Terror Inc.

[joanna bujes]

At 12:12 PM 05/04/2002 -0400, Dennis wrote:
>I totally agree with you. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are accessories, and I
>think that Bush and co. have been confused on the former and soft on the
>latter (though hostility to the Saudi throne is growing in DC). Taking on
>the likes of al-Qaeda will not be an easy nor simple, straightforward task,
>and one must resist all manner of propaganda and rhetoric on all sides. But
>the US is certainly a target, and I've no doubt will be again (though I hope
>not). Still, the US response sent the Taliban to the hills and scattered,
>for the time being, al-Qaeda. Its operatives are not strutting about in
>Afghanistan, terrorizing the locals, but are in hiding. That is a positive
>thing. And, yes, removing the Taliban was the first and necessary step in
>this process, as they were state sponsors of al-Qaeda's violence. Going
>after those in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia will be much tougher, but it
>needn't all be through military means.

Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were not accessories: according to Tariq Ali and 
many others, they were the source and continue to be the source of the 
training, funding, and deployment of al-Queda.

I can't think of any more a lucid and persuasive exposition than what 
Michael offered.

The problem is that you want to believe Bush Inc that the war in 
Afghanistan was an actual response to 9/11. It wasn't. It was an operation 
that had already been planned and for which 9/11 provided an excellent 
excuse. The goal of the operation was to establish a U.S. military presence 
in the 'stans and, post 911, to appease a little American blood lust.

Looks like they certainly hooked you, I'm sorry to say.

Joanna