Pentagon caught framing Iran

[lieexpsr]

Just my own thoughts on 9/11 being the victims' own faults:

No, not directly and neither was it the fault of the people in Hirosmima and Nagasaki who were victims of the atomic bombs. We can feel pity for the people in all three cases which are only three in many equally horrendous events. But indirectly, are a people not responsible for the actions of their own government's foreign policy? I think it's hard to draw any distinction between the victims of the 9/11 attacks and any other mass killing of civilians.

It has been well established that the 9/11 attacks were revenge for U.S. foreign policy on the Arabian peninsula over the preceding 50+ years. I would prefer to not call the people 'collateral damage' because I find that insulting and demeaning to human beings but I still am able to understand how they were indirectly responsible. Of those 3000 +- who died on Sept. 11, how many could we say were completely innocent because they spoke out against U.S. foreign policy? Probably very few in the WTC towers. Had Bin Laden's attack killed a gathering of anti-war protesters my conclusions could perhaps be different.

For these reasons I think that mapleleafgirl and any others whose opinion is censored should protest by claiming a right to their opinion. In the end result it may be better for Americans to face the hard facts, as opposed to us saving hurting their feelings. It may prevent the next illegal and immoral war they decide to embark upon.

 

[Avro]

I wonder what it would be like in the middle east had the West not interferred with there daily lives.

Perhaps radical Islamist would have been pushed aside the way we have pushed aside radical Christians.

 

[hermanntrude]

har har har have u been to salt lake city recently?

 

[Avro]

Iraq's Nuclear Weapons: Fact or Fiction

BARCELONA, SPAIN - Does Iraq have nuclear weapons? Last week, Britain’s authoritative International Institute for Strategic Studies issued a study that concluded Iraq had the ability to produce a few nuclear devices but lacked the enriched uranium or plutonium to do so.
The Institute’s report was clearly timed to provide more justification for a US-British attack on Iraq. The US and British governments as well as world media seized on the report to intensify claims that Iraq was a grave nuclear threat.
As a long-time member of the Institute, I was disappointed that it would so clearly bend to pressure from the British government by producing a report that was misleading and sensational. Instead of supporting ‘regime change’ in Baghdad, the IISS might do better to review its own weak leadership at London HQ.
Iraq has no nuclear weapons or fissionable materials. This fact has been certified by the UN’s nuclear inspection agency. As to the IISS’s claim that Iraq has the capability to produce nuclear devices, so do more than 40 nations. Making a nuclear weapon is relatively simple. Take 4-9 kilos of highly enriched uranium or plutonium, surrounded with a specially shaped shell of high-explosive lenses, and detonate.
The recipe is available on the internet. The trick is acquiring highly enriched uranium or plutonium. This process requires hugely expensive, laborious separation and enrichment using banks of centrifuges, as well as expertise in fusing, and shaped-charge explosives.
In the 1980’s, Iraq was indeed working on a crude nuclear weapon. Saudi Arabia secretly funded this top secret project in order to counter Israel’s large nuclear arsenal, believed to number over 200 devices. Iraq acquired uranium from South Africa in exchange for oil. South Africa, which produced eight nuclear devices, secretly obtained its nuclear weapons technology from Israel. Ironically, South Africa later sold the Israeli uranium enrichment technology to Iraq.
When Saddam Hussein stumbled into the trap laid for him by George Bush senior by invading Kuwait in 1990, his scientists were within a few years of producing a primitive nuclear test device. During the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq’s total nuclear and, in fact, total national industrial infrastructure, were pulverized by massive US bombing. Before the war, Iraq had been the most technologically developed and best educated nation in the Arab World. After, Iraq was reduced to pre-World War I level, with even its water and sewage systems wrecked by America’s ruthless air campaign.
However, Iraq still retains a cadre of about 10,000 trained nuclear scientists and technicians. Unless they are all shot, Iraq will in theory be able one day to build a nuclear weapon, provided it can obtain fissionable material. Once the crushing blockade of Iraq is lifted, Baghdad might be able to produce 1-2 nuclear warheads within five years. But having warheads and delivering them are two different things. Iraq currently lacks aircraft or missiles to deliver nuclear weapons beyond 70 miles range.
Iraq is a leading Arab nation with the Mideast’s second largest oil reserves. Unless the US succeeds in implanting and maintaining a compliant regime in Baghdad, such as it has done in Kabul, whatever brutal general that succeeds Saddam will eventually seek nuclear weapons. Why?
First, to counter Israel’s nuclear monopoly. Israel has repeatedly threatened to attack Iraq and Iran with nuclear weapons, and is considered a mortal threat by the Arabs and Iranians. Second, because Iraq fears neighboring Iran, which has three times its population. Interestingly, every Iraqi leader since the 1920’s has vowed to invade Kuwait and reunite it to Iraq. Why, in fact, should Iraq not have the right to possess nuclear weapons to protect its vast oil reserves?
President Bush claimed this week that an attack on Iraq was justified because it had refused to bow to UN resolutions and had weapons of mass destruction. Bush could just as well have been talking about Israel - which ignores scores of UN resolutions and refuses to admit UN nuclear arms inspectors. Or of India, which also ignores UN resolutions on Kashmir, and is developing a very large nuclear arsenal with Israeli aid, that includes nuclear-armed ICBM missiles that will soon be able to reach the USA.
The original 1990 UN resolution authorizing military action to evict Iraq from Kuwait had a little-noticed article that called for the Security Council to immediately begin a process of regional nuclear arms control and disarmament. This provision was totally ignored, yet it offers a key to the Iraq problem.
Instead of Bush threatening a war of pure aggression against Iraq - what used to be called ‘warmongering’ - the US, EU, and Canada should begin an intensive campaign to rid the Mideast of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. Regional disarmament cannot be accomplished until all nations, including Israel and Iran, are thoroughly inspected by impartial specialists - Canadians would be ideal. There must be no repeat of the 1990’s, when many UN inspectors in Iraq turned out to be US and Israeli spies whose job was to target Saddam Hussein for assassination.
Mr Bush might even begin this overdue process by getting rid of a lot more of his own weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.ericmargolis.com/archives/2002/09/iraqs_nuclear_weapons_fact_or_fiction.php

Written before the war by a con doubter and a former Bush supporter.

 

[Avro]

har har har have u been to salt lake city recently?

Yes.

 

[darkbeaver]

Lieexpsr, I believe the 9/11 thing was conducted by the neocons, I know that is an enormous evil to comprehend or to accept but human life means nothing to Wall Street, the concept of the big lie is powerful, coupled with the unbelievablity of the act and the accepted impossibility by the people,the beneficiaries of the operation and the accelleration of thier agenda in the aftermath convince me. If that were not enough then we have the prize, continued hydro-carbon supremacy, which is absolutely necessary to the regime.Failure to secure that ME oil means the loss of the planet and economic disaster in a very real way, so I'm a believer.:wave:

 

[lieexpsr]

I wonder what it would be like in the middle east had the West not interferred with there daily lives.

Perhaps radical Islamist would have been pushed aside the way we have pushed aside radical Christians.

I think you would be making a mistake in thinking that the 9/11 attacks weren't celebrated by the large majority of the people of the M.E. Don't think for a minute that the corrupt monarchies of Saudi and other M.E. countries voice opinions which are in any way representative of the people of those countries. The U.S. is hated throughout the world and especially so in the M.E. Bin Laden is a hero approaching the status of a saint in our terms, to those people. And don't think it's hateful against Americans to say so, it's really only telling them the hard truth.

 

[Avro]

IRAQ'S HISTORY IS WRITTEN IN BLOOD

The Bush Administration’s plans to invade Iraq and install a client regime in Baghdad may be popular in America, but to the outside world they increasingly recall old-fashioned British imperialism. If Administration hawks studied Iraq’s gory history, they would learn it ranks among the most disastrous and tragic creations of Britain’s colonial policy, and offers a grim reminder of what Bush’s planned ‘regime change’ in Baghdad may bring
At the end of World War I, the victorious British and French fell like wolves on the rotting carcass of the defeated Ottoman Empire. After promising Arabs independence, Britain betrayed them, dividing the ex-Ottoman Mideast into weak states run from London. Oil had recently been discovered at either end of the Fertile Crescent: in the north around Mosul in Kurdish tribal territory; and in southern marshes bordering Iran. To secure oil for the Royal Navy, Britain created Iraq and put a puppet king, Faisal, on its throne. Faisal was to have been made king of Syria, but France managed to snatch Syria away from Britain.
To form Iraq, Britain knitted together three utterly disparate, mutually hostile regions: Kurdish tribal lands: the Sunni Muslim region around Baghdad, then a small city with a predominantly Jewish and Christian population: and the Shia south. The result was an unstable, artificial Frankenstein state � a Mideast Yugoslavia.
In 1920, Iraqis rose in revolt against Britain but were crushed. The British RAF routinely bombed, strafed, and even used poison gas against rebellious Kurdish and Shia tribesmen. Nineteen years later, King Ghazi I threatened to invade Kuwait � part of historic Iraq until detached by British oil imperialists. He died soon after in a mysterious car crash, the work of Iraqis said, of British intelligence.
In 1941, Iraqis again rebelled against their British masters, but were crushed by RAF bombers. After the war, London put a new king, Faisal II, on the throne. But real power was wielded by Britain’s man in Baghdad, Prime Minister Nouri as-Said. The US and Britain forced Iraq to join the anti-Soviet Baghdad Pact and sell its oil at give-away prices to the west.
To prevent a coup, the small Iraqi Army was denied ammunition. British troops and the RAF kept Faisal in power. But in July, 1958, a colonel named Kassem convinced Nouri to allow his men a few rounds of ammunition for training. Kassem marched out of Baghdad, turned around, marched back, and stormed the Palace. King Faisal was executed. Nouri as-Said tried to escape, disguised as a woman. He was captured by a mob, castrated, and hanged from a lamppost. Kassem ordered British troops out of Iraq, and withdrew from the hated Baghdad Pact.
Col. Kassem turned out to be a murderous lunatic, executing thousands of Iraqis and bombing the Kurds. He threatened to invade Kuwait and was only stopped when Britain massed troops in its protectorate.
Five years later, Kassem was overthrown by Nasserite officers and machine-gunned on national TV. Col. Abdul Salam Aref took power, with discreet help from CIA and British Intelligence, MI6.
Three years later Col. Aref was assassinated by a bomb in his helicopter. His brother Col. Abdul Rahman took power. But he was overthrown by a cabal of officers from the underground Baath Party, led by Gen. Hassan al-Bakr. A young Baath party enforcer named Saddam Hussein played a significant role in the coup, and was said to have had links to CIA and MI6.
But the Baath regime then flirted with the Soviet Union, so the US, Britain, and Israel joined Iran in arming and funding Iraq’s Kurds to rebel against Baghdad. In June, 1979, Saddam Hussein ousted Gen. al-Bakir. The lucky general became Iraq’s only head of state to leave office alive.
Saddam, the Arab Stalin, emerged as the most ruthless but also most effective ruler in Iraq’s history. He used Iraq’s oil revenues to massively modernize and industrialize his nation - and an iron fist to keep it united.
Three months later, Saddam invaded Iran at the urging of the US, Britain, and the Gulf Arabs in a foolish attempt to overthrow its new Islamic government and return the oil-rich nation to western control. Washington and London secretly financed and armed Iraq, providing technicians and materials to produce poison gas and germ warfare weapons. When Iraq’s Kurds rebelled, Iraq followed Britain’s example by using poison gas against them.
Two years after the stalemated end of the Iraq-Iran war, Iraq invaded Kuwait, which had been stealing Iraqi oil through by slant drilling and undermining Iraq’s battered economy. Extremely ambiguous if not purposely deceptive US diplomacy convinced Saddam he had a green light to invade and punish Kuwait. This he did, with disastrous consequences. Many Arabs believe Saddam fell right into a trap prepared for him by President George Bush Sr. US bombing and ensuing sanctions transformed Iraq from the most modern Arab nation into the most backwards.
Iraq’s leaders change, but one fact remains constant. This inherently unnatural, unstable, unmanageable nation has the Mideast’s second largest reserves of oil and will thus remain the object of great power lust. Iraq’s long agony seems fated to continue as the US prepares to follow in Britain’s imperial footsteps.

http://www.ericmargolis.com/archives/2002/08/iraqs_history_is_written_in_blood.php

Another witten by the same author before the war.

Not everyone was a trained barking seal like the U.S. media and the Dumbocrats.

I'm thankful Canada and Cretien knew better to actually expect some PROOF!

 

[Avro]

I think you would be making a mistake in thinking that the 9/11 attacks weren't celebrated by the large majority of the people of the M.E. Don't think for a minute that the corrupt monarchies of Saudi and other M.E. countries voice opinions which are in any way representative of the people of those countries. The U.S. is hated throughout the world and especially so in the M.E. Bin Laden is a hero approaching the status of a saint in our terms, to those people. And don't think it's hateful against Americans to say so, it's really only telling them the hard truth.

I think I explained why already.

A celebration by a powerless oppressed people, it was realy quite sad to witness.

 

[lieexpsr]

darkbeaver- I can't go along with your assertion that the neocons were complicit in the 9/11 attacks at all. Excluding of course, the evil that the U.S. has perpetrated throughout the M.E., especially in Iraq and Israel through their proxy, which certainly would make them responsible by their actions. But I would confer entirely with a suggestion that they have used the 9/11 attacks to further their agenda of aggression in the M.E. One might say that the 9/11 attacks were very convenient for the Bulsh regime. Of course that's not saying that the attack on Iraq was not intended long before 9/11 and spoken of openly by the neocons.

 

[Avro]

darkbeaver- I can't go along with your assertion that the neocons were complicit in the 9/11 attacks at all. Excluding of course, the evil that the U.S. has perpetrated throughout the M.E., especially in Iraq and Israel through their proxy, which certainly would make them responsible by their actions. But I would confer entirely with a suggestion that they have used the 9/11 attacks to further their agenda of aggression in the M.E. One might say that the 9/11 attacks were very convenient for the Bulsh regime. Of course that's not saying that the attack on Iraq was not intended long before 9/11 and spoken of openly by the neocons.

The Iraq war would never have happened if 9/11 hadn't gift wrapped it for them.

 

[ottawabill]

I personally think the U.S. government has not learned much from the "blame it on Iraq policy. The public (U.S. public) found out it was all fabricated and there boys have been killed so George could finish Daddy's job.

The public has not forgiven nor forgotten when here they go again with filmsy evidence very little back up and no pictures etc. Iran is an easy target because of there over the top screaming and ranting over America but the U.S> public has no time or stomach for more fine young boys to be killed because of a 2 bit nation threatening to wipe out America... If they even tried the public would then be ready to do whatever it takes...but certainly not because Georgie W says so..

 

[Avro]

It also hurts efforts if there is a legitimate war to be fought.

Bush has destroyed the credibilty of the U.S. and that's a shame.

It will take a strong future president to change that.

 

[lieexpsr]

Then we disagree on that Avro, although we seem to agree on most. I believe that they would have found a reason for war in any case. Just as surely as they will not leave the M.E. no matter how much the people of the U.S. protest. It is essential that they stay and that explains why it was essential why they started the war in the first place. Ample justification for continueing the war will be manufactured when it is necessary. That could be a Zionist led war agaisnt Iran and Iran's counterattack or it could be manufactured in some other way. And it won't necessarily be the Bush regime which does it, it could easily be the next administation even if they are Democrats.

Bet on it!

 

[ottawabill]

It also hurts efforts if there is a legitimate war to be fought.

Bush has destroyed the credibilty of the U.S. and that's a shame.

It will take a strong future president to change that.

hmmm don't think that strong presence is in the works at the moment?? Yes a good amount of credibility has been lost because of one man's stupidity, that it unfortunate....

They'd be better to take Alberta by force (don't actually think force would be required) and watch the mid east sink into their hell hole of violent rants and bloodshed...

 

[tanakar]

Big shock! The Americans spreading propaganda!

Ot playing innocent beggers for 9/11. Their foreign policy for the past 40 years in the ME certainly had nothing to do with anything!:smurf:

 

[tanakar]

It also hurts efforts if there is a legitimate war to be fought.

Bush has destroyed the credibilty of the U.S. and that's a shame.

It will take a strong future president to change that.

Nope, the credibility of the US has been shot even since Vietnam

 

[darkbeaver]

It also hurts efforts if there is a legitimate war to be fought.

Bush has destroyed the credibilty of the U.S. and that's a shame.

It will take a strong future president to change that.

The concept of legitamate war is defensive war only, not preemptive war on speculation.
The US had no credibility to begin with.
Presidents don't control the country, Wall Street does.:wave:

 

[lieexpsr]

Not too much doubt that most Canadians have it figured out!

 

[AndyF]

Which goes to show that it is imperative that every US citizen should also tune in to world wide media as well as their narrow focused CNN and ABS news.

AndyF