Michael Meacher: This war on terrorism is bogus

[realpolitic]

Thanks, oedo, my search led me to that page too, I can't it on my computer.

Richard Butler, in an interview on CNN said before 9/11 that the US would offer the Taliban "a carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs"

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0201/08/ltm.05.html

That's a pretty provokative statement almost like they wanted to "shape events" into a new Pearl Harbor. That's bound to anger any country, ESPECIALLY the Taliban.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Great plan. Dominate the Middle East. Impose military dominance on a global scale. Then get voted out because the economy's buggered.

"Protocols of the Elders of Zion" anyone?

[notyoueither]

Wow. He even gets in a mention of Enron.

[Peter Triggs]

I had to go to the dentist yesterday and, while waiting, read the lead editorial in the Times:

Two years on
Myth and reality about September 11

The passing of time can dull a sense of emotional loss, but it also frames more clearly the significance and symbols of a traumatic event. The ceremonies to observe the second anniversary of 9/11 today will not, understandably, be on a scale or have the impact of those conducted 12 months ago. This does not mean that the atrocities directed at New York and Washington in 2001 have slipped, or will ebb, from the collective thoughts of Americans. The apparent anniversary reappearance of Osama bin Laden is itself a reminder of a threat embodied by him, but made real by others. The attack on the World Trade Centre has defined international politics for the past two years, and will do so for many years to come.
The distance of time has, however, allowed some to circulate their own, entirely fantastic and often highly offensive versions of history and obtain an audience for them. The combination of conspiracy theorists, an ugly anti-Americanism and the medium of the internet has led to appalling suggestions that the Israelis were responsible for this carnage or that the US Government was aware of the threat but let it proceed as part of a masterplan to control global oil. That Michael Meacher, a minister 13 weeks ago, should have chosen to swim in this sewer is shocking and shameful. An elementary reading of the facts, rather than an almost insane gathering of lies circulating in cyberspace, demolishes what is less a supposition than a symptom of sick minds.

The rest of it is here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspap...811658,00.html

I think I buy the 'sick minds' theory.

[Sava]

Of course 9-11 was a pretext to march into the MidEast and establish dominance. I agree with the war on terror in principle, but I think Bush is ****ing it up bigtime. I want America to be the dominant force in the world. Who would you rather have be a superpower? India? Pakistan? China? **** that...

My objections to Iraq were not because of US conquering... it was because Saddam was not a threat, and because Cheney and company are going to go in and reap billions of war profits.

I don't like the Guardian. Sometimes they come up with some decent stuff, but crap like this is just stupid.

[Sandman]

The document also calls for the creation of "US space forces" to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent "enemies" using the internet against the US. It also hints that the US may consider developing biological weapons "that can target specific genotypes [and] may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool".

I can't believe that this can possibly be true. If it is, it's utterly insane.

[oedo]

And advanced forms of biological warfare
that can “target” specific genotypes may
transform biological warfare from the realm
of terror to a politically useful tool.

guess, where I found these lines:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

Page 72

looks like disproving Meacher would be a harder job than I expected.

[realpolitic]

Originally posted by Sava

My objections to Iraq were not because of US conquering... it was because Saddam was not a threat, and because Cheney and company are going to go in and reap billions of war profits.

I don't like the Guardian. Sometimes they come up with some decent stuff, but crap like this is just stupid.

What did you expect those crooks to do? Help a down and out country? If so read the WTO thread.

PNAC is not something the Gaurdian just make up some of my friends were telling me about it in March, I'd have posted a thread, but I thought you'd have heard of it.

[Sava]

Originally posted by realpolitic
What did you expect those crooks to do? Help a down and out country? If so read the WTO thread.

yeah, that's why I opposed the war in Iraq... DUH! did you even read my post?

PNAC is not something the Gaurdian just make up some of my friends were telling me about it in March, I'd have posted a thread, but I thought you'd have heard of it.

There's a difference between what some whackjob think tank says and what this administration is capable of doing, politically. Bush wanted to go into Iraq the day he took office. But he had to wait and wait. And then 9-11 happened. And Bush wanted to go into Iraq then. But he couldn't... and he had to wait, and wait... and then he made this BS case against Saddam about WMD's. The public was fooled. But they are getting wise. Trust me, they will only give Bush so much support. Look at current poll numbers. Bush may be a dope idealist, but he's a politician first.

And yes, this Guardian writer is a conspiracy theorist dope. I can't comment on Bush's personal vision for the world. But what he wants to do, and what the American people will allow him to do are two completely different things. This is still a Democracy, even if it his heavily influence by the corporate media.

[Dracon II]

Of course the administration is capable of things like this.. because they have loyal patriots like you guys who will deny it to your expiring breath.

2+2=5!

[Drake Tungsten]

That guy constructed his tin-foil hat all wrong. It's too wide at the bottom, allowing his precious thoughts to escape into the air where they can be read by Echelon and other CIA/NSA mind reading programs. Some of the "original thinkers" here on Poly need to tell that guy how to make a proper tin-foil hat, lest the US thought-police swoop down upon him.

[mrmitchell]

(haven't read the article btw)

And it's revealed! Michael Meacher is going to be on this month's cover of Duh! magazine, along with stoires about the Senator that said RIAA amnesty might not be the best thing.

[oedo]

Originally posted by Sava
There's a difference between what some whackjob think tank says and what this administration is capable of doing, politically.

come on! you really should know better. anything was possible after 9/11, this so called catalyzing event(page 63): Patriot Act, War on Afghanistan, War on Iraq, Guantanamo Camp...

and those people you just called whackjob think tanks now hold the power in Washington, especially in the Pentagon. one of the signers, Wolfowitz, made it the deputy secretary of defence. (I would be surprised if the other signers turned to street beggars now, but I admit, I don´t really know most of them)

browse through the newamericancentury-page and you will find other names holding key-positions now, for example Cheney, Rumsfeld and Jeb Bush, who signed the Statement of Principles.

and now see on page 4, how the puppet masters make George W. Bush dance to their rhythms:

Potential rivals such as China are anxious to exploit these transformational technologies broadly, while adversaries like Iran, Iraq and North Korea are rushing to develop ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons as a deterrent to American intervention in regions they seek to dominate.

or here on page 87:

We cannot allow North Korea, Iran, Iraq or similar states to undermine American leadership, intimidate American allies or threaten the American homeland itself.

the axis of evil. when I first heard it, I thought, this was just another lapsus linguae by GWB. now I suspect it wasn´t.

Bush wanted to go into Iraq the day he took office. But he had to wait and wait. And then 9-11 happened. And Bush wanted to go into Iraq then. But he couldn't... and he had to wait, and wait... and then he made this BS case against Saddam about WMD's.

nice idea. let´s find out where he´s got it from:
The current American peace will be short-lived if the United States becomes vulnerable to rogue powers with small, inexpensive arsenals of ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads or other weapons of mass destruction. - page 87

The public was fooled. But they are getting wise. Trust me, they will only give Bush so much support. Look at current poll numbers. Bush may be a dope idealist, but he's a politician first.

I wish I could share your optimism. well, time will tell.

And yes, this Guardian writer is a conspiracy theorist dope. I can't comment on Bush's personal vision for the world. But what he wants to do, and what the American people will allow him to do are two completely different things. this is still a Democracy, even if it his heavily influence by the corporate media.

now, this is what really pisses me. you don´t really discuss the points Meacher makes. you only use some shoot-dead arguments like conspiracy theorist or stupid crap. case closed. others shout anti-america or set the funny -smiley. period. any substance? nope. any arguments? zero.
so he´s a conspiracy theorist, because does nothing but quoting from the PNAC. I have to sleep over that.

good night

[Berzerker]

Richard Butler, in an interview on CNN said before 9/11 that the US would offer the Taliban "a carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs"

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0201/08/ltm.05.html

That's a pretty provokative statement almost like they wanted to "shape events" into a new Pearl Harbor. That's bound to anger any country, ESPECIALLY the Taliban.

Would be damning, but Butler was a weapons inspector, not a NSC advisor to Bush. Nevertheless, he may have been reading the writing on the wall and if the Taliban was starting to reneg on agreements regarding pipelines, Butler may have been just predicting the future.

[notyoueither]

We cannot allow North Korea, Iran, Iraq or similar states to undermine American leadership, intimidate American allies or threaten the American homeland itself.

It would be good for NK, Iran, and countries like Iraq to intimidate other nations and threaten North America (and Europe) with ICBMs?

Why the mention of an Enron power plant in India?

And when a British foreign minister met Gadaffi in his desert tent in August 2002, it was said that "the UK does not want to lose out to other European nations already jostling for advantage when it comes to potentially lucrative oil contracts" with Libya (BBC Online, August 10 2002).

And WTH does that have to do with the Persian Gulf and the American administration? Well duh! The UK wants good relations with Libya and access to fossil fuels there. Colour me shocked. Shocked, I say!

The problem with 'the points Meacher makes' is that he is making no points. He is rambling through the warehouse of wing-nut theories about how evil the administration of the US is.

If you seriously believe that the FBI, NSA, and CIA in conjunction with the White House all let 9/11 happen, then you too need a tin foil hat.