The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[casi] Anti-Muslim is acceptable?

Last night I read a VERY interesting 60 page document
on all the unanswered questions around 9/11.  Here is
the link for those that have some free time, it's
DEFINITELY a worthwhile read...

The article suggests it is radical elements within the
Jewish religion that are behind 9/11 and most of the
terror attacks that have occurred recently.
Everything is documented, and a VERY strong case is
made.  This is TOTALLY opposite of the case Bush and
Blair promised to make against Bin Laden.  Nothing but
speculation, and grainy, doctored VHS tapes are all
the multi-billion dollar CIA has been able to come up

In the aftermath of 9/11, who has benefited more from
the terrorist attacks, al Qaeda or Israel?  Who stands
to benefit the most, and who is most adamantly behind
the inevitable war with Iraq?

I'm sure most people are afraid to even suggest
something like this for fear of being labeled
anti-semite.  But it is not like I am condemning a
whole religion, only a few radical fanatics within a
particular religion (the same way the above referenced
article does).  If this is unacceptable, why is it ok
to condemn the entire religion of Islam based on the
ALLEGED actions of a few radicals?

Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos

Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit
To contact the list manager, email
All postings are archived on CASI's website:

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]