WWII with modern media scrutiny

[Dave B]

The Dresden thread got me thinking. Back in the 40s when WWII was in full swing the media was a simple affair. We had a handful of TV and radio correspondents but they didn’t report from anywhere near the front line, and most of our information came from newspapers which were out of date by the time the ink dried and often little more than propaganda sheets.

The Nazis were the acknowledged masters of propaganda, but little did the allies realise at the time that our broadcasters and publishers were well and truly puppets of the government, burying bad news and trumpeting the achievements of our brave forces against the evil enemy. Civilian casualties were largely ignored, military mistakes glossed over, and Churchill paraded as the hero of a nation... continent even. His flaws, and they were many, were never really mentioned.

The internet was but a glint in its inventor’s eye, mobile phones were a distant dream and rolling news meant a paperboy on a bicycle. We accepted what we were told as gospel, never suspecting that the media would ever mislead.

Fast forward to Iraq and Afghanistan and we have embedded reporters travelling with military units, reporting live on videophones and by satellite. Civilians blog, text and Tweet about events we’d probably never imagine, and a dozen news channels report and analyse every move 24 hours a day.

When an errant missile kills a dozen innocent civilians we know about it, and react to it. There’s no question of atrocities being swept under the carpet for what some people might regard as “the greater good”. We see dead soldiers being repatriated and we witness the anguish and grief of their relatives.

Millions died in the two world wars, it was horrible beyond belief but people gritted their teeth and pressed on. Now we have perhaps an unrealistic expectation of clinical precision with no collateral damage and for all “our boys” to return home safely. The number of soldiers who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan is actually pretty low considering how long we’ve been there, yet every fresh death brings outrage - perhaps because they're beamed directly into our living rooms.

Elsewhere our politicians and leaders are called into TV and radio studios to be grilled by the Jeremy Paxmans and the Jon Snows of this world, while the public get their say on the likes of Question Time and Jeremy Vine.

Bush, Blair, Obama and Brown are far from being Churchill-esqe heroes: we no longer accept their word at face value but instead choose a more cynical – or perhaps enlightened - path and take them to task about the minutiae of every decision.

So my point, when I eventually get there, is this. If WWII were to play out again, but with the benefit or curse of modern media, what if anything would be the effect? Would the Allies have maintained the “stiff upper lip” attitude; would the German population have been more aware of what the Nazis were up to and if so would – or could – they have prevented it?

[slorydn1]

Good question. No, I don't belive that the populations of the Allied countries would have had the stomach to carry on the war the way it was fought, especially those of us here in the US who were largly isolated from the day to day horrors of war: hence the slogan "Over There." We haven't really been touched directly by war here on Amercian soil since our own Civil War (the events of December 7th 1941 and September 11 2001 not withstanding, they were relatively isolated events, not the day to day bombing and killing that our British and German conterparts endured). Our first war experience with "unfettered" media access was Vietnam-and look where that got us. Now, every time the computer chip in a smart bomb or missle goes awry and hits a house, or soldiers at a checkpoint mistake the furtive movements of van full of civillians for the actions of a possible suicide bomber and kill everyone inside, our public at large calls our own president a war criminal and everyone in our military is nothing but a bunch of rabid killing machines. But, it gets worse; if we don't bomb that house, or kill everyone in that van, and the house ends up harboring Bin ladin himself, or the van blows up killing a squad of our own troops, then everyone involved must come testify before congress to show how "inept" they are and our President is an idiot. So no, I don't believe we could have won the war because we would not have been able to fight total war with total war. I really can't speak for the British, I can only tell you what I see day in and day out on CNN and MSNBC here in America, and its not pretty.

As for the other side, I really don't know that there was anything the general populace in Germany could have done because they were scared out of their minds that the SS would be coming for them next if they dared to speak out, even if they saw what was happening on TV.

In any event, outstanding question; it really made me think.

[Dave B]

As for the other side, I really don't know that there was anything the general populace in Germany could have done because they were scared out of their minds that the SS would be coming for them next if they dared to speak out, even if they saw what was happening on TV.
That's possibly true, but what fascinates me is how the world has been alerted to events in places like China or Iran via ordinary citizens blogging and Tweeting - clearly not an option for Germans in the 40s. Had they had the technology we do their lives could have been vastly different.

Anne Frank's Twitter feed would have been interesting!

[chuck34]

I can't really speak for the British or other nations, but I believe we can all figure out what would have happened in the US with modern media and sensabilities. In a word, it would have been nothing. When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, we probably would have apologized to them for embargoing their oil, begged forgiveness and opened trade back up with them.

[SportscarBruce]

I can't really speak for the British or other nations, but I believe we can all figure out what would have happened in the US with modern media and sensabilities. In a word, it would have been nothing. When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, we probably would have apologized to them for embargoing their oil, begged forgiveness and opened trade back up with them.

Well of course we would given that the Japanese are the primary holder of US debt. Who's to blame for that, pacifist?

[SportscarBruce]

I can't really speak for the British or other nations, but I believe we can all figure out what would have happened in the US with modern media and sensabilities. In a word, it would have been nothing. When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, we probably would have apologized to them for embargoing their oil, begged forgiveness and opened trade back up with them.

You mean like this????

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hainan_Island_incident

Q: Who was President when all this went down?

[anthonyvop]

You mean like this????

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hainan_Island_incident

Q: Who was President when all this went down?

Bush. And we expressed our sorrow at the death of that Chinese Pilot and for having to enter Chinese airspace for an emergency landing.

No apology for the mission. No Apology for the incident that lead to the emergency. Not that it was the US's fault.

So what is your point?

[SportscarBruce]

Bush. And we expressed our sorrow at the death of that Chinese Pilot and for having to enter Chinese airspace for an emergency landing.

No apology for the mission. No Apology for the incident that lead to the emergency. Not that it was the US's fault.

So what is your point?

An aggressive pilot in a high-performance jet fighter attempts to stall a twin-engined propeller driven aircraft by stealing the air off the leading edge of a wing, the pilot misjudges and strikes the unarmed twin-engined aircraft, thus causing his own death and the forced landing of the Navy P-3, AND WE ISSUE AN APOLOGY AND PAY A BOUNTY TO THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT???

[chuck34]

You mean like this????

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hainan_Island_incident

Q: Who was President when all this went down?

Is this your way of agreeing with me, but at the same time trying to take a swipe at me because Bush was President, and you think he's my hero or something.

I'm really not following you at all. Why don't we just stick to the subject?

[janvanvurpa]

An aggressive pilot in a high-performance jet fighter attempts to stall a twin-engined propeller driven aircraft by stealing the air off the leading edge of a wing, the pilot misjudges and strikes the unarmed twin-engined aircraft, thus causing his own death and the forced landing of the Navy P-3, AND WE ISSUE AN APOLOGY AND PAY A BOUNTY TO THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT???


P3s since day one have four turboprops---same ones as on Hercules C130.

[Sonic]

Well of course we would given that the Japanese are the primary holder of US debt. Who's to blame for that, pacifist?

I thought that was China? Anywho, as to the question (an interesting one at that) and my answer is theis; would the war have even started? Germany was brainwashed by propaganda but could that happen in todays media word? Would a people go to war on the say so of one man if there was a constant stream of anti Nazi/ anti war articles on the internet?

A modern day example is probably Iran, where Ahmadinejad's government host these massive propaganda rallies which thanks to mediums like twitter etc. are shown up as the shams they are.

[SportscarBruce]

I thought that was China? (biggest holder of US debt)

Well you're not very well informed then.

http://www.ustreas.gov/tic/mfh.txt
http://www.dnaindia.com/money/report_japan-has-max-us-debt-as-china-cuts_1349245


Anywho, as to the question (an interesting one at that) and my answer is theis; would the war have even started? Germany was brainwashed by propaganda but could that happen in todays media word? Would a people go to war on the say so of one man if there was a constant stream of anti Nazi/ anti war articles on the internet?

The Germany was brainwashed by propaganda line as forwarded by US and UK media institutions was and remains utterly ridiculous, especially in light of the fact it was Hollywood and the newspapers which strove to cast Hitler's government as the greatest villain in Europe while totally ignoring the millions upon millions of dead Ukrainians and Russian people at the hands of Joseph Stalin, not to mention his war against Finland. A media which failed to hold the Roosevelt administration accountable for gross violations of Constitutionally protected political free assembly and speech rights, illegal phone tapping, political assasination, and the like. The Bromberg massacres which prompted Hitler's war on Poland was also wiped off map of truth. If you want to know the full truth behind the US and UK's opposition to Hitler's policies look no further than the banking establishment dynasties which run these two government to the present day.


A modern day example is probably Iran, where Ahmadinejad's government host these massive propaganda rallies which thanks to mediums like twitter etc. are shown up as the shams they are.

If there was such a thing as the internet and twitter it could have acted as a counterweight to the movietone news and rag newspapers which proved so effective in conditioning the American people to prepare themselves for the slaughter to come.

[SportscarBruce]

I don't expect for anyone to modify their opinions based on anything I say, but I do insist people take an honest look into the history of the past century with this medium of information which allows one to evade and escape the media masters and their editorializing gatekeepers.

-FPAQlbmlSc

Cd2_nAh1ics

[anthonyvop]

An aggressive pilot in a high-performance jet fighter attempts to stall a twin-engined propeller driven aircraft by stealing the air off the leading edge of a wing, the pilot misjudges and strikes the unarmed twin-engined aircraft, thus causing his own death and the forced landing of the Navy P-3, AND WE ISSUE AN APOLOGY AND PAY A BOUNTY TO THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT???
We didn't apologize for our actions.

2nd I didn't particularly agree with any apology but then I wasn't privy to what was really going on.

[Sonic]

Well you're not very well informed then.


Thanks for breaking it to me gently ;) :p



The Germany was brainwashed by propaganda line as forwarded by US and UK media institutions was and remains utterly ridiculous.....


If it is utterly ridiculous that children were, from the age of 6, taught Nazi ideals, with subjects like biology, history, geography and even maths being filled with anti semitic propaganda. A famous example;

"A bomber aircraft on take-off carries 12 dozen bombs, each weighing 10 kilos. The aircraft takes off for Warsaw the international centre for Jewry. It bombs the town. On take-off with all bombs on board and a fuel tank containing 100 kilos of fuel, the aircraft weighed about 8 tons. When it returns from the crusade, there are still 230 kilos left. What is the weight of the aircraft when empty ?"

If that's not brainwashing, I don't know what is, and it has nothing to do with hollywood

[Rollo]

So my point, when I eventually get there, is this. If WWII were to play out again, but with the benefit or curse of modern media, what if anything would be the effect? Would the Allies have maintained the “stiff upper lip” attitude; would the German population have been more aware of what the Nazis were up to and if so would – or could – they have prevented it?

The UK is less centralised than Australia when it comes to newspaper ownership, but the influence of News Limited probably can not be underestimated.
Not only do they own, a string of newspapers, but they also control the biggest cable TV networks in the UK, Australia and throughout Asia. People can choose to but something else, but when it comes do the crunch do they?

When they proudly brayed "It's the Sun Wot Won It", it kind of makes you disappointed:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/33/It%27s_The_Sun_Wot_Won_It.jpg/180px-It%27s_The_Sun_Wot_Won_It.jpg

And in respose to another thread when the Dalai Lama met Obama we got:
OBAMA LAMA DING DONG -19 February 2010

Anyway, my point with all of this, is that if the Sun and indeed News Corporation claims to have made or broken the results of an election, in times of war, they've already chosen which side they want to win... who cares as long as it sells newspapers.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I think the modern media is a bad thing for a government bent on winning a war. The problem with any war, no matter whether it was WW1, WW2, The Korean Conflict, Vietnam, Falklands, Iraq 1 and 2 or Afghanistan is the reality that war is a messy business. It is usually done with lot of incompetance or mistakes done even by the best intentions, and civilians are often caught in the crossfire, even when care is taken to try to avoid the casualities.

The point of the Government of the day is to win the war, keep the morale of the population in support of the war until it is won, and try to hide all the screwups. The press's job is always to point out what is being done wrong, put a spotlight on the needless tragedies and screws ups, and ask critical questions. If the press has members of it who are opposed to the war, then they take on extra zeal and sometimes can print stories that slant opinion against the reality. (The Tet offensive was counterbalanced and actually a loss for the North Vietnam, but Kronkite's statement "we have lost the American People on this" ) made the US gov't of the day to go into crisis mode.

If WW2 was fought today, I shudder to think what would happen. As much as I love the free press, and want the truth, I also know that at some point, winning the war is almost impossible when the press never accepts the reality that it is easy to find fault, but impossible to win for a nation where the press exposes EVERYTHING. IN a short conflict where things go well, Such as the first Iraq conflict, the press can be cheerleaders. Let things go wrong, and just ask Blair or Bush how well the war was going and how well the press thought it was going.

Even the most righteous causes can come under intense scutiny by the 5th Estate and it makes it really hard to see how we would fight a war like WW2 without the press suspending some of their usual zeal in finding fault. The fact is, war crimes, incompetance and needless slaughter are part of being in wars and why they must be avoided if possible, but the sad reality is, we live in a world where there are countries that don't care about their people, their opinion, their press or anything but THEIR motives. Toss in the fact terrorist groups play to the press and the PR game while having no interest in protecting a society that would put them under that scrutiny and you can see why a free press can be manipulated, despite the best of intentions.

We would lose WW2 I think with today's media.....because society would be torn in half..

[SportscarBruce]

mkE94ayHlNg

[Mark in Oshawa]

mkE94ayHlNg

You are using an interview with Eric Margolis? He is a self loathing American who moved to Canada and is so full of contempt to anyone he disagrees with that the good points he makes are just lost in the stupidity.....

[SportscarBruce]

Mr. Mark in Ottawa, given the serious nature of the videos I presented which strongly imply the media is, and has been for over a century, complicit towards steering pubilc sentiment in the direction of war, do you have anything else to offer aside from disparaging the name of a journalist? At least provide a body of cross-referenced, independently gathered and presented evidence which destroys his credibility. I've read a portion of his work http://www.ericmargolis.com/political_commentaries.aspx and while left-of-center, I wouldn't characterize it as the work of a self-loathing traitor. On the contrary, it is well-written and concise.

Additionally, although I have misgivings and doubts towards the identity and credibility of person(s) who post herein under the guise of common contributor I wouldn't drag their names through the mud without something to back it up.

But I digress.

In furtherance to the idea that a world in which internet-based peer communication and news is more likely to arrive at the truth in cases of blood and war, and that the mainstream media is a collective body which does not deserve trust due to its track record and present-day activities, I present this for examination;



Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth Throws Down the Gauntlet
Graham Pardun
Feb 24, 2010

http://www.ae911truth.org/images/other/PC1.jpg

If you don't read the newspaper, you're un-informed. If you do read the newspaper, you're mis-informed. – Mark Twain

The AE911Truth press conference of February 19 gave US mainstream media a chance to join this growing global trend. Invitations to attend the event, and the press release itself, were sent to virtually every news outlet in the US. Early indications were good – by February 18, KCBS, KGO, and Clear Channel, for example, had confirmed that they would cover the event, and KTVU said they would bring a crew. Reuters also was expressing "great interest." Why didn't they show?

On the morning of February 19, 2010, in a press conference in the city of San Francisco, Richard Gage, AIA, gave the mainstream American media an opportunity to prove Mark Twain wrong. Standing with him in thirty-eight cities around the world, members and supporters of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, held concurrent press conferences and offered the same opportunity to the mainstream media everywhere. Their message: Over 1,000 architectural and engineering professionals agree that the official government reports on the three worst structural failures in American history are scientifically inadequate, and that a real, independent investigation of these failures is now of paramount importance to the nation and to the world.

In a truly free and open society, that message would spread like wildfire. Yet more than eight years after the event, and nearly four years since Mr. Gage founded his professional organization and began calling for an independent investigation, questioning 9/11 is still treated as taboo. Any deviation from the government's official conspiracy theory, no matter how scientifically sound and thoroughly researched, is, for the most part, derided or ignored in the mainstream press — in the United States. Outside the country, however, the situation has begun to change dramatically over the last year, as described in Elizabeth Woodworth's excellent survey The Media Response to the Growing Influence of the 9/11 Truth Movement. Recent examples include fair and balanced coverage of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth in Canada's Financial Post, Germany's Focus Money, New Zealand's "Close Up," and Japan's Asahi Shimbun Magazine – all major national titles....


"How could this not be known for so long?" a member of the Japanese press asked Mr. Gage after the conference. "In fact, most architects and engineers know nothing about the third worst structural failure in modern history," responded Mr. Gage. "It's a matter of media control. In this country, five corporations own 90% of the media and that is a significant problem for the truth."

Will those five corporations let legitimate questions about 9/11 breathe in an atmosphere of openness and freedom? Will they disprove the dictum of Mark Twain?

http://www.ae911truth.org/info/171

Indeed, why does the media avoid credible questions concerning 9/11? It is the role of the media to question and inform, not propagate official storylines and suppress emerging truths. That is the hallmark of "state-sponsored media". Ah, but in a state controlled by corporate interest the corporate media is state-sponsored media, isn't it????

[SportscarBruce]

JERGBGOUIQk

DISCLAIMER: Russian TV had the guts to interview this guy, not Fox News or CNN, so it must be a slanted crock. :rolleyes:

[SportscarBruce]

Examination into the manner of WTC collapse, might be disturbing to some people.

hSApOavkHg8

We now return you to your regularly scheduled 24/7 coverage of the Tiger Woods apology.

[SportscarBruce]

8T2_nedORjw

Cha-CHING!


A federal jury on Monday ruled that the assault on the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center was in fact two occurrences for insurance purposes. The finding in U.S. District Court in Manhattan means leaseholder Larry Silverstein may collect up to $4.6 billion, according to reports. [Forbes.com 12/06/04]
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/silverstein.html

Has the government or the mainstream media ever fully investigated Silverstein and his associates, both domestic and foreign? He had a motive and the opportunity. Seems logical. But nevermind that...

LETS ROLL!!


The Center for Public Integrity
False Pretenses
Following 9/11, President Bush and seven top officials of his administration waged a carefully orchestrated campaign of misinformation about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

By Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith
January 23, 2008

President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses..
http://projects.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/

"In war, truth is the first casualty,"
Aeschylus (525BC - 456BC)

Even before war begins that is the case. Keep this in mind as the media-led Iran hysteria plays out.

[SportscarBruce]

More questions

kwSmFnlwrK0

Mysterious deaths post-9/11

bvay28lZiHU

[chuck34]

Bruce, while I haven't watched your particular clips, I do know generally what you are trying to get at. I would suggest that you lay down the "conspiracy pipe", and do a bit of technical research into the physics of what you are trying to say. A quick Google search of "Finite Element Analysis of the World Trade Center" would be a good place to start.

[BDunnell]

Virtually all conspiracy theories are nonsense. End of story. It is... er, 'interesting' to see that some people choose to believe some and not others. I wonder why?

[SportscarBruce]

Bruce, while I haven't watched your particular clips, I do know generally what you are trying to get at....

At that point I stopped reading what you have to say.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I'm sure all the conspiracies regarding 11/9 have perfectly logical explainations.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Bruce...I hate to break it to you, but the fact is when you fly large planes into an office building designed with an exterior structures of steel, the hot jet fuel cooks the steel, and the weight of the upper floors collapses. Bin Laden understood that too, the man was/is of an engineering background. No conspiracy was required, and they admit to planning and exeucting it. George W. Bush just happened to be the elected dope in office....

[chuck34]

At that point I stopped reading what you have to say.

Ok, if it makes you feel better I went and watched them.

First guy (RT): BS totally. Go look up the FEA models and work that has been done to show how and why the buildings collapsed. He want's archetetcs and engineers to look at it. Perhaps he should look for himself because they HAVE, and determined that it was jets blowing out big chunks of the supports, and then the fuel heating the rest of the support weakening it and then down it comes.

Second one (towers "exploding"): More BS. What do you think happens to all the stuff between the floors (air) when one pancakes onto the next? Answer: it is forced out blowing stuff outward. He tries to brush this off because the happen in a non sequencial fashion. Do you honestly think that when something this large starts to collapse that it will do so in an orderly fashion? Come on. Also, have you ever seen a building being imploded on purpose? It doesn't start at the top, it starts at the bottom. Why would this be different, if it was done on purpose?

Third (if I can get through it): Ok I can't take this anymore. If you can't grasp the concept that steel weakens at elevated temperatures especially after prolonged times. Then I can't help you.

These are the same tired arguments that people have been making for years. While I can understand your inate skepticism and mistrust of "authorities" or the "government" (that's good and healthy, and I have many of the same mindsets), please believe me that there was no conspiracy with this. Except between Bin Laden and his buddies.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Forget It Chuck. Anyone who follows this mentality that every major incident has some nefarious conspiracy backing it isn't using logic to start with.

[SportscarBruce]

7nD7dbkkBIA

Aaron Russo, February 14, 1943 - August 24, 2007
Interesting fellow, a genuine maverick (shame what McCain did to that description)

[Mark]

To the question of would we have gone to war, then yes. We went to war with Iraq when public opinion was almost complete united against it, but in the late 30's; it's not that there was exactly an appetite for war, since the previous one was so damaging, but I think the population recognised what needed to be done.

The question for me is not so much would we have declared war in the first place, but would we have persued things for as long as we did. Especially after the evacuation from Dunkerque, a disaster which was skillfully turned into a triumph at the time.

[SportscarBruce]

Forget It Chuck. Anyone who follows this mentality that every major incident has some nefarious conspiracy backing it isn't using logic to start with.

Anyone who takes the official story without question, who turns his head away from serious evidence to the contrary is a fool, or worse. That mindset endangers freedom far more than some religious zelot in a cave halfway 'round the world.

[Mark]

I've been hearing a bit about the Falklands war recently. And there is an argument that much of it was down to Thatcher. Her governments policies had been completely disasterous up to that point and it looked like she was going to lose the next election,, to be replaced by the SDP, not Labour!

But instead of reaching a negotiated settlement with Argentina she let things string out and went to war, of course if the war was lost, then she was out, but she didn't have anything to lose at that point. Of course Britain won and the history of this country was very different as a result.

[Daniel]

Anyone who takes the official story without question, who turns his head away from serious evidence to the contrary is a fool, or worse. That mindset endangers freedom far more than some religious zelot in a cave halfway 'round the world.
What a Grade A load of crapola.

*whistles X-Files theme tune*

[chuck34]

Anyone who takes the official story without question, who turns his head away from serious evidence to the contrary is a fool, or worse. That mindset endangers freedom far more than some religious zelot in a cave halfway 'round the world.

Asking questions is fine. I encourage it. But you MUST do your own research. Do not take ANYONE'S word for it when they explain things to you that you find "fishy". But on this one the "experts" are exaclty right. And the conspiracy guys are your stereotypical ... well conspiricy therorists. Look at the FEA models. Have you done that? I looked at your videos, at least some of them, just like you asked. Are you now going to be a hypocrite and not look at the actual scientific evidence? Are you only going to look at the one side, believe them totally and without question, and not look at the other side? Isn't that EXACTLY what you are accusing us of doing? Do you have any basic knowledge of physics and engineering? You don't have to take classes to have a rudamentary understanding, just common sence.

Think about things logically and remember Ocam's Razor, "the simpleist explaination is most likely the right one". In this case what do you think is the simplist explaination? That a nutjob who hates the US got his buddies to fly planes full of jet fuel into two buildings. The initial impact weakened the structure. The fire from all the fuel further weakend the remaining structure. And the whole thing fell.

Or that Bush is/was such a sociopath that he cooked up some scheme to get us into war. To do so he flew four (let's not forget about the Pentagon, and Penn.) planes into buildings, killing thousands of innocent civilians. Then to make sure that the devistation was complete, he ordered the trade centers to be wired with explosives to make sure they came down. By the way, have you ever seen a building being imploded on purpose? It takes MONTHS to set up all the explosives. And the buildings have to be gutted to make the thing work right, even then it doesn't work every time. Oh and they go from the bottom up, not the top down like the WTC. Not to mention that hundreds of people are needed to set up a demolition of that type. Are they all going to keep their mouths shut?

Come on Bruce, you seem to be an intelligent guy. Use your own logic for a minute on this stuff.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Anyone who takes the official story without question, who turns his head away from serious evidence to the contrary is a fool, or worse. That mindset endangers freedom far more than some religious zelot in a cave halfway 'round the world.

Dude, It AINT serious evidence. I know of 2 engineers who told me that the minute the airplanes hit the building, those buildings were coming down. I asked them about all the conspiracy theories and they laughed. THERE IS NO SERIOUS EVIDENCE. If there WAS, believe me, the media would have it on the front page of every newspaper in the land. Secrets are NEVER secrets for long.

Also....for what motive would the US gov't willfully do this? To have an excuse to invade Iraq? When someone can show me how George W Bush came out of the last 8 years with anything more than the suit on his back, please tell me. His rep is a lot worse now than it was when he was running for President, the Bush's had money, so I don't know how Iraq made them more money, and most of all, Iraq was barely a success for any optmisit's view. There was NOTHING in it for Bush to risk impeachment and ridicule to conspire to have an attack on American soil. You keep believing in this nonsense yet the evidence is there for all to see. There is no secrets that make any serious attempt to point this out as anything than what it was. Anyone who has read my posts knows the distrust I have of some things government does. If ANYONE would take you seriously, I would if there was EVIDENCE. What you have providing is more loony ramblings of people who see it as you do. Not evidence.

[BDunnell]

To the question of would we have gone to war, then yes. We went to war with Iraq when public opinion was almost complete united against it, but in the late 30's; it's not that there was exactly an appetite for war, since the previous one was so damaging, but I think the population recognised what needed to be done.

The question for me is not so much would we have declared war in the first place, but would we have persued things for as long as we did. Especially after the evacuation from Dunkerque, a disaster which was skillfully turned into a triumph at the time.

Not least because the media of the day was utterly unquestioning in its attitudes to officialdom. "Do you agree, Prime Minister, that you are a fine and honourable man?" would have been considered dangerously tough questioning by many. The 24-hour rolling media of the UK today may have many bad points, but at least the best journalists hold our leaders to account and aren't prepared to lap up the official versions of events. I say 'of the UK' because a look at the way news and politicians are treated by many major broadcasters in mainland Europe shows that they are about 20 or 30 years behind us in this respect, and the US news media is dominated by shouty politically-motivated morons who would be laughed off the screens here.

[BDunnell]

Anyone who takes the official story without question, who turns his head away from serious evidence to the contrary is a fool, or worse. That mindset endangers freedom far more than some religious zelot in a cave halfway 'round the world.

Questioning the official versions of events is great and to be encouraged. However, there is a big difference between doing this and adopting wacky conspiracy-based viewpoints. Sadly, the latter seem to be gaining prominence, possibly because so many people are easily influenced and don't have very well-developed critical faculties.

[BDunnell]

I've been hearing a bit about the Falklands war recently. And there is an argument that much of it was down to Thatcher. Her governments policies had been completely disasterous up to that point and it looked like she was going to lose the next election,, to be replaced by the SDP, not Labour!

But instead of reaching a negotiated settlement with Argentina she let things string out and went to war, of course if the war was lost, then she was out, but she didn't have anything to lose at that point. Of course Britain won and the history of this country was very different as a result.

As I posted on another thread, it is true that the Tories, far from defending the Falklands to the utmost in the run-up to the Argentine invasion, had withdrawn a significant part of the islands' naval protection — a move that had previously been rejected by the preceding Labour government. But part of the argument you relate is definitely faulty in my view, because the SDP probably wouldn't have got in without proportional representation, even had there been no Falklands war, or if it had gone badly.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Questioning the official versions of events is great and to be encouraged. However, there is a big difference between doing this and adopting wacky conspiracy-based viewpoints. Sadly, the latter seem to be gaining prominence, possibly because so many people are easily influenced and don't have very well-developed critical faculties.

Well developed critical faculties is what people like Bruce claim to have Ben. THat is the distressing part. Questioning the official version of things is fine if the state makes a statement. However, once the free press investigates and says yes, the gov't has not lied to us, that really is the end of it. The press of course has assets and experts to question and give credence to. Nothing from any credible media source has ever pointed to some hidden conspiracy.

[BDunnell]

Well developed critical faculties is what people like Bruce claim to have Ben. THat is the distressing part.

In fact, such people believe they have better-developed critical faculties, which is even worse.

[Mark in Oshawa]

In fact, such people believe they have better-developed critical faculties, which is even worse.
I wont disagree there. I dislike conspiracy theories on just about anything. 99% of the time they are just fantasies....

[SportscarBruce]

hNSDwGPYfMM

http://www.lyrics007.com/Missing%20Persons%20Lyrics/Words%20Lyrics.html

:s mokin:

[chuck34]

hNSDwGPYfMM

http://www.lyrics007.com/Missing%20Persons%20Lyrics/Words%20Lyrics.html

:s mokin:

Perhaps instead of speaking through youtube, you could actually speak for yourself?

[slorydn1]

In response to the conspiracy theory, I have only one thing to add to that, and its not backed up by any scientific anything, nor by a snippet from youtube; only by a personal observation.

How many people here remember the video of President Bush being told of the the airplanes striking the WTC as he sat in that kindergarten classroom that morning, when Andy Card walked in and whispered in his ear. Is it just me, or did anyone else here see that fleeting "deer in the headlights" look on the President's face,immediately followed by a look of stony resolve? I remember it like it was yesterday. He at first looked like a man who was punched in the gut, then like a man ready to do something about it. He did not have the look of a man that just pulled off the crime of the millenium.

I may have disagreed with almost every policy the Bush Administration ever set forth, and I may have gotten to the point that I couldn't even bear to hear him open his trap and say words like "Strategery",but there is NO way on this earth that I am ready to believe that he or any other President of the United States would EVER hatch a plan to kill 3000+ Americans ON AMERICAN SOIL, launch an attack on his OWN military HQ, which he would sorely need for any other war plans he may have had wanted to be carried out. For what reason, to take out the man that tried to kill his dad?He didn't need to do all that. All he had to do was call up a well timed air strike based on "actionable intelligence" that something was afoot in Iraq, something his predecessor did many times, taken some bad press for it, and moved on. He didn't need all the headache that 9/11 caused........

Think about it....

[Mark in Oshawa]

In response to the conspiracy theory, I have only one thing to add to that, and its not backed up by any scientific anything, nor by a snippet from youtube; only by a personal observation.

How many people here remember the video of President Bush being told of the the airplanes striking the WTC as he sat in that kindergarten classroom that morning, when Andy Card walked in and whispered in his ear. Is it just me, or did anyone else here see that fleeting "deer in the headlights" look on the President's face,immediately followed by a look of stony resolve? I remember it like it was yesterday. He at first looked like a man who was punched in the gut, then like a man ready to do something about it. He did not have the look of a man that just pulled off the crime of the millenium.

I may have disagreed with almost every policy the Bush Administration ever set forth, and I may have gotten to the point that I couldn't even bear to hear him open his trap and say words like "Strategery",but there is NO way on this earth that I am ready to believe that he or any other President of the United States would EVER hatch a plan to kill 3000+ Americans ON AMERICAN SOIL, launch an attack on his OWN military HQ, which he would sorely need for any other war plans he may have had wanted to be carried out. For what reason, to take out the man that tried to kill his dad?He didn't need to do all that. All he had to do was call up a well timed air strike based on "actionable intelligence" that something was afoot in Iraq, something his predecessor did many times, taken some bad press for it, and moved on. He didn't need all the headache that 9/11 caused........

Think about it....

Another point. Many of the idiots who think George W Bush is too dumb to come out of the rain, like one Rosie O'Donnell will in the next breath name him as the mastermind of this plot that no one has figured out yet. So is he stupid??? Or Smart???? Cant have it both ways....

I think he isn't the sharpest knife in the world, but Slorydn has the scene in that school room down perfectly. There wasn't one person there from the media in that room that didn't see that shock and feel it from the President. You cant fake that....

[Mark]

[quote="Mark in Oshawa"]

What was actually said to him there? You would think that he would just be told something like "Sir, we have a situation, you must come with us now" or something to that effect.

[BDunnell]

In response to the conspiracy theory, I have only one thing to add to that, and its not backed up by any scientific anything, nor by a snippet from youtube; only by a personal observation.

How many people here remember the video of President Bush being told of the the airplanes striking the WTC as he sat in that kindergarten classroom that morning, when Andy Card walked in and whispered in his ear. Is it just me, or did anyone else here see that fleeting "deer in the headlights" look on the President's face,immediately followed by a look of stony resolve? I remember it like it was yesterday. He at first looked like a man who was punched in the gut, then like a man ready to do something about it. He did not have the look of a man that just pulled off the crime of the millenium.

I may have disagreed with almost every policy the Bush Administration ever set forth, and I may have gotten to the point that I couldn't even bear to hear him open his trap and say words like "Strategery",but there is NO way on this earth that I am ready to believe that he or any other President of the United States would EVER hatch a plan to kill 3000+ Americans ON AMERICAN SOIL, launch an attack on his OWN military HQ, which he would sorely need for any other war plans he may have had wanted to be carried out. For what reason, to take out the man that tried to kill his dad?He didn't need to do all that. All he had to do was call up a well timed air strike based on "actionable intelligence" that something was afoot in Iraq, something his predecessor did many times, taken some bad press for it, and moved on. He didn't need all the headache that 9/11 caused........

Think about it....

My view exactly. The notion of a conspiracy is simply laughable.

[Mark in Oshawa]

What was actually said to him there? You would think that he would just be told something like "Sir, we have a situation, you must come with us now" or something to that effect.

What was said to him was to the effect "The World Trade Center just had a plane fly into it, and we don't think this was an accident".....Think now....you are in a room full of children, letting your guard down, and then you are told that your nation may be under attack. Think about the raw emotion you would have as a leader at that moment, yet you cannot be sure, and you don't want to alarm anyone. You watch Bush, and you can see the processing of the information and the way he steeles himself for the really lousy day he is about to have....THAT isn't fakable...at least by someone like Bush. Maybe an actor, but Bush's emotions were usually on his sleeve....

[BDunnell]

THAT isn't fakable...at least by someone like Bush. Maybe an actor, but Bush's emotions were usually on his sleeve....

Again, I agree completely.

[markabilly]

As for the other side, I really don't know that there was anything the general populace in Germany could have done because they were scared out of their minds that the SS would be coming for them next if they dared to speak out, even if they saw what was happening on TV.

In any event, outstanding question; it really made me think.

not sure it would have mattered much.

THe German people were very controlled by the media and their owns sense of following orders and doing the right thing.

Anyone see the "The Reader", an exellent movie about a person albeit, somewhat limited intelligence, who was so worried about being outside of accepted mass behavior, she paid all sorts of heavy prices and did certain things, and ultimately, the leading male figure in the movie was no different.

In Iraq, people permitted Hussein to do all sorts of things, despite the internent and other sources of TV news that were independant of government control. Life in Iran is no different.

I do think that with the instant TV mass media coverage, perhaps we would have been less likely to engage in the wholesale firebombing of cities, atomic bomb attacks on civilain targets, and murdering children, but then recently i saw a documentary about until the fall of communism, the circling b-52 bombers that were kept constantly airborne with 20 megaton nuke warheads that were too large for missiles, but were intended to do "mop-up work on large cities", long after the missiles had hit their targets. So maybe not.....

Interesting to me is that there was any such fussing in WWII, it was when the american army while liberating Dachau took it upon itself to execute as many as 345 Nazi SS who were thought to be guards (apprently the actual 2,000 or so actual guards ran like chickens, leaving some new arrivals to be in charge)...and there were some reporters around.....there was even a hushed up court martial.....and still some whining about it...
http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScrapbook/DachauLiberation/GuardTowerB.html


In the book Band of Brothers, it describes an abrupt but deliberate execution of one such nazi, although the movie portrayed that particular scene somewhat differently as though they were ordered to go get him and he was shot while running to escape from them....

AND as to those executions, , my only criticism is that I think they should have hunted and killed all they found on the spot, which is an opinion quite different as to what happened with the firebombing

But now because of TV and the liberals, the troops are far less likely to carry out justice on an individual basis, but as to burning cities and children, that readiness to do it with nuclear weapons has remained intact

[SportscarBruce]

More untold truths the Rockerfeller Center-based media fails to report on.
8XE4eRiKrz8
This is not the military I served in for almost 10 years.
And today all the TV news hacks praise the replication of a corrupt democracy within Iraq their people neither asked for or wanted.

[SportscarBruce]

WWII with modern media scrutiny - Hitler speech concerning the Bromberg Massacres and conduct of the war in Poland. IMO he failed to recognize the hands behind this act of provocation wanted him to respond militarily in order to ignite the flames of war.

IQvN2Kp21oA

[anthonyvop]

More untold truths the Rockerfeller Center-based media fails to report on.
8XE4eRiKrz8
This is not the military I served in for almost 10 years.
And today all the TV news hacks praise the replication of a corrupt democracy within Iraq their people neither asked for or wanted.

Cowards and traitors on youtube? I don't believe it.

[SportscarBruce]

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/03/08/gordon-duff-911-and-current-attempts-to-cover-up-an-american-holocaust/

God Bless America, at this point in history she really needs it.