Jonola14

In September 2001, the world saw the most horrific terrorist attack in history when hijacked planes were crashed into the twin World Trade Centre towers by suicide bombers, killing 3,000 people. The entire world was horrified and both Western Europe and the United States were forced to live in fear of further extremist attacks, with widespread panic erupting across several nations. The American and UK governments both vowed to bring the guilty to justice and embarked upon a series of 'counter-terrorism' steps.

As time went on, the media began to buzz around writing articles about Iraq and the terrorist threat posed by Saddam Hussein and his dictatorship leaders, despite the fact that Osama Bin Laden had admitted the WTC attacks and was still at large. By early 2003, the US were convinced that Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction and the 45-minute launch debate had sprung up.

I'll freely admit it, I was totally taken in by the whole situation. I wanted justice and I wanted revenge and I fully agreed with going to war to prevent further terrorist attacks (I had been in the twin towers a mere 16 days before the bombings). Like many people at the time, I trusted the US and UK governments and I knew they had the interests of the 'free world' at heart. Why wouldn't I? Governments are elected by majority vote and the majority of people surely wouldn't vote for a government they couldn't trust.

Last night I watched Michael Moore's 'Fahrenheit 9/11' and if you haven't seen it, go and watch it because it's very enlightening, very funny, very emotional and very good. I won't spoil it for those of you who take that piece of advice, but I will say this - Moore exposes Bush for the fraudulent, cheating, lying, money-grabbing traitor that he is and if you liked the President before watching the film, you won't after.

Bush fiddled his election. Bush knows the Bin Laden family through historical business ties. Bush saw the opportunity to use Iraq as a scapegoat for terrorism by claiming Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, despite Colin Powell and co declaring in 2001 that Iraq did NOT have the capability of producing them. Bush knew Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world and Bush was going to do anything he could to get his dirty hands on them, even if it cost billions of dollars and thousands of lives.

I realise that Moore's account may not be 100% correct and that it is his opinion of events, but Fahrenheit 9/11 is astonishingly convincing and given the US government's reputation for secrecy, the facts Moore gives are quite probably true.

Call me a turncoat, but I've changed my mind. I was wrong to trust the government, both US and UK. I say we vote them out and start repairing the damage they've done.

Bravo, old bean. From a UK perspective, I think it's a good thing that Sadam Hussein is no longer in charge, but we were sold the war on a false premise - that Iraq had weapons of destruction, adn could attack us in 45 minutes. Time has dealt these false claims a bitter blow - "us" was in fact Cyprus, the 45 minute claim was a lie, and the weapons are non-existant. I recommend a regular visit to www.bloggerheads.com and www.wibbler.com for more insights.
*steps off soapbox*

agreed on the Saddam thing, Iraq will eventually be better off without him. But the most powerful people in the world lied to the world and judging by the evidence portrayed in Fahrenheit 9/11 they knew exactly what they were doing.

There are lies, damned lies and Presidents Blair and Bush. I look forward to seeing the picture, we don't get much news here, in fact the sunday newspaper headlines were: Hewitt arrested on drugs charge.

and now I'm reading Michael Moore's 'Stupid White Men' book which has lots of the evidence in it. Thoroughly recommend it. Or even www.michaelmoore.com

July 26, 2004

FAHRENHEIT 9/11