Does Europe take 9/11 seriously? | xltronic messageboard
 
You are not logged in!

F.A.Q
Log in

Register
  
 
  
 
Now online (3)
belb
recycle
dariusgriffin
...and 108 guests

Last 5 registered
Oplandisks
nothingstar
N_loop
yipe
foxtrotromeo

Browse members...
  
 
Members 8025
Messages 2614385
Today 31
Topics 127560
  
 
Messageboard index
Does Europe take 9/11 seriously?
 

offline raimons from Stockholm (Sweden) on 2003-01-18 04:06 [#00518686]
Points: 4266 Status: Lurker



they despise, but against the Russian occupation and
Russia's crimes against Muslims.

The "Afghanis" did not terminate their activities, however.
They joined Bosnian Muslim forces in the Balkan Wars; the US
did not object, just as it tolerated Iranian support for
them, for complex reasons that we need not pursue here,
apart from noting that concern for the grim fate of the
Bosnians was not prominent among them. The "Afghanis" are
also fighting the Russians in Chechnya, and, quite possibly,
are involved in carrying out terrorist attacks in Moscow and
elsewhere in Russian territory. Bin Laden and his "Afghanis"
turned against the US in 1990 when they established
permanent bases in Saudi Arabia -- from his point of view, a
counterpart to the Russian occupation of Afghanistan, but
far more significant because of Saudi Arabia's special
status as the guardian of the holiest shrines.



 

offline raimons from Stockholm (Sweden) on 2003-01-18 04:06 [#00518688]
Points: 4266 Status: Lurker



Bin Laden is also bitterly opposed to the corrupt and
repressive regimes of the region, which he regards as
"un-Islamic," including the Saudi Arabian regime, the most
extreme Islamic fundamentalist regime in the world, apart
from the Taliban, and a close US ally since its origins. Bin
Laden despises the US for its support of these regimes. Like
others in the region, he is also outraged by long-standing
US support for Israel's brutal military occupation, now in
its 35th year: Washington's decisive diplomatic, military,
and economic intervention in support of the killings, the
harsh and destructive siege over many years, the daily
humiliation to which Palestinians are subjected, the
expanding settlements designed to break the occupied
territories into Bantustan-like cantons and take control of
the resources, the gross violation of the Geneva
Conventions, and other actions that are recognized as crimes
throughout most of the world, apart from the US, which has
prime responsibility for them. And like others, he contrasts
Washington's dedicated support for these crimes with the
decade-long US-British assault against the civilian
population of Iraq, which has devastated the society and
caused hundreds of thousands of deaths while strengthening
Saddam Hussein -- who was a favored friend and ally of the
US and Britain right through his worst atrocities, including
the gassing of the Kurds, as people of the region also
remember well, even if Westerners prefer to forget the
facts. These sentiments are very widely shared. The _Wall
Street Journal_ (Sept. 14) published a survey of opinions of
wealthy and privileged Muslims in the Gulf region (bankers,
professionals, businessmen with close links to the U.S.).
They expressed much the same views: resentment of the U.S.
policies of supporting Israeli crimes and blocking the
international consensus on a diplomatic settlement for many
years while devastating Iraqi civilian society, supporting
harsh and repressive anti-democratic regimes throughout the
region, and imposing barr


 

offline raimons from Stockholm (Sweden) on 2003-01-18 04:08 [#00518689]
Points: 4266 Status: Lurker



read more
here



 

offline flea from depths of your mind (New Zealand) on 2003-01-18 04:23 [#00518703]
Points: 9083 Status: Regular



9/11: The Winners and The Profiteers


 

offline Red from Hell (New Zealand) on 2003-01-18 05:16 [#00518758]
Points: 378 Status: Addict | Followup to KEYFUMBLER: #00516299



Well history has this awful habit of repeating itself and
some countries are probably not much better off than 100
years ago in terms of human rightsin fact probably worse
off.

I insist that by reading Dr Helen Caldicott "The New Nuclear
Danger. George W.Bush's Miltary Industry Complex" that I
just completed in about 8 hours which illustrates some of
the points I had made..better...you will feel a bit
different if not totally paranoid :)

Here's a tidbit...

Globally the annual miltary expenditure stands at $780
billion dollars. The total amount required to provide global
health care, eliminate starvation and malnurition, provide
clean water and shelter for all, remove landmines, eliminate
nuclear weapons, stop deforestation, prevent global warning,
ozone depletion, and acid rain, reduce the paralysing debt
of developing nations, prevent soil erosion, produce safe,
clean energy, stop overpopulation, and eliminate illiteracy
is only one third that amount -- $237.5 billion dollars.

She says America in particular has the power and resources
to solve these problems. If less money was directed towards
killing and the US met its obligations on
Nuclear/Environmental UN treaties instead of violating them,
forcing countries like North Korea that cannot feed its
population to build ineffective Weapons of Mass Destruction
in order to box China into an arms race etc etc the world
would be a much safer place.



 

offline Red from Hell (New Zealand) on 2003-01-18 05:21 [#00518760]
Points: 378 Status: Addict | Followup to raimons: #00518689



Cheers for the Noam Chomsky post, he's a total icon


 


Messageboard index