H.R.5181

[joepistole]

You don't seem to have read what he said. Here's a link to where I posted some excerpts.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/h-r-5181.158636/page-2#post-3435799

Please read what he said and then tell me if you still think that he didn't say that the US was an imperial power that exploited other countries.

You just don't get it. You don't want to get it.

If what you believe were true, you should be able to provide something more current. But you have been unable to do so. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, Butler wrote about his experiences which occurred more than a century ago. Those experiences are no longer relevant to your thesis.

Assuming everything Butler wrote about were true, it doesn't mean the world hasn't changed. The world has changed, and changed dramatically. The US set up a democratic government in the Philippines and withdrew. The United States gave the the Philippine nation its independence. The Philippines is no longer American territory as it was during Butler's life time. Butler lived during a time of racial segregation, before the civil rights movement. Why are you so unable to realize things have changed? ...probably because your reality crumbles in the light of truth and reason.

I don't know how to make this more simple for you. But I will try. Just because slavery was once legal in the United States, it doesn't follow that slavery is legal today in the US. Just because Butler perceived US imperialism a century ago, it doesn't mean that imperialism exists today.

 

[FatFreddy]

You just don't get it. You don't want to get it.

If what you believe were true, you should be able to provide something more current. But you have been unable to do so. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, Butler wrote about his experiences which occurred more than a century ago. Those experiences are no longer relevant to your thesis.

Assuming everything Butler wrote about were true, it doesn't mean the world hasn't changed. The world has changed, and changed dramatically. The US set up a democratic government in the Philippines and withdrew. The Philippines is no longer American territory as it was during Butler's life time. Butler lived during a time of racial segregation, before the civil rights movement. Why are you so unable to realize things have changed? ...probably because your reality crumbles in the light of truth.

I don't know how to make this more simple for you. But I will try. Just because slavery was once legal in the United States, it doesn't follow that slavery is legal today.

What's the use of playing dumb about what he said if the viewers can read it? I'll copy and paste it again since you don't seem to see it.

https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html
(excerpt)
-------------------------------------------------
WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.
-------------------------------------------------

http://www.peace.ca/smedleybutler.htm
(excerpt)
--------------------------------------------------
I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in
1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank
boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central
American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering
is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of
Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought
light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China
I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
--------------------------------------------------

I'd say that Smedley Butler is a credible source of info. He makes it pretty clear that the US was practicing imperialism during his time. You maintained that Americans learn the truth through the mainstream. What Butler says clearly shows that to wrong. Mainstream info sources have no credibility and you have no credibility for trying to obfuscate this instead of being objective about it.

Here's something else I've already posted that you're ignoring.

Do a YouTube search on "Adolf Hitler: Explains His Reasons For Invading The Soviet Union" and "Adolf Hitler Explains Reasons For Invading Poland"

This is another case of dishonesty by the mainstream. Americans are taught that the German people and soldiers had world conquest in mind as they were fighting WW2. They might have been lied to but the issue is what they were thinking. Have you watched those two videos?

 

[joepistole]

What's the use of playing dumb about what he said if the viewers can read it? I'll copy and paste it again since you don't seem to see it.


I'd say that Smedley Butler is a credible source of info. He makes it pretty clear that the US was practicing imperialism during his time. You maintained that Americans learn the truth through the mainstream. What Butler says clearly shows that to wrong. Mainstream info sources have no credibility and you have no credibility for trying to obfuscate this instead of being objective about it.

Here's something else I've already posted that you're ignoring.


This is another case of dishonesty by the mainstream. Americans are taught that the German people and soldiers had world conquest in mind as they were fighting WW2. They might have been lied to but the issue is what they were thinking. Have you watched those two videos?

Okay, why am I not surprised?

You are obfuscating again comrade. No one is doubting Butler's credibility here. The issue is its relevance as has been repeatedly pointed out to you.

You are accusing the US of being and imperialist power today not a century ago...remember? If you were accusing the US of being an imperialist power a century ago, then Butler's beliefs would be relevant. But that's not what you are doing. Is it?

 

[FatFreddy]

Okay, why am I not surprised?

You are obfuscating again comrade. No one is doubting Butler's credibility here. The issue is its relevance as has been repeatedly pointed out to you.

You are accusing the US of being and imperialist power today not a century ago...remember? If you were accusing the US of being an imperialist power a century ago, then Butler's beliefs would be relevant. But that's not what you are doing. Is it?

You're tap dancing around a point that blows a hole in your argument that the mainstream media are credible. I've shown two examples of the blatant dishonesty of the mainstream media. You seem to be saying that if the US were practicing imperialism, the media would inform the people. Those two examples I pointed out show that the mainstream media show an upside-down view of the world and would never inform the people. Tell us what you think of this info...
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/psychology-of-conspiracy-theorists.144995/page-18#post-3408609

...after having seen these two examples. Have you listened to those two speeches of Hitler's. I posted them several days ago and they're very relevant to this discussion. Please answer.

 

[joepistole]

You're tap dancing around a point that blows a hole in your argument that the mainstream media are credible. I've shown two examples of the blatant dishonesty of the mainstream media. You seem to be saying that if the US were practicing imperialism, the media would inform the people. Those two examples I pointed out show that the mainstream media show an upside-down view of the world and would never inform the people. Tell us what you think of this info...
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/psychology-of-conspiracy-theorists.144995/page-18#post-3408609

...after having seen these two examples. Have you listened to those two speeches of Hitler's. I posted them several days ago and they're very relevant to this discussion. Please answer.

You are obfuscating comrade. This isn't that difficult.

 

[FatFreddy]

You are obfuscating comrade.

Translation: I've been shown that my argument doesn't hold water but I can't admit it.

You maintain that the mainstream media are honest but all you've done is vehemently insist that they're honest. I showed two examples of their dishonesty and all you can do is tap dance around the issue. You won't even address the second example.

An objective truth-seeker modifies his or her stand when shown to be wrong about something as he or she only wants to know what the truth is. You have a foregone conclusion and you're not interested in truth.

How about your addressing the second example of dishonesty by the mainstream that I cited?

 

[joepistole]

Translation: I've been shown that my argument doesn't hold water but I can't admit it.

You maintain that the mainstream media are honest but all you've done is vehemently insist that they're honest. I showed two examples of their dishonesty and all you can do is tap dance around the issue. You won't even address the second example.

An objective truth-seeker modifies his or her stand when shown to be wrong about something as he or she only wants to know what the truth is. You have a foregone conclusion and you're not interested in truth.

How about your addressing the second example of dishonesty by the mainstream that I cited?

LOL....

No, it means you have been unable to support your assertions with fact or reason and continue to obfuscate and misrepresent.

Yes a truth seeker honesty evaluates the fact and reason. But as demonstrated by your words and actions, you are not a truth seeker comrade. You have steadfastly refused to recognize the last century in order to justify your beliefs.

 

[FatFreddy]

LOL....

No, it means you have been unable to support your assertions with fact or reason and continue to obfuscate and misrepresent.

I don't think that many of the viewers are morons. They can see what's going on here.

http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html
http://www.whale.to/b/sweeney.html
(excerpt)
------------------------------------------------
6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. Butdisinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the 'image' and are hot and cold with respect topretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It's justa job, and they often seem unable to 'act their role in character' as well in a communicationsmedium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style,substance, and so forth, or simply give up.
--------------------------------------------------


It's no use debating with a Black Knight.

Black Knight Scene - Monty Python and the Holy Grail

 

[joepistole]

I don't think that many of the viewers are morons. They can see what's going on here.

http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html
http://www.whale.to/b/sweeney.html
(excerpt)
------------------------------------------------
6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. Butdisinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the 'image' and are hot and cold with respect topretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It's justa job, and they often seem unable to 'act their role in character' as well in a communicationsmedium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style,substance, and so forth, or simply give up.
--------------------------------------------------


It's no use debating with a Black Knight.

Black Knight Scene - Monty Python and the Holy Grail

LOL..

The guy who ignores the last century accusing others of being out of touch.

You should stop the obfuscation and stop eschewing facts and reason comrade. But that would require you to abandon your deeply held fantasies and conspiracy theories.

 

[FatFreddy]

Yes a truth seeker honesty evaluates the fact and reason. But as demonstrated by your words and actions, you are not a truth seeker comrade. You have steadfastly refused to recognize the last century in order to justify your beliefs.

So you edit your post after I've made mine.

You maintain that the US didn't practice imperialism in the last century with the argument that the media would have reported it. I showed that the media is blatantly dishonest and you continue to use the honest media argument without even addressing the points I made. You can pretend all you want; this would get you laughed out of the debating hall.

I asked you to give your opinion of the mainstream's having misinformed us of what the German people and soldiers were thinking during WW2 and you won't even acknowledge that I asked you. That really impresses the viewers.

 

[FatFreddy]

The guy who ignores the last century accusing others of being out of touch.

Anyone who reads this whole thread can see that you're grossly misrepresenting what's happening. I presented what I think has happened during the last century. Here are two of the posts.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/h-r-5181.158636/page-2#post-3435242
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/h-r-5181.158636/page-2#post-3433860

I gave my reasons for why I think the above info reflects reality.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/h-r-5181.158636/#post-3433532


The reason you gave for why you maintain your view reflects reality turned out to be wrong and you won't even address the issue. They wouldn't just laugh you out of the debating hall for that. They'd throw you out.

 

[sculptor]

When Hearst Artist Frederic Remington, cabled from Cuba in 1897 that "there will be no war," William Randolph Hearst cabled back: "You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war."

 

[joepistole]

You maintain that the US didn't practice imperialism in the last century with the argument that the media would have reported it. I showed that the media is blatantly dishonest and you continue to use the honest media argument without even addressing the points I made. You can pretend all you want; this would get you laughed out of the debating hall.

I've maintained you couldn't support your assertion that the US is an imperial power. You had to go back a century for your best evidence which is a book written by an American general. I've repeatedly pointed out to you that things have changed, that your best evidence is worthless.

You haven't shown the media is blatantly dishonest. What you have done is spew out bullshit and conspiracy theories. My argument is you have no relevant evidence. Are you really that dense comrade?

You my dear comrade would be laughed out of debating hall because you have no evidence. Your best evidence is a century old and you see no problem with that?

I asked you to give your opinion of the mainstream's having misinformed us of what the German people and soldiers were thinking during WW2 and you won't even acknowledge that I asked you. That really impresses the viewers.

And I have repeatedly told, that even if it were true, which it isn't, it is irrelevant for reasons which have been repeatedly given to you.

You don't let evidence and reason get in the way of your fantasies and conspiracies.

 

[joepistole]

Anyone who reads this whole thread can see that you're grossly misrepresenting what's happening. I presented what I think has happened during the last century. Here are two of the posts.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/h-r-5181.158636/page-2#post-3435242
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/h-r-5181.158636/page-2#post-3433860

I gave my reasons for why I think the above info reflects reality.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/h-r-5181.158636/#post-3433532

Well, that's what you hope. But unfortunately for you beating on your chest and proclaiming victory isn't going to help you here comrade. It may help you pacify your insecurity. But it won't help your argument. Your best evidence is the opinion of an American general which is more than a hundred years old. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, things have changed. And you continue to pretend nothing has changed: that the world remains as it was during General Bradley's lifetime.

The US gave the Philippines its independence. Segregation has ended, the Civil Rights movement deeply altered US society. There was the whole WW II thingy and post WW II reconstruction. A new global finance infrastructure was put into place. The United Nations was created. All those things and more have transpired after your reference, General Bradley, died.

And you refuse to see them. You cover up your eyes and pretend they never happened and toss insults at anyone who dares to introduce a little reality into your world. It won't work with me comrade.

The reason you gave for why you maintain your view reflects reality turned out to be wrong and you won't even address the issue. They wouldn't just laugh you out of the debating hall for that. They'd throw you out.

Well, here is the thing FatFreddy, I don't have to ignore the last century as you do and as you have done. My views are consistent with history, reason and evidence. Yours are not. I don't have to cherry pick through history in order to support my views. You do and that is what you have repeatedly done.

 

[FatFreddy]

I've maintained you couldn't support your assertion that the US is an imperial power. You had to go back a century for your best evidence which is a book written by an American general. I've repeatedly pointed out to you that things have changed, that your best evidence is worthless.

You haven't shown the media is blatantly dishonest. What you have done is spew out bullshit and conspiracy theories. My argument is you have no relevant evidence. Are you really that dense comrade?

We could go back and forth forever I suppose but I'll go another time.

You're being deliberately obtuse. I pointed out two cases of blatant dishonesty by the mainstream.

We are not taught that the US practiced imperialism back when Smedley Butler was a general. The fact of the matter is that the US did practice imperialism back then. This shows that the mainstream on which you base your whole argument cannot be trusted. You trust it anyway.

All American sources of information tell us that the German people and soldiers had world conquest in mind during WW2 (Do YouTube searches on "Adolf Hitler: Explains His Reasons For Invading The Soviet Union" and "Adolf Hitler Explains Reasons For Invading Poland"). Hitler told them that they were righting old wrongs and recovering lost territory. He did not tell them that they should conquer the world. This is another case of blatant dishonesty by the mainstream.

You're being deliberately obtuse about the point I'm making. Anyone who bases his opinion of current events or history on what the mainstream says is hopelessly naive.

Please recognize those two cases of dishonesty by the American mainstream info sources. How can you continue to base your views on what tell you after having seen two cases of blatant dishonesty?

The false news is what comes from the US mainstream. Objective news comes from the alterrnative press (see post #13).


This thread is turning out to be a good study of sophistry.

A good point was made in post #72. Why didn't you address it?

 

[Michael 345]

There was the whole WW II thingy and post WW II reconstruction.

This thread is turning out to be a good study of sophistry.

I haven't really followed this thread but what I have read and tried to understand makes me glad I'm not relying on this thread as a lesson in history

It's harder than using cornflakes as a jigsaw puzzle and putting them together to show the picture of the chicken on the packet

Humpty & Poe

 

[FatFreddy]

The US gave the Philippines its independence.

Tell us what you think of this info.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/Philippines_Revolution.html
(excerpt)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nearly 100 years ago, U.S. Marines invaded the newly independent Philippines and killed anywhere from a quarter of a million (U.S. military estimates) to a half million Filipinos in the course of colonizing the archipelago. The legacy of 50 years of U.S. colonial rule is palpable in the slums and streets of Manila, the misery and poverty of the countryside, and the three million Filipinos forged to migrate abroad in search of a livelihood.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Asia/Philippines_StateEmergency.html
(excerpt)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Philippines was a US colony until 1946, but even thereafter Washington regularly intervened politically by financing preferred candidates and groups, conducting widespread covert operations, and helping to stage-manage elections. In 1950, a US National Security Council document stated that among the United States' goals in the country was the maintenance of "an effective government which will preserve and strengthen the pro-US orientation." In 1972, the US supported the declaration of martial law because, as a US Senate report put it, "Military bases and a familiar government in the Philippines are more important than the preservation of democratic institutions."
------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/American_Empire/US_Imperialism_LongHx_PA.html
(excerpt)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Many in the United States, including President McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt, welcomed Kipling's rousing call for the United States to engage in "savage wars," beginning in the Philippines. Senator Albert J. Beveridge of Indiana declared: "God has not been preparing the English-speaking and Teutonic peoples for a thousand years for nothing but vain and idle selfcontemplation and self-admiration .... He has made us adept in government that we may administer government among savage and senile peoples." In the end, more than 126,000 officers and men were sent to the Philippines to put down the Filipino resistance during a war that lasted officially from 1899 to 1902 but actually continued much longer, with sporadic resistance continuing for most of a decade. U.S. troops logged 2,800 engagements with the Filipino resistance. At least a quarter of a million Filipinos, most of them civilians, were killed along with 4,200 U.S. soldiers (more than ten times the number of U.S. fatalities in the Spanish-American War).5
From the beginning it was clear that the Filipino forces were unable to match the United States in conventional warfare. They therefore quickly switched to guerrilla warfare. U.S. troops boasted in a popular marching song that they would "civilize them with the Krag" (referring to the Norwegian-designed gun with which the U.S. forces were outfitted). Yet they found themselves facing interminable small attacks and ambushes by Filipinos, who often carried long knives known as bolos. These guerrilla attacks resulted in combat deaths of U.S. soldiers in small numbers on a regular basis. As in all prolonged guerrilla wars, the strength of the Filipino resistance was due to the fact that it had the support of the Filipino population. As General Arthur MacArthur (the father of Douglas MacArthur), who became military governor of the Philippines in 1900, confided to a reporter in 1899:
When I first started in against these rebels, I believed that Aguinaldo's troops represented only a faction. I did not like to believe that the whole population of Luzonthe native population that is-was opposed to us and our offers of aid and good government. But after having come this far, after having occupied several towns and cities in succession... I have been reluctantly compelled to believe that the Filipino masses are loyal to Aguinaldo and the government which he heads.
Faced with a guerrilla struggle supported by the vast majority of the population, the U.S. military responded by resettling populations in concentration camps, burning down villages (Filipinos were sometimes forced to carry the petrol used to burn down their own homes), and engaging in mass hangings and bayonetings of suspects, systematic rape of women and girls, and torture. The most infamous torture technique, used repeatedly in the war, was the so-called water cure. Vast quantities of water were forced down the throats of prisoners. Their stomachs were then stepped on so that the water shot out three feet in the air "like an artesian well." Most victims died not long afterwards. General Frederick Funston did not hesitate to announce that he had personally strung up a group of thirty-five Filipino civilians suspected of supporting the revolutionaries. Major Edwin Glenn saw no reason to deny the charge that he had made a group of forty-seven Filipino prisoners kneel and "repent of their sins" before bayoneting and clubbing them to death. General Jacob Smith ordered his troops to "kill and burn," to target "everything over ten," and to turn the island of Samar into "a howling wilderness." General William Shafter in California declared that it might be necessary to kill half the Filipino population to bring "perfect justice" to the other half. During the Philippine War the United States reversed the normal casualty statistics of war-usually many more are wounded than killed. According to official statistics (discussed in Congressional hearings on the war) U.S. troops killed fifteen times as many Filipinos as they wounded. This fit with frequent reports by U.S. soldiers that wounded and captured Filipino combatants were summarily executed.
--------------------------------------------------------------

This is history that Americans are not taught. The American mainstream has no credibility and you base your whole argumnt on what the American mainstream says.

This is from Smedley Butler's time and we are not taught any of this. Why do you think this has ended? Go abroad and talk to people and they will tell you that his hasn't ended.

 

[FatFreddy]

Here's a bood that joepistola should read.

http://www.ier.edu.vn/upload/produc...a-day-hoc-lich-su-tai-hoa-ky-149754535413.pdf
(excerpt-page 211)
------------------------------------------------------------------
More important and often less affable American exports are our multi-
national corporations. One multinational alone, International Telephone and
Telegraph (ITT), which took the lead in prompting our government to destabi-
lize the socialist government of Salvador Allende, had more impact on Chile
than all the Peace Corps workers America ever sent there. The same might be
said of Union Carbide in India and United Fruit in Guatemala, By influencing
U.S. government policies, other American-based multinationals have had even
more profound effects on other nations.
11
At times the corporations' influence
has been constructive. For example, when Pres. Gerald Ford was trying to per-
suade Congress to support U.S. military intervention on behalf of the UNITA
rebels in Angola's civil war, Gulf Oil lobbied against intervention. Gulf was hap-
pily producing oil in partnership with Angola's Marxist government when it
found its refineries coming under fire from American arms in the hands of
UNITA. At other times, multinationals have persuaded our government to inter-
vene when only their corporate interest, not our national interest, was at stake.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

(excerpt-page 213)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
When Americans try to think through the issues raised by the complex
interweaving of our economic and political interests, they will not be helped by
what they learned in their American history courses. History textbooks do not
even mention multinationals. The topic doesn't fit their "international good guy"
approach. Only
American Adventures
even lists "multinationals" in its index, and
its treatment consists of a Single sentence: "These investments [in Europe after
World War I] led to the development of multinational corporations—large com-
panies with interests in several countries," Even this lone statement is inaccurate:
European multinationals date back centuries, and American multinationals have
played an important role in pur history since at least 1900.

 

[joepistole]

We could go back and forth forever I suppose but I'll go another time.

You're being deliberately obtuse. I pointed out two cases of blatant dishonesty by the mainstream.

We are not taught that the US practiced imperialism back when Smedley Butler was a general. The fact of the matter is that the US did practice imperialism back then. This shows that the mainstream on which you base your whole argument cannot be trusted. You trust it anyway.

Yeah,we can go back and forth forever, and you can continue to ignore the last century. But that will not change the facts here, you have nothing relevant to back up your assertions.

All American sources of information tell us that the German people and soldiers had world conquest in mind during WW2 (Do YouTube searches on "Adolf Hitler: Explains His Reasons For Invading The Soviet Union" and "Adolf Hitler Explains Reasons For Invading Poland"). Hitler told them that they were righting old wrongs and recovering lost territory. He did not tell them that they should conquer the world. This is another case of blatant dishonesty by the mainstream.

You have no evidence of that. They told us German that the German government was invading its neighbors, and it was. The US didn't get involved in WW II until after Japan and the Nazi German government declared war on the US.

So you believe without question everything Hitler and his government said. You believe B because Hitler said it, it must be true.

Here is the thing comrade, Hitler violated the Treaty of Versailles. He violated his agreements to not invade Poland. Hitler wasn't trustworthy. Yet you unquestionably believe him. And then there is the fact that even if what Hitler said were true, it doesn't justify his invasions, occupations and annexations of neighboring states.

You're being deliberately obtuse about the point I'm making. Anyone who bases his opinion of current events or history on what the mainstream says is hopelessly naive.

Not ignoring the last century isn't being obtuse comrade. In fact it's rather comical that the guy who ignores the last century, i.e. you, accuses others who don't ignore data of being obtuse and hopelessly naïve. They don't ignore data; they don't ignore the facts as you do comrade.

Please recognize those two cases of dishonesty by the American mainstream info sources. How can you continue to base your views on what tell you after having seen two cases of blatant dishonesty?

Before you go accusing others of dishonesty, you need to take a long and serious look at your dishonesty. You haven't proven any dishonesty beyond your own.

The false news is what comes from the US mainstream. Objective news comes from the alterrnative press (see post #13).

Well here is the thing comrade, you have no evidence to back up your assertions and you have to ignore more than a century of history in an attempt to make sense of your beliefs and personally attack others when they confront you on your errors of fact and reason.

This thread is turning out to be a good study of sophistry.

A good point was made in post #72. Why didn't you address it?
Tell us what you think of this info.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/Philippines_Revolution.html
(excerpt)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nearly 100 years ago, U.S. Marines invaded the newly independent Philippines and killed anywhere from a quarter of a million (U.S. military estimates) to a half million Filipinos in the course of colonizing the archipelago. The legacy of 50 years of U.S. colonial rule is palpable in the slums and streets of Manila, the misery and poverty of the countryside, and the three million Filipinos forged to migrate abroad in search of a livelihood.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Asia/Philippines_StateEmergency.html
(excerpt)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Philippines was a US colony until 1946, but even thereafter Washington regularly intervened politically by financing preferred candidates and groups, conducting widespread covert operations, and helping to stage-manage elections. In 1950, a US National Security Council document stated that among the United States' goals in the country was the maintenance of "an effective government which will preserve and strengthen the pro-US orientation." In 1972, the US supported the declaration of martial law because, as a US Senate report put it, "Military bases and a familiar government in the Philippines are more important than the preservation of democratic institutions."
------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/American_Empire/US_Imperialism_LongHx_PA.html
(excerpt)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Many in the United States, including President McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt, welcomed Kipling's rousing call for the United States to engage in "savage wars," beginning in the Philippines. Senator Albert J. Beveridge of Indiana declared: "God has not been preparing the English-speaking and Teutonic peoples for a thousand years for nothing but vain and idle selfcontemplation and self-admiration .... He has made us adept in government that we may administer government among savage and senile peoples." In the end, more than 126,000 officers and men were sent to the Philippines to put down the Filipino resistance during a war that lasted officially from 1899 to 1902 but actually continued much longer, with sporadic resistance continuing for most of a decade. U.S. troops logged 2,800 engagements with the Filipino resistance. At least a quarter of a million Filipinos, most of them civilians, were killed along with 4,200 U.S. soldiers (more than ten times the number of U.S. fatalities in the Spanish-American War).5
From the beginning it was clear that the Filipino forces were unable to match the United States in conventional warfare. They therefore quickly switched to guerrilla warfare. U.S. troops boasted in a popular marching song that they would "civilize them with the Krag" (referring to the Norwegian-designed gun with which the U.S. forces were outfitted). Yet they found themselves facing interminable small attacks and ambushes by Filipinos, who often carried long knives known as bolos. These guerrilla attacks resulted in combat deaths of U.S. soldiers in small numbers on a regular basis. As in all prolonged guerrilla wars, the strength of the Filipino resistance was due to the fact that it had the support of the Filipino population. As General Arthur MacArthur (the father of Douglas MacArthur), who became military governor of the Philippines in 1900, confided to a reporter in 1899:

This is history that Americans are not taught. The American mainstream has no credibility and you base your whole argumnt on what the American mainstream says.

This is from Smedley Butler's time and we are not taught any of this. Why do you think this has ended? Go abroad and talk to people and they will tell you that his hasn't ended.

Well then you need to begin being intellectually honest. You need to recognize all relevant history. You need credible evidence. You have none of those things.

 

[FatFreddy]

Yeah,we can go back and forth forever, and you can continue to ignore the last century. But that will not change the facts here, you have nothing relevant to back up your assertions.

So you consider this info to be irrelevant.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/h-r-5181.158636/page-2#post-3435242

An objecitve truth-seeker would try to determine whether it was true or not. You haven't proven it's untrue so you should at least be curious.

You have no evidence of that. They told us German that the German government was invading its neighbors, and it was. The US didn't get involved in WW II until after Japan and the Nazi German government declared war on the US.

So you believe without question everything Hitler and his government said. You believe B because Hitler said it, it must be true.

Here is the thing comrade, Hitler violated the Treaty of Versailles. He violated his agreements to not invade Poland. Hitler wasn't trustworthy. Yet you unquestionably believe him. And then there is the fact that even if what Hitler said were true, it doesn't justify his invasions, occupations and annexations of neighboring states.

You're grossly misrepresenting my position. The issue I raised is what the German people and soldiers were thinking during the war. I don't rule out the idea that he was lying to the people to get them to unwittingly support imperialist policies.

Here's what I said.

All American sources of information tell us that the German people and soldiers had world conquest in mind during WW2 (Do YouTube searches on "Adolf Hitler: Explains His Reasons For Invading The Soviet Union" and "Adolf Hitler Explains Reasons For Invading Poland"). Hitler told them that they were righting old wrongs and recovering lost territory. He did not tell them that they should conquer the world. This is another case of blatant dishonesty by the mainstream.

Now please address the issue I raised. Don't address a different issue and pretend you've addressed the issue.

Not ignoring the last century isn't being obtuse comrade. In fact it's rather comical that the guy who ignores the last century, i.e. you, accuses others who don't ignore data of being obtuse and hopelessly naïve. They don't ignore data; they don't ignore the facts as you do comrade.

You keep ignoring the two cases of blatant dishonesty by the mainstream that shows that the mainstream isn't trustworthy. You just keep insisting that mainstream info is credible. You keep saying I haven't proven that the US is an imperialist ower in the world. Do you think that you've proven it isn't?

Before you go accusing others of dishonesty, you need to take a long and serious look at your dishonesty. You haven't proven any dishonesty beyond your own.

What this response is is an avoidance of what I asked you to address. Here it is again. Please address it.

Please recognize those two cases of dishonesty by the American mainstream info sources. How can you continue to base your views on what tell you after having seen two cases of blatant dishonesty?

Well then you need to begin being intellectually honest. You need to recognize all relevant history. You need credible evidence. You have none of those things.

Again you just avoided addressing an issue. You have an authoritative patronizing attitude but what you're actually saying would get you laughed out of the debating hall.


I know you pro-official version posters will just tap dance around when you're checkmated in a debate so my goal here is not to make you admit anything. I know you're going to stick to your position hell or high water so you'll have to say some pretty lame things to maintain your position. You've said some pretty lame things and all of the viewers have seen them so your credibility is pretty much shot. There's really not much else for me to do here.

So long for now Mr. Black Knight.