[david.findley]

WWI, on the eve of british defeat, the merchant ship Lusitania is sunk by german submarines.

From the beginning, the US is sided against germany in matters of international law over the seas. The british are offending international law, and the germans are not tolerant.

May 7, 1915. a british merchant vessel is illegally transporting military equipment and weapons, as well as commercial passengers. It is sunk. 1257 passengers lose their lives, 128 of which are American.

FROM PROF QUIGLEY'S 'TRAGEDY AND HOPE';

'...The incompetence of the acting captain contributed to the heavy loss, as did also a mysterious 'second explosion' after the torpedo struck. The vessel, which had been declared unsinkable, went down in 18 minutes. The captain was on a course he had orders to avoid; he was running at a reduced speed; he had an inexperienced crew; the portholes had been left open; the lifeboats had not been swung out; and no lifeboat drills had been held.  ...The propaganda powers of the Entente Powers made full use of the occasion...'    ...and so on...

Soon after, the US has the excuse it needs to enter and finish WWI.

...soon after the war, the british government awards the territory of Palestine to Lord Rothschild for the purpose of resettlement of jews. ...no elaboration on this brilliant gift is ever made public.

Please see Quigley's 'Tragedy and Hope' for the full passage. He basically describes the event as if it were, yes, 9/11. (that is, as an 'inside job')

[Decky]

On the eve of British defeat? The entente were already inevitably going to win the war before the Americans even joined.

[SolarCross]

As Decky said US involvement in WW1 was trivial. The Lusitania alone was worth more than anything US offered, if it was deliberately sacrificed to get the yanks in the war then it was a poor bargain. However It apparently was carrying war munitions which means it certainly couldn't have been sacrificed to get the yanks in the war because the presence of war munitions onboard excuses somewhat the Germans for targeting it while looking bad for the British. If TPTB were setting up the Lusitania for a propaganda coup they would have fed intelligence to the Germans that it was carrying significant munitions to increase the chance of them targeting it while making absolutely sure it had nothing war related actually onboard. That apparently was not the case.

[Rich]

Its funny how establishment defenders can never admit that the Balfour declaration was payment to Zionists for getting America into the war. Admitting this in no way makes Zionists let alone Jews evil. Jewish nationalists were extremely selfish and willing to sacrifice the lives of millions to get their objectives. But they were no different to any of the other nationalist protagonists or the internationalist Bolsheviks for that matter.

[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

The premise of posting this is based off the faulty assumption that 9/11 was an inside job. It absolutely wasn't.

[Decky]

Jet fuel can't melt steel beams dude.

[Rich]

The premise of posting this is based off the faulty assumption that 9/11 was an inside job. It absolutely wasn't.

All reasonable people (ie not hate filled Islamophobes like me) agree that 9/11 had nothing to do with Islam and nothing to with Muslims. Both Bush and Obama have made this absolutely clear. The perpetrators of 9/11 were pretending to be Muslims. Given this premise, given that its unthinkable that Muslims would ever do anything bad, the inside job theory makes a lot of sense.

[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

It didn't have much to do with Islam proper, but it did have a lot to do with the radical form of Islam that the United States helped prop up. The United States was responsible for 9/11 in the sense that our interventionist foreign policy was responsible for radicalizing Muslim terrorists against us. The idea that we deployed controlled demolitions or a rocket, however, is absurd and goes contrary to all the physical and circumstantial evidence.

[Decky]

You are a sheep. I bet you eat bagels.

[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

Oh my, well if a meme says something is true, then it must be. I stand corrected. Fucking Mossad. I hear seven Mossad agents were arrested outside the World Trade Center. They must have been responsible for it.

[Rancid]

I find that many Americans falsely believe that WW1 was won because of US involvement.

[pugsville]

WWI, on the eve of british defeat, the merchant ship Lusitania is sunk by german submarines.

From the beginning, the US is sided against germany in matters of international law over the seas. The british are offending international law, and the germans are not tolerant.

May 7, 1915. a british merchant vessel is illegally transporting military equipment and weapons, as well as commercial passengers. It is sunk. 1257 passengers lose their lives, 128 of which are American.

FROM PROF QUIGLEY'S 'TRAGEDY AND HOPE';

'...The incompetence of the acting captain contributed to the heavy loss, as did also a mysterious 'second explosion' after the torpedo struck. The vessel, which had been declared unsinkable, went down in 18 minutes. The captain was on a course he had orders to avoid; he was running at a reduced speed; he had an inexperienced crew; the portholes had been left open; the lifeboats had not been swung out; and no lifeboat drills had been held.  ...The propaganda powers of the Entente Powers made full use of the occasion...'    ...and so on...

Soon after, the US has the excuse it needs to enter and finish WWI.

...soon after the war, the british government awards the territory of Palestine to Lord Rothschild for the purpose of resettlement of jews. ...no elaboration on this brilliant gift is ever made public.

Please see Quigley's 'Tragedy and Hope' for the full passage. He basically describes the event as if it were, yes, 9/11. (that is, as an 'inside job')

.
it was quite legal for the Lusitania to be carrying munitions or arms , nothing at all illegal about it.

Under the rules of war at the time, the so called cruiser rules of the sea, the sinking of the Lusitania was illegal.

that's the strict cut and dried legality.

of course almost all submarines in this conflict ignored these rules after a early war period, both entente and central powers, the entente submarines sank a lot less ships and were operated way out of main sealanes (nothing about virtue just about where CP shipping was to be found) entente submarines operating in say the sea of marma were sinking ships on sight too.) Thus German submarines were sinking ships and killing US citizens in much much more public and much more important to the US public. British Admiral Fisher would have had no qualms about unleashing unrestricted submarine warfare.

Also the US entered the war almost 2 full years later shortly after is not quite correct, and the Lusitania was only one of a number of issues. The incredibly stupid Zimmerman telegram amongst them.


and of course the phrase "WWI, on the eve of british defeat" is quite laughable.

[Rich]

I find that many Americans falsely believe that WW1 was won because of US involvement.

US involvement was critical to allied victory. If the US had stayed out of the war, then barring US entry, German victory was almost certain by April 1917. Few American soldiers arrived in Europe in 1917, but the US declaration of war was critical to sustaining allied morale after the collapse of the Russian war effort. Italy would probably have broken quickly following Romania in suing for a separate peace.

[One Degree]

Europeans, "The US was not necessary to win WWI"
Europeans, "The US was not necessary to win WWII."
Europeans, "The US should not treat Russia as an enemy."
Trump, "Our NATO allies should pay their fair share for their defense."
Europeans, "What? You can't abandon us. We have an agreement. What about Russian aggression?"

[Rancid]

US involvement was critical to allied victory. If the US had stayed out of the war, then barring US entry, German victory was almost certain by April 1917. Few American soldiers arrived in Europe in 1917, but the US declaration of war was critical to sustaining allied morale after the collapse of the Russian war effort. Italy would probably have broken quickly following Romania in suing for a separate peace.

Bullshit.

[Rich]

Bullshit.

Sorry to complicate your simplistic but morally satisfying little fantasy world. To say that allied victory was contingent on US entry into the war is not to deny it was also contingent on France, Russia and Great Britain's contribution. Without either France, Russia Great Britain or the US's contribution Germany would have won. I would go further and argue that despite their pathetic performance, Italy's contribution was vital to the allied victory. Without it Germany would never have reached the pint of desperation where they went for unrestricted submarine warfare.

However the US contribution was vital from the word go. They refused to respect the German blockade of Britain and France while meekly accepting the allied blockade of the central powers.

[david.findley]

I'm pretty sure that Quigley was of the opinion that the reason why the US finally got physically involved was because it was 'essential' that the Entente powers win. If it was truly not necessary, I doubt Wilson would have gone through the trouble.

[david.findley]

oh, and btw, the main point of the post was to illuminate Quigley's description of the event as parallel to 9/11. Perhaps not wholly orchestrated like 9/11, but wholly intentional to at least get the bloody ship sank.

.I'll be reading up to WWII, soon... discover that however the US had been preparing to enter WWII for at least a year or two, it wasn't until Pearl Harbor that there was an 'excuse' to rile the people.

You'd almost sort of wish the US would drop it's balls and outright declare war, without having to resort to killing hundreds or thousands of it's own innocents to do so.

[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

Like I said elsewhere in the thread, 9/11 was not orchestrated. Nobody missed the point, there were just so many parts of it that were wrongheaded that we couldn't focus on just one.

[SolarCross]

oh, and btw, the main point of the post was to illuminate Quigley's description of the event as parallel to 9/11. Perhaps not wholly orchestrated like 9/11, but wholly intentional to at least get the bloody ship sank.

The German submariners sank the Lusitania, do you think they were taking orders from British High Command?

.I'll be reading up to WWII, soon... discover that however the US had been preparing to enter WWII for at least a year or two, it wasn't until Pearl Harbor that there was an 'excuse' to rile the people.

Pearl Harbour may have provided the excuse but that does not mean agents of the US government orchestrated it. Apparently the Japanese were not taking orders from the US gov at the time.

You'd almost sort of wish the US would drop it's balls and outright declare war, without having to resort to killing hundreds or thousands of it's own innocents to do so.

Monarchies and dictatorships are able to flip from peace to war and back again neatly and rationally; democracies not so much because of the dead weight of a massive PR burden in getting anything decided, but that doesn't mean the soldiers of democracies have to do false flag ops to get a war on.