War in Ukraine

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Mykl
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell

Wow, full court press "psy ops" at work. LOL

The phrase "out of context" must be the new obfuscation tool of the moment.

It's not working anymore, you cannot "construct" reality as you see fit.

PNAC anyone? How about NAU?
crackmeup2.gif



Construct reality?

The person suggesting the simplest possible reasonable outcome is the one who's guilty of employing deception tactics but the person stringing together a bunch of completely unrelated, unconnected, out of context quotes by various people who haven't met one another, much less talked, to support the idea that there's this shadow organization run by the most powerful people in the world is not guilty of that?

Is that how you defend your shaky position? By attempting to discredit naysayers via snide, sarcastic comments rather than actually address the person's argument?


Trying to have a sane, rational discussion with somebody who is obviously the mental equivalent of being on a permanent acid trip is likely not going to result in anything other than frustration. At least that's been my experience with him in this thread and others.


The guy actually PMed me and insinuated I'm a paid government disinformation agent because I disagreed with him. I guess he thinks I was sent here to BITOG to "deny the truth".
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
Even the military industrial complex's mass media "tool" is admitting that the people have spoken and the referendum shows that 90% of the Eastern Ukrainian's want to split from the Ukraine.

Vote fixing in the region was mastered decades ago. Stalin routinely got unanimous votes, and when he didn't, he faked it anyhow and sent people to count trees, or worse.


I opined above that Putin would love to bring back the old USSR.
Using the polling techniques of that old regime is only the beginning.
Brings a little nostalgia for that old-school Soviet propaganda machine, although at least one poster seems to be swallowing it whole, as did many who fancied themselves as avant garde back in the late 'sixites and 'seventies.
I had already found it hard to take a poster very seriously when he clearly lacks any understanding of basic microeconomics, though.
I demolished 'shells labor market conspiracy theory musings with fact and he responded first weakly and then not at all.
 
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Mykl
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell

Wow, full court press "psy ops" at work. LOL

The phrase "out of context" must be the new obfuscation tool of the moment.

It's not working anymore, you cannot "construct" reality as you see fit.

PNAC anyone? How about NAU?
crackmeup2.gif



Construct reality?

The person suggesting the simplest possible reasonable outcome is the one who's guilty of employing deception tactics but the person stringing together a bunch of completely unrelated, unconnected, out of context quotes by various people who haven't met one another, much less talked, to support the idea that there's this shadow organization run by the most powerful people in the world is not guilty of that?

Is that how you defend your shaky position? By attempting to discredit naysayers via snide, sarcastic comments rather than actually address the person's argument?


Trying to have a sane, rational discussion with somebody who is obviously the mental equivalent of being on a permanent acid trip is likely not going to result in anything other than frustration. At least that's been my experience with him in this thread and others.


The guy actually PMed me and insinuated I'm a paid government disinformation agent because I disagreed with him. I guess he thinks I was sent here to BITOG to "deny the truth".


I know you're not. You missed last week's meeting. So you're off the payroll.
 
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Mykl
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell

Wow, full court press "psy ops" at work. LOL

The phrase "out of context" must be the new obfuscation tool of the moment.

It's not working anymore, you cannot "construct" reality as you see fit.

PNAC anyone? How about NAU?
crackmeup2.gif



Construct reality?

The person suggesting the simplest possible reasonable outcome is the one who's guilty of employing deception tactics but the person stringing together a bunch of completely unrelated, unconnected, out of context quotes by various people who haven't met one another, much less talked, to support the idea that there's this shadow organization run by the most powerful people in the world is not guilty of that?

Is that how you defend your shaky position? By attempting to discredit naysayers via snide, sarcastic comments rather than actually address the person's argument?


Trying to have a sane, rational discussion with somebody who is obviously the mental equivalent of being on a permanent acid trip is likely not going to result in anything other than frustration. At least that's been my experience with him in this thread and others.


The guy actually PMed me and insinuated I'm a paid government disinformation agent because I disagreed with him. I guess he thinks I was sent here to BITOG to "deny the truth".

Ha ha ha ha ha...he really did? Wow. Classic.
 
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Brings a little nostalgia for that old-school Soviet propaganda machine, although at least one poster seems to be swallowing it whole, as did many who fancied themselves as avant garde back in the late 'sixites and 'seventies.

And those who would have been old enough to remember most of what Stalin did are no longer with us, and we all know what they say about those who forget history.
 
People always have to relearn history. The way the schools are in the USA there are probably a lot of young people who never even heard of World War II. Some people seemed to think that just because we are in the Twenty First Century people have somehow changed. People are still the same as they always were. It is the same old story. Putin will take as much as he can-as much as he thinks he can get away with.

How come antiqueshell did not say I was a government agent? How does he know I was not NSA?
 
Consider yourself lucky then. I have been accused of being affiliated with the NSA, CIA, DOD intel, a corporate spy, and other accusations that I do not understand from antiqueshell.
 
Well, it would have been nice to have had a high enough security clearance so that I could have seen what was at Area 51. Come of think of it, maybe I did see Area 51! But I can't talk about it.

And they probably reprogram people so that they are unable to remember the UFOs.
 
Originally Posted By: Mystic
Well, it would have been nice to have had a high enough security clearance so that I could have seen what was at Area 51. Come of think of it, maybe I did see Area 51! But I can't talk about it.

And they probably reprogram people so that they are unable to remember the UFOs.


Eh, it's all compartmentalized anyway.... even if you had the right level clearance you'd still need to have "need to know."
 
Originally Posted By: Mystic
How come antiqueshell did not say I was a government agent? How does he know I was not NSA?


He should have a hard time proving that you are a member of any intelligence agency.
 
History is written by the victors, that doesn't make it accurate or truthful, and indeed MANY times what you read in their, uh hum,
"history books" are utter falsehoods or more accurately should be called LIES.
 
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
History is written by the victors, that doesn't make it accurate or truthful, and indeed MANY times what you read in their, uh hum,
"history books" are utter falsehoods or more accurately should be called LIES.


Nice. The standard line that allows you to refute anything and everything others say as false.

Newsflash: with the internet it isn't exactly challenging to seek the truth. In fact, the "truth site" even has a name, it's called "Wikipedia." It's backed up with references and everything.
 
Based on what happen between China and Russia during the Chinese-Vietnamese war (that the majority of Chinese army was stationed at the China / USSR border and a smaller force is sent into Vietname), I highly doubt China and Russia would be in a military alliance. China may buy weapons from Russia until they can make their own (i.e. military jet engine, air craft carrier technology, missile tech, etc) but they would not get themselves in a war between other nations.

Kissinger's trip to China and discussion with Mao and Zhou includes a midnight conversation that Mao and Zhou prefers US to not remove their troops stationed in Europe to apply pressure to USSR, so the USSR would not focus on their military at China, in exchange China promise not to cause USA any trouble in military aggression (other than the necessary verbose smearing against each other to please the public).

I couldn't find the link to the discussion but it is a document from a link to the state department's website and obviously declassified.
 
China right now seems to want to try to push Vietnam around. I think they would be wiser to go after those Japanese islands. Because China already in the not so distant past got pushed back hard by Vietnam.
 
History, antiqueshell, has a way of being corrected until it really is the truth. That is just a 'cool' saying-that history is written by the victors. Because even if the victors do write the history books immediately after they win and they of course want to make themselves look good, whoever wins does not stay in power forever. They get replaced by other rising powers and the historians of those peoples have no loyalty to the former victors.

And the great historians of history wrote the truth. If they had not written the truth they would be forgotten just like all of the other historians who did not write down the truth and are now forgotten. And those great historians were Romans or Greeks or whatever but later historians were able to cross check to see how accurate those ancient historians were.

And people are smarter than you may think. It becomes fairly easy to know that a written history is inaccurate. And discoveries in archaeology and in other areas makes it possible for later historians to find the truth. Just because some Roman historian wanted to make a Roman emperor look good does not mean that is the only history historians have. The people the emperor conquered and enslaved produced different historical evidence and histories. Historians tend to be smart and they can cross check different bodies of material.

A good historian will want to have as many different sources of evidence as the historian can get.

I think that is enough detail to get my point across. It does not matter if the victors write the history books. They don't stay the victors forever. And later societies have their own historians and their own sources of material. In fact you yourself have proved my point antiqueshell because you have questioned the histories written by the USA and so forth. Does it maybe occur to you that future histories will also question everything?
 
Originally Posted By: Mystic
History, antiqueshell, has a way of being corrected until it really is the truth. That is just a 'cool' saying-that history is written by the victors. Because even if the victors do write the history books immediately after they win and they of course want to make themselves look good, whoever wins does not stay in power forever. They get replaced by other rising powers and the historians of those peoples have no loyalty to the former victors.

And the great historians of history wrote the truth. If they had not written the truth they would be forgotten just like all of the other historians who did not write down the truth and are now forgotten. And those great historians were Romans or Greeks or whatever but later historians were able to cross check to see how accurate those ancient historians were.

And people are smarter than you may think. It becomes fairly easy to know that a written history is inaccurate. And discoveries in archaeology and in other areas makes it possible for later historians to find the truth. Just because some Roman historian wanted to make a Roman emperor look good does not mean that is the only history historians have. The people the emperor conquered and enslaved produced different historical evidence and histories. Historians tend to be smart and they can cross check different bodies of material.

A good historian will want to have as many different sources of evidence as the historian can get.

I think that is enough detail to get my point across. It does not matter if the victors write the history books. They don't stay the victors forever. And later societies have their own historians and their own sources of material. In fact you yourself have proved my point antiqueshell because you have questioned the histories written by the USA and so forth. Does it maybe occur to you that future histories will also question everything?


I do not want to write a post just to agree with someone. But I have a urge to agree with this post.
 
Thank you dave1251. I think we can believe much of the history that has been written and is accepted. Archaeology often can be later used to verify various claims.

And I think in general we can depend on American history. Americans have a tendency to even be willing to criticize themselves in their own history books. For example, the American historians do not glorify General Custer just because he was an American general. Immediately after the battle it may have been a different story but the real story did come out eventually.
 
Originally Posted By: Mystic
China right now seems to want to try to push Vietnam around. I think they would be wiser to go after those Japanese islands. Because China already in the not so distant past got pushed back hard by Vietnam.

China's "claims" in the South China sea are mind-boggling:
south-china-sea-claims.gif

Pretty much right up to the beach in the Philippines! Maybe they feel they missed out on all that pushing other nations around that went down during Europe's colonial era, and are making up for lost time?

It reminds me of that quote (wrongly) attributed to Collis P. Huntington, "Whatever is not nailed down is mine; what I can pry loose is not nailed down".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top