alanjjohnstone
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Quote:I don't share that basis with those who post here. Perhaps there are some who don't post, who regard themselves as closer to my beliefs, but probably not.Given that I've had many similar discussions on LibCom and the ICC site, too, and had similar responses, perhaps it's time for me to admit to myself that the 'socialism/communism/Marxism', that I look to, doesn't really exist.
For LBird, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjHSOzVU5j0
Could you refer me to the source of these claims, Vin.It was certainly a second-hand used gun but it was not falling to pieces…it was usable and accurate enough for the task and those who were asked to replicate Oswalds shots did indeed accomplish it.Much is made of the scope defect but we don't know if it was damaged before or after the assassination, the scope is positioned in a way that the iron sights can be used so if LHO knew they were out of alignment, he still could have taken the shots without using the scope. We just don't know if he did or not. But even if he used the scope, an aimed at the centre of the back shot would have hit Kennedy higher up…as two shots did…but we don't know where on Kennedy LHO aimed. So he could simply has compensated for any flaw in the scope. FBI Frazier also said the scope defect to the right would actually favor the sniper in the 6th floor window with the motorcade moving into the curve to the right. LHO according to his wife spent hours working the bolt of his rifle. He understood whatever sticky workings or stiff trigger action it had.He had already used it in an assassination attempt of Gen Walker and the window frame deflected the bullet. In his own words LHO was a "Hunter of Fascists"…As i said his left-wing view of himself is often overlooked The Warren Commission never said that Oswald had only 6 seconds to get off three shots. This is a convenient misrepresentation. Most people today who believe that Oswald did the shooting by himself believe that he made the first shot at about Zapruder frame 160, giving him about 8.4 seconds to get off all three shots. In the tests all the shots *hit* the targets! there were *four* series of shots by Frazier. The times were 5.9 seconds, 6.2 seconds, 5.6 seconds, and 6.5 seconds. Frazier's best was in 5.6 seconds And all of Frazier's shots *hit* the targets. They were "high and to the right of the *aiming point.* (as was LHO shots). The fact that the FBI reported the scope to be misaligned, to me, shows they were investigating the case in good faith. So no cover-up there when of course they should have hidden that detail. It is also thought his first shot missed…Nobody is claiming Oswald was infallible or perfect shot.
"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'."As the clip from DJP says there is a big difference from healthy scepticism and cynicism…and i think as Marxists we should remember Marx when he said "ignorance never helped anybody" … I make the same request to you as i did to Vin, Gnome…What are the "ridiculous and unsustainable" facts in the accepted version of the shooting…and have these over time with improved science been answered? Do you think that a cover-up as intricate as would be required and involving many participants can last this long without being exposed particularly as someone pointed out, Clinton presidential powers couldn't hide a sperm stain on a dress and Nixon couldn't hide his secret SE Asia war or a political break-in and the amazing powers of the US/UK couldn't fake discovering a few WMDs in Iraq.
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?
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.
"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 …
"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.
Certainly on one-to-one face-to-face discussions this has a resonance that we should heed…but how do we make use of it in mass political campaigns?…It demands such a degree of interaction that only perhaps this forum offers the basis and sadly if it does, it is failing.The Socialist Standard and our pamphlets and blogs cannot perform this task, can it ?Every article rather than one-way communinication of information and facts needs to be written in a style that makes people ask their own questions of themselves, One reason why i am such an admirer of the Kids Stuff video…i think it succeeds in that. But is that because it uses a visual structure rather than a written one to back its claims up? How successful would the text of Paddy commentary be on its own? I note the Chomsky approach is to take an issue back in history and then offer actual examples over a period …to give an evolution of an issue, rather than merely a refutation, as a method of explanation. I don't think i have the creative style of writing to succeed and perhaps as we did with our campaign workshops, we should indulge in writing workshops…Or just refer people to the websites that encourage show examples of a manner of political writing that encourage a receptive response.
"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.
I can't wait for that moment when i'm present when all those involved in these several related threads meet up in the pub and have had a few pints to lubricate their throats and thoughts….It will be a dynamite experience, dwarving Marx v Bakunin, Lenin v Martov …I'm serious about the drama and the spectacle i expect to witness when such an encounter materialises
How low can Labour go…i know…scabby scum lowhttps://shop.labour.org.uk/products/pledge-4-mug-controls-on-immigration-551/
Our blog has covered the cause of the attack herehttp://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2012/12/americas-good-war-part-two-japan.html
Quote:On November 15th (1941), Army Chief of Staff George Marshall briefed the media on something we do not remember as “the Marshall Plan.” In fact we don’t remember it at all. "We are preparing an offensive war against Japan,” Marshall said. The idea that it was a defensive war because an innocent imperial outpost in the middle of the Pacific was attacked out of the clear blue sky is a myth that deserves to be buried.
