Conspiracy Theories and how big business-aka -your government won the propaganda war
- This topic has 72 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 9 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Has it not now been admitted that a government agent 'accidently' killed JFK.
"Admitted" by who, Vin?The theory that an secret service man accidentally set off his weapon and killed JFK is an old one originally argued in 'Mortal Error' and can be discarded because of all the proven ballistic evidence that exists…But as the clip demonstrates…it is a theory that can be upheld because the contrary evidence was "faked" and that all the potential witnesses to such an event were somehow silenced.No, it is not a credible assassination theory and the vast majority of conspiracists also reject it, that is how bad a "conspiracy" it is.
In life you are born and cry on feeling pain . Throughout your life you continue to feel pain by accidents fights or verbal pain by nasty comments to you . People are not nice they get jealous of you attack you and steal from you . THats life its reality not a conjecture of the ideals of man .I always deal in reality your government lies-lies and lies again but even when they are caught wil their hand in the till you still beleive them and not people like Snowdon that is total brainwashing . I go by what the government of the UK and US actually do -by their actions -never by their words as they wouldnt know the truth if they tripped over it in the road . I just cannot understand when the UK/US are trying to start WW3 with Russia and when this country wil be flattened when the Russian Bear hits back that the 99 % are being kept in the dark even when HMG says they are exercising the RAF over North England in case of war with Russia nobody is told the truth of what actually happens to your body . THose near it are vapourised those further away die in agony over weeks or months .Putin is "evil " etc pure bull— its the west that is the aggressor -false flag Iraq=1.5 MILLION civilians killed several 1000 gi,s thats a fact ! No other country in the last 50 years has invaded more countries-killed more people than the US they allow torture -indefinate detention etc all against International law . Ukraine was bought-paid for -by the US -my words NO American officials words NATO is now on Russia,s border again against a drawn up and signed International Treaty . Where is the cry of US/UK war planes near Russia,s border ??? nil comment . This is a War because of the US $$$ being not worth the paper it is printed on including Government bonds .They must make war or the US sinks down to reality thar printing money doesnt work in the long run they want Russian resources same as they have dione for 50 years -step 1= We dont like your politics -you are our enemy -step 2= sanctions-step 3 you are a rogue nation causing ""instability "" in the World -Hypocrites !! -step 4 Invade -steal their resources -and mopve on to the next country that the US says -we will bring democracy and ""freedom "" to you (after killing 100,s of 1000,s of civilians and diont forget our weapons factories need to try out the new weapons on civilians like phosphorus bombs that strip the flesh off you .Many people round this World agree with me and if you cannot see reality then there is no hope here for the poor -sick-old as Cameron millionaire privatises the NHS and the US ""Trade Treaty "" with the EU means a US takeover by big business and no going back to protect social services . No bread then let the poor eat cake !
"Where is the cry of US/UK war planes near Russia,s border ??? nil comment ." http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/ukraine-v-russia?page=1Yes you are perfectly right, Duncan, that the UK media presents a distorted reflection of politics…We have been saying that for a century. http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/567008/RAF-Putin-wargame-operationNote how this story is written to emphasise the "defensive" nature of the war exercise against an aggressive Russia.Missing from the article is the fact of the increased NATO activity encircling Russia http://rt.com/uk/245085-raf-rising-panther-typhoon-drills/But this is all par for the course…War is not an aberrational event for capitalism but an essential part of it. The real response is not to take sides in national conflicts but to recognise the root cause and that is capitalism and without removing capitalism, you don't remove militarism. It is an old story and again our party has been endeavouring to shine the light on this element of the problem.
Quote:Militarism is an inevitable effect of capitalist domination and the struggle for markets and profit, and so long as the workers are ruled by a master class, so long will their masters use them as cannon fodder. The only solution of the question of militarism from the proletarian point of view is the abolition of capitalist exploitation. It is then our duty to concentrate our efforts upon Socialism, upon the triumph of those who labour. The revolutionary Socialist is the truest peace advocate…The straightest road is the shortest road, and the only way to get rid of the evil of militarism is to get rid of capitalism.While it is useful to expose the media and government lies, others perform this task probably better than ourselves…people like Chomsky. But our purpose is to explain the why…and to argue for the solution.All countries in a war declare themselves the unwilling reluctant participants, and there is no exception in Russia's case…There is no longer a "a Department of War" …but instead a "Ministry of Defence"…We understand the lies of the UK and the US and NATO but we also fully understand the complicity of Russia and also judge that they lie also to mobilise the support of their own populations for their position of retaining (or now it perhaps should read regaining) Ukraine within its sphere of influence….It is a war for the economic domination and control of the Ukraine…The EU expanded into what Russia thought of as its own client-state but of course they never questioned their right to determine Ukraine's politics.A plague on both houses…Neither Washington Nor Moscow…We are not forced to take sides in every internecene conflict of capitalism…The socialist seeks that the working class acts independently of the interests of the ruling class.
I see where you are coming from Alan and you make good points. The problem is the war coming up wil be a major World War and we will all be physically effected even now Territorial army recruits are being given training and advice on a nuke war and their depots are more ""livelier " . Ukraine might have been what you said a "client state" of Russia but the poor got their oap,s cheap (subsidised by Russia ) and the poor elected their President . That was ripped from them by Nazi,s who made the oligraths even more richer by even worse graft and corruption . Take a real look at Putin,s Russia and you will see social services thriving -cheap gas/electric the old treated with respect . Compare that with the US -neo-con rules the poor = workshy -layabouts -etc cut their benefits give it to billionaires as usual Cameron millionaire copies the US what do you see in the 90 % UK media programmes showing those living on benefits as—workshy-layabouts – A survey was carried out in Glasgow where there are poor dying younger than Palestinians it was found about 2 % represented the view of the Tories/New Labour the rest were genuinely unable to get jobs due to bad education -bad home life -no money to make them see a vision of live is worth living. No I am on Putin,s side He is the "fly in the ointment " to the WEstern -NWO/Neo-con dream conquer him and the BRICS fail and the US big business will bring HEll to thev working class sweat shops returning -2 jobs to survive "work em to they collapse " back to Victorian times so much for trade union achievements over 100 years ground into the dust. No sympathy -no help -no goodness -only evil .
"Take a real look at Putin,s Russia and you will see social services thriving -cheap gas/electric the old treated with respect"You spoil your point with such claims. There is vast inequities in Russia and Putin has always been a representative of a section of the oligarchy there. This article describes some statistics you should also be aware ofhttp://www.themoscowtimes.com/article.php?id=514661I use this item rather than numerous other reports on the web of Russian poverty because of its unbias source. I could have quoted the Toronto Star that claims half of Russians are in some degree of poverty based on the same survey by the Moscow-based Financial University. Putin is no friend of the Russian working class. In order to secure the support of the oligarchs, the Putin regime is ready to place the entire burden of the economic crisis onto the backs of the working class. The Kremlin has intensified its austerity measures. At the same time, laws are being prepared to protect the fortunes of the oligarchs from the effects of the sanctions. And as for those Ukrainian neo-nazis, back in 2010 our blog reported on Russian racistshttp://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2010/12/russias-racists.htmlNationalism in all its forms should be rejected, not just one.Our enemy's enemy is NOT our friend, Duncan, or it will take you down many dark places where i am sure you will regret in the future going …
You only have to look at the difference in the treatment to the poor in Russia and compare it with the US. Neo-cons dont believe in social services just look at the attitude of "judge Judy " -no job work picking up cans -one job and cant pay ? then get 2 jobs -cant use your arm ? then use the other and get a job etc she speaks for the US far right attitude . Are you saying Putin doesnt provide social services or the the babushkas arent treated with respect or that the poor dont get free medical treatment ? Try crawling into a US hospital and say -" I need help " first question- can you pay for it ?? if not herded off to that underfunded hospital in less good parts of the town . Just look at this country on its way to hell for the poor and its only talk -talk -talk .Food banks everywhere more than ever were in the 30,s Depression and this Depression now lasting longer than the 30,s one.Economic crisis WHO caused it ??? World Banksters -IMF who own them and where do they live Who owns the US and UK ? -we want our profit we dont care if 1000,s die of starvation but DONT do as Iceland did -we never got our profit from them . I cant comprehend that all you want to do is talk semantics of political points I dont give a damn about any politics unless it effects the poor and 99 % and if it does I am prepared to die for the fight against injustice -inhumanity – and pure evil bloody minded distain for those not rich but poor. Action is required not words.
alanjjohnstone wrote:"Admitted" by who, Vin?[…]No, it is not a credible assassination theory and the vast majority of conspiracists also reject it, that is how bad a "conspiracy" it is.The vast majority of conspiracists would reject this theory, wouldn't they, because it effectively undermines their more outlandish claims. Judge for yourselves: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_Error
Depends upon your definition of "outlandish"….Over the years i have read many but once again it requires an illogical amount of cover-up to substantiate the secret service accidentally killed Kennedy. Your wiki reference has one weakness that is very obvious reading it…there is no rebuttal of it offered so sorry you cannot judge for yourself from reading the wiki entry if it omits conflicting evidence. The book actually says that Oswald shot JFK but it was not the fatal shot which was the head shot but Donahue's proof is based on a misreading of autopsy report about the size of entry wound and track, too technical for either you or me to judge, and although th author was qualified ballistics expert, he was not a medical expert and it those experts who have decided it makes the Secret Service claim untenable.Gnome, why do you think so many people feel compelled to come up with some other explanation to the abundant evidence available leading to the guilt of LHO? Why do so many want to stretch for bizarre alternatives? These are the questions DJP's clip asks us to ask ourselves.
alanjjohnstone wrote:The book actually says that Oswald shot JFK but it was not the fatal shot which was the head shot but Donahue's proof is based on a misreading of autopsy report about the size of entry wound and track, too technical for either you or me to judge, and although th author was qualified ballistics expert, he was not a medical expert and it those experts who have decided it makes the Secret Service claim untenable.I'm well aware what the book says but you contradict your own claim that interpreting the autopsy report is "too technical for either you or me to judge" but then go on to make a judgment, choosing to accept the opinion of one 'expert' rather than another. Perhaps LBird has a valid point when he speaks of "individualists" having a preference for trust (admittedly in your case a selective one) in "elite-experts".
As a theory, it just sounds like Oswald did it with knobs on. Oswald did it. A freak kill shot from a rifle seems pretty far fetched to me. That the establishment would seek to cover the accident up, beyond a few back covering individuals, even more so. Plus there'd be a death bed confession by now.Oswald did it. On his own.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Oswald did it. On his own.Of cours he did! Just like I flew across the English channel in my vintage car with paper wings attached to it
Gnome, what i did was clarify that Donahue is not an autopsy expert and he himself chose to base part of his claims on the testimony of someone who was, Hume, which misreported the size of the entry wound. It was his "slap-dunk" evidence that another calibre of bullet had to have been used but if that itself was flawed, his whole case falls. Wiki failed to raise this issue and i therefore doubted it as a source to go to for a definitive view. Yes, we do have to choose which expert testimony to accept and our task, as in any jury, is to see which fits in with all the rest of the evidence presented in the case and we do not treat it in isolation. I think we must always go with the prevailing consensus…Or do you think merely a maverick scientist who challenges 99.9% of the climate change evidence deserves the same weight of authority. Again, i'm not so knowledgeable that i can decipher statistics, experiments and theoretical models. I do rely on other's expertise and i do choose who to opt for based upon certain criteria…their training and experience and any pre-determines bias or motive if they are discernable. I expect my doctor to use his clinical expertise to diagnose and then to explain in lay-man terms what my illness is and suggest treatments. He more ofter than not he himself defers to specialists….i will choose my options based on the information i receive and my own interpretation of its validity. I do not go to the faith-healer or homeopath "expert" regardless of how many of his ex-patients testimonies are cited as proof of success. I therefore do resort to what you call "elite-experts". Vin, so you are still not a believer that a misfit personality who considered himself as some sort of Marxist shot Kennedy (and earlier tried to kill a right-wing ex-general called Walker) for a supposed political motive.If you want you can go to my personal blog http://mailstrom.blogspot.com/2006/11/lee-harvey-oswald-why-did-he-do-it.htmlhttp://mailstrom.blogspot.com/2012/05/lho-killed-jfk.htmlhttp://mailstrom.blogspot.com/2007/02/kennedy-assassination-again.htmlhttp://mailstrom.blogspot.com/2006/09/dallas-1963-again.htmlhttp://mailstrom.blogspot.com/2014/02/another-jfk-conspiracy-myth-shot-down.htmlI'd like to know why you have this idea if you can give me what your argument is against LHO being a lone assassin. Are there technical details about the actual shots, the angles, the timings? Has any particular witness statement influenced your conclusion? We all know that eye-witnesses frequently contradict eachother and they too have to be judged by other aspects of the evidencs. Do you place more credence on contrary evidence that has not been answered to your satisfaction? If you read my blog-posts on the topic, where are my mistakes?
Vin wrote:Young Master Smeet wrote:Oswald did it. On his own.Of cours he did! Just like I flew across the English channel in my vintage car with paper wings attached to it
That's going a bit far, Vin. But to say with such overwhelming confidence that Oswald acted alone is clearly ridiculous and unsustainable, particularly for socialists who should be prepared to 'question everything'.I think this notion of absolute certainty that the 'official' version of events is always the correct and only one deserves to take its place alongside The Onion‘s theory: that JFK was never shot at all; instead his head spontaneously combusted when a passing peanut truck stimulated his allergies.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.