Yeah yeah, of course Pilger is going to write this. It sells. Even-handedness doesn't obviously.
Tanya I'm a little more discerning than to believe the totality of a written opinion in entirety. I prefer to read the drier primary sources and formulate my own opinions rather than read secondary source opinions such as this.
He makes some very good points later in the work, but loses impact with his opening declaration of fraudulance and Talibanese creation by America. This is wrong. America helped fund the Mujahedin - which wouldn't have needed to exist if the Russians hadn't invaded, so both America and Russia should take repsonsibility if so.
The Taliban were a bunch of students from the hills. As they are Wahabists, Saudi Arabia is a truer parent than America.
America gave them weapons, but misguided destructionist religious fervor is what brought down the Twin Towers. Weapons had nothing to do with it.
Pilgers assertion of 'gold' motive is pure unfounded speculation based on the mere presence of an oil pipeline. There are no figures which indicate a President with a business degree would make more money from the oil than he would lose from the war.
War is expensive. The war could drag America into recession. This opinion of Pilgers is suprisingly paranoid. I thought him more intelligent and informed than that, but it rings of 'conspiracy theory paranoia', and is totally speculative.
It ignores the obvious, open, given reason for current events and goes delving into the shadows of mystery for speculations and sinister evils.
Why?
Makes money doesn't it?
Call me a cynic but I'm seeing an 'oil pipeline' from this opinion.
Anyone want to buy my author-signed copy of "Distant Voices"? I'll be getting rid of it really cheaply now.
A
------------------
