Author
|
Topic: Conspiracy Kooks and the Terminally Gullible
|
Hermann Mudget
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2442
|
posted 04 April 2002 03:54 PM
In another forum, the appropriately named “Wingnut” has made the following claim regarding a conspiracy kook article written by the discredited hoaxer Johnathon Pilger: quote: you might dispute Pilger, but his arguments are sourced. So you are attacking the messenger rather than the message. This is hardly adult. Refute his sources. But, of course, you can't.
Is that so? Who is the source for this lunatic claim? quote: What Kissinger and Nixon began, Pol Pot completed.
Who is the source for this lunatic claim? quote: Direct contact was made between the Reagan White House and the Khmer Rouge when Dr. Ray Cline, a former deputy director of the C.I.A., made a clandestine visit to Pol Pot's operational base inside Cambodia in November 1980. Cline was then a foreign policy adviser to President-elect Reagan. Within a year some fifty C.I.A. and other intelligence agents were running Washington's secret war against Cambodia from the U.S. Embassy in Bangkok and along the Thai-Cambodian border. The aim was to appease China,
Who is the source for this lunatic claim? quote: For the truth is that Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge would be historical nonentities--and a great many people would be alive today--had Washington not helped bring them to power
Who is the source for this lunatic claim?
quote: If the U.S. bombing was the first phase of Cambodia's holocaust and Pol Pot's Year Zero the second, the third phase was the use of the United Nations by Washington, its allies and China as the instrument of Cambodia's, and Vietnam's, punishment.
In fact, the only alleged sources mentioned in the previous article are Senator Kerry, the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation, and the Congressional Research Service. Here are their websites, and/or e-mail addresses. http://www.senate.gov/~kerry/ http://www.vvaf.org/ http://www.cnie.org/NLE/CRS/ So, a lesson for Wingnut. If you are going to try to use lunatic proven hoaxers like Pilger to bolster your nonsensical claims, at least try to find a hoaxer that uses dead people as a “source” so the lunatic claims can’t be checked.
From: At my computer | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292
|
posted 04 April 2002 04:01 PM
Everthing you quoted is true. So what is your problem?I appreciate that you have taken a personal interest in me enough to begin your first post with my name. It is quite flattering. Thank you. But it does not change the fact you are wrong. Let us break this down a little bit: Do you agree the US engaged is a secret bombing campaign of Cambodia? Do you agree that General Lon Nol, staged a coup displacing the legitimate government of Cambodia? Do you agree the Khmer Rouge fled, following the invasion by Vietnam, to Thia border camps? Do you agree Thailand provided funding and food to the Khmer Rouge? Do you agree the primary financial and military sponsor of the Thai government, at the time, was the US? Do you agree that if the Thais were illegally using the money, as claimed by US apologists, to fund the Khmer Rouge, the US could have suspended funding? Do you agree the US never suspended funding to the Thai government despite their continued support of the Khmer Rouge? Which of the above do you disgaree with?
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hermann Mudget
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2442
|
posted 04 April 2002 04:05 PM
It's all true, is it?I'm not arguing about it. The "sources" are right there. E-mail Senator Kerry, and let me know when he agrees that the US brought Pol Pot to power, and "supported" Pol Pot. Can't wait.
From: At my computer | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 04 April 2002 04:16 PM
I have noted elsewhere how "Hermann" just popped up after Archimedes 2000 got ejected from Babble for holocaust denial. I have also noted the uncanny way in which "Hermann" tracks Archimedes 2000's opinions, fantasies, and modus operandi. The latter involves calling everyone names who disagrees with him. Imagine my surprise when, apropos of nothing, "Hermann" made the following remark on the other thread: "BTW, WIngnut, so if a person defends the right of "Holocaust Deniers" to ask the questions they do, and to make their case, then that certainly would be no cause to kick them off these boards, right?" I wonder why this bugs "Hermann" so much, don't you?
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292
|
posted 04 April 2002 04:19 PM
Oh, Herman, maybe he has already told us: quote: "As a Vietnam vet, I feel a personal linkage and responsibility for helping to see if we can build a system of justice, and of accountability for the terrible things that happened," he said. "We played a significant role in Cambodia during the war, with the bombings and the overthrow of the government. That is an inheritance of that." http://www.senate.gov/~kerry/globe-khmerrouge.html
In the same article you will also find the man Kerry and the US chose to lead Cambodia, Hun Sen, was Khmer Rouge. Fascinating, huh?
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hermann Mudget
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2442
|
posted 04 April 2002 04:20 PM
It wasn't "apropos of nothing", Mr House. You started talking about Holocaust Denial. I pointed out that Noam Chomsky would certainly qualify as a Holocaust Denier, according to you.Are you upset with Chomsky for this?
From: At my computer | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Hermann Mudget
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2442
|
posted 04 April 2002 04:47 PM
DrConway, there is a difference between an "indirect link" and "support" for Pol Pot.If you want to make an argument that the bombing of the NVA in Cambodia was partly responsible for the chaos that the KR communists used to create their version of socialist Utopia after the Americans withdrew from Vietnam, it has some validity. If you want to claim that the US "supported" Pol Pot, ala conspiracy kookery, it has no validity.
From: At my computer | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 04 April 2002 10:12 PM
Okay, okay.I notice no one is denying it though. And maybe new Babblers should have a right to know who they are dealing with.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440
|
posted 04 April 2002 11:06 PM
quote: And maybe new Babblers should have a right to know who they are dealing with.
I knew who I was dealing with from his first post. It's pretty easy to figure out where he's coming from. Edit: And I've only been around here a week or so. I should have said that in the first place. [ April 04, 2002: Message edited by: Slim ]
From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402
|
posted 05 April 2002 02:42 AM
It's not so much a question of 'who' as 'what'. The mouthpiece may have an individual name, may even have a separate identity in walking life; the rhetoric is surely all of a piece. Ask not for whom the bell tolls - just so it does.Hermann - there are conspiracies far, far more Byzantine, sophisticated and malevolent than are dreamed of in your simplehood. [ April 05, 2002: Message edited by: nonesuch ]
From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
goodgoditsnottrue
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2401
|
posted 05 April 2002 02:58 AM
quote: In the same article you will also find the man Kerry and the US chose to lead Cambodia, Hun Sen, was Khmer Rouge. Fascinating, huh?
Hey Wingnut, I am not sure you are making exactly the right assessment of the Hun Sen Situation. Hun Sen was KR at the begining of his career, and then deserted (78?) and helped the Vietnamese to build the insurgent army that worked with the vietnamese army to overthrow the KR. So, his contact with the USA, Kerry and anybody else would have happened after he had abandoned the KR. My assesment of that would be that Hun Sen was a compromise canditdate acceptable to all parties, including the USA and the Vietnamese. You should read a great book called "Brother Enemy" by Noradum Chanda (Sp?). It was written a long time ago, in the mid-eighties, but it is a fascinating account of all of the conflicts in South Asia. Interesting partly because it is written from an Indian perspective, so it is not 'contaminated' too much by the political thinking of the 'East/West' conflict. It would be hard to find now, I expect, but keep your eyes open.
From: Tarana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|