Skip to content or view screen version

BUSH'S 'TERRORIST CONSPIRACY' IS BASELESS

Jane Daz | 25.11.2003 09:45 | Terror War

There is no evidence on who was behind the sept. 11 'surprise' attacks, in fact there has been no investigation whatsoever thanks to the Bush administration.
Moreover, there has been no evidence at all supporting the U.S. government's terrorist conspiracies:

There is no evidence on who was behind the sept. 11 'surprise' attacks, in fact there has been no investigation whatsoever thanks to the Bush administration.
Moreover, there has been no evidence at all supporting the U.S. government's terrorist conspiracies:

Sept 11: No evidence that Al-Qaida was behind it, nor did Al Qaida claim responsibility as they do. Still a mystery.

Taliban: No evidence that the Taliban was responsible for Sept. 11 or that they were protecting Bin Laden or that Bin Laden was in Afghanistan. No reason for invading. Very vague explanations not clear.

Iraq: No evidence that Saddam had "weapons of mass destruction" or has connections to Al-Qaida or that he sponsors terrorism. No reason for invading. Explanations very vague not clear and constantly changing. The regime is not much different to many third world political systems and their history with close U.S. relations.

Whose next? North Korea? Iran? Syria? Cuba? Colombia?

Every country should have the right to defend itself. If the U.S. has a nuclear capability then there is no reason why any country should not have it. Furthermore, every country should have the right to self-determination and no nation should interfere with any other nation's internal conflicts. The only conspiracy that seems to be plausible is that the CIA has been behind it all since Sept. 11. In fact, the CIA have been terrorizing the world since that organization was formed. It is worth noting that prior to sept. 11 the U.S. economy and its position in the world was deteriorating (Euro, European Union, Germany, Japan, Brazil, Venezuela, China, anti-globalisation protests, national liberation movements: Nepal, Colombia). For the far right in Washington, sept. 11 changed all that as the "war on terror" policy would justify its imperial legacy once again, with the help, of course, of its loyal attack dog Britain.











Jane Daz

Comments

Hide the following 5 comments

yeah ...

25.11.2003 11:24

No, you're quite right - Osama bin Laden had nothing to do with Sept 11th: it was actually Mossad, of course.

"If the U.S. has a nuclear capability then there is no reason why any country should not have it." Umm - would you trust Serbia, Iran, N Korea, Libya with nuclear weapons? If you would, then you're a braver man than me.

"and no nation should interfere with any other nation's internal conflicts..." - Oh? Why did you spend so much time interefering in S Afica in apartheid days?

sceptic


behind the times!

25.11.2003 12:18

Sceptic mate, you need to go on a right-wing polemic refresher course.. Serbia is now a 'loyal ally' of the US/UK, Milosevic was overthrown years ago!

And why exactly are Arabs and Asians not to be trusted with nukes, but it's okay for (white) Europeans and Americans to have them? That wouldn't be that racist double standard type thing of which you're so fond of accusing IndyMedia?

;-)


agreed

25.11.2003 13:29

agreed, the only states who have brought us to the brink of a neuclear war are:

US vs USSR (Cuban missile crisis)
India vs Pakistan (recent kashmir)

The USA is the only state to have used neuclear weapons, and they did so twice!

Israel and the US are among the states that have treatened recently to use them.

So why do you selectively trust some states?

Racism or blindness to the truth, the USA is as much a rougue state as the others on your list, I dont trust them one little bit!

sourlemon


missing the point

25.11.2003 13:46

again.

It's not the fact the countires are African or Asian. But you might just have noticed the Gaddafi and Kim jr are just a wee bit unbalanced from time to time. I wouldn't want Hitler to have then either, and he's [maybe] about as Aryan as ytou can get.

sceptic


balanced?

25.11.2003 17:54

Are they more 'unbalanced' (or more to the point, less likely to use nukes) than well-known peacemaker Ariel Sharon, the nationalist BJP govt in India, the rulers of Kazakhstan (they still have their old USSR nukes), or Stalin when he ran the USSR for that matter?

I actually think even the maddest of governments won't use nukes. They've been used twice, only, in Hiroshima + Nagasaki in 1945, by a moderate Democrat US President, in order (supposedly) to obviate the need to invade Japan and (probably really) to show the world how much damage nukes could do. Ever since more than one country has had them, no-one has used them.

Hmm.. I seem to have just made the case for deterrence. Still, there we go.

kurious