The world according to TRUTH, not western lies

[donsdaft]

Tie a knot in it ya skinny cunt.

 

 

Ken.

[rocket_scientist]

Cool it rump tim sir minter munter. And please change that line at the bottom of your posts that refers to me. Not cool.

[Ten Caat]

Crikey the banhammer has come down with a mighty bang. Personally id've kept Sir Tim of Kendal Mintcake in purely for the comedy value. He's an arse and I understand he would get up some folks' fartpipes but I'm with Rocket on this one....free speech must reign.

 

Oh and as it's game day....fuck the huns!

[rocket_scientist]

An explanation of why he was banned would be appreciated.

[tlg1903]

Using generally hunnish language would be my guess. 

[scotfree]

An explanation of why he was banned would be appreciated.

He had been banned before under different names.

[rocket_scientist]

Like the author of this piece, I similarly don't specifically know what happened in Salisbury.

 

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/03/pure-ten-points-i-just-cant-believe-about-the-official-skripal-narrative/

 

But like Karyn Dunbar, as soon as I saw the tone of the PM breaking it to the house, I smelt shite.

 

It appears my instinct was right. It's been a total lie from the start.

[rocket_scientist]

Venezuela is playing out exactly like John Bolton and his invisible unelected bosses hoped it would.

 

Wake up Sheeple. The institutional political system and the mainstream media are the conduits. We are the pawns. And we are dispensable scum apparently. Love and Peace. The subjects of my first two tattoos actually. Just got to invest time and research the best practitioner to deliver what I want, even though they are very basic designs.

[rocket_scientist]

The Japanese and Russians are notable by not commenting on their tankers getting done in the gulf. They know that it wuz the Americans (or Israelis working in tandem) wot done it. We all know why too. Same agenda. Same modus operandi. Same old.

[donsdaft]

Well, I'm just a loon fae Aberdeen, I haven't a clue what's actually going on, but

 

1/ I wouldn't believe the Yanks, whatever they said. They've been trying to pick a fight with Iran for ages.

 

2/ I wouldn't go back to a firework that hadn't went off, never mind a limpet mine.

[tom_widdows]

I cant help wondering if somewhere in the Gulf there are a bunch of CIA/ NSA etc etc blokes banging their heads against the wall for the yank governments comments.

'FFS why the fuck couldnt they keep their mouths shut before we had actually completed our mission! Nae Cunt's gonna swallow the Iran story now!'

 

 

[rocket_scientist]

Nae Cunt's gonna swallow the Iran story now!

 

It makes zero sense given the strengthening diplomatic and economic ties between Japan and Iran. It defies logic. There would be no reason for Iran to have done this. No state would shoot themselves in the foot like this. It would be highly counterproductive and considerably less than zero gain.

 

The arrogance of the yanks thinking they could get away with it is incredible. It's part of the same pattern of behaviour going back decades and at least during the whole of our lifetimes.

 

In Ink last month in New York, a play by a supremely talented young Englishman, they did a skit with a moon landing and the cast blew a raspberry at the audience. If the Americans could get away with that big lie, they think that they can get away with anything. They fail to appreciate that the rest of the world isn't as stupid as them.

 

[donsdaft]

I was 10 years old in July 1969, and like every small boy of the time, obsessed with "space."

 

I so much want to believe that the moon landings weren't a lie I'm just about prepared to put my fingers in my ears and go LA LA LA

 

It was a lie though, wasn't it 

[rocket_scientist]

Lies and truth are polar opposites. The former are used to invent, deny or conceal the latter.

 

The victor rewrites history but it can often be a lie: -

 

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/05/13/the-lies-about-world-war-ii/

[Jute]

Lies and truth are polar opposites. The former are used to invent, deny or conceal the latter.

 

The victor rewrites history but it can often be a lie: -

 

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/05/13/the-lies-about-world-war-ii/

 

Rocket the stuff in that article is possibly the biggest heap of bat shit crazy tinfoil hat wearing shite I have ever read. I do not doubt that the victor air brushes their mistakes out or that Churchill was a cunt of the highest order but to suggest that he was the one responsible for war is mental.

[rocket_scientist]

Rocket the stuff in that article is possibly the biggest heap of bat shit crazy tinfoil hat wearing shite I have ever read. I do not doubt that the victor air brushes their mistakes out or that Churchill was a cunt of the highest order but to suggest that he was the one responsible for war is mental.

 

That's your opinion, your interpretation of the facts and you're entitled to it.

 

Were we ever told that Hitler offered Churchill peace and a way to end the war? Does that mean that it didn't happen?

[Jute]

That's your opinion, your interpretation of the facts and you're entitled to it.

 

Were we ever told that Hitler offered Churchill peace and a way to end the war? Does that mean that it didn't happen?

 

Thought it was common knowledge that Lord Halifax had tried to negotiate a peace deal via the Italians prior to the fall of France and Italian entry into the war. Pretty sure that Churchill even mentions this in his own autobiography and that Germans had then made a subsequent peace offering after the fall of France.

[rocket_scientist]

Thought it was common knowledge that Lord Halifax had tried to negotiate a peace deal via the Italians prior to the fall of France and Italian entry into the war. Pretty sure that Churchill even mentions this in his own autobiography and that Germans had then made a subsequent peace offering after the fall of France.

 

Your knowledge of history is obviously more detailed than mine but you are wrong to assume that those specifics are "common knowledge". I also consider the use of an autobiography as a citation source to be ridiculous and yet coincidentally, the same argument as the original one, that the victor rewrites history to suit their agenda.

[Jute]

Your knowledge of history is obviously more detailed than mine but you are wrong to assume that those specifics are "common knowledge". I also consider the use of an autobiography as a citation source to be ridiculous and yet coincidentally, the same argument as the original one, that the victor rewrites history to suit their agenda.

 

You had said that we were not told that that Hitler offered peace however there are various sources that state that the Germans offered peace after the fall of France including the autobiography of one the victors. Not exactly air brushed out of history.

[rocket_scientist]

You had said that we were not told that that Hitler offered peace however there are various sources that state that the Germans offered peace after the fall of France including the autobiography of one the victors. Not exactly air brushed out of history.

 

No I did not say that we were not told this. I asked the question.

 

From my history at school - which I hated (mainly because of the poor teachers of that subject) - albeit 45 years ago and therefore pre-internet, I have no recollection of this fact. Because I'm fairly certain it WAS airbrushed out of the syllabus, assuming the teachers even knew themselves.

 

I made the point that "it may be a lie" with regard to the historical record. You said that PCR's article was the "biggest heap of bat shit crazy". You therefore have specific knowledge that the commentator's positions are flawed. Where did you get your superior knowledge from and can you pick a couple of points from the article and disprove them?

[rocket_scientist]

Irrespective of the specifics in WW2 and what happened 75 years ago, and whether or not you do have proof to highlight the errors within that article I offered, there is a bigger point being discussed here.

 

The Americans lying about the moon landing and about Vietnam were also in history. Let's speak about the modern era. Iraq was invaded on a lie (WMD) and we (Blair) followed the mistruth. The actions in Syria, Libya, Yemen, Venezuela etc etc were and are predicated on lies. The biggest question is WHY?

 

Right now, the USA and Israel are hell bent on provoking Iran. Once again, the critical thinker asks why?

 

The answers to that question is a firm signpost towards the truth, however distasteful and frightening it is. The patterns in history are irrefutable.

[Jute]

Irrespective of the specifics in WW2 and what happened 75 years ago, and whether or not you do have proof to highlight the errors within that article I offered, there is a bigger point being discussed here.

 

The Americans lying about the moon landing and about Vietnam were also in history. Let's speak about the modern era. Iraq was invaded on a lie (WMD) and we (Blair) followed the mistruth. The actions in Syria, Libya, Yemen, Venezuela etc etc were and are predicated on lies. The biggest question is WHY?

 

Right now, the USA and Israel are hell bent on provoking Iran. Once again, the critical thinker asks why?

 

The answers to that question is a firm signpost towards the truth, however distasteful and frightening it is. The patterns in history are irrefutable.

 

Not going to disagree with you on the attacks on the oil tankers being a classic CIA false flag operation. Makes no sense for Iran to attack a tanker belonging to one of its few major trading partners.

 

Nor do I disagree that history is repeating itself. In the 30s Hitler demonised a minority group, the Jews, to help his rise to power and now we have Trump demonising immigrants especially the Hispanic ones in the US and Farage and his masters in the UK demonising immigrants in this country to aid their rise to power. Hitler also used false flag operations, Gleiwitz Incident for example, to justify his invasion of Poland and now we have Bolton and Trump using false flag operations to justify a potential war with Iran.

[rocket_scientist]

There is no doubt that Hitler fabricated reasons to justify his agenda, the false flag operations you refer to. But again the most powerful question is why?

 

The terms of Versailles were arguably punitively unjust and the ethnic Germans in Danzig (and Prussia) had suffered some gross injustices which any leader would have wanted to protect. It's no different from Palestine and the Israeli expansionism through the West Bank etc. Where there is inhumanity and injustice, it will blow up one day.

[RicoS321]

I made the point that "it may be a lie" with regard to the historical record. You said that PCR's article was the "biggest heap of bat shit crazy". You therefore have specific knowledge that the commentator's positions are flawed. Where did you get your superior knowledge from and can you pick a couple of points from the article and disprove them?

 

It's an interesting article. The difficulty I have with it is that the author comes to his conclusions without real historical context or linkage. For example, suggesting FDR foresaw USD becoming the world reserve currency isn't really backed up by anything he's written. He's basically applying a backward prescience to FDR in reaction to what actually happened rather than what FDR understood or targetted, for which there doesn't appear to be any evidence. It basically removes any incremental positions and opportunity that arose as events occurred (i.e. FDR reacted to events), which seems unlikely. The holocaust industry is an excellent book, but it doesn't seek to argue that there was no holocaust which is essentially the argument put forward by the article. Focusing on the loose usage of the term holocaust seems a little flippant given the volume of slaughtered jews as recognised within the article. The notion that it matters whether the jews were slaughtered post-labour or pre-labour in the camps is neither here nor there. It's interesting that he takes the "bottom-line/working back" approach when discussing FDR (USD became world currency, therefore that was FDR's aim) but works the opposite way when discussing the far bigger crime of the holocaust (consistency would suggest that he'd work back from the fact that X million jews were killed, ergo the holocaust was planned). His argument, it seems, is that the jews were a victim of circumstance after being taken to the work camps. It's a basically like saying that the rhetoric surrounding Dave Cameron's "hard-working" British people had no influence on the British public assuming that there were huge volumes of people scamming the unemployment benefits system and that it was a massive problem. Cameron never actually stated that anymore than 1.5% of benefits claims were fraudulent, he just implied it by dropping the term hard-working in to every single speech he did (by implication, those that were unemployed were lazy scum scrounging from the rest). In other words, Hitler didn't need to construct a plan of action for the holocaust, it was implicit in every single thing he said about jews, and implicit in everything he didn't do to prevent them being slaughtered (whether before or after providing their labour). He's taken a very nuanced view of the books he talks of that I don't think represent the views of the authors. He acknowledges this at the start of the article but then fails entirely to provide the relevant citation of each conclusion he draws so that the reader can index it back to the source (something David Irving or Norman Finkelstein would never do). In this regard, it's slightly disingenuous. The "you can check the details for yourself if you want" to article writing isn't good journalism for a guy who professes to want good journalism. I only started David Irving's book a few years back before getting bored so I might re-read it (probably not, getting lazy these days), so I've definitely taken something from the article!

[rocket_scientist]

Very good points Rico