Was Iraq Framed by a US lab and ABC?

[mindstalk]

Remember the anthrax attacks? James links to a news article that a US anthrax researcher has committed suicide, right before he was about to be charged in the attacks. After a wikipedia article, James links to a Salon piece which goes back to the time of the attacks, how the letters in the attacks tried to implicate Muslims, and the false reports of bentonite linking the letters to Iraq, fabricated reports in which ABC played a key roll. Regardless of whether the highly Christian Ivins was personally responsible, the US government is now saying a US government lab was responsible -- so a US lab contributed to the climate of fear post 9/11, and falsely linked it to Islam in general and Iraq in general, thus helping create the attitudes that made invading and destabilizing another country, resulting in tens of thousands of prevantable deaths, seem reasonable.

Me, I'd thought that was obvious it was an inside job, given how the envelopes targetted Democratic politicians and "liberal media" figures, but I hadn't thought about it for a while, nor known of ABC's role.

Welcome to the US! Even our Reichstags are privatized.

Comments

[juvenile-philos.livejournal.com]

To be clear, the naysayers were asserting that the United States isn't anywhere near oppression.

On the other hand, the main reason I don't support gun control is because I've noticed from history that Americans are too stubborn for any kind of ban to ever work.

If I could "uninvent" guns as it were, and prevent them from ever being, I would. As it is, I believe it is better to allow citizens to own guns than to attempt any sort of ban. Consider the prohibition or the war on drugs or the reaction people have to the news that any book has been banned. It just wouldn't work.

[montyy0.livejournal.com]

my interpretation (YMMV) of the 2nd amendment is that the intent was to have the civilians have the right to maintain the ability to put up reasonable resistance to the standing army, if the government got out of line.

In the modern world, I think that would only work if civilians were allowed to have automatic weapons, armor-piercing bullets, destroyers, tanks, antiaircraft rockets, nuclear cruise missiles, and so forth.

I have no idea what this should mean for civilian gun rights, but I wouldn't really give the guy with a hunting rifle good odds against cobra gunships and AC-130s and smart bombs, so I tend to think that the original intent is somewhat moot. And I can understand why law enforcement doesn't really like criminals, or even "law-abiding home defense survivalists," with armor-piercing automatic weapons and rocket propelled grenades wandering around...