Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[cem_devecioglu]

 :-? :-? :-?

http://www.rense.com/general45/usus.htm

a bit long.. but for those interested in history may shed some light on many questions imo..

[Varche]

Interesting and long read.

Before people dismiss it, there are lots of people who amazingly honestly believe the Holocaust was just made up. I actually know one such person.

[jerry]

Interesting read Cem and whilst some of the conspiracy theories dont hold too much water imho ,others sadly ring true. I know that movies like Zeitgeist were deliberately made in a sort of rock n roll /easily digestible format but that too should raise serious questions. The books and movies by Michael Moore -and perhaps more intersestingly the attempts by "corporate" business and politicians to silence some of what he says about the land of free speech -should also raise questions.Lets not be fooled that this only happens in America. It isnt really about money, its about power/control and how to retain it. Money is simply the easiest way to obtain power. And what a small percentage it is of the worlds population who "own" such a large percentage of its wealth and they have absolutely no intention of altering that balance. As James Brown would put it "and man makes money to buy other men"

[bigegg]

I only read the first bit, cos conspiracy theories 

But... suppose Wheely Bin Laden *didn't* organise 11/9.
 
If the conspiracy *was* true, then WBL wouldn't admit organising 11/9 because he would actually be  doing what GWBush wants.
And he wouldn't do that, because he *does* hate the US (or claims to...)

[jerry]

We all know that Bush aint the brightest, but cast your minds back to that time and the US govt was lumping Saddam in league with Bin Laden. Ignorance or deliberate policy? The "official" reports on the events of 9/11 remain far too pat for my liking with far too many questions unanswered or avoided.

[aaronjb]

I read the first few lines and decided I probably need to be wearing my tin foil hat to go any further...

(I'll read it properly later when I'm not at work )

[cem_devecioglu]

apart from 9/11 there were really interesting paragraphs

"The lore that George was a "surveyor" is a populist distortion; he was no blue collar grunt, laying out property lines to earn a living. He was in fact the most ambitious of an elite family of 'land speculators' -- the colonial equivalent of venture capitalists -- and his toils were in the service of his own family fortune. Already one of the richest people in post-revolutionary America, he was determined to get even richer through the sale of his Ohio holdings, and wasn't about to be stopped by 'two-legged vermin' like the Shawnees and Miamis. To this end, he abused his dominance of the early federal government, arranging for Revolutionary War veterans (a battle-hardened militia) to be compensated with "land warrants" deep in Ohio's wilderness, far beyond his own holdings. He also encouraged the issuance of large bounties, equivalent to several months' income, for Indian scalps along the upper Ohio River. These were essentially open murder contracts that targeted ALL Indians, regardless of age, gender, or tribal affiliation."

"American imperialists developed an intense interest in California. Simply adding it piecemeal to their territorial inventory wouldn't have worked, however: it was too isolated, too defensible by the Mexicans. To take California, all of northern Mexico -- what is now California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and portions of Oklahoma, Kansas, and Colorado -- would have to be taken, requiring the invention of some PRETEXT for doing so. In 1836, American "adventurers" (freelance political operatives) instigated a regional coup in the Mexican province of Texas, splitting it off to form an independent country, the Republic of Texas. Nine years later, this nation was annexed as the 28th state"

"A 1975 investigation led by Admiral Rickover determined that the Maine's hull was breached by an explosion originating INSIDE the ship. This could have been a spontaneous "coal-bin explosion," or it could have been a bomb placed by an imperialist traitor. As with 9-11, this catastrophe neatly erased any inconvenient witnesses to its real mechanics."

[cem_devecioglu]

"This gave Roosevelt a back door into Europe via the Pacific. Beginning one month later, and fourteen months prior to the Pearl Harbor attack, he launched secret military and economic operations against the Japanese Empire, obstructing its only access to oil, rubber, and other strategic resources. The Japanese response to this blockade -- open hostilities against the United States, beginning with a crippling preemptive attack on the Pacific Fleet -- was entirely predictable. In fact, it was Roosevelt's whole purpose in setting up the blockade: Nearly unanimous "isolationist" sentiment at home was his first military target, and precipitating a "vicious sneak attack on US soil" was his deliberate design for destroying that sentiment. For this reason, he concentrated the Pacific Fleet in Hawaii as never before, where it would be seen as an imminent threat by Japanese generals. He then withheld intelligence of Japan's attack preparations from Pearl's top officers, continuing to exclude them even when radio intercepts revealed the movement of a Japanese carrier group toward Hawaii (6). "

"From 1941 to '46, and again in 1995, Congress investigated "the intelligence lapses that made this sneak attack possible" no less than NINE TIMES. On all of these occasions, officials of the Roosevelt Administration and the Office of Naval Intelligence perjured themselves and concealed vast amounts of evidence to preserve the historical fictions surrounding the Pearl Harbor attack. To this day, the NSA claims "national security" as its basis for withholding relevant material from the public. "National security" stands revealed, then, as a euphemism for this government's ruthless grip on power -- a thing that certainly would be threatened, were we to become fully aware of the treacheries it spawns. This context radically transforms "national security" rhetoric into an ideal excuse for all sorts of betrayals and deceits, and this seems to be it's actual interpretation among those who "safeguard" it."

the atomic bombing of Japan. President Truman's official rationalization for the bombing, trumpeted ad nauseum by the media of the day, was that it was the only way to end the war quickly, thus avoiding a horrific house-by-house assault of the entire Japanese Archipelago. In fact, the Japanese were already making conditional surrender overtures. Accepting their terms, however, would have made Truman's victory conditional as well, and he was determined to humiliate them. Even the total surrender he insisted on was only a few months away, by all signs. Meanwhile, the war in Europe having ended in May, the Russians were now free to join the allied fight against this old enemy of theirs, and were preparing to do exactly that. Given enough time to enter the Pacific War, they would have claimed a portion of Japan upon its surrender, just as they had recently claimed the eastern half of Europe. To keep the Soviets from horning in on this pending crown jewel of America's Pacific Empire, Truman needed his total victory immediately, and The Bomb gave him an irresistible means by which to secure it. As an early devotee of anti-Communist paranoia, he was also confronting the Russians with a demonstration of America's 'invincible technological prowess.' Finally, his decision to vaporize 200,000 Japanese civilians was made easier by his avowed hatred of the entire race (7).

[cem_devecioglu]

"American society has yet to recover from the "Red Menace!" propaganda barrage, which soon became a constant theme of international news coverage, and remained so for the next 40 years. As a means of inducing mass paranoia and public consent to limitless militarization, the "Red Menace" lost its punch following the collapse of the Soviet Union, necessitating its replacement with a more robust methodology -- the "Terrorist Menace!" Nazi Germany and Israel being the great innovators of this second method, America owes a great debt to both of them. "

"To keep the entire planet under its thumb, our government burdens us with the gargantuan cost of the world's largest military, which it mostly uses to crush pitiful rebellions in the remotest and poorest corners of the world, places we truly have no business being in. This is exactly like a bully swaggering around a school yard, shaking down all the little kids. Is that really how you want your government representing you to the rest of the world? Shouldn't DOMESTIC policy take priority instead? Things like adequate health care and effective primary education -- programs that would serve the wants and needs of YOU, their citizen, whom they claim to be their master. But this is not their priority, and never has been. The geometric growth of this economy, by various forms of conquest, is their abiding passion, with domestic policy being attended to almost as an afterthought. To force our consent, they hypnotize us with lurid visions of one boogeyman after another, maintaining childish fear as our primary political sensibility, keeping us dependent, trusting, stupid, distracting us from our own self-interests... "

and many other things.........

[cem_devecioglu]

and if you are curious about who shot JFK, here you go..
http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/confession2.htm

[Lizzie_Zoom]

Well I have skimmed and scanned myself through your lengthy, but very interesting piece Cem, and to answer it all would take at least an essay, or even a book!!

Anyway I am not going to do that as I do not think there is an appetite for such lengthy reading on that subject on here apart from a dedicated few interested in historical matters, as I think my thread on Streamlining proved (0 response )

The fact is Cem that ALL history is open to interpretation, and with "modern" history that your piece covers so much on record is not accessible to the general public nor historians.  It is said anyway that if you have 12 historians in one room, you will have 13 arguments on 13 different versions of what actually happened!!

Conspiracy theories have been popular for so long as they add that ingredient that the human mind loves; mystery!!  That is also why Counter-factual History is accepted in academic land, with some very interesting ideas floated.

However, each of the cases you have quoted have certainly many factors that historians of today, and long into tomorrow, will argue about.  Just to pick ONE, Pearl Harbour, 7th December 1941.   Did Winston Churchill, who desperately wanted the United States to join the war, ignore the intelligence that is known to exist on what the Japanese were organising?  The British, AND the Americans had broken the Japanese codes and were reading their messages.  The next question must follow; did Roosevelt know that the Japanese were planning to attack Pearl Harbour?  If so, is that the reason why all the aircraft carriers of the Pacific Fleet at Pearl sailed away very shortly before the attack to participate in "exercises"?  The American President would have known that air power was the new supreme weapon in the new war and carriers were the vital tool, with the old battleships fast becoming very large obsolete "bomb fodder", so these could be sacrificed at Pearl. 

Yes, Roosevelt wanted the United States to join the war and was actively supporting Britain after the Battle of Britain, seen as a crucial pivotal moment, had been won, against Isolationism that was rampant in America.  He needed American interests to be targeted by an "enemy", Axis, state to rouse domestic support for a foreign war.  America did have vital commercial interests in Europe that needed to be protected, but overridingly Roosevelt knew the Nazis were going to be a threat on the American homeland if allowed to continue on their path of war.  He knew they must be stopped, and with Britain still intact, against all American predictions in May 1940, the launch pad into Europe remained.  The Pacific arena was the excuse for full American participation in the wider Axis war, and Pearl played into both Roosevelt's and Winston's hands.  Hitler declaring war on the United States 2 days later was the icing on the cake!

Now that is my educated simple interpretation of the events that led the USA into WW2, but no doubt there are many historians who would say, each, there is another version that they, each, support! Yes, history can be interupted in many ways based on the facts known, so whatever someone writes based on known facts should be considered and argued for or against.  That is what history is all about and adds the spark to many a debate!!

[Dishevelled Den]

I enjoyed that piece Lizzie. 8-)

[Lizzie_Zoom]

I enjoyed that piece Lizzie. 8-)

Thanks Zulu, eh, Desperate Den!!

[cem_devecioglu]

Well I have skimmed and scanned myself through your lengthy, but very interesting piece Cem, and to answer it all would take at least an essay, or even a book!!

Anyway I am not going to do that as I do not think there is an appetite for such lengthy reading on that subject on here apart from a dedicated few interested in historical matters, as I think my thread on Streamlining proved (0 response )

The fact is Cem that ALL history is open to interpretation, and with "modern" history that your piece covers so much on record is not accessible to the general public nor historians.  It is said anyway that if you have 12 historians in one room, you will have 13 arguments on 13 different versions of what actually happened!!

Conspiracy theories have been popular for so long as they add that ingredient that the human mind loves; mystery!!  That is also why Counter-factual History is accepted in academic land, with some very interesting ideas floated.

However, each of the cases you have quoted have certainly many factors that historians of today, and long into tomorrow, will argue about.  Just to pick ONE, Pearl Harbour, 7th December 1941.   Did Winston Churchill, who desperately wanted the United States to join the war, ignore the intelligence that is known to exist on what the Japanese were organising?  The British, AND the Americans had broken the Japanese codes and were reading their messages.  The next question must follow; did Roosevelt know that the Japanese were planning to attack Pearl Harbour?  If so, is that the reason why all the aircraft carriers of the Pacific Fleet at Pearl sailed away very shortly before the attack to participate in "exercises"?  The American President would have known that air power was the new supreme weapon in the new war and carriers were the vital tool, with the old battleships fast becoming very large obsolete "bomb fodder", so these could be sacrificed at Pearl. 

Yes, Roosevelt wanted the United States to join the war and was actively supporting Britain after the Battle of Britain, seen as a crucial pivotal moment, had been won, against Isolationism that was rampant in America.  He needed American interests to be targeted by an "enemy", Axis, state to rouse domestic support for a foreign war.  America did have vital commercial interests in Europe that needed to be protected, but overridingly Roosevelt knew the Nazis were going to be a threat on the American homeland if allowed to continue on their path of war.  He knew they must be stopped, and with Britain still intact, against all American predictions in May 1940, the launch pad into Europe remained.  The Pacific arena was the excuse for full American participation in the wider Axis war, and Pearl played into both Roosevelt's and Winston's hands.  Hitler declaring war on the United States 2 days later was the icing on the cake!

Now that is my educated simple interpretation of the events that led the USA into WW2, but no doubt there are many historians who would say, each, there is another version that they, each, support! Yes, history can be interupted in many ways based on the facts known, so whatever someone writes based on known facts should be considered and argued for or against.  That is what history is all about and adds the spark to many a debate!!

Lizzie, I feel the neccesity to say ,I didnt post that link against you or someone..

I found this writing quite interesting as I always believe that most written official history is actually missing many things in detail or even wrong (I wanted to say 'dangle berries' but censored it ) .. No sense or real interpretation of events , only the results ..

Which leads to billions of people ignoring the complete history.. There are many lessons to be learned from them..  Of course historians are not living on mars.. they are normal people like us who have to pay their bills, grow up their children and can be arrested if the govts , kings , emperors dont like what they wrote..


JFK murder was a very good example..  If you look in history , who killed JFK ? answer : a communist pig

Honestly still I cant believe , how they could be able to cover up the assasination of a president in a country like Usa.. which claims to be the center of democracy and freedom.. :-?

Another subject which is more important also effecting todays world is the greed of bosses that masters Usa for the last hundred years.. it never changed..also causing millions of their citizens to die..its not a simple fact to ignore..  but when you let capitalism to feed itself this will be the film you will watch always.. But one day will change..no doubt..

[Lizzie_Zoom]

Well I have skimmed and scanned myself through your lengthy, but very interesting piece Cem, and to answer it all would take at least an essay, or even a book!!

Anyway I am not going to do that as I do not think there is an appetite for such lengthy reading on that subject on here apart from a dedicated few interested in historical matters, as I think my thread on Streamlining proved (0 response )

The fact is Cem that ALL history is open to interpretation, and with "modern" history that your piece covers so much on record is not accessible to the general public nor historians.  It is said anyway that if you have 12 historians in one room, you will have 13 arguments on 13 different versions of what actually happened!!

Conspiracy theories have been popular for so long as they add that ingredient that the human mind loves; mystery!!  That is also why Counter-factual History is accepted in academic land, with some very interesting ideas floated.

However, each of the cases you have quoted have certainly many factors that historians of today, and long into tomorrow, will argue about.  Just to pick ONE, Pearl Harbour, 7th December 1941.   Did Winston Churchill, who desperately wanted the United States to join the war, ignore the intelligence that is known to exist on what the Japanese were organising?  The British, AND the Americans had broken the Japanese codes and were reading their messages.  The next question must follow; did Roosevelt know that the Japanese were planning to attack Pearl Harbour?  If so, is that the reason why all the aircraft carriers of the Pacific Fleet at Pearl sailed away very shortly before the attack to participate in "exercises"?  The American President would have known that air power was the new supreme weapon in the new war and carriers were the vital tool, with the old battleships fast becoming very large obsolete "bomb fodder", so these could be sacrificed at Pearl. 

Yes, Roosevelt wanted the United States to join the war and was actively supporting Britain after the Battle of Britain, seen as a crucial pivotal moment, had been won, against Isolationism that was rampant in America.  He needed American interests to be targeted by an "enemy", Axis, state to rouse domestic support for a foreign war.  America did have vital commercial interests in Europe that needed to be protected, but overridingly Roosevelt knew the Nazis were going to be a threat on the American homeland if allowed to continue on their path of war.  He knew they must be stopped, and with Britain still intact, against all American predictions in May 1940, the launch pad into Europe remained.  The Pacific arena was the excuse for full American participation in the wider Axis war, and Pearl played into both Roosevelt's and Winston's hands.  Hitler declaring war on the United States 2 days later was the icing on the cake!

Now that is my educated simple interpretation of the events that led the USA into WW2, but no doubt there are many historians who would say, each, there is another version that they, each, support! Yes, history can be interupted in many ways based on the facts known, so whatever someone writes based on known facts should be considered and argued for or against.  That is what history is all about and adds the spark to many a debate!!

I found this writing quite interesting as I always believe that most written official history is actually missing many things in detail or even wrong (I wanted to say 'dangle berries' but censored it ) .. No sense or real interpretation of events , only the results ..

Which leads to billions of people ignoring the complete history.. There are many lessons to be learned from them..  Of course historians are not living on mars.. they are normal people like us who have to pay their bills, grow up their children and can be arrested if the govts , kings , emperors dont like what they wrote..


JFK murder was a very good example..  If you look in history , who killed JFK ? answer : a communist pig

Honestly still I cant believe , how they could be able to cover up the assasination of a president in a country like Usa.. which claims to be the center of democracy and freedom.. :-?

Another subject which is more important also effecting todays world is the greed of bosses that masters Usa for the last hundred years.. it never changed..also causing millions of their citizens to die..its not a simple fact to ignore..  but when you let capitalism to feed itself this will be the film you will watch always.. But one day will change..no doubt..

Do not worry Cem it was not taken in that way, but just a lovely piece of observation and discuss points that us historians love! 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 

The Kennedy affair is absolutely FULL of possibilities as to who shot JFK and why!   But, the facts available to us suggest that only Lee Harvey Oswald actually shot him, but who was behind it all and why.................what was the real reason of Jack Ruby subsequently shooting Oswald................................well that will entertain us for years, possibly centuries, to come!