Re: RE: NATO gets proof

On Tue, 2 Oct 2001 [email protected] wrote:

> Are you claiming that the US is purposefully lying to the public and
> the world just in order to get revenge on a man that didn't commit the
> crime they want justice for or that they are too stupid to release
> overwhelming evidence to the world that would obviously support their
> position?  Doesn't it make more sense that they simply don't want to

I smell troll but ...

Certainly, I think the US is capable (and willing) to lie outright in
pursuit of its larger goals.  These larger goals are basically to protect
US power (as in the power of US corporations and rich folks) at home and
abroad.

Osama Bin Laden, while he may very well be responsible for terrorist acts
against the US, also represents a threat to US interests in the Middle
East.  For example, he is opposed to the current Saudi Arabian government.
The US wants that government to stay because it bends backwards to give
the US what it wants.  This government is not at all democratic.

So getting Bin Laden dead is certainly a goal the US would be likely to
pursue no matter what.  The events of 9/11 provide a convenient cover for
this.

> give away any advantage to these terrorists no matter how small, be it
> an inside source whose life might be endangered or a mistake in their
> planning that they may repeat, or perhaps even because they don't give
> a high prority right now to explaining thousands upon thousands of
> documents and sources to six billion people that each have their own
> version of the facts.  It is an admirable trait of our democracy that

I certainly think it is possible that this evidence (assuming it exists)
does expose crucial US intelligence.  This doesn't mean that none of it
could be revealed.  As to their priorities, I'm sure the US government,
with its very long history of propoganda and outright lying, does _not_
place a high priority on explaining itself (if that means telling the
truth).

> it is one of the most transparent in the world, however that does not
> mean that it must release all information as soon as it recieves,
> particularly if it endangers ongoing processes.

I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean.  In a way, its sort of true.
The facts are pretty much all out there but the mainstream media refuses
to tell them.  So I guess its transparent in theory.  In practice,
government and media propoganda overwhelm the real facts.


-dave

/*==================
www.urth.org
We await the New Sun
==================*/