Tuesday, February 25, 2003

if you have to lie to justify war,
The war ain't just!

Tuesday, February 18, 2003

Blog Number 2 (more to come ...)

Powell's case for war?

There seems to me to be a slight problem with what
Powell actually said, or rather, what he didn't say.

If The USA has such wonderful spy technology that it
can listen in on people 'deceiving' the inspectors by
removing forbidden weapons technology FROM a place
that is about to be inspected. How come they never
EVER hear where that stuff is moved to? (to send
inspectors there?)

Mohamad: "you gotta move the stuff."
Almed: "OK I gotta move the stuff."
Mohamad: "yup, get it moved."
Almed: "OK, will do matey skip."
Mohamad: "Good."
Almed: "OK."
Almed: " . . . . . . . . . ."
Almed: "Um,. . . . where to?"

Come on, like the intelligence services wouldn't know?
Also the satelite images of a place that turns out to
be a legal and legitimate missile factory. They got
pictures of them moving things on truck from there.

Sam: "We have seen them moving missile parts out of
that building, ahead of the inspection."
Bob: "Coool, they must be in material breach woo hoo!"
Sam: "Yeah, they loaded up the trucks and drove them
Bob: "OK, where to?"
Sam: "Um ....."

Does this only strech MY credulity here? or is there
more to this?

I wondered about the authenticity of the recordings as
I listened to them. After all, the dialogue seemed
almost too perfect. It was almost as if they KNEW they
were being listened to and yet still gave EXACTLY the
information required to land themselves in the dung.

"They are coming, you should move the 'MODIFIED'vehicle."
"OK I will move the 'MODIFIED' vehicle."
all that was missing was one of them saying "nudge nudge wink wink."

If they were real and didn't know they were being
listened to, they would have said something like,
"The inspectors are coming, move the van",

If they knew they were being listened to they probably
would have used code like,
"They inspected Bahgdad."

This gave me a few initial doubts about the
authenticity of the intelligence to start with.

Well, it then transpires that a part of Powell's
'intelligence' come from up-to-the-minute information
gathered from the UK, from Tony Blair, from MI6
presumably. Only, it doesn't, does it? No. It was
information 'stolen' from reports and from a thesis dating
back twelve years, edited to make it look scary and
compliled by Junior members of Tony's 'spin' (or lie
through the teeth and hope you get away with it)

What else was false about Powell's declaration to the
Security Council? Incidentally, doesn't Powell
presenting false information to that Council mean that
the USA is now in material breach of 1441?

The fact that falshoods are already proven in at least
some of Powell's testimony, means that the rest of it
MUST also be held in doubt.

Add to this the history of deception by The United States
Government in relation to Iraq. specifically the
'baby incubator story' where PR company 'Hill & Knowlton'
were employed to produce a reason for war. This was when Iraq's
direct aggression and invasion of another sovereign state
wasn't enough to pursuade the nation to take to war.
They produced a story of evil Iraqi soldiers tipping
tiny, helpless, premature babies out of their incubators
onto a cold hard Kuwait hospital floor to die. Just so that
the Iraqi's could steal the incubators to use in Bahgdad.
President Bush Snr. used this example of an 'evil act' many
time in speaches to pursuade the nation to go to war.

That 'evil act' was all a total fabrication. Lies
from start to finish. It was complete crap, bollocks
and bullshit -
and I bought it 100%.

They then present us with much more of the same 'intelligence
brought to you from wag the dog productions!'

This is what they use to pursuade us to want us to
send our loved one's off to war? Only, it won't
be a war will it?

It will be wholesale slaughter.

Iraq hasn't got any defences left. The Pro war Hawks
keep telling us Anti-war Peaceniks,
"It's OK, the conflict will only last a few days,
short sharp and disarmed by easter!"

Which also begs the question, If they are so
defenceless that this will be over so quick, HOW are
they a threat?

As for the, "Well, they are making WMD, which
terrorists could then use to attack us with" arguement.

firstly, Iraq knows it has more to gain by preventing
terrorists getting this stuff, because if any wmd does
hit the USA, Bahgdad will be turned to glass.

The Islamic fundamentalists know this too. So if they
want a muslim state to be nuked, they know how to
achieve it.

The main thing stopping terrorists at the moment is this
direct threat. Once Iraq has been 'Liberated' there will
be no reason for them to hold back, but quite the opposite.

Secondly, any chemical or biological weapons Iraq did
have will be inert by now. The only stocks they had are
what they got from the US, UK, France, Germany and a few
other places pre-1990. The stuff that is used to culture
anthrax goes off. There isn't a lab left in Iraq that
can make this stuff.

Jack Straw, the UK Foreign Secretary, claims that these
deadly weapons systems can be produced in a lab the
size of a living room. THAT IS TRUE! no really it is!

HOWEVER, that same living room sized lab needs to be
supported by a large facility that imports restricted
products. That would stand out like a sore thumb if it
was in a developed country. In a heavily restricted,
monitored and opressed third world country like Iraq?

Don't make me laugh!

These facts are not seriously discussed in the media.
Just the lies that are repeated continuously. Just the
false statements and disinformation and misleading

We are presented with this falsified evidence in
(arguably) the most serious location on the planet,
The Security Council of the United Nations,
with a straight face and deadly serious intent.

They try to justify pre-emptive slaughter with these
lies and deception.

Sorry Mr Powell, I am not convinced. But then, I know
how to think. So that evidence was not intended for people like me.

Blog number 1 (more to come...)

OK, so Bush's own standard of proof, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; or the fact that there is no evidence proves how devious and weasly that regime is and therefore, the case for war; or "we don't need no stinking evidence". Using this standard, we can see that the US Government has for years had regular and on going contact with aliens from a variety of extra solar planets; that Bush himself is a vile child molestor and murderer, that Tony Bliar regularly runs drugs from Downing street, or even that David Icke was right and the Queen really is a seven foot baby eating lizard person; or it can prove any other phoney charge you wish to throw about. They will not be able to defend themselves from those charges because if they are innocent, then they will be proved guilty by the lack of evidence against them.

In other words we can't prove it. Oh really? Well then, that proves it's true! Or another simpler explanation is lack of proof is proof. How much more Orwellian can you get?

Denial by these people of such things further proves the case against them as they all have lied before (as have ALL humans), therefore you can't trust a word they say.

Using the standards of international law endorsed by Bush, the Iraqis actually have more right, under the said international law, to attack the US than the US has of attacking Iraq. Based on the much banded 'Pre emptive, Defensive strike'; Iraq can prove that as a sovereign nation, it feels that it is likely to face an attack, possibly by a nation intent on using weapons of mass destruction, and therefore has the right to self defense under the relevent articles of the United Nations.

Why isn't the Global media screaming these obvious contradictions, in the western leaders arguments, out for the world to hear. the only places that these contradictions appear is within the chattering classes written media (small harmless circulation), and the alternative web-based news. Mainstream prime time mass culture news media is swallowing and regurgitating the Bush-Bliar lies verbatim without question or apology.

We should look perhaps to the ownership of such media, and we will see what? That the owners of the media intent on war are the people that also own huge shareholdings in weapons manufacturing? or how about Middle east construction Companies? or Oil? The media Giants are set to make a fortune from the 'inevitable war that isn't inevitable'. This conflict of interest that is due to cost the lives of perhaps millions of innocent men, women and children has got to stop.

Innocent servicemen and women from the US and the UK will be butchering innocent iraqis in the false belief that it will be to defend their own homelands. To murder people for a lie is wrong. to murder people to make oil and weapons manufacturing company shareholders rich is wrong.

The Iraqi war is wrong.