on ann coulter

[inanna]

> Are people like Coulter the right winged binary opposition to those freaks
> believing that 9/11 was the American "Reichstagsbrand" -- who call
> themselves being left (what I deny)?

how can you say somebody does not fall into the political left simply
because they believe that the american government had foreknowledge of the
attacks? what does that have to do with left/right politics?

i'm among the many that is convinced that if the american government didn't
simply pay off the taliban (which they did last may) to take the fall, then
they at the very least had foreknowledge of the event well before it
happened and allowed it to happen for their own gain; and, to be quite
honest, i don't understand why people see that as such a shocking
possibility. if you look at the history of american involvement in foreign
wars....

1) they gave saddam the green light to go into kuwait
2) the gulf of tonkin never happened
3) they knew all about pearl harbour before it happened
4) the lusitania was purposely made a sitting duck
5) the uss maine was caused by an onboard explosion

so, why is it so hard to believe that the united states government bombed
themselves, or let their guard down, when they have a history of doing this?
why is it so hard to believe that the justification for entering this war
was manufactured when the justifications for entering the spanish-american
war, both world wars, vietnam and the gulf war were all manufactured, or, at
the very least, allowed to happen in order to shift public opinion and make
it easier for the party in power to do what they wished?

where is the lunacy here? i feel like yossarian.

anyways, the facts are out there, and many of them raise more questions than
they do answers. you can ignore them if you wish, it's not like it's going
to accomplish anything more than you driving yourself crazy looking through
them, but the point of view you're dismissing is far from those of the
lunatic fringe given the historical precedent and the generally
laissez-faire attitude of the american military-industrial-technology
complex towards the loss of any life, american or not.

personally, i don't know what to believe anymore, but it seems obvious,
given the facts, that the us at the very least had some foreknowledge of the
events. if you don't assume this, then you need to explain how it is that
our lines of defence broke every rule that there is to possibly break during
those few hours. now, i could see a couple of people getting nervous and
messing up, but the entire *system* just seems to have shut itself off. how
can you explain that without them having been told to stand down? human
error simply doesn't work on such a large scale.

the taleban was run by the isi, which is heavily interlocked with the cia.
in essence, the official whitehouse line after the attacks was that there's
this country on the other side of the world that is run by a group of
lunatics that has been funded and operated by people strongly connected to
our secret service that is harboring an individual that we think is
responsible for these attacks but we can't tell you why and we can't get
those lunatics who are funded and operated by people strongly connected to
our secret service to hand him over to us. that in itself should be enough
to raise questions.

now, as far as a violent cult taking over the country is concerned.....well,
i agree. it's called skull and bones. as far as the reichstag comparison
goes, well, the structure behind bush is the same structure that was behind
hitler, so that's not so out there either.

yeah, that's a pretty hefty statement; but read these and then say it's not
true:
http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/
http://www.tarpley.net/bushb.htm

i've never read anything by ann coulter, for what it's worth, but i'm a big
fan of robert lederman....
http://www.baltech.org/lederman/

inanna.