Take off your gloves with IMHO, page 9


John 16 November, 2007, 12:40	Well peter if you had said Germany had assisted Lenin i would not have had a problem with your statement but you said the West ( a whole differant ball-game ).As you are a historian you can be a little more accurate in your statements can't you?? .You would not not want to mis-lead the public would you??. Peter you seemed upset asking for respect if you are such a sensitive sole maybe this is not the right job for you. permalink quote 0 John
Vitaly 18 November, 2007, 01:54	Just watched your IMHO for the first time. To my mind not much of an opinion there. Just facts served in the pro-Russian mood. Did you ever watch "Odnako"? That's what I would call IMHO. imho PS On the overall I couldn't believe such channel exists when I found it. Well done, guys! I'll be watching you. permalink quote 0 Vitaly
Mike 18 November, 2007, 02:20	Hello, I watch RT sometimes at home in England and heard that it is owned or sponsored by Rosneft. Is Rosneft a national company or owned by another Russian Jew or Jews? Just curious Thanks permalink quote 0 Mike
Robert 18 November, 2007, 15:40	Peter, I enjoyed your programme (first time I saw it) however I do think it is a tad biased towards Russia. It is nice to see the Russian viewpoint, but I don't want to watch IMHO and get a Russian bias every time. Never the less I enjoy watching you guys online, I just heard of RT last night and I am excited about it. Keep up the good work and you can count on me to continue watching. permalink quote 0 Robert
James 18 November, 2007, 17:57	Comrade Peter It appears you and RT do not have the courage to tell American what happens in their own country. Average American is fed by their state controlled media and has no alternative sources of information in English. This is a major mistake by RT. Since RT broadcasts are in English your ignorance of the American public, the most populous English speaking country is highly unreasonable. You need to take a note of that. Since you allow CNN in Russia RT has moral obligation to broadcast for the USA. Regards James Rush permalink quote 0 James
Sevodnya_Net 19 November, 2007, 09:37	James, RT IS available in the US as far as I can see from the website. However, on the one hand you are criticising the station for not broadcasting there and on the other claiming they know nothing about the country, either. On a personal level, I prefer RT to focus mainly on Russian and Russian-related affairs. I have a plethora of US stations, all of them independent, but all of them, however innocently, showing us the world through the eyes of the US. If Americans can't figure out what's happening in their own country with the resources already at their disposal I don't see that you can blame anyone else for that but Americans. Sorry :-) permalink quote 0 Sevodnya_Net
GD 19 November, 2007, 23:20	RT has to be available on TV in every continent just like CNN or BBC is.The more news the better.and Peter Lavelle plz keep doing your thing on in CONTEXT and IMHO. permalink quote 0 GD
DaniYah 20 November, 2007, 04:08	John and Peter's discourse- amusing! Because of the kaleidescope of political, religious, and even ethnic parties that makeup whole countries, it is difficult at times to historically isolate a whole country or region as "the West" or "Germany" as having spurned, let's say, the 1917 Revolution in Russia. Nowadays, most nations are identified by their major allies (be it China or US, etc) or as for the US itsself, by its dominant historical legacy (war on democracies worldwide, etc.) However it hardly distinguishes the nation as a people (most of them victims of the same foreign policy tactics.) Generalization also clouds the alliances or loyalties of the ruling classes with that of the general population (which we know are already grossly underrepresented.)= an inaccurate historical or actual account. Peter, it's wonderful you are a historian. Could you fill us in a bit more about the role of societies/clubs such as the Bilderberg Group, Masons, Jesuits, and the Trilateral Commission? Where are their centers of power oriented and what are their general aims? Where are these aims based historically? Which of these benefited (or could have) from the 1917 Revolution? from Tsarist Russia? (Peter is often keen to follow the "who benefits" trail. It would be interesting to see how specific he is willing to be.) permalink quote 0 DaniYah
John 20 November, 2007, 17:15	Peter, DaniYah has made some very good points and laid down a very interesting challenge a real test to your historical credentials I hope you raise to the challenge. It always concerns me when people back up their statements by claiming to be an "Historian" Giving the impression that us mere mortals must believe every word an Historian utters. Well we had an Historian in Britain called David Irwin this Historian claimed the Holocaust never happened and the 6 million Jews never died he kept up this lie for years until he made this statement in Austria and was arrested and sent to prison for 3 years. I prefer to check things out for myself and make my own. mind up thank you. permalink quote 0 John
IMHO 20 November, 2007, 18:19	A comment to all: I am not sure what to make of recent posts. I don’t believe in conspiracies or a small group of people pulling strings controlling the world. In political terms, I am a geopolitical realist – pure and simple. I recognize that ALL countries have geopolitical interests and I am very wary of messianic worldviews of politics and history. That is why I don’t like Washington neocons (and why have always detested the Bolsheviks). So, I will paraphrase what I have posted before. When I used the word “West” – when referring to Germany and what would become the Bolshevik Coup – my point is how some political decisions can have unintended consequences. I can accept that my reference was less than prefect, but my job is to challenge the conventional wisdom. And the reference was made in regard to the West’s (esp Washington’s) so-called democracy crusade in the post-Soviet space. To date, that project hasn’t worked out too well and we are all experiencing where the law of unintended consequences can lead. Lastly, let’s please keep this forum civil. A least one post submission has been rejected because of its rude personal attack against me. We all have our humble opinions. So let’s give everyone a fair hearing. Differences of opinion are good – that is how we all learn. Regards, Peter Lavelle (aka IMHO). permalink quote 0 IMHO
DaniYah 20 November, 2007, 19:53	Oh,oh Peter! Who spoke of conspiracies? I only asked you to specify the loyalties or alliances of the ruling class. Is it not the ruling class that run the armies? Don't they recruit the poor (powerless) to fight their wars? So, the notion that "a small group of people" don't have world dominance is pretty far from reality (historically speaking.) Please show more historical muscle. Also, what "unintended consequences" could you be referring to as far as these ruling classes are concerned? Do you really mean to tell us that today's advanced military and political historians/strategists in those administrations are incapable of making an accurate forecast for the consequences of a particular foreign policy? But you know that those societies/clubs corporate interests thrive on chaos (eg., third world, so the more the merrier), right? I believe you know it's not just "neocons" that are the major concern. Remember, we are past the secondary level here. We are having an educated discussion. permalink quote 0 DaniYah
RachEl 21 November, 2007, 02:04	To IMHO and the like: I beg a moment to refresh and define the word "conspiracy".(is it a state that one does or does not believe in)?? American Heritage Dictionary; "conspiracy n. a plot, especially an illegal one" Isn't a conspiracy a state of affairs in the long history of mankind?.a fact of life in the succession of governments thru the ages? Did I read the same history books? Is conspiracy rather a well repeated historical fact for 6000 years (I beg again the reader to be reminded of, let's say, of some historical accounts such as. of Absolom vs. David, ."entities" vs. Venezuela's Chavez (the coup of 2004); US Government/CIA's Northwood Operation vs. Cuba and US citizens? Could it be that one's ears are stopped because the mind's hearing of such plots causes a deafening shreak to the brain and such plots are registered as "unthinkable" or "unbelievable"? Is it too wrenching to believe that man could conspire/think up such horrendous and atrocious plots? Or, could it be, instead, that such bizarre, corrupt, and brazen attempts against the unwitting are justified by some who deem such behaviors as simply "means to an end", WHATEVER the means be? I suppose I can choose to believe or not believe that which is published as fact by those journalists, reporters, media who spend their whole life and reputation to bring us their reports. researchers who publish, reveal, and pass down to us proofs of such conspiracies that we would otherwise find ourselves ignorant. Didn't I hear something about 9/11/07. in Oakland California, news of engineers, scientists, architects who signed a document saying, together, "It was an inside job"? Whoever believes that the Arabs brought down the Twin Towers probably doesn't believe in US global secret prisons and probably eats rotten apple pie for breakfast, lunch and supper! .not anywhere as nauseous a thought as the thought of believing that Bush is the Christian he says he is and that there will be "America Forever". Plotters and co-conspirators within their secret societies (who stealthily run the world's "organized" religions (a US flag in every US pulpit!)hide themselves behind their lies and falsehood and say, "We will prevail." Thus, by their own words do they lie to themselves, as well. Rachel IsraEl, mother of ten children permalink quote 0 RachEl
Al2 21 November, 2007, 06:26	I think Daniyah is onto something. I have traveled extensively in this world all of my life. There is a class system prevelant in the world and it does influence events, to what extent and how I have not figured out yet. I think that it is easy enough to make the connections necessary to see it with the western meddling in the old Soviet states. This is happening, it is real. I think Peter that you look at the world in a 2 dimensional manner, you have to look at it in 3D. There is the element of chaos that I do not think you are tossing into the mix, it plays a key role in the "why" component of things. permalink quote 0 Al2

John 16 November, 2007, 12:40

Well peter if you had said Germany had assisted Lenin i would not have had a problem with your statement but you said the West ( a whole differant ball-game ).As you are a historian you can be a little more accurate in your statements can't you?? .You would not not want to mis-lead the public would you??. Peter you seemed upset asking for respect if you are such a sensitive sole maybe this is not the right job for you.

permalink quote John

Vitaly 18 November, 2007, 01:54

Just watched your IMHO for the first time. To my mind not much of an opinion there. Just facts served in the pro-Russian mood. Did you ever watch "Odnako"? That's what I would call IMHO. imho PS On the overall I couldn't believe such channel exists when I found it. Well done, guys! I'll be watching you.

permalink quote Vitaly

Mike 18 November, 2007, 02:20

Hello, I watch RT sometimes at home in England and heard that it is owned or sponsored by Rosneft. Is Rosneft a national company or owned by another Russian Jew or Jews? Just curious Thanks

permalink quote Mike

Robert 18 November, 2007, 15:40

Peter, I enjoyed your programme (first time I saw it) however I do think it is a tad biased towards Russia. It is nice to see the Russian viewpoint, but I don't want to watch IMHO and get a Russian bias every time. Never the less I enjoy watching you guys online, I just heard of RT last night and I am excited about it. Keep up the good work and you can count on me to continue watching.

permalink quote Robert

James 18 November, 2007, 17:57

Comrade Peter It appears you and RT do not have the courage to tell American what happens in their own country. Average American is fed by their state controlled media and has no alternative sources of information in English. This is a major mistake by RT. Since RT broadcasts are in English your ignorance of the American public, the most populous English speaking country is highly unreasonable. You need to take a note of that. Since you allow CNN in Russia RT has moral obligation to broadcast for the USA. Regards James Rush

permalink quote James

Sevodnya_Net 19 November, 2007, 09:37

James, RT IS available in the US as far as I can see from the website. However, on the one hand you are criticising the station for not broadcasting there and on the other claiming they know nothing about the country, either. On a personal level, I prefer RT to focus mainly on Russian and Russian-related affairs. I have a plethora of US stations, all of them independent, but all of them, however innocently, showing us the world through the eyes of the US. If Americans can't figure out what's happening in their own country with the resources already at their disposal I don't see that you can blame anyone else for that but Americans. Sorry :-)

permalink quote Sevodnya_Net

GD 19 November, 2007, 23:20

RT has to be available on TV in every continent just like CNN or BBC is.The more news the better.and Peter Lavelle plz keep doing your thing on in CONTEXT and IMHO.

permalink quote GD

DaniYah 20 November, 2007, 04:08

John and Peter's discourse- amusing! Because of the kaleidescope of political, religious, and even ethnic parties that makeup whole countries, it is difficult at times to historically isolate a whole country or region as "the West" or "Germany" as having spurned, let's say, the 1917 Revolution in Russia. Nowadays, most nations are identified by their major allies (be it China or US, etc) or as for the US itsself, by its dominant historical legacy (war on democracies worldwide, etc.) However it hardly distinguishes the nation as a people (most of them victims of the same foreign policy tactics.) Generalization also clouds the alliances or loyalties of the ruling classes with that of the general population (which we know are already grossly underrepresented.)= an inaccurate historical or actual account. Peter, it's wonderful you are a historian. Could you fill us in a bit more about the role of societies/clubs such as the Bilderberg Group, Masons, Jesuits, and the Trilateral Commission? Where are their centers of power oriented and what are their general aims? Where are these aims based historically? Which of these benefited (or could have) from the 1917 Revolution? from Tsarist Russia? (Peter is often keen to follow the "who benefits" trail. It would be interesting to see how specific he is willing to be.)

permalink quote DaniYah

John 20 November, 2007, 17:15

Peter, DaniYah has made some very good points and laid down a very interesting challenge a real test to your historical credentials I hope you raise to the challenge. It always concerns me when people back up their statements by claiming to be an "Historian" Giving the impression that us mere mortals must believe every word an Historian utters. Well we had an Historian in Britain called David Irwin this Historian claimed the Holocaust never happened and the 6 million Jews never died he kept up this lie for years until he made this statement in Austria and was arrested and sent to prison for 3 years. I prefer to check things out for myself and make my own. mind up thank you.

permalink quote John

IMHO 20 November, 2007, 18:19

A comment to all: I am not sure what to make of recent posts. I don’t believe in conspiracies or a small group of people pulling strings controlling the world. In political terms, I am a geopolitical realist – pure and simple. I recognize that ALL countries have geopolitical interests and I am very wary of messianic worldviews of politics and history. That is why I don’t like Washington neocons (and why have always detested the Bolsheviks). So, I will paraphrase what I have posted before. When I used the word “West” – when referring to Germany and what would become the Bolshevik Coup – my point is how some political decisions can have unintended consequences. I can accept that my reference was less than prefect, but my job is to challenge the conventional wisdom. And the reference was made in regard to the West’s (esp Washington’s) so-called democracy crusade in the post-Soviet space. To date, that project hasn’t worked out too well and we are all experiencing where the law of unintended consequences can lead. Lastly, let’s please keep this forum civil. A least one post submission has been rejected because of its rude personal attack against me. We all have our humble opinions. So let’s give everyone a fair hearing. Differences of opinion are good – that is how we all learn. Regards, Peter Lavelle (aka IMHO).

permalink quote IMHO

DaniYah 20 November, 2007, 19:53

Oh,oh Peter! Who spoke of conspiracies? I only asked you to specify the loyalties or alliances of the ruling class. Is it not the ruling class that run the armies? Don't they recruit the poor (powerless) to fight their wars? So, the notion that "a small group of people" don't have world dominance is pretty far from reality (historically speaking.) Please show more historical muscle. Also, what "unintended consequences" could you be referring to as far as these ruling classes are concerned? Do you really mean to tell us that today's advanced military and political historians/strategists in those administrations are incapable of making an accurate forecast for the consequences of a particular foreign policy? But you know that those societies/clubs corporate interests thrive on chaos (eg., third world, so the more the merrier), right? I believe you know it's not just "neocons" that are the major concern. Remember, we are past the secondary level here. We are having an educated discussion.

permalink quote DaniYah

RachEl 21 November, 2007, 02:04

To IMHO and the like: I beg a moment to refresh and define the word "conspiracy".(is it a state that one does or does not believe in)?? American Heritage Dictionary; "conspiracy n. a plot, especially an illegal one" Isn't a conspiracy a state of affairs in the long history of mankind?.a fact of life in the succession of governments thru the ages? Did I read the same history books? Is conspiracy rather a well repeated historical fact for 6000 years (I beg again the reader to be reminded of, let's say, of some historical accounts such as. of Absolom vs. David, ."entities" vs. Venezuela's Chavez (the coup of 2004); US Government/CIA's Northwood Operation vs. Cuba and US citizens? Could it be that one's ears are stopped because the mind's hearing of such plots causes a deafening shreak to the brain and such plots are registered as "unthinkable" or "unbelievable"? Is it too wrenching to believe that man could conspire/think up such horrendous and atrocious plots? Or, could it be, instead, that such bizarre, corrupt, and brazen attempts against the unwitting are justified by some who deem such behaviors as simply "means to an end", WHATEVER the means be? I suppose I can choose to believe or not believe that which is published as fact by those journalists, reporters, media who spend their whole life and reputation to bring us their reports. researchers who publish, reveal, and pass down to us proofs of such conspiracies that we would otherwise find ourselves ignorant. Didn't I hear something about 9/11/07. in Oakland California, news of engineers, scientists, architects who signed a document saying, together, "It was an inside job"? Whoever believes that the Arabs brought down the Twin Towers probably doesn't believe in US global secret prisons and probably eats rotten apple pie for breakfast, lunch and supper! .not anywhere as nauseous a thought as the thought of believing that Bush is the Christian he says he is and that there will be "America Forever". Plotters and co-conspirators within their secret societies (who stealthily run the world's "organized" religions (a US flag in every US pulpit!)hide themselves behind their lies and falsehood and say, "We will prevail." Thus, by their own words do they lie to themselves, as well. Rachel IsraEl, mother of ten children

permalink quote RachEl

Al2 21 November, 2007, 06:26

I think Daniyah is onto something. I have traveled extensively in this world all of my life. There is a class system prevelant in the world and it does influence events, to what extent and how I have not figured out yet. I think that it is easy enough to make the connections necessary to see it with the western meddling in the old Soviet states. This is happening, it is real. I think Peter that you look at the world in a 2 dimensional manner, you have to look at it in 3D. There is the element of chaos that I do not think you are tossing into the mix, it plays a key role in the "why" component of things.

permalink quote Al2

Name*
Country, City
Valid e-mail*
Text*
Enter digits below*

	*Required fields