06-25-2004, 11:57 AM
|
|
|
Confirmed User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 214
|
Quote:
Originally posted by jayeff
We did not go into Afghanistan as a response to 911: the plans (and many of the troops involved) had been in place since the previous July. We did not go into Afghanistan because the Taliban was a repressive regime: we had been negotiating with them for an oil pipeline until April 2001. They broke off the negotiations.
We did not go into Iraq because Saddam Hussein was a threat to anyone, nor because he was an evil dictator. We went in the first time because although Kuwait was horizontal drilling into Iraq's oilfields, we prop up the non-democratic regimes in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia so that they will help keep oil prices low. We went into Iraq the second time as part of an ongoing 70 year old policy to destabilize the middle east. That policy produced arab nationalism and moslem extremism, powerful enough forces now such that dabbling in the internal politics of these countries (eg supporting both sides in the Iran-Iraq war) no longer works.
We have no intention of allowing democratic government in Iraq, because that would put the Shi'ites in power and they would ally themselves with Iran. That is absolutely the last thing we would want to see happen.
To date there is no proof the Osama Bin Laden was behind 911 or that Al Quaeda exists. Bin Laden did running a terrorist training camp. People who passed through that camp were involved in terrorist activities prior to 911. But until post 911 there was no suggestion that this training camp was any different to others of its kind: people pass through and then return to wherever they came from, as members of whatever (local) terrorist group sponsored them or that they subsequently joined.
"Al Quaeda" was a name coined by the media in early 2002, but it has never been used by any group to refer to themselves. In the summer of 2002 the CIA estimated that fewer than 200 people had passed through Bin Laden's camp, yet for 2½ years every hint of terrorist activity has been laid at their door.
Someone flew those planes into the World Trade Center. They may have been arab terrorists, even though the act was a world away from any terrorist action to date, in terms of scale, scope and organization. And despite the fact that several of the alleged terrorists supposedly on board the planes have turned up alive.
Perhaps Bin Laden does run an organization and not just another mid-east training camp. Maybe he was behind 911. The Taliban was certainly a repressive regime and Saddam Hussein was a monster who was a threat to his own people and his near neighbors.
But there are a million miles between the few clear facts and the neatly package story that the US public has been soaking up via the mainstream media for nearly 3 years. The legends put out by the White House are still being passed along almost without question, even though many errors, exaggerations and omissions have been exposed. And there is overt manipulation of public opinion, for example with constant talk of "insurgents", even though we are offered no proof that those involved are not locals. Recent events in Saudi were all cheerfully blamed on Al Quaeda (again without proof) and not a mention was made of the strong probability that these were just the latest in a long string of anti-royalist actions.
Michael Moore has stated clearly that F911 is a one-sided film. It cannot be any more so than the crap we get from CNN, Fox and the rest. And at least it will provide some small balance.
|
Wow.
What do you think of the French conspiracy theory? The best-seller? Muyssen was his name or something. That no planes at all crashed into the WTC towers?
 |
|
|