stilicho
Trurl's Electronic Bard
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 4,757
1. You wrote: "Rigors of analysis (and journalistic integrity) would demand that you and Ruppert not include Vreeland in the first place. As an editor you should have known that the inclusion of two full chapters of Vreeland's testimony would at least detract from whatever point the author was trying to make." No. Mr. Vreeland claimed to have a document that demonstrated foreknowledge of the attacks. The two chapters are about the reasons to credit that claim and the reasons not to. Read them. THEN talk more about it.
I didn't talk about the reasons to believe Vreeland after reading the book. I wondered why you included him in the first place. You had to know that local Toronto radio stations had already investigated the guy. Maybe you didn't. I figure that's part of the reason Ruppert is an ex-cop and not an actual cop. He ignored the reality of the court cases and went ahead to include spurious claims that even his own attorney had a hard time believing.
You have a bad habit here.
No I don't, Dr Hecht. You have a bad habit here. You know from reading Brzezinki's work that he says nothing whatsover about "necessary wars" for resources. Unless you didn't read Brzezinski. Again, same thing as above. You include a source and claim to have edited the footnotes without realising that the conclusions were based on speculative interpretation. First Vreeland. Then Brzezinski.
Not much left of Ruppert's book once you remove those, yours and Kane's contributions, and the Google-fuelled speculations about "Buzzy".
In reality is a big part of the boring, violent, law-breaking, dreary, abysmally cynical way things get done on a day-to-day, year-to-year basis in the USA and elsewhere. People with enough power --either to circumvent the law or shape it to their own requirements-- get together with like-minded, mutually-interested others; together they make plans and some of those plans get executed, sometimes with partial or even near-complete success. The only ways to deny that are a structuralist view of history so extreme as to claim that only faceless social forces can ever "do" anything, or a heroic individual model of history where nobody ever cooperates (that is, conspires) with anyone else except for lawful purposes. No adult really thinks that way. You have simply been conditioned to hear, and to say, the term "conspiracy" as a code word for flaky skepticism. That is debilitating you, but it also makes you feel like one of the cool kids. You just might continue to speak in terms of "belief" rather than persuasion, "conspiracy" rather than deep politics, for the rest of your life. Up to you.
What a wonderful philosophy. In that case, I can see why you would stoop to make things up about Brzezinski's book and to include perjurers as proof of this conspiracy you made up on the fly.
I did not attribute the phrase "necessary wars for oil and gas" to Zbig, but if you doubt that he is speaking of precisely that, then you and I are perhaps even more different that I thought. When the Nazis made their semi-suicidal, desperate grab for Baku, hundreds of miles inside the Soviet Union, do you think they did it for the pretty flowers that grow there?
So why did you employ the phrase? You desperately want him to have said it or you wouldn't have said it in the same breath. The facts are that Brzezinski has been one of the most publicly strident critics of the Bush Administration's Middle East and Central Asian policies.
Nice touch at trying to Godwin our conversation in your final sentence there.
Zbig writes, on page 31 of Grand Chessboard, "Eurasia accounts for 60 per cent of the world's GNP and about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources."
So what? What's your point? That shows that Dick Cheney arranged for the murder of people in New York City?
Brzezenski states a fact (much unlike Vreeland, verifiable and undeniable) and suddenly Dick Cheney's a treasonous scumbag? I might agree with you on the scumbag part but I think you have the guy all wrong. As Brzezinski. As Vreeland. Probably as Ruppert.
See how this technique feels when someone does it to you:
Well, Stilicho, there is nothing in Mr. Brzezinski's book to suggest that he is an employee of yours, nor does the book say anywhere that you are from Helsinki.
Except that you are speculating (again, sigh). But you were an employee of Ruppert. And really coming to your own rescue and not his.
I appreciate, as always, talking about the core resources Ruppert uses for his books. What do you know about his "Buzzy" stuff? I found "Buzzy" immediately by Googling CIA and Wall Street. I used Google to find this guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_R._Howell
There isn't a CIA link but just look at this blackguard. He's worked for Pfizer (drug link), Halliburton (Dick Cheney link), and DeutscheBank (9/11 link). Why does "Buzzy" get into Ruppert's book but not this guy?
Has Ruppert even interviewed "Buzzy" or any of his current or former co-workers? Has he investigated W R Howell?
I will find you the Toronto radio station stuff about Vreeland, too, in case you're still interested. It would have been available just by calling any media outlet in Canada at the time Ruppert was researching his book. I think I might even be able to find you Vreeland's lawyer who scarcely believed a word he said.
Thanks for contributing.