Thread: F**k the Troops

And why is it you're not sure John Perkins is to be trusted? I see nothing that suggests he would be lying.
A good motivation to lie would be to cover up a corporation's immorality and corruption so you and your corporation can proceed with making huge profits and living large.
I don't see why someone would lie to run a smear campaign against the entire corporate world and the corrupt political system. Do you?



Universal Mind.
You have been lied to and you are far too gullable.
I find this Mindless of a person I've allways deemed pretty Mindfull on many other subjects.
How is it you find my post pathetic? Is it because I don't agree with you?

You were one of the people that I've witnessed speak alot of wisdom on many subjects: Too bad Politics isn't one of them.

Don't get me wrong when I get raw. It's passion. Passion for the truth. It frustrates me to see how many otherwise bright people are still fooled into thinking Iraq was invaded to "bring democracy".

No hard feelings. Well perhaps semi-hard. But hey this is a very emotionally loaded topic of great political/moral significance. You can't expect such a discussion to be a picknick.

Let me repeat once more:
America > Run by corporations > greedy> Immoral> Needed a reason to invade and mass raid Iraq > Orchestrated a series of sloppily carried out atrocities> Blaimed it on Islam> Connected it to Iraq > Got the American peoples to back the Invasional plan = KaCHING!. Lots of free oil to sell for a high price. It's grandscale robery. Resource robbery. Nothing we haven't seen before throughout history.
American Corporations use "Economical Hitmen" to stage events that influence public opinion and dispose of leaders that cannot be corrupted. Dajo posted movies about that; You should check em out. It will clarify alot.

Capiche? It had nothing to do with democracy or morality at all.
Off course that's what they dressed it up to look like. How many Americans would have agreed with going to Iraq "to steal their resources, let grand oil corporations profit from it and leave the Iraqi people in a devastation, violence and poverty"? Not much. So they dressed it up as a moral quest. And all of you buy it.

Be more vigilant. It happend so many times before throughout history.

Hitler came with the weak excuse that "our German brothers" in Polland are being harrassed and attacked by Polish soldiers. He put some German soldiers in Polish Militairy uniforms, let them act and make it appear as though Polish Soldiers were harrassing and attacking Germans in Sudetenland(Polland).
He publicised the movie and it worked like a Charm; He got all Germany on the bandwagon to invade Polland.

Same shit different coat. And we follow into such lies just as easily today.

Originally Posted by SKA

I'll repeat it for you Universal Mind;

You have been lied to and you are far too gullable.
I find this Mindless of a person I've allways deemed pretty Mindfull on many other subjects.
How is it you find my post pathetic? Is it because I don't agree with you?

You were one of the people that I've witnessed speak alot of wisdom on many subjects: Too bad Politics isn't one of them.

Don't get me wrong when I get raw. It's passion. Passion for the truth. It frustrates me to see how many otherwise bright people are still fooled into thinking Iraq was invaded to "bring democracy".

No hard feelings. Well perhaps semi-hard. But hey this is a very emotionally loaded topic of great political/moral significance. You can't expect such a discussion to be a picknick.

Let me repeat once more:
America > Run by corporations > greedy> Immoral> Needed a reason to invade and mass raid Iraq > Orchestrated a series of sloppily carried out atrocities> Blaimed it on Islam> Connected it to Iraq > Got the American peoples to back this plan = KaCHING!. Lots of free oil to sell for a high price. It's grandscale robery. Resource robbery. Nothing we haven't seen before throughout history.
American Corporations use "Economical Hitmen" to stage events that influence public opinion and dispose of leaders that cannot be corrupted. Dajo posted movies about that; You should check em out. It will clarify alot.

Capiche? It had nothing to do with democracy or morality at all.

Be more vigilant. It happend so many times before throughout history.

Hitler came with the weak excuse that "our German brothers" in Polland are being harrassed and attacked by Polish soldiers. He put some German soldiers in Polish Militairy uniforms, let them act and make it appear as though Polish Soldiers were harrassing and attacking Germans in Sudetenland(Polland).
He publicised the movie and it worked like a Charm; He got all Germany on the bandwagon to invade Polland.

Same shit different coat. And we follow into such lies just as easily today.

I think your passion may be clouding your logical mind. Corporations do not run this country, corporations do not send this country to war. All that has been presented in this thread by your viewpoint amounts to nothing more than heresay, rumors, gut feelings, and hunches. That's what happens when you let emotions do the debating for you.

nope! corporations sure don't run our country. they do it indirectly

what in the fuck are you waiting for?

"the supreme court's decision... coming up next - brought to you by PFIZER!"

"this fucked up LA traffic and lack of public transportation... brought to you by THE OIL AND AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRIES" hooray!

Originally Posted by cygnus

nope! corporations sure don't run our country. they do it indirectly

what in the fuck are you waiting for?

"the supreme court's decision... coming up next - brought to you by PFIZER!"

"this fucked up LA traffic and lack of public transportation... brought to you by THE OIL AND AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRIES" hooray!

Good argument. Very compelling.

Caprisun,
Nice of you to simply redicule my arguments; A clever way to avoiding having to bring good, solid counter arguements. However that's not what discussion is about is it? It's all about arguements.
So where are yours? Let me urge you a little.


Do you believe Governments run nations in the interrest of it's people's wellbeing?
Do you believe large corporations and cartels are no more than "politically quite influential"?
Do you believe the world news you are presented through the mainstream media channels at least TRY to be any kind of objective and truthfull?


Are you here to participate in a political discussion? Or are you merely here to pass your judgement on other people's opinions?
If you TRUELY wan't to redicule me, for whatever reason that makes you feel good, then bring good counter arguements that disprove mine.

Originally Posted by SKA

Do you believe Governments run nations in the interrest of it's people's wellbeing?
Do you believe large corporations and cartels are no more than "politically quite influential"?
Do you believe the world news you are presented through the mainstream media channels at least TRY to be any kind of objective and truthfull?

Ill have a go as well.

1. I do not believe most governments do so, which is why they need checks such as constant re-election and educated citizens

2. I dont think they are anymore than very influential, but that is still too much for me

3. Mainstream media is full of bias, but if you havnt noticed, it has all been against the war for the past 4 or so years.

tkdyo

Concerning 1.
That would off course only secure the people's interrests if they were given the choice between actual ideological politicians representing their opinions, rather than corrupted puppets. So I guess you're saying you believe in truthfull, unmanipulated, honoust politics. Am I right? I guess the 2 of us couldn't possibly disagree more than on this one.

Concerning 2. Have you noticed how most people are easily corrupted? How they whore themselves for money? How are politicians any less vurnerable for such corruption? I mean they have such power, they could get away with alot more than you and me.
Who do you think help them to power? Who do you think finances their campaigns?
What chance does a Politician stand without a good PR machine and campaign?


Concerning 3. There is no longer any need for Corporations to have the people's support for the war: The damage's been done. So as not to raise unnececairy suspisions their Media channels speak along with public opinion against the war.
All the corporate governing system desires is to be able to stay in Iraq and continue stealing the Resources from the Iraqi people to make profits.

Well the new excuse to stay there and continue the robbery is to tell people through the Media: "Oh well we landed the country in total Anarchy. We can't just abbandon the Iraqi people? We need to help them rebuild their country and protect them against terrorist insurgients" Don't forget that rebuilding a destroyed nation is million dollar business to Energy-corporations, Infrastructure and construction corporations. It is a nice side-profit to the main goal: The Oil.

Sure. Why would they care what we think of the war? As long as the public thinks that "Our troops should stay there" for whatever reason, they can continue plundering the country's resources.


Let me add another question for you, caprisun and others who disagree with me:

4. Do you really think the series of plane attacks on 9/11 were unforeseen by american intelligence and carried out by anti-american terrorists?

Originally Posted by SKA

Caprisun,
Nice of you to simply redicule my arguments; A clever way to avoiding having to bring good, solid counter arguements. However that's not what discussion is about is it? It's all about arguements.
So where are yours? Let me urge you a little.


Do you believe Governments run nations in the interrest of it's people's wellbeing?
Do you believe large corporations and cartels are no more than "politically quite influential"?
Do you believe the world news you are presented through the mainstream media channels at least TRY to be any kind of objective and truthfull?


Are you here to participate in a political discussion? Or are you merely here to pass your judgement on other people's opinions?
If you TRUELY wan't to redicule me, for whatever reason that makes you feel good, then bring good counter arguements that disprove mine.

You don't have an argument, that's my point. As soon as you make a valid point I might be so inclined as to provide a thoughtful response. I have been here since the beginning of this thread arguing my viewpoints. I have answered all three of your questions within the last page and a half, which leads me to believe you haven't read any of this discussion, which means we are probably going to start repeating things that have already been said.

"1. Do you believe Governments run nations in the interrest of it's people's wellbeing?"

There is no universal answer to this question. Anybody who simply answers yes or no has not delved deep enough into the issue. Believe it or not, I do think some politicians are genuine, honest people, others are clearly not. The government itself, the collection of it's employees, works to better the country. Do shady deals with third-world warlords benefit our people? Maybe, maybe not. Every government is different. Some purposefully neglect their own populations, while others really do work for a better standard of living. America falls into the latter category.

"2. Do you believe large corporations and cartels are no more than "politically quite influential"?"

Yes? That's an odd way to word that.

"3. Do you believe the world news you are presented through the mainstream media channels at least TRY to be any kind of objective and truthfull?"

Absolutely not. I do hold a great deal of contempt for certain forms of news media in America. Truthful? Yes, in regard to reporting false news stories. Objective? No, not very often.

"4. Do you really think the series of plane attacks on 9/11 were unforeseen by american intelligence and carried out by anti-american terrorists?"

I don't like where this is going at all. Of course it was carried out by anti-American terrorists, I don't want to argue about any conspiracy theories. There may have been intelligence to suggest that an attack was being planned but it is too easy for you to say in hindsight that it should have been caught. There are too many variables involved. There is evidence that intelligence agencies new terrorists were interested in using airplanes as a weapon, but they obviously did not know the extent of the plan.

"Are you here to participate in a political discussion? Or are you merely here to pass your judgement on other people's opinions?
If you TRUELY wan't to redicule me, for whatever reason that makes you feel good, then bring good counter arguements that disprove mine."

I present your debut post in this thread:

"You are far too gullable. The load of shit they made you believe. You and masses of the world's populace.
You should have nicknamed yourself Universal MindLESSNESS instead."

This was said in response to a man who had already made several logical arguments for feeling the way he does. Further evidence that you did not read any previous posts before entering the discussion. Was I wrong in my assertions?

"And why is it you're not sure John Perkins is to be trusted? I see nothing that suggests he would be lying."

I did a little research, it seems he doesn't have the best reputation. Even his old boss thinks he's delusional.

"And why is it you're not sure John Perkins is to be trusted? I see nothing that suggests he would be lying."

I did a little research, it seems he doesn't have the best reputation. Even his old boss thinks he's delusional.

That doesn't say a damn thing. It could either mean he indeed is delusional and fantasizing his ass of bringing his entire country's integrety in question. Or it could mean that he speaks the truth and those that wish to keep covered up what he wants to reveal are running a smear campaign against him to make him lose credibility. So it doesn't conclude anything at all.
Still I don't see why you think such a "conspiracy" as John Perkins "suggests" is really that far-fetched. human history is nothing but conspiracy and mass-deceit. Seems to fall in line perfectly to make sense.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

You don't have an argument, that's my point. As soon as you make a valid point I might be so inclined as to provide a thoughtful response. I have been here since the beginning of this thread arguing my viewpoints. I have answered all three of your questions within the last page and a half, which leads me to believe you haven't read any of this discussion, which means we are probably going to start repeating things that have already been said.

Do you believe Governments run nations in the interrest of it's people's wellbeing?

There is no universal answer to this question. Anybody who simply answers yes or no has not delved deep enough into the issue. Believe it or not, I do think some politicians are genuine, honest people, others are clearly not. The government itself, the collection of it's emplyees, works to better the country. Do shady deals with third world war lords benefit our people? Maybe, maybe not. Every government is different. Some purposefully neglect their own populations, while others really do work for a better standard of living. America falls into the latter category.

Do you believe large corporations and cartels are no more than "politically quite influential"?

Yes? That's an odd way to word that.

Do you believe the world news you are presented through the mainstream media channels at least TRY to be any kind of objective and truthfull?

Absolutely not. I do hold a great deal of contempt for certain forms of news media in America. Truthful? Yes, in regard to reporting false news stories. Objective? No, not very often.

Are you here to participate in a political discussion? Or are you merely here to pass your judgement on other people's opinions?
If you TRUELY wan't to redicule me, for whatever reason that makes you feel good, then bring good counter arguements that disprove mine.

I present your debut post in this thread:

"You are far too gullable. The load of shit they made you believe. You and masses of the world's populace.
You should have nicknamed yourself Universal MindLESSNESS instead."

This was said in response to a man who had already made several logical arguments for feeling the way he does. Further evidence that you did not read any previous posts before entering the discussion. Was I wrong in my assertions?

And I have apologised to him. But thanks for reminding me.


So what I jumped into the end of this discussion. If you participate in a 4 page discussion, do you read all posts?
I just reacted on one of the last posts in it. To Universal Mind's post.

I did present arguements.
If you consider my points to be too unserious to respond to then that defeats the very meaning of a discussion.

I'm disagreeing with tkdyo, but we actually are having a discussion. I take his point of view serious enough to respond to it and vice versa. You would make for a better discussion-participant if you were to actually take my arguements serious, like he did.



So okay you do not believe "conspiracy theories".
Don't you think it was a little strange how 2 towers designed to withstand a boeing crash came down like a house of cards though?
And how the hell did that 3d WTC building suddenly collapse in on itself in exactly the way a they do in a controlled demolition?
Doesn't the OBVIOUS evidence that demolition charges were used to bring 3 of the WTC buildings down trouble you at least a bit?
And are you not puzzled about the airplane that supposedly hit the Pentagon? It left a very small, clean hole. Not a trace of Airplane wreckage was found.
They claimed to have ID-ed corpses of the passengers of that supposed airplane while they also claimed the airplane wreckage was missing because it would have completely vaporised.
So the crash would have vaporised a complete airplane; hull, engines and everything, yet it did leave enough of the passengers bodies intact to be IDed?
And let's not even mention the clearly (and poorly) staged airplane crash near Pittsburg.

Sure I know it is very populair to redicule Zeitgeist, but the Zeitgesit documentairies do present undeniable evidence that Demolition charges were used to bring the 3 WTC buildings down.
Have you seen the Zeitgeist documentairy? I've once seen another docu on TV about this as well. They really do raise some unnerving questions.

How does this not sound like a seriously questionable explanation of the events on 9/11?

Originally Posted by SKA

How is it you find my post pathetic? Is it because I don't agree with you?

I already explained that. Your post was nothing but a personal insult with no backing. That is no way to have a debate. I was surprised to see that from you.

I said this in another thread and linked it early in this thread...

What does Iraq have to do with terrorism? You say nothing? Well, let me inform you of the truth. First of all, saying Iraq has something to do with terrorism is not to say that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. No, the Hussein regime was not involved in the 9/11 attacks as far as we know. But, the Hussein regime was an international terrorist government that supported Hamas and Hezballah and provided financial incentives to Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel, shot missiles at Israel and Kuwait without provocation, took over Kuwait without any justification, used WMD's in a terrorist attack on the Kurds, and used terror to control their own masses. They were also having meetings with Al Qaeda representatives and harboring Al Qaeda members. Plus, our 1991 ceasefire with them required that they had to follow certain provisions regarding terrorism and their WMD's, which they did in fact have. They violated that ceasefire for 12 years. After 9/11, the U.S. made policy changes. We formed the Bush Doctrine, which was a policy regarding all international terrorist groups, not just the terrorist group that inspired it. (Make sure you caught that very important point which the leftist fanatics always overlook.) Under it, the Taliban of Afghanistan was the first government we went after. Due to everything I said about the Hussein regime, they were second. In addition to that, democracy in the heart of the Middle East is a great weapon against terrorism in the long run. So is making Islamofascist terrorists come out of the Middle Eastern woodwork so we can kill them like flies. Also, five ally governments and the United Nations, in addition to our own intelligence, reported that the regime currently had stockpiles of WMD's before the war started. Consider that entire picture, and you will see what Iraq has to do with terrorism and the justification for the lifting of the ceasefire and overthrowing the Hussein regime.

You need to consider all of it at the same time. It's about a big picture, not just any one thing.

Those are most of the justifications for the Iraq War. Even IF what you claim about corporate greed and how it relates to the war is true (I don't think you can prove that it is. Your point is pure speculation.), those justifications are still justifications.

First off I must admit I got too personal and insultive. Let me apologise for that. It was uncalled for and I let my emotions get too much in the way.
Let's say I'm having a not-so-enjoyable-time in my life right now.
So. Sorry about that.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I said this in another thread and linked it early in this thread...

What does Iraq have to do with terrorism? You say nothing? Well, let me inform you of the truth. First of all, saying Iraq has something to do with terrorism is not to say that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. No, the Hussein regime was not involved in the 9/11 attacks as far as we know. But, the Hussein regime was an international terrorist government that supported Hamas and Hezballah and provided financial incentives to Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel, shot missiles at Israel and Kuwait without provocation, took over Kuwait without any justification, used WMD's in a terrorist attack on the Kurds, and used terror to control their own masses. They were also having meetings with Al Qaeda representatives and harboring Al Qaeda members. Plus, our 1991 ceasefire with them required that they had to follow certain provisions regarding terrorism and their WMD's, which they did in fact have. They violated that ceasefire for 12 years. After 9/11, the U.S. made policy changes. We formed the Bush Doctrine, which was a policy regarding all international terrorist groups, not just the terrorist group that inspired it. (Make sure you caught that very important point which the leftist fanatics always overlook.) Under it, the Taliban of Afghanistan was the first government we went after. Due to everything I said about the Hussein regime, they were second. In addition to that, democracy in the heart of the Middle East is a great weapon against terrorism in the long run. So is making Islamofascist terrorists come out of the Middle Eastern woodwork so we can kill them like flies. Also, five ally governments and the United Nations, in addition to our own intelligence, reported that the regime currently had stockpiles of WMD's before the war started. Consider that entire picture, and you will see what Iraq has to do with terrorism and the justification for the lifting of the ceasefire and overthrowing the Hussein regime.

You need to consider all of it at the same time. It's about a big picture, not just any one thing.

Those are most of the justifications for the Iraq War. Even IF what you claim about corporate greed and how it relates to the war is true (I don't think you can prove that it is. Your point is pure speculation.), those justifications are still justifications.

I never said Iraq wasn't involved in terrorism. Where exactly did you get that?

Also not once did I say Iraq didn't have WMD. But then again doesn't the USA have a grand arsenal of nukes? What kind of weapons would you call nukes? A nuclear warhead makes a nervegas bomb seem like an innocent toy.

Also I have never been a fan of Hussein's regime( to make the understatement of the century ), but Universal Mind; Who helped Saddam Hussein to power in the first place? .... Everyone knows the USA did.

And I'm sure you'll remember the 1st Gulf War. 100ds of Iraqis fought alongside the american and UN soldiers to end Saddam's terror regime. However just as our combined troops were zero-ing in on Baghdad, they left again. Needless to say those 100ds of Iraqis fighting alongside our soldiers were brutally slain by Saddam for treason. This goes to show the "charitable intentions" with which the US invaded Iraq.

So why didn't they just release Iraq of Saddams terror right there? They had encircled Baghdad and were closing in on Saddam's palace. They could've easily done it.

Instead they let it serve as a warning for Saddam, hoping that after this threat he would be corrupted and sell out his oil for cheap to western oil corporations. When he refused..... well that's where the 2nd Gulfwar started. The reason for invading Iraq was a weak excuse amounting basically to: "A Saudi Arabian Terrorist leader operating from Afghanistan attacked America, Yeah lets invade Iraq". It makes absolutely no sense.

First comes the Economical hitman that tries to corrupt leaders, if that fails they send CIA jackalls to either cause a revolution or assassinate the incorruptable leader to reinstate a corrupt leader who rules in their favor. If even that fails they send the militairy. Just listen to John Perkins.

Originally Posted by SKA

First off I must admit I got too personal and insultive. Let me apologise for that. It was uncalled for and I let my emotions get too much in the way.
Let's say I'm having a not-so-enjoyable-time in my life right now.
So. Sorry about that.

All right, no big deal. Cool beans.

Originally Posted by SKA

I never said Iraq wasn't involved in terrorism. Where exactly did you get that?

That was just how I started out a post addressed to Wendylove a while back. I quoted it here so I wouldn't have to type out my entire argument again. But since you agree Iraq was involved in terrorism, wouldn't you say there was some degree of legitimacy in overthrowing the government?

Originally Posted by SKA

Also not once did I say Iraq didn't have WMD. But then again doesn't the USA have a grand arsenal of nukes? What kind of weapons would you call nukes? A nuclear warhead makes a nervegas bomb seem like an innocent toy.

Okay, you just implied that you agree Iraq was involved in terrorism. You also implied you agree that Iraq had WMD's when Hussein was in power. Those two factors existing together created a huge problem. Terrorist governments with WMD's are out of the question, especially for us when they are our enemies. Remember what I said at the bottom of the quote. The war is not about any one thing. It is about the big picture of all of those factors existing together.

Originally Posted by SKA

Also I have never been a fan of Hussein's regime( to make the understatement of the century ), but Universal Mind; Who helped Saddam Hussein to power in the first place? .... Everyone knows the USA did.

They were an alliance gone bad. I think giving WMD's to any third world government is insane, but I don't think what all Hussein became was completely forseeable.

Originally Posted by SKA

And I'm sure you'll remember the 1st Gulf War. 100ds of Iraqis fought alongside the american and UN soldiers to end Saddam's terror regime. However just as our combined troops were zero-ing in on Baghdad, they left again. Needless to say those 100ds of Iraqis fighting alongside our soldiers were brutally slain by Saddam for treason. This goes to show the "charitable intentions" with which the US invaded Iraq.

I have a charitable view of the situation in the way that I see the good that was created, but that does not mean I think my country is run by saints with hearts of gold. I think politicians are scuzz in practically all cases. However, they do what they think will make them look good so they can keep their power, at least in a democratic republic. That is what has me giving more credibility to government actions than a lot of people give. They can only get away with so much under the right kind of system.

There is a video of Dick Cheney in 1994 saying we didn't go into Baghdad in 1991 because the Bush 41 Administration knew what would happen. Cheney described perfectly what ended up happening in 2003, and he said it in 1994. Big Bush was against it, at least before 9/11. After 9/11, Little Bush decided to go through with it.

Originally Posted by SKA

Instead they let it serve as a warning for Saddam, hoping that after this threat he would be corrupted and sell out his oil for cheap to western oil corporations. When he refused..... well that's where the 2nd Gulfwar started.

First comes the Economical hitman that tries to corrupt leaders, if that fails they send CIA jackalls to either cause a revolution or assassinate the incorruptable leader to reinstate a corrupt leader who rules in their favor. If even that fails they send the militairy. Just listen to John Perkins.

As I have said before, I don't rule that impossible. However, what is the proof of it? What makes you so sure, especially considering the other variables involved in the decision to go to war? Like I said, the justifications are still justifications no matter what kind of corrupt money scheming might have been also involved.

With all of that said, even though you disagree with the war, do you sort of see where the pro-war side is coming from? Do you see even a trace of understandability to the view although you think it is wrong? Also, do you think anything at all good has resulted from the overthrowing of the Hussein regime and replacing it with a democracy?

Originally Posted by SKA

And why is it you're not sure John Perkins is to be trusted? I see nothing that suggests he would be lying.

He goes on the radio and claims he was an economic hit man. If he was an economic hit man, he can't be trusted. If he wasn't an economic hit man, he can't be trusted.

Hehe, I typed in google 'Confessions of an Economic Hitman Debunk' and got this:

http://subversivechurch.wordpress.co...onomic-hitman/



So, do any here maybe have a serious article to refute what he's saying?
His book was quite a while on the NY Times Bestseller list and therefore I'd
think that if what he's proposing is complete garbage, some believable
source would pick up on it. But he seems quite well recieved.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

He goes on the radio and claims he was an economic hit man. If he was an economic hit man, he can't be trusted. If he wasn't an economic hit man, he can't be trusted.

It's also a book tour, though. And I don't think you get the
whistleblower status for nothing at all, or am I mistaken?

-> Edit:
Ok, found something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confess..._and_criticism

Are you saying crackpots and con artists don't get big book deals and sales? I can name many who have.

Just saying, he's not quite Alex Jones. In principal, what he's talking
about is nothing essentially 'new'. Just in a lot more detail. I definately
realize though, why he would be questionable. I don't think he's too far
out (referring to Chomsky) and the points of criticism on wikipedia didn't
really impress me that much, but as always, I remain naturally critical
of everything.

But wouldn't it be neccessary to show at least some evidence for
someone to require a whistleblower status? And he does hold one, right?

Originally Posted by dajo

Just saying, he's not quite Alex Jones. In principal, what he's talking
about is nothing essentially 'new'. Just in a lot more detail. I definately
realize though, why he would be questionable. I don't think he's too far
out (referring to Chomsky) and the points of criticism on wikipedia didn't
really impress me that much, but as always, I remain naturally critical
of everything.

But wouldn't it be neccessary to show at least some evidence for
someone to require a whistleblower status? And he does hold one, right?

John Perkins is believed to hold whistle blower status. I don't know enough about him to say that what he claims is automatically false. Maybe it isn't. I was just responding to SKA's comment that he sees no reason John Perkins would be lying. My point was that economic hit men are not trustworthy people. So John Perkins is either lying about having been an economic hit man or really was an economic hit man and therefore is not trustworthy. His word alone is automatically worth very little.

It reminds me of the former Fox News employees who are interviewed in the film Outfoxed. They get on camera and pretty much say, "I used to be a big time liar. Listen to my story." Once a person admits that he made a career of being dishonest, isn't it too late for his claims alone to matter? He is either

1. telling the truth and has a history of grand level lying

or

2. lying