|
War On Terror Looks Like A Fraud
|
View this Thread in Original format
| culorut |
Editor of the Winnipeg Sun hitting it bang on.
War on Terror looks like a fraud
By JOHN GLEESON
Contrary to the "patriots" who try to use the deaths of our soldiers in Afghanistan to stifle debate on Canada's involvement in the War on Terror, I would say that as new evidence presents itself, we would indeed be cowards to ignore it simply because we've lost troops in the field and are therefore blindly committed to the mission.
And new evidence is piling up around us, arguably strong enough to declare the whole War on Terror an undeniable fraud.
Virtually ignored by mainstream media, the Americans showed their hand this year with the new Iraqi oil law, now making its way through Iraq's parliament.
The law -- which tens of thousands of Iraqis marched peacefully against on Monday when they called for the immediate expulsion of U.S. forces -- would transfer control of one of the largest oil reserves on the planet from Baghdad to Big Oil, delivering "the prize" at last that Vice-President Dick Cheney famously talked about in 1999 when he was CEO of Halliburton.
"The key point of the law," wrote Mother Jones' Washington correspondent James Ridgeway on March 1, "is that Iraq's immense oil wealth (115 billion barrels of proven reserves, third in the world after Saudi Arabia and Iran) will be under the iron rule of a fuzzy 'Federal Oil and Gas Council' boasting 'a panel of oil experts from inside and outside Iraq.' That is, nothing less than predominantly U.S. Big Oil executives.
"The law represents no less than institutionalized raping and pillaging of Iraq's oil wealth. It represents the death knell of nationalized Iraqi resources, now replaced by production sharing agreements, which translate into savage privatization and monster profit rates of up to 75% for (basically U.S.) Big Oil. Sixty-five of Iraq's roughly 80 oilfields already known will be offered for Big Oil to exploit."
While the U.S. argues that the oil deal will give Iraqis their shot at "freedom and stability," the International Committee of the Red Cross reported this week that millions of Iraqis are in a "disastrous" situation that continues to deteriorate, with "mothers appealing for someone to pick up the bodies littering the street so their children will be spared the horror of looking at them on their way to school."
Four years after the invasion, it's becoming pretty clear that Iraq has been "pacified" solely for the purpose of economic aggression. Humanitarian considerations are moot. The awful plight of Iraq's one million Christians, who have no place in the new Iraq, underscores this ugly truth.
Afghanistan, meanwhile, has given the U.S. a strategic military beachhead in Central Asia (which "American primacy" advocates called for in the '90s) and it was quietly reported in November that plans are being accelerated for a $3.3-billion natural gas pipeline "to help Afghanistan become an energy bridge in the region."
With many Americans (including academics and former top U.S. government officials) now questioning even the physical facts of 9/11 and seriously disputing the "militant Islam" spin, with the media more brain-dead than it's been in our lifetimes, now is not the time for jingoism and blind faith in the likes of Cheney, George W. Bush and Robert Gates.
Our young men are worth more than that -- aren't they, Mr. Harper?
http://www.winnipegsun.com/News/Col...13/4002082.html |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| the simple fact is iraq needs foreign investment in their oil infrastructure. i will refrain from further comment until i can locate a more balanced and thoughtful analysis than the one provided. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| Correction, it IS a fraud :p. Especially when you have the leading terrorist state "fighting the war on terror." LOL, "war on terror." Only a bunch of retards could possibly consider a phrase like that to make any sense whatesoever. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
Editor of the Winnipeg Sun hitting it bang on.
War on Terror looks like a fraud
By JOHN GLEESON
Contrary to the "patriots" who try to use the deaths of our soldiers in Afghanistan to stifle debate on Canada's involvement in the War on Terror, I would say that as new evidence presents itself, we would indeed be cowards to ignore it simply because we've lost troops in the field and are therefore blindly committed to the mission.
And new evidence is piling up around us, arguably strong enough to declare the whole War on Terror an undeniable fraud.
Virtually ignored by mainstream media, the Americans showed their hand this year with the new Iraqi oil law, now making its way through Iraq's parliament.
The law -- which tens of thousands of Iraqis marched peacefully against on Monday when they called for the immediate expulsion of U.S. forces -- would transfer control of one of the largest oil reserves on the planet from Baghdad to Big Oil, delivering "the prize" at last that Vice-President Dick Cheney famously talked about in 1999 when he was CEO of Halliburton.
"The key point of the law," wrote Mother Jones' Washington correspondent James Ridgeway on March 1, "is that Iraq's immense oil wealth (115 billion barrels of proven reserves, third in the world after Saudi Arabia and Iran) will be under the iron rule of a fuzzy 'Federal Oil and Gas Council' boasting 'a panel of oil experts from inside and outside Iraq.' That is, nothing less than predominantly U.S. Big Oil executives.
"The law represents no less than institutionalized raping and pillaging of Iraq's oil wealth. It represents the death knell of nationalized Iraqi resources, now replaced by production sharing agreements, which translate into savage privatization and monster profit rates of up to 75% for (basically U.S.) Big Oil. Sixty-five of Iraq's roughly 80 oilfields already known will be offered for Big Oil to exploit."
While the U.S. argues that the oil deal will give Iraqis their shot at "freedom and stability," the International Committee of the Red Cross reported this week that millions of Iraqis are in a "disastrous" situation that continues to deteriorate, with "mothers appealing for someone to pick up the bodies littering the street so their children will be spared the horror of looking at them on their way to school."
Four years after the invasion, it's becoming pretty clear that Iraq has been "pacified" solely for the purpose of economic aggression. Humanitarian considerations are moot. The awful plight of Iraq's one million Christians, who have no place in the new Iraq, underscores this ugly truth.
Afghanistan, meanwhile, has given the U.S. a strategic military beachhead in Central Asia (which "American primacy" advocates called for in the '90s) and it was quietly reported in November that plans are being accelerated for a $3.3-billion natural gas pipeline "to help Afghanistan become an energy bridge in the region."
With many Americans (including academics and former top U.S. government officials) now questioning even the physical facts of 9/11 and seriously disputing the "militant Islam" spin, with the media more brain-dead than it's been in our lifetimes, now is not the time for jingoism and blind faith in the likes of Cheney, George W. Bush and Robert Gates.
Our young men are worth more than that -- aren't they, Mr. Harper?
http://www.winnipegsun.com/News/Col...13/4002082.html |
I don't even know where to begin with this.
The author is obviously delusional in blaming Harper since it wasn't him that committed the troops in the first place.
Secondly, Afghanistan is a much different case than Iraq which is why we're there.
Trying to intertwine both with BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) is ludicrous AND suggesting that people are questioning 9/11 facts like it's mainstream is just dumb.
The only ones questioning are the small minority that jump up and down like a f$@#in' Jack Russell terrier until they get some attention.
The U.N. voted involvement in Afghanistan because of the oppressive war lords ruining the country and for not handing over Bin Laden when asked by the Security Counsel.
It's THEM you should be mad at, not us for trying to help! :whip:
liberals....you get a little dirty doing some work and all they do is whine and blame someone else... :rolleyes: |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Trying to intertwine both with BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) is ludicrous AND suggesting that people are questioning 9/11 facts like it's mainstream is just dumb.
liberals....you get a little dirty doing some work and all they do is whine and blame someone else... :rolleyes: |
LOL, 84% of American's don't buy the official 9-11 story dumbass :D :
| quote: | Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research
Americans Question Bush on 9/11 Intelligence
October 14, 2006
Many adults in the United States believe the current federal government has not been completely forthcoming on the issue of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, according to a poll by the New York Times and CBS News. 53 per cent of respondents think the Bush administration is hiding something, and 28 per cent believe it is lying.
Only 16 per cent of respondents say the government headed by U.S. president George W. Bush is telling the truth on what it knew prior to the terrorist attacks, down five points since May 2002.
Al-Qaeda operatives hijacked and crashed four airplanes in the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001, killing nearly 3,000 people. In October, after Afghanistan’s Taliban regime refused to hand over al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, the U.S. launched the war on terrorism.
On Aug. 6, 2001, a Presidential Daily Briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." mentioned "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York."
On May 17, 2002, Bush discussed the situation, saying, "The American people know this about me, and my national security team, and my administration: Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to kill on that fateful morning, I would have done everything in my power to protect the American people."
On Sept. 11, Bush referred to the attacks, saying, "Five years after 9/11, our enemies have not succeeded in launching another attack on our soil, but they’ve not been idle. Al-Qaeda and those inspired by its hateful ideology have carried out terrorist attacks in more than two dozen nations. And just last month, they were foiled in a plot to blow up passenger planes headed for the United States. They remain determined to attack America and kill our citizens—and we are determined to stop them."
Polling Data
When it comes to what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001, about possible terrorist attacks against the United States, do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?
Oct. 2006, May 2002
Telling the truth
16%, 21%
Hiding something
53%, 65%
Mostly lying
28%, 8%
Not sure
3%, 6%
Source: The New York Times / CBS News
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 983 American adults, conducted from Oct. 5 to Oct. 8, 2006. Margin of error is 4 per cent.
|
Source: Angus Reid
And most of the world population doesn't eigher LOL. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
LOL, 84% of American's don't buy the official 9-11 story dumbass :D :
|
to me, that just shows how ordinary your (very) average american is in the mental capacity department ;)
plus, theres a BIG difference between believing the administration may have hidden facts from the public, and arguing the administration actually helped carry out the attacks. you cant use polls regarding the former to prove the latter.
84% of americans you say? are these the same bright souls that voted for bush in the first place? :p well, they MUST be right! |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
LOL, 84% of American's don't buy the official 9-11 story dumbass :D :
Source: Angus Reid
And most of the world population doesn't eigher LOL. |
We're talking about two different things.
I'm referring to the nut jobs and the facts about how the towers actually fell.
You're referring to the conjecture that led up to that event.
'dumbass' ;) |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
We're talking about two different things.
I'm referring to the nut jobs and the facts about how the towers actually fell. |
LOL, you're still the dumbass :D. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
LOL, you're still the dumbass :D. |
Sorry...you lost me...:conf: |
|
|
| hardcore trancer |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
LOL, you're still the dumbass :D. |
Agreed :disbelief |
|
|
| LazFX |
| quote: | Originally posted by hardcore trancer
Agreed :disbelief |
When two or more "dumbass gather": Hardcore Trancer will soon come.. ;) |
|
|
| XaNaX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Sorry...you lost me...:conf: |
He is referring to how the CIA used holograms of airplanes to make us think planes were hitting the towers while it was in fact George W. Bush himself up there planting the explosives that brought the towers down. Didn't you see how the debris blew outward from the building? That's proof, proof I say, that the explosion came from inside the towers. If a plane had hit from the outside all the debris would have been directed inwards and none would have hit the ground. Its proof that George W. Bush blew up the towers.
ing idiots, that's exactly what they sound like spouting their 9/11 cover up theories. |
|
|
|
|
