.. of "Independent, Ethical, Accountable and Transparent?"
(And if not hers (my tip, 99%), then whose? But we do know exactly where...)
-=*=-
Disclosure: I term myself a 'seeker of truth.' The way I work is to gather as much information (web; MSM, blogs) as I practically can, and compare such info with 'reality' - as far as I can discern it. In this way I conclude, for example, that both the US and Israeli regimes continually lie to us, on their way to committing grievous crimes, which I characterise as 'murder for spoil.'
Apart from the impending greedastrophe® (threatening to end forever 'life as we would like to live it'), the biggest problems faced by the world are the two rogue states already mentioned, their heinous crimes and the lying propaganda they deploy as attempted 'camouflage.' But it's not 'just' the principals, there appear from time to time apologists and worse - active, lying trolls. I have personally encountered such, and I make no secret of my animosity towards same. What is particularly galling, is the 'assist' given to the principals by the venal MSM, and to the trolls by their 'hosts.' I now regard anyone telling lies on behalf of the principals as 'enemy,' and those who give assistance to liars are held in scarcely less contempt.
Q: Why does any of this matter #1?
A: In the first place, I think that truth matters. It the 2nd place, the troll attacks directed at me were outrageous - but worse, they had the active 'support' of the host's management. I "no longer felt safe" - and was not safe. I maintain the rage.
Part of my modus operandi is to 'archive' some items of interest. I was a bit surprised to find some such archived items were later changed. Without further comment, some before/after 'evidence:'
[Notes: I've moved the table to the end, so it may be perused in some comfort. When I've previously pointed out malignancies such as these, the 'evidence' dried up. It is thought - proof is offered - that the Eds now 'go over' the troll's input, in order to clean it up. It is - also evidently - at least some times a two-stage process, and the effects can be seen if one gets a copy as edited the first time, then a copy as 'finally' edited. I expect that this new evidence will also now dry up. See table below[1].]
Q: Why does any of this matter #2?
A: Apart from the obvious illiteracy revealed, there are a couple'a problems; 1) why do the Eds (yes, plural) change the troll's text? (Suggestion: to erase 'fingerprints.' Haw!) The illiteracy revealed resembles, within visible, realistic bounds, that of a banned former contributor, namely Jay White. Either Jay White or Paul Morrella - or both - are noms de plume. (Just A. Nobody: «...does it matter if PM is JW? After all JW was a non [sic] de plume as well.») As such, personal attacks are not to be allowed - and yet 2) exactly that, i.e. personal attacks from this troll were not 'just' allowed but were encouraged. Then, 3) the JW/PM imbroglio is not an isolated incident, there is another active troll known as CP/ER, (CP having been banned, ER appeared almost instantly - and was OKed by g*d herself, i.e. MK) - and yet a third, AC, whose 'unmasking' was an emergency action by the management. (How many anony-frauds are there, anyway?) At the very least, any noms de plume should be clearly identifiable i.e. visibly labelled as such. Anything else is unfair to honest posters operating under their actual names. Now I've wasted enough time - far more than it perhaps warrants - on this problem, although I have spent my time up to this point in the name of pursuing justice via truth. But time-wasting being one'a the prime troll objectives, I'm not gunna waste any more of mine on them. As for the trolls' hosts, IMHO, by these fingerprint-erasing actions actively 'enhancing' their whole troll saga, their claim to "Independent, Ethical, Accountable and Transparent" looks just that tiny bit shabbier (perhaps more like fraudulent - to say the very least, eh?)
[1] The table; the left is 1st copy, the right is 'final.' The font has been changed to a mono-spaced, and 'filler' characters (i.e. ^) have been added as appropriate, to make the comparison easier. Many changes are 'only' cosmetic, others go to the troll's illiteracy (but again, why change at all?) Further note, I moved the table to a new post. The table is a looong way down; don't know why, but please scroll down; you may see it here: the table of manipulated illiteracy ... (It should open in a new 'window.')
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
hypocrisy, thy name is ...
.. Webdiary, Pty Ltd[1]
.. but exactly how *illegal* is it?
-=*=-
1. In someone's idea, I showed that WD 'allow' themselves to modify comments.
2. On May 30, 2008 - 2:48am, DR said «and leave the opinions to (mostly) expose the ignorance, bias or stupidity of the writers on their own.»
3. On June 17, 2008 - 1:32pm, ER said «Holocaust deniers like Ahmadinejad will eventually be emboldened to try it again, doubtless cheered on by the duplicitous revisionist creeps and toadies who today offer them every moral and intellectual encouragement.
But they'll fail. Because they are themselves congenitally inferior to those they seek to destroy.»
1a. Action (1) has implications vis-à-vis authorship; who 'owns' such a modified comment? One presumes there are also copyright issues.
1b. Action (1) has further implications vis-à-vis such a modified comment; consider this: lie2 —n. 1 intentionally false statement (tell a lie). 2 something that deceives. —v. (lies, lied, lying) 1 tell a lie or lies. 2 (of a thing) be deceptive. give the lie to show the falsity of (a supposition etc.). [Old English] [POD]
1c. Since both FR (thought to be 'main offender') definitely *is*, and RT (the sorceress's apprentice) *may* be Webdiary directors, I wonder what the exact legal status of (1b) is. See [1] below.
1d. Action (1) contradicts the 'spirit' of (2).
1e. Worst: action (1) proves that some Eds (FR for sure, RT possibly) are 'content aware.' That means that they are not simply 'innocent filterers,' by a) reading, b) comprehending, then c) correcting, and finally d) publishing, they are then potentially directly involving themselves in troll attacks, like the foul, lying 'Jayson Blair' slur perpetrated by Morrella. The proof here is the action, the slur (only one of multitudes) was allowed. So much for a 'safe space.'
2a. Statement (2) earns a big "Haw!" - and not 'just' for the quote. For more laughs, go find the statement yourself[2]. But consider exactly what 'service' the documented changes do for the troll...
3a. Statement (3) is a bit - err, racist? Supremacist? Both? More? Whatever.
3b. GIVEN - that CP=ER, *one* of whom at least (if not both) are *known* to be noms de plume - but *strenuously denied* by both CP/ER & WD itself - THEN - at least one of CP/ER *must* be a liar (plus all deniers), AND - WD sanctions this liar, THEN - I wonder as to the ownership of (3), and its degree of *illegality*.
3c. As a seeker/reporter of truth in service of justice, I feel that I must point out to CP/ER and the world: it's not Israel's enemies who are the problem, rather Israel's pursuit of a "Greater Israel" is, and the concomitant murder for spoil (land & water) - all 60+ years of it, with no end in sight.
-=*end*=-
Ref(s):
[1] What are we allowed to know?
1. Management Team
2. ABN
3. ABN Historical details
4. ASIC
[2] Oh, alright; DR: «... came to the conclusion that [he] wouldn't read any of the other sites, and never respond to any allegations or opinions written anywhere other than on Webdiary itself - though on a couple of the less frothing-at-the-mouth sites [he] would simply correct any facts that were misstated... »
Q: How do you suppose one could 'correct' something one hasn't read, and especially when one never responds (to unread stuff!) anyway?
Another, bigger "Haw!"
G'day Phil, I Geoff Pahoff has been asking questions over there and not getting the required answers. There was one which I sent to FR which might answer a particular question but she has not used it. Nor has anyone else.
Here it is:
The question was on the "... torn-off limbs ..." thread under "Holocaust Denial" 16/6 3.23pm and reads:
"On the other hand, despite your assertion, I have never heard anyone serious, seriously claim that anyone who criticises Israel's policies and actions is an antisemite. Can you provide an example? Just one?"
I found what could contstitute an answer:
"Bigotry And The End of Webdiary
Submitted by Geoff Pahoff on August 3, 2006 - 11:02pm.
Roslyn Ross.
Your repeated comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany are beneath contempt, qualify your rantings as antisemitic by any accepted criteria or definition, underline a profound ignorance that permeates everything you write, disqualify you from any serious part in this or any other discussion and highlight the essential problem of Webdiary attempting to be taking seriously as a "moderated" site while at the same time hosting the likes of you.
The only "bitter irony" here is that WD has published without any apparent qualm, once again, your truly disgusting slur, and yet this reply may well be deemed to be unprintable by the moderator on duty. Again.
Your presence here disqualifies WD from any serious consideration anywhere. It has been responsible for the loss of a number of valuable commenters. It is appalling that your comments should be allowed publication without comment while the comments of those who take issue with your serial rubbish are cut or selectively criticised. That the rubbish you write has actually been described as "moderate" reflects badly on this site.
WD has become just another hate site. I've tried to stick it out longer than others who have pointed this out, in the hope a crisis might make this place see sense.
You are a racist and a bigot, Roslyn Ross. You shame Webdiary. And you reveal why Webdiary does not deserve to survive in its current form.
One condition might disqualify that from complying with Pahoff's requirements, and that is, he said "anyone serious".
Yes, it is in all likelihood Fiona Reynolds modifying those comments.
Does she do it to obscure the little transparency there is (e.g. the various tell-tale signs of the multi-pseudonymous aka liars using "sock puppets")?
I believe that is indeed one of her considerations.
Wonder if Fiona Reynold's will do her work on this from that Team J moron "Paul Morrella" [see 2383#comment-80146]:
"Than [sic] there's shipping, than [sic] there's.......It's just for laughs and "everybodies" [sic] in on it.
the lying troll may be an illiterate oil-theft denying idiot ...
.. but it's *their* lying idiot, illiterate oil-theft denying troll ...
.. perhaps they *suffer* such extremists for so-called 'balance??!'
-=*=-
G'day Craig,
I'm under the impression that company directors in Aus aren't supposed to lie or otherwise deceive; see this:
PM/MARK COLVIN: «Australia's fourth richest man, Richard Pratt, could be facing jail after the competition watchdog charged him with lying to them. ... alleging he gave them false or misleading evidence ...»
I'm sure that nobody's accusing Fiona Reynolds of being rich (and none of us inhabit a Darlinghurst courtroom), but whoever changed "descent" to "dissent" must'a been aware that the change is hardly trivial (could we say 'misleading' perhaps?) - and the same for changing "past" to "passed". To past - err, ooops! - to pass "somebodies" [sic] work off as your own is plagiarism, the reverse is possibly forgery - but in any case, such falsification is perpetrating a fraud. Exactly what FR (if indeed it were her) did. (fraud n. 1 criminal deception. 2 dishonest artifice or trick. 3 person or thing that is not what it claims to be. [Latin fraus fraud-] [POD])
G'day Phil, a bit of deja vu, over there. Back on 9/8/2006 C Parsons, on the Is All Fair in Love and War thread wrote:
And since the Japanese government was not even prepared to willingly surrender after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or despite the stern ultimatum presented at Postdam, Japan surrendering only after the Emepror personally intervened and sacked the government, and even then after debate within the War Cabinet, his expressed and documented reasons being the deployment of the Atom Bombs, why would you imagine the Japanese Government was doing anything other than stalling when it called for "negotiations"?
He had previously written:
It didn't even surrender after Nagasaki had been bombed, and was then sacked by the Emperor.
I asked the question:
CP, in reference to the Japanese government you wrote:
They had to be sacked first And only then the surrender came.
Please provide, with substantiation, the date this happened, the names of the members of the government who were sacked and the names of those who replaced them.
No answer ever came, despite reminders.
Now we have Eliot Ramsey:
Not even the Emperor of Japan himself was prepared to pretend the Japanese government was "about" to surrender "anyway", as has been pointed out. He had to actually sack his government to get a surrender.
Will someone asked the question again, and would they get an answer.
The answer can be found earlier in the thread, ie., before Parsons made his assertion. Yet we have the same old misinformation trotted out again.
It is also apparent that the "map meme" ban has been lifted as CPER trots out the same old on that as well.
A search for truth seems to have taken a back seat over there.
whatever it takes ...
.. no matter how utterly, immorally & filthily criminal
-=*=-
G'day Bob,
we 'handicap' ourselves, in a way, by sticking to the truth. Anything that is not the truth is - ta ra! A lie. In multiples; big, fat lies. There are vastly more lies than truths (think as truths as a few scattered points on a page, the vast remaining space is the galaxy of available lies), so it's easy for 'the opposition' to select whatever lies they like, as suited to their various nefarious purposes (almost exclusively criminal). 'The opposition' is practically forced to lie, since the truths they try to hide are somewhat more than 'uncomfortable,' as in the illegal US invasion of Iraq now morphed into a brutal occupation: murder for oil. Or, the US' junior partner in such crimes, namely Israel; ditto as to invasion & occupation of the now (sadly) mostly ex-Palestine & surrounds: murder for land and water.
If we go back to the A-bombing, the lie they push is "saving GIs' lives," while the truth they try to hide is mass-murder for data and effect; they 'needed' data on (innocent, 'collateral') civilian casualties and they wanted to 'send a message' to Russia (thus initiating the cold war; no peace-pause allowed).
If we go forward to an ever-more threatened possible attack on Iran, that too is to 'send a message' - that the Empire will kill any in its way.
The very nature of 'the opposition,' being sooo utterly, immorally & filthily criminal (see murder for spoil, doesn't get worse) - their immorality not only 'allows' them to lie, but virtually demands that they do. I say 'virtually' because every now and again one of them slips, and lets us glimpse some of the ugly truth behind their evil actions. Like the coming oil-theft in Iraq, just too hard to hide. So they make smoke - to deceive the TV-lobotomised sheople®, thinking that's clever. Crims always think they're clever.
G'day Bob, notice how he's attempting to mutate the map meme now?
He's now trying to make out that Ahmedinejad has "repeatedly" said what he didn't actually say.
Why he feels the need to lie to further the demonisation campaign I don't know. It's like he'd be pleased to see more people perish in wars.
G'day Phil and Craig, they come out with the same old lies in the same old way. The determined dishonesty is not only allowed, despite being repeat performances but even, on the A-bomb issue being supported by someone who once wrote "I abhor dishonesty." Oh the hypocrisy!
CPER seemed to get rather excited on the A-bomb issue earlier today. Has he a blood lust? Certainly is unscrupulous in pushing his particular views.
On the "map meme", yes, it is being regurgitated and mutated without censure, the ban seems extinct. And despite all the past controversy, noone asks for substantiation of the assertions. Odd that as I've seen mods ask others for substantiation on "controversial" issues. Perhaps it relates to Margo having said she likes him. And they like the lying trolls as they don't complain. That's what they say. But why would the lying trolls complain considering what they are getting away with? It is those who make known that they expect WD management to uphold their own ethics and guidelines who are not liked. Could it be that they remind management of their failings and they don't want to be reminded?
The "map meme" flurry seems to have coincided with the increase in talk of possible attacks against Iran ... and there was the AIPAC conference recently. We saw a number of the pro-Zionists posting in the recent past. Coincidence?
I hope Bill Avent passes this way as I note the fine job he has been doing. He has been the bright light over there in recent times.
G'day Phil and Craig, having been exposed for telling one lie - the sacked government one - CPER, after using the excuse of a lack of diligence (see my previous comment on this for the time scale and questions asked of him), now has done it again.
See his post of 25/6/08 1.43pm:
Jacob A. Stam said
"Yeah, you missed that the Japanese government had already caved after the Hiroshima A-bombing, and were almost certainly contemplating surrender prior to that."
Then why didn't they?
And how were their enemies supposed to know, if they insisted on negotiating fantasies with neutrals instead?
Well, back on the Is All Fair ... thread on 14/7/06 I included this:
Months before the end of the war, Japan's leaders recognized that defeat was inevitable. In April 1945 a new government headed by Kantaro Suzuki took office with the mission of ending the war. When Germany capitulated in early May, the Japanese understood that the British and Americans would now direct the full fury of their awesome military power exclusively against them.
American officials, having long since broken Japan's secret codes,
knew from intercepted messages that the country's leaders were seeking
to end the war on terms as favorable as possible. Details of these efforts were known from decoded secret communications between the Foreign Ministry in Tokyo and Japanese diplomats abroad.
In his 1965 study, Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam (pp. 107, 108), historian Gar Alperovitz writes:
Although Japanese peace feelers had been sent out as early as September 1944 (and [China's] Chiang Kai-shek had been approached
regarding surrender possibilities in December 1944), the real effort to end the war began in the spring of 1945. This effort stressed the role of the Soviet Union ...
In mid-April [1945] the [US] Joint Intelligence Committee reported
that Japanese leaders were looking for a way to modify the surrender
terms to end the war. The State Department was convinced the Emperor was actively seeking a way to stop the fighting.
Also this:
n an article that finally appeared August 19, 1945, on the front pages of the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald, Trohan revealed that on January 20, 1945, two days prior to his departure for the Yalta meeting with Stalin and Churchill, President Roosevelt received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining
five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials.
(The complete text of Trohan's article is in the Winter 1985-86
Journal, pp. 508-512.)
This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms
virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor.
And in his later post CPER dares write this:
There are lots of quite well researched books on the whole affair - though perhaps not at the bookshops you go to!
That the moderator allowed it says much.
G'day Bob,
.. truth only matters to real historians and/or justice via truthers, say; it does *not* matter to immoral types. There are many sad consequences, one of which is that such immoral types cannot acknowledge their shame; even in the middle of some filthy lie, they somehow think they're 'right' - whilst obviously being dead wrong. Examples like GWBush fall to mind, or Ivan Milat, say. It's called pathological[1], as in pathological liars. That they do not seem to suffer from cognitive dissonance proves that they really are abnormal if not outright sick.
-=*end*=-
Ref(s):
[1] pathological adj. 1 of pathology. 2 of or caused by physical or mental disorder (pathological fear of spiders). pathologically adv. [POD]
pathology n. the study or symptoms of disease. pathologist n. [Greek pathos: related to *pathetic] [ibid.]
pathos n. evocation of pity or sadness in speech, writing, etc. [Greek: related to *pathetic] [ibid.]
Here's something to capture before it is cleaned up by Fiona Reynolds or David Roffey:
A Dog's Breakfast [http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/257#comment-80351]
Submitted by Scott Dunmore on June 25, 2008 - 7:35pm.
NFP
Hi Dz & R, with Fiona safely out the way I'd like to submit this. (I've already acquainted her with it but she didn't get back to me.) Could be cat among the pigeons stuff but I call it as I see it.
---
It then goes on with what Scott submitted for publication.
Key questions:
Why did Scott feel a need to submit his comment only when Fiona was "safely out of the way"? Is it because she's advocated a WD 'ban' on discussion of "the current situation in Israel/Palestine"?
It's been cleaned-up already.
The question still stands, however.
Why did Scott Dunmore feel he had to 'sneak' his comment on that topic past Fiona Reynolds?
G'day Craig, cleaned up already, but not, perhaps, quickly enough.
As to the question, well, the topic does tend to cause a degree of commotion, so perhaps there is some caution about the matter.
G'day Bob, after talking about "cleaning up" I decided it was time to delete old emails I don't need to keep. Came across this one, which is interesting given that David Roffey now tries to pretend he didn't ban Jay White from commenting at WD:
________________________________________
From: editors-bounces@webdiary.com.au [mailto:editors-bounces@webdiary.com.au] On Behalf Of David Roffey
Sent: Sunday, 25 March 2007 8:30 PM
To: Editorial staff
Subject: [Editors] Jay W
I’ve DNP’d Jay’s held “Final Webdiary post”
... And I’ve suspended his commenting capability – if he wants to come back and start again he’ll have to ask nicely ...
Dz
Wow! Found one that shows just how hypocritical Fiona Reynolds has become. This is her 13 months ago agreeing with Richard Tonkin that C. Parsons should be banned from WD:
From: editors-webdiary.com.au-bounces@lists.webdiary.com.au [mailto:editors-webdiary.com.au-bounces@lists.webdiary.com.au] On Behalf Of Fiona Reynolds
Sent: Friday, 18 May 2007 4:45 PM
To: editors@webdiary.com.au
Subject: Re: [Editors] Banning CP ?
I concur. Maybe a new thread on bullying - using some of his work as an exemplar - might be in order? He is unsusceptible to logical argument, and one can only attempt to engage with such a person for so long.
Cheers,
Fiona
---
It was bullying in her view then; but not now that CP=ER?
This is David Roffey's response:
From: editors-webdiary.com.au-bounces@lists.webdiary.com.au [mailto:editors-webdiary.com.au-bounces@lists.webdiary.com.au] On Behalf Of David Roffey
Sent: Friday, 18 May 2007 5:31 PM
To: Editorial staff
Subject: Re: [Editors] Banning CP ?
Well, I’ve been staying out of this one, but I do think both sides have been nitpicking away at each other, and he does in fact have a point on that infamous speech, notwithstanding the truth of Fiona’s third sentence ...
I won’t agree to ban him at this point and on this issue, sorry.
Dz
G'day Craig,
y'know, I'd taken it for granted - something I'd read over at HH's perhaps - that JW was banned, he simply couldn't write about "Hit Man" without going off the deep-end abusive.
But this does put Roffey rather deeper into the s**t, vis-à-vis a certain troll they insist is *not* JW - in the face of all evidence presented.
You know the one I mean, the one just lurved by FR.
Then Roffey bans CP - and ER pops up, just lurved by MK.
Haw! - how utterly pathetic. And how strange.
G'day Phil and Craig, CPER keeps twisting and turning and lying over the A-bomb issue. Of course he is trying to divert the issue so a particular question is not asked and discussed, ie., knowing that Japan had made overtures about surrendering, why didn't the Allies follow up and try to find terms suitable to both sides which would have avoided both an invasion and the dropping of the A-bombs?
Anticipating one response "the terms decided at Potsdam ...", well, that was after the Allies became aware of Japan's peace feelers.
Loads of information, as I have pointed out, was made available on the "Is All Fair ..." thread two years ago. Yet CPER still carries on.
G'day Bob,
I know it had a mention a few times, but it does seem to me to have been 'the key,' namely that a) the allies had broken the Japanese codes, and so were able to intercept all critical communications, then b) so the allies *knew* that the single 'most' unacceptable condition was unconditional surrender including that of the Emperor himself; that latter detail was, for all Japanese and for all time, totally sacrosanct. But that was *exactly* what the allies continued to demand. (This is what I referred to by my 'July 21, 25th & 26th.[1]') Sooo, c) as long as that demand was 'out there,' the Japanese would resist. They simply had to, it was 'a must' - and (looping) the allies knew it. Funny, then, that after dropping their two *different* A-bombs (one Uranium, the other Plutonium), once the data was thus available and 'the message' had been sent to all who would even think of opposing the coming US rampage, i.e. plundering and looting the entire world (recall Memo PPS23 by George Kennan[2]) - then the US quietly dropped all demands on the Emperor.
Not so BTW, one may see (over there) classic (lying!) troll; such idiots' only apparent desire is to divert and destroy any/all meaningful discussions. Solution: totally ignore. If one can't ignore, then move to a safe space.
-=*end*=-
Ref(s):
[1] ~~~ELLIS ZACHARIAS
(Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence)
«Instead, a series of psychological warfare radio broadcasts by Zacharias was later approved. In the July 21, 1945 broadcast, Zacharias made an offer to Japan that stirred controversy in the U.S.: a surrender based on the Atlantic Charter. On July 25th, the U.S. intercepted a secret transmission from Japan's Foreign Minister (Togo) to their Ambassador to Moscow (Sato), who was trying to set up a meeting with the Soviets to negotiate an end to the war. The message referred to the Zacharias broadcast and stated:
"...special attention should be paid to the fact that at this time the United States referred to the Atlantic Charter. As for Japan, it is impossible to accept unconditional surrender under any circumstances, but we should like to communicate to the other party through appropriate channels that we have no objection to a peace based on the Atlantic Charter."
U.S. Dept. of State, Foreign Relations of the United States: Conference of Berlin (Potsdam) 1945, vol. 2, pg. 1260-1261.
But on July 26th, the U.S., Great Britain, and China publicly issued the Potsdam Proclamation demanding "unconditional surrender" from Japan. Zacharias later commented on the favorable Japanese response to his broadcast:
"But though we gained a victory, it was soon to be canceled out by the Potsdam Declaration and the way it was handled.
"Instead of being a diplomatic instrument, transmitted through regular diplomatic channels and giving the Japanese a chance to answer, it was put on the radio as a propaganda instrument pure and simple. The whole maneuver, in fact, completely disregarded all essential psychological factors dealing with Japan."»
My comment: the allies were intent, at US urging, to prolong the conflict long enough for the bombs to be ready. Then, blam! Blam! The bombs killed as many as 140,000 people in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki by the end of 1945.
[2] Memo PPS23 by George Kennan:
«Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security.
...
In the face of this situation we would be better off to dispense now with a number of the concepts which have underlined our thinking with regard to the Far East. We should dispense with the aspiration to "be liked" or to be regarded as the repository of a high-minded international altruism. We should stop putting ourselves in the position of being our brothers' keeper and refrain from offering moral and ideological advice. We should cease to talk about vague and—for the Far East—unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.»
My comment: What you see is what you get. The US, now using the 'trick' of its reserve-currency status can and does print otherwise worthless fiat money which it forces on the world, mainly to buy oil. (Ooops! There's that word!) Another not just BTW, the printing finances their deficits, quite literally giving themselves a free-ride, at the expense of their import providers. In addition, the US has 'militarised' its economy, just about all they produce now are (otherwise) useless arms - which they a) sell lots to oil producers (bad), or b) give to Israel (worse, murder for land, water), or c) use to kill any/all those who stand in the way of their Imperial plundering (worst: murder for spoil, not 'just' Iraqi oil, say.)
Post a Comment