|
Where
would I even start? I guess I touched a nerve with
Angry Americans, but the paying public is being kept
deliberately in the dark. I want answers, and I'm
not even an American, although the fact that I sit
30 min from the US border has me seeing Belfast in
a whole new light.
9/11 and its afterbirth raise fundamental questions
that are neither being answered nor addressed. DU
armaments (depleted uranium) being used in Bosnia,
Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, shortly to Iraq again,
then Iran, next stop N. Korea. Only one country has
and uses these weapons without international consequences
and repercussions. Nice for them.
Thousands
of Canadian troops have returned home from 'Peace'
keeping duties and are sick because of DU. Tens of
thousands of US troops (160,000 by some estimates)
are sick because of DU. People living on the Jordanian
side of the Iraqi border are sick because of DU. That
does not take into consideration all those people
living in the fore mentioned countries, at least those
fortunate enough to still be alive.
It
is hypocritical to speak of weapons of mass destruction,
then in turn, deposit millions of minute particles
of radio active materials in the countries of your
choosing.
Canada
is reluctant to send troops to future wars because
of it. The British MOD has concerns about it.
Agent
Green. That's Agent Orange's new code word. Do I have
to go there? We've seen this before in Vietnam. Now
it's coming to a jungle near you. Let's hope the lads
in Colombia are NOT down wind. The people who make
the DU weapons also make and supply Agent Green. Too
bad for the indigenous people and the flora and fauna
of that country.
These
are only two examples of bad foreign policy. I, and
according to recent polls, the majority of Canadians
fully understand the difference between a 'group of
people' and the "policies" of a 'government
that governs on their behalf.'
The simple question is not who committed the attacks
or where are they, but why did they do it in the first
place. See above: bad foreign policy.
The
prospect of crashing aeroplanes into buildings was
known to American officials since 1998. The American
public did not find out until the morning of September
11th, 2001. Why? Forewarned is forearmed, is it not?
Commerce over public safety perhaps?
All
people, who fight for social justice, decry the loss
of all civilian life, that would be why Irish Republican
attacks on British targets were prefaced with a warning,
to minimise or negate the loss of civilian lives,
not always successfully mind you. If I am not mistaken,
it is documented where Bin Laden sent warnings to
the American government. That they chose to ignore
them by not telling the American public, is not something
that is new to government bodies and their security
agencies. Omagh comes to mind, warning or no warning.
One might rightly ask, who benefited most from that
debacle?
Post
9/11, one might rightly ask, who benefited most from
that? Time will tell.
Who speaks for the dead of 9/11? Who is asking the
sensitive questions on their behalf. Living Americans
are being ostracised by their government and mainstream
media when they ask these questions. Why? What do
they have to hide?
Delusional I may be, but I refuse to bury my head
in the sand and accept the party line. It is well
documented, throughout history, how numerous American
governments have manipulated events for their own
political advantage and not for the good of the people.
What makes 9/11 any different?
Index: Current Articles + Latest News and Views + Book Reviews +
Letters + Archives
|
