3 of 5
3
9/11 Politics
Posted: 28 April 2005 11:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

My feeling is that you have surely exaggerated the “world domination” part of your thesis.  I think Matt’s analysis is more what motivates the young adult Muslims to blow themselves up and kill innocents - it is not as you say, “Their goal is conquest, not justice, and their motivation is glory and power, not despair or hate.”

I lean more towards a motivation of glory and power that is accentuated by despair and hate. You take some poor suppressed muslim man that was practically born with a gun in his hand, and through religion you promise he will have 100 wives and receive the treatment of a king in the “afterlife” and bingo, you have your suicide bomber/pilot. The motivation of their bosses seems to pretty much be hatred towards Americans among others. I don’t think that their convinced that they would ever be able to overthrow the US in a world domination move.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 April 2005 11:07 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1229
Joined  2004-12-22

In talking to some Muslim friends of mine, one of the things we rarely comment on in the US, is the morality issue.

Yes, fanatical Muslims think we are incredibly immoral.

Partly because we use sex in advertising, we worship materialism and capitalism, but many other things they cite as being “evil” and contrary to the teaching of Allah.

In many ways, the most fanatical of them see us as “evil” and the residence of the Devil.

It is ironic that the Christian fundamentalists also see the same “evils” but dont realize what good partners they have in the Muslim fundamentalists.

I envision many of them are probably alot like TC, with the willingness to die to do good works and combat evil, and the totally emotional about the subject.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 April 2005 12:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  901
Joined  2005-02-23

Returning to the topic at hand:

With regards to possible foreknowledge of the events of 9/11:  I maintain that it is fair to feel that the matter merits more investigation.  That said, however, GVI is right on the money that we should not let internal politics distract us from the bigger issue of international terrorism.

I could go on and on about decades of flawed Middle East policy, but to what end?  The past is the past.  The true question is how best to proceed.  At the end of the day, all that I care about is resolving this mess with minimal bloodshed, and minimal human rights violations.  I will categorically reject the Patriot Act, and the unlawful detention without due process which the US is currently engaging in.

My real concern is that, in fighting our “enemy”, we are becoming more like them.  Surely there is a way to prosecute this war without (further) compromising our identity.

-Matt

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 April 2005 07:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  369
Joined  2005-02-07

[quote author=“CanZen”]gvi, your assessment of the situation, while probably fairly accurate, nonetheless appears to paint “the terrorists” as a bunch of fanatics bent on world control.

Well, I’m only taking them at their word.

That seems a bit extreme of a motivation to impel a dozen people to fly planes into American office towers. Either these terrorists are really stupid (actually thinking that they or their bosses will some day rule the entire world) or their motivations are badly misplaced.

Too extreme of a motivation? Huh? Their motivation was to murder as many Americans as possible in one fell swoop. Darn right it was extreme; that is the whole point. People with rational motivations (like justice, or freedom from oppression) don’t do this kind of thing. Lebanese are not suicide bombing themselves on the streets of Damscus to fight the Syrian occupation. The Kurds never hijacked airplanes or exported their war to Western streets. Terrorism of that sort has almost always been the tools of the oppressor, not the oppressed; what’s new about Islamist terrorism is that it has become far more nihilistic than previous incarnations, which helps explain why the perps are now willing to kill themselves as well as their victims.

See, your reaction is part of what frustrates me in discussions like this. People just don’t seem to “get it” that when totalitarian fanatics talk about taking over the world, they really mean it. That is what makes them so dangerous—precisely the fact that they are “crazy” in the sense that the rest of us can’t see the sense in it. Our inability to understand them leads to caution and rationalization on our part, giving them the cover they need to build their movement further.

The Nazis truly believed they could control the world. That is why they did the things they did. The Stalinists believed it, too, which is why they did the things they did. It’s true, there are many important differences between Nazis and Stalinists (and, for that matter, Islamists), but at the end of the day, they both wanted control of the whole world. Look at the damage both movements were allowed to inflict because the rest of the world didn’t believe they meant what they said when they talked about world conquest.

WRT 9/11, it wasn’t a particularly stupid move at all, considering its premises. Had it not run into the glitches it did (delayed flights, rebellious hostages, etc.), the attack stood a very good chance of crippling both our economy and our government for a time. And if nothing else, it allowed its perps to murder thousands of Americans, simply because they were Americans.

My feeling is that you have surely exaggerated the “world domination” part of your thesis.  I think Matt’s analysis is more what motivates the young adult Muslims to blow themselves up and kill innocents - it is not as you say, “Their goal is conquest, not justice, and their motivation is glory and power, not despair or hate.”  Even Osama bin Laden and the heads of Al-Qaeda are not so single-mindedly targetted on becoming world dictators.  If that is indeed their intention, then they are madder than they seem - and they do seem rather mad with religious fervor.

  I frankly have to wonder, then, just how mad someone has to be for you to think them mad.  Madness doesn’t mean lack of intelligence or strategic insight. It means acting on motives that are completely detached from reality, treating fantasy as the truth.  There is no rational purpose in doing something like 9/11, unless one believes (as Al-Qaeda does) that doing it will spark the apocalyptic holy war that sweeps infidels from the earth.

They really are that crazy. That’s my whole point. However much you think I’m exagerrating it is exactly how mad they really are. It’s pointless to try and understand them until we have neutralized them.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 April 2005 07:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  369
Joined  2005-02-07

[quote author=“fencesitter”]I lean more towards a motivation of glory and power that is accentuated by despair and hate. You take some poor suppressed muslim man that was practically born with a gun in his hand, and through religion you promise he will have 100 wives and receive the treatment of a king in the “afterlife” and bingo, you have your suicide bomber/pilot.

Except that Al-Qaeda’s membership is not drawn from the lower classes of Muslim society. They recruit among the elites, the ruling class that feels stymied by external constraints like rule of law. Osama Bin Laden was the scion of one of the most powerful business families in Saudi Arabia. Ayman al-Zawahiri was a Western-educated medical doctor (a university education in the West ain’t the sort of thing “suppressed Muslim men” can afford, you know); one thing that’s known for certain about Al-Qaeda is that most of its members are the children of privilege, who usually don’t become religious until after joining the ranks.

The motivation of their bosses seems to pretty much be hatred towards Americans among others. I don’t think that their convinced that they would ever be able to overthrow the US in a world domination move.

Well, I would direct your attention, once again, to the preamble of Al-Qaeda’s “Why We Fight America,” which I posted earlier on this thread, and elsewhere, too. It’s stated pretty clearly—they say it flat-out: “the entire earth must be subject to the religion of Allah.” They ask, how can Muslims accept their status when they know that Islam was intended by God to be the center of hegemony and rule?

They’re very clear about it. They want power, they want to be the rulers, they want to impose their interpretation of Islam and shari’a on the entire earth. How many times do they have to say it before you’ll accept that this really is their prime motivation, and everything else they do and say flows from it?

[ Edited: 28 April 2005 07:48 PM by ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 April 2005 07:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  369
Joined  2005-02-07

[quote author=“psiconoclast”]With regards to possible foreknowledge of the events of 9/11:  I maintain that it is fair to feel that the matter merits more investigation.

I think I’d have to know more about what you mean by “foreknowledge.” Should they have known? You bet they should have. Would they have known if it weren’t for the combination of turf squabbles, myopia and incompetance revealed by the 9/11 Commission hearings? On balance, I’d say they probably would have.

But both of those are very different from claiming either that they did, in fact, know specifically what was going to happen, where and on what day, and consciously decided to let it happen; or that they carried out the whole thing right from the start.

Those two claims rise to the level of superstitious conspiracy theory. If they’re the claims you’re intimating, then the burden of proof lies with you, the claimant. Remember the standards of skepticism—extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; and claims made with no evidence can be justifiably dismissed with the same amount.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 April 2005 09:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  901
Joined  2005-02-23

GVI:

Take a deep breath, because I think I am about to anger you, and that isn’t what I want to do.

I am not claiming that Bush (or any of his administration) knew about 9/11 and let it happen on purpose.  I am, however, claiming that I suspect that their hands are not entirely clean in the matter, and furthermore, I believe that it is not unreasonable for me to wonder.

Imagine, if you will, a situation in which a husband leaves home one evening to run a quick errand, and “forgets” to lock the door.  While he is out, someone enters and kills his wife.  Are the cops being unreasonable when they decide that they need to investigate the husband, in order to make sure that he didn’t “forget” to lock the door on purpose?  Absolutely not!  Keep in mind that, at this point, there isn’t any evidence beyond the basic cop instinct!

I humbly submit that for any of us to wonder if Bush (or anyone in the administration) might have abused their authority to let these events happen is no less reasonable than the cops wanting to investigate the husband.

Let’s look at it objectively:

Were there a tremendous number of fortuitous (from the hijacker’s perspective) breakdowns in security on 9/11?  Yes.

Was the Bush administration situated to possibly influence the security mechanisms that failed on 9/11?  Yes.

Did the Bush administration stand to gain anything from the events that transpired on 9/11?  Yes.

Is human history replete with examples of people in authority doing despicable things for self serving purposes?  Yes.

The bottom line is that the Bush administration had means, motive, and opportunity!  There is absolutely nothing at all unreasonable about wondering if something untoward happened.  It is only unreasonable to expect anyone to behave as if something did happen without proof.

To prohibit investigations into the possibility of guilt, based on the notion that such a thing is preposterous, is the true abandonment of reason.  It presupposes a world in which this sort of thing does not (generally) happen, when the historical evidence states that this sort of thing most certainly does happen (and with sufficient frequency to keep it in the roster of suspects)!  There are a number of current cases of corruption in the highest circles of authority the world over.

Does it truly seem unreasonable for concerned citizens to demand an explanation for all of the post 9/11 breaks from protocol with regards to the physical evidence?  Does it truly seem unreasonable for citizens to demand that investigations be more aggressive?

Finally, what is a reasonable burden of proof with regards to elected officials?  Certainly impeachment should be treated with the same care as any criminal investigation, but at the ballot box, the burden of proof can reasonably be far less.  Mere obstructionism ought to be sufficient for the electorate to spank an official, an administration, or a party.

-Matt

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 April 2005 12:59 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

It’s stated pretty clearly—they say it flat-out: “the entire earth must be subject to the religion of Allah.” They ask, how can Muslims accept their status when they know that Islam was intended by God to be the center of hegemony and rule?

They’re very clear about it. They want power, they want to be the rulers, they want to impose their interpretation of Islam and shari’a on the entire earth. How many times do they have to say it before you’ll accept that this really is their prime motivation, and everything else they do and say flows from it?

Perhaps, but I can’t help thinking the statement, “the entire earth must be subject to the religion of Allah.” is more of a mission statement than the prime motivation. It’s like a company saying as their mission statement, “Our goal is to provide a top quality product for our customers, and excellent working conditions for our employees”. When actually their prime motivator is profit. I can see the Allah statement being a prime motivator if the muslims actually obeyed the religion 100% without even stopping to think of the consequences. ie. Muslims believe that non-muslims should die, yet don’t see muslims killing non-muslims every chance they get. I think the religion of Allah and The Christian God is such that its followers pick and choose which parts of it to follow and which to abandon. Which doesn’t make any of them true followers at all. Their prime motivator seems only to be power/money/greed/ignorance. How far off am I?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 April 2005 01:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1377
Joined  2004-12-21

The bottom line is that the Bush administration had means, motive, and opportunity! There is absolutely nothing at all unreasonable about wondering if something untoward happened

So, if I understand this correctly, you think it might be possible that a sitting President, several high-ranking officials of the administration, senior members of the military and “intelligence” community, and many others, entered into a conspiracy to allow a group of foreign nationals to drive airplanes into buildings?  Is that what you think is possible?

That kind of thinking is moronic on so many different levels as to be incomprehensible!  Are you taking your meds?

I think you give them far too much credit.  This bunch could never pull it off, even if they were willing to kill over three thousand fellow citizens to make some political point.

 Signature 

http://powerlessnolonger.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 April 2005 02:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

So, if I understand this correctly, you think it might be possible that a sitting President, several high-ranking officials of the administration, senior members of the military and “intelligence” community, and many others, entered into a conspiracy to allow a group of foreign nationals to drive airplanes into buildings?  Is that what you think is possible?

That kind of thinking is moronic on so many different levels as to be incomprehensible!  Are you taking your meds?

I think you give them far too much credit.  This bunch could never pull it off, even if they were willing to kill over three thousand fellow citizens to make some political point.

Prehaps I’m wrong, but I believe the corrupt government has the same prime motivation as Al-Qaeda money/power. I’m under the suspicion that if the administration had anything to do with 9/11 it was or would have been far from just making some political point. It would have been for the sole purpose of creating fear, a fear that would justify their war or terrorism for the purpose of securing precious oil resources. That’s all. Oh and perhaps to stimulate the economy a little.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 April 2005 05:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  754
Joined  2005-01-03

Psiconclast, take a deep breath because I think I am about to anger you……….

[quote author=“psiconoclast”]
Let’s look at it objectively:

Were there a tremendous number of fortuitous (from the hijacker’s perspective) breakdowns in security on 9/11?  Yes.

Was the Bush administration situated to possibly influence the security mechanisms that failed on 9/11?  Yes.

Did the Bush administration stand to gain anything from the events that transpired on 9/11?  Yes.

Is human history replete with examples of people in authority doing despicable things for self serving purposes?  Yes.

The bottom line is that the Bush administration had means, motive, and opportunity!  There is absolutely nothing at all unreasonable about wondering if something untoward happened.  It is only unreasonable to expect anyone to behave as if something did happen without proof.

I fully agree that there must have been a high level conspiracy by powerful political operatives behind the 9/11 attacks. 

It should be obvious to any concerned citizen that these despicable acts were aided and abetted by a vast Democrat conspiracy orchestrated by the Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Kennedy cabal.

Let’s look at it objectively:

Were there a tremendous number of fortuitous (from the hijacker’s perspective) breakdowns in security prior to and on 9/11?  Yes.

• Who failed to take custody of Osama bin Laden when given the opportunity as he was being evicted from the Sudan?  -  Billy Jeff Clinton
• Who failed repeatedly to take serious action against Al Qaeda after repeated terrorists attacks during the 90s – Billy Jeff Clinton
• Who was the Director of the CIA responsible for penetrating Al Qaeda, gathering intelligence and reporting threats to the President and the rest of the national security community?  -  George Tenant, a Clinton appointee!
• Until one week prior to the 9/11 attacks, who was the Director of the FBI responsible for domestic counter terrorism?  Louie Freeh, a Clinton appointee!
• Who was the person responsible for counter terrorism in the Whitehouse?  Richard Clarke, a Clinton appointee!
• Who was in charge of the Department of Transportation and responsible for overseeing airport security, pilot training and air traffic control?  - Norman Y. Mineta, a life long Democrat!
• Who has strong lifelong family connections to the Boston mafia and the powerful unions that run Logan International Airport in Boston?  Ted Kennedy (read “The Dark Side of Camelot” by Seymore Hersh) and John F’n Kerry!

Were the Democrat conspirators situated to possibly influence the security mechanisms that failed on 9/11?  Obviously - Yes!

Clearly, the Democrat co-conspirators were acting in the interests of Al Qaeda at the highest levels of the key branches of government responsible for detecting and stopping the attacks. 

Any concerned citizen must draw the inevitable conclusion that the Democrats, working behind the scenes in the Bush administration were, in actuality, high level “moles” doing the Clinton’s and Al Qaeda’s bidding!

Did the Democrat conspirators stand to gain anything from the events that transpired on 9/11?  Yes.

• After the 2000 election, that they believed was stolen by Bush, they were desperate to bring him down.
• They plotted to seriously damage the US economy so that they could claim during the 2004 presidential campaign that Bush had lost 2 Million jobs during his first administration and that the economy was in the toilet.
• Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer wanted to be able to attract billions of federal dollars to New York in order to pander to their constituents and reward their union supporters who would be doing the reconstruction.

Is human history replete with examples of people in authority doing despicable things for self serving purposes?  Yes.

• Just look at how Billy Jeff Clinton defiled the oval office by doing despicable things with Monica Lewinski!
• Just look at how the Kennedy family has partnered with the mafia for three generations to steal elections, attempt to assassinate foreign leaders, and to import illegal substances.
• Just look at how John F’n Kerry collaborated with the North Vietnamese to defeat this country in time of war for personal political gain.

The bottom line is that the Democrat conspirators had means, motive, and opportunity!  There is absolutely nothing at all unreasonable about wondering if something untoward happened.  It is only unreasonable to expect anyone to behave as if something did happen without proof

[quote author=“psiconoclast”]
To prohibit investigations into the possibility of guilt, based on the notion that such a thing is preposterous, is the true abandonment of reason.  It presupposes a world in which this sort of thing does not (generally) happen, when the historical evidence states that this sort of thing most certainly does happen (and with sufficient frequency to keep it in the roster of suspects)!  There are a number of current cases of corruption in the highest circles of authority the world over.

Also, while were at it, we should make damn sure that those pesky Democrat conspirators were not aided by little green men in flying saucers and/or Bigfoot.

[ Edited: 29 April 2005 07:48 AM by ]
 Signature 

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful…..Lucius Annaeus Seneca, Roman (3 BC - 65 AD)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 April 2005 06:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3166
Joined  2005-04-25

Great job!

Funny how the elite liberal democrat media is ALWAYS on the wrong side of everything. Today the NY Times said that Bush said last night that he would cut SS spending. When he never said that at all. Long time ago I put the NY Times, LA Times, and the Boston Globe in the same category as The Onion.

 Signature 

Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light. Matt 11:28-29

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 April 2005 07:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  277
Joined  2005-01-27

I’m going to close my eyes (and kiss my *ss goodbye?) and jump in with a Canadian’s point of view ...

First I would like to differentiate between foreknowledge and responsibility.  I still have too much faith (the good kind) in the democratic system and the people who are running it, even though they come to power with their own agendas that have nothing to do with ‘the people’ and they are often more interested in lining their own pockets than anything else, to start with the premise that the Bush administration intentionally and knowingly participated in 9/11.  If for no other reason, he has a terrible time hiding his sly little smile and his face showed nothing but shock and disbelief when he received the news.  He was genuinely stunned, paralyzed even. 

But even if he and his administration didn’t intend to harm innocent citizens, that doesn’t mean that they bear no responsibility for the attacks.

Since GVI is in the hot seat for holding the view that the attacks have only to do with Islamic extremists, I’ll quote from his posts. 

GVI wrote in one of his earlier posts:

No serious person would argue that the Nazis’ actions were driven by their greivances about the Treaty of Versailles rather than their ideology

And now he repeats:

Look at the damage both movements [Nazis and Stalinists] were allowed to inflict because the rest of the world didn’t believe they meant what they said when they talked about world conquest.
...
I frankly have to wonder, then, just how mad someone has to be for you to think them mad

I don’t see that anyone, Matt, Canzen, Fencesitter, Iisbliss, or Pete, is denying either the insanity or madness of the Islamic extremists.  We all agree that they are mad.  Where we disagree is that you think that’s the whole answer to the problem.  They’re crazy = we need to destroy them.  Problem solved. 

I don’t see that the problem is so simple.  The Nazis were mad, and it did take military might to stop them, but they were successful in their depraved campaign, not because the rest of the world didn’t take them seriously, but because there were other factors working behind the scenes.

Factors such as ...
1.  Anti-semitism :  The reason the Jews did not and could not form a Resistance movement as did say the French and the Danes, was because the Jews had no reliable social support.  They were hated and feared to varying degrees throughout Europe and could not count on their neighbours’ help.  In fact it was often a neighbour that gave them up to the Nazis, happy to get rid of them, which inadvertantly supported Nazi programs and policies.

2.  National interest :  Governments are by nature concerned with their national interest.  Britain and France (the WWI battlegrounds) declared war on Germany in September of 1939 after Poland was invaded because they feared a repeat of WWI.  Canada, as a British subject, sent troops to support their mother country.  Hitler and Mussolini invaded and conquered dozens of countries over two years while the Americans remained neutral.  Why?  Because there was no American national interest in the Nazi campaign no matter how mad it was.  In fact the Americans didn’t join WWII until the bombing of Pearl Harbour which finally put ‘national interest’ into the equation. 

Take this idea to the present and apply it to 9/11 and the war on terrorism.  There is no doubt that Islamic extremists are mad, just like the Nazis, but what is at work behind the scenes to afford them a certain level of success?

By the sweep of my eye, I would choose ...

1.  Paternalism :  By definition, paternalism is “Making decisions for others against or apart from their wishes with the intent of doing them good.”  The American agenda to bring democracy to the Middle East (started with Bush Sr.) could be viewed as honourable on the surface since we (the Western World) all agree that democracy is essential for good governance, but we need to examine the irony of trying to ‘force’ democracy on people whose minds are not ready to hear it.  Democracy has generally (if not always) come from the people.  Whether the American or French revolutions, or the revolutions throughout Europe in 1848, they all came from the people.  One of the important lessons from the Revolutions is that you cannot suppress the will of the people.  There is, in fact, power in numbers.  If the people of the Middle East, at this point in their history, are still geared for hierarchy and dictatorship, then it might not be possible or atleast, it may not be the right ‘time,’ to introduce democracy.  They, the people, may not be ready. 

Which brings me to a second point,
2.  Dependence on foreign oil :  The only reason America cares whether or not the Middle East embraces democracy is because they need a better relationship with certain countries in the region to ensure their continued supply of oil.  The American administration points out the human rights’ abuses taking place and that they are there to rescue the people from their oppressors, but if supporting human rights was the real agenda, they would involve themselves to the same degree in China, or India, or Rwanda, or the Sudan.  They aren’t involved in other human rights crises because none of those other countries have any natural resources worth fighting for. 

The last point I’ll make comes from Sam’s book and participating in this forum.
3.  Christian Image :  We see here the varying degrees of frustration and contempt we each feel when we deal with someone like TheChamp.  The present American administration has been quoted preaching similar garbage which has given America an image of being fundamentalist Christian.  Maybe you guys sitting on the inside who are far from being Christian yourselves don’t see this, but those of us sitting on the outside don’t hear you rational, reasoned Americans, we hear Bush speaking about good vs evil and ‘In God We Trust.’  Or we hear your sports’ heroes and celebrities thanking God for their medals and awards and we see sports teams and American troops out on their respective ‘fields’ praying for victory.  Why wouldn’t the rest of the world, especially those sitting at the opposite religious extreme, react to this Christian evangelism as we do when a Christian tries to preach to us on an individual basis?

I think, in general, Americans underestimate the illwill that is felt even by ‘friendly’ nations.  There are many who still feel that America is a self-serving, obnoxious, arrrogant, yet friendly! spoiled brat (remind you of anybody on this forum?) who treads heavily on the backs of other nations.  My father-in-law was a WWII vet and until the day he died (1995), he had no patience for Americans.  The way he saw it, Americans are opportunists.  He saw Americans leave many ‘friendlies’ out to die for two whole years and then sweep into the fray for the grande finale to claim credit for defeating the Germans and liberating Europe.  That coming from a peace-loving, atheist Canadian.

I would like to add here that my own personal sentiments for the States can not be summed up in a couple of words.  I don’t see the States as one way or another.  I see the diversity of people, the different regions, and different cultures from north to south and east to west, red states and blue states.  I think the Bush administration is shortsighted and self-serving, but I separate him from ‘America.’  He’s rather simple in my view, but America, with its founding principles and fiestiness, is great. 

To sum this all up, I would say that we (again the Western world) bear no responsibility for the actions of madmen, but we do bear responsibility for our own destructive attitudes and self-serving actions.

In the end, it would be good news to find out that we were somehow responsible because if we were, then we are more in control of terrorism than we think we are.  We would have the power to make changes at our end to make sure it doesn’t happen again.

Is it safe to open my eyes yet?

Susan

[ Edited: 29 April 2005 08:25 AM by ]
 Signature 

“Believe those who seek the truth, doubt those who find it.”  Andre Gide

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 April 2005 07:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3166
Joined  2005-04-25

Hi Rasmussen, I’ll be checking out your post.

Conserative Atheist, I am routing your post to my friends.

 Signature 

Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light. Matt 11:28-29

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 April 2005 08:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  901
Joined  2005-02-23

[quote author=“hampsteadpete”]

The bottom line is that the Bush administration had means, motive, and opportunity! There is absolutely nothing at all unreasonable about wondering if something untoward happened

So, if I understand this correctly, you think it might be possible that a sitting President, several high-ranking officials of the administration, senior members of the military and “intelligence” community, and many others, entered into a conspiracy to allow a group of foreign nationals to drive airplanes into buildings?  Is that what you think is possible?

That kind of thinking is moronic on so many different levels as to be incomprehensible!  Are you taking your meds?

I think you give them far too much credit.  This bunch could never pull it off, even if they were willing to kill over three thousand fellow citizens to make some political point.

You misunderstand me!  I am not claiming that they all entered into a conspiracy, or even that such a thing is likely, per se.  I am claiming that the events of the day are fishy, as compared to the official explanation, and the administration’s post incident behavior is also suspect.  What I am arguing for is a real investigation into what the heck is going on.

In the end, I suspect that it will wind up being a bunch of people trying to play CYA after the fact, but as is so often the case, that game has a tendency of making someone look guilty, even if they are not.

-Matt

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 5
3
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed