Lipow quoted:
>http://www.zmag.org/whatsgoing.htm
>
>What's Going On?
>By Michael Albert
>
>The U.S. response to September 11 seeks to benefit elites in the U.S.,
>and, to a lesser degree, around the world. There are various goals.
[clip]
>Fourth, to have a good shot at getting rid of the Taliban, you would
>close the borders of Afghanistan, starve the country, and hope that
>Taliban members start to defect and that the country rises up in anguish
>and despair. Fifth, to fill the ensuing power vacuum, you would support
>Afghanistan's Northern alliance. Most important, sixth, to diminish the
>groundswell of anti-war opposition to your combating terror with even
>greater terror, you would send food to Afghanistan's borders, and
>perhaps even drop food from planes inland. But, if you could have your
>way, not too much food, of course. Indeed, if you remained free to do
>so, you would provide only a pittance compared to the need generated by
>closing the borders in the first place and by removing larger sources of
>aid. Your goal would be to induce starvation sufficient to topple the
>Taliban.
[clip]
Ken Hanly posted:
"WASHINGTON, Sept 30 (AFP) -
Washington has shelved plans for bombing raids on Afghanistan because of a
shortage of viable targets, opting instead to deploy special forces,
Newsweek said in its issue appearing Monday.
[clip]
Newsweek added that the United States may drop shipments of food into
Afghanistan before it drops any bombs, in a bid to undermine popular support
in the starving country for the fundamentalist Taliban which Washington has
indicated it wants out of power."
Could you find out if Albert thinks Newsweek is running propaganda?
Peter