Just want to see what you feel about this article I am about to post, that I found on questionsquestions.com

Author's note: This story is intended for people who have accepted the official version of the 9/11 story. It should be distributed widely to the uninformed few who still believe this tragedy was engineered by Muslim terrorists.

Either by incompetence or by design, George W. Bush allowed the 9/11 attacks to happen, and probably was involved in the planning of them. The American people might stand by and allow him to slaughter every nation in the world, but they will not stand for it when they know he participated the mass killing of his own people.)

Opposed by everyone in the world who was not bought off, the illegal invasion of Iraq was undertaken for many reasons - the imminent replacement of the dollar by the euro as the world's primary currency, the tempting lure of untapped oil reserves, the desire to consolidate U.S./Israeli military hegemony over a strategically vital region - but the most important reason was to further obscure questions about the awesome deception staged by the American government that has come to be known as 9/11.

9/11 was a hoax. This is no longer a wild conspiracy assertion; it is a fact, supported by thousands of other verifiable facts, foremost of which are:

The attacks of 9/11 COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED without the willful failure of the American defense system. In Washington, Air Force pilots demanded to fly but were ordered to stand down. Yet instead of prosecuting the president and military leaders for this unprecedented dereliction of duty, military leaders were promoted and the president was praised for presiding over a defense system that suspiciously failed the most crucial test in its history. None of the deaths would have happened without the deliberate unplugging of America's air defenses.

Planes that lose contact with control towers are usually intercepted by fighter jets inside of ten minutes, as the incident with the golfer's plane a few months earlier so clearly demonstrated. Yet on 9/11, the jetliners that struck New York were allowed to proceed unmolested for more than a half-hour, and the plane that supposedly crashed in Washington was not intercepted for more than an hour and forty minutes after it was widely known that four planes had been hijacked.

The twin towers could not have collapsed as a result of burning jet fuel. Most of that fuel was consumed on impact. In the south tower, most of the fuel was spilled outside the building. Heat caused by burning jet fuel does not reach temperatures needed to melt steel. What does stand out as particularly suspicious and still unexplained is that fires raged out of control beneath THREE of the collapsed towers for ONE HUNDRED DAYS, clearly indicating the presence of some kind of substance utilized in the demolition of the structures.

The Twin Towers did not fall because of plane impacts or fires. Most likely explosives were placed on structural supports in the towers (as was done in Oklahoma City), and these controlled implosions snuffed out the lives of three thousand people.

FBI Director Robert Mueller insisted officials had no idea this kind of attack could happen when in fact the FBI had been investigating the possibility of EXACTLY this kind of attack for almost TEN YEARS. Numerous previous attempts at using planes as weapons, intimate knowledge of terror plans called Project Bojinka, and knowledge of suspicious characters attending flight schools who were being monitored by the FBI make his utterance a clear lie on its face.

In the weeks before 9/11, the U.S. received warnings from all over the world that an event just like this was about to happen, but FBI investigations into suspected terrorists were suppressed and those warnings were deliberately disregarded.

The names of the alleged hijackers, all ostensibly Muslims, were released to the public only hours after the attacks, despite Mueller saying we had no knowledge this would happen. This is an impossible twist of logic. If he didn't know of a plan to strike buildings with planes, how would he know the names of the hijackers? Various artifacts were discovered in strategic places to try to confirm the government's story, but these have all been dismissed as suspicious planting of evidence. Since that time several names on that list have turned up alive and well, living in Arab countries. Yet no attempt has ever been made to update the list. And why were none of these names on the airlines' passenger lists?

Much like the invasion of Iraq, the anthrax attacks were designed to deflect attention from unanswered 9/11 questions in the patriotic pandemonium that followed the tragedy. In addition to making large amounts of money for the president's father and his friends from the hasty sale of inefficient drugs to a panicked populace, the investigation into these killings was abruptly halted when the trail of evidence led straight to the government's door, and has not been reopened. The anthrax attacks also amped up the climate of fear and deflected attention from the passage of the government's repressive Patriot Act.

The Patriot Act was presented in the days after the tragedy supposedly as a response to it, yet it was clear that this heinous act, drafted to nullify provisions for freedom in the U.S. Constitution, was put together long before 9/11. In addition, testimony by Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) revealed that most members of Congress were compelled to vote for the bill without even reading it. This was a vote to eliminate the Constitutional Bill of Rights, which has defined American freedom for 200 years, and it was accomplished when legislators voted for the bill without even reading it.

The invasion of Afghanistan was presented as an attempt to pursue the alleged perpetrators of 9/11, yet it had been discussed for years prior to the tragedy and actually planned in the months before the attacks on New York and Washington. Statements by Zbigniew Brzezinski and the Republican-written Project for a New American Century have stressed that America needed a formidable enemy to accomplish its aggressive geopolitical aims. The supposed enemy we attacked in Afghanistan was a diverse group of men from all over the world who were initially recruited, encouraged and supported by the American CIA.

The hole in the Pentagon was not made by a jumbo jet. Damage to the building was simply not consistent with the size of the hole nor the absence of debris. At the supposed point of impact, a whole bank of windows remained unbroken and there were no marks on the lawn. No airplane debris (except what was planted on the lawn) nor remains of passengers were ever found.

The president has admitted that he continued to read a story to schoolchildren in a Florida school for 30 minutes after being informed that two planes had struck New York and that the nation was under attack. He has never explained this puzzling behavior, nor how he saw the first plane hit. It was never televised, only recorded by a French crew filming firemen in New York. In that film, the plane in question does not appear to be a passenger airliner.

The plane in Pennsylvania was shot down and broke apart in midair. No other explanation can account for the wreckage, which was spread over a six-mile area, or the eyewitness accounts that describe debris falling from the sky.

Cellphone calls cannot be made from airliners in flight that are not close to the ground. As research by Professor A. K. Dewdney has shown, the emotional conversations between hijacked passengers and others would not have been possible under conditions that existed at that moment. These calls were cynical fabrications, exploiting the distraught emotions of those who lost loved ones.

Radio communications from firefighters on the upper floors of the Trade Center towers clearly indicate that fires were under control and the structure was in no danger of collapsing.

These are merely a few of the deliberately false statements made by U.S. officials about 9/11. They provide crystal clear evidence that our president, his staff, and many legislators should be indicted on charges of treason, obstruction of justice and mass murder. Above all, these evil men should be removed from their positions of authority before they implement more of their moneymaking murder schemes like the one they are now perpetrating on the innocent people of Iraq.

Otherwise, we face a future of endless war abroad and merciless repression at home.

Consider just a few more of the other unanswered questions from among the thousands of unexplained loose ends that all point to 9/11 being an inside job.

Who benefited from the suspiciously high numbers of put options purchased prior to September 11 for shares in companies whose stock prices subsequently plummeted, on the supposition that whoever was behind the hijacking was also behind most of the purchases of these put options? And what was the role of the new executive director of the CIA, Buzzy Krongard, who handled these transactions?

Why was the debris from the collapsed Twin Towers removed from the site with no forensic examination? Why was almost all of it sold to scrap merchants and shipped abroad where it would not be available for scientific examination?

Why does the government refuse to release any transcripts of communications or any records at all relating to signals of any form transmitted by those jets?

Why did so many people, from San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown to many employees of companies in the World Trade Center who failed to come to work that day, know in advance that something bad was going to happen on Sept. 11, 2001?

Why do all the major U.S. media continue to act as if none of these questions is legitimate or relevant?

Today, millions of people around the world are protesting the criminal destruction of the nation of Iraq. But these protests won't change the number of minds necessary to stop America's criminal madmen from continuing with their genocidal aim of enslaving the entire world.

What WILL stop them is spreading the realization that President George W. Bush and his billionaire accomplices in the oil industry perpetrated 9/11 as an excuse to begin the militarization of America for the purpose of world conquest.

History has shown all too clearly the deceived American people WILL support the destruction of faraway countries on phony pretexts of defending so-called freedom.

Thus the needless wars continue. Right now we watch high-tech weapons slaughter the defenseless people of Iraq. Soon it will be Iran, Syria, Colombia, Venezuela, North Korea, Egypt, Libya, Nigeria, North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and who knows where else. All these misguided atrocities will be possible because of the hoax known as 9/11.

But the American people will not - and cannot - tolerate leaders who kill our own people merely to invent a pretext - the war on terror - to go around killing anyone they like.

If the American people DO tolerate such an insane strategy, then they clearly do not deserve to survive as a nation or a people.

Byrd Bashes Bush War

On March 19 Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.V.), in a speech before the Senate, blasted the Bush administration for waging a war of aggression on Iraq.

By Sen. Robert Byrd

I believe in this beautiful country. I have studied its roots and gloried in its magnificent Constitution. I have marveled at the wisdom of its Founders and Framers. Generation after generation of Americans has understood the lofty ideals that underlie our great Republic. I have been inspired by the story of their sacrifice and their strength.

But today I weep for my country. I have watched the events of recent months with a heavy, heavy heart. No more is the image of America one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper.

The image of America has changed. Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our word is disputed, our intentions are questioned.

Instead of reasoning with those with whom we disagree, we demand obedience or threaten recrimination. Instead of isolating Saddam Hussein, we seem to have isolated ourselves. We proclaim a new doctrine of preemption which is understood by few and feared by many. We say that the United States has the right to turn its firepower on any corner of the globe which might be suspect in the war on terrorism. We assert that right without the sanction of any international body. As a result, the world has become a much more dangerous place.

We flaunt our superpower status with arrogance. We treat UN Security Council members like ingrates who offend our princely dignity by lifting their heads from the carpet. Valuable alliances are split.

After war has ended, the United States will have to rebuild much more than the country of Iraq. We will have to rebuild America¡¦s image around the globe.

The case this administration tries to make to justify its fixation with war is tainted by charges of falsified documents and circumstantial evidence. We cannot convince the world of the necessity of this war for one simple reason. This is a war of choice.

There is no credible information to connect Saddam Hussein to 9-11. The twin towers fell because a world-wide terrorist group, al Qaeda, with cells in over 60 nations, struck at our wealth and our influence by turning our own planes into missiles, one of which would likely have slammed into the dome of this beautiful Capitol except for the brave sacrifice of the passengers on board.

The brutality seen on Sept. 11 and in other terrorist attacks we have witnessed around the globe are the violent and desperate efforts by extremists to stop the daily encroachment of western values upon their cultures. That is what we fight. It is a force not confined to borders. It is a shadowy entity with many faces, many names and many addresses.

But, this administration has directed all of the anger, fear, and grief which emerged from the ashes of the twin towers and the twisted metal of the Pentagon toward a tangible villain, one we can see and hate and attack. And villain he is. But, he is the wrong villain.

And this is the wrong war. If we attack Saddam, we will probably drive him from power. But, the zeal of our friends to assist our global war on terrorism may have already taken flight.

The general unease surrounding this war is not just due to ¡§orange alert.¡¨ There is a pervasive sense of rush and risk and too many questions unanswered. How long will we be in Iraq? What will be the cost? What is the ultimate mission? How great is the danger at home? A pall has fallen over the Senate chamber. We avoid our solemn duty to debate the one topic on the minds of all Americans, even while scores of thousands of our sons and daughters faithfully do their duty in Iraq.

What is happening to this country? When did we become a nation which ignores and berates our friends? When did we decide to risk undermining international order by adopting a radical and doctrinaire approach to using our awesome military might? How can we abandon diplomatic efforts when the turmoil in the world cries out for diplomacy?

How can this president not seem to see that America¡¦s true power lies not in its will to intimidate, but in its ability to inspire?

I along with millions of Americans will pray for the safety of our troops, for the innocent civilians in Iraq, and for the security of our homeland.

I don't believe 9/11 was a US-created hoax, though it is widely understood that intelligence was ignored. Maybe ignoring intelligence was a product of disbelief, or laziness, or was more sinister. I don't know.

While it's no secret that I feel the Bush administration is sick and awful, and does not care about the American people, I do think the line would be drawn at sending planes through the FINANCIAL DISTRICT and.... the PENTAGON. It does not help the Bush admin to destroy the Pentagon! Plus, let's face it, the Twin Towers were the ultimate American phallic symbols.

And surely they would have stuck someone on the plane from Iraq, Palestine or Afghanistan. That would have supported their policies in these regions and made their lies less obvious.

This administration did not orchestrate 9/11. Al Queda did. And it was a brutal event, probably the product of imperialistic motivations, like Bush's, though rationalized through disgust at American foreign policy. Like Bush, bin Laden uses the language of liberation to destroy.

That said, the Bush administration has taken every opportunity to manipulate the horrific events of 9/11 towards their own imperialistic and warmongering ends.

The crimes of the Bush administration are already overwhelming and the American public is in denial. While this accusation may be a natural mental leap for some, it ultimatley does not help us in looking what is actually happening squarely in the face. In fact, Bush supporters will use an article like this to try and discredit those who point out Bush's actual crimes, like falsifying and plagarizing evidence used the UN, possibly undermining an election, breaking the Geneva convention, and starting a war that may violate international law. Folks, that's plenty -- let's deal with that!

I sent it to all my friends in the hopes that they would read it...

I hope thet read it...

It sickens me to think the government would do this to it's own, but then history has a way of repeating itself...

I am so mad, sad and confused right now.

One might say that it is a bit far reaching, yet when you truly look at the facts and how nine-eleven did occur and how the building fell. They did not implode inwards, really see how they fell when you really look at the buildings, they fell from the bottom. Logically, if a plane with jet liner fuel struck the building at the top, that would be the first to fall; however the bottom fell first.

There is a lot of suspiscion, there is a lot of controversy, but that is what this great nation; hell all nations are built upon. Look at Rome, Look at Egypt, look @ the English empire. All great declining nations, all beause of lies. It is sad though that as we live here in this nation we are enslaved; because not only can we not fully be free; we are stuck forced to think one way.

Not saying you have to think one way, there is this constant false image of democracy. The second article hit it on the head, we are a Republic. What erks me is that, when people protest, many say, oh they are doing it only to bug the white house, or what are they protesting now; instead of really taking the time to listen.

I will admit, I will not be out there protesting because I value my life, and yes it is a somewhat hypocritical stand. My allegiance does not belong to anyone. Change is always good, eventually there will be a great change of power in time. The United States will not hone the power that it controls now, because it is slowly becoming divided as a nation. People are striking, people are fed up with this subjugated living.

In this name of liberty and justice we want to live, yet in this same name we claim war and the massacre of innocent people. So what are we? Are we soliders of war and callousness, or are we of peace? We cannot be both, because if we look at the times of America's forefathers especially Woodrow Wilson time period, he looked within to grow, we remaind an isolationist country. What happened to that? What happened to pulling within. Capitalism has got American's by the gout and it is not letting go.

The only conspiracy I believe in is the conspiracy to make dissidents all look like conspiracy nuts.
This article achieves that goal, so let's not circulate it.

Instead, let's get back to what is easily proven, which doesn't rely on abstracted logic, conjecture and conspiracy. Yes, the building might have burned 100 days due to flammable material deliberately planted there, alternatively it could be a gas pipe on fire. Point, counterpoint. I prefer the ones you can't debate, like whether he has business connections to Enron, and whether he allowed members of the Bin Laden family to leave america after 9/11. Both of these are easy to verify and don't rely so much on theories, logic and suppositions.

It really doesn't matter, because we have enough solid evidence to convict this criminal, bush, without unhelpful circumstantial evidence which can only lead to an "aquittal" on technical grounds (i.e conjecture, lack of proof).

Abstracted philosophy is the enemy of proof!
Reason without evidence leads to a belief in Santa, God and UFO's!

Now I just need to do some (serious) brushing up on my Spanish to join ME on his new Spanish-only thread. I think the general method, in response to a poster on the Arnold thread, is excellent.

Yes conspiracy does subvert facts, that is not a lie there. My problem that I'm having with you is saying that through theory we have come up with this ficitious higher being.

I believe in God, not based on theory but through my daily life. I'm sorry my body was designed to the T, someone had to do it. I look at the world around me, though in peril at this moment, I mean the trees, our atmosphere and sun. The way our universe was designed. We are perfect enough from the sun so that we dont freeze or overheat. I mean someone had to do that. The variety of people, genetics, it is hard for me to believe that all this is just theory.

The evidence against a purposeful design for the planet is actually so much weightier. I saw the documentary too, where they used the computer to demonstrate the radius of the sun as being just perfect for earths life. But consider this: So what would happen if the sun was larger and hotter? True, radiation would not then allow life on earth. On earth. Must we allow the evangelists to confine us to earth as the centre of the entire argument? It could be that pluto would have then sustained life. No one can say for sure that pluto doesn't contain exactly the amount of oxygen nitrogen etc. as life needs, because no man-made probe has reached pluto to verify anything about the planet yet. Nevertheless that evangelist documentary consistently implied that earth alone has the correct composition, earth alone was the correct distance etc. That the earth has the correct composition and so on is obvious, but what it does not prove is that therefore all the others must not have the correct composition. To assert this is to assert that man has actually physically proven the respective compositions of the planets in the entire universe, but really, only mars has been investigated, and even here they are unsure as to whether rivers once ran on mars, whether bacterial life once bred there.

Let's say that the earth may be "just right" for life in many ways. I draw the approriate conclusion - in isolation - that there is therefore a purpose. The "odds" in isolation of the 'earth being earth' (for that's what it comes to if no other planets are considered) is one to one.
We end up saying, the earth is green and fertile and just right, and therefore we live here. This is a circular argument. Only because we live on a fertile world are we able to discuss our existence! But if we didn't exist on green earth, we wouldn't be discussing our existence. But because we do, we are. It says nothing about whether six billion years ago it was inevitable. No, this is hindsight which as we all know 'is perfect'. I may as well say it was 'fate' that scribble exists because evidently (s)he does. Fate is identical to hindsight then. Why can't the earths ozone mechanism, which protects the earth from scorching, have equally been engineered by technologically advanced martians whose homeworld was dying? There in that baloneyous belief we have also a will, a purpose of creation. That after all is one of the most recent movie plots I have endured. You can't prove it one way or the other, hence "faith" is required where proof lacks.

But if you move outside the view of the universe which puts earth at the centre, in other words, if you look at the number of planets where there ISN'T life then you come to the opposite conclusion, namely the accidental purposeless nature of life. Taken as a totality, habitable planets would probably not even make up .01% of all the planets in the universe.

Why would a god with the sole purpose of creating man (that is also a bit vain, the idea that man is gods purpose for the universe) why would this god create so many far away pointless barren galaxies to boot?

What is really going on here is that man needs a purpose in life, because no man likes to feel pointless and useless. So what he does is he goes out into the desert in search of his soul and while this is going on he suffers heat stroke, sees 'god' - who happens to agree with the prophets own meditations. All these prophets... why do they always come back from the DESERT having seen god? Muhammed in his rocky cave, jesus in the arid wilderness, moses in the sinai desert; manichaens, zoroastrians in the persian wastes - all their prophets come back from the burning sands with tales of god. Al Mahdi, Koresh, the 6000 different californian cults... why do all the really good ones live in hot, arid places? Never has god created a prophet in rainy wales or scotland; The explanation simply being that heat stroke can cause hallucination, sudden panic, euphoria etc. In other words, all the symptoms associated with severe dehydration and long-term isolation.

I would like also to think that there is a purpose, I am an admirer of Christ in particular, but I stick with judging him on his actions as a man rather than see him as a puppet who just did the bidding of a vengeful creator.

I see moses as a liberator of the egyptian jews, but also in later life as a genocidal maniac in palestine, witness the violent seizure of the 'promised land' from the people already living there.

I see mohammed as a great leader of the arabs, but also, he too massacred whole peoples without judging them by his own standard. You may be unfamiliar with this, so I give an example: he deliberately massacred the Jewish tribes which lived in Medina as a prelude to taking control of that city, and then making his bid for Mecca. No moral justification for the massacre of the men has ever emerged, and the women and children were enslaved, which implies purely political ends.

Unless you believe the devil planted the fossil record to deceive us all, that he created all the barren planets for like reasons, that god appeared to all these prophets with contradictory messages, unless you believe all sorts of stuff, 'that god is three and one simultaneously', 'that the infinite spirit is divisible (hence the holy nature of christ seperate from 'the father')'; Look how much mental gymnastics they all have to do just to keep the 'true faith' from degenerating into witchcraft. Alternatively you can reject the orthodox views of god and simply believe in the creator and the fulfillment of his will by certain men and angels. This quickly degenerates into something like the most simple religion of all: the animism of the polynesian tribesman, who believes there is a spirit in everything.

It is in fact easier to believe in the absence of divinity than it is to believe either the intricate sophisms of orthodoxy or the primitive fatefulness of the savage. About the great prophets and their reason for quoting God all the time I conclude that in the end these men really wanted to help their fellows; but, finding their superstition unsurmountable, finding their fatalism toward life too persistent, they gave in and attributed it all to the will of god. It's easier to motivate people with the threat of eternal torture than with the mere hope of a happier community.

the fire wasnt only due to the jet fuel, the jet fuel kept it going, what made it a blazing inferno was all the paper (were talking about hundres and hundreds of offices here) and flamable materials inside the offices.

some one mentioned that the fires were nearly contained by the firefighters. While i dont know the validity of that statement, i do know that the stairs were destroied in the inpact floors, which would have made it extremely difficult for firefighters to get to all the burning areas.

also, it was stated that the building didnt seem to collapse 'correctly' for how it was hit. in fact, the building went down exactly how it should have. i forogt the technical term for a collapse like the towers experenced, but what happens is one floor gives way, causing the one above it to fall, causing the one above it to fall, untill the entire thing comes down atop itself, anthen crushing those below it, which is EXACTLY how the towers came down... trust me, i rewatched the collapse about 2 hours ago.

and finally, probably the most important piece of information i can offer is the structer of the towers. the buildings were built as tubes, square tubes. tubes offer tremendious strength, and as such, the floors were literally suspended from edge to edge with triangular trusses (very similar to stage lighting trusses, three bars in a tringular cross section, held together with a zig-zag of bars between the three). these trusses were extremely light, easy to manufacture, and CHEAP. However, they were also very strong, but at the time they designed the towers (30 years ago) they did factor in a plane hitting the buildings, however, it was factored with a boeing 707 (the largest at the time) and as an accident -someone lost in the fog, throttle down, and not nessessarly a full tank of fuel.
it boils down to the fact that while the floor supports were incredably strong for what they were designed for, they wernt as strong as solid steel or iorn would have been, and didnt stand up to heat as well.

that all being said, i side with julie and ME here, conspiracy therorists make the counter arguements seem rediculous, but if you look at the facts and hang bush for what we already know he has done, then everythings peachy :)

anyway, i need to get some sleep.

but I think the attack on the twin towers claimed relatively few lives and therefore is not the *greatest* crime in history, in fact is actually among the more mediocre of even just the last decade - though it certainly was still a crime. As a simple example, chosen because we all know something of it: the tens of thousands of american soldiers who died pointlessly in vietnam (and the approx. 4 million indo-chinese) consitute a real genocide, a highly cynical foreign policy, a commitment to total deception of the nation and was -even economically- an unjustifiable enterprise.
Unlike "9 Eleven" this ...conspiracy (!)... spanned several presidencies, several decades. "Conspiracy" - where several people (eg presidents from both parties, for example) collude secretly to carry out a criminal act. There, just for the "normals", I provide the compulsory conspiracy basis to the argument.
This greater crime, greater from any non- neoconservative american point of view, has had no repurcussions at all. Henry Kissinger (main promoter of the war) still advises the dept. of defence as we speak.

Friends, a few years ago I learnt from a television documentary by John Pilger, that the US was demanding 70 million pounds in reparations from Vietnam (a lot of money to the vietnamese), for the cost the US army incurred funding the Puppet military Regime in the South.
Like something out of the 19th century, it wants Vietnam to pay the master for the financial inconvenience of having to grant a slave his freedom; nay more: It wants payment for all the whippings it has dealt to him.

Who says vietnam should pay? The UN - That impartial body which happens to draw most of its soldiery from NATO countries, The one that finds itself powerless to stop israeli and Turkish aggression, but upholds resolution after resolution on Libya, N Korea and Iraq.
The UN which pretends to order the US to clean up the artillery shells from vietnamese soil, but which dares not beg a second time. Maybe It doesn't matter - You know vietnam IS a long way away, the war is over now, and they forgive us, and we forgive them, and anyway it's hard to concentrate on boring old history stuff when J-Lo and Ben's relationship might be on the rocks and MTV cribs is on in another half-hour. I don't know what it is, but I find myslef more and more depressed with how shallow, stupid and sheepish people are. That's whats good about this place, you don't have to explain basic things like what the difference is between a Sunni and a Shi'a - you can move on to the core of the matter which you want to discuss without writing a primer for the subject first.

So anyway, I feel that the choice is not between innocent and guilty, between good and evil, between democracy and communism, or nowadays 'christianity and islam'- it is a choice between implicitly, passively supporting the most saintly-looking perverted evil empire who is using "9 Eleven" cynically as a blank cheque-book at the war bank, or finally criticizing the criminal in proportion to his huge SHARE of the world's crime, totally henceforth rejecting the plague of diversions they throw up every decade about what other nations, other new 'enemies of peace and freedom' are or aren't doing in their own backyards, so very far from US soil.

Anyone know the Fable (Aesop) about the wolf, the fox and the Ape?
A wolf took a fox to court claiming that the fox had stolen his chickens. The Fox denied it and counterclaimed saying that the Wolf never had any chickens and just wanted a free meal at the Fox's expense.
The ape was a wise ape, and he addressed them, saying that he didn't believe the fox when he said he hadn't stolen the chickens, but that he also believed the wolf never had any chickens to begin with. He dismissed the case.

Sounds stupid? Well, think about this: Why bother to choose between two career criminals? A judgement in favour of either is just as arbitrary and likely to cause trouble as a penalty on both or no judgement at all.
On the other hand there is a penalty for merely 'dismissing the case' when it comes to real politics, for unlike a judge who can dismiss a contemptible plaintiff, dismissing a bunch of christian fundamentalists and muslim fanatics even handedly does not make them go away. In the political world, true as the proverb says: "Silence amounts to consent". In the aesopian analogy then, must sentence the fox and the wolf to the punishments and damages they so readily seek from each other.

if its true .....god help us !!

charlie

"I would like you to prove me wrong coz i am in Ap physics."
How cute! Can we not just play peaknuckle or transformers instead, little man?

and me, don't get sucked in!

As for censorship, I do not censor any subjects. My goal for this board is respectful, if lively, discussion and debate. Ad hominien attacks do NOT fit into any of those categories. Currently this is clearly stated above for all participants. We have had relatively few instances of this, and I'd hate to see it start now.

What does this 14 year old have to be angry about, zits, hormonal secretions?

Can you back up your assertion that every reasonable person can agree that 9/11 wasn't a hoax? Hoax in what way? That 9/11 never happened, much like those who claim the moon landing was a hoax? I don't think I was arguing that. I was observing that there is a concatenation of evidence that members of our government had knowledge that such an attack was imminent and sat on their hands. Please prove me wrong. Thanks

You say that you are "disturbed" that we react illiberally to a 14 year old kid's views and then go on to say the whole thread should be censored. The moral outrage is followed by self-contradiction.
Elsewhere you remark that America has a duty to rid the world of all tyrants, and you would have them install puppet rulers to achieve this. The sermon, followed by self-contradiction.
We shall only briefly mention that Saddam himself is one such american-backed puppet used originally to attack Iran, and that the Taliban and the saudis like Osama were trained to fight the Soviet Union by the UK and US.
So really, when you think about it, your opinions are complete nonsense. Although I like the liberal idea that all opinions are valid and need to be heard, opinions based on fantasy and sentimentality are still worthless.

You're like old proudhon or kautsky (or modern day former "socialist" and close friend of Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair.)
As the representative of "every semi-reasonable adult" - the incarnation of reason and civilisation- you rightly condemn "censorship", "atrocities" and "terrorism", but when suggesting what things to do to fight the same, you suggest wider censorship, International conflagration and more dictators.

America's first duty is not to rid the world of dictators, but to stop creating them. Of course, "America" is a place, so it doesn't DO anything or have a 'duty' to do anything. It is the duty of the ruling individuals within the organised adminstration of America (the US state) to stop their colonisation of the world. They won't do this, so long as scottish welders and american welders continue to believe in a sentimental, adhoc, page-3-caption approach to political analysis.
The interests of the american people and the american state are opposite: The one, composed of the workers, seeks to simply be free and live in peace, and the state, composed of idle capitalists, aristocrats, sycophants and would-be Bonapartes, seeks to dominate the people and to use its power to enslave other peoples, as all inegalitarian states do.

9/11 was a result of serious neglect. This not the same as saying it was a hoax or a staged affair as the thread starter suggested (and which most of us rejected).

Can we just not install the damned tyrants in the first place? What do you think of that Idea?

But I notice you can't bring yourself to say american installed tyrant, you say instead american installed "tyrant". Is this to say that your perfect all-wise all-benevolent US state doesn't install real tyrants, it only installs "tyrants": the good men who have been mis-labelled by heartless human rights fanatics?

Let's put paid to this nonsense right away. The dictators put into power by the "Free" world you so admire include:

Abacha, General Sani
Amin, Idi
Banzer, Colonel Hugo
Batista, Fulgencio
Bolkiah, Sir Hassanal
Botha, P.W.
Branco, General Humberto
Cedras, Raoul
Cerezo, Vinicio
Chiang Kai Shek
Cordova, Roberto Suazo
Christiani, Alfredo
Diem, Ngo Dihn
Doe, General Samuel
Duvalier, Francois
Duvalier, Jean Claude
Fahd bin'Abdul 'Aziz, King
Franco, General Francisco
Hitler, Adolf (supported by the UK as a "bulwark against communism")
Hassan II
Marcos, Ferdinand
Martinez, General Maximiliano
Mobutu Sese Seko
Noriega, General Manuel
Ozal, Turgut
Pahlevi, Shah Mohammed Reza
Papadopoulos, George
Park Chung Hee
Pinochet, General Augusto
Pol Pot
Rabuka, General Sitiveni
Montt, General Efrain Rios
Salassie, Haille
Salazar, Antonio de Oliveira
Somoza, Anastasio Jr.
Somoza, Anastasio, Sr.
Smith, Ian
Stroessner, Alfredo
Suharto, General
Trujillo, Rafael Leonidas
Videla, General Jorge Rafael
Zia Ul Haq, Mohammed

Here are some the countries they ruled:

Nigeria
Uganda
Bolivia
Cuba
Brunei
South Africa
Brazil
Haiti
Guatemala
Taiwan
Honduras
El Salvador
Vietnam
Liberia
Haiti
Saudi Arabia
Spain
Germany
Morocco
Philippines
El Salvador
Zaire
Panama
Turkey
Iran
Greece
South Korea
Chile
Cambodia
Fiji
Guatemala
Ethiopia
Portugal
Nicaragua
Rhodesia
Paraguay
Indonesia
Dominican Republic
Argentina
Pakistan

THIS IS JUST A SAMPLER!!
Now you won't see saddam hussein there or osama bin laden, because this is just the list of the most infamous bastards, rather than the full list of financed, armed, supported henchmen. It doesn't include all of the Turkish, Israeli etc ('democratic') tyrants either, Just one. Only the very best in freeworld generalissimos make it to this list.

Or should that be "tyrants".
Because after all, The US state simply had no way of knowing these military men/convicts/hacienda owners/fanatically xenophobic nationalists would treat their people so badly, oh no!

"How was the west to know! Take pity on us and our white man's burden, you heartless human-rights junkies! You don't know how much we suffer, when we see you being genocided on Telly by our own little demonic puppet! Spare a thought for *our* pain, will you!?"

Your humanitarian and world security concerns are touching. So when are you going to lay blame where it is due, at the door of your beloved "free" world? Coz you sure can't blame the bloody communists for all this anymore!

It's always sort of satisfying to toss out those mean-spirited zingers, but it tends to undermine the point you're trying to make. Plus it makes you sound like kind of a jerk.

At any rate, we (and the rest of the world) should be doing something about the crisis in Sudan. What happened to all that talk about "never again!" following the Holocaust, and the horrors of Rwanda and Somalia? I guess never came more quickly than we thought it might.

oh well what ever,
Hi Julie!!!!
cheers,
Carlos "the Fish Taco Man" Anguiano

Best wishes to all. Nice to join you here.