View Full Version : Voice of Reason, your reply
We were arguing previously over my views of politics/the world
i said i would try to explain why. Been very busy.
its hard to explain to people why you dont beleive what they do, think as they do or why you question what they take for granted. Ive been thinking for a while as to how to explain to others why my beleifs and perceptions of the world are different to theirs. But ive come to realise that to do that i would basically have to explain to them everything i have read over the last few years. 2-3 hours a day of reading material adds up over 2-4 years. I can only say that those who beleive what they see from the typical media (cnn bbc etc) are obviously ignorant sheep. They dont know who controlls it, who owns it, who influences it. To get the truth of any event you have to read both sides of the story, i can bet that VoR you dont. You have been taught to mistrust anyone who disagrees with your views, beleive only the "west" and accept what they tell you as the truth.
2 examples
Subliminal messages are very important in telling us how to think.
messages hidden withing what you see on tv.
When you read the papers killings of palestinian politicians is targetted killing of terrorists, yet when it comes to israel killing, tell me once when it has been called terrorism or murder. How many have been "targetted killings" or in truth murders/assasinations, 10, 20 , 100? over the last 10 years 10000?. When an israli cabinet official is killed it is "murder, terrosism, cowardice". You wont find the west say anything else of it. Because of his death the isralies have more excuses, they want the "terrorists" who killed him. fine i say, but you hand over every one of your soldiers who has "commited a targetted kill" on a palestinian. I dont feel pity for the bastard, he desribed the palestinians as lice that needed to be eradicated, all of them, supported forcing them out by any means neccesary. One example of one tiny event. Yet for you, you have never questioned the "targetted killings" and blindly accepted the killing of that israli as murderous terrorism. Could you please explain tell me the difference? i for one am stumped.
Another example the "historic peace plan that gave the palestinians everything" was "rejected" by arafat. How many times have you heard this, how many times has the thought gone through your head that if only they palestinians had accepted, if only THEY had, there would more than likely be peace now, THEY had the chance, they were stupid, greedy, unwilling to make peace. How many of you know the details of the plan. Why didnt the media release it, or the notes of it? Maybe because it was a joke. It proposed the division of the palestinian controlled areas into 3 sections, each section controlled by a palestinian police force, each police force controlled by the isralies? huh?. If one wanted to go from one town to another and had to cross israel lines stretching all over the country dividing it into 3 tottaly seperate areas plus the gaza strip as a seperate entity. On top of that it broke the un oslo accords. 9% of palestine would be given to israel, in return 1% of israel would be given to palestine. in jeruselam all muslim and christian sections would be walled off, with absolutely no access to the jewish areas. heard of a prison? to top it off all of these walled off areas would have tunnels dug, complements of the zionist army, so that arafat could visit without stepping on any israeli land, or that people could leave without going amongs the isralies. So, the police force is controlled by the isralies, your country is cut up by their army checkpoints, your most beloved city will become a prison, and if you dare reject it, well we all know, the palestinians are just evil lovers of violence right?
Similar examples for every single other event to occur in recent history. If you accept what you are told then you will beleive what the slave media wants you to beleive. If you read and learn from sources that arent controlled by the same people commiting the crimes in israel maybe your opinions will change. It is impossible for me to convince you of anything. So i will give you a start, here are some pages that you should read. no knowledge will ever hinder you in life.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/shaffer8.html
subject? conspiracy theories, this pretty much explains what i didnt have the capacity to do, why i beleive in conspiracies, read this before posting replies/insults. The other pages are websites, this is an article. If you have not read it you have read my post properly.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/
one of the best sites found on the web
http://www.israelshamir.net/
writings of an american jew, someone who is very knowledgable
there is one specific article, but the site is down atm, post url afterwards
http://www.rense.com
contains articles from a lot of sources, a very good site, but 1 in 10 articles
are a waste of time
now i will however post some further information on s11, a full article later on
for now ill just leave about 10 facts, ill post the sources when i do a proper s11 post
but for the record most links can be found from israel shamirs web page
"Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information."
-- US official quoted in Carl Cameron's Fox News report on the Israeli spy ring.
so there IS information???
if there was no guilt would he say it like THAT?
1 jew died on s11, 4000 worked there, 10% fatality = 400 by maths
how did it get to 1? new york times, link to come
70 israeli spies arrested after s11 in a huge spy ring (which you probobly havent heard a word about from the western media ****s) lived "within a stones throw" of the highjackers base in america. About 140 in the whole ring.
the flight school owner has links to the CIA
4 mossad agents were arrested on a buildingtop on s11 overlooking the twin towers, they were jumping gleefully as reported by the arresting agents. isralie haaratz, sep 15th or so
7 out of the 19 highjackers werent actually on the planes and have since been accounted for.
the black box(es) didnt survive, but thier passports conveniently did
the FBI shut down almost all islamic web sites/news services into america on the 8th of sep 2001, they shut down the isp that provided web pages/web tv links from almost all islamic sources in america. The warrant for it was sealed, so nobody can say why
convenient?
the economist, an american economy magazie reported that if not for s11 the american dollar would be worthless by now, and that only a war in the next few years can prevent another post wwI germany type depression, where a wheelbarrow full of notes could get you 1 loaf of bread.
The axis of evil just happens to be the 3 countries that dont accept american money :rolleyes:
and the plane that chrashed in the middle of nowhere blew up in mid air, it is physically impossible to account for the spread of the debris otherwise. I thought they had cardboard knives..?
dubyas grandfather had his assets taken for helping out hitler
all palestinians will be dead withing 5 years at this rate, but dont worry they are all accidents, if that makes you feel better.
i use the palestinian/israel situation because it is the most obvious one
Bloodstained Angel
2 May 2002, 08:31
Looked under your bed lately ?
theres a Mossad Agent and a Freemason under there engaged in homosexual acts while they assemble a nuclear weapon designed to destroy all CIA files on Alien abductions ...
no, seriuosly ah-19 please go home and look under your bed now !
before its too late !!!!!!!!
To an extent you are right Ah. But it really applies to you too.
I have thrown my 'pearls of wisom' many times to the young only to be rebutted with personal insult (veiled or not) but I will try again.
When you are born you undergo systemic programming by parents, siblings, teachers, peers and lesser inflences that determines who you 'think' you are. So as a mature 18 year old you give an opinion on a matter which you consider is your own when in fact it is almost exactly the same result as if a computer had been programmed to give a result 1 + 1 = 3. The opinion is not yours, you don't have one, you only espouse the opinion of your programmers.
And so life goes on, into the twenties and thirties, following the programming that is enhanced and usually re-enforced by the peer group you choose to associate with because of similar programming. At some time the question arises "Who am I?' and that is a challenge because to find it you have to question all the beliefs that have been programmed, on your own. No help around because your peer group will only seek to reinforce your programmed beliefs (you see this re-enforcement even on these boards). A challenge of a belief doesn't mean that you neccesarily change that belief, but it does mean that, if done sincerely, it reflects you and no longer your programmers. It is likeley that some beliefs will stay and some will change. The hard bit is that those beliefs that have changed can lead to disharmony with peers, parents and even spouses. But at least it is 'you' that is living.
It is probable that 90% or more of the population actually never do challenge their programming and live a full life of their programming.
Challenging beliefs is the path to finding ones 'true' self. But there is an even bigger challenge, that of finding ones 'higher' self. And once that is found then all aspects of the material world diminish in significance.
Dr Zaius
2 May 2002, 13:54
Society & Culture board or cynics board??
In relation to the abovementioned Palestine/Israel conflict, I think dissecting the conflict by actions of the past will only continue the "Hatfield & McCoy" mentality that condones the current violence.
Here's is my non original programmed thought solution. I (or my peers, not sure yet) think that the first "side" to use completely non violent methods to obtain their objectives ala Gandhi will prevail. You may think me stupid for saying this but I think people find it abhorent to use violence in a situation where one party will not fight back.
I know this is not the same but think about how angry you get when you are involved in road rage, I could quite easily belt someone if they react with violent gestures or indicate they intend to use violence regardless of whether I am in the right or wrong. It is not the initial cause of the incident but the reaction of the other party that determines my behaviour.
I think if an outsider viewed such an incident they would be much more supportive of the other party's actions if I too was violent but would be appaled if I was not.
Would be interested if other people think my simle example translates to the world theatre.
Frodo:
To an extent you are right Ah. But it really applies to you too.
I have thrown my 'pearls of wisom' many times to the young only to be rebutted with personal insult (veiled or not) but I will try again.
It is probable that 90% or more of the population actually never do challenge their programming and live a full life of their programming.
My parents never forced anything on me, because quite frankly they didnt care, if i told them i beleived that we evolved from apes, that god didnt exist, that aliens are watching us, that arafat is a mossad agent, they wouldnt care less and wouldnt tell me otherwise. Any programming that i had came from the australian education system. Which thank god i have grown out of.
3-4 years ago when i just finished high school my reply would have been the same as BA's because i thought the same way and few things make me angrier than the fact that i fell for it. Its not that i disagree with most of what you beleive, i just know more of certain events, read more, and thus dont fall for the filtering of facts that the media does so well, to illicit the response they want from you. When i read something that can be verified and disagrees with my point of view i accept it, do you?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will The Real Paranoids Please
Raise Their Hands?
By Butler Shaffer
5-1-2
When one dares to dig beneath the surface of governmental programs to reveal undisclosed purposes, he or she is usually met with charges of being a "paranoid" defender of "conspiracy theories." More often than not, such an accusation silences the questioner, as it is designed to do. I long ago came to the conclusion that those who chastise others for spouting "conspiracy theories" tend to do so because they don t want the implications of their own schemes revealed to the public. "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!," intoned the Wizard of Oz, an admonition designed to intimidate the inquisitive into silence.
I, for one, gladly admit to the embracing of any conspiracy theory for which there is credible evidence. But those who condemn me for my views never seem interested in examining the evidence, their purposes being more to prevent the raising of discomforting questions. Having read a good deal of history over the years, I ask my critics to account for the countless foreign intrigues, plots, assassinations, alliances, and other cabals that have been at the heart of so much of the history of the world. Do Shakespeare s tragedies almost all of which are grounded in conspiracies of one kind or another have nothing to teach us about the machinations of human behavior?
A Jewish acquaintance once criticized me for my views, adding "there are no conspiracies." "May I quote you on that?," I asked. He could not understand my purpose in wanting to do so, so I told him: "because it s not often one hears Jewish people denying the Nazi holocaust the way you just did." After advising him that the "Nazi holocaust" requires a conspiracy of German government officials, he was prepared to modify his statement to allow for the kinds of conspiracies that he believed in.
One of my colleagues, who teaches antitrust law, attacked me for defending even the idea of "conspiracies," until I asked him if he intended to reduce his course from three units to one. "Since so much of antitrust law consists of conspiracies to restrain trade, or fix prices, or divide up markets, or monopolize an industry, or engage in such more subtle conspiracies as conscious parallelism, I assume that, since you do not believe in conspiracies, you will take the lead in condemning such specious theories."
Conspiracy theories abound in our society, and are widely accepted, . . . provided you are identifying the "politically correct" conspiracy. World War II was conducted, in part, on the premise that the so-called "axis powers" were conspiring to take over the world. But if one tries to offer evidence that FDR secretly manipulated the Japanese into an attack on Pearl Harbor in order to serve his political agenda, the "anti-conspiracy league" quickly appears to attack not the evidence, but the state of mind of the accuser. When World War II ended, the "international communist conspiracy" was hurriedly rushed onstage to justify the commitment of trillions of dollars of wealth and hundreds of thousands of lives to fight a "Cold War." When the "Cold War" critics began to speak and write about how this campaign was designed to serve American corporate-state interests at the expense of the American people, the "anti-conspiracy league" was again called into action.
For those who are paying attention, the incongruity of the critics of conspiracy theories should be apparent. "We are busy conducting wars against sinister foreign conspiracies," they might argue, "and anyone who suggests that we might be engaged in conspiracies of our own, are paranoids. " "They" conspire, in other words, but "we" do not. A childishly simple explanation for consumption by childishly simple minds.
"Paranoia" consists not in a fear of others, but in a baseless fear. Would one regard a Jew, in Nazi Germany, as "paranoid," because he thought the government was out to do him harm? If so, how would we characterize the state of mind of another Jew, similarly located, who did not see any threat from his government? When one further considers how preoccupied government officials are with protecting themselves from those they imagine themselves to represent to the point of routinely having bomb-sniffing dogs, armed security guards, and military helicopters and soldiers accompany their public appearances it should be asked: just who is being "paranoid?"
It is interesting to observe the psychological projection that takes place in such dynamics. The defenders of statism attack their critics as "paranoids" while, at the same time, fostering an endless supply of "enemies" against whom they promise us protection! Politics thrives on the mobilization of the fear of others. President Bush s unilateral declaration of a permanent war against the rest of the world can only be premised upon the most paranoid assumption that everyone else is involved in a conspiracy against American interests!
It has always been comforting to most people to imagine, albeit unconsciously, that the "dark side" of their personality i.e., the capacity for violence, dishonesty, bigotry, etc. can be severed from themselves and projected onto others, against whom punitive action can then be taken. All that occurs in such behavior, of course, is the punishment of the others who stand in as scapegoats for the feared shortcomings of those engaged in projecting. This kind of thinking has produced the current Bush-induced mindset that when America bombs other countries killing innocent men, women, and children in the process it is a force for "good" defending "freedom." When these other countries retaliate for such attacks killing innocent men, women, and children in so doing they represent the forces of "evil" engaged in "terrorism." That grown men and women can internalize this kind of playground logic, particularly when the consequences are so deadly, is indeed frightening.
This war whose name is ever-changing has moved far beyond simply retaliation against those responsible for attacking the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11th. It has become more of a self-righteous "holy crusade" against nations that are unprepared to acknowledge America as the rightful ruler of the entire world. Neo-conservative zealots have exploited the September 11th tragedy to pursue a much broader agenda of American hegemony. It is no longer sufficient to track down the perpetrators of that attack, the war must be expanded to include nations whose identities seem to have been selected from someone s Rolodex file of place-names! "Who shall we attack next?" has been the operative question around Washington. After months of bombing Afghanistan, President Bush was quick to declare an "Axis of Evil" as the broader enemy, suggesting that North Korea, Iraq, and Iran were engaged in some conspiracy, apparently of satanic dimensions, against America. Soon, new candidates were offered up for public consumption: the Philippines, Indonesia, Somalia, the Sudan, Colombia, and perhaps other Middle Eastern or African nations. The candidates for inclusion on this list may include anyone unprepared to genuflect before American interests. (The list will presumably not include China, which would likely offer deadly resistance.)
Let us suppose that some criminal has engaged in a violent attack upon your Uncle Willie s home. Let us suppose, further, that Willie has undertaken a campaign to discover and bring to account the perpetrators of this offense. This would be a perfectly rational response on his part, for which the rest of us would likely lend our support. But suppose that Willie goes further than this and, not being able to discover the criminal, begins going through his neighborhood shooting anyone about whom he has become suspicious, or against whom he has long harbored a grudge. Would your response be to jump on his bandwagon and assist his undertaking, or would you want him confined to some facility that could provide him with a whole lot of couch time?
It is time for sane men and women to put down their flags and begin to recognize the current war-mania not simply as a misguided adventure, but as the collective psychopathic disorder that it has become. When those in power tell us that they are engaged in an endless war against endless enemies, it is time to say "enough!" We have a responsibility to maintain the conditions upon which life may flourish on this planet, not to follow the madness of those who have no greater vision than to commit all of mankind to a state of universal and eternal warfare in furtherance of their delusions. It is time for intelligence and human decency to transcend the frenzied jingoism now prevailing upon the land, and for intellectual honesty to expose the schemes of those who conspire against life itself. ___
Butler Shaffer teaches at the Southwestern University School of Law.
Copyright © 2002 LewRockwell.com
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/shaffer8.html
Originally posted by ah_19
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/shaffer8.html
subject? conspiracy theories, this pretty much explains what i didnt have the capacity to do, why i beleive in conspiracies, read this before posting replies/insults. The other pages are websites, this is an article. If you have not read it you have read my post properly.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/
one of the best sites found on the web
http://www.israelshamir.net/
writings of an american jew, someone who is very knowledgable
there is one specific article, but the site is down atm, post url afterwards
http://www.rense.com
contains articles from a lot of sources, a very good site, but 1 in 10 articles are a waste of time
Your links to various websites on conspiracies makes some interesting reading, much of which I cannot comment on with any authority as this period of history is not my area of expertise. However the website that you claim as the best can also be accused of bending or stretching the truth.
Ancient history, especially Roman history (Late Republic) IS my area of expertise. In this area, I consider some of the historical section of the website "www.whatreallyhappened.com" to be quite inaccurate and somewhat embellished. It makes one wonder what other "conspiracy theories" mentioned here are bent to favor a particular point of view. It also makes it difficult to concur with the impression that conspiracy theorists hold the high moral ground, when they appear to do essentially the same thing, as what they accuse various governments around the world of doing.
Found on www.whatreallyhappened
In 70 BC, an ambitious minor politician and extremely wealthy man, Marcus Licineus Crassus, wanted to rule Rome. Just to give you an idea of what sort of man Crassus really was, he is credited with invention of the fire brigade. But in Crassus' version, his fire-fighting slaves would race to the scene of a burning building whereupon Crassus would offer to buy it on the spot for a tiny fraction of it's worth. If the owner sold, Crassus' slaves would put out the fire. If the owner refused to sell, Crassus allowed the building to burn to the ground. By means of this device, Crassus eventually came to be the largest single private land holder in Rome, and used some of his wealth to help back Julius Caesar against Cicero.
This is not correct.
Actually Rome’s first permanent fire brigade was established by the Emperor Augustus in AD 6. Previously there had been ad-hoc arrangements and it appears that powerful and rich Senators MAY have had private firefighters, including Crassus. However nowhere do the sources specifically mention that Crassus had his own. Nero, somewhat ironically if you believe the story of him setting the Great Fire of Rome (another conspiracy theory, surprisingly not mentioned by this site!), introduced fire regulations for apartments in Rome.
Neither was Crassus a "minor politician". His family (the Licinius family) was one of the oldest and famous families in Roman history of the patrician class. His father was a praetor and some of his ancestors and relatives were consuls. It was expected that one day he would rise to a position of prominence within the Republic. The major source for Crassus’ life is Plutarch’s “Fall of the Roman Republic”. In fact the little story about the firefighters, given on the website above is clearly twisted from the sources
Plutarch says the following and I quote…..
“ …Crassus also observed what frequent and everyday occurrences in Rome were fire and the collapse of buildings owing to their size and their close proximity to each other. He therefore bought slaves who were architects and builders , and then when he had more than 500 of them, he would buy up houses that were either on fire themselves, or near the scene of a fire; the owners of these properties, in the terror and uncertainty of the moment would let them go for next to nothing.” (Plutarch Ch. 3 Part 2)
So, in other words there were no fire-fighting slaves, as stated by the website nor did they let buildings burn to the ground, if the owners refused to sell. Plainly incorrect.
Found on www.whatreallyhappened
In 70 BC Rome was still a Republic, which placed very strict limits on what Rulers could do, and more importantly NOT do. But Crassus had no intentions of enduring such limits to his personal power, and contrived a plan.
Crassus seized upon the slave revolt led by Spartacus in order to strike terror into the hearts of Rome, whose garrison Spartacus had already defeated in battle. But Spartacus had no intention of marching on Rome itself, a move he knew to be suicidal. Spartacus and his band wanted nothing to do with the Roman empire and had planned from the start merely to loot enough money from their former owners in the Italian countryside to hire a mercenary fleet in which to sail to freedom.
Not what Plutarch says! Crassus did not seize upon the slave revolt to strike terror into the hearts of Rome. After their rebellion began, the gladiators defeated the praetor Clodius, then another praetor, Varinius,
Plutarch says…..”he (Spartacus) could not expect to prove superior to the whole power of Rome, and so he began to lead his whole army towards the Alps. His view was that they should cross the mountains and then disperse to their own homes……… His men however would not listen to him. They were strong in numbers and full of confidence, and they went back to Italy ravaging everything in their way.
Plutarch adds the following….
“the situation had become dangerous enough to inspire real fear, and as a result both consuls were sent out to deal with what was a considered a major war and a most difficult one to fight.”
Crassus was already a Praetor and now was advanced to Pro-Consul and supreme commander of the war, when both Consuls were defeated. One of his subordinate commanders commanding two legions was defeated.
Found on www.whatreallyhappened
Sailing away was the last thing Crassus wanted Spartacus to do. He needed a convenient enemy with which to terrorize Rome itself for his personal political gain. So Crassus bribed the mercenary fleet to sail without Spartacus, then positioned two Roman legions in such a way that Spartacus had no choice but to march on Rome.
Again plainly incorrect. Plutarch says the following…
"At the straits, he (Spartacus) fell in from some pirate ships from Cilicia and formed the plan of landing 2,000 men in Sicily……….to start another revolt of the slaves there……. However the Cilicians, after agreeing to his proposals and receiving gifts from him, failed to keep their promises and sailed off."
No mention of any collusion between Crassus and the Cilicians.
To further refute the above statement, Plutarch says that Crassus then tried to build fortifications across the Isthmus of Rhegium (the toe of Italy) and thence wall Spartacus in. Hardly the actions of a man WANTING Spartacus to march on Rome, as claimed. Spartacus manged to escape with only a third of his army intact and believed my many historians, incapable of marching on Rome.
Plutarch now says
“ Crassus was now alarmed, thinking that Spartacus might conceive the idea of marching directly on Rome. “
Found on www.whatreallyhappened
Terrified of the impending arrival of the much-feared army of gladiators, Rome declared Crassus Praetor. Crassus then crushed Spartacus' army and even though Pompey took the credit, Crassus was elected Consul of Rome the following year.
Crassus was already Praetor, before the revolt of the slaves even started as described above. He was elected Consul the following year (70 BC), however he does not appear again in public life until five years later in 65 BC, when he helped a young Julius Caesar gain office as an aedile, which was quite a junior office.
Found on www.whatreallyhappened
With this maneuver, the Romans surrendered their Republican form of government. Soon would follow the first Triumvirate, consisting of Crassus, Pompeii, and Julius Caesar, followed by the reign of the god-like Emperors of Rome.
Again incorrect and misleading. The above statement implies that Crassus' so called "conspiracy' brought down the Roman Republic, "with this maneuver". This is clearly not the case. The slave revolt was in 73-71 BC, Crassus was consul in 70 BC and the first emperor Augustus was declared emperor in 27 BC, well over 40 years later. The Roman Republic had in fact been crumbling since the Brothers Gracchi, Marius and co. had become influential.
Found on www.whatreallyhappened
The Romans were hoaxed into surrendering their Republic, and accepting the rule of Emperors.
This is a matter of historical debate and by no means certain, which makes it difficult to see how it could be claimed as fact by this website. The Senate appointed Augustus, triumvir and in 27 BC he renounced all his powers. He was elected consul in 27 , 26, 25, 24, 23, 18, 13, and 8 BC as well as AD 3 and 13. The process of change from a Republic to an Empire was gradual. In fact it was the reign of Tiberius (AD 14-27) that the Senate took a back seat.
It's generalisations and inaccuracies like this, that make me, quite frankly, quite sceptical about the other claims made on this website. I must admit they make interesting reading though.
roy i appreciate the effort so dont take this the wrong way
first off where did you get that post on rome, ive been reading www.whatreallyhappenend.com for about 1-2 months now, and i havent read 1 post regarding history?
my opinions of rome and what it used to be are coming from a tottaly different place to all this, you may be right, you may not, i know personally from reading history on rome that there are some very distinct differences from whats written in the west to the rest of the world. No doubt america would want to glorify it in a sense because it is a republic like rome, its not a democracy in a real sense, america is modern days rome.
To beleive you that there are intentional faults on there or stupid ones i would have to read the history books of a few different perpectives of rome, and then if they all agreed on the same point, and that post did not i would beleive you. And atm i have 4 assignments due at uni within the next 2 weeks, not atm
Please find something regarding modern day events that is inaccurate on that page.Quite frankly without verifying it I dont beleive you will, i beleive that to discredit it to others or to yourself? you have used something that i for one am unable to verify with my knowledge, and am not willing to waste time verifying. Why? as i said, busy, and history of rome is very divided among the places of the world, as is all history, eg the holocaust. If you can find discrepancies of modern day events that actually matter i will look into it, spend all the time i need looking into it(reasearching something like rome isnt for me at the top of a priority), and take it into account, and if you can prove its deceit, ill stop reading it. but untill then, i stand by what i said.
That page does nothing but report on modern day events that actually matter, and reports on them more in depth and facts than the western media does. It reports them from a neutral standpoint. Neutral meaning it delivers the truth, if the truth happens to make one side look evil, is that wrong? For the moment it is one of the best sources of internet news that can be found anywhere.
You find a fault regarding a modern day article, that is there to deceive people, and ill stop reading it.
If you wish to extend the same challenge to me regardint the western media, within 1 month, you wont have anything on tv left to watch.
Originally posted by ah_19
roy i appreciate the effort so dont take this the wrong way
first off where did you get that post on rome, ive been reading www.whatreallyhappenend.com for about 1-2 months now, and i havent read 1 post regarding history?
Suggest you look at http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/index.html
No information on history? What about the claims that the American government engineered the attack on Pearl Harbour?
Originally posted by ah_19
my opinions of rome and what it used to be are coming from a tottaly different place to all this, you may be right, you may not, i know personally from reading history on rome that there are some very distinct differences from whats written in the west to the rest of the world. No doubt america would want to glorify it in a sense because it is a republic like rome, its not a democracy in a real sense, america is modern days rome.
My quotes were from a primary source. Plutarch. Have you heard of Plutarch? Have you read his book "Fall of the Roman Republic"? All my point was, if there are inaccuracies, deceptions, orbendings of the truth, which there appears to be in this article, then who is to say that there isn't in other articles.
Originally posted by ah_19
To beleive you that there are intentional faults on there or stupid ones i would have to read the history books of a few different perpectives of rome, and then if they all agreed on the same point, and that post did not i would beleive you. And atm i have 4 assignments due at uni within the next 2 weeks, not atm
Plutarch is a primary source, written close to 2,000 years ago. He lived about AD 46 AD - AD 120. Most modern history books quote Plutarch. His mosst famous work is called "Parallel Lives of Illustrious Greeks and Romans. "
Originally posted by ah_19
Please find something regarding modern day events that is inaccurate on that page.Quite frankly without verifying it I dont beleive you will, i beleive that to discredit it to others or to yourself? you have used something that i for one am unable to verify with my knowledge, and am not willing to waste time verifying. Why? as i said, busy, and history of rome is very divided among the places of the world, as is all history, eg the holocaust. If you can find discrepancies of modern day events that actually matter i will look into it, spend all the time i need looking into it (reasearching something like rome isnt for me at the top of a priority), and take it into account, and if you can prove its deceit, ill stop reading it. but untill then, i stand by what i said.
As I stated my area of expertise is ancient Rome. If you are not willing to waste your time verifying something I have brought up, on a website you recommended, as being the best in this area, then why should I? I'm not trying to discredit this site, or you. All I am pointing out, is:
1) Conspiracy theorists can and will bend the truth for their own purposes as well as governments.
2) Conspiracy theorists also on occasions use misleading information and it takes some time and effort to flesh out the truth.
If you believe in the veracity of a website, then you should address any concerns when they are pointed out to you.
Originally posted by ah_19
That page does nothing but report on modern day events that actually matter, and reports on them more in depth and facts than the western media does. It reports them from a neutral standpoint. Neutral meaning it delivers the truth, if the truth happens to make one side look evil, is that wrong? For the moment it is one of the best sources of internet news that can be found anywhere.
Nothing wrong with that. However the website made an assertion that conspiracies are nothing new (and they aren't) and gave some information to support their claim, which was clearly exaggerated, twisted, bent and plainly wrong...whatever you want to call it.
Originally posted by ah_19
You find a fault regarding a modern day article, that is there to deceive people, and ill stop reading it.
If you wish to extend the same challenge to me regardint the western media, within 1 month, you wont have anything on tv left to watch.
I don't deny that the public only receive portions of the truth on some occasions, however my point was, that conspiracy theorists also aren't beyond presenting information that is also inaccurate. I showed you, and explained as well as I could, an example of a conspiracy theory article that is/was plainly incorrect.
Why is there a significant difference between a modern day article and information about conspiracies in history? You're almost saying that because information is incorrect about a conspiracy that happened in the ancient past, it doesn't really matter, becuase all the modern articles are OK. If the information is incorrect or twisted in one instance, who is to say that it isn't in another instance?
I certainly don't have time to verify every single article that appears on this website. However I take what I read, from any secondary source, with a grain of salt. The conspiracy theory sites are interesting to read, but I don't neccesarily believe they are totally correct either, 100% of the time. Finding errors on "what really happened" has only confirmed my stance to be the correct one.
"What really happened" in this case, wasn't "what really happened" at all.
Just to show that conspiracy theories can be readily explained, I'll take the rumor that Roosevelt knew that Pearl Harbour was going to be bombed. This is also found on www.whatreallyhappened".
This was a question asked on a website
I have just heard the disturbing rumor for the umpteenth time that Roosevelt knew that Pearl Harbor was about to be bombed, and said nothing, because he wanted America to be drawn into the war. Is this the truth?
This was the answer.
One is tempted at this point to decry the legacy of Richard M. Nixon, whose actions as President (and, some allege, as a presidential candidate) made generations of Americans unwilling to put any trust whatever in their leaders. In this view, Nixon helped besmirch the character of one of the most capable and beloved Presidents by making it possible to believe that Roosevelt would allow thousands of Americans be killed or wounded in order to further his own political goals.
That temptation evaporates when one discovers that such rumors started almost immediately after the bombing itself. In fact, Thomas Dewey (Republican candidate for President in 1944) tried to turn it into a campaign issue; he and several Republican senators claimed that "certain Japanese codes before Pearl Harbor" had been cracked, and that FDR "knew what was happening before Pearl Harbor, and instead of being re-elected he ought to be impeached." In the end, Dewey dropped the issue; partially because Army Chief of Staff General George Marshall provided evidence to the contrary, and partially because Dewey knew if he were to make such accusations in public, the Japanese government would realize that their codes had been compromised, which would prompt them to change their codes and cause serious hardship to future American operations.
On the face of it, there's a ring of truth to the rumor. The American military had broken some Japanese codes, and had received prior warning of an attack, both from notes they intercepted as well as notes the British cracked and passed on. Given that Marshall warned Pacific army commanders "the United States desires that Japan commits the first overt act," how hard is it to believe that Roosevelt allowed the surprise attack to occur in order to bring a vocally isolationist Congress and public into supporting war with Japan?
But let's look at each of these allegations in detail--you may note some flaws.
The American military had broken Japanese codes.
Yes. However, what they had broken were diplomatic codes. During the pre-war negotiations with Japan, Roosevelt often knew what the Japanese were prepared to offer and willing to settle for. The messages sent on December 6th made it perfectly clear to Roosevelt that the Japanese government was planning to declare war upon the United States.
So the American government knew an attack on Pearl Harbor was coming.
No. The Japanese government was not in the habit of informing its diplomats of planned military strikes in detail. So while the Americans knew that the Japanese message "Climb Niitakayama 1208" meant that a Japanese attack was planned on December 8th (Japanese time; December 7th U.S. time), they did not know where. The Pacific Ocean's a big place, and there were lots of targets available to the Japanese--the Philippines, Dutch East Indies, Singapore, etc. Admiral Stark recognized that the Japanese were planning to attack somewhere, but told his subordinates it would be "against either the Philippines, Thai, or Kra Peninsula or possibly Borneo."
But the carriers were out to sea on maneuvers, leaving behind several outdated battleships. So the Pearl Harbor attack wasn't nearly as successful as it could have been. Doesn't that mean that someone had ordered them to take precautions by sending out the carriers?
Try telling Roosevelt's staff and the navy that the Pearl Harbor attack wasn't nearly as successful as it could have been. Most of them believed that the Pearl Harbor attack had completely obliterated American strength in the Pacific.
As for the carriers, it would be another six months before their importance would be proven beyond a doubt, at the battle of Midway. At the time Pearl Harbor was attacked, nearly all naval leaders--including the Japanese--considered carriers and their aircraft best suited to reconnaissance. The real fighting would be left to the battleships, many of which were sunk or badly damaged after Pearl Harbor.
While the Americans knew some attack was coming, they did not know what type of attack. Had the air raid been followed up with an invasion, Pearl Harbor could not have held out for long, and the United States would have been without one of its major bases in the Pacific, in addition to having lost the fleet.
Even so, without the Japanese attack, America would never have declared war upon Japan.
Not true. Most people point to the August 1941 resolution to keep draftees on duty for more than twelve months, a measure that passed by the narrowest of margins, 203-202. But antiwar sentiment was waning quickly, especially in the wake of German U-boat attacks upon American vessels. In September, a poll showed 67 percent of the American public felt the United States should risk war rather than allow Japan to grow more powerful; 70 percent felt the United States should risk war with Germany. Many in Roosevelt's cabinet and the press felt that the President would have no difficulty in getting a declaration of war against Japan following the breakdown in peace negotiations in late November. But it was Roosevelt who refused to push the issue, instead waiting for Japan to make the first move.
In order to believe that Roosevelt knew about the coming Pearl Harbor attack but kept mum, you have to believe he had better information than any of his subordinates in the government or the military--information that since has been destroyed, since no one has been able to find it. Moreover, you have to believe that Roosevelt was willing to sacrifice most of the Pacific fleet, and possibly one of the most important American naval bases in the Pacific, probably crippling American operations against Japan for the next two years (by which time the Japanese would likely have taken over the Pacific and begun operations against the American West Coast) in order to gain public support for a measure the public already supported by a two-to-one margin. You also have to believe that Roosevelt--who had been Assistant Secretary of the Navy, who always claimed that if he hadn't gotten into politics he would have liked to have been an admiral, whose first campaign song for President was "Anchors Aweigh" (before being replaced by the more appropriate and upbeat "Happy Days Are Here Again")--would countenance the deaths of thousands of U.S. sailors for a few extra votes in Congress--again, for a measure that many observers felt would pass easily.
Which version is more believable? I guess that it a personal decision, based on a person's interpretation of the facts. However my point is, that much (however not all) of he information found on www.whatreallyhappened is readily explainable. or at least can be differently interpreted.