Not true. Ever heard of the Flying Tigers? Ever read FDR tried to slam them with embargos and shut down their source of steel? FDR was following a 8 step plan to get us into WW2, and it worked as planned.
USS Liberty
- Thread starter PeterPilot
- Start date
JoeB131
Diamond Member
Nixon sold the Saigon Quislings down the river because he knew they were useless.
The problem is, there should have been a point where everyone realized that no matter how much blood and treasure we poured into Saigon, the Vietnamese were never going to love the Quislings we were propping up. Even the Quislings knew it, which is why they were skimming off as much of the money we were sending over there as they could.
I love the story about how General Ky tried to smuggle a helicopter full of Gold out of the country. Oh, yeah, and he said Hitler was his hero.
mikegriffith1
Mike Griffith
I guess you think that if you repeat falsehoods often enough, you will wear people down and they will just give up replying. People are a lot smarter than you seem to think they are. Most people who read your replies and the responses to your replies will readily discern that you you're a rabid Maoist idealogue, that you never admit when you're caught making erroneous statements, and that you don't know what you're talking about. This is why so many forum members ignore you. It's not that they can't respond; it's just that they see no point in doing so. I only answer you for the sake of others.
"Unprovoked"? Yeah, uh-huh. You know this is bogus. So let me ask you for about the tenth time: What would any other nation, let's call it Nation A, do if a larger, more powerful country froze all of their assets, cut off their oil supply, sent weapons to Nation A's enemy while they were fighting with that enemy, pressured their enemy not to accept reasonable peace offers, sent naval ships within range of Nation A's ships that were engaged in wartime supply actions to try to provoke a military response, and refused all of Nation A's peace offers, even offers that gave the larger country's leader virtually everything he said he wanted?
Under international law, sending weapons to another nation's combatant when that nation and the combatant are engaged in war, and also pressuring the combatant not to accept reasonable peace deals, are considered provocations that could warrant a military response.
It is helpful to keep in mind that, as strange as it seems in hindsight, the Japanese actually believed that attacking Pearl Habor would cause the U.S. to accept a peace agreement. This is why the Japanese fleet was under strict orders not to attack any civilian targets in Hawaii but only to hit the U.S. Navy ships, naval dock facilities, and airfield. After the attack, the Japanese quickly realized they had horribly miscalculated the American reaction, but the fact remains that they honestly believed the attack would cause FDR to make a peace deal with them.
JoeB131
Diamond Member
We aren't discussing Mao, we are discussing why the Japanese launched a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor... try to keep up.
Okay, by that logic, China has a right to blow our carriers out of the water if they wander into the South China Sea. Japan didn't attack American warships on the high seas, they attacked them while they were in port.
All the things the US did before Pearl Harbor were reasonable, peaceful approaches towards aggressor nations. We did the exact same thing to Germany and Italy. Are you claiming that they were justified to attack us? Is Putin justified in nuking us because we froze his assets?
The Japanese were waging a war of aggression against China, a sovereign nation. There was no reasonable peace offer that didn't involve, "Get the Hell out of China".
Really? Can you cite that part of international law? Because it was kind of the opposite in WWI. We traded with the allies, and when Germany launched unrestricted submarine warfare, that was good enough to warrant US entry into the war. Kaiser Bill didn't think that one through at all.
But you skipped over the part where Japan launched sneak attacks against China and Russia. Sneak Attacks are kind of their thing. Except this time, they got their teeth kicked in for it, and they've been well-behaved ever since.
OH, bullshit.
The Japanese plan was the same plan they had with Russia in 1904-5. Launch a sneak attack, and then lure the main enemy fleet into a decisive battle. Except that battle (Midway) didn't turn out the way they wanted.
The Japanese thought America was soft and didn't have the stomach for a long war, their strategy was always to drag out a long Island war.
mikegriffith1
Mike Griffith
Oh my goodness. You gotta stop reading Communist/far-left histories of the Vietnam War. Congress sold out South Vietnam, not Nixon. Nixon did all he could to stop Congress from betraying South Vietnam, but he was too weakened by Watergate to do so. And South Vietnam's leaders were anything but "Quislings."
More Communist/far-left propaganda. South Vietnam actually held its own and made some progress against the Communists in 1973, i.e., after our forces had left, but then Congress began slashing aid to Saigon while the Soviet and the Chinese continued to pour in aid to North Vietnam.
I bet you do, but the story was debunked many years ago. I guess your Communist/far-left sources didn't mention that.
Oh, right. His comment was taken out of context. Besides, Jihad Joe, many of the Arab leaders you keep praising adored and supported Hitler. Many of your ideological buddies in Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah think highly of Hitler and also deny the Holocaust. They also share your disdain and hatred of the Jews and likewise peddle the nutcase claim about the alleged International Zionist Conspiracy.
It should be recalled that in previous replies, you actually said that there would have been no wars in the Middle East since 1948 if Israel had not been established. (Yes, folks, he actually said that.)
You duck sticking to a topic like a rat ducks an eagle.
Essentially you approve communism and it's goals. Your story does not match the stories I was told by Vietnamese living in the San Jose, CA area by a mile.
JoeB131
Diamond Member
Wow, what a rewriting of history.
The reality is, Nixon knew he was selling Saigon down the river at Paris.
Kissinger’s betrayal: He sold out South Vietnam in the 1973 Paris Accords
Kissinger’s betrayal: He sold out South Vietnam in the 1973 Paris Accords
www.mercurynews.com
Henry Kissinger did not have to wait long to carry out his prophecy. Less than a year later, with the Paris Accords, 1973, he was able to pave the way for South Vietnam to come under communist rule. According to the terms of these Paris Accords, the most basic, concrete and decisive matter was for the U. S. to put an end to its intervention in the Vietnam conflict and the complete cessation of military aid to South Vietnam for its vital national defense.
South Vietnamese President Nguyen Van Thieu was surely not a geopolitical expert of Dr. Kissinger’s caliber, but he was able to see immediately the catastrophic consequences of these Paris Accords for South Vietnam and vigorously refused to have his government sign them. President Thieu’s stubbornness in demanding many major changes in the draft dragged on and on during three months without much result.
By mid-January 1973 Henry Kissinger had President Nixon send a series of letters to President Thieu saying that the U. S. government would sign the Paris Accords with or without the Saigon government. To read between the lines, the U. S. was dumping the Saigon government and getting out of Vietnam period.
The Myth That Congress Cut Off Funding for South Vietnam
Since partisans have turned the April 30, 1975, Communist takeover of South Vietnam into a political weapon, I’m going to spend the anniversary doing a little myth-busting.
www.historynewsnetwork.org
A quick, easy check of an old newspaper database shows Laird's cutoff claim to be false. In the fiscal year running from July 1, 1974, to June 30, 1975, the congressional appropriation for military aid to South Vietnam was $700 million.
Nixon had requested $1.45 billion. Congress cut his aid request, but never cut off aid.
Nixon's successor, President Gerald R. Ford, requested an additional $300 million for Saigon. Democrats saw it as an exercise in political blame-shifting. "The administration knows that the $300 million won't really do anything to prevent ultimate collapse in Vietnam," said Senator and future Vice President Walter F. Mondale, D-Mn., "and it is just trying to shift responsibility of its policy to Congress and the Democrats." Congress didn't approve the supplemental appropriation.
Debunked by whom?
Actually I did a google search and can't find any info on it one way or the other.
What context would an American Ally praising Hitler ever sound good in?
Also, those groups aren't my buddies. I just don't think we need to get involved in fighting them because..
Yes, it's actually true.
mikegriffith1
Mike Griffith
#duck_and_dodge
Baffling logic that misses the point.
I've already answered every one of these arguments in previous discussions. You simply ignore refutations of your arguments and then keep repeating them. Let me repeat, again:
In his monograph Japan’s Decision for War in 1941: Some Enduring Lessons, published by the U.S. Army War College in 2009, Dr. Jeffrey Record, a professor at the Air War College, makes some cogent points about Japan’s reasons for deciding to wage war on the U.S. and the role that FDR’s draconian sanctions played in that decision. Dr. Record also notes that FDR’s sanctions and demands would have been viewed as unacceptable to the U.S. if a foreign power had done them to us. Says Dr. Record,
The United States was, in effect, demanding that Japan renounce its status as an aspiring great power and consign itself to permanent strategic dependency on a hostile Washington. Such a choice would have been unacceptable to any great power. Japan’s survival as a major industrial and military power was at stake—far more compelling reasons for war than the United States later advanced for its disastrous wars. Would the United States ever have permitted a hostile power to wreck its foreign commerce and strangle its domestic economy without a resort to war? (p. 21, https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pdffiles/pub905.pdf).
In a previous reply, I quoted several more paragraphs from Dr. Record's monograph. Remember?
Yet, you get on here and repeat the same arguments that you've been making for years and just ignore facts that refute them.
Yes, Mao Lover and FDR Worshipper Joe, you've repeated this WWII-era propaganda innumerable times. In previous discussions, I presented you with page after page of evidence that contradicts your version of events. But, as usual, you ignore all that contrary information and just repeat your argument over and over and over and over.
LOL! You need this explained??? You doubt that international law and long precedent say that if Country A sends military aid and military/paramilitary personnel to Country B that is fighting Country C then Country C has every right to view Country A as co-combatant and to view the Country A personnel who are aiding Country B in the war zone as unlawful combatants? You seriously don't know this?
Lincoln justifiably screamed bloody murder over British aid to the Confederacy during the Civil War and considered attacking British ships in retaliation, but decided against it because he feared full-scale war with England would lead to a Confederate victory, and after the war many U.S. leaders open suggested settling the score with the British over their treacherous wartime aid to the Confederacy.
At a minimum, the Flying Tigers, for example, were unlawful combatants.
I suggest you start your education on this subject by reading the defense arguments, made by U.S. military attorneys, regarding the Pearl Harbor attack at the International Military Tribunal for the Far East.
Oh, boy. Yeap, I see your knowledge of WWI is as substandard and shallow as your knowledge of so many other subjects.
Oh! Oh! And the Chinese and the Russians never launched sneak attacks???! The Chinese and the Russians always followed the rules of war???! Yeah, you bet. What a total Mao-loving, pro-Communist clown you are. As I have documented for you in previous discussions, Japan had valid, recognized territorial rights and interests in China, and it was the Nationalists who picked the key fights that led to the Japanese incursion into central China.
No, you're just ignorant of WWII scholarship. It is not "BS" at all but has been discussed by numerous historians in untold numbers of books on the Pacific War. It is often--and justifiably--cited as one of the worst miscalculations in history.
You have no clue in Kentucky what you're talking about. Sheesh, I seriously wonder exactly what you have read about the Pacific War. I'll just repeat the fact that the Japanese believed that the Pearl Harbor attack would cause the FDR administration to lift the sanctions and agree to a peace deal. The Japanese were stunned by the American reaction to Pearl Harbor and quickly realized they had badly miscalculated. It is amazing, but not a bit surprising, that this is all news to you.
Last edited:
mikegriffith1
Mike Griffith
This is a prime example of your dishonesty and shallowness.
You've claimed that Israel was "anxious" to give up the Sinai at the Camp David negotiations. This is pure fiction, as anyone who knows even the basics about those negotiations can tell you.
The Israelis were extremely reluctant to give up the Sinai. Menachem Begin bluntly refused to give up the Sinai. This was a major obstacle to achieving a peace deal at Camp David. Even after Carter applied extreme pressure on Begin to relent on the Sinai, he refused and insisted that he could not do it but that he would go along with it if and only if his cabinet and the Israeli Knesset voted to relinquish the Sinai as part of a peace deal that included Egyptian diplomatic recognition of Israel. The debate in the Knesset was fierce, but the body finally approved giving up the Sinai in exchange for diplomatic recognition and other concessions (the stationing of a UN security force in the Sinai).
In fact, the Sinai part of the Camp David Accords was not finalized at Camp David because of Begin's insistence that the Knesset had to approve the Sinai pullback. Only after the cabinet and the Knesset approved the Sinai withdrawal was that provision of the accords finalized. I might add that Begin only agreed to lobby for the withdrawal during the Knesset debate after Carter reluctantly agreed not to include Palestinian autonomy in the West Bank in the peace deal.
Even most liberal Israelis, i.e., the Labor Party, were never "anxious" to give up the Sinai. Giving up the Sinai was very controversial in Israel. The Israelis had settlements in the Sinai. After Egypt's invasion of Israel through the Sinai in 1973, nearly all Israelis believed that Israel's annexation of the Sinai provided Israel with a crucial buffer zone against future attacks.
Go read any book on the Camp David Peace Accords and you'll see just how reluctant the Israelis were to give up the Sinai, and how much pressure had to be applied and how many concessions had to be made before Begin even agreed to go along with a Sinai withdrawal if the cabinet and Knesset voted for it.
Last edited:
JoeB131
Diamond Member
Not at all. China actually has LEGITIMATE claims to Taiwan and the South China Sea. yet the US is arming and coordinating with Taiwan. And China has a MUCH better claim to Taiwan than Japan had to Manchuria or Northern China. (Hint, see "One China Policy)
You can try to paint a happy face on it all day.
Japan was waging war against China - A sovereign State - in violation of the rules of the League of Nations, which both China and Japan were members of. Japan's response to the League condemning their invasion of Manchuria was to quit the League. Despite that, the US and the rest of the world only too tepid steps to stop the Japanese, until their aggression against the rest of China became impossible to ignore.
Because nothing you say is compelling. Japan was completely in the wrong here. Heck, even Germany had a better case for her aggression against Poland (In that parts of Poland were ethnically German at the time.) they were setting a boundary dispute, they were just taking China's land because they wanted it. Something everyone agreed was unacceptable after the Great War.
Except they weren't. They were volunteers who were being paid by the Chinese Government. Also, they didn't see combat until AFTER Pearl Harbor.
Here's what Abe didn't do. He didn't launch a sneak attack on London. Or even Canada. Instead, he handled the issue diplomatically, and the British realized, "Yeah, helping the South Maintain Slavery is kind of a dick move" [citation needed]
Wow, you are really stretching to justify Japan's launching a sneak attack. Limiting ourselves to Just China.
They've only been at war three times.
1950, when they responded to a UN Army approaching their border with Korea. No sneak attack there; they were pretty open about what they were doing.
1962 War with India was never more than a bunch of Skirmishes.
1979 War with Vietnam, where they gave the Vietnamese lots of warnings they would attack to aid Cambodia.
By who, ******* idiots and conspiracy nuts? Sorry, man, the Japanese were in the ******* wrong.
That would been retarded.
So you should try this. Walk into a Biker Bar, find the biggest nastiest biker you can find, and then pick a fight with him. Then see how well he responds to your requests.
After you are done picking up your teeth, you will realize how really dumb that strategy is. Which is why the Japanese didn't really think that at all.
They thought they could neutralize the US Fleet, take over South East Asia and maybe finish off China, and then after dragging out a war with the US long enough, they could negotiate a peace treaty. They also thought we'd be preoccupied with Germany, which would give them more time. (Imagine their terror when they found out we could do both.)
JoeB131
Diamond Member
Sonny, it's a lot of jibber-jabber to concede the point that Begin STILL GAVE UP THE SINAI. For what, Diplomatic recognition. That's like trading a cow for a bag of magic beans.
The reason why they gave up the Sinai so easily is the 1973 war proved it was indefensible when the Egyptians used SAGER rockets to take out over 1000 Israeli tanks.
mikegriffith1
Mike Griffith
I just wanted to revisit this anti-Semitic wingnut claim, partially to remind everyone of who JoeB131 is and what he stands for.
Now, JoeB131, how about if you present your scenario for how those nasty Jewish vermin could have prevented the Navy Court of Inquiry from recording testimony from multiple sailors that Israeli torpedo boats machine-gunned USS Liberty life rafts in the water, and from recording testimony from multiple sailors that the Israeli jets were unmarked? Or, if you say that Jews altered all the transcripts after the inquiry to remove these items, how would they have done this? Describe how Jews could have done this, keeping in mind that this was long before the days of word processors and that we're talking about transcripts that were typed on electric typewriters.
BTW, FYI, USS Liberty crew member Russell David testified at the Navy Court of Inquiry that he saw the Israeli insignia on the Israeli jets. How about if you present a scenario where Jews could have persuaded David to lie about this or where Jews could have altered the transcript of his testimony? I trust you're aware of how carefully Navy Court of Inquiry transcripts are maintained and tracked, right?
LOL! I literally refuted this nonsense in the very reply that you quoted before writing this response! You did not address the evidence I presented and once again simply repeated your argument.
You never admit when you've been proven wrong, no matter how undeniable and egregious your gaffe is.
Do you just not grasp how foolish you are making yourself look?
No, the Israelis most certainly did not "give up the Sinai so easily." That is comical fiction. Any book you want to read on the Camp David negotiations will discuss how difficult it was to get the Israelis to agree to withdraw from the Sinai. Oh, heck, why do I even bother?! You'll just ignore this and repeat your argument again.
Last edited:
JoeB131
Diamond Member
I never addressed if the Zionists Squatters machine gunned rafts in the water (although I wouldn't put it past them.) One sailor said the planes were unmarked.
I know that the military fakes and alter documents all the time. Saw it too many times when I was in. For instance, there was in incident where we had an issue about ammo disposition. It implicated an officer who was considered a rising star and they put a lot of pressure on me to change my story and hang the thing on an enlisted man. I refused to do it.
No, I ignore most of your ramblings.
Sure they gave it up easily. They didn't even get MONEY for it. When have you known a Jew to pass up money?
They traded it because it was indefensible and expensive to keep. Period.
mikegriffith1
Mike Griffith
You're lying again. You suggested that sailors did mention this, along with unmarked planes, but that Jews somehow, someway suppressed information from the Navy Court of Inquiry transcripts and report.
Uh, no, not at the Navy Court of Inquiry, but only years later and when not under oath. Not a single sailor who testified at the court of inquiry said anything about unmarked planes or life rafts in the water being machine-gunned.
Ahhhh. . . . Uh-huh. . . . Here we go, folks! So the military "fakes and alters documents all the time," huh?
So, yes, your argument is that those lousy, rotten Jews somehow managed to expunge all references to unmarked Israeli planes and Israeli boats machine-gunning life rafts in the water from the court of inquiry documents.
How would they have done this? Present a single scenario for how they could have done this.
Oh, wow. You are the gift that just keeps on giving. Hey, how about if you cite a single scholar, or just any writer, who says the Israeli gave up the Sinai "easily" at the Camp David negotiations? Just one.
Umm, well, actually, the Israelis got important trade concessions in the peace deal, including the supplying of Egyptian crude oil, that were worth a huge amount of money.
No, folks, I did not fabricate this statement to discredit JoeB131 as an ugly anti-Semitic bigot. Go read the reply itself: USS Liberty.
I already refuted these pitiful myths. "Period." The Sinai was entirely defensible once the Israelis captured it, which is why Egypt never tried to retake it.
And, no, the Sinai was not "expensive" for the Israelis at all. The Sinai included the Abu-Rudeis oil fields, which were highly profitable for Israel, which is why Israel demanded that Egypt agree to supply crude oil as part of the peace deal, since they were giving up those oil fields as part of the deal.
The Israelis also built a number of settlements in the Sinai, 18 settlements to be exact. Israel also built two air force bases and a naval base in the Sinai. This was another reason that the Israelis were extremely reluctant to give up the Sinai, and another reason that doing this was so controversial in Israel.
Please reply and repeat your discrediting denials of these well-known, long-established facts. Please. And don't forget to provide a scenario for how the Jews could have doctored the transcripts from the USS Liberty Navy Court of Inquiry.
JoeB131
Diamond Member
Instead of saying what I suggested, how about quoting what I actually said.
You think they didn't give those guys a working over before they got to the "testifying under oath" part? Or were they told EXACTLY what they were going to testify to?
The fact that so many surviving crewman have broken with the "official" story should be telling to someone with brain cells working.
No, I mean our traitor, sell-out government did that. As Pat Buchanan once said, "Capitol Hill is Zionist Occuppied Territory."
The fact that they gave it up in exchange for diplomatic recognition from a guy who was assassinated a year later.
Seriously, think about it for a second. All they had at Camp David was Sadat's word. That seems like very little to give up a strategic advantage for...
Except the Sinai wasn't a strategic advantage, it was a strategic liability, as they Zionist Squatters saw in 1973.
You mean Crude Oil they sold for... wait for it.. MONEY.
Uh, guy, get your facts straight.
They took it in the 1967 War. It clearly wasn't defensible because the Egyptians nearly retook it during the Yom Kippur War. IN fact, the Zionists were so crapping their pants that Golda Meier was threatening to use Nukes if Kissenger didn't send the Zionist more tanks.
mikegriffith1
Mike Griffith
Then why do you keep making arguments that he abjectly refuted?
Wait a minute! You just said you read Toland's book, and then you repeat these invalid arguments that he refuted!
You mean your lame replies were laughable. I've revived my Nanking Massacre thread so that people can see for themselves just how thoroughly you got destroyed on the subject.
Only a Mao-loving leftist with no clue about Vietnam War scholarship would make these claims. Tell me, is Dr. Michael Lind a "far right crank"? How about Dr. Erik Villard? How about Dr. Michael Kort? How about Dr. Pierre Asselin? How about Dr. Lien-Hang Nguyen? Dr. Christopher Goscha? Dr. Geoffrey Shaw? How about Bui Diem and Van Nguyen Duong? How about Dr. Mark Moyar (former director of the prestigious non-partisan Center for Strategic & International Studies)? I can hear you saying to yourself now, "Gee, uh-oh, I've never heard of these scholars!"
For the sake of others, I repeat the fact that we have known for years from released/previously untranslated North Vietnamese and Viet Cong sources that the Communists were losing the Vietnam War for most of the war, that at one point after the Linebacker I bombing campaign the Hanoi Politburo actually voted to virtually abandon the war effort and to seek a political solution, that as of 1973 the Viet Cong had been so badly mauled that they did not even have access to most of South Vietnam's population, that the Tet Offensive was a horrendous military disaster, that North Vietnamese army defections began to skyrocket in 1969, etc., etc.
LOL! You're the crank. You're too uneducated to know that you're talking about the leading scholars on Custer and the Last Stand, from Nathan Philbrick to James Donovan to Thom Hatch to Greg Michno to T. J. Stiles. Virtually every Custer scholar of any note or credibility who has written on the Last Stand in the last 20 years has concluded that Custer's operational plan was sound and that it could have worked if Major Reno and Captain Benteen had not brazenly disobeyed their orders.
Another silly, juvenile argument. BTW, you know that only about 1 in 5 of those Indians had a gun, right? You know that the Indians were notoriously bad shots, right? You know that Custer had actually scared the Indian chiefs into ordering the village to break camp and run, until Major Reno blunderingly halted his charge and then fled from the timber, right? We know this from Indian sources, BTW.
You see, I know you know next to nothing about Custer's Last Stand, other than the superficial snippets you've read online.
You know, for a crank, you use the word "crank" a lot. Basically, you automatically label as a "crank" any scholar who doesn't agree with your uneducated, far-left views on any given subject. I know you have no idea how many biologists, anthropologists, geologists, and other scholars post intelligent design.
Oh, okay! So faith-based universities don't count, hey?! They're major, fully accredited institutions with excellent academic ratings, but in your mind they don't count. Yeah, right. BTW, many scientists who posit intelligent design are professors at secular universities. Do they count? Nah, right? That's right: anyone who disagrees with your high-school-level understanding must be a "crank."
You don't know any of this. You haven't done any serious research on this issue. The fossil record, as even some evolutionists have admitted, is a royal hot mess for the theory of evolution because it shows no transitional forms between genera. It only shows inter-genus species development, which no one disputes anyway.
Uh-huh.
"Actually," you again show that you don't know what you're talking about. You don't even know enough to understand the difference between macroevolution and microevolution, even though I've explained these terms to you. You just keep saying "evolution," indicating the superficial, high-school level of your knowledge.
FYI, macroevolution foundationally assumes abiogenesis (life from non-life).
Microevolution does not address the issue of life from non-life. It starts from organic life and goes from there. Darwin did not try to explain how life could have somehow come from non-life. He began with biochemical life as his starting point and offered a theory that all life forms evolved from biochemical life via natural selection (changes caused by mutations). He made the horrendous error of assuming that biochemical life was simple, non-complex, a notion that the invention of the electron microscope demolished.
You really, really should stop talking about stuff you know nothing about. The Miller-Urey experiment showed no such thing, nor did the experiment seek to explain where and how the primordial elements originated, especially methane, hydrogen, and ammonia. Significantly, Miller-Urey assumed the complete lack of oxygen in their experiment! If anything, Miller and Urey showed how wildly implausible abiogenesis is:
Why the Miller–Urey Research Argues Against Abiogenesis
It is now recognized that this set of experiments has done more to show that abiogenesis on Earth is not possible than to indicate how it could be possible.
answersingenesis.org
I think most high schoolers could come up with better arguments that this silliness.
JoeB131
Diamond Member
Mormon Mike proves why you don't let your kids join cults.
I understood it perfectly well, I just rejected it. The Japanese were bastards in WWII. Period. Full stop. And unlike the Germans, they aren't even sorry about being bastards. (As opposed to the Germans who just can't stop apologizing.)
Yeah, you made a lot of absurd arguments there, too.
Yes, they are all cranks.
(Don't know or care who any of them are, but they are all cranks.)
Here's how we know Vietnam was a terrible idea. The Pentagon Papers admitted it was. Our government lied us into a war with people who weren't our enemy and didn't want us there. We backed Quilsings, Ho was a national hero to the Vietnamese.
The proof is in the pudding. After waiting the "Decent Interval" that Hanoi promised Nixon, it took them all of 55 days to roll up the Quisling Saigon regime.
Blah, blah, blah, another "Armchair General" who thought we won this thing on the battlefield. The problem we had, was the same problem we had in the Philippines 60 years earlier and the one we'd have in Afghanistan 60 years later.
Nobody likes a foreign occupation. These people had been resisting foreign occupation for decades, first the French, then the Japanese, then the French again, and finally the Americans.
Custer lost 268 men to only 31 combatants on the Native side.
Yes, the Cheifs tried to get their women and children out of the way of a genocidal Army commander.
But since you like primary sources so much.
Responding to charges of cowardice and drunkenness at the Little Bighorn, Reno demanded and was granted a court of inquiry. The court convened in Chicago on January 13, 1879, and called as witnesses most of the surviving officers who had been in the fight. After 26 days of testimony, Judge Advocate General W. M. Dunn submitted his opinion and recommendations to the Secretary of War George W. McCrary on February 21, 1879. He concluded, "I concur with the court in its exoneration of Major Reno from the charges of cowardice which have been brought against him." He added, "The suspicion or accusation that Gen. Custer owed his death and the destruction of his command to the failure of Major Reno, through incompetency or cowardice, to go to his relief, is considered as set to rest.
Anyone who pushes Bronze Age Fairy Tales over Science is a crank. The problem with Creationists is they try to fit the evidence around the theory, rather than the theory around the evidence.
Nope, Talking Snake U doesn't count for much.
Actually, it shows a lot more than that, such as how mammals evolved from Syanpsids, and birds evolved from theropods.
More like college level, but that's not the point, dummy. Evolution happens over a long period of time, with small gradual changes in species through adaptive mutation.
I understood it perfectly well, I just rejected it. The Japanese were bastards in WWII. Period. Full stop. And unlike the Germans, they aren't even sorry about being bastards. (As opposed to the Germans who just can't stop apologizing.)
Yeah, you made a lot of absurd arguments there, too.
Yes, they are all cranks.
(Don't know or care who any of them are, but they are all cranks.)
Here's how we know Vietnam was a terrible idea. The Pentagon Papers admitted it was. Our government lied us into a war with people who weren't our enemy and didn't want us there. We backed Quilsings, Ho was a national hero to the Vietnamese.
The proof is in the pudding. After waiting the "Decent Interval" that Hanoi promised Nixon, it took them all of 55 days to roll up the Quisling Saigon regime.
Blah, blah, blah, another "Armchair General" who thought we won this thing on the battlefield. The problem we had, was the same problem we had in the Philippines 60 years earlier and the one we'd have in Afghanistan 60 years later.
Nobody likes a foreign occupation. These people had been resisting foreign occupation for decades, first the French, then the Japanese, then the French again, and finally the Americans.
Custer lost 268 men to only 31 combatants on the Native side.
Yes, the Cheifs tried to get their women and children out of the way of a genocidal Army commander.
But since you like primary sources so much.
Responding to charges of cowardice and drunkenness at the Little Bighorn, Reno demanded and was granted a court of inquiry. The court convened in Chicago on January 13, 1879, and called as witnesses most of the surviving officers who had been in the fight. After 26 days of testimony, Judge Advocate General W. M. Dunn submitted his opinion and recommendations to the Secretary of War George W. McCrary on February 21, 1879. He concluded, "I concur with the court in its exoneration of Major Reno from the charges of cowardice which have been brought against him." He added, "The suspicion or accusation that Gen. Custer owed his death and the destruction of his command to the failure of Major Reno, through incompetency or cowardice, to go to his relief, is considered as set to rest.
Anyone who pushes Bronze Age Fairy Tales over Science is a crank. The problem with Creationists is they try to fit the evidence around the theory, rather than the theory around the evidence.
Nope, Talking Snake U doesn't count for much.
Actually, it shows a lot more than that, such as how mammals evolved from Syanpsids, and birds evolved from theropods.
More like college level, but that's not the point, dummy. Evolution happens over a long period of time, with small gradual changes in species through adaptive mutation.
Wow, you went to "Answers in Genesis"? Really?
mikegriffith1
Mike Griffith
Obviously, JoeB131 is not going to provide a scenario for how Jews could have suppressed/expunged evidence from the Navy Court of Inquiry regarding unmarked Israeli jets and USS Liberty life rafts being machine-gunned in the water. And I see he is still, incredibly, claiming that the Israelis were "anxious" to give up the Sinai at the Camp David negotiations, that the Sinai was "indefensible" and "too expensive," and that the Jews made no money from the peace deal (leaving aside his bigoted statement about Jews never passing up money), etc., etc. I'm still waiting on him to cite a single source that makes these hilarious, ahistorical claims.
So, now is a good time to share Chaim Lax's excellent article "Debunking Candace Owens' Lies About Israel Attacking the USS Liberty." Here is an excerpt from the article:
The following are some of the key points and pieces of evidence that cast doubt on the conspiracy theories surrounding the USS Liberty incident, and substantiate the findings that this was a case of friendly fire and not an intentional Israeli attack on an American naval ship:
So, now is a good time to share Chaim Lax's excellent article "Debunking Candace Owens' Lies About Israel Attacking the USS Liberty." Here is an excerpt from the article:
The following are some of the key points and pieces of evidence that cast doubt on the conspiracy theories surrounding the USS Liberty incident, and substantiate the findings that this was a case of friendly fire and not an intentional Israeli attack on an American naval ship:
- It is unclear if the American flag on the USS Liberty was visible to the Israelis. The winds were quiet on June 8, meaning the ship’s flag was drooped. For planes flying overhead at high speeds, it would have been non-discernible.
- The United States had informed Israel that no US ships were in the vicinity off the coast of Sinai. The USS Liberty actually had orders to move further out to sea but, due to communications issues, they did not arrive until a day later.
- Recordings captured during, and immediately after, the bombing of the USS Liberty show that Israel’s biggest fear was that it had accidentally attacked a Soviet ship, not an American one.
- One of the CIA documents includes the claim that the NSA picked up a discussion between an Israeli pilot and his commander ordering him to fire, knowing that it is an American ship. However, this claim is hearsay by the US ambassador to Lebanon and no recording has ever been produced.
- Similarly, in 1991, two Washington Post journalists claimed an American was in the Israeli war room when the decision was made to bomb the USS Liberty, knowing that it was an American ship. The American in question, Seth Mintz, wrote a response to the newspaper, saying he was misquoted and that he believed it to be a case of “mistaken identity.”
- Israel was already more than halfway through the war and had almost totally defeated the Egyptians by June 8. There was no need to attempt to trick the Americans into joining the war so late in the game.
- The Liberty only arrived off the coast of the Sinai Peninsula on June 8, making it unlikely to have possessed any secret Israeli recordings from days prior.
- Declassified documents show that Israel never concealed its plan to conquer the Golan Heights from the United States, disproving the conspiracy theory about the bombing as an attempt to hide the attack plan.
- If Israel had always intended to bomb the Liberty, it could have done so when the ship was first observed at 5:55 A.M. by an Israeli reconnaissance plane. There was no rationale for waiting 8 hours to attack the vessel during the day.
- Friendly fire incidents are common during war. During the Six-Day War alone, at least 50 IDF soldiers were killed in friendly fire incidents, including one that occurred a day before the USS Liberty incident. (Debunking Candace Owens’ Lies About Israel Attacking the USS Liberty - Algemeiner.com)
Last edited:
JoeB131
Diamond Member
As Ian Fleming said, ""Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action"
The Zionist shitstains attacked USS Liberty three separate times.
mikegriffith1
Mike Griffith
Of course, you know this is misleading, but you just don't care. There were two attacks: the air attack and the naval attack. Both were understandable, explainable accidents. Indeed, the naval attack happened because the Liberty mistakenly fired on the Israeli torpedo boats after the boats had asked the Liberty to ID herself. And, even the Liberty's captain suspected that the air attack had been accidental. These facts and many others have been presented to you several times, but you are such an anti-Semitic, anti-Israel bigot that you don't care.
For the sake of others, here's another good article on the USS Liberty incident: Return of the USS Liberty, published on the HonestReporting website. Here's an excerpt:
New top-secret documents released by America’s National Security Agency confirm that Israel’s sinking of the USS Liberty was an accident. The documents are a transcript of conversations held by two Israeli Air Force helicopter pilots who were hovering over the Liberty as it was sinking. An American spy plane recorded their conversations, which refer to a search for Egyptian survivors from the “Egyptian warship” that had just been bombed. . . .
Florida Judge Jay Cristol said: “It’s the last piece of intelligence that remained classified, and every rational person that will read it will understand that there is no truth in these conspiracy theories against Israel. [But] those who hate Israel, who hate Jews, and those who believe in conspiracy, will not be convinced by anything.” (Return of the USS Liberty | Honest Reporting)
Last edited:
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Pakistani man says Islamic fascist republic of Iran forced him into plot to kill Trump, media say- Started by Pastelli
- Replies: 2
-
-
Father Awaiting Trial in Murder of Teen Daughter's Alleged Rapist Wins Primary for County Sheriff- Started by Mack The Finger
- Replies: 0
-
Court unanimously sides with government in immigration dispute- Started by excalibur
- Replies: 0
