New book claims General Patton was murdered

Post Reply New Topic

To put it mildly, I am baffled by your response...

Your statement is invalid...
Simples...

Firstly, it is clear that you are making a classic generalisation...
People don't:
"...focus on the famous and blow off the fact that there are many unknown people that are treated worse, and no one cares."
I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone genuinely admitting-to/believing this statement...

If atrocities are "unknown", they are unknown...
Can't argue with that, though some might try...

Secondly, where is the "payoff" in ignoring the suffering of anyone?
Where is the rationality of this, assuming there is no inherent racial/etc bias involved?

Your premise seems to be:
If you believe/care/enlighten-others about a major example of "man's inhumanity to man...", you don't care about the unknown sufferers...
This is an outright nonsense...
Not to say insulting...
Oops, I just did...

Credibility:
"the quality of being convincing or believable."

I'm surprised that you niggled me...

Not to discredit the opinions of those learned individuals on other side of the argument, but ...

How the hell is this even relevant any more?

I mean, WWII ended seventy years ago. The youngest living survivors of WWII are in their seventies. The youngest living veterans of WWII are in their eighties. Only HRM Queen Elizabeth II has remained in power since then.

So what is the point in second-guessing what really happened then? It's over, people! It's over, and we have more important issues to deal with right now. Why waste our attention on something that no longer matters?

ok, with that in mind, should we also stop worrying about the real actors behind the assassinations of both Kennedys and MLK as well?

As the perpetrators of both assassinations had very likely had connections to US intelligence (contract agents, contacts, user friendly assets) people in high positions have a vested interest in keeping the truth unresolved, otherwise they would risk being compromised, either for direct associations with the killers, and/or for having covering for the participants.

it is a wicked world we live in, and lord help the victims of those who abet and revel in the wickedness intentionally.

We get it...
You aren't interested...
Avert your eyes...

I'm a little surprised you don't get the aspie obsession in truth/fact finding...
And that you don't have the genetically inspire desire for truth, justice...and all that stuff...
And that you are unaware that many, if not most, aspies have a profound problem with psychological bullies and reality frackers...

It does help if you have been personally affected by the distortion/omission of the truth, admittedly...

"...no longer matters..."?
I beg your pardon?
I'd like to see how long you would last if you went to Israel and said: "the holocaust doesn't matter..."
That most of the survivors have died, so what the heck...<shrug>

Do I smell a double standard here?
I believe I do!...<shock> <horror>...

Unintended "foot in mouth disease"...
Or intentional stirring of the pot?

Humanaut's posts should be taken with several grains of salt, since he can be guaranteed to take the rabidly Zionist line on everything. If the topic under discussion were the suffering of Palestinian civilians rather than German civilians, he'd come out with the same smug, barely substantiated, just-so crap.

Any revisionist's alleged historical accounts should by examined with a critical mind-set. Even the motivation for creating the revised 'history' should be questioned.

Besides, one of the key signs that such a 'history' is merely a conspiracy theorist's wet-dream is when the conspiracist and his supporters launch personal attacks against those of us who question the validity and relevance of the conspiracist's claims.

So, cry "Havoc!", and loose your hounds of war!

I agree that it is prudent to examine new ideas "critically"...
And to consider the motivation behind something which is proffered...



This is where you have lost me...
By introducing the term "conspiracy theorist's wet dream", you have exposed your mindset...your personal/psychological context...
As presented, your statement opens/begs accusations of bias and is definitively less than objective in orientation...

You justify your less than centralised position by pointing out the inexcusable "playing the man and not the ball"...

However...
You have lost your way in terms of objectivity...
And it seems you are painting all who disagree with your position with "the same brush"...

It is logically invalid to suggest/imply:
Some revisionists are biased/irrational/emotionalistic...
Therefor all revisionists are...

Also, once again, you are seen to be judge, jury and executioner by using the heavily connotation infused term "conspiracist"...
Remember, dispassionate, clinical objectivism is required to determine the truth...
Anything else will provide "a version of the truth"...which is, according to Richard Dawkins, an absurdity...

Are you aware:
"Although the term "conspiracy theory" has acquired a derogatory meaning over time and is often used to dismiss or ridicule beliefs in conspiracies,[1] it has also continued to be used by some to refer to actual, proven conspiracies, such as U.S. President Richard Nixon and his aides conspiring to cover up Watergate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

Can I assume you are not using the term as a form of derogation?
Or is this an indication of you questioning the credibility of what has been said which is in variance with the official position?

May I suggest you resist the temptation to become an emotionalist yourself when confronting emotionalistic arguments...

And lastly, do we have yet another double standard?
Non-revisionists are allowed to criticise revisionists accounts but not visa versa?...



Indeed...
Ciao...