Sermon on the Mount

[Baruch]

I can see why you would say. When Germany was being clobbered both on the East and West front, the German radios would still speak of German victory.

But really, nothing reported in war time is true?!? I supposed according to you, the Holocaust was really a hoax - you should shake hands with Ahmadinejad.

Everything is a hoax, because nothing the media or the government report is true, even when it is a fact, because of the spin.  The fact is, we will never know everything about X, because there are no records, or the participants are lie, or they have already died.  This is why history (which is a political act, just ask Herodotus and Thucydides) is bunk.

But there were a lot of dead bodies, like the recent downing of the plane over Ukraine ... what to make of those bodies is a matter of Nato/Ukrainian/Russian/American etc propaganda.  Was GB and America war criminals about their strategic bombing and use of nukes?  Curtis LeMay thought so.  But sure, eventually if the Nazis had won, and they had felt secure enough to admit to the civilian killings (see drone policy of the US) either collateral or deliberate ethnic cleansing ... they would have found some philosophy or policy capable of justifying it as a necessary sacrifice.  We do it now weddings and funerals ... and the deliberate? bombing of Physicians Without Borders.  When Custer wiped out the Cheyenne along the Washita river ... he was only guilty of poor intel ... since those Indians weren't hostiles, they were friendlies.  But Custer was jealous of Chivington's own massacre of the Cheyenne and wanted to count his own coupe.

[Baruch]

No, "Hamas is a creation of Israel", "Al Qaeda is a creation of the US", and so on are mischaracterizations, and mischaracterization is at best a way to sensationalize; at worst, an indication that someone has an agenda, and distorting the facts is a ploy to continue that agenda.

Yes ... those anti-aircraft rockets with US markings ... just accidentally ended up in Afghanistan.  Tell that to the 10,000 plus Soviets who died there.  Yes, the Saudis were involved.  So as long as anyone else is involved, American hands are clean then?  It is all a massive conspiracy for the SDS ... except that was an FBI/CIA front organization ... that no longer exists.

[Baruch]

During WW2 the allies hardly reported on the holocaust, as from what they knew about it seemed so extreme that it was felt it would be considered by the public as pure propaganda and as such cause a lack of belief and distract from the whole message being said by the western allies.

To be honest, FDR didn't much like Jewish people, and he felt the best way to stop killing of Jews, was to stop killing of everyone, which means winning the war as quickly as possible.  He may have been wrong, but the Soviets controlled that territory ... and Stalin hated Jews and deliberately let Hitler reduce the Warsaw Ghetto uprising.  Also 50% of the Americans were anti-semitic at the time, same as the Germans ... so this wouldn't have played in Peoria, even if people have believed in it.  At that time the KKK was Democrat, and FDR needed them on his team ... he even loved to get fresh moonshine during his trips South.  Not quite as aristocratic as you might have thought of him.

[Baruch]

And as far as war reporting goes, the early naval battle at Savo Island had to be "spun" because it was a defeat.  And I would agree at the time, had I been there, that lying was absolutely necessary ....

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/rep/Savo/Quantock/

The worst defeat of the American Navy.  But y'all miss my point, if one is in "forever war" then one has to lie forever.  Post war analysis will never be made.  This is why British secrets from the War of 1812 are still secret ... so I have heard.  Probably because they were embarrassing to the British.  That and apparently nobody here has read that very British book, 1984.

[jonb]

In what way it doesn't stand to scrutiny??? The point was the mischaracterization of ""Nothing reported in war time is true", which you tried to defend, and you did it extremely badly - first by trying to prove that the Holocaust was a bad example, which I proved you wrong, then by bringing a link that proves my point of the mischaracterization. You were soundly defeated and you don't even realize it. You just proved that you are more of an idiot than I thought you were.

Have a nice day.

Was the Holocaust widely reported in the war seeing that it was evidently know about in 42 as testified by a report in just one paper on the fifth page of a six page edition. So are you going to say from that it is a good way of refuting  'Nothing reported in war time is true', because it is about the minimum reporting of a truth possible. You could have opted for a thousand and one things reports on say pearl Harbour which would have none of those evident problems, so why did you choose what you did, Am I not supposed to draw attention to what you say or question it?
You say the obvious over exaggeration,  'Nothing reported in war time is true' is indefensible because you characterize it as a 'mischaracterization' and therefore I presume you mean by that it is a black and white issue. OK we could go with that, but then your '1944' as opposed to a proven 1942 is also a 'mischaracterization' so it just becomes a question of glass houses and stones.
People are people, this forum is conversational in nature as far as I know, and I will continue to treat it as such, therefore unless you can point to a directive that only exact verifiable wording has to be used at all times formally with no exaggeration, irony humour etc, I will continue read posts in the way I have done up to now unless you can point to a directive that states I should do otherwise. 
I might well be an idiot, but you would have to explain how that affects the above.

It is night time here.

[Baruch]

The true word that can be spoken, is not the true word.
The true news that can be printed, is not the true news.

The best way to lie, is with the facts.  You include some facts and ignore others ... this is the first lie.  Then you take the facts you choose to include, arrange them in a way to support your rhetoric, and help the "mark" draw the conclusion you want him to draw.  Namely that Tide is new and improved ;-)  That is a fact, but that isn't what is important, what is important is that you swallow the bait hook line and sinker.

[jonb]

Consequently in any lie there is an element of truth, to say 'nothing' is to over exaggerate your position.

Just because Candide has just argued with Martin does not mean Professor Pangloss is therefore right either.

[Baruch]

Consequently in any lie there is an element of truth, to say 'nothing' is to over exaggerate your position.

Just because Candide has just argued with Martin does not mean Professor Pangloss is therefore right either.

Professor Pangloss never died, and there are always more wide eyed youth to bamboozle.  We call it college ;-)

[josephpalazzo]

, but then your '1944' as opposed to a proven 1942 is also a 'mischaracterization' so it just becomes a question of glass houses and stones.

It's not a mischaracterization on my part as a small paper printing that story in 1942 is not well-known outside of your country - I had never heard of it before your link. So you trying to impinge on me that I was mischaracterizing anything is ludicrous as mischaracterizing means a deliberate act to mislead. And you still don't understand that by you using that fact only proves my point - how dense are you?

[jonb]

I said in post 36 after you used the Holocaust to refute a claim about wartime reporting

During WW2 the allies hardly reported on the holocaust, as from what they knew about it seemed so extreme that it was felt it would be considered by the public as pure propaganda and as such cause a lack of belief and distract from the whole message being said by the western allies.

You disagreed with my post with-

It wasn't reported because they were no official report just rumors, and how could they have official reports until they invaded Germany and saw the concentration camps with their own eyes?!?

(I have edited that post to show the salient paragraph I am in disagreement with.)

I have subsequently shown the Holocaust was known about before that. and yet it was hardly reported. You are now saying that my position is undermined because I have shown that the Holocaust was known at an earlier date and was under reported  exactly as stated in that post, and that I am an idiot and dense.

So for showing my post was correct you say I am wrong.
How does that work please explain.

[josephpalazzo]

I said in post 36 after you used the Holocaust to refute a claim about wartime reporting

You disagreed with my post with-(I have edited that post to show the salient paragraph I am in disagreement with.)

I have subsequently shown the Holocaust was known about before that. and yet it was hardly reported. You are now saying that my position is undermined because I have shown that the Holocaust was known at an earlier date and was under reported  exactly as stated in that post, and that I am an idiot and dense.

So for showing my post was correct you say I am wrong.
How does that work please explain.

What I said is that the Holocaust might have been known but it was through rumors, and the official date that I took is when Russian soldiers actually saw those concentration camps, earliest being in 1944. Now you put a link about the Telegraph publishing a Holocaust story in 1942 - first of all, I was unaware of that, and my bet is very few people outside of the UK would know about this 1942 revelation. Secondly you are saying that I try to mischaracterize, in what way? I was unaware of that article, wft do you want? There is a gazillion number of facts that I do not know, which is the case for every individual on this planet, including you, fucking asshole. 

Now your link undermines your case as you were defending Baruch's "Nothing reported in war time is true", and your link of the 1942 Holocaust story disprove that. There are things that are reported during war that are TRUE.

[jonb]

What I said is that the Holocaust might have been known but it was through rumors, and the official date that I took is when Russian soldiers actually saw those concentration camps, earliest being in 1944. Now you put a link about the Telegraph publishing a Holocaust story in 1942 - first of all, I was unaware of that, and my bet is very few people outside of the UK would know about this 1942 revelation. Secondly you are saying that I try to mischaracterize, in what way? I was unaware of that article, wft do you want? There is a gazillion number of facts that I do not know, which is the case for every individual on this planet, including you, fucking asshole. 

Now your link undermines your case as you were defending Baruch's "Nothing reported in war time is true", and your link of the 1942 Holocaust story disprove that. There are things that are reported during war that are TRUE.

No, if you look back I am not defending Baruch, although I did point out why I was picking up on your assertion rather than his which I also refute. Incidentally my question why would you try to refute Baruch with a subject that was hardly reported during the war which is about the worst you could pick for the purpose is I think answered, in that you are now saying you did not know much about the subject.

[josephpalazzo]

No, if you look back I am not defending Baruch, although I did point out why I was picking up on your assertion rather than his which I also refute. Incidentally my question why would you try to refute Baruch with a subject that was hardly reported during the war which is about the worst you could pick for the purpose is I think answered, in that you are now saying you did not know much about the subject.

What?!? Because I did not know about that 1942 revelation, suddenly I don't know much about that subject??? It's a clear indication that your IQ must be in the single digit. I'm not going to bother with your posts. You're a waste.

[jonb]

If the subject is 'when is a thing reported' and you don't know when it is reported, I would say that is a pretty clear indicator.