on ann coulter

[inanna]

> > 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.

that doesn't answer my question.

> > 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.

well, just look around. the only people that have benifitted from this at
all, in any way, in the slightest, are the people in the whitehouse. i mean,
that's the purpose of using the reichstag fire example - it instantly
creates a motive. what the administration, particularly ashcroft, has done
since 9/11 certainly backs that motive (creeping fascism) up.

> 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.

the americans didn't come to save democracy in europe, they came to take
advantage of the situation. they waited for years in both wars until both
sides had beat each other up for a while and then waltzed in and cleaned up.
had they been concerned about democracy, it wouldn't have taken until 17/41
for them to get in there. that fact that they saved democracy is a nice
side-effect, but it was far from their intention when they got there.

> > 1) they gave saddam the green light to go into kuwait
>
> Really, I did not know that! Honestly, do you believe that?

the name you want to research is former ambassador april glaspie. i believe
her exact words when iraq asked about an invasion into kuwait was that "the
united states is not interested in inter-arab conflicts". if those aren't
exact, they are certainly a paraphrase; and if that's not a green light, i
don't know what is.

> > 2) the gulf of tonkin never happened
>
> Agreed on everything on the Vietnam-war, but this is no proof for the
other
> cases.

as i already pointed out, it's simply precedent.

> > 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.

what i wrote was more convenient than accurate; the intent was to list
quickly, not to explain, because i would've figured you'd already know this.
anyways, pearl harbour was the result of the united states pushing japan to
the ultimate brink with ultimatums (get out of china or else), provocations
(shutting off their oil and rubber supplies) and temptations (removing the
bulk of the fleet from pearl harbour to make hawaii look like a sitting
duck) much more so than it was the result of japanese expansion, although
the japanese were certainly interested in expansion (just not into american
occupied territory). it's not so much that roosevelt had a sheet of paper on
his desk that said that japan will strike on such and such a day as much as
it is that he did everything in his power to leave them no option but to
attack (or rapidly be defeated by britain) and then to make sure that pearl
harbour was an ideal target. if you want a motive, it was to stir public
opinion to allow himself to declare war. now, in hindsight, it's a good
thing they went to war but roosevelt certainly couldn't have done so without
the "unprovoked" (ha!) attack on pearl harbour...

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j052501.html
and click the links.

> > 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 lusitania was the first world war; i fail to see the purpose of bringing
up nazis. even so, if hitler says that "vone plus vone is eqval to two!"
does that make it wrong?

> "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

that's all very fine and nice, but the germans could have kept killing two,
three, fifteen americans until 1927 if they wanted to without the americans
declaring war. it was the hundreds dead aboard the lusitania (an ammunitions
ship headed towards britain that was disguised as a civilian vessel) that
turned public opinion, and it certainly wasn't an accident that this
ammunitions ship came waltzing through german infested waters unarmed. do
you deny the germans the right, in war time, to shoot at an ammunitions
vessel headed towards the shore of the opposition? you can call me a nazi
for looking at it that way if you want, but i think it's fair of me to
killfile you if you do as i do *not* take being called a nazi lightly nor do
i think that a logical interpretation of the facts is akin to being a nazi.

> > 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.

the spanish-american war was over long before 1911. i'm not sure what your
point is here, but i'm going to take it as a concession.

> 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

people *were* trying to kill him.

> > 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.

i suppose there's really not much point in arguing with you if you refuse to
accept the objectivity of facts. nonetheless...

> > 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?

you shoot the planes down. in fact, it's standard military procedure in the
united states to do just that when airplanes go off course and refuse to
respond for a certain amount of time, which i've forgotten, but know that
the planes had long gone through. if the military had followed procedures
properly, it would have shot the planes down and the towers would be still
standing. now, i don't really agree with this procedure (it seems extremely
frigid), but why didn't the military do it's job and why hasn't there been
an investigation into this?

> 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?

woah woah woah....if anybody is behind this, it certainly isn't dubya. he's
been duped just like everybody else. george sr. and prescott bush are/were
important figures in the republican/corporate/military/nazi structure, but
dubya is just a name that wins votes. if the us is involved, his actions
display that he hasn't the slightest idea of what is really going on......or
that he's a lot smarter than everybody gives him credit for being.

now, you're asking me why the military would kill all those firefighters?
well, my answer would be that they were in the wrong place at the wrong
time. "collateral damage". in other words, i don't think they really cared.

although i would like to point out that the towers did not explode, but
implode, which implies that there must have also been an internal explosion.

> > 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.

you misunderstand. i'm not saying that we shouldn't be arming saddam or obl,
although we obviously shouldn't, i'm saying that the official government
line was that our secret service all but runs the organization that we can't
negotiate with. that in itself is a ludicrous statement, as it means that we
cannot negotiate with our own secret service, yet it has been swallowed by
nearly everybody. once you look at the ties between the cia and islamic
fundamentalism - and i don't mean historic ties, i mean ties that, in many
cases, are still there today, the official positions of the united states
government become, quite simply, completely absurd. one of the better
researchers in this field would be a professor from the nearby university of
ottawa...who agrees with this point of view, i might add.

http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/chossudovsky/

> > 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 . . .

"you have blacks, too?"

> > 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?

well, nobody has asked you to do that. why don't you read the whole thing
first? it's kind of difficult to respond intelligently without doing so.

> > 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 . . .

he's an activist, not a journalist. if you don't believe him, do some
research on your own and try to prove him wrong. merely pointing out the
specific language he used does nothing to disprove his point and nothing to
prove yours, if you even have one. i've checked out plenty of his work
myself and found he's generally fairly reliable, although not infallible.

> > 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,

republicans, democrats.....if they're powerful enough that we know who they
are, then they all have the same handlers....

> and
> I think that this poorly researched paranoid-Illuminati-Bush-beating does
> the serious & necessary political criticism no good.

otto, man, i don't know you very well, but from this message i *really*
don't think you should be talking about people not doing their
research....i've given you several hours worth of reading, the bulk of it
written by reliable sources including a couple of university professors
(sutton, chossudovsky), so please don't bother until you've read and
understand it so that i'm not wasting any more of my time explaining things
that you should probably already know. for your information, nothing i've
sent you has anything to do with the illuminati, which probably does not
exist and is the magical creation of the right wing conspiracy theorist. the
players here are primarily corporations, although a few shady organizations
do show up, albeit it only for minor roles. please get your political
conspiracies straight.

and i don't need two copies of the same message....

a very bitchy inanna.