Skip to content or view screen version

Non-existent weapons vs weapons that don't exist

Ron F | 21.12.2003 13:30 | Analysis

The Independent's story headlined "Libya gives up nuclear and chemical weapons" would indeed be good news, were it true.

But the article, in stark contrast to the headline, helpfully points out -

"It is far from clear precisely what WMD if any Tripoli may actually possess.." and "US intelligence reports suggest that while Libya has been trying to develop WMD, it may have not have actually produced effective, deliverable weapons."

First we have an invasion over the "threat" of weapons that didn't exist and now we get distracted from that lie by a country disarming weapons it doesn't have either!

The true nature of that story is suggested by the Observer, who report that Libya's biological weapons programme at best succeeded -

in producing munitions boobytrapped with human faeces that can be fatal if it enters the blood stream.

To put no finer point on it, the story is (about) a load of shit.

How kind of the media not to worry our silly little heads about countries that assuredly DO have WMD, DO support terrorism and ARE military dictatorships like, say, Pakistan.

That makes continued weapons sales to such countries that little bit easier, doesn't it?

Ron F

Comments

Display the following 2 comments

  1. Links for the above — Ron F
  2. the puppet comes round... — dh