Rumours about T W A T (The War Against Terror)

[HStorm]

Rumours are circulating (in the US media, so god knows whether there's the slightest chance of it being true) that there will be a fresh terrorist attack on the States by Al Qaeda if a General Election is not called in Iraq within the next 60 days.

[Naselus]

By US media, do you mean FOX again? 'cos if you do, please don't waste your time, effort and damage to your keyboard reporting it every time they come out with more bullshit scare stories. You'd never be able to get anything else done in a day.

[HStorm]

No, it was CNN this time actually. (It was suggested on FOX News 5 days ago, but I didn't bother reporting it then for the very reasons you state.)

[TheCritique]

This rumour doesn't seem to make sense to I:

If Al Qaeda are trying to overthrow Bush, the election attempt is futile - currently Bush is ahead in the polls.

We've only got to wait 3 months until the next election. It's not like Al Qaeda have got to wait years is it?

[HStorm]

It's an Iraqi Election they're demanding, not a US one.

[TheCritique]

Oh, sorry - missed the 'Iraq' bit - only skim read.

[Naselus]

Even though CNN aren't that bad, I still don't particularly believe it. Al Qaeda aren't particularly linked with Iraq, aren't particularly linked with elections and would probably attack the US anyway. It's most likely an attempt to push Bush higher in the US polls by keeping everyone confused and by linking Iraq more strongly with Al-Qaeda in people's minds. To be honest, I STILL can't think of any actual Al-Qaeda activities in Iraq. Can think of plenty in Saudi Arabia though... wonder why no-one says they want an election called there.

[Naselus]

Also, since it was Al-Jazzera that bin Laden used as his 'mouthpiece', how did anyone find out? For reasons that temporarly escape me, I don't completely trust western intelligence agencies not to make this sort of thing up to justify their own immoral ends.

Oh, and check this. In April, 2004, bin Laden offered a truce to Europe, saying that al-Qaeda would not attack any country, with the exception of the U.S., that withdrew its troops from the Islamic world within three months. European leaders quickly rejected the offer.
If they're so busy trying to keep everyone safe, why exactly didn't our government simply agree to these terms?

[HStorm]

Because then we'd have no control over Iraq's oil reserves, meaning the new Government there would join OPEC, and as a result oil prices around the world would go up even fur-... er I mean, because we mustn't give in to the threat of terrorism.

[Incubus]

To be honest, I think it's just the US hyping things up again. There is little chance of Iraq being linked to Al-Qu'ida if Saddam was ruling. He wouldn't want any possible take overs on Iraq.

[TheCritique]

Naselus said:

If they're so busy trying to keep everyone safe, why exactly didn't our government simply agree to these terms?

For the reasons already stated, and because it was a clear attempt to split Europe from the States, which would not be good for many reasons, but primarily: To defeat terrorists, Europe and the US need to be united in warfare.

[Naselus]

It was a rhetorical question, gentlemen, however you raise an interesting point Will. Exactly why is Europe better off united with the states against terror? Which of the terrorist groups that have attacked Europe in recent years has this alliance dealt with? Oh, and can we list the bits of Europe that were in Bush's 'coalition of the willing'? Here they are. I've made a note next to the ones that sent troops, and the number they sent..


United Kingdom (9,000 troops)
Spain (1,300 troops, withdrawing at the end of the year)
Portugal
Denmark (420 troops. Barely counts.)
Netherlands (1,100 troops)
Iceland
Italy
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Poland (2,460 troops)
Czech Republic (80 troops!)
Slovakia (102 troops)
Hungary
Albania (70 troops. Thank god for Albania, eh?)
Macedonia
Romania (700 troops)
Bulgaria (480 troops)
Turkey (actually invaded seperately, non-coalition.)
Ukraine (1,600 troops)

10 out of 18 sent troops. just for comparion, the US sent 130,000 troopers in. but I digress.

The US has made no move against the following European terrorist groups:

The IRA (Ireland/UK)
The real IRA (also Ireland/UK)
Loyalist Volunteer force (Erm...Ireland/UK... enough of that)
The Basque Seperatists ETA (Spain)
The Red Brigades (Italian commies)
November 17 (Greece)
Hizbullah (Turkish, not Hezbollah-related)
the P.K.K. (Turkey again; Kurdish resistance)
UNA-UNSO (Ukraine)
Chechen rebels (Russia)
Kosavo Liberation Army (Albanian)

But they have moved against the following in Europe:



Oh, they've not.

They have invaded Iraq, though. That's made me sleep easy at night, now that we're allied to a completely self-serving US regime and we're right on our enemies doorstep. Europe should have moved away from the US's entire 'coalition' thing. Most of the groups I've listed are from Coalition countries, and absolutely nothing has been done about them. Some, like ETA or the IRA, have been killing people for over fifty years (ETA claims to have been active for over one hundred), most of them since the US started training Al-Qaeda.


Oh, and it looks like the report on CNN was just another bullshit scare story. Probably made up to keep Big Dubya ahead in the polls.

[HStorm]

Just a few other tiny details worth adding to that; -

The USA has provided around 90% of the IRA's funding over the last 30 years. (Our close friends in this special relationship, eh?)

The USA also provided ALL the funding, training and weaponry for Afghanistan and Al Qaeda between 1975 and 1994.

They've also measurably funded, organised and enhanced all terrorist groups in Colombia, Bolivia, Panama, Cuba, Jamaica... (*Pauses for breath*). Essentially, anywhere in Central and South America where the Nation's government is not controlled by the CIA, the terrorism is controlled by the CIA instead. (I will soon upload a computer game called Hiddem Agenda to my website. If you try it out you'll see clearly just what appalling, sleazy manipulation and blackmail Latin America has to cope with from the USA.)

In short, the USA, in forming this coalition of the willing, has rather swapped sides with its traditional allies i.e. the terrorist groups themselves. But then fighting against terrorism was never what this war was about.

[Naselus]

Given that the CIA still do fund most south american 'Freedom Fighters' (Not terrorists, Oh no. They blow things up and kill people, where as freedom fighters eliminate potentially hostile government buildings (schools) and remove corrupt officials (kidnap tourists)), surely what we're looking at is some form of advanced schizotypal disorder affecting the entir eUS government? The USA has actually, finally gone completely mad, and will soon put on a giant chicken outfit and start doing the can-can naked at the next U.N. sumit?

[HStorm]

So they're not liars then? Just madmen?

[TheCritique]

Thankyou for bringing that to my attention HStorm - 90% of IRA funding provided by the US. Bet Thatcher wasn't too pleased about that (Brighton assasination attempt by IRA).

[HStorm]

The American funding off the IRA has actually been a very famous and deeply aggravating problem that has caused enormous resentment in Ulster and between many backbench MP's (especially in the Labour Party) and the American right wing.

This is a bit silly really, because more than half of the money during the period was actually provided by the Democrats and not by the Republicans. (Bitterly as I loathe the Republicans and much as I earnestly pray that Kerry somehow wins the Presidency next month, I'm not going to pretend the Republicans are to blame for everything. The Democrats over there are really no more than a lesser evil. Like the opposition parties over here in fact! )

[HStorm]

As promised, I've now uploaded the computer game, Hidden Agenda to my webspace. Right-click on this link...

havetstorm.tripod.com/hidden.jpg

...and Save Target As, then rename the file Hidden.zip. It's a little under 3 MB, and most of that is the .PDF of the manual. I can't risk leaving it there for too long cos if it gets discovered my site will get deleted (even though it's Abandonware), so I'll remove it at the end of the month. (NOTE: You might have trouble with the link if you aren't using IE or a download manager.)

The game will give you a chance to have a crack at being the first democratic ruler of a Latin American country that has just emerged from a bloody revolution. You'll have to establish a program of political objectives, build a framework of action on countless issues, form diplomatic relations with various political and commercial factions, not least with major powers abroad, and respond to many random emergencies that crop up periodically.

It'll help you to learn just what a hideous position any Third World country is in in the face of foreign dominance, especially CIA interference, and the internal threats posed by factions within your own country, such as rival political parties and security forces that are still used to doing whatever they like in the name of their dictator.

Fascinating stuff, informative, and very scary.

[Naselus]

Another game you might want to try out is Simcountry, a huge online game where you take the role of either a country's president or a company's CEO. It's also free!!

You can sign up at www.simcountry.com

Beware, it's both highly addictive and fiendishly complex.