9/11 coverup?

[Dozer]

110 MB video

It pretty much speaks for itself.
It's quite a long(and big) video, but it gives you an interesting analysis of some questionable things that happened on September 11. Whether or not you believe it, they certainly present it with plently of video, pictoral, and audio evidence.

[Occhidiangela]

. . . that when an enemy steals a march on us, through his own cleverness and imagination, our unpreparedness, or a combination of both, so many monday morning quarterbacks search for scapegoats -- see post Pearl Harbor. Why is it that no one can believe that the enemy is not stupid, that the enemy has a brain and a motive, and that the enemy tries to outsmart and outfight us in order to win?

We don't pay for a zero defects government, hell, we can't afford one.

In war, the enemy gets a vote.

You can try to limit his options, but since American policy vis a vis terrorists, from about 1972 onward, did NOT view it as war (part of that time some elements were a lesser included case of the Cold War, see Brigado Rossi) then our strategic posture of not being "at war" while the enemy is, at least psychologically he is, yields to him the initiative and advantages that accrue with the initiative.

Add to that a national policy made in the 1970's to NOT put armed marshalls on airline flights, for example, and you see where the enemy attempts to do what any smart military mind would: exploit his enemies weaknesses, or the chinks in his armor.

This self flagellation is a crock of crap. It disgusts me. The FIGHT AHEAD OF US is what is important.

*spits*

Occhi

[eppie]

You obviously mean the brigate rosse. ;)

Anyway you made some correct remarks there about terrorism. It has always been there and it wil always be. The amount?. That's up to us. A full scale war on terrorism is not going to work. (I wonder what the goal of this war is? Obviously the end of terrorism, but when wil we see that?)

For me the best thing remains, making sure that noboy wants to use terrorism on you. Pissing of the whole muslim world will not end terrorism, it will only increase it.

I did not see the little film dozer linked to, and you now my thought about the whole Iraq/bush/terrorism questions. But I do think that the ony ones that are to blame for 9/11 are bin laden and his crew

We don't pay for a zero defects government, hell, we can't afford one.

It just is a pity that some presidential candidate makes us think we can.

[Occhidiangela]

But first, thanks for the spelling correction, I should have looked that up. Sloppy me. :(


From where do you draw your conclusions?

The amount?.  That's up to us.

Notwithstanding the obvious question of "who is us," which I will ignore, that comment is complete and utter BS. The amount of terror is up to whoever keeps trying to use it as a tool. Nice work, oh brainwashed one, buying into the lie that terrorism is the fault of the one attacked. You appear to have no idea that you have been, for about the last 15 years, a target of a propaganda campaign. It seems to have worked, on you. (There was another propaganda campaign that started about 20 years ago "trickle down economics" and "tax cuts solve economic problems by themselves" that some people still chant as a mantra.)

A full scale war on terrorism is not going to work.

How do you draw that conclusion? First off, there is not one, not a full scale war on terror, since far too many nations prefer not to play, and secondly, to call what a few nations are doing a full scale is an overstatement of the naivest kind. Most of the war on terror is not waged with military force, it is waged in the shadows and via non military means.

I wonder what the goal of this war is?

What war are you talking about? When President Bush declared war on terror, I wondered if he really understood how long term an undertaking that is. He claimed to when he addressed the public.

Look at the Cold War for a modest example.

May as well declare a war on crime, or on . . . uh oh, . . . drugs. To defeat a particular set of terrorists, the Free World will need some innovative ideas to succeed. My own suggestions on how to wage economic warfare against extra national cartels and cells are rife with risk. Hit them in the wallet, slow them down. But enough, there are hundreds of ideas on what might work, few ideas of what does work, other than extermination of the leadership cells: see the Bader Meinhof gang.

Obviously the end of terrorism, but when will we see that?)

See your own opening line

It has always been there and it wil always be

OK, make up your mind, which is it?

Occhi

PS:

It just is a pity that some presidential candidate makes us think we can.

I hope you did not mean that, I hope that is a slip of your not native English accidentally coming out. If you accept that the hot air being spouted in our Presidential race can make you think X, Y, or Z, then you admit to being so easy to fool as to be almost useless as a voter. You think for yourself, they will try to sell a lot of folks a lot of soap. :P

Rogue out

[Nystul]

For me the best thing remains, making sure that noboy wants to use terrorism on you.

What, then, shall we do about the Jews? You know that as long as the U.S. is seen as an ally of Israel, we will be enemies of the militant Islamic sects, and they will try to blow up whatever they can that has an American flag on it. It's not like this is a new phenomenon. Islamic extremists have been blowing up Americans for as long as I can remember. It's just that they are getting better at it. So how do we let them know we are all friendly people who respect their religion and the plight of their people? We could just leave Israel on their own, and let the surrounding nations invade them... but then Israel would win the war and claim more land and make their enemies even madder. Perhaps we should just nuke Israel and be done with it?

Bush's policy regarding the disputed territories of Israel was probably the most favorable towards the Palestinians of any American president. Thanks to 9/11, we will probably never know if he would back up that position through negotations and make a breakthrough. Whether Bush handled the response to 9/11 in the best way is questionable, to say the least. But one thing that is certain is that he had to do *something* to try to bring down the groups responsible for that attack. Something that drastic demands a drastic response.

[eppie]

please both of you stop getting things out of context. :angry:

I just think that you cannot end terrorism using war (or whatever you want to call it) if you have some examples I will be happy to hear them and change my opinion.

[Brista]

please both of you stop getting things out of context. :angry:

How are they getting things out of context?

You typed a post. They replied to it

You said all those things that they replied to

Out of context is stuff like this:

Book reviewer:
this novel was a colossal waste of time

Publisher
"...colossal...."

Do you see? Out of context implies that the meaning has been changed

These posters are not taking you out of context, they are addressing your points

That doesn't necessarily mean you have to collapse of course. Just take a little more time to think through your reply and don't accuse people of doing stuff they're not doing just because you're struggling

Regarding the original topic I think it's generally a good thing that governments should be questioned, I think modern freedom is built on questioning authority and I think there are plenty of examples where the conspiracy theorists have been proved right (eg Watergate)

I'm not so sure that anything has been proven or even presented as reasonably probable regarding the 9/11 conspiracy theories but I'm glad that there are people out there testing the truth

Dozer, I couldn't see your video, got some message about my system not being able to read it after the d/l

[--Pete]

Hi,

I just think that you cannot end terrorism using war . . .

The word 'war' has come to be a meaningless term, with its primary meaning of armed conflict almost totally lost in the swamp of secondary meanings such as "competitive or opposing action of incompatibles : antagonistic state or action (as of divergent ideas, interests, or persons) : mental struggle resulting from incompatible or opposing needs, drives, wishes, or external or internal demands : the opposition of persons or forces that gives rise to the dramatic action in a drama or fiction" from M-W Online. From the same source, we find that 'discord' is its synonym (and if that is so, then 'mild summer breeze' and 'hurricane' are interchangeable).

Those using such a watered down meaning for 'war' find it easy to declare war on poverty, on drugs, on crime, on ants, on mildew, and on terrorism. Then, if they are sufficiently weak minded, they confuse the modern moronic meaning of 'war' with the traditional one and get the military involved. Since the military is not trained or organized for the job, they do what they can -- and given the caliber of the US military, that is often amazingly good.

The fault is not in declaring 'war' on terrorism -- for that is just perpetuation of lexical ignorance. The fault is being so unimaginative, so ignorant, so naive as to think that that 'war' should be fought with the military. Sure, it is big, it is showy, it impresses a population that routinely scores in the bottom of all world educational comparisons. And as hundreds of years of failure show, it is *stupid*.

--Pete

[jahcs]

What war are you talking about?  When President Bush declared war on terror, I wondered if he really understood how long term an undertaking that is.  He claimed to when he addressed the public.

America's (media) attention span and political system are partially to blame for our problems in this area. Three to six months is about as long as anything can last in the mainstream before it's completely replaced. Presidential plans normally span three years, to allow for the plan to be complete and have time to campaign on the completion of the plan, or about six years so that there will be some "carry over" of the agenda into a second term.

[eppie]

That doesn't necessarily mean you have to collapse of course. Just take a little more time to think through your reply and don't accuse people of doing stuff they're not doing just because you're struggling

You are also starting?? :D

Okay then, my working day is over I have a little more time, shall I now take evry bit of the previous four posts and tell what is wrong with it? Or shall I just give a reply that makes sense.

See your own opening line QUOTE 
It has always been there and it wil always be


OK, make up your mind, which is it?

Occhi

PS: QUOTE 
It just is a pity that some presidential candidate makes us think we can. 


I hope you did not mean that, I hope that is a slip of your not native English accidentally coming out. If you accept that the hot air being spouted in our Presidential race can make you think X, Y, or Z, then you admit to being so easy to fool as to be almost useless as a voter. You think for yourself, they will try to sell a lot of folks a lot of soap. 

Rogue out

Occhi knows more or less how I think about the subject, and he knows, that I'm not the one that let's is head get crazy by the BS Bush says. (instead of BS i wanted to say minchiate, but only Occhi would understand that :D )
It seems that my very respected colleague lounge member had been drinking a bit to much caffeine, so that he after my correction of his Italian got a bit cranky and started to disect my post, to get out all the mistakes which as a non native english speaker I write down more often. (correcting a site admin probabaly made me deserve this, but to spend another 10 sentences in saying I should have written a longer reply was a bit overdone brista)

But anyway, we are here to do what we like most (or at least a lot) and that is discussing nice topics, so I f you all agree we keep it like this and continue with the subject that dozer made us aware of. :D

So what I was saying..

I did not see the little film dozer linked to, and you now my thought about the whole Iraq/bush/terrorism questions. But I do think that the ony ones that are to blame for 9/11 are bin laden and his crew

This lines showed very clearly who I blame for these terrorist attacks.
Let's take the example of Israel. As long as the situation stay like this there will be suicide bombings. To blame are the bombers of course, but like my parents always told me when I was fighting with my younger sister, "try to be the most inteligent", continuing raiding palistin villages is not the most inteligent and will not end terrorism. You have to understand that as the most powerful of the two parties in the conflict this might happen. If the palestinains would be strong enough to form an army they would not commit suicide bombings but they would go to war.
What might end terrorism is to deport every palastinian to Iran, but that is not really an option is it.

Take northern Ireland, also a conflict between to religions, it does not stop if both parties continue attacking eacother. Now it seems to be more quiet and that is because a dialogue was started. (the correct thing to do)
The muslim terrorism that we have nowadays will stop if you kill al muslims or let every westerner commit suicide. Not really an option is it? Making this war on terrorism, with which you stress that there is a muslim against christian conflict will only make things worse.

Make sure you protect your borders, and you citizens. Use your inteligence to send a group of commandos to kill terrorists and wait. Like this you don't have to kill innocent people and the chance of terrorist attacks on your people will be smaller.


The most important thing I would like to say is that if you just put normal people from, differnt countries and religion together, they will get along just fine. as soon as you put somebody there that's want to be in charge and tells these people they should hate eachother that things go wrong.

[kandrathe]

A full scale war on terrorism is not going to work.

If you are thinking generals leading the troops and tanks onto beach heads, then you a guilty of not keeping up with the nomenclature of warfare. One of the newer ideas is that we need to be prepared to fight the next war, and the tools we use and the structure of the forces need to be aligned to that threat. That new warfare is asymmetric, meaning that there may or may not be a nation state or territory involved. I agree with Pete that the word is misused, and that we need to be clearer in how we will respond to a threat or an enemy. Pete fights a war on ignorance. :) There is a military role in striking at collections of terrorists when they fight as paramilitary forces, as they are in Afghanistan. There is an intelligence and law enforcement role in investigations and preventing attacks. There is a administrative and systemic role in preventing the funding of terrorism, and money laundering schemes. And, probably many other roles that all people who are opposed to terrorism should play.

I watched the 52 minute video -- although my instincts told me to turn it off. For those who don't want to waste their time or bandwidth I offer the salient points.

The questions it asked;

- How could a Boeing 757 slam into the Pentagon and leave such a small hole and no visable plane wreckage? They suggest it was a missile.
- How come a witness of the north tower impact claimed the plane was not a commercial airliner? They suggest it was a military plane.
- Why did a firefighter claim that he heard explosions similiar to detonations going floor by floor like the building was being taken down by demolition charges?
- Why were there flashes in the towers just prior to both planes impacting? They suggest there were devices attached to the planes meant to ignite the fuel.
- Why does it appear that there are pods attached to the bottoms of the planes?

At the end of the video they suggest that 9/11 was a government conspiracy by both the Democrats and Republicans to bring about a police state in the US. You can find more of the "evidence" at 911 - In Plane Site website.

I'll just offer my opinion that this is the worst kind of BS as they focus on some details that require the viewer to fully understand the physics of plane impacts and building construction. They offer no explanation of the passenger cell phone calls connected right up to impact, or what happened to the real missing airliners.


What they confuse as a "exterior swelling " is really the curved swept down attachment point of the wing to the plane.

Anyway I think the whole "documentary" is a load of crap.

[Occhidiangela]

EDIT: For excremental spelling and poor word choice.

I just think that you cannot end terrorism using war (or whatever you want to call it) if you have some examples I will be happy to hear them and change my opinion

What do you mean by war? As Pete so lucidly points out, the misuse of that term confuses meaning and understanding. (Hey, Chaer will want to chime in here with a comment, perhaps, on how Nietzsche is right, in that language itself is an obstacle to understanding . . . or some such point.) Another 19th century {amateur} philosopher, Clausewitz, defined war as a political act of force intended to impel an opposing state, which by extension could apply to extra national organizations, to do one's will, or to stop doing "X" "Y" or "Z." The inverse also works. The war, the Jihad, that Al Qaeda and other terror organs, or the IRA of the 1970's, is waged by extranational organizations against states in an attempt to use violence to impel the others to their will.

If you eliminate the organization, you win. Cut out all the cancer cells. To do that, you will probably have to cut a lot of flesh other than the cancerous tumor. That includes many highly placed international figures, bankers, businessmen, and sympathizers who fund and provide safe haven to the extra national organizations . . . to say nothing of the nations who do so.

Is an Army the best tool for that job? Probably not in most cases, though it can play a part. The Taliban, state sponsors of terror, went down before American armed might, but the activity still goes on at a different level. I'd say that in may cases, assassination, financial assault, and the exposure and execution of those supporting the terror cells are the steps to take. Extradition would help.

The international community, and many of its leaders, are too cowardly to take such steps, knowing that their own complicity, or the complicity of some of their friends, will be exposed. They will lose face, money, and possibly their livelihood. It is a tangled mess.

Let me tell you something very real. In Afghanistan, today, a "war on terror" is being waged by a combination of means. Look at the size of the country. Then, look at how many troops are there. Look over at Iraq, and consider how many troops are there. Look at the mix of forces in Afghanistan, then at Iraq. (I have to insist you do your own homework, to keep this conversation "public domain.")

What most of us don't see are the sneaky spy stuff, the back door deals, exploitation of Information Age tools (read any Dan Brown novel) , and downright blackmail that go on behind the scenes. I am involved, and I barely have any visibility on such means. I know somewhat of the concepts because I wrote professional papers, much of them now shredder fodder due to perishability of an idea, on the subject.

I must stop there so as to remain "public domain."

But back to what happens in "Phase X" of the political act of suasion in chaning the shape of the international playing field. You have to stay engaged. The football game "done in time for Bar B Q" model of war is complete crap. We are STILL in Germany after 59 years of post conflict engagement. Think about that. Japan as well.

Clausewitz again. See the second line in my sig. That bumper sticker is rife with meaning. Play is continuous.


As to success:

Example 1. Defeating a terrorist organization can be done via violence, I offer you again the Bader Meinhof gang. However, it was done via police and paramilitary techniques.

Example 2. The Symbionese Liberation Army. Went down in a violent debacle.

These organizaitons were, however, small potatoes compared to Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and for that matter, Al Qaeda. In these well funded and dispersed organizations, Internet and Cell Phone enabled, the rich hand behind the man in the AK-47, like the cartel king in a drug running organization, is who has to be exposed and taken down. Along with a good many of his thugs.

F-16's with JDAM's are not the answer to that problem. A .50 cal sniper rifle, an opportunity, and a steady hand on the trigger are part of it. A good intelligence organization is THE critical tool. Next most important is multinational cooperation to deny safe haven.

Which brings us up to what has been an intense national security question for decades.

Is state sponsored assassination a valid policy tool in a nation of laws, a nation that supports an international community of laws?

If I go pure Clausewitz, I'd say "yes," as the leader is a, or the, center of gravity: (NOte: Are you listening Kim Jong Il?) Saddam listened, and he had extraordinary measures in place to prevent being assassinated by a host of folks who hated his guts. Osama as well, for his part, is just as careful.

I will then use Clausewitz to judo my argument: What is the aim, and what is the Follow On Policy for After the Killing Has Stopped? Better not get into a campaign or war if you a) don't fully understand its nature and B) don't understand your long term aims.

In the contemporary world, how many nations will sign up, by the way, so both the methods and aims of assassination as a political tool, when they have the impotent International Criminal Court, biased against the law abiding and wealthy, to delegate their risks to?

You find the answer to that, and you can make a fortune as a consultant to any number of governments. Hell, I'll vote for you for President! (PS, I can't, since you were not born in the US)

Occhi

[gekko]

The amount of terror is up to whoever keeps trying to use it as a tool.  Nice work, oh brainwashed one, buying into the lie that terrorism is the fault of the one attacked.  You appear to have no idea that you have been, for about the last 15 years, a target of a propaganda campaign.  It seems to have worked, on you.

While I agree that the primary responsability for terrorism lies in the hands of the terrorists, I cannot agree that the whole responsability is theirs. Can anyone possibly dispute that the US foreign policy has not played some part in the anti-american sentiments at the root of (some) terrorist activity?

Pete already said it best -- war is not only about fighting with your military. For the 'War on Terrorism' to be succesful, it must have a more complete goal than simply exterminating all terrorists. While I do believe that those in control of terrorists are using anti-american sentiments to further their own agendas, anti-american sentiments would exist whether Bin Laden was actively harvesting those sentiments to create his army or not. So long as there exists a population in the middle east who blame american for their problems, so there will be a steady supply of reinforcements for the terrorists. Unfortunately, military attacks by the US serve to fuel those anti-american sentiments. The US casualty list recently passed 1000 soldiers. How many Iraqui (sp?) civillians have died as a result of american bombs?

The propaganda you refer to, 'brainwashing' people to believe that american is responsable for the terrorists attacks, is not the only propaganda circulating. You seem to fall far on the other side of the fence here. However, I think we can all agree that america is not perfect; america's foreign policy is not and has not always been perfect; and that american does its fair share to piss off a good deal of the world's population. Accepting some responsability for the past will go a long way towards convincing the rest of the world that americans should not be the target of terrorism.

gekko

[Occhidiangela]

1. The thanks for correcting my sloppy spelling was sincere. I was being sloppy not to take the time to look up the correct spelling, and was acknowledging that I can do better, and you were right to "nit" me on that. :D

2. I was not cranky about the spelling thing, unless at myself, but at the content of your post. Gatorade™, by the way, not caffeine, powered that post.

3. In a discussion like this, being a slightly in arrears in contributions Admin has nothing to do with our conversation. I will NEVER use the honor Bolty has bestowed on me for being a small part of the management here as a point of privilege. I can stand on my own line of BS quite nicely, thanks! :lol:

I respect your ability to converse in a language not your native tongue, amico mio, which is why I was pretty certain that the turn of phrase was probably ill chosen on that basis, rather than on lack of wit.

4. I don't blame the suicide bombers in Israel, many of whom are that society's dispossessed, I blame the arseholes who induce them into throwing away their lives in one last act of hatred and bloodshed. That, sir, is a mortal sin.

Occhi

*I smell coffee! Hooray!*

[Occhidiangela]

If a message is well presented, the attention span can be much longer. See the villification of the American male, and the ritual killings of someone's life, in divorce courts, particularly regarding child custody.

Some attention spans are not short.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

EDIT: nine spelling errors. Preview button is right there, eh?

How does anti-American sentiment justify terrorism, murder, and bloodshed? Or, for that matter, anti Israeli, anti Spanish, anti Korean, etc?

It does not. It is, as I spelled out up there, a tool of force to try to impel others to do your will. Bullying with satchel charges, if you will.

How many Iraqui (sp?) civillians have died as a result of american bombs?

What does that matter? 50,000 people die every year in America from traffic accidents. People die every day. Fewer people died in Iraq during the war than in the three years before the war, if you believe the reports on the excesses of Saddam's regime. (Not sure I buy them all.)

That in a nation "not at war." Body count is irrelevant, a useless metric. People are dying now, but most of them are either coalition soldiers, relative innocents who are in the wrong place when a car bomb goes off, specific targets of the warring factions, or the Iraqi and Foreign Fighters who are actively trying to DESTABALIZE IRAQ through violence for their own selfish ends. If you picture nine crime famlies in a gangland war for New York, you will see a clearer picture.

The propaganda you refer to, 'brainwashing' people to believe that american is responsable for the terrorists attacks, is not the only propaganda circulating. You seem to fall far on the other side of the fence here. However, I think we can all agree that america is not perfect; america's foreign policy is not and has not always been perfect; and that american does its fair share to piss off a good deal of the world's population. Accepting some responsability for the past will go a long way towards convincing the rest of the world that americans should not be the target of terrorism.

You have no idea how insulting that underlined part is. I know propaganda when I see it, and I daresay far more clearly than youdo. I am fully aware of how information is used by an immense variety of public actors to influence events. I, unlike your typical "it's all America's fault" drooler can see about 29 sides. I then choose the a few I prefer.

As for "accepting responsibility for the past:" a non sequiter, and of zero value. We, and that's all of us, have a future to build. The past we can learn from, the whigning about who killed whom takes us back to Cain and Abel. Wasted effort.

Gekko, as I have noted here on this forum previously, I have been involved in the struggle against Islamic terrorists since 1983, on and off, though I have been influenced by it since about 1972 on an emotional level. Many naive fools like yourself didn't even know it was going on. Enough, I am starting to see red.

You also did not appear to bother to read my post, nor to comprehend how I referenced a propaganda campaign from " the other side" as it were.

You read well.

Either I write like a wanker, or you might want to chew a tad more slowly, and digest some of the chunks of stew beef before regurgitating up the same old Pinko wheeze.

Occhi

PS: Now, to set aside the Blah blah about America being a legitimate target of a terrorists, please explain France and Spain as legitimate terror targets. Koreans. Philippinos. Italians.

Just remember, I generally know BS when I see it. It's sorta tough to BS an old BS'er. ;)

Rogue out.

[jahcs]

If a message is well presented, the attention span can be much longer.  See the villification of the American male, and the ritual killings of someone's life, in divorce courts, particularly regarding child custody.

Some attention spans are not short.

Occhi

Yikes, I have been rebutted by the Rouge. :P

I was speaking in general terms of course and even worse generalizing about the trend.


The "villification of the American male" is a long term campaign with many angles of attack. Each attack gets it's own separate place in popular attention. We can't see the forest for the trees. And the trend in divorce courts is not "news" according to the US's current media complex.

Also, the "villification of the American male" is an example of our society's mindset. People do not understand that the empowerment of women does not require the tearing down of men. That's not to say that most of us men couldn't use a good smack upside the head now and then. :D Our political campains are another angle of this. Our politicians spend a disproportionate amount of time bashing the other candidate instead of building themselves a platform to stand on. (Not to mention the last several years of candidates seem to be lacking constructive skills.)

[Occhidiangela]

Our political campains are another angle of this. Our politicians spend a disproportionate amount of time bashing the other candidate instead of building themselves a platform to stand on. (Not to mention the last several years of candidates seem to be lacking constructive skills.)

Amen Brother!!

Here is the message from the Rogue to all the politicians: Howse about youse guys show me what you are for, who I can in good conscience vote for, rather than telling me how your opponent is "teh suck!"

Well, I'm waiting! :angry:

Occhi

EDIT: did an arse backwards nesting of quote up there. SPAZZ!

[gekko]

First off, let me clearly state that my intent was not, and never has been, to offend or insult you. I apologize if my post in any way had that affect.

How does anti-American sentiment justify terrorism, murder, and bloodshed? Or, for that matter, anti Israeli, anti Spanish, anti Korean, etc?

It does not. It is, as I spelled out up there, a tool of force to try to impel others to do your will. Bullying with satchel charges, if you will.

I absolutely, totally, 100% agree with you here. However. How does the 9/11 attack justify the american military dropping hundreds of bombs on Iraq? It doesn't, but it has been, and is being, used as such justification.

As for "accepting responsibility for the past:" a non sequiter, and of zero value. We, and that's all of us, have a future to build. The past we can learn from, the whigning about who killed whom takes us back to Cain and Abel. Wasted effort.

That part I have a big problem with. It's not a question of blame, it's a matter of responsability. It's not enough to just say mistakes may have been made, but tough luck, live for the future.

The best way I can demonstrate this is discussing the situation where I live. We have, in my area, a very large population of Native Indians living in and around Thunder Bay. My uncle is one of those people who believes the government of canada should offer no benefits to these people -- what he calls equitable treatment. The problem with his viewpoint is that equal treatment does not equal equality :P in this case. Due to the actions of Canadians and the government from decades and generations past, myself and others like me (upper middle class white folks) have a huge, inherent advantage over the majority of the Native population. Simply put, without offering tax breaks, free education, and other social programs, the Native population will never reach an equal level in Canada. Unfortunately, that means people like my uncle, competing for jobs against the Natives in our area, seem to get the short end of the stick.

I see a similar situation regarding american foreign policies. While I don't believe for a second that americans today are responsable for the actions of americans 50 years ago, I do believe that they must accept that those actions are part of the cause of today's problems.

Now, to set aside the Blah blah about America being a legitimate target of a terrorists, please explain France and Spain as legitimate terror targets. Koreans. Philippinos. Italians.

There are no legitimate targets of terrorism. That's not my point at all. My point is that if the US can't understand how the actions of yesterday helped bring about what's happening today, they're always going to have to deal with it tomorow.

Many naive fools like yourself didn't even know it was going on.

Now, I understand that you saw my post as insulting, so I'll just pretend I didn't see this part. You obviously saw insult where none was intended, and I fully understand and apologize for that. However, don't you dare be upset and angry with me for such a reason in the same post where you use such a personal attack.

gekko

[--Pete]

Hi,

Well, maybe not 'never', but at least not until the politicians are working with a better electorate.

Will a population, many of whom cannot even make change, be able to understand fiscal policy? Can a population mostly ignorant of all other cultures to the extent that most have not even studied *one* foreign language or ever left the country, understand international relations? Does population that is so ignorant of science that it shuns "Nuclear Magnetic Resonance" but warmly embraces "Magnetic Resonance Imaging" have the ability to follow arguments on global warming, pollution, or power generation?

The politicians are masters at working their audience. And since for every informed voter that rationally follows the issues, there is a mob of ignorant fools who are won over by third rate rhetoric, why should the politicians bother with the informed minority?

"A country gets the form of government it deserves."

As long as anyone can vote and as long as most people get no education we will continue to have the caliber of officials and the class of 'discussion' that is prevalent at the present. And, what's worse, is that the situation is self enforcing. Ignorant people will vote for ignorant candidates who will perpetuate the ignorance by watering down school systems and continuing to substitute training (and poor training at that) for education.

--Pete