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?
"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
Hide the following 2 comments
Links for the above
21.12.2003 13:36
"Libya gives up nuclear and chemical weapons"
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=474897
Observer article on Libya's "Turds of Mass Destruction"
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1111161,00.html
Weapons sales to Pakistan - CAAT article
http://www.caat.org.uk/information/magazine/0202/kashmir.php
Ron F
the puppet comes round...
22.12.2003 00:18
http://www.mideastnews.com/Libya008.html
dh