[www-features] threat to Iran feature (suzq)
boud at riseup.net
Wed Mar 15 17:56:50 PST 2006
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, SuZQ wrote:
> Just from the title alone, I would support hiding the Iran War
> article. It's inflammatory makes broad assumptions based on predictions
> and imputed motives that cannot easily be proven.
The motives of institutions which developed in the USA (together with
UK and the rest of Europe) over the past 500 years have been
documented by people such as Noam Chomsky.
We should expect the behaviour of these institutions to be similar to
The article does not aim to "prove" anything. It summarises recent
claims, attempting to get to primary sources as much as possible,
which are credible in the light of analyses by serious, meticulous
people such as Chomsky, and has extensive links so that the reader can
judge for him/herself the validity or invalidity of the various
Could you please state any concrete concerns you have, which are not
already listed in the 6 points here:
> Also as someone whose
> entire family has been heavily affected by the nuclear industry, I don't
> think we should be lightly making accusations about nuclear plans.
i don't think it's easy to get 1796 US physicists to "lightly" make
accusations against their employer:
i don't see any evidence that Chossudovsky:
are making their statements lightly.
All 6.5 billion of us will be at risk if the nuclear weapons taboo is
"succesfully" broken in practice (it does already seem to have been
broken in US military documents and a Senate decision). i agree that
this should not be discussed lightly.
If you can find evidence that the Chossudovsky/Hirsch claims and/or the
petition of the US physicists are not serious, then please give the
More information about the www-features