CRACKDOWN on "conspiracy theorism"/unAmerican activities on babble

105 posts / 0 new
Last post
Fidel
CRACKDOWN on "conspiracy theorism"/unAmerican activities on babble

Catchfire wrote:
This thread violates babble's anti-imperialist policy, so I'm closing it. Any future threads which entertain the conspiracy theory that the Arab nations were not responsible for their own insurrections and popular uprisings will be closed as well.

Why are we accusing American dissident Webster Tarpley of being a conspiracy theorist? He's simply expressing an opinion and critical of the empire's long-time imperialist maneuvering in John Foster Dulles' "Middle East".

Tarpley is an anti-imperialist:

Quote:
Since March, 2006, Tarpley has had a weekly online talk radio show called World Crisis Radio,[13] currently hosted on GCNLive.com. Tarpley is a member of the "world anti-imperialist conference" Axis for Peace, of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and of a research Netzwerk of German 9/11 authors founded in September 2006. He is featured in the film, Zero: an investigation into 9/11 (2007-2008).[14]
Tarpley is a critic of the Dalai Lama; in 2010 he told the state-funded Russia Today that "pre-1959 Tibet ... was probably the closest thing to hell on earth that you had ... social reform was impossible." In the interview he criticizes US funding of pro-Dalai Lama organizations, which he says amounts to US$2 million per year, saying "this is a bad deal for the American taxpayers."

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/

Tarpley guilty of peacemongering

Scholars for 9/11 Truth dangerous dissidents?

Is it really conspiratorial to post anti-imperialist material on an anti-imperialist social forum?

Or is this just your run o' the mill, thinly veiled crackdown on unAmerican activities? Net nannies to the rescue, or babble minders steering us away from being far too anti-imperialist for someone's liking?

Perhaps babblers should start their own Otpor putsch to remove these dictatorial minders from mini power instructing us on what we will and will not discuss under their watchful eyes.

Issues Pages: 
Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Moving to rabble reactions...

Slumberjack

After this, I think I'll start a thread about grumbling being only permitted in the designated space.

Fidel

Quote:
"Heresy cannot be destroyed unless heretics are destroyed and... their defenders and [supporters] are destroyed..." - Bernard Gui, inquisitor 13th century France

ygtbk

@ Fidel: I agree with you. I am deeply uncomfortable with moderators deciding what can and cannot be discussed. By all means, try to keep people polite and in the right forum, but taking moderating beyond that is a recipe for a thinly-populated echo chamber.

Sven Sven's picture

ygtbk wrote:

@ Fidel: I agree with you. I am deeply uncomfortable with moderators deciding what can and cannot be discussed. By all means, try to keep people polite and in the right forum, but taking moderating beyond that is a recipe for a thinly-populated echo chamber.

I agree as well.  While I don't agree with Fidel's assertions, I agree that it is something that is permissible to at least discuss.

Slumberjack

Hey!!..a quotes thread.

Quote:
The simple fact of being without reply has given to the false an entirely new quality. At a stroke it is truth which has almost everywhere ceased to exist or, at best, has been reduced to the status of pure hypothesis that can never be demonstrated. The false without reply has succeeded in making public opinion disappear: first it found itself incapable of making itself heard and then very quickly dissolved altogether.

Spectacular domination's first priority was to make historical knowledge in general disappear; beginning with just about all rational information and commentary on the most recent past. The evidence for this is so glaring it hardly needs further explanation. With mastery the spectacle organizes ignorance of what is about to happen and, immediately afterwards, the forgetting of whatever has nonetheless been understood. The most important is the most hidden.

Fidel

They are pretty good moderators imo. I think they will give and take a little. 

They have to. babble is all we've got. 

It's all we have. Pray for mercy. 

Because if Tarpley and his peacemongers are right, imperialists are trying to start WW III or perhaps just world domination in general. And I think war/world domination by the financial oligarchy and warfiteering industrial complex is fairly anti-people in general.

Caissa

Didn't an US Supreme Court justice say he couldn't define pornography but he could recognize it when he saw it? I feel in a similar manner about conspiracy theories. The almost always fly in the face of Occam's Razor.

500_Apples

Catchfire wrote:
To clarify, this is exactly the kind of discussion babble is meant to have. The threads in question, supported by Larouchean articles, are not. At any rate, we needn't have two threads about how draconian, apologetic, imperialist and oppressive babble is. This discussion can continue in Fidel's thread.

More bullying by this sorry excuse of a moderator.

"Larouchean" lol. The trans-Siberian railroad guy? Keep throwing meaningless labels around.

Tell me more about how Pinochet's installation in 1973 was due to a popular uprising.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

If you have a problem with my moderating, Apples, critique it in this thread. Don't insult me again in my place of work, or I will suspend you.

Quote:
In 1986 [Webster] Tarpley attempted to run onLyndon LaRouche's U.S. Labor Party platform in the New York State Democratic Party primary for the U.S. Senate, but was ruled off the ballot because of a defect in his nominating petitions. He was a frequent host of "The LaRouche Connection" which its producer LaRouche's Executive Intelligence Review News Service describes as "a news and information cable television program."...He gained experience as a political operative during his years with the LaRouche movement but broke away sometime after 1995.

 

500_Apples

Your dismal logic:

Tarpley and Larouche worked together 25 years ago, ergo everything Tarpley writes is "Larouchean". Never mind the fact they broke apart 16 years ago. Aren't you ashamed of posting such a dumb argument?

Not very impressive. I mean WTF, that's one of the dumbest things I've ever seen posted on this site.

Catchfire wrote:
Don't insult me again in my place of work, or I will suspend you.

And a dash of bullying to follow your guilt by association.

Pathetic.

I'm not surprised you're too insecure to handle criticisms. The fact is that you must realize on some level your position on this issue is dictated by political fashions, not political reality. So you're closing off information.

Shut thread !! ban !!!

Caissa

Rebecca West wrote:

Okay, given the ratio of contribution to baiting, you lose.  You're banned Snert.


Unnecessary. Is this a banning or a suspension?
The members are grownups and can handle these situations.
I'm almost left wondering if the moderators have decided to piss off the members this afternoon. I dismiss this of course because they are both professionals.
The traffic on this site continuals to dwindle. Baning long-time members can only hasten the demise of Babble.

wage zombie

Seems like people feel entitled to babble.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

For continuing your personal attacks after being asked to stop, 500_Apples, I'm giving you 24 hours off. This is my place of work and I won't tolerate an abusive workplace. In case you missed it, this thread is still open.

Thanks for your kind and respectful comments, Fidel.

Fidel

Catchfire wrote:

If you have a problem with my moderating, Apples, critique it in this thread. Don't insult me again in my place of work, or I will suspend you.

Quote:
In 1986 [Webster] Tarpley attempted to run onLyndon LaRouche's U.S. Labor Party platform in the New York State Democratic Party primary for the U.S. Senate, but was ruled off the ballot because of a defect in his nominating petitions. He was a frequent host of "The LaRouche Connection" which its producer LaRouche's Executive Intelligence Review News Service describes as "a news and information cable television program."...He gained experience as a political operative during his years with the LaRouche movement but broke away sometime after 1995.

 

 

Lyndon Larouche is in his 80's today and out of the presidential running. I think Tarpley was associated with them in the early 1990s. That was then. 

Why are we using right wing tactics in an attempt to smear U.S. dissidents? Tarpley's message is what's important not any affiliation with a former US presidential candidate, Larouche, a former Marxist and Liberal Democrat himself. 

Because today there are U.S. conservatives and lefties like Ron Paul and Ralph Nader aligning themselves against the pro war, pro Wall Street Liberal Democrats joined at hip to the Neocon cabal.

Yes there are anti-war advocates of all political stripes in the U.S. And Tarpley is among them.

Let's have the courage to attack the message and not the messenger. 

Life, the unive...

If you are looking for a harrassment free workplace, shouldn't you have a responsibility towards it too?  In my experience, you are as big a contributor to harrassment and personal attacks as anyone- but you get to have the hammer coming home- so you get to enforce your bullying and snide commentary.  I think you might do with a 24 hour introspection yourself frankly.

Roscoe

The reason I'm here is to read discussion that is an honest reflection of differing opinions. More and more outspoken individuals are being banned not for violating babble policy but for violating the reigning ideology.

The present babble is only a hollow shell of the lively forum before the dark day we must not speak of. Original thinkers are expelled or hounded out.

Life, the unive...

or just slowly drift away.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

I recall saying, some time ago, that continuing to tolerate conspiracy theory threads would come back to bite babble in the ass. 

Slumberjack

Can't believe I'm saying this...but lets all take that last deep breath before the insurrection really breaks out, just to see if we really want to go there. Or better yet, lets all head over to Free Dominion or someplace similar for awhile. We might be surprised at what it could do for solidarity around here. And oh yeah..boo hoo about the workplace thing. You manage the joint.

Fidel

Well that was an unfortunate comment about tolerance of others on a left wing forum. 

milo204

in defense of fairness, it's one thing to say "you're wrong, here's why" and it's another thing to say someone is wrong, but also "pathetic, dumb, etc"....

it's using words like that that make this place toxic sometimes.  If poster could just keep it inside the bounds of respectful debate and not heaping on the insulting language we wouldn't have these problems.  Sure, the mods sometimes make contradictory decisions, but they're people not computer programs.  

I've disagreed with the mods on several occasions and i've never been banned or suspended because i'm not hurtling insults at them and denigrating them as people.  is that so hard?  

al-Qa'bong

Caissa wrote:
Unnecessary. Is this a banning or a suspension?

Snert's been banned? Where did this happen?

While Snert's purpose here was to some degree motivated by trying to provoke people (he admitted so on a thread a couple of weeks ago - George Victor called him on it), he toned down his act quite a bit from his previous incarnation, Mr. Magoo.

That said, I wonder why Magoo even came back to babble, considering how he chortled on EnMasse about being banned here.

Slumberjack

al-Qa'bong wrote:

While Snert's purpose here was to some degree motivated by trying to provoke people...he toned down his act quite a bit from his previous incarnation, Mr. Magoo.

Snert was Mr. Magoo?  ha!

al-Qa'bong

Roscoe wrote:

 

The present babble is only a hollow shell of the lively forum before the dark day we must not speak of. Original thinkers are expelled or hounded out.

 

I agree, but that dark day came about as many of us left as an expression of solidarity with Audra, a moderator.

wage zombie

I wish some of these original thinkers could learn how to discuss their feelings in respectful language.

If I found myself calling others on here (especially the mods) pathetic I would feel embarrassed.

al-Qa'bong

What got my goat was being accused of being an "enabler of empire" for suggesting that the dark races were capable of thinking for themselves.

And then there's this thread title, where making such a suggestion is equated with McCarthyism.

peterjcassidy peterjcassidy's picture

With respect, I have problems with the idea that Babbles anti-imperialist policy prohibits discussion of imperialism interfering in the domestic affairs of people by fostering  or supporting popular uprisings or civil unrest. .Such tactics have been used by imperialists for thousands of years. and certainly have been used in modern times . Whether or not they have been used in the Arab Spring is, I submit,  a fit topic for discussion.:

--------------------------------------

The United States made use of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to do away with a string of unfriendly Third World governments and to support allied ones.[71] In 1953, President Eisenhower's Central Intelligence Agency implemented Operation Ajax, a covert operation aimed at the overthrow of the Iranian prime minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh. The popularly-elected and non-aligned Mosaddegh had been a Middle Eastern nemesis of Britain since nationalizing the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in 1951. Churchill told the United States that Mosaddegh was "increasingly turning towards communism" and was moving Iran towards the Soviet sphere.[131][132][133][134] The pro-Western shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, assumed control as an autocratic monarch.[135] The shah's policies included the banning of the communist Tudeh Party and general suppression of political dissent by SAVAK, the shah's domestic security and intelligence agency.

In Guatemala, a CIA-backed military coup ousted the left-wing President Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán in 1954.[136] The post-Arbenz government, a military junta headed by Carlos Castillo Armas, returned nationalized American property, set up a National Committee of Defense Against Communism, and decreed a Preventive Penal Law Against Communism at the request of the United States.[137]

In the Republic of the Congo, newly independent from Belgium since June 1960, the CIA-cultivated President Joseph Kasa-Vubu ordered the dismissal of the democratically-elected Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba and the Lumumba cabinet in September; Lumumba called for Kasa-Vubu's dismissal instead.[138] In the ensuing Congo Crisis, the CIA-backed Colonel Mobutu quickly mobilized his forces to seize power through a military coup d'état.[138]

In British Guiana, the leftist People's Progressive Party (PPP) candidate Cheddi Jagan won the position of chief minister in a colonially-administered election in 1953, but was quickly forced to resign from power after Britain's suspension of the still-dependent nation's constitution.[139] Embarrassed by the landslide electoral victory of Jagan's allegedly Marxist party, the British imprisoned the PPP's leadership and maneuvered the organization into a divisive rupture in 1955, engineering a split between Jagan and his PPP colleagues.[140] Jagan again won the colonial elections in 1957 and 1961; despite Britain's shift to a reconsideration of its view of the left-wing Jagan as a Soviet-style communist at this time, the United States pressured the British to withhold Guyana's independence until an alternative to Jagan could be identified, supported, and brought into office.[141].

-----------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War

-------------------

Operation Mongoose was a secret program of propaganda, psychological warfare, and sabotage against Cuba to remove the communists from power; which was a prime focus of the Kennedy administration, according to Harvard historian Jorge Domínguez.[1] A document from the US Department of State confirms that the project aimed to "help Cuba overthrow the Communist regime", including its leader Fidel Castro, and it aimed "for a revolt which can take place in Cuba by October 1962". US policy makers also wanted to see "a new government with which the United States can live in peace". (Source: US Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States 1961-1963, Volume X Cuba, 1961-1962 Washington, DC [1])

-------------

In 1972, the monetary policies increasing the amount of circulating currency, adopted by economics minister Pedro Vuskovic, devalued the escudo, provoking inflation to 140 percent in 1972 and engendering a black market economy.[10] The Allende Government acted against the black market with organised distribution of basic products. In October 1972, Chile suffered the first of many socially confrontational strikes — led by the Chilean rich — openly supported by U.S. President Richard Nixon via the CIA.[11]

Soon, small-scale businessmen, some professional unions, and student groups joined the strike. Its leaders — Vilarín, Jaime Guzmán, Rafael Cumsille, Guillermo Elton, Eduardo Arriagada — expected to depose the elected government. Other than damaging the national economy, the principal effect of the twenty-four-day strike was drawing Army head, Gen. Carlos Prats, into the government as Interior Minister, an appeasement to the right wing.[10] Gen. Prats succeeded Gen. René Schneider after his assassination on 24 October 1970, by the groups of Gen. Roberto Viaux and Gen. Camilo Valenzuela whom the CIA financed and logistically supported. Moreover, Gen. Prats supported the legalist Schneider Doctrine and refused military involvement in a coup d'état against President Allende.[12]

Despite the declining economy, President Allende's Popular Unity coalition increased its vote to 43.2 percent in the March 1973 parliamentary elections, however, by then, the informal alliance between Popular Unity and the Christian Democrats ended.[13] The Christian Democrats allied with the right-wing National Party, who were opposed to Allende's Socialist government; the two right-wing parties forming the Confederación Democrática (CODE) (The Democratic Coalition). The internecine parliamentary conflict, between legislature and the executive branch paralyzed practical government.[14] To destabilise the Allende Government, the CIA paid some U.S.$8 million to right-wing opposition groups to "create pressures, exploit weaknesses, magnify obstacles" and hasten President Allende's deposition.[15][16] The CIA report released in 2000 records some U.S. $6.8 million spent for the deposition.[17]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilean_coup_of_1973

--------

And I think we are all aware of imperialist support for  Afghan "freedom fighters" seeking "freedom" from soviet rule.

 

None of this is meant to deny popular support for uprisings against unpopular government, It is meant to show that imperialism can and does foster and support popular uprisings, and that possible imperialist fostering and support of popular uprisings is a valid topic for discussion on Babble.

solidarity

voice of the damned

Peter:

The thread in question wasn't just talking about this or that coup d'etat being organized or supported by the Americans, or about the Americans trying to influence events in already existing movements. It was saying that the entire Arab Spring, involving thousands of activists of varying ideological stripes. scattered across several nations and two continents, only happened because the CIA willed it to happen.

 

 

 

Sven Sven's picture

voice of the damned wrote:

The thread in question...was saying that the entire Arab Spring, involving thousands of activists of varying ideological stripes. scattered across several nations and two continents, only happened because the CIA willed it to happen.

It's too simplistic to make either of these assertions: That the Arab Spring was

1.  100% caused by the CIA (and that popular action played no role) or

2.  100% due to popular action (and that the CIA had zero involvement).

The first assertion is not only simplistic but it is demonstrably false (there were massive protests and, in many cases, harsh reprisals against the protesters).  The second assertion, given past history, is almost certainly false.

As someone noted earlier, reality almost certainly falls somewhere between those two extremes...and that the relative influences are matters of degree and matters of legitimate discussion.

polly bee

al-Qa'bong wrote:

That said, I wonder why Magoo even came back to babble, considering how he chortled on EnMasse about being banned here.

Snert was Magoo??!  I would've expected more swearing....

CMOT Dibbler

These Arab Spring threads are proof that there is no radical left in Canada, and that those who claim to be part of radical leftist movements should be denied power, because of their softcore racism.

Bacchus

polly bee wrote:

al-Qa'bong wrote:

That said, I wonder why Magoo even came back to babble, considering how he chortled on EnMasse about being banned here.

Snert was Magoo??!  I would've expected more swearing....

Well he was banned back then for saying fuck. So yeah

Bacchus

Considering how many people that get banned come back and since they cannot ban by IP,I'd say that would be a surety

al-Qa'bong

Not to worry; we should expect a cleverly-disguised "Señor Snert" to show up here any time.

remind remind's picture

As  opposed to giving the power to the hardcore racism of those on the right CMOT?

Such nonsensical comments CMOT are surely below your capabilities?!

 

 

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

peterjcassidy wrote:

With respect, I have problems with the idea that Babbles anti-imperialist policy prohibits discussion of imperialism interfering in the domestic affairs of people by fostering  or supporting popular uprisings or civil unrest.

If your point is valid, it is not supported by the examples you list in your post. None of them involved imperialism fomenting popular uprisings. And in none of them was the target of the imperialists a government that was one of their own client states, such as Qaddafi's Libya or Mubarak's Egypt, Assad's Syria, the Bahrain controlled by the al-Khalifa family, or the Tunisia of Ben Ali.

Fidel

Sven wrote:
As someone noted earlier, reality almost certainly falls somewhere between those two extremes...and that the relative influences are matters of degree and matters of legitimate discussion.

 

If the most secretive government(s) in history were a little more transparent and accountable to the public, then there would be little need to speculate as to what they are up to on the sly.

Government secrecy and democracy are incompatible themes as a rule. 

Cold war's over. It's time to end the bullshit.

The most recent cosmetic government in Washington has four or five wars on the go as things stand now.

That U.S. hawks and "Liberal Democrats" are planning more wars of aggression and counterrevolutions is not conspiratorial - which is naked apologism for megalomaniacal psychopaths planning to violate international laws since Nuremberg and commit mass murder in the name of a buck and imperial maneuvering.

It's actually a high probability based on their already established record in power for warmongering and blitzkriegs without provocation.

Fidel

Is he trying to tell us that the empire has nothing to do with neoliberal globalization and the resultant rebellions? Or is this just more wild coincidence? 

And the ideologues just naturally believe that their globalization agenda is entirely democratic, above board and fearing no rebellions? No contingency planning or offensive maneuvering against China and BRIC countries at all? Vicious empire loyalists voluntarily laying down on the tracks for history to run them over?

ygtbk

Bacchus wrote:

polly bee wrote:

al-Qa'bong wrote:

That said, I wonder why Magoo even came back to babble, considering how he chortled on EnMasse about being banned here.

Snert was Magoo??!  I would've expected more swearing....

Well he was banned back then for saying fuck. So yeah

I'd have to say that I think that policy's been retired.

Pogo Pogo's picture

And I thought it was because he said mermaid.

writer writer's picture

It's a funny line, but it doesn't accurately reflect why Magoo was banned. I do recall a social understanding on this board that it's not cool to post about banned babblers.

(Posted with Pogo, and not as a response to Pogo.)

Sven Sven's picture

Fidel wrote:

Is he trying to tell us that the empire has nothing to do with neoliberal globalization and the resultant rebellions?

Why do you insist on an all-or-nothing stance?  I don't think anyone is claiming that it's not possible (or even unlikely) that the CIA played some role in the Arab Spring.

Fidel

M. Spector wrote:

peterjcassidy wrote:

With respect, I have problems with the idea that Babbles anti-imperialist policy prohibits discussion of imperialism interfering in the domestic affairs of people by fostering  or supporting popular uprisings or civil unrest.

If your point is valid, it is not supported by the examples you list in your post. None of them involved imperialism fomenting popular uprisings. And in none of them was the target of the imperialists a government that was one of their own client states, such as Qaddafi's Libya or Mubarak's Egypt, Assad's Syria, the Bahrain controlled by the al-Khalifa family, or the Tunisia of Ben Ali.

 

The CIA and its western allies have dropped support for their dictators from time to time when they couldn't get the job done, or when the dictators themselves became too independent of their controllers. Peter's examples are good ones. And especially the muhahideen through al-Qaeda and Taliban. They raised hell in that country and then dropped them like hot potatoes once Afghanistan descended into chaos and civil war from 1992 to 1996. NATO countries turned their backs on the carnage. 

They did similar in Vietnam and Cambodia after the doctor and madman bombed hell out of those countries. There was starvation and dire straights for millions of people after the crimes were committed. The Sovs were Cambodians only means of foreign aid up to 1987-88 or so. 

Chomsky says the world is run like the mafia. Very little happens without approval or the don's full awareness, whether imminent attacks by foreign threats or rebellions in some corner of the empire. General Pinochet wasn't the only one who knew when a mouse stirred in the remotest parts of Chile. And surely the CIA knew what was going down when DINA agents murderered Orlando Letelier in Washington.

There is no code of honour between imperialists and their puppets. Their treachery knows no bounds. If we observe just Zbigniew Brzezinski's racist remarks concerning a "few stirred up Muslims" being worth the greater goal of overthrowing the Soviet Union, it's apparent how imperialists think about the dupes and puppets they use and abuse along the way to expanding empire. 

Qadaffi knew that Saddam was a puppet of the empire. At a meeting of the Arab league he tried warning Arab leaders that if their controllers would turn on Saddam, any of them could be next.

Fidel

I'm not all or nothing. But I think that the most well funded intelligence agency, and the most secretive government in world history is deeply involved. 

Tarpley talks about Brian McCarthy admitting to NED funding of Otpor in 1990s Serbia. Milosevic was doing just fine with implementing the neoliberal agenda on behalf of the west as was Qaddafi according to the IMF in February of this year. 

Neoliberalism is not about creating widespread prosperity or democracy. It's about concentrating wealth in the hands of a relative few. I am hearing a lot on our news lately about G8-20 leaders suggesting that the cure for uprisings and social unrest is democracy which they equate with open markets. And we know what they mean by opening countries up to free market ideology.

It means countries must sacrifice national goals and protections for monetary control from abroad, central control of money and credit in some other country. What they are doing with marauding capital today is what used to be done by marching armies into soveriegn countries and military occupations. And when the dictators or any country with an independent agenda refuses to allow marauding capital to scoop up the moneymakers and natural resource wealth, then the propaganda machine kicks in. Then it's a matter of time as to when the bombing begins.

Sven Sven's picture

Fidel wrote:

I'm not all or nothing. But I think that the most well funded intelligence agency, and the most secretive government in world history is deeply involved.

Thanks for that clarification.

Bacchus

writer wrote:

It's a funny line, but it doesn't accurately reflect why Magoo was banned. I do recall a social understanding on this board that it's not cool to post about banned babblers.

(Posted with Pogo, and not as a response to Pogo.)

A social understanding gets you banned?  Shouldnt it be in the rules then governing babble?

al-Qa'bong

I believe writer is referring to what's taking place on this thread right now.

notaradical

Sven wrote:

It's too simplistic to make either of these assertions: That the Arab Spring was

1.  100% caused by the CIA (and that popular action played no role) or

2.  100% due to popular action (and that the CIA had zero involvement).

The first assertion is not only simplistic but it is demonstrably false (there were massive protests and, in many cases, harsh reprisals against the protesters).  The second assertion, given past history, is almost certainly false.

As someone noted earlier, reality almost certainly falls somewhere between those two extremes...and that the relative influences are matters of degree and matters of legitimate discussion.

Following this logic, the threads I started were about 50% false. Too bad they were 100% closed.

Bacchus

al-Qa'bong wrote:

I believe writer is referring to what's taking place on this thread right now.

 

Ah my error. Sorry about that

Pages

Topic locked