This is the last thing I will write on this, I am on holidays and have better to do.
----- Original Message ----- From: Christoph Reuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2002 3:13 AM Subject: Re: pipeline nonsense > To make one basic thing clear: This is NOT about "the Jews" [=Jan's term] > -- as little as it is about "the Muslims". To make it even clearer, because you are not only not reading what is written, but clearly trying to put what I write in a false light: my term was 'Jews' not 'the' Jews, and 'muslims' and 'arabs', not 'the muslims'... 9/11 was a conspiracy of a very > small clique, be it (as the official version says) Al-Qaeda or be it an > US-Israeli group (or perhaps even a "mixed" group, such as Carlyle/BinLadin). there is not the slightest proof US or Israeli were involved; > In both cases, the small clique is unelected, totalitarian, highly criminal, > and does not only not represent their own people(s), but works to the harm > of their own people(s). In both cases, there is absolutely no valid reason > for generalizations from the clique to the people(s), or even for collective > punishments as in Afghanistan or in US mosques. > > > Jan Matthieu wrote: > > Hell man, do you denie the people who committed those attacks where muslims > > now?? Are you insinuating they were Jews? Wake up. Those attacks were > > perpetrated by muslims. Arabs, Saudi, and Egyptian mostly. Not Jews. And > > they didn't commit suicide for a pipeline. > > The cannon fodder is pretty irrelevant, as are the pretexts that got them > into the mission. That's about the biggest nonsense I have read about the 9/11 attacks. So the perpetrators are irrelevant... and their motives also... tell that to any court in the world, a new approach to criminal law. And were you present in the airplanes to check if they > were Arabs ? What matters is who pulled the strings and to what end. > (Btw, did the Anthrax came from Al-Qaeda too?) > What matters is who did it. The stories about pullers of strings are cheap conspiracy theories which are never substantiated. By association you can make the whole world guilty according to the inspiration and information of the moment. > > > For Afghanistan this was the best thing that happened in a long time. > > Orwell must be spinning in his grave. > > > > If a similar intervention and > > accompanying input of means and money would be effected in for example > > Congo, it would be welcomed by the overwhelming majority of the population. > > So what are you waiting for, Jan? If anyone's, that's the job of Belgium > as the former colonizer of Congo. (I sure hope you won't repeat the > Lumumba thing in the process.) > On the contrary, if Belgium would do an intervention with the best of intentions I am sure the people at whatreallyhappened would find a way to prove we did it to our own advantage. There will always be a company that profits from it, and if there is a Belgian beneficiary, there's your proof. So we want a UN intervention (although of course even those are suspect) but I'm afraid the US and UK wouldn't allow it; too many US firms having interests there for the moment. Jan PS: I am getting quite tired with this pointless discussion and will not continue it. Believe whatever you want.
