On Evidence-9/11 & Iraq
vngelis | 11.09.2002 18:28
On Evidence-9/11 & Iraq
There seems to be a general collapse not only of bourgeois thought but of leftiwing thought as well. This time last year Blair stated he had seen the evidence on Bin Laden regarding 9/11. No one else has seen the 'evidence' since he saw it... On the basis of non-existent evidence a war was launched in Afghanistan ans US bases were set up
in a whole series of states surrounding Russia.
Now once more we are in the situation of evidence regarding Saddams alleged weapons of mass destruction... Blair once more has seen the 'evidence'...
If anyone happens to raise basic questions, like the French
journalist who published a book the Frightening Fraud or the site www.whatreallyhappened.com a whole host of people rush to the defence of the state by arguing that to question the authenticity of the mass media of disinformation is to be a follower of the X-Files and other
such nonsense.
The fact that passports of the alleged hijackers were found intact after the WTC collapsed or that no aeroplane debris was found in the Pentagon explosion, or that the hijackers hijacked planes with penknives as well as the thousand and one questions which dont add up leave open the door to the concept that Bush required a massive provocation to launch an attack on Afghanistan.
For more than 4 decades the CIA carried out attacks abroad, who is to say it hasn't entered the era of carrying out attacks on its own soil. After all the Kennedy association is attributed to this agency anyway.
The political issue at stake though is evidence. Who decides what is evidence. History teaches us that in times of crisis evidence is manufatured for political ends. The stalinist and fascist eras manufactured evidence in immense proportions attributing crimes to political opponents with the sole purpose of maintaining totalitarian rule and extending it beyond its borders. WHo is to say the USA is
not in this particular phase of history? Are we to accept Blairs line that the evidence on the war against Iraq is already on the table? What distinguishes evidence from opinion?
Wars by imperialism were never organised prior to a democratic debate, but by dictat after some type of provocation, which 10/10 is attributed to the rulers wanting the wars. Much in the same way that
Hitler asserted the Sudeten Germans were being racially harrassed in order to invade Czhechoslovakia, so Bush asserts Arabs have it in for Americans and thus launches wars against the Arab world.
The ruling class has all the 'evidence' it needs against Iraq, just as it has on 9/11. No one needs to see it as one has to 'trust' them. That is why they detain individuals, without the right to counsel and abolish even the pretext to basic democratic rights. War is serious business. The business of war requires extraordinary measures.
The left needs to wake up before it is too late.
vngelis
There seems to be a general collapse not only of bourgeois thought but of leftiwing thought as well. This time last year Blair stated he had seen the evidence on Bin Laden regarding 9/11. No one else has seen the 'evidence' since he saw it... On the basis of non-existent evidence a war was launched in Afghanistan ans US bases were set up
in a whole series of states surrounding Russia.
Now once more we are in the situation of evidence regarding Saddams alleged weapons of mass destruction... Blair once more has seen the 'evidence'...
If anyone happens to raise basic questions, like the French
journalist who published a book the Frightening Fraud or the site www.whatreallyhappened.com a whole host of people rush to the defence of the state by arguing that to question the authenticity of the mass media of disinformation is to be a follower of the X-Files and other
such nonsense.
The fact that passports of the alleged hijackers were found intact after the WTC collapsed or that no aeroplane debris was found in the Pentagon explosion, or that the hijackers hijacked planes with penknives as well as the thousand and one questions which dont add up leave open the door to the concept that Bush required a massive provocation to launch an attack on Afghanistan.
For more than 4 decades the CIA carried out attacks abroad, who is to say it hasn't entered the era of carrying out attacks on its own soil. After all the Kennedy association is attributed to this agency anyway.
The political issue at stake though is evidence. Who decides what is evidence. History teaches us that in times of crisis evidence is manufatured for political ends. The stalinist and fascist eras manufactured evidence in immense proportions attributing crimes to political opponents with the sole purpose of maintaining totalitarian rule and extending it beyond its borders. WHo is to say the USA is
not in this particular phase of history? Are we to accept Blairs line that the evidence on the war against Iraq is already on the table? What distinguishes evidence from opinion?
Wars by imperialism were never organised prior to a democratic debate, but by dictat after some type of provocation, which 10/10 is attributed to the rulers wanting the wars. Much in the same way that
Hitler asserted the Sudeten Germans were being racially harrassed in order to invade Czhechoslovakia, so Bush asserts Arabs have it in for Americans and thus launches wars against the Arab world.
The ruling class has all the 'evidence' it needs against Iraq, just as it has on 9/11. No one needs to see it as one has to 'trust' them. That is why they detain individuals, without the right to counsel and abolish even the pretext to basic democratic rights. War is serious business. The business of war requires extraordinary measures.
The left needs to wake up before it is too late.
vngelis
vngelis
Comments
Display the following comment