Howard Zinn Died

[Cavemonster]

Cicero,
You must have missed the part where I asked for references.

It would be appropriate to post first, the exact text of Zinn's disputed claim, and then links to credible sources which refute that claim.

As for meaningful, if Zinn said there were 5,617 troops at a given battle, and later research found there were actually 5,615, that would not be particularly meaningful. I used the qualifier to avoid giving weight to that sort of claim.

 

[Cicero]

The libruls are everywhere! Watch out, there's one over there lurking in the bushes!

You really need to expand you repertoire. Repeating your "libruls" mantra only reinforces your incapability to offer any substantive dialogue. But you already admitted you have no clue who Zinn was so why would you continue to embarrass yourself?

 

[Cicero]

Cicero,
You must have missed the part where I asked for references.

It would be appropriate to post first, the exact text of Zinn's disputed claim, and then links to credible sources which refute that claim.

As for meaningful, if Zinn said there were 5,617 troops at a given battle, and later research found there were actually 5,615, that would not be particularly meaningful. I used the qualifier to avoid giving weight to that sort of claim.

Isn't the snopes link credible? Do you demand the same credible sources from Zinn when he makes his assertions? Zinn's book title, "A People's History of the United States: 1492 to Present" is not even historically accurate. It wasn't until the 1770's when the term "United States" came into the lexicon.

 

[Cavemonster]

Isn't the snopes link credible? Do you demand the same credible sources from Zinn when he makes his assertions? Zinn's book title, "A People's History of the United States: 1492 to Present" is not even historically accurate. It wasn't until the 1770's when the term "United States" came into the lexicon.

1) You added the snopes link after I made my post, but I'll let that slide.

2) You're still missing the quote from Zinn, in context where he makes the claim about bra burning.

3) You're still missing both for your first claim

Notice in the example I showed above, it wasn't that Polly Baker wasn't a "hoax" but that Zinn's original statement makes it clear that he knew very well the actual author. Without both Zinn's claim and the debunking source, you haven't shown anything.

 

[Cicero]

1) You added the snopes link after I made my post, but I'll let that slide.

2) You're still missing the quote from Zinn, in context where he makes the claim about bra burning.

3) You're still missing both for your first claim

Notice in the example I showed above, it wasn't that Polly Baker wasn't a "hoax" but that Zinn's original statement makes it clear that he knew very well the actual author. Without both Zinn's claim and the debunking source, you haven't shown anything.

I'll let it slide that you ignored whether you also demand credible sources from Zinn to back up his assertions in his book and whether you ever checked the sources he did provide.

 

[Cavemonster]

I'll let it slide that you ignored whether you also demand credible sources from Zinn to back up his assertions in his book and whether you ever checked the sources he did provide.

Thanks! I'm glad you're not going to try to change the subject while I'm still waiting for those references.

 

[jiggeryqua]

I'd never heard of the fellow, but let me summarise the thread so far:

We're on this side - the other lot have a conspiracy and their people spout propaganda. They are foolish and dangerous, not least because they're obviously on the wrong side.

Well we're on this side - the other lot are a cabal and their people just regurgitate cliches. They are dangerously misguided, as can be seen by their position on that side.

You know real people use the internet for porn, right?

 

[Cicero]

Thanks! I'm glad you're not going to try to change the subject while I'm still waiting for those references.

Is Zinn's book reprinted in total on the internet? Here he is in an interview making the same claims he does in his book.


HOWARD ZINN: "Well, we thought bombing missions were over. The war was about to come to an end. This was in April of 1945, and remember the war ended in early May 1945. This was a few weeks before the war was going to be over, and everybody knew it was going to be over, and our armies were past France into Germany, but there was a little pocket of German soldiers hanging around this little town of Royan on the Atlantic coast of France, and the Air Force decided to bomb them. Twelve hundred heavy bombers, and I was in one of them, flew over this little town of Royan and dropped napalm—first use of napalm in the European theater."

http://www.alternet.org/story/14546...flect_on_the_death_of_howard_zinn?page=entire


"July 17, 1944. Napalm incendiary bombs are dropped for the first time by American P-38 pilots on a fuel depot at Coutances, near St Lo, France."

http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/PopTopics/chrono1.htm

So he intentionally mischaracterized this mission as the first to use napalm for what historical purpose? But this raid Zinn refers to consisted of B-17's carrying P-51 wing tanks with fluid napalm ( not the 50 gallon drums with makeshift wooden tail fins as shown in the Sundance "documentary" on Zinn), to burn out the Germans entrenched in their bunkers. According to Larry Lazzari, the lead crew chief, many of the makeshift bombs malfunctioned. I guess Zinn could take solace in that fact.


HOWARD ZINN: "When soldiers refuse to fight, as so many soldiers did in Vietnam, so many deserters, so many fraggings, acts of violence by enlisted men against officers in Vietnam, B-52 pilots refusing to fly bombing missions anymore, war can’t go on."

http://www.alternet.org/story/14546...flect_on_the_death_of_howard_zinn?page=entire

One (1) Buff pilot, Captain Michael Heck, constitutes "pilots?"

 

[Cicero]

Great Howard Zinn tribute, sure to induce the spittle in some of you...
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/28/howard_zinn_1922_2010_a_tribute

Was it the intention of this tribute to uses Zinn's own words to expose his propensity for propagating lies? I guess fabricating facts was part of his charm.

 

[Cavemonster]

Is Zinn's book reprinted in total on the internet? Here he is in an interview making the same claims he does in his book.

You're welcome to type out his claims from the book if you can't link them online. I'm sure you wouldn't attribute claims to him without actually having read them.

HOWARD ZINN: "When soldiers refuse to fight, as so many soldiers did in Vietnam, so many deserters, so many fraggings, acts of violence by enlisted men against officers in Vietnam, B-52 pilots refusing to fly bombing missions anymore, war can’t go on."

http://www.alternet.org/story/14546...flect_on_the_death_of_howard_zinn?page=entire

One (1) Buff pilot, Captain Michael Heck, constitutes "pilots?"

According to the Pentagon's records, four other American pilots have refused to go on combat flights since the U.S. began regular bombing missions over Indochina eight years ago; but Heck's case was the first to come to public attention,

Time magazine, Monday, Jan. 22, 1973

I'll address the other claim later.

 

[Cicero]

You're welcome to type out his claims from the book if you can't link them online. I'm sure you wouldn't attribute claims to him without actually having read them.




Time magazine, Monday, Jan. 22, 1973

I'll address the other claim later.

You obviously didn't pay attention to my post #59. These other four pilots were not identified as B-52 pilots, nor as those who didn't fly missions as a method to "protesting the war." If this is your idea of "addressing" Zinn's errors, I can't wait to see how you will spin his erroneous claim that he was on the first raid to use napalm in Europe. Are you waiting for divine intervention? Is it your intention to be a Zinn apologist?

 

[Galileo]

Zinn was an enemy of our Founding Fathers and an enemy of James Madison. He had this coming. I will shed no tears, as his books merely propped up the corporate two-party duopoly.

 

[Cavemonster]

You obviously didn't pay attention to my post #59. These other four pilots were not identified as B-52 pilots, nor as those who didn't fly missions as a method to "protesting the war."

Sigh,
The burden was on you to prove Zinn false, not on me to prove him correct, since you could only point to the fact that the pilot's plane types were unspecified, you did not fullfill your burden, but I'm feeling generous.

Soldiers in Revolt, page 136-137 names the four pilots and their jobs.
Captain James Strain, a B-52 pilot
Captain Donald E. Dawson, B-52 Pilot
Captain Michael Flugger, a co-pilot
Lietenant Arthur Watson, crewman.

Dawson was quoted as saying that he objected because of "What happened on the ground after a mission.
The case is also detailed
here
and here

Are you waiting for divine intervention? Is it your intention to be a Zinn apologist?

No, I'd just like you to back up your accusations with the same level of rigor you demand of others.

 

[Cicero]

Sigh,
The burden was on you to prove Zinn false, not on me to prove him correct, since you could only point to the fact that the pilot's plane types were unspecified, you did not fullfill your burden, but I'm feeling generous.

Soldiers in Revolt, page 136-137 names the four pilots and their jobs.
Captain James Strain, a B-52 pilot
Captain Donald E. Dawson, B-52 Pilot
Captain Michael Flugger, a co-pilot
Lietenant Arthur Watson, crewman.

Dawson was quoted as saying that he objected because of "What happened on the ground after a mission.
The case is also detailed
here
and here



No, I'd just like you to back up your accusations with the same level of rigor you demand of others.

The ONLY B-52 pilot that claimed conscientious objector status during the time the Vietnam War was being fought was Captain Michael Heck. He refused to fly on December 26, 1972. These other four guys, Strain, Flugger and Watson, who questioned the Constitutionality of the Cambodian bombing and Cpt. Dawson, who claimed conscientious objection status, did this after the war already ended. Even your source, "Soldiers in Revolt," said this occurred in May, 1973. The Paris Peace Accords were signed January 27, 1973, the same day the last last American soldier, Lt. Col. William B. Nolde, died in combat in Vietnam,. The last remaining American troops (not the American Embassy Marine guard) withdraw from Vietnam March 29, 1973.

So for Zinn to say that the Vietnam war can't go on when "B-52 pilots are refusing to fly bombing missions anymore" he is indeed lying. The Vietnam war already ended four months before these four guys made their move. No where does Zinn mention the USAF Cambodian bombings, that ended in August, 1973, when he is talking about B-52 pilots flying missions into North Vietnam.

BTW: Still waiting for you to finesse Zinn's lie about being in on the first napalm raid in Europe.

 

[Cavemonster]

The only other B-52 pilot that claimed conscientious objector status during the Vietnam War was Captain Michael Heck. He refused to fly on December 26, 1972. These other four guys, Strain, Flugger and Watson, who questioned the Constitutionality of the Cambodian bombing and Cpt. Dawson, who claimed conscientious objection status, did this after the war already ended. Even your source, "Soldiers in Revolt," said this occurred in May, 1973. The Paris Peace Accords were signed January 27, 1973, the same day the last last American soldier, Lt. Col. William B. Nolde, died in combat in Vietnam,. The last remaining American troops (not the American Embassy Marine guard) withdraw from Vietnam March 29, 1973.

So for Zinn to say that the war can't go on when "B-52 pilots are refusing to fly bombing missions anymore" he is indeed lying. The war already ended four months before these four guys made their move.

BTW: Still waiting for you to finesse Zinn's lie about being in on the first napalm raid in Europe.

So the war was over, yet they were still being asked to go on bombing missions

US bombings in Cambodia continued through August.

August 14, 1973 - U.S. bombing activities in Cambodia are halted in accordance with the Congressional ban resulting from the Case-Church amendment.

 

[Allen773]

Considering conservatives' disdain for public schools and for government in general, is it a surprise that public school teachers are generally left of center?

And Howard Zinn was biased, sure, but he said things that needed to be said. Uncomfortable to the blind patriot crowd, sure, but necessary nonetheless.

 

[Cicero]

So the war was over, yet they were still being asked to go on bombing missions

US bombings in Cambodia continued through August.

What does this have to do with what Zinn said about "B-52 pilots" and their refusal to fly ending the Vietnam War? I have already stated that Zinn's comment had zero to do with Cambodia. Had he said the Cambodian bombings could no longer continue when three (3) B-52 pilots refused to fly, he might have had a leg to stand on. But of course this statement would also be absurd as the bombings continued for another three months after these guys made their move.

History has real things like names, places and dates. Zinn has a habit of gilding the lily when trying to make his opinions appear to be grounded in historical truth. But if he is certain of the rectitude of his position, why does he feel compelled to make up ******

BTW: Still waiting for you to finesse Zinn's lie about being in on the first napalm raid in Europe.

 

[Cicero]

Considering conservatives' disdain for public schools and for government in general, is it a surprise that public school teachers are generally left of center?

That public school teachers are liberal will be an epiphany to Cavemonster.

And Howard Zinn was biased, sure, but he said things that needed to be said. Uncomfortable to the blind patriot crowd, sure, but necessary nonetheless.

Unfortunately, he decided to be an historian, not a pundit. That means that he was constrained to stick to facts, not make **** up to prop up his ideology. Which brings up the question of whether Zinn was ever an historian, or just posing as one in the cloistered safety of tenured university professorship.

 

[Praktik]

So for Zinn to say that the Vietnam war can't go on when"B-52 pilots are refusing to fly bombing missions anymore" he is indeed lying. ...
BTW: Still waiting for you to finesse Zinn's lie about being in on the first napalm raid in Europe.

Oh fascinating! I didn't know you two knew each other. Such political opposites!

It must be because of your intimate acquaintance with him that you are able to state categorically that he lied - since to prove a lie one must know that the individual was conscious of the fact he/she was lying.

Of course, this hair splitting over which of the pilots actually had conscientious objector status and which pilots refusing to fly didn't is besides the larger point that there was a crisis of morale among American troops, and that was just one item on the list.

But way to focus in there Cicero!

 

[Cicero]

Oh fascinating! I didn't know you two knew each other. Such political opposites!

It must be because of your intimate acquaintance with him that you are able to state categorically that he lied - since to prove a lie one must know that the individual was conscious of the fact he/she was lying.

Of course, this hair splitting over which of the pilots actually had conscientious objector status and which pilots refusing to fly didn't is besides the larger point that there was a crisis of morale among American troops, and that was just one item on the list.

Actually, that is not what the issue is at all. The issue is that Zinn claimed B-52 pilots refusal to fly missions meant that the Vietnam War could not go on. There was only one B-52 pilot who did so during hostilities in Vietnam, and that wasn't until December 26, 1972, a month before the war ended. Does he really beleive this one pilot's actions ended the Vietnam War and forced the North to sign the Paris Peace Accords?

But way to focus in there Cicero!

Since when do you have to "know" a famous "historian" to characterize their own statements as lies, or to put it diplomatically, untruths, when by being scholars in their own discipline, they would have to know, unless they were just posers, what they were saying was not factual?

I don't remember this hair-splitting when libs were emphatic that Bush deliberately "lied" about Iraq having WOMD's. Bush's excuse was that his intel and UK intel said they were there. What's Zinn's excuse for claiming he was in on the first napalm raid in Europe even decades after WWII when he could easily check to find that his raid was 10 months after the first napalm raid by the Allies in Europe during WWII?