please elaborate, if you're not happy about that particular example then I can easily come up with something else for you to analyse and decide who is completely right and who is completely wrong......
http://www.graven-images.org.uk/temp/2PHOTO.gif
Actually this is what really happened:
Iraqi "ay American infidel pig, help us pull this statue down"
GI " Like OK dude, buts lets see if we can do it safely eh, I'll bring up this here tank recovery ve-hicle we just happen to have handy"
"Hey you guys, block off the square with the tanks so we can keep the peeps out of harms way will this nutter pulls the statue down"
Sound plausible? :lol:
Tubthumper
28-May-10, 12:32
...Option 2 .. The world has been hoodwinked and the only person who knows the "truth .. ;)" is a man called fred who posts on a Community Website in the North of Scotland.
That's another thing I don't understand. If it's ALL a conspiracy, then those who are conspiring to fool us have a reason to do so. If they are capable of altering the direction of civilisation and the history of the world, they are more than capable of silencing anyone who has spotted the anomalies and feels the urge to endlessly highlight them.
But David Icke's & Neville Jones websites still exist and find viewers, Fred is still free to post his tripe, and the world still rumbles on.
Applying the logic which Fred says he's so keen on, the fact that he has not been silenced shows that his zealous quasi-religious campaign agaist the world is utterly pointless.
Tubthumper
28-May-10, 12:34
So what is your opinion of what happened during the Irish revolts of the 1640's and the siege at Drogheda?
He won't answer that one, it's not reptilian enough!
Hey man who posts on site as Fred
If you desire to up your cred
On David Ickes mad website
For great reptile exposure sprite
On Drogheda disgrace find out
And raise on web a mighty shout
Of Black and Tan and armoured car
Worst outrage of the war by far
And rather than recycling
Your usual kind of tripe and thing
Your pals will think you're really great
And they will want to be your mate
No longer you'll lead lonely life
With dog and van and nightly strife
On caithness org - we'll think of you
Or rather, the persona who
As something rather better than
A sad and bitter type of man
Whose purpose is to rail 'gainst fate
Accuse the famous, rich and great
Of outrage 'gainst the human race
Frustrated need to put in place
The entire history of mankind
And cease just being much-maligned
History!........:lol:
You seem to have lost interest in the subject of taking the opposing view, did you not understsnd the question?
all i see here are insults. there have been reasoned and logical posts from fred that are backed up with data and phots and references but all he gets back in return are personal insults.
Little john, tubthunmper and ducati you seem to have no arguments. just nothing but tripe and silly remarks.
The question has been addressed by both fred and me. if we allow lies and propaganda to stand unquestioned as history then we can learn notjing from history. only by correcting the history can we learn anything from it and try to avoid the same attrocityies happening agian
even photos showing the fact that there were no masses of people in the square when the statue was knocked down does not solicit any form of amazement from the clique but is only ignored or given some silly nonsensical response.
Well why not take a look and find out.
You can find every thread started by Stavro on this forum easily enough, here is the link:
http://forum.caithness.org/search.php?searchid=595859
Or you can check out the videos he has posted to Youtube, he posted links here himself in the past. Check out the "The Portrait" thread in the link above, as what the clique says he obviously did not try to hide his identity.
http://www.youtube.com/user/StavroJones#p/u/2/IoLl7Xy9MHA
Or I have links to his web sites if anyone wants them though they wont tell you much, there is nothing political or religious on them.
But I wonder if you really want to know or if you prefer to just believe.
o now i see!!!!!!!!! its all making some sense. Is Stavro Dr Jones son? Tjhe same dr Jones of www.realityreviewed.com (http://www.realityreviewed.com) ???? and the clique didnt like that?
So then they tthink that im stavro because i question there strangely blind view of the world as if there couild never be anyone else in the world who saw things differnetly to them?
david ickes web site gets over 2 million hits per month. is that all me and fred and stavro? we must be busy bees?:lol::lol:
seems like youve probably lost a very good poster in Stavro now i know who he is. A fine young man and a good guitar player
Tubthumpe you need to get out more mate for you seem to hang around this little forum all day
John Little
28-May-10, 14:07
A guitar player. Does he play in a group?
"...if we allow lies and propaganda to stand unquestioned as history then we can learn notjing from history. only by correcting the history can we learn anything from it and try to avoid the same attrocityies happening agian"
Which is exactly why you get so many people challenging you.
northener
28-May-10, 15:14
o now i see!!!!!!!!! its all making some sense. Is Stavro Dr Jones son? Tjhe same dr Jones of www.realityreviewed.com (http://www.realityreviewed.com) ???? and the clique didnt like that?
So then they tthink that im stavro because i question there strangely blind view of the world as if there couild never be anyone else in the world who saw things differnetly to them?
david ickes web site gets over 2 million hits per month. is that all me and fred and stavro? we must be busy bees?:lol::lol:
seems like youve probably lost a very good poster in Stavro now i know who he is. A fine young man and a good guitar player
Tubthumpe you need to get out more mate for you seem to hang around this little forum all day
Pegasus, there's something that needs clarifying regarding Stavro.
Fred stated earlier (somewhere) that Stavro was 'hounded' off the site.
He wasn't. He was banned off the site by the site owners. Bill Fernie made it very clear that Stavro was actually someone who had previously been banned and had come back under a different psuedonym. He was allowed to remain on the site until he began to creep back to his old ways. Bill then banned him again and posted the reasons on here for all to see.
I must also say that I find this 'outing' of an ex-.Orger to further somones' cause in an argument quite abhorrent, regardless of whether that person was happy to have their identity revealed whilst on here or not.
There used to be a chap on here called Percy Toboggan.
He had views that many on here would (and did) find offensive. He was routinely hounded, insulted, argued with and disagreed with. I cannot recall him constantly wailing about 'cliques' or harassment.
He spoke his mind, but was prepared to listen to opposing views and discuss rationally. I can recall many occasions where he was proven wrong and accepted this with good grace. He certainly was not above wading in with virtual fists flying when annoyed, yet could rise above the ridicule that was directed at him and respond with humour and balance where required.
He got banned too, because of his views. But the big difference between PT and some people on here was that he did not display taits of blind arrogance and inability to respond with good grace when proven wrong. He did not routinely accuse other posters of being ignorant, stupid, brainwashed, not 'understanding the truth'...blah, blah, blah........
In other words, he could dish it out and take it.
Ehemmm.....Drogheda. I read somewhere that half the garrison at Drogheda werel Irish Protestants of the Church of Ireland persuasion. That would make sense as Cromwell was participating in a religious war - Puritans, Anglicans, Scots Presbyterians, - it was a tangle of causes.
If you are genuinely interested in Irish history and not simply using Ireland as a propaganda tool you might like to look at the pages I have posted.
http://books.google.ca/books?id=PjPCmnzztfkC&pg=PA118&lpg=PA118&dq=drogheda+protestant+garrison&source=bl&ots=_D5jzdA4U1&sig=TEjkXehO5LDdJvnoZHmNLAHHNOM&hl=en&ei=99D_S5upIML38Aaw2IXyDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CD0Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=drogheda%20protestant%20garrison&f=false
all i see here are insults. there have been reasoned and logical posts from fred that are backed up with data and phots and references but all he gets back in return are personal insults.
Little john, tubthunmper and ducati you seem to have no arguments. just nothing but tripe and silly remarks.
The question has been addressed by both fred and me. if we allow lies and propaganda to stand unquestioned as history then we can learn notjing from history. only by correcting the history can we learn anything from it and try to avoid the same attrocityies happening agian
even photos showing the fact that there were no masses of people in the square when the statue was knocked down does not solicit any form of amazement from the clique but is only ignored or given some silly nonsensical response.
You are guilty of making assumptions. Who said there were supposed to be masses of people in the square? When I saw the news reports there was a crowd around the statue. I don't believe I saw masses of people in the square.
And why do you feel it is your holy quest to educate us?
My advice is get a hobby
northener
28-May-10, 16:48
Ehemmm.....Drogheda. I read somewhere that half the garrison at Drogheda werel Irish Protestants of the Church of Ireland persuasion. That would make sense as Cromwell was participating in a religious war - Puritans, Anglicans, Scots Presbyterians, - it was a tangle of causes.
If you are genuinely interested in Irish history and not simply using Ireland as a propaganda tool you might like to look at the pages I have posted.
http://books.google.ca/books?id=PjPCmnzztfkC&pg=PA118&lpg=PA118&dq=drogheda+protestant+garrison&source=bl&ots=_D5jzdA4U1&sig=TEjkXehO5LDdJvnoZHmNLAHHNOM&hl=en&ei=99D_S5upIML38Aaw2IXyDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CD0Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=drogheda%20protestant%20garrison&f=false
Thanks for the linky.
That book's just gone on my 'to buy' list.
I was already aware of the facts behind the C17th revolts and 'massacres' at Wexford and Drogheda. I'm making the point that accepted history to some is that Cromwell was a bad guy who ruthlessly slaughtered any hapless Irish person in his path. There's plenty both here and in Ireland who will happily parrot this line regardless of the documented truth.
I'm using this episode as an example of how people like to make simplistic good/bad comparisons to back up their own ideals and beliefs - when the reality is always a damn sight more complex. As in this case.
northener
28-May-10, 17:22
If it's on a photograph, it must be true........
Tubthumper
28-May-10, 17:46
Pegaserse, I rememeber the thread you closed. You were bleating about Eisenhower massacring German troops and crying about how we were rubbish for not believing your outrage. Your source was another of your cranky websites. You posted links to pictures that you claimed categorically showed German POWs in extremis, starving, with no shelter.
Despite the fact that they were lounging around with fags in their mouths, clearly not starving, outside what can only be described as shelters. And of course, you didn't address that when I asked you to.
You're like Fred - you only see what you want to see, and you cry when people don't agree with you. Why not just go away if you don't like us. We're not interested in your garbage.
seems like youve probably lost a very good poster in Stavro now i know who he is. A fine young man and a good guitar player
Not quite, he was hounded out not for anything he did or said but because of what his name was but we lost at least three good posters not one, I know of at least two good people who closed their accounts in disgust.
Tubthumper
28-May-10, 18:40
Really? Who were they?
If it's on a photograph, it must be true........
are you using this photo to imply that the one posted by fred is faked? pls lets hear youre logic in posting the photo you did
Not quite, he was hounded out not for anything he did or said but because of what his name was but we lost at least three good posters not one, I know of at least two good people who closed their accounts in disgust.
thats the trouble when mods listen to whingers. good and intelligent posters are lost and the forum is left with a load of dross whose ides of debate is vulgar and silly rubbish like tubsthumer
notice how tubshtimpeor canot deal with the question pose by ducati but can only contribute rubbish
my reason for questioning histpory is to discover the thruth of what happneed. at school i had a choice of history or geography at o-level. my dad advised me to take geography since that dealt with facts whereas to get a good grade at history meant only that you could parrot what the examiner wanted to hear.expected tp hear even
does that mean i can get a good grade here by parroting what the clique want to people to be brainwashed to think for there entire lives?:lol:
northener
28-May-10, 19:09
Not quite, he was hounded out not for anything he did or said but because of what his name was but we lost at least three good posters not one, I know of at least two good people who closed their accounts in disgust.
Crap.
He was removed by the people responsible for running the site.
And this from a 'seeker of the truth'......
northener
28-May-10, 19:10
are you using this photo to imply that the one posted by fred is faked? pls lets hear youre logic in posting the photo you did
And breathe........
An attempt at humour, nothing more.
And breathe........
An attempt at humour, nothing more.
so youre not sayin that the one posted by fred was faked? funny i got the idea thta you were trying to imply that
northener
28-May-10, 19:16
http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?t=103554&highlight=stavro
QED
northener
28-May-10, 19:17
so youre not sayin that the one posted by fred was faked? funny i got the idea thta you were trying to imply that
Nah, nothing that devious. Just a tongue in cheek mickey take.:Razz
Actually this is what really happened:
No, the entire episode was planned and stage managed by a US Army psyop team right next to the hotel where most of the worlds press and media reporters were staying. The photo I posted was taken from a window of the hotel.
http://articles.latimes.com/2004/jul/03/nation/na-statue3
my reason for questioning histpory is to discover the thruth of what happneed. at school i had a choice of history or geography at o-level. my dad advised me to take geography since that dealt with facts whereas to get a good grade at history meant only that you could parrot what the examiner wanted to hear.expected tp hear even :lol:
Been away, but what the hell is 'histpory'?
Been away, but what the hell is 'histpory'?
history sorry!
John Little
28-May-10, 20:04
No, the entire episode was planned and stage managed by a US Army psyop team right next to the hotel where most of the worlds press and media reporters were staying. The photo I posted was taken from a window of the hotel.
http://articles.latimes.com/2004/jul/03/nation/na-statue3
And every single reporter, commentator, pundit, Iraqis hitting it with their shoes - all of them are involved in a vast conspiracy to hide the truth.
Crap.
He was removed by the people responsible for running the site.
And this from a 'seeker of the truth'......
So your saying that the people who run the site one day decided to check the entire web against every user of caithness.org to see if any of them had a web site they didn't like?
I've read through Stavro's posts to the forum and I've seen nothing to suggest he has any unusual political or religious beliefs and even if he has, so long as he didn't use the forum to promote them I don't see how there could be a problem.
I find it hard to believe that someone who had been banned from the forum, or had anything to hide, would post a link to a youtube video revealing their identity.
I have searched the web and found two web sites belonging to Stavro, there is nothing political or religious on either of them.
So I've seen nothing to suggest Stavro actually has any unusual religious or political beliefs and even if he had so long as it didn't impact on his posts to the forum I don't see how it could be a problem.
Victimising someone for merely having beliefs is called discrimination.
And every single reporter, commentator, pundit, Iraqis hitting it with their shoes - all of them are involved in a vast conspiracy to hide the truth.
Yes.
What other explanation do you have?
The only reporter I know of who actually told it how it was was Robert Fisk in half a sentence in the middle of an article in the Independent.
...close to the square where a statue of Saddam Hussein was pulled down on Wednesday, in the most staged photo-opportunity since Iwo Jima.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-baghdad-the-day-after-594104.html
The world media lied to us, the accepted version of history is false.
John Little
28-May-10, 20:34
So what I watched on News at 10 and heard of on the Today programme is complete fabrication?
Tubthumper
28-May-10, 20:34
So your saying that the people who run the site one day decided to check the entire web against every user of caithness.org to see if any of them had a web site they didn't like?
I've read through Stavro's posts to the forum and I've seen nothing to suggest he has any unusual political or religious beliefs and even if he has, so long as he didn't use the forum to promote them I don't see how there could be a problem. I find it hard to believe that someone who had been banned from the forum, or had anything to hide, would post a link to a youtube video revealing their identity. I have searched the web and found two web sites belonging to Stavro, there is nothing political or religious on either of them.
So I've seen nothing to suggest Stavro actually has any unusual religious or political beliefs and even if he had so long as it didn't impact on his posts to the forum I don't see how it could be a problem. Victimising someone for merely having beliefs is called discrimination.
Why don't you become an ex-orger in protest?:cool:
And every single reporter, commentator, pundit, Iraqis hitting it with their shoes - all of them are involved in a vast conspiracy to hide the truth.
looks like fred is right little john. i think you should concede
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHNntBQlzOs
John Little
28-May-10, 20:38
Maybe you should read the comments on the link you posted - like this one;
"This is a complete farce. The crowd was not almost all soldiers and journalists. I know Marines that were there that day. The crowds were jubilant from being freed from an oppressive regime. The recovery vehicle that pulled the statue down was not in the initial assault. It came in way after the area had been secured.
Why does everyone have to spin everything negative.?Despite your views on the war, we should be celebrating those small victories by both the coalition and the Iraqi people."
Tubthumper
28-May-10, 20:38
The world media lied to us, the accepted version of history is false.
That's the sum of your 'argument', isn't it. We've heard it, we don't agree with it, there is no-one on the org leaping to your defence, you are not wanted here.
Why not use your 'logic'. Accept that no-one here is interested. Take your right to ridicule the beliefs of others (because that is what you are doing) somewhere else, like the David Icke site. There you'll find people who'll agree with you. And take your illiterate pal with you.
No, the entire episode was planned and stage managed by a US Army psyop team right next to the hotel where most of the worlds press and media reporters were staying. The photo I posted was taken from a window of the hotel.
http://articles.latimes.com/2004/jul/03/nation/na-statue3
No it wasn't you're deluded
John Little
28-May-10, 20:39
Do you sing and play guitar Fregasus?
So your saying that the people who run the site one day decided to check the entire web against every user of caithness.org to see if any of them had a web site they didn't like?
I've read through Stavro's posts to the forum and I've seen nothing to suggest he has any unusual political or religious beliefs and even if he has, so long as he didn't use the forum to promote them I don't see how there could be a problem.
I find it hard to believe that someone who had been banned from the forum, or had anything to hide, would post a link to a youtube video revealing their identity.
I have searched the web and found two web sites belonging to Stavro, there is nothing political or religious on either of them.
So I've seen nothing to suggest Stavro actually has any unusual religious or political beliefs and even if he had so long as it didn't impact on his posts to the forum I don't see how it could be a problem.
Victimising someone for merely having beliefs is called discrimination.
i did a search to. again what fred is saying is correct. 2 sites and no problem with either of em. the facts dont add up
the more i see of this the more i see a brood of vipers who want ot censor who they dont like to make themselves feel good and to allow them top spread official propaganda. shame on the mods for listening to gang/cliquye nonsense
i did a search to. again what fred is saying is correct. 2 sites and no problem with either of em. the facts dont add up
the more i see of this the more i see a brood of vipers who want ot censor who they dont like to make themselves feel good and to allow them top spread official propaganda. shame on the mods for listening to gang/cliquye nonsense
Well now you know the nature of the site, are you glad you came?
Well now you know the nature of the site, are you glad you came?
well its entertaining i suippose:lol:
well its entertaining i suippose:lol:
Oh yes :Razz
BTW do you have a number of fingers issue? You Tyop like northeners dog
Oh yes :Razz
BTW do you have a number of fingers issue? You Tyop like northeners dog
difficult with hoofs
That's the sum of your 'argument', isn't it. We've heard it, we don't agree with it, there is no-one on the org leaping to your defence, you are not wanted here.
Why not use your 'logic'. Accept that no-one here is interested. Take your right to ridicule the beliefs of others (because that is what you are doing) somewhere else, like the David Icke site. There you'll find people who'll agree with you. And take your illiterate pal with you.
Is the "we" you refer to every one who uses the forum or just the clique?
difficult with hoofs
Of course, silly me, the flying must be a bit of a compensation though.:cool:
Whats the big deal about the statue? Your grasping at straws again Fred.
I seem to recall from somewhere that the statue of Sadaam being pulled down was arranged for the cameras. So What? Pulling a statue down is not history. It symbolises a moment in history. It didnt fool anyone into thinking anything other than the reality of the time. sadaam was deposed.
northener
28-May-10, 21:02
So your saying that the people who run the site one day decided to check the entire web against every user of caithness.org to see if any of them had a web site they didn't like?
I've read through Stavro's posts to the forum and I've seen nothing to suggest he has any unusual political or religious beliefs and even if he has, so long as he didn't use the forum to promote them I don't see how there could be a problem.
I find it hard to believe that someone who had been banned from the forum, or had anything to hide, would post a link to a youtube video revealing their identity.
I have searched the web and found two web sites belonging to Stavro, there is nothing political or religious on either of them.
So I've seen nothing to suggest Stavro actually has any unusual religious or political beliefs and even if he had so long as it didn't impact on his posts to the forum I don't see how it could be a problem.
Victimising someone for merely having beliefs is called discrimination.
What you 'believe' is an irrelevance. No doubt the site owners a part of a 'clique'?
He got banned. The reasons - real or imagined - are unimportant. This isn't some sort of high falutin' democracy Fred. It's a website that is controlled by the owners as they see fit.
I liked Stavro, he was misguided at times, completely bizarre at times and I probably disagreed with 90% of what he said. But he could be an amusing guy and he believed he was justified in saying what he said. Which is exactly my opinion of you, by coincidence.
But he got booted, Fred. Like it or not, booted.
Whats the big deal about the statue? Your grasping at straws again Fred.
I seem to recall from somewhere that the statue of Sadaam being pulled down was arranged for the cameras. So What? Pulling a statue down is not history. It symbolises a moment in history. It didnt fool anyone into thinking anything other than the reality of the time. sadaam was deposed.
It was broadcast live across the world, made the front page of every newspaper and the message it was giving, that we liberated Iraq not invaded them, was a lie.
I haven't seen it splashed across the front pages of every newspaper that they lied to us so the perceptions of history of the people of the world are based on a lie, they are false, they are not based on reality.
That is what the thread is about isn't it?
northener
28-May-10, 21:09
i did a search to. again what fred is saying is correct. 2 sites and no problem with either of em. the facts dont add up
the more i see of this the more i see a brood of vipers who want ot censor who they dont like to make themselves feel good and to allow them top spread official propaganda. shame on the mods for listening to gang/cliquye nonsense
I've got two websites, Pegasus. And nowhere on them does it mention any of my political or religious views. Nor do I denounce any group or belief.
In fact I don't even mention that I'm in a clique.....
Does that mean you can assess me accurately by looking at limited information that was published by myself?
Fred was quick to point out that Churchill wrote his own history - thus implying it should not be trusted. Goose and gander, anyone?
I'd try not to get involved in an onsite issue that was before your time, P. You may find yourself being led down the garden path.
But, as they say - it's a free country.......
It was broadcast live across the world, made the front page of every newspaper and the message it was giving, that we liberated Iraq not invaded them, was a lie.
I haven't seen it splashed across the front pages of every newspaper that they lied to us so the perceptions of history of the people of the world are based on a lie, they are false, they are not based on reality.
That is what the thread is about isn't it?
Do you mean it was propaganda :eek:
What you 'believe' is an irrelevance. No doubt the site owners a part of a 'clique'?
He got banned. The reasons - real or imagined - are unimportant. This isn't some sort of high falutin' democracy Fred. It's a website that is controlled by the owners as they see fit.
I liked Stavro, he was misguided at times, completely bizarre at times and I probably disagreed with 90% of what he said. But he could be an amusing guy and he believed he was justified in saying what he said. Which is exactly my opinion of you, by coincidence.
But he got booted, Fred. Like it or not, booted.
And then the clique decided to slander him when he couldn't answer back.
It wasn't me who brought the subject up was it?
John Little
28-May-10, 21:11
Fregasus
I have just done a search for Stavro using google.
The results are almost without number.
If you have found only two sites belonging to Stavro then you know exactly what you are looking for.
Which indicates to me that you have somewhat of a close relationship to Stavro.
Who was banned from this forum for good reason.
"the more i see of this the more i see a brood of vipers who want ot censor who they dont like to make themselves feel good and to allow them top spread official propaganda. shame on the mods for listening to gang/cliquye nonsense"
And you Fregasus are an arrogant, strutting, mendacious, pontificating boor whose purpose here is to either to troll or to proselytyse your insanity. The vipers you speak of represent a wide spectrum on this org and you hold them all in contempt because you believe that you are intellectually, morally and academically superior to them. The one who knows the secrets; the one who has the brain to see what the foolish masses cannot. You taunt and tease with impunity and grow bolder the more anger you provoke. And if you really are a newbie then you are remarkably confident and even familiar about it.
I do not patronise the sites of polemical morons and this is no exception. It is clearly your purpose to pervert the uses of this forum to a platform for your less than mainstream views, to offend the sensibilities of a wide spectrum of its users. Your continued ability to infer that black is white, that Zionists plot, that conspiracy governs all our actions is one thing.
Your implications that most of the people who post on these forums are idiots who live deluded lives and that only the likes of you and Fred know the truth makes me wonder why you have been tolerated.
And Dafi is right. It leads to a constant flame war.
If you were holding forth in a pub then I would leave through boredom.
I saw that you proposed to go the the Org curry night. I blenched when I thought of how the conversation might go.
Machiavelli said that a people deserve a tyrant as long as they are prepared to tolerate him. This Org is prepared to tolerate fools but I have no time for them.
So you'll have to get your jollies without me I'm afraid, and you and Fred can continue your intellectual and mutual masturbation to your hearts content.
So this poster is logging out and leaving. I have a life.
Your politics is no better than your singing.
You may reply if you wish but I shall not see it.
Bye-bye.
Do you sing and play guitar Fregasus?
Do you stroke your beard as well?
Do you mean it was propaganda :eek:
Of a sort.
How much of accepted history do you think is based on propaganda not reality?
here is an example of how wer are controlled and spoonfed any old nonsense
Highly critical comments by a senior army officer asked to conduct a study of the circumstances surrounding the invasion of Iraq (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/iraq) have been suppressed on the orders of the country's top defence officials, the Guardian has learned.http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/may/27/defence-chiefs-gag-iraq-report
is the agenda always going to be more and more wars and misery? lets determine what really happened and learn from it
I think in the light of the frayed tempers I had better close this thread.
Should have done it sooner but TBH I forgot it was mine :roll:
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.