Greg -

As Eleonora mentioned in her post above:

"To me the most insulting thing on this thread is to compare today's America to Nazi Germany in 1933."

Revolting, repulsive, disgusting is what I am thinking. I am not angry, but this is very bothersome.

In reply to:

---

Rather, the parallel I was drawing was between the Nazi's method of grabbing power by means of using a fearful and threatening external crisis (the burning of the Reichstag) and then "solving" the crisis by invoking emergency war powers, suspending civil liberties and vastly expanding military action and police powers, and the current administration's use of the WTC attacks to grab power by offering as "solutions" to the terrorist threat the invocation of emergency war powers, suspending civil liberties and vastly expanding military action and police powers.

---

Whenever anyone mentions Nazi's, Hitler etc. (Even it is show how they rose to power) one cannot help but think of the atrocities associated with that regime. Nazi and genocide go hand in hand. These two things are inseparable. There are other examples in history, which you could have used to make your analogy. For the life of me, I don't know why you keep using the Nazi's to make comparisons. You did it last April when I first came to these forums when you said:

"... to that extent the Israeli military/establishment has become to the Palestinians exactly what the Nazis were to the Jews."

In all fairness, afterwards you said to me:

"Perhaps I was in error to state that it was "exactly" what the Nazis had done to the Jews ... from a scholarly point of view the points raised in the article you quoted make sense in identifying an underlying psychological difference, and CERTAINLY there is a huge difference in scale ..." A Desperate Plea ! ! !


You said above:

In reply to:

---

In my own personal opinion, extermination of the Jews was never a PRIMARY motive of Hitler's rise to power; it was rather an extraordinarily powerful propaganda tool around which to rally the German nationalist sentiment, which was in the middle of a devastating depression in which many Germans were already predisposed to blaming "rich Jewish bankers and merchants" for their woes.

---

Sure, Hitler and his cronies needed a scapegoat to rise to power. Of course, Hitler would have never said I want to be in power so I can exterminate a race I hate so much. But Hitler could not have carried out his Final Solution without being in power. Once Hitler was in power, he did not think or say, hey I am power now, by the way lets go kill some Jews. Genocide was on his mind for a long, long time.

The following is what Hitler told journalist Josef Hell in 1922:

"My first and foremost task..."

"Once I really am in power, my first and foremost task will be the annihilation of the Jews. As soon as I have the power to do so, I will have gallows built in rows - at the Marienplatz in Munich, for example - as many as traffic allows."

"Then the Jews will be hanged indiscriminately, and they will remain hanging until they stink; they will hang there as long as the principles of hygiene permit. As soon as they have been untied, the next batch will be strung up, and so on down the line, until the last Jew in Munich has been exterminated. Other cities will follow suit, precisely in this fashion, until all Germany has been completely cleansed of Jews." (1)
...

and:

"When I now broached the question of what the source of his so strongly felt hatred for the Jews was, and why he wanted to destroy this so undeniably intelligent race - a race to which the Germans and all other Aryans, if not the entire world, owed an incalculable debt in virtually all fields of art and knowledge, research and economics - Hitler suddenly calmed down and gave this unexpectedly sober and almost dispassionate explanation:"

"It is manifestly clear and has been proven in practice and by the facts of all revolutions that a struggle for ideals, for improvements of any kind whatsoever, absolutely must be supplemented with a struggle against some social class or caste."

"My object is to create first-rate revolutionary upheavals, regardless of what methods and means I have to use in the process. Earlier revolutions were directed either against the peasants, or the nobility and the clergy, or against dynasties and their network of vassals, but in no case has revolution succeeded without the presence of a lightning rod that could conduct and channel the odium of the general masses."

"With this very thing in mind I scanned the revolutionary events of history and put the question to myself against which racial element in Germany can I unleash my propaganda of hate with the greatest prospects of success? I had to find the right kind of victim, and especially one against whom the struggle would make sense, materially speaking. I can assure you that I examined every possible and thinkable solution to this problem, and, weighing every imaginable factor, I came to the conclusion that a campaign against the Jews would be as popular as it would be successful."

"There are few Germans who have not been vexed with the behavior of Jews or else have not suffered losses through them in some way or other. Disproportionately to their small number they account for an immense share of the German national wealth, which can just as easily be put to profitable use for the state and the general public as could the holdings of the monasteries, bishops, and nobility."

"Once the hatred and the battle against the Jews have been really stirred up, their resistance will necessarily crumble in the shortest possible time. They are totally defenseless, and no one will stand up to protect them."(2)

Footnotes:
1. Josef Hell, "Aufzeichnung," 1922, ZS 640, p. 5, Institute fuer Zeitgeschichte. The retired Major Josef Hell was a journalist in the twenties and in the beginning of the thirties, during which time he also collaborated with Dr. Fritz Gerlich, the editor of the weekly newspaper Der Gerade Weg, as cited in Fleming, Gerald. Hitler and the Final Solution. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984. p. 17

2. Ibid., as cited in Fleming, pp. 28-29


"Nature is cruel; therefore we are also entitled to be cruel. When I send the flower of German youth into the steel hail of the next war without feeling the slightest regret over the precious German blood that is being spilled, should I not also have the right to eliminate millions of an inferior race that multiplies like vermin?"
(Adolf Hitler, cited in Joachim Fest's 1975 "Hitler")


Where is the rise to a dictatorship here in this country? That is why I said, "show me" above. Where is the genocide of the U.S. government of today? What is the Final Solution? If you are going to make comparisons to the Nazi's, then by all means go ahead. But you are going to bring with it all the implications and connotations that it carries.

Sabra

Hi Sabra

Thanks for explaining to us why the analogy Greg chose to use between Hitler's Germany and what is going on in the U.S today was so bothersome to you. I can understand your feelings regarding Greg's comment: "In my own personal opinion, extermination of the Jews was never a PRIMARY motive of Hitler's rise to power...." I would feel the same way you do if someone were to say that the genocide practiced on Native Americans was not the primary motive of the U.S. government in the 1800's. In fact, just as there was a genuine hate on Hitler's part for Jews that motivated everything he did, there was the same hate for Native Americans in the 1800's that motivated what our government did at that time. To a large decree, just as it is with the Jewish people, there is still that faction of hatred and discrimination against Native Americans. Greg has admitted it was probably a poor analogy on his part concerning all the horrible atrocities associated with Hitler's regime. However, I think he chose that analogy because it was the most prominent example of how totalitarian governments operate in recent history. If he had used Orwell's 1984 as an analogy, as Elanor suggested, it could easily be said that was a book of fiction, not a reality. The Third Reich was a reality. In fairness to Greg, he did say that was his personal opinion, one that I along with you, disagree with. I agree that his hatred for the Jewish people was so deep and psychopathical, that it motivated EVERYTHING Hitler did.

There has never been a race of people who have suffered so much throughout history as the Jewish peoples. No race has ever suffered the atrocities that were committed on the Jewish people during Hitler's regime. I don't think anyone would deny that fact. Except maybe a member of the KKK. But I think the point you made, Sabra when you said: "Sure, Hitler and his cronies needed a scapegoat to rise to power. Of course, Hitler would have never said I want to be in power so I can exterminate a race I hate so much. But Hitler could not have carried out his Final Solution without being in power..." is the point Greg is trying to make in this thread. HOW Hitler gained power and his consequent acts of stripping the German people of their civil liberties so he could carry out his hidden agenda is the point I think Greg is trying to make here. Just as no one knew Hitler's hidden agenda when he rose to power, no one knows what the hidden agenda of the Bush administration is. Only history will reveal that. But history will only reveal it if we all set by and let it happen in this country without speaking out. Only if we let it happen here. It is up to the American people to FORCE an investigation of what happened on 9/11 and get the answers. Because really, I feel that if we are as incompetent as the Bush administration would like us to believe, perhaps we should not be involved in this war with Iraq. We may be too incompetent for this war. "Duh" is not a good explanation for any government.

Aries, in fairness to Elanor, though she does not live in North America, she does live in Kuwait where she has had first hand experience with Hussiens tyranny. So that she feels so strong about this is understandable as well.

I'm happy that both you and Elanor are still here with us, Sabra and giving your opinions because we need to hear them.

Love, Connie

I'm Baaaaack

I wanted to post this editorial from today's Detroit News newspaper. It surprises me because The Detroit News has always been much more conservative than The Detroit Free Press. Anyway, one of the ways I have of determining if something is true is by confirmation, in other words, is there more than just one person saying this. So bravo, Greg, this editorial pretty much states everything you have said in this thread and it concerns Patriot Act ll:

Sunday, February 23, 2003


Block Ashcroft's Raid on the Bill of Rights

New anti-terrorism bill would undermine the Constitution with unreasonable searches

By The Detroit News

For the second time in as many years, Attorney General John Ashcroft is attempting an unconstitutional power grab. He has been secretly crafting a new anti-terrorism bill that will give the Justice Department sweeping new powers to override Americans' constitutional protections.

It is time that President George W. Bush reined in his overreaching attorney general. And Congress should not pass the bill.

The new bill marks a radical attempt by the executive branch to escape judicial review or congressional oversight, the basic elements of America's system of checks and balances.

For instance, the USA Patriot Act, the first anti-terrorism legislation, gave law enforcement agencies the power to search a home without notifying the homeowner. This was bad enough -- but at least authorities had to obtain a warrant first. Now, the Justice Department wants to dispense with even this judicial formality.

This effectively guts the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, of course. But this is not the worst aspect of the bill.

It would also give the Justice Department unprecedented powers to permanently strip native born Americans of their citizenship. Not just enemy combatants such as John Walker Lindh, but anyone who "becomes a member of, or provides material support to," a group that the United States has designated as a terrorist organization, could lose citizenship.

This means that the government could take away the citizenship of an American who sends money to, say, Sri Lankan Tamil guerrillas -- without showing either that the individual knew the money was aiding designated terrorists or that the aid jeopardized U.S. security.

The bill includes a host of other disturbing measures: It would expand the use of secret evidence, allow indefinite secret detentions of terrorist suspects, create a DNA database of unconvicted terrorists and shield the Justice Department from Freedom of Information requests.

Given that Congress eliminated many of these provisions from the first Patriot Act, it is troubling that Ashcroft refuses to take "no" for an answer. Even more disturbing is that he is using stealth tactics to push his wish list through Congress.

Far from consulting lawmakers, as would be normal procedure, he repeatedly denied to the Senate Judiciary Committee that any such legislation was even in the works. Had the bill not been leaked by a Justice insider, lawmakers believe Ashcroft would have sprung it on them during some national emergency when he could tar their resistance as unpatriotic. This is what he did the first time around.

But the Constitution and the Bill of Rights it contains are meant to check precisely this kind of power grabbing by government. That Ashcroft would try to game the legislative process to subvert these checks is unsettling - and un-American.

Almost verbatim to what you said, Greg. Do you think the editorial staff at the Detroit News is reading our threads?

Love, Connie

Thanks Connie,

In your reply to me above; I needed that .

El So glad you came and put your two cents in!!

It's good to have different views

Greg, perhaps the answerto my question has been addressed but since I am at work, I don't have the luxury to sit back and read all the posts carefully, so I have a little question that I am directing straight to you, this way I can get an answer fast without getting in trouble with zee boss

Going back to friday's discussions on jets beeing scrambled and all, I just wanted to know when was this procedure put into place?

Greg

This is my answer to your statement: "Yes, I believe that President Bush is a conspirator bent on setting up a tyranny in the US"

I think you are predisposed to permit every particle of information that supports your conspiracy theory into your mind, no matter what the source and equally predisposed to reject information that doesn't fit that model. I think your "truth filter" is flawed or non existent. I think you have read articles on the Internet and perhaps elsewhere claiming the Bush family is involved in every foul deed on the planet. I think you are rabidly anti-Bush and possibly any conservative administration.

You have lent your voice to and empowered groups bent on the destruction of the United States, our government, our system of government and our economic system.

You have railed against every action the President and his Administration have taken to safeguard American citizens from attack here under the guise they are a ruse to deprive citizens of their liberty and reduce them to absolute tyranny. You have lent your support to those in this country, both legally or illegally, who were detained and questioned about their activities and links to terrorists here and abroad. You would tie the President's hands and make it impossible for him to carry out his primary responsibility to the United States and it's citizens.

You say you're against war, yet when I checked posts on "star chat" from the time Clinton was bombing Serbia in late March, 1999, you were totally silent. So were the peace marchers. So was everyone else posting on this site at that time. So were the actors and actresses cum foreign policy experts.

Our views of the President and the world are very different.

jwhop

Hi moonflower

Thanks for the link where I found the following information on the timelines for the four domestic airline flights used in the 9/11 bombings.

It would be well to consider the normal day to day routines of air traffic controllers who frequently have planes stray somewhat from their authorized flight plans, lose their radio contact with individual planes and have identification beacons fail with mechanical problems. It's human nature for these people to try to make contact and warn pilots they are off course or that their transponders have quit working before pushing the panic button. That would account for the time Air Traffic Control took to notify NORAD of the 1st hijacking. They did better when flight 175 veered off course with a response time of one minute.

A climate of fear, confusion and total bedlam must have gripped the entire ATC system, the FAA and NORAD when that first plane hit the WTC. That's normal too and not a sign of a conspiracy.

This is the timeline for the 4 flights that were hijacked. Only those elements pertinent to identifying them, notifying appropriate authorities and NORAD response are listed. It's also notable that two of the planes were in the same air traffic control location and the other 2 were both in different ATC systems--even from each other. Those planes flew out of 3 different airports.

American Airlines Flight 11
7:59am, American Flight 11 departs Logan International, Boston---14 minutes late
8:20am, flight 11 stops transmitting IFF signal
8:20am, flight 11 veers off approved flight plan
8:20am, Boston air traffic control thinks flight 11 possibly hijacked
8:40am, Boston air traffic control notifies NORAD by phone flight 11 hijacked
8:46am, flight 11 hits north tower of WTC in Manhattan
8:46am, 2 F-15's are scrambled from Otis AFB in Massachusetts
8:52am, F-15's take off 6 minutes after flight 11 hits WTC

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/completetimeline/AAf11.htm

United Airlines flight 175
8:14am, United flight 175 takes off from Logan airport, Boston--16 minutes late
8:42am, flight 175 veers off from approved flight plan
8:43am, Air traffic control calls NORAD by phone that United flight 175 is hijacked
8:46am, flight 175 stops transmitting transponder signal, 50 miles north of NYC
8:52am, same 2 F-15's take off from Otis AFB
9:03am, United flight 175 hits South tower of WTC

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/completetimeline/AAf175.htm

American Airlines flight 77
8:20am, American flight 77 takes off from Dulles International in Washington
8:46am, flight 77 veers off approved flight plan. Then minutes later heads back on course
8:50am, flight 77 requests clearance to climb--normal communication with ATC
8:56am, flight 77 transponder stops transmitting, flight 77 turns back towards Washington
9:24am, Dulles ATC notifies NORAD by phone flight 77 may be hijacked
9:27am, 3 F-16's scrambled from Langley AFB in Virginia, 129 miles from Washington
9:30am, F-16's take off from Langley AFB
9:41am, United flight 77 hits Pentagon in Washington

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/completetimeline/AAf77.htm

United Airlines flight 93
8:42am, United flight 93 takes off from Newark International Airport 41 minutes late
9:16am, FAA notifies NORAD flight 93 may be hijacked
9:25am, flight 93 checks in with Cleveland air traffic control
9:30am, flight 93 transponder turned off and radar contact lost
10:03am, United flight 93 crashes in Pennsylvania

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/completetimeline/AAfl93.htm

No one should think a scramble means fighters are in the air. It's a klaxon going off. From that time, pilots and ground crews run for the planes. Then there's a preflight, pilot straps in the cockpit, ladder is removed, clearance is obtained from the control tower, the fighter is taxied to the runway and takes off.

Just because a fighter has a top speed of 1800mph doesn't mean you can use that as it's average speed between 2 points. Remember, the air is full of planes, the fighter must climb to its assigned altitude and it sure isn't traveling at 1800mph from the time it starts rolling down the runway.

There's a lot of press hype on these links, attempts to sensationalize the story, assign blame and question the credibility of government spokespersons. And let's not forget this is the same press that proponents of the conspiracy theory say are part of the conspiracy.

jwhop

Okay jwhop. Your conclusion that your and my views of the President and the world are very different scarcely comes as a great revelation, does it?

I'll ignore your string of personal insults to my intelligence, gullibility and motives, and those of others on this forum, this one last time, since it hardly makes sense to get all riled up about them.

I will point out, however, for your own benefit if you're prone to make any introspective use of it, that your habit of ascribing to anyone who holds substantially different views than yours about the President and the world situation, the opinion that they are sloppy researchers who are not interested in truth but only in gathering dubious evidence to fuel their irrational opposition to the President and to your particular brand of conservatism, is a perfect illustration of the old axiom that we ascribe to others the faults that we ourselves possess.

If you'll read through this discussion you will see a large number of people with views that often differ in substantial ways, DISCUSSING some very important things going on today ... along with jwhop NOT discussing the issues but making angry assertions about the people who ARE discussing them.

There are many, many voices - both here in America and around the world, from the alternative media to widely respected mainstream media, from the "liberal" side of the political spectrum to the "conservative" side of the spectrum - who are all concerned about many of these same issues and are raising them for public discussion, because that's what we do in a democratic society: we DISCUSS issues that are important to our common welfare. If you are going to peremptorily dismiss ALL of the voices raised in protest and/or serious question about the current administration's actions and policies as being uniformly persons of low character, poor research skills and twisted motives bent only on damaging America ... well that's scarcely a supportable view ... and DEFINITELY not one that has anything to offer to a DISCUSSION rather than an argument.

Once again, if you don't think these issues are worth discussing, if you don't think the points raised, the evidence presented, the reasoning applied is worth looking at and responding to in respectful and logical terms, that's entirely your decision and it's perfectly fine ... certainly no one is twisting your arm to make you come here. But if you DON'T want to do that, then I will ask you not to return here, because the rest of us do.

If you want to discuss why you believe someone's views are mistaken, showing facts and reasoning to support your position, I would love for you to stay and do that ... and I know you are capable of it, because you and I have had some very productive discussions in the past about things that we disagreed strongly about. But recently the only means of disagreement you have seemed willing to employ are not reasoned discussions that might contribute to independent minds weighing the evidence and shaping their opinions accordingly, but rather flat ASSERTIONS about what you believe accompanied by inflammatory words about what is wrong with the people who hold contrary views. That's not discussion, and it's not what these forums are for.

I truly hope you will stay and discuss these issues with us, I think it can be useful for all. But I will remove any further posts you make that contain angry words and insulting judgments of people who hold different opinions. Thanks for understanding.

Love,
Greg

Thanks for replying with some reasoning rather than insult, jwhop ... didn't see your second post before I replied. I'll be back after lunch to take a look.

But let's continue this on the Pat II thread, shall we? This one takes forever t load for folks on dial=up modems.

Love,
Greg

My grandmother attended her great-grandmother's 90th birthday dinner in 1911 and this woman told her of how her father and brother went out and never came home. Killed in Illinios about 1835 by your Indians.

It's a shame ANY lives were lost in the settling and creation of the USA and Canada. Having said that though, Heartsong, I find your above post to be insensitve and boardering on racist (yourIndians?!?!?).

You want to know about "MY" Indians? I am part Indian, like a few others here on this forum - my people were wiped out by the purposeful and systematic slughter of their prime source of life energy - the Buffalo. The Buffalo not only gave these people food, it also provided skins for shelter, sinew for traps, bows and ropes, bones for knives and other utensils, and a cultural identity. Buffalo were slaughtered for no reason other than to deprive the plains Indians of their nomadic lifestyle, and force them into either starvation, or onto manageble tracts of lands, i.e reserves. This is well-documented historical fact. It's also documented that Natives throughout North and SOuth America were deliberatlye given blankets as "gifts" or for barter by the Europeans moving into the areas. The blankets were knowlingly infested with smallpox, which Natives had no natural immuity to.

Add to that the systematic way in which Indians have been stripped of their culture, language and hertigae and sexually, phyiscally and emotionally abused by the residental school system.

So again, I say that it's terrible that anyone lost their lives in the creation of these two free and amazing countries - but let's try and keep in perspective please.

Besides, from a metaphysical perspective - how do you know you aren't one of those killer Indians reincarnated?

Love,
Terri

Heartsong,

That was an uncalled for cheap shot at BOTH Rainbow and myself. I also am Native American. It has nothing to do with what we are discussing in this forum here. It smacks of racism and is totally unacceptable. Do you want me to give you a rundown of all our people that were slaughtered by the white man? Rainbow and I have forgiven what happened so long ago to our people. I suggest you do the same.

moonflower

For a moment....just a moment, my heart fluttered, when I saw that someone called HeartSong had posted....*sigh*

...for you see, that is what precious little Mattie Stepanek calls his poems..........H E A R T S O N G S.....

..and I thought maybe by some small chance he had found this place, and made a post...but alas, my bubble burst when I realized my mistake...*sigh*

...at any rate, I think Terri and Connie pretty much expressed my thoughts, in their replies to the post....*sigh*...

HeartSong, I'm sorry for your relatives who were killed by my Indian people. I hope you're sorry for my Indian relatives who were killed by your white people...

Luv,
Rainbow

Well now that all those emotions are out of the way... may I get an answer to my little question?

Hi Rachel....

Well now that all the emotions are out of the way, honey....


...it would be my guess ....that you should mosey on over to the part II thead on this subject and re-ask your question...I wouldn't be surprised if Greg accidentally overlooked it with so many posts here.....If you present it to him...put it in bold. I'm sure he won't miss it this time........good luck....


...

Luv,
Rainbow