on ann coulter

[Otto]

----- Original Message -----
From: "inanna" <retriever at sympatico.ca>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2002 3:35 PM
Subject: Re: on ann coulter

I wrote:
> > 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)?
>

you wrote:
> 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?
>

Well, if you're too far out on the left you'll meet with those from the far
right on the ideological circle.

>
> 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....
>

As the Reichstagsbrand-example shows, as Watergate & Monikagate show, all
these things come to light one day. I'm a detectives fanatic and I miss the
motive.

The Americans came to Europe twice and saved the democracy (well, kind of,
admitted), not to forget Korea, but missed in the DDR 1953 and Hungary 1956,
were busy making that big error in taking over the French colonial wars
instead. They were funding many wrong guys meanwhile.

>
> 1) they gave saddam the green light to go into kuwait

Really, I did not know that! Honestly, do you believe that?

> 2) the gulf of tonkin never happened

Agreed on everything on the Vietnam-war, but this is no proof for the other
cases.

> 3) they knew all about pearl harbour before it happened

To my knowledge they knew that there would be a Japanese declaration of war,
but did they really knew the exact plans? What I have heard, seen and read
about it Pearl Harbour seems to be more comparable to September 11 in the
field of intelligence service stupidity.

> 4) the lusitania was purposely made a sitting duck

This was claimed by the nazis too. As if they hadn't had enough reasons to
go to war against Germanyx before:

"The sinking of the British passenger steamer Falaba by a German submarine
on March 28, through which Leon C. Thrasher, an American citizen, was
drowned; the attack on April 28 on the American vessel Cushing by a German
aeroplane; the torpedoing on May 1 of the American vessel Gulflight by a
German submarine, as a result of which two or more American citizens met
their death and, finally, the torpedoing and sinking of the steamship
Lusitania, constitute a series of events which the Government of the United
States has observed with growing concern, distress, and amazement."
http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/1915/lusitania1.html

>
> 5) the uss maine was caused by an onboard explosion
>

"The Board of Inspection arrived on site on November 20, 1911, and left
December 20. In its report, the board confirmed the earlier conclusions that
an external explosion had set off an ammunition magazine which had destroyed
the ship."
http://www.cascobay.com/history/ussmaine/ussmaine.htm

At least there were contemporary reports stating the opposite.

> 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.
>

"Who's 'they'?" Clevenger wanted to know. "Who, specifically, is trying to
murder you?"
"Every one of them," Yossarian told him.
"Every one of whom?"
"Every one of whom do you think?"
"I haven't any idea."
"Then how do you know they aren't?"
Yossarian had proof, because strangers he didn't know shot at him with
cannons every time he flew up into the air to drop bombs on them, so it was
of no use for Clevenger to say "No one is trying to kill you."
http://past.thenation.com/cgi-bin/framizer.cgi?url=http://past.thenation.com
/historic/19611104heller.shtml

Truly a great novel.

> 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.
>

Shall I quote the Rev'd from "Mason & Dixon": Facts are just the playthings
of lawyers.

> 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.
>

1. Which defense? How do you defend yourself against lunatics who turn
passenger planes into kamikaze?
2. I've heard that many firefighters have died because of technical &
communications problems. Can you tell why George Bush should have decided to
kill the firefighters in the tower after the first hit?

> 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.
>

Admitted, the funding of armed groups & real assholes around the world by
the US is a major problem, but the Saddam & Taliban cases hopefully will
lead to lead to a different policy in the future. Under the pressure of
empty pockets European politicians are already demanding that future help
shall reach only those who obey the human rights. Serbia has sent Milosevic
to The Hague under this threat, last week the Argentine general who had
started the Falkland war went into jail.

> 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.
>

Luckily Mr. Bush's anti-Semitism isn't so obvious . . .

> 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/

Too long for now, but I see:
"According to Hitler's financial genie, Hjalmar Horace Greeley Schacht, and
Nazi industrialist Fritz Thyssen, it was the 1928 Young Plan (the successor
to the Dawes Plan), formulated by Morgan agent Owen D. Young, that brought
Hitler to power in 1933."

As if only the war reparations and not the war itself had been responsible
for Germany's desperate situation. Why should I follow the
nazi-argumentation, offered as a justification for terror war & genocide,
and call this critical left thinking?


> http://www.tarpley.net/bushb.htm
>

The Red Studebaker . . .

> 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/
>

"It should be recalled that in January 1937, he hired Allen Dulles to
"cloak" his accounts."
http://www.baltech.org/lederman/bush-nazi-fortune-2-09-02.html
*It should be recalled* -- that's a formulation as evidence I really love in
historical essays & books . . .

> inanna.

I'm really critical about George Bush; the way he has won the election, the
non-acceptance of international treaties, the monetarian-only globalisation,
the anti-drug war in South America, the death penalty -- these are issues I
can deal with, but much of this criticism goes to the democrats as well, and
I think that this poorly researched paranoid-Illuminati-Bush-beating does
the serious & necessary political criticism no good.

Otto

__________________________________________________________________

Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
Möchten Sie mit einem Gruß antworten? http://grusskarten.yahoo.dee