Gosh, you're so sensitive...or is it that you can dish it out but can't take it? Anyway there was no intent to attack your 'profession', maybe you're just paranoid.
Dissembling again, I see. You frequently attack other posters personally because you can't tell the difference against disagreement with things you just made up and an actual personal affront. I responded to what you actually wrote, to which you responded - not for the first time - by attacking my profession and trying to change the subject. That you are now pretending otherwise - or worse yet, that you honestly believe that isn't what you did - despite your words being available
in this very same thread, is a familiar tactic to anyone who has had the temerity to disagree with your almost-constant inaccuracies.
I'm done being nice; you have absolutely no idea what my profession actually is, nor is it the least bit relevant to this discussion, and I would appreciate it if you would for once act like an adult and address my
words and not your (false) interpretation of my
person.
Your stated premise has been that the firing on Ft. Sumter was bizarrely the fault of the side on the receiving end of that fire, and you have frequently truncated and reinterpreted period statements, omitted contradictory evidence, and actively attacked the intellect, personal attributes, and histories of anyone who dares to point out knowledge and evidence which you actively ignore in crafting your arguments. In that light, your comparisons to other historical incidents of what you believe to be "propaganda" by "Yankees" (another word you apparently don't know the definition of) was non sequitorial at best. Since, however, you apparently didn't understand my response, allow me to clarify:
I
never stated that specific items in your (and RobertP's) list(s) were not used for the purposes of what you call propaganda - or, for that matter, for
actual propaganda. What I initially pointed out was that your grasp of history was, as ever, appallingly weak, in that you were comparing incidents that bore no relation to each other whatsoever. The firing on Fort Sumter by insurrectionists was the
direct catalyst for American participation in a war. The other three incidents I pointed out - your mention of the sinking of the
Lusitania and Robert P's invocation of the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the students evacuated from in Grenada - were
not.
None of those incidents resulted in the US entering a war. One preceded US participation by two years, one led to an escalation of involvement in a war in which we were already participants, and the third was a side-note that was both irrelevant to the invasion itself and included among a whole host of other causes, nor was the US part of an actual war in that particular case.
I did not address the sinking of the
Maine (an incident that really
was almost purely used for propaganda purposes) in any way, and your invocation of it despite my omission is, again, dissembling. Your habit of contradicting things other people never said is really quite surreal.
As for the
Lusitania, I find it interesting that your lack of knowledge about that incident's relation to US participation in World War I - two whole years later - is so stunning that you presented as evidence of "Yankee" propaganda a recruiting poster for the
British army.