"Right since you can't actually see enough of the people. lol"

Well that and fact that they intentionally left out thenumbers involved and instead used vague orwellian terminolgy like vast in order to give the false impression that huge numbers had turned out when they clearly hadn't, plus the politcal motivation in making an article like that, i mean do you think articles never get exaggerated? Especially a story like that one.

"It was ten years ago. Why would someone expect to find more than one article on that subject?"

Because sometimes when news stories are deemed significant more than two media outlets (BBC and Time) cover them, the fact that no other stories of this are out there only reaffirms my belief that the story was a complete exaggeration, if you can't see that fair enough, if you think that makes me a conspiracy theorist fair enough, i really don't care, ive seen this kind of thing being done far too much not to smell a rat when the stench presents itself.

Take 9/11 itself that was a significant story so lots of media outlets covered, all of them in fact, in fact id say even the people in North Korea heard about it, so thats why i expected to find more sources on the topic, as if it really was as significant as you want to beleive then there would be a plethora of evidence supporting it, do you disagree with this?

"You could literally say that about ANY article that uses the word vast. I am not taking your argument seriously...."

No you cannot i can give you an infinite number of articles that use the word vast that you cannot say that about, do you know why, because they back up their claim of seeing vast crowds with actual evidence of vast crowds, you see the problem yet you are patently unwilling to acknowledge it instead choosing to cling to the beleif that everything you read in the news is fact, no wonder you beleive what you do.

"Im sorry do you have something to prove that there aren't a lot of people there?"

No but i feel i should remind you are the one trying defending the evidence that you choose to present in order to support your argument that has already been effectively disproved by the Us think tank article, obviously i cannot say with 100% certainty that there weren't any vast crowds but i can say that a lack of credible evidence suporting that claim makes me incredibly suspicious as it should.

"Again, you could say this about any article"

No you cannot for a many of reasons;

firstly as i mentioned significant stories tend to be replicated across the board so if the event was as significant as you would like to beleive then there would exists corroborating articles and most likely corroborating evidence,

secondly other articles present incontrovertible statements such as "Over one million Egyptian protesters staged a rally in Cairo's", you see if this is proved wrong (i.e. 1 million did not protest) then the news outlet loses credibility (obviously as its spreading lies) but when you use vague terminology like "vast" you have plausable deniability because "vast" doesn't quantify anything, vast can be interpreted in whatever manner you want, and thats why they used it,

thirdly most really credible articles present some form of evidence of their claims, this can take many forms, it can even be a politcal figure who corroborates the story but in this case all that is present are pictures which show clearly how many people attended and its about 50 or so.

Look the piont isnt that story is untrue as it is, it definitely happened, the BBC wouldn't have reported otherwise (there not so bad that they completely fabricate stories) but it looks as though it was exaggerated.

"This is not a plausible defense."

In saying that it is likely a certain article is exaggerated it is a very plausible defense.

"Just yelling "PROPAGANDA!" at any article that presents opposing data is not going to help."

Thats not what im doing and you know it, the artivle is true, people did turn out in Tehran to pay their respects for the victims of 9/11 (unlike any other country in the ME), this doesn't actually surprise me as the people there are so warm and caring (thats also why it would be such a travesty for the US to invade), but the assertion that vast crowds of people attended must be met with suspicion for the reason already outlined.

"Well you despise Western media so I wouldn't be surprised since your opinion is biased."

I don't despise Western media, in fact thats where i get alot of information, but if you want to think otherwise your more than welcome.

"blah, blah, blah"

Theres nothing blah blah blah about it actually, if you knew even a fraction of the destruction and suffering those corporations and institutions are responsible in the name of making the rich and powerful richer and more powerful you wouldn't be so flipant.

"Here's my evidence: basic human morals. Neither Africans nor Asians have a reason to be apathetic about planes crashing into buildings full of people, therefore they were sympathetic for those who died."

Yes of course they were, i have never disputed this, the overwhelming majority were sympathetic for those who died but you cannot escape the fact that many (although the regretted the senseless loss of life and sympathised with the victims and their families) felt the US had finally tasted some of the terrorism the so frequently dish out onto the rest of the world, this would be particularly true of countries that have suffered directly under US foreign policy (and they are many).

"It literally means nothing."

So a US think tank funded by the US government to inform the US military on public opinoin in determining foreign policy mean nothing?

Let me just quote from their wiki page:

"RAND has approximately 1,600 employees and three principal North American locations: Santa Monica, California (headquarters); Arlington, Virginia; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The RAND Gulf States Policy Institute[7] has offices in New Orleans, Louisiana, and Jackson, Mississippi. RAND Europe [8] is located in Cambridge, United Kingdom, and Brussels, Belgium. The RAND-Qatar Policy Institute[9] is in Doha, Qatar. RAND's newest offices are in Boston, Massachusetts, Abu Dhabi, The United Arab Emirates, and Mexico City, Mexico, a representative office."

"To date, 32 recipients of the Nobel Prize, primarily in the fields of economics and physics, have been involved or associated with RAND at some point in their career"

"RAND was incorporated as a non-profit organization to "further promote scientific, educational, and charitable purposes, all for the public welfare and security of the United States of America." Its self-declared mission is "to help improve policy and decision making through research and analysis", using its "core values of quality and objectivity"

"Since the 1950s, the RAND has been instrumental in defining US military strategy.[citation needed] Their most visible contribution is the doctrine of nuclear deterrence by Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), developed under the guidance of then-Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and based upon their work with game theory"

So you think that a few words of condemnation from worlds leaders and an unbeleivably vague (and most likely exaggerated) article qualify as credible evidence but this does not?

"You have no idea how many of the people or what percentage of the population reacted this way."

As i said its not a poll or survey but uts as good as is available on this issue, the fact is this big research companies spend alot of time effort and money in assessing public opinion in order to inform military decisioin making so when they say the gerneral reaction to the 9/11 attacks in the arab and muslim world were: "• Satisfaction that the United States tasted what it had allegedly dished out to the Arab world (and the poorer countries globally) for years.

• Condemnation of the attacks as criminal and anti-Islamic but a natural result of

U.S. foreign policy, which was primarily to blame for the attacks.

• Spreading of conspiracy theories that asserted the attacks were the work of

American domestic extremists, the U.S. government, or Israel’s Mossad intelligence

service.

• Rejection of claims that the perpetrators were Arab or Muslim, based on the argument

that Muslims would not commit mass murder or that the terrorist operation"

you kind of have to accept that as being close to the facts of the matter, keep in mind that these opinions are not mutually exclusive as you seemed to suggest in a previous post, the fact is these opinions were probably held by most arabs, the opinions were held simultaneously as none of them are conflciting with oneanother, i don't think you realised this, or else you did and trying to evade having to admit your wrong by using any means necessary.

"You have no idea how many of the people or what percentage of the population reacted this way."

Well the general concensus is that the entire population reacted this way, these are the reults of the report, you can disagree with them if you wish but that doesn't detract from the fact that they are as close to truth as is obtainable, and whats more these results didn't come as a surprise to me as i haven't filled my head with fanciful notions related to 9/11, if you bomob a country back to the stone and systematically rape and pilage it and in the rpocess kill many of its inhabitants don't expect to share your view when you finally get a taste of your own medicine, thats just ignorant as i have been stating from the beginning.

"There was no reason for me to think, at the time, that someone would shit their pants at such a simple phrase considering that feeling bad for the victims of 9/11 is actually good and normal."

You said the eorld wept, if you admit that was a complete exaggeration fair enough but i still doubt you have any idea of what the reaction really was as you have no appreciation for what the actions of your country have done to the world.

"therefore I am right."

No you're really not, you were caught out by the source i provided and your clearly not willing to admit it, i was making the same claims as the source before i found that it and you were calling me an idiot and pionting to your source on world leaders words of condemnation, now your saying the source proves you right, why not stop being so ignorant and just admit that you were surprised to learn that much of the arab and muslim world (and probably many other parts of the world) were somehwat happy to learn that the US had suffered for a change.

"recognized that the attack was morally wrong."

Yes i know that, of copurse they did but that doesn't mean they were a little satisfied that those morally wrong attacks that are so frequently dished out upon them and their peoples were finally being dished out to the american people.

"Then, unfortunately, your point cannot be proven. "

Oh right, a few words of condemnation from world leaders and vague & exaggerated BBC article proves your piont conclusively i.e. "I have all the necessary evidence to say that my opinion on the situation is a fact. If you cannot logically put the evidence I have given to you into application, then you are an idiot." but my report that informs the US military in setting out foreign policy is just far too uncertain to make any claimsand therfore cannot be trusted, is that what your saying?cause thats pathetic

"My point is simple: for the most part, the world felt bad for Americans on 9/11;"

Its funny how your postion has slowly evolved in the light of credible conflicting evidence i.e. ""The world wept with us that day as we dug through the rubble in the hope of finding at least one person who was still alive."

So now its "for the most part" as you've been proven wrong on your intial ridiculous and unsubstatiated statement (im paraphrasing you there if you can't tell), and its changed from "wept" to "felt bad". Nice you almost had me fooled.

"you can try to make it seem as though nobody cared that the US got attacked,"

No as i saif at the beginning many felt very bad about the attacks, and many did sympathise but nothing close to what you would like to beleive.

"but saying all of my evidence is propaganda simply isnt working."

I have only stated that one of the piece of infromation you supplied was exaggerated which can be construed as being propaganda but i feel have justified my position.

"Lol there is nothing to weasel out of."

Well you've been proven wrong on a number of things you claimed at the start of this debate, and you calle me an idiot for not agreeing with you and know that you have been proven wrong you refuse to acknowledge it so ya id say "weaseling out of it" is a pretty apt description of what you're doing, just in case you doubt me let me again rem,ind you of some of exchanges:

me:"Not true, much of the arab world felt that you had finally tasted some of the terror and destruction you so frequantly dish out"

you:"It seems that Axmeister is not the only one who puts forth ridiculous, unsubstantiated assertions."

"That doesn't make terrorist attacks of that magnitude commonplace."

What the fuck are you taking about the Iraq war has been one giant terorist attack, the scale of destruction is virtually incalculable.

""You need to understand that in saying that the Allies could never have won, implies that they would lose."

Not in this instance, the intial quote from Stalin doesnt necessarily imply its opposite is true, you're are falsely assmuing that the opposite of the statement must be true (mainly because you want it to be) but this is axiomatically and demonstrably false i.e. 2 + 2 = 4 which is axiomatically true but two plus two does not equal four is axiomatically false, therefore the opposite of the statement cannot be taken as true.

"what would have happened if there was a stalemate and France was left under German control while Hitler kept killing Jews? That is an undeniable defeat, not a victory"

Again you insist on engaging in speculation, fair enough, my piont is that hind sight is wonderful, we can look back now and say well if the Nazis were left in control of this amount of the ladn they captured it would have been a defeat but the fact is the pread of facism would have been halted, and if 9 million Jews died instead of 6 million would that really make the victory a defeat? Plus france was never going to left in control of the Nazis.

"If Hitler took over the rest of Europe why wouldn't he go keep going after Britain and Russia as well?"

What? And exactly how was he going to take over the rest of europe after being so serverly weakened by his supposed stalemate with the Soviets, keep inmind that the Britain still a had most of their military intact (and their famous Navy which was superior to Hitlers) and were gearing up to attack the Nazis, what you are saying just isnt as plausible as you think, besides this is all speculation, no matter what you say there is always something i can say that disporves it, the number of possible outcomes when you're not actually discussing the actual outcome are infinite, i don't beleive however that without american aid the whole of europe and russia would have fallen to the Nazism, that for me seems very far removed from the reality of the war prior to the arrival of americn aid.

"Your standards for a victory are way too low."

You really don't get it do you, Barack Obama doesnt need to inavde another country your empire stretches far and wide, globalisation, propping up brutal dictators and free market economics means that you don't have to invade another country to control it and its resources (in most circumstances). Now the Standards for victory are defined after the war when the results of the conflcit can be calculated, i have no doubt that if the majority of Europe was recaptured and the Nazis were effectively neutralised it would be viewed as a victory today.

"Again, saying that he could have never won implies that Hitler would have won."

not really a stalemate is term used to define battles in which either army hasn't been strong enough to vanquish the other, niether side could have won but both can be viewd as voctors or th defeated.What you're implying is simply false.

""well I lost about 20 million people and have stopped Hitler from killing more Soviets although he is still in control of Europe and continues to kill millions of other innocent people, and he is regaining his strength and he still continues to build an atomic bomb while the Japanese are getting ready to help him destroy me and the rest of the Allies, but I still havent lost.""

Im really getting sick of these hypotheticals, the fact is Hitler would be effectively vanquished in a stalemate, as would the Soviets, therefore the British (not the amercans although if they hadn't joined the war at that stage they would) could move in and defeat Hitler quite easily, liberate the French and what was left of their military, and defeat the Japanese and the Italians (who put up a pathetic desplay in WW2 adn were more of a hinderance to Hitler than a help) (defeat here doesn't imply vanquished what i mean is once the Japs realised that a significant army still existed to oppose them and Hitler's force was effectively neutralised i don't think invading europe and comitting themselves would have been on the cards.

"Well I know that nothing is certain but all we have in this hypothetical situation is what is most likely to occur. What I said is the most realistic option, therefore it is the option that is most likely to have come true, therefore that is what would have happened,"

Not necessarily, the Japanese may have decided to conquer asia but okay lets assume you right the japanese would have immediately come to the aid of their ally Hitler, don't you think if a world power like Japan was getting involved in Europe that would have illicted a response from Britain who at that piont weren't really heavily involved. Again you assume that because the Americans are ther to fight Jaopan that the Axis would have won, you have no way of knowing that, and the available information tells us that is unlikely at best as Hitlers army was already beginning to retreat from russia. yes i admit there would have been far more casualities and both sides, far more destruction, and it would have dragged on for another few years i imagine before some cessation to the fighting was reached but assuming Nazis Germany would have won is false, i will admit it is a possible outcome but given the available infromation it is one of the most unlikely outcomes.

"Dont you think that if Hitler needed help, he would have called his ally and asked for help? And since Japan is his ally, do you think that it would have refused to help him?"

Well the USSR was just as much of an ally to Germany as Japan was before Hitler decided to invade so no idon't beleive you can make such an assertion either, you greatly overestimate what being an ally means, Japan would have intervened if it was in their interests to do so, if they thought it was a bad move militarily (which it may well have been) then no they would not have come to Hitlers aid.

"13 out of the 15 locations used in the project were within the United States"

Ya because it was the obvious place to build the dam thing, it was completely untouched by the war and was the only palce that was virtually assured not to be invaded.

"with largely American scientists. "

Are you fucking kidding? Most of the scientists were european exiles, in fact of the 90 scientists that are recognised as having contributed to the bombs development over 24 were from Britain alone, seriously where did you find that lie id like to see the source for it. If you don't beleive me do your own investigating, here are the 90 scientists:

http://www.mphpa.org/classic/HICC/HICC_HF3.htm

"I am not saying that the US did it alone"

My God your arrogance astounds me, ok let me tell you something that should be immediately obvious, the US wasn't always the world leader in science and technology, in fact it was only after WW2 that it became so, before this Europe was the most technologically advanced continent on earth , therefore the US could not have developed the bomb alone but the allies (i.e. the european scientists opposed to Hitler) may have been able to deveop the bomb without the US as they had the necessary know how, although the lack of funding and industrial capacity may have prevented them but they had the know how not the US. If you doubt this read this quote: "By 1939, two decades of research into the structure of the atomic nucleus by European scientists led them to the discovery that very large nuclei (especially those of the heaviest naturally – occurring element, uranium) could be made to split apart or “fission” when struck with a high – energy neutron. Nuclear theory, soon verified by small – scale experiments, proved that this fission reaction released a previously unimaginable amount of energy, many millions of times greater than the most violent chemical reaction.By then, most European nuclear scientists were refugees from Nazism, and were frightened that Hitler’s scientists might find a way to turn this enormous atomic fission energy into a weapon of terrifying power. A number of them prevailed upon a reluctant Albert Einstein to write a letter to President Roosevelt warning him of the danger and advising him to begin atomic research in America along similar lines."*

Source:http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/educators/study-guides/history_manhattan-project.htm

The two things preventing the europeans was funding and the capacity to set up the nuclear program, washington provided this along with some of their most prominent scientists but it is the europeans who had the know how, the americans didn't even beleive the thing was feasible until the europeans showed them their research, come on for fucks sake!!!

This is the second half of my response, you decided to make your response to me fairly long so i had to do likewise, unfortunateoly it didn't all fit into one post:

"Without American aid they would not have even been able to push them back."

What??? They were already successfully pushing them back before US aid arrived, ahve you foegotten this, it seems you are not averse to making things up to support your argument, the battle of moscow took place without US aid, here let me quote from the wiki page on that famous battle:

"Initially, the Soviet forces conducted a strategic defence of the Moscow Oblast by constructing three defensive belts, and deploying newly raised reserve armies as well as bringing troops from the Siberian and Far Eastern Military Districts. Subsequently, as the German offensives were halted, a Soviet strategic counter-offensive and smaller-scale offensive operations were executed to force German armies back to the positions around the cities of Oryol, Vyazma and Vitebsk, nearly surrounding three German armies in the process."

"This victory provided an important boost for Soviet morale, with the Wehrmacht suffering its first defeat. Having failed to vanquish the Soviet Union in one quick strike, Germany now had to prepare for a prolonged struggle. Operation Barbarossa had failed."

Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Moscow#Soviet_counteroffensive

"his is what is most likely to have occurred: the USSR would fail to be restrengthened by American aid and therefore not be as strong as they were in the real WW2."

Yes exactly but that can mean many things of which a complete soviet defeat is in my mind highly unlikley.

"Japan would help Germany since that is what allies do for each other. "

Ya of course thats what allies do for each other, its got nothing to with self interest, its all altruitic as long as there allies, thats why even though the USSr and Germany were allies...wait a minute...oops!!!

"US declared war on Japan, Germany and Italy declared war on the US. "

Im well aware of the history, when they did that the Axis powers were in a fairly formidable position, plus theres big difference in declaring war on someone when it looks like your winning and actually coming toi your allies aid when it looks like your losing.

"Japan would have all of the oil it needs and therefore be stronger than it was in reality."

Not true, id like to see you justify this.

"Britain would not have been able to stop attacks by U-boats"

Now you're just taking out your ass, one of the main reasons Britain was never invaded was due to their Naval superiority.

"The British would have been starving to death as they would not be getting any food from the US. "

Yes thats it weave your tapestry of bullshit, rationalise it all to yourself, of course the US was needed otherwise the Nazis would have been unstoppable, the US effectiveoly saved the day, isnt that what you want to hear, you've been fed a lie that all americans beleive, the problem is when you scrutinise that version of events (i.e. the US coming in on a big whote horse) it kind of falls apart, if any country can be attributed with having won WW2 it is the Soviet Union and they paid a fucking high price for it.

"In summary, the Allies would be much weaker against a much stronger enemy."

No again your wrong, its not both its either/or ,without the US the allies would be weakened, and thus the Axis powers would be strengthened, what you wrtoe implies that the allies would be weakened but the Axis powers would be simulataneously strengthened somehowm the y would be exactly the same they would just be facing a weaker enemy. Anyway ive justifed my position, ive mad it clear that i don't agree that without amkerican the Nazis could not have been beaten let alone your ridiulous notion that the Nazis would definitely have won without american, i find that to be quite stupid actually