WWII with modern media scrutiny

[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]

[youtube]7nD7dbkkBIA[/youtube]

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.