Jan Matthieu wrote:
> Debka is interesting but unreliable,
> but it sure as hell is many times worth the time reading I would waste on
> reading the stuff on whateveritwasthatreallyhappenedaccordingtocertainpeople
> dot com. with the Israeli did it, Osama had nothing to do with it and
> everyone had just been waiting to attack afghanistan because they wanted to
> build that pipeline nonsense, it's just tiring and it leaves one nothing
> wiser.
>First, you (rightly) explained why Debka is useless PR, but then you say it
>is worth more than whatreallyhappened.com (although the latter does provide
>sources and verifiable facts, unlike Debka). Where's the logic in that?
> Debka is interesting but unreliable,
> but it sure as hell is many times worth the time reading I would waste on
> reading the stuff on whateveritwasthatreallyhappenedaccordingtocertainpeople
> dot com. with the Israeli did it, Osama had nothing to do with it and
> everyone had just been waiting to attack afghanistan because they wanted to
> build that pipeline nonsense, it's just tiring and it leaves one nothing
> wiser.
>First, you (rightly) explained why Debka is useless PR, but then you say it
>is worth more than whatreallyhappened.com (although the latter does provide
>sources and verifiable facts, unlike Debka). Where's the logic in that?
JAN:
I didn't write Debka
is useless PR, if I thought it useless I wouldn't read it. I wrote it makes
more interesting reading because (allowing for the PR factor and being aware of
their profound bias) every now and again I read something *new* on it, things I
didn't know yet from elsewhere, and which might or might not be true. The
whatreallyetc. mostly provides info I knew already from elsewhere and is also
deeply biased (but that is a matter of opinion) propaganda from the 'other side'
(than the Israëli)
CHRIS:
Concerning the "pipeline nonsense", I'm surprised that you as a Green
official dismiss the pipeline background as "nonsense", although the
pipeline background is very well documented, even by official US sources
such as
http://www.house.gov/international_relations/105th/ap/wsap212982.htm
(in February 1998, a Unocal vice-president said in a US parliament
hearing: "From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of
our proposed pipeline [through Afghanistan] cannot begin until a recognized
government is in place that has the confidence of ... our company.")
and books and interviews by Zbigniew Brzezinski, former US national security
advisor.
You can also read about it in mainstream papers like Time Magazine
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/1998/dom/980504/world.the_rush_for_caspi6.html
or the Seattle Times
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/134421572_afghanoil17.html
and the pipeline background can also be verified by the present facts on
the ground (the pipeline construction is underway now, and Afghanistan
is led by former Unocal advisor Karzai).
JAN:
I first
heard of that proposed pipeline in 1993 or 1994 (about the time the taliban
first were mentioned in the international press in connection to that pipeline
too), so the fact of that pipeline is of course established, nor did I ever deny
that, why would I? I even mentioned the matter to our political secretary
general in those days already -- who answered 'the tally-what?' --. What I
called nonsense is what comes just before the word 'pipeline' in my text:
"everyone had just been waiting to attack afghanistan because they wanted to
build that..." and 'Osama had nothing to do with the attacks on the towers'
and 'it's an Israëli conspiracy, because they are the ones who will profit most
from a war against the arabs...' Those allegations are unfounded and
unverified and yes I believe nonsense.
CHRIS
So you see Jan, it really isn't hard to find out that it's anything
but "pipeline nonsense", and you do _not_ need whatreallyhappened.com
to learn about this.
JAN: you are write
about that last bit
CHRIS:
I think this basic knowledge about the pipeline
background is mandatory for a government advisor, especially from a
party that is supposed to care about the environment.
background is mandatory for a government advisor, especially from a
party that is supposed to care about the environment.
JAN: of course it is, thanks for reminding me of my
duties
;>)
HTH,
Chris
HTH,
Chris
