Marines Investigate Possible Misidentification in Iconic Iwo Jima Photo...
| The Marine Corps is reviewing whether one of the six men photographed raising the flag on Iwo Jima in one of the most iconic photos of World War II was misidentified in 1945. The review was prompted by the work of two amateur historians who have reviewed other photographs taken the day of the flag raising that suggest Navy Corpsman John Bradley was not one of the six men photographed raising the flag on Mount Suribachi. |
If you read the book "Flag of our Fathers" it was written by John Bradley's son.
Possible Misidentification - (
New Window )
Give me a citation of the supposed "controversy" regarding the Rosenthal photo that doesn't come from DU or Infowars. Let's see some CONTENT!
This is the source I read. There is still a controversy but as I said after reading about it today I do lean towards it being real. There was a staged photo right after that was separate. But it is mainly the photographers word saying it was real, and from reading his quotes I trust him.
Now going forward I hope you will have the civility I have even when we disagree. Btw, you did call me a troll when commenting on Andrew Jackson.
Quote:
Is certainly being a dickcheese. And using one to back up another makes you a pussy.
I have one account. But nice try.
You are a liar as well a coward then.
bruce_in_nj - ( New Window )
So instead you just spout off ignorantly about such pictures? Seems like an odd choice.
Quote:
I find no historical value in studying symbolic pictures that act to obscure the reality of the war.
So instead you just spout off ignorantly about such pictures? Seems like an odd choice.
Content requires facts to be right, balanced context and precision and nuance
I have yet to see a NFT thread in which you appear when the content was factually correct even when i hold the same general opinion.
Its actually an amazing performance. And considering such arrogance and shitty attitude to other posters you do no homework and really just make shit up
Factless, poor context, imprecision, black and white thinking combined with arrogance ( always certain and rarely right) and your blatent neediness of an emotional payoff from being annoying ( and on the internet where no mask is required what traits you display is who you really are) leaves you the reigning Uschi Digard of the long long list of clowns flaunting their perpetual first swollen trimester in Eric's Masterwork: Beyond the Valley of the BBI Ultra Boobs
Content requires facts to be right, balanced context and precision and nuance
I have yet to see a NFT thread in which you appear when the content was factually correct even when i hold the same general opinion.
Its actually an amazing performance. And considering such arrogance and shitty attitude to other posters you do no homework and really just make shit up
Factless, poor context, imprecision, black and white thinking combined with arrogance ( always certain and rarely right) and your blatent neediness of an emotional payoff from being annoying ( and on the internet where no mask is required what traits you display is who you really are) leaves you the reigning Uschi Digard of the long long list of clowns flaunting their perpetual first swollen trimester in Eric's Masterwork: Beyond the Valley of the BBI Ultra Boobs
Free Speech in America as it was meant to be and all.
So I know you support the decision.
People never cease to amaze me.
Free Speech in America as it was meant to be and all.
So I know you support the decision.
A) Almost every single thread you are on a wide variety of people tell you the same thing. You remain certain the reactions are because of your views. Not true
B) You have been here long enough to know that the majority of people go years without provoking other posters no matter what their views. You have enough feedback to self correct if you had any other need than attention by provocation.
C) Your assumption is that all the other people on the thread are wrong and have inferior moral reasoning. I need no further substantion of arrogance and lack of content
D) You are not attacked on just specifics ( an adhominum attack) you are attacked for tone, attitude and facts and self asserted assumption of the moral high ground ( witness this thread content) for a whole body of work. You assume thats because its your politics. Its not.
E) You do not engage to learn, exchange or discuss...merely to assert and self appoint
f) Lastly, your response to an assertion by another poster that you are substance free cannot logically be "show me substance". Name the last multi post respectful discussion anyone has had with you?
The constitution was written with more trust in the wisdom of the majority than any other up until that time. The majority of your fellow Americans have been telling you something for a long time on many threads. Or avoiding talking to old friends if you are on the thread.
the data is out there for you if you had a self correcting feedback loop and enough self awareness to overcome neediness. its not debate. Its about your choices.
thats why further back and forth does not help you. You have to go away and think about you. Do you wish to become a more effective and interpersonally successful person or a lonelier and frustrated person in a closed loop?
your record now run its course makes it about your choices on BBI not about content or what others think.
hope you take some time and do well.
good night and take care
Quote:
my example is better than saying Greg hates America because he finds you to be a sniveling, ridiculous fuckstain.
At least Greg is right on the money.
that was an intelligent argument. You are quite articulate. I feel like I'm a court of law you could use similar logic and the jury would be eating out of your palms.
Btw, since this went over your head, I don't think Greg hates America as he sees it.
What a clever ruse. For his next trick, he will shit in his hand and throw it at all the park visitors.
A) Almost every single thread you are on a wide variety of people tell you the same thing. You remain certain the reactions are because of your views. Not true
B) You have been here long enough to know that the majority of people go years without provoking other posters no matter what their views. You have enough feedback to self correct if you had any other need than attention by provocation.
C) Your assumption is that all the other people on the thread are wrong and have inferior moral reasoning. I need no further substantion of arrogance and lack of content
D) You are not attacked on just specifics ( an adhominum attack) you are attacked for tone, attitude and facts and self asserted assumption of the moral high ground ( witness this thread content) for a whole body of work. You assume thats because its your politics. Its not.
E) You do not engage to learn, exchange or discuss...merely to assert and self appoint
f) Lastly, your response to an assertion by another poster that you are substance free cannot logically be "show me substance". Name the last multi post respectful discussion anyone has had with you?
The constitution was written with more trust in the wisdom of the majority than any other up until that time. The majority of your fellow Americans have been telling you something for a long time on many threads. Or avoiding talking to old friends if you are on the thread.
the data is out there for you if you had a self correcting feedback loop and enough self awareness to overcome neediness. its not debate. Its about your choices.
thats why further back and forth does not help you. You have to go away and think about you. Do you wish to become a more effective and interpersonally successful person or a lonelier and frustrated person in a closed loop?
your record now run its course makes it about your choices on BBI not about content or what others think.
hope you take some time and do well.
good night and take care
Quote:
1) You have all the data you need to obtain all the substance you need.
A) Almost every single thread you are on a wide variety of people tell you the same thing. You remain certain the reactions are because of your views. Not true
B) You have been here long enough to know that the majority of people go years without provoking other posters no matter what their views. You have enough feedback to self correct if you had any other need than attention by provocation.
C) Your assumption is that all the other people on the thread are wrong and have inferior moral reasoning. I need no further substantion of arrogance and lack of content
D) You are not attacked on just specifics ( an adhominum attack) you are attacked for tone, attitude and facts and self asserted assumption of the moral high ground ( witness this thread content) for a whole body of work. You assume thats because its your politics. Its not.
E) You do not engage to learn, exchange or discuss...merely to assert and self appoint
f) Lastly, your response to an assertion by another poster that you are substance free cannot logically be "show me substance". Name the last multi post respectful discussion anyone has had with you?
The constitution was written with more trust in the wisdom of the majority than any other up until that time. The majority of your fellow Americans have been telling you something for a long time on many threads. Or avoiding talking to old friends if you are on the thread.
the data is out there for you if you had a self correcting feedback loop and enough self awareness to overcome neediness. its not debate. Its about your choices.
thats why further back and forth does not help you. You have to go away and think about you. Do you wish to become a more effective and interpersonally successful person or a lonelier and frustrated person in a closed loop?
your record now run its course makes it about your choices on BBI not about content or what others think.
hope you take some time and do well.
good night and take care
you should be embarrassed that you think the small group of people on bbi represent any meaningful section of society. Even if it did that wouldn't be a reason to change ones views absent hard evidence to the contrary. As for your assertion that our constitution was created to take in majority views I can only say it was meant for white landowners to vote. I'm white but don't own land so I take little stock of what a few aristocrats thought way back when. Genocidal slaveholders. I do have faith in the American people, who I feel are on my side on the vast majority of issues. Perhaps my tone is of putting. But I am confident in my views and when my response is I am a troll that confidence is vindicated. Hopefully you will self reflect. Good night and take care.
However, I don't judge people who lived 200 years ago using today's norms. I would never criticize the soldiers who fought and died in WWII.
You think you're on some moral high ground while in reality you're a whining douche bag. Do everyone a favor and stop posting that BS
There are a number of well educated and seasoned individuals on this site that are nationally recognized experts and that group doesn't include me or you.
Your rantings put you in the proverbial jack of all trades master of none category for what ever subject you opine about.
Your snarkiness is impressive I must say.
Thanks for calling me an idiot in advance.
I probably am for even commenting.
But you don't because you really care about feeding yourself the emotions you think you need.
predicted that you assert it's about your views and not about your personal ineffectiveness...and that is exactly what you displayed again.
Asserted strawman placed as if that's what other posters said. Out of context easy to see through bad faith.
Person of limited capacity. Many gave you a mirror. Ultimately its your choice to be an ineffective lightweight or not.
The topics you chose to talk about are important. Find a way to be effective. There is no time or people to lose.
But you don't because you really care about feeding yourself the emotions you think you need.
Person of limited capacity. Many gave you a mirror. Ultimately its your choice to be an ineffective lightweight or not.
This
However, I don't judge people who lived 200 years ago using today's norms. I would never criticize the soldiers who fought and died in WWII.
You think you're on some moral high ground while in reality you're a whining douche bag. Do everyone a favor and stop posting that BS
I wonder if you are unwilling to criticize the nazis because they were 60 years ago. After all during that time they weren't alone in their racial policies nor in their violence against the helpless. All this is merely to act as an apologist and genocide denier for American crimes. I have read many a thread on bbi about history and politics and there is no expert here.
As for a moral high ground I am not on any. I merely acknowledge past and present crimes of my nation which is merely being a decent human being.
If you "merely acknowledge" which means to only accept the information, you wouldn't be actively interjecting it into thread.
Very rarely on BBI doesn't somebody have a thread about genocide. Yet, on a thread about the future of the $20 bill, you didn't merely acknowledge Jackson was responsible for atrocities and genocide, you actively brought it up. That's just one example.
But hey, it is all in the spirit of being a decent human being, right?
Quote:
I merely acknowledge past and present crimes of my nation which is merely being a decent human being
If you "merely acknowledge" which means to only accept the information, you wouldn't be actively interjecting it into thread.
Very rarely on BBI doesn't somebody have a thread about genocide. Yet, on a thread about the future of the $20 bill, you didn't merely acknowledge Jackson was responsible for atrocities and genocide, you actively brought it up. That's just one example.
But hey, it is all in the spirit of being a decent human being, right?
This seems like a nitpicky and stupid complaint to me.
On that topic, the reasons Jackson was chosen to be removed from the currency a completely reasonable topic of discussion.
He actively interjects whenever he can about American aggression or rants about genocide. He has a strange fascination with drawing parallels to Nazi Germany when describing America's early days, and he will often talk about the military involvement in the Middle East as if their mission was to kill a bunch of Arabs.
And if you disagree, it is because we were taught on textbooks created from an American propoganda machine much stronger than Stalin's Russia.
That isn't "merely acknowledging" shit. It is actively promoting an agenda that is almost always factual incorrect. For all of his bitching about faulty textbooks, it seems like most of the time he's just pulling his views from some leftist website, but he doesn't see the hypocrisy in that either.
He actively interjects whenever he can about American aggression or rants about genocide. He has a strange fascination with drawing parallels to Nazi Germany when describing America's early days, and he will often talk about the military involvement in the Middle East as if their mission was to kill a bunch of Arabs.
And if you disagree, it is because we were taught on textbooks created from an American propoganda machine much stronger than Stalin's Russia.
That isn't "merely acknowledging" shit. It is actively promoting an agenda that is almost always factual incorrect. For all of his bitching about faulty textbooks, it seems like most of the time he's just pulling his views from some leftist website, but he doesn't see the hypocrisy in that either.
In no way did he call for their extermination (killing them for their own good), as dusty alleges.
This is outstanding work.
The issue is can you change over time or are you a limited person?
I dunno. Only you can dig deep and find the self awareness, humility required and put in the homework required to turn passion, emotion and need into effective leadership.
All the best
So if you aren't trying to make a difference...then what are you doing?
Don't answer. There is no debate. The questions are either of value to a person whose capacity is growing or they fall on deaf ears to a guy whose trying to feel good about himself and weirdly thinks being annoying and dopey to others gives him the juice he needs.
In no way did he call for their extermination (killing them for their own good), as dusty alleges.
So if you aren't trying to make a difference...then what are you doing?
Don't answer. There is no debate. The questions are either of value to a person whose capacity is growing or they fall on deaf ears to a guy whose trying to feel good about himself and weirdly thinks being annoying and dopey to others gives him the juice he needs.
the funny part is that I would actually agree with your overall sentiment (and I suspect many others would, as well), if you toned down the insinuations 20X (like comparing our media system with Stalin's) and could put forth your arguments rationally without the far fringe rhetoric. But that's like comparing a comfortable 80ish F bath to a boiling 220 F cauldron.
the funny part is that I would actually agree with your overall sentiment (and I suspect many others would, as well), if you toned down the insinuations 20X (like comparing our media system with Stalin's) and could put forth your arguments rationally without the far fringe rhetoric. But that's like comparing a comfortable 80ish F bath to a boiling 220 F cauldron.
And you know this from your extensive interaction with the Iroquois? Or are they calling him Conotocaurious while harvesting maize?
I dunno since there are less than 25,000 people who still speak the languages of the Iroquois tribes, and probably fewer still who call him a nickname from 200 years ago.
Quote:
The Iroquois still call him the town destroyer
And you know this from your extensive interaction with the Iroquois? Or are they calling him Conotocaurious while harvesting maize?
I dunno since there are less than 25,000 people who still speak the languages of the Iroquois tribes, and probably fewer still who call him a nickname from 200 years ago.
- Greg
Looks like that nickname went out years ago, and by years, I mean like probably when Washington was still alive.
Looks like that nickname went out years ago, and by years, I mean like probably when Washington was still alive.
Quote:
how the fuck else would I know the Iroquois name for town destroyer is - Conotocaurious.
Looks like that nickname went out years ago, and by years, I mean like probably when Washington was still alive.
not even close. Good day sir.
A lot of people think you are absolutely full of shit.
A quick google search confirmed that definitions with numerous sites showing up. I cited the first one on the list.
I realize you only have the only true interpretation.
You make yourself look more foolish every day.
Link - ( New Window )