posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 03:43 PM
My take is that the mass suicide attempt was perhaps a radical group PsyOp tactic to get more negative headlines in the press like "The treatment in
Gitmo is so bad, the prisoners rather killed themselves".
but then again, since we only get limited information about their treatment there is always the remote change it might be true....Still feel
uncomfortable about how your national security laws are evovlving in a way wich potentially allows so many things to be stuffed under the
carpet....Same for the new security branch of Donald Rumsfeld, will they serve national security, protect the lives of everyday americans, or
primarely corporate interests, perhaps even put the lives of everyday Americans at risk for it???
you don't know, you just have to take a politicians word for it, even when sworn on a bible I still would like be able to see if politicians can
keep their word, no matter what party they represent.
For example, in the UK, Mark Thatcher got away with a lot of dirty stuff, just because Margaret Thatcher in her heydays ordered MI6 to cover anything
related with the flag of national security, pointing at the soviet boogeyman, maybe even assasinations were part of covering up his dubious weapon
deals. Was the Falkland war an act of liberation, serving the national interest, or a golden oppertunity to amass a fortune, serving a personal
[edit on 24-1-2005 by Countermeasures]