Before - and After - Iraq

[BT]

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,688071,00.html

Brought to you by Google;0)

Foreknowledge is different than direct support. DId we put troops on the ground, did the state department fund the opposition? Your link shows no smoking gun. All it shows is the plotters let members of the US govt know what they had up their sleeves.

[Plane]

"...take the failed coup against Hugo Chavez in Venezuela..."


How exactly was the US involved in that?

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,688071,00.html

Brought to you by Google;0)

I didn't get it , this article didn't say that the US financed , planned , called for the coup.

More like we were aware of it and decided not to stop it.

[Michael Tee]

<<DId we put troops on the ground, did the state department fund the opposition?>>

I believe the U.S. funded the operation.  They funded the Chilean opposition prior to the overthrow of the Allende government and they funded the Iraqi opposition prior to the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.  It's a common practice.  They don't announce it and it doesn't surface in some cases till years afterwards, but you'd have to be very, very naive to think that every dirty trick the U.S. funds is announced at the time for the whole world or to believe that the leopard can change its spots.

<< Your link shows no smoking gun. All it shows is the plotters let members of the US govt know what they had up their sleeves. >>

And why on earth would they do that?

[BT]

I believe the U.S. funded the operation.  They funded the Chilean opposition prior to the overthrow of the Allende government and they funded the Iraqi opposition prior to the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.  It's a common practice.  They don't announce it and it doesn't surface in some cases till years afterwards, but you'd have to be very, very naive to think that every dirty trick the U.S. funds is announced at the time for the whole world or to believe that the leopard can change its spots.

Yopur belief doesn't make it so. The article Lanya posted was high on speculation and low on fact.
All it shows is some other human being is in agreement with you.

What else is new.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The CIA coordinated the attempted coup. Naturally, they won't admit that they did this, because it will make the US unpopular in the region and beyond. They also won';t admit it because they screwed up.

The truth about the Bay of Pigs did not come out until a decade had passed.

[BT]

The CIA coordinated the attempted coup. Naturally, they won't admit that they did this, because it will make the US unpopular in the region and beyond. They also won';t admit it because they screwed up.

Perhaps it was a rogue operation.

Besides the article laid it at the feet of Reich, Negroponte and Abrams.

[Plane]

This falls into the theroy that nothing on Earth is done without being instigated by some agency of the USA.

Hugo Chevez is a bafoon , but his people seem to love him .

If he gives up power willingly at the time that his opponents outnumber him at the polls I will change my opinion of him totally .

The peacefull transfer of power is better than any revolution.

[Michael Tee]

<<Your belief doesn't make it so. The article Lanya posted was high on speculation and low on fact. >>

Well, my post was high on fact and low on speculation.  If your dog killed a next-door neighbour's chicken three times in the past three weeks and today the neighbour loses another chicken to a dog, odds are good you'll know which dog.  My belief was based on fact.  The fact was the past performance of the principal suspect.

No, my belief doesn't make it so.  It just makes it probable.  That's all I ask for in a political conclusion.  Probability.  Reasonable certainty.  The guy who holds out for proof positive or the "smoking gun" particularly in matters which are usually conducted under deep cover, is never going to come to any conclusions.  He's likely to be wrong more times than he's right.  There is no positive proof at all that Hitler ordered the Holocaust.  Just a lot of circumstantial evidence.  Just a lot of probability. 

[Amianthus]

There is no positive proof at all that Hitler ordered the Holocaust.

Hitler proclaimed in a speech near the end of his life: "Against the Jews I fought open-eyed and in view of the whole world....I made it plain that they, this parasitic vermin in Europe, will be finally exterminated."

So, Hitler himself claimed to have ordered it. Unfortunately, many of his underlings destroyed documents near the end of the war, so no written orders have been found. Had Hitler survived to go on trial, more work might have been done linking him directly with orders - that was not needed, so it was never done.

But I would say that a confession would count as "positive proof."

[domer70]

It is a standard part of all jury charges to advise the panel that "circumstantial evidence may be as probative and satisfying as direct evidence." The favorite example of circumstantial evidence that many judges use is this: Before you go to bed one night, you look out in the backyard and under a starlit sky see the ground clear and bare. The next morning when you wake up, the ground is covered with a cold, white, powdery substance. That is compelling proof that it snowed overnight although you didn't observe it."

[Amianthus]

[snip]

Only if the white, powdery substance is actually snow.

 

[Michael Tee]

<<Hitler proclaimed in a speech near the end of his life: "Against the Jews I fought open-eyed and in view of the whole world....I made it plain that they, this parasitic vermin in Europe, will be finally exterminated.">>

THAT'S a confession?  LMFAO.  It doesn't confess to a single act of violence.  It was a prediction of what would happen to the Jews.  Doesn't say at whose hands.  Hitler often referred to the fate inflicted on the Jews by the "spontaneous outrage" of the local populations and in fact a lot of Holocaust massacres were carried out by locals, in Poland, Ukraine, Slovakia, Lithuania and Romania, to name just a few.

A first-year law student could make mincemeat out of a "confession" like that.  That's total bullshit.  "I fought open-eyed and in view of the world" = I caused them to be rounded up and shot or gassed?  Nonsense.

As I said, there is NO direct evidence at all linking Hitler to the Holocaust.

[Michael Tee]

<<The next morning when you wake up, the ground is covered with a cold, white, powdery substance. That is compelling proof that it snowed overnight although you didn't observe it.">>

I thought it proved the house was moved north overnight while you slept.

[domer70]

It's enough of a confession to be admissible in every court in this country for that purpose. To qualify broadly as a "confession," a statement need only be incriminatory, not necessarily conclusive. I have no doubt, as do you in your heart of hearts, that this particular comment, in context (that is, with circumstantial evidence) would have been enough to hang the bastard.

[Amianthus]

As I said, there is NO direct evidence at all linking Hitler to the Holocaust.

Well, there is also loads of evidence, such as reports from Himmler to Hitler (a portion of one reproduced below) which shows that Hitler knew the Jews were being killed. Between his own statements (a number of them) and the documentary evidence that he knew it was going on and didn't stop it, would be enough to convict. And it's also enough to link Hitler to the Holocaust in any reasonable person's mind.