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:
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.
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
"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
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
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
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
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