Hard hitting article from Michael Meacher MP

[Donut]

He seems to be suggesting that the US allowed the 9/11 attack to happen so that they could wage war on Afghanistan and Iraq.

This war on terrorism is bogus

The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination

Meacher is a labour MP and until June 03 he served as a member of Blair's Government.

[Timber Loftis]

This loser probably lies awake in bed at night sweating about black helicopters and the illuminati.

[Donut]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: This loser probably lies awake in bed at night sweating about black helicopters and the illuminati.

Do you feel able to comment on the article. In particular about the FAA protocol for dealing with hijacked airlines and the document "Rebuilding America's Defences" which was prepared by the Neocons in 2000.

BTW - overuse of the rolleyes smiley greatly reduces it's impact.

[Skunk]

I have a lot of respect for Michael Meacher - he is a politician of the highest calibre and integrity. Nonetheless, I feel that his analysis is a little uncharitable - although the facts that he mentions are true enough.

Much of the assessment hinges on a deliberate policy, where clearly miscommunication, ignorance and downright blundering could equally give explanation for the events that he describes.

On the other hand, the neo-cons of the current administration are hardly the paradigm of morality and sometimes its hard to keep making excuses for their actions...

[Chewbacca]

The fact those 'war-mongering' neo-cons had their greedy little hawk eyes on Iraq well before 9-11 should not be glossed over. I think it is well worth considering when contemplating and forming opinions about the events of the last year with regards to Iraq.

[ 09-08-2003, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Donut: [QB] Do you feel able to comment on the article. In particular about the FAA protocol for dealing with hijacked airlines and the document "Rebuilding America's Defences" which was prepared by the Neocons in 2000.

Yes, but I won't. With the departure of MagiK, Attalus, and some others from this forum, I find myself often the most conservative of the lot. This doesn't happen because I am a conservative, but rather because I am a devil's advocate and everyone else here is pretty consistently liberal and/or anti-US. In this instance, however, my devil's advocacy would have me arguing on behalf of Wolfowitz and the neocon warhawks. While there may be valid points the neocons have, I won't ferret them out or adopt them for argument's sake, as I just don't have the stomach for it right now.

BTW - overuse of the rolleyes smiley greatly reduces it's impact.

Well, as I said, I didn't have the stomach to argue on this. However, the conspiracy theory notion that the US allowed the attacks I find it utterly silly. I shelve it in my library along with arguments that the holocaust didn't happen or that the US didn't land on the moon. It goes under the "you aren't worth my time" sub-heading, if you know what I mean. It's just ridiculous. To argue the US was negligent is one thing -- but complicit -- whoa, fella, them's almost fightin' words. Which is why I rolled my virtual eyes. I think if it's ever appropriate, it is in this regard.

[Faceman]

Sadly this is a dishonest world and these are dishonest times (but so were all I guess). Politicians do not always tell the truth and most importantly they do not always tell you everything.
And this is were the conspiracy theories come in. they mostly argue/conclude that if someone lied about something he must have been involved in it heavily.
Now if I for example lie to my boss (which I don't ) about say my grandmothers funeral being on Monday instead of Sunday to get an extra day off that does not necessarily mean that I killed her.
*Analogy to my stupid metaphor*
If the neocons lie about some facts concerning 9/11 that does NOT mean the CIA blew up WTC. That does NOT necessarily mean that they let it happen espite better knowledge, etc.

[ 09-08-2003, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: Faceman ]

[wellard]

I’m sorry Donut but Meacher should have stuck with getting rid of old fridges rather than read into American intelligence stuff ups as being deliberate and sinister. (like those stuffups with the Lockerbie bombing as well)

And yes Skunk, I've always has a high opinion of Meacher too, until now [img]graemlins/verysad.gif[/img] He was one of the best left/wing green MP's in Govt. Pragmatic and seemingly honest. He seems to have attended one to many "the USA is the root of all evil meetings" though [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

[ 09-08-2003, 10:35 PM: Message edited by: wellard ]

[Skunk]

---wellard He seems to have attended one to many "the USA is the root of all evil meetings" though

Or it could be that simply serving for so long in Tony Blair's government of spin has ruined his ability to recognise what is and what is not true anymore...

[Donut]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Yes, but I won't. With the departure of MagiK, Attalus, and some others from this forum, I find myself often the most conservative of the lot. This doesn't happen because I am a conservative, but rather because I am a devil's advocate and everyone else here is pretty consistently liberal and/or anti-US. In this instance, however, my devil's advocacy would have me arguing on behalf of Wolfowitz and the neocon warhawks. While there may be valid points the neocons have, I won't ferret them out or adopt them for argument's sake, as I just don't have the stomach for it right now.

I understand your position TL. Apart from this article I think you would find yourself broadly in agreement with Meacher on environmental issues.