You haven't answered the question I asked. Just saying the question is irrelevant isn't an answer.
LOL....
Just because you don't like the answers comrade, it doesn't mean the answers haven't been given. Your question has been answered many times, and the answer will not change just because you don't like it.
They prove that the US government lied to us about what the German people and soldiers were thinking during WW2. Americans are taught that the German people and soldiers had world conquest in mind. Those speeches show that to be false. We've found a case of blatant dishonesty by the US government.
Except they don't. They prove Hitler said something. It doesn't prove the US government lied about anything much less about how the German people and soldiers were thinking. How could anyone know what everyone in a nation is thinking, as if everyone in the country was of one mind, as if that were even possible? What you have done comrade is consistently misrepresent history. What you have done comrade is consistently cherry pick your way through history.
And on top of that, what people thought about Nazi German motivations are totally irrelevant to your present assertions about the US government for previously given reasons. You are obfuscating comrade.
They are relevant because they expose the US government as a liar. If it lied once, it can lie again.
So because, according to you, the US government lied once some 77 years ago it, it's always a liar? And that somehow makes sense to you? Under that standard everyone is lying all the time, because everyone and every nation has told at least one lie.
I've already said that he may have been lying to get the people and soldiers to unwittingly support imperialist policies. That's not the issue here. The issue here is what the German people were thinking during the war.
Did you now? You lied comrade. Until now you have made no such assertion. So according to your standard you are not trustworthy. Which is it comrade, your allegation that the US lied or what the German people were thinking? You need to make up your mind and stop contradicting yourself. You just said the issue was whither the US lied and now you are saying that's not the issue. The issue now, according to you, what the German people were thinking.
That's all nonsense comrade.
This is a little vague. Are you saying that those speeches might be bogus? Do you think the translation is bad? Please be more specific.
(from post #88)
No. It's not at all vague. In fact it's very explicit. Just because some wacko posts something on the internet it doesn't mean it is truthful. Just because Hitler said something it doesn't mean what he said was truthful. You are once again obfuscating comrade.
LOL....give you a break?
Doubling down on General Butler are you?
As you have been repeatedly instructed, General Butler lived more than a hundred years ago. The world has changed, and changed dramatically from Butler's time.
You keep ignoring more than a century of history comrade.
This is another case of the US government blatantly lying to the people. You've admitted that what Smedley Butler said reflected reality. That reality is not taught in American history classes. It isn't on the history channel. We are taught a different reality which is false.
Except you have no evidence of that. My history classes were pretty good. Just because the History Channel doesn't push your unfounded conspiracies, it doesn't make them wrong. It doesn't make them deceptive. I don't know what history classes you took, but I'm beginning to think they were in or around the Kremlin. In that case, I can understand why you steadfastly refuse to recognize more than a hundred years of history.
These two cases totally destroy the government's credibility when it comes to defining what news is true and what news is false. Go ahead and play dumb. You won't fool anybody with an IQ over ninety.
http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html
(excerpt)
------------------------------------------------------
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
-------------------------------------------------------
Except they don't. You need to ask yourself why you only rely on specious conspiracy websites and reject all credible sources: sources which have been thoroughly vetted an a number of sources.
An objective truth-seeker who sees this info...
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/h-r-5181.158636/page-2#post-3435242
...would try to find out whether or not it was true. He or she wouldn't just dismiss it with no investigation.
An objective seeker of truth wouldn't ignore more than a century of history as you have done and continue to do. An objective seeker of truth wouldn't confine him or herself to only using specious conspiracy sources as you have done and continue to do.
