September 11, 2001 – Thoughts on an Anniversary

[WestViking]

It's unbelievable that in 2007 there are still people who believe 9/11 happened because OBL hates freedom. OBL doesn't care about the internal affairs of individual nations, if he did, Sweden and Switzerland would have gotten hit a long time ago for their freedoms.

Fact is the main targets of Al-Qaeda are nations that have all had foreign military presence in what OBL considers his backyard (Mid East and Afghanistan) OR are Muslim-majority nations whose leaders cooperate with these same nations.

Sure, Osama bin Laden is just a poor misunderstood patriot without a nation (his family and his home nation of Saudi Arabia have disowned him) struggling to preserve the dictatorships and theocracies of the Middle East. Afghanistan, Pakistan and India do not fit your description, are not in ‘bin Laden’s back yard’, do not have troops in the middle east and yet are under recent and prolonged al-Qaeda attack. Your claims to superior knowledge of Middle East affairs is suspect.

Oh God, I really had hopped you learned your lesson from your last post - STOP MAKING SWEEPING GENERALIZATIONS ABOUT TOPICS YOU HAVEN'T STUDIED. I asked you in my last post if you really think that people who've studied Islam and global politics can't spot an amateur immediately when they pose as an expert on a topic like this?

Now to deal with your assertion that Islam is in itself incompatible with the things you described

And your ‘sweeping generalizations’ are superior because . . . . . . . . ???

To date, the best analysis of the diverse opinions of the world's Muslims has been the Pew Global Attitudes Project: http://pewglobal.org/

One study on Islam, Modernity & Terrorism found that most Muslims, don't even think that there even is a conflict between Islam and modernity. (http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?PageID=833) Meaning that modernity and Islam have been integrating in their communities for quite some time, and that the two, in their eyes, aren't in opposition to each other. This would go against your statement (that wasn't backed up with any evidence, mind you) that Islam is in opposition to modernity. What's more, in nations where people did perceive there to be a conflict, the majority of people sided with the Modernizers versus the Fundamentalists. Again, this demonstrates that there are more Muslims who are for Modern Reform than there are who are fundamentalists, which is your (uninformed) belief.

How do you ‘study’ Muslim societies who have limited educations, no freedoms, no liberty, no human rights and no freedom of speech and get a credible view of their perspective on world affairs? The study you cite is interesting in (1) the nations that were not surveyed, such a Libya, Iran, Syria and Lebanon, and (2) the low confidence levels for bin Laden combined with the high levels of concern over Islamic extremists. Clearly, bin Laden is no longer seen as the head or even the driving force behind Islamic extremism. We have every reason to believe that terrorists simply want to take over the west and that their desire is not rooted in some legitimate grievance.

Where are the results? Where have Middle East nations acquired even the basics of human rights as expressed in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Which Middle East Nations have seen a measurable increase in personal and family incomes? Which Middle East nations have developed an open just and equitable justice system that conforms to the principles of natural justice?

There aren't too many people left who still claim that invading and occupying Iraq was a good move - and with good reason.

Perhaps in your narrow world, but the fact is that the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan have triggered a regional war that extends well beyond the Middle East. So called ‘insurgents’ in Iraq come from all over the region with the simple objective of preventing any sort of stability ion that nation. The terrorists, and the nations who aid, back, support and supply them have to win. They cannot allow a neighbour nation with a modicum of democracy, and an Iraqi federation is even more unthinkable. The Mullahs are nervous as well as some dictators. It is effective to keep the terrorists occupied in the Middle East and Afghanistan rather than planning IEDs on the freeway, or blowing up supermarkets and malls in western nations.

Your statement that the relationship between the West and "Islamic lands" (as if you can toss all muslim-majority nations in the same box, which is like saying Hungary, Peru, and Ghana are one-in-the-same) should be based on mutual respect, and that it was "them" (aka - Muslims) who upset this relationship when 9/11 happened is ridiculously ignorant of world history.

Again, I have to question whether you just don't know what you're talking about or you're deliberately leaving out a lot of information which you know contradicts your statement (in which case, you're being completely dishonest in your arguement).

Since the beginnings of modernity, nearly every Muslim nation on earth was occupied by a European colonial power - this Imperialism was the anti-thesis of mutual respect, and if you study Muslim nations where there is antithesis towards certain Western powers you'll see that each nation had a terrible experience under colonialism or had a Western power interfere in their nation post-independence.

The vast majority of these greviences have never been resolved, and in fact many of the inequalities in terms of trade and political pressure are still there and thus why there is still lingering animosity.

How conveniently you forget that the entire Middle East was ruled by the Ottoman Empire from about 1450 to 1922 – roughly 470 years or over four and a half centuries. European nations ruled the Middle East from roughly 1922 to 1948 – or about a quarter century. I seriously doubt that ‘long held grievances’ would be against the western nations. Arabic people, like all others, have the choice of nursing perceived grievances and seeking revenge, or getting on with building themselves a better life and future. Their choice so far is obvious. How many will they sacrifice before rethinking their position?

I shouldn't have to tell you the history of US involvement in Iran - you should know already that the US overthrew a democratically elected but socialist leader who wanted to nationalize the oil-industry, and replaced him with a dictator who was hated by the public and loved by Western leaders.

You should know, that the US has been interfering in Egyptian politics in much the same way for half a century - supporting forces which are Western-friendly yet anti-democratic. I can go on with the list but I think I've proved my point - that the relationship wasn't equal on September 10th, as you seem to suggest.

Listen, if you're going to make the claim that "Muslims" believe something, such as the notion that 9/11 was just payback for Western wars and interventions in Muslim-majority nations, you're going to have to back it up with some facts. You can't claim 1.5 billion people believe something and expect anyone to believe it without showing us some data. Either refine your statement and be more specific, or don't make it at all.

This is completely lazy and amateurish, and is no worse than someone coming on here and claiming "all Jews want to rule the world"

Your apparent hatred of America does not in any way justify that attacks on America that took place September 11, 2001, or the 3,000 deaths resulting therefrom. Your anti-American rant does not justify Islamic terrorist attacks on other nations around the world.

Unprovoked attacks on the civilian populations of sovereign nations by radical terrorist groups are not acceptable and will never be acceptable to civilized nations. These predators, their activities and their supporters have to be stopped and will be.

Edited September 14, 2007 by WestViking

[Black Dog]

But because I'm a nice person, here's a tip. If you don't like listening to all those Americans who refuse to "shut up" about 9-11, then don't listen to them. That's how easy it would be to put an end your terrible ordeal.

Well, one would hav ethought that a canadian political board would be just the place to avoid such a thing, but apparently not.

Anyhoo, I'm wondering when jbg will step up to defend his latest call for atrocities.

[Guest American Woman]

Well, one would hav ethought that a canadian political board would be just the place to avoid such a thing, but apparently not.

Well, a Canadian like you might have thought that, but experience has shown me that there are more Canadians who enjoy talking to Americans than those who have a problem with it. I suppose that's why "U.S. Politics" has a forum all it's own on a Canadian political board.

But because I'm patient as well as nice, here's another tip: when the thread title says " September 11, 2001," you can be pretty sure it's going to be about the terrorist attacks that occured that day. So my advice to you would be not to click on that thread. Again, problem solved.

[JB Globe]

This is a false premise....America has never been the great defender of "democracy".....it has been the great defender of its own economic and geo-political interests. The history of America laughs at any such notion, and it isn't required to live up to anybody else's expectations otherwise.

Well, the thing is, most Americans view their nation as the City on the Hill - and I highly doubt most of them would want their nation to become a blatantly Imperial power.

Also considering how wary the rest of the world is from American unilateralism as it is, I think the reaction to blatant Imperialism would be pretty severe - I don't see the general publics of many nations being anything but against such a policy.

Edited September 14, 2007 by JB Globe

[JB Globe]

I never said it was a good idea, But ill be damned if those troops over there are gonna die for no reason.

So the fight continues in an effort only to give the fight meaning? Is there an actual goal that can be accomplished in Iraq or is it a situation where there can be no solid conclusive "end," and thus no way to "win" and by continuing with the current strategy the people involved are just refusing to accept the reality of the situation?

Gave a place for terrorist to fire on US citizens outside of the US and gave us a chance to Kill as many extremist as we can.

Of course, Iraq wasn't a haven for terrorists under Saddam. It was the playground of a dictator, but one that was largely impotent in strength due to the sanctions against him. Now that Iraq is functionally a failed state, terrorism thrives there, just as it does in other failed states like Afghanistan.

The main difference between your approach to fighting terrorism and mine is that you seem to be advocating a war of attrition here (ie: "[iraq] gave us a chance to kill as many extremists as we can") and I'm advocating the strategy of Containment.

I think 9/11 proved why a war of attrition is unwinable by the US - For the few hundred thousand dollars spent and the efforts of 19 hijackers the US has had to spend trillions on two wars, two occupations, and spending on homeland security and intelligence. That and the fact that, if you believe this is a war between the US and all the world's Muslims (which you suggest at the end), considering how much trouble a nation of 26 million is giving the US, what makes you think the US can handle 1.5 billion people?

By that logic we shouldnt have occupied Germany after world war 2 either?

Not the same thing - Germany attacked American Allies, and then its Ally (Japan) attacked the US directly - meaning Germany was the aggressor against the US, and the US could not guarantee its own safety until that regime was gone, meaning it HAD to occupy Germany to eliminate the threat. Once there, it made the great decision to make sure the mistakes of WWI's Treaty of Versailles weren't repeated - it's main purpose was to improve the lives of ordinary Germans, so that they could never be duped by someone like a Hitler again and establish economic links as well.

Iraq on the other hand, posed no threat to the US or its allies when the decision to invade was made, Saddam was, like I said earlier, weaker than he'd ever been before. The invasion and occupation was entirely unnecessary, and has diverted much, much money and manpower away from critical missions like rebuilding Afghanistan (I believe the last figure I saw was only about 3% of the money needed to rebuild Afghanistan has been spent).

Because past presidential cabinets have supported Dictators makes me a hypocrite for disliking them how?

Well, if you condemn the actions of the Shah, for example, and aren't happy that the US installed him there, than you probably also should be upset that the US is supporting a another autocratic leader in Mubarak in Egypt. It's not as if this pattern of supporting unpopular dictators who are Western-friendly has stopped.

What have you done for your country? On top of that if the unthinkable happens and Islam is spread into the USA, I will be the first to take up arms against it.

Do you really think this is a war of religions? Really?

As far as it being emotional your god damn right it is. I usually take in personally when people try to kill me, or my Marine brother, or my friends and family. If you don't thats okay, go hide in a hole if you like, ill be there to protect you.

It's one thing to be emotional when a tragedy occurs, it's another to let emotion guide your response to that tragedy.

It's like deciding to go avenge a loved one's death out of anger and loss, rather than assisting the police to nab the suspect.

[Guest American Woman]

This is a false premise....America has never been the great defender of "democracy".....it has been the great defender of its own economic and geo-political interests. The history of America laughs at any such notion, and it isn't required to live up to anybody else's expectations otherwise.

If the U.S. doesn't claim to be a defender of democracy, why is the Iraq war called "Operation Iraqi Freedom?" Sounds to me as if the war is (supposed to be) about bringing democracy to Iraq; that it's all about the oppressed Iraqis.

[Black Dog]

If the U.S. doesn't claim to be a defender of democracy, why is the Iraq war called "Operation Iraqi Freedom?" Sounds to me as if the war is (supposed to be) about bringing democracy to Iraq; that it's all about the oppressed Iraqis.

Not to defend bc2004, or jump on you AW, but his point was that America has never been the great defender of "democracy" it claims to be.

Edited September 14, 2007 by Black Dog

[JB Globe]

Let's say I "consider" Canada my backyard and disagree with PM Harper's decision on something. Does that give me the right to sacrifice the lives of 19 people I can brainwash in order to slaughter Canadians in large numbers and at random?

Thanks for the straw man, the answer is so obvious I don't know why you bothered to ask me - NO.

The thing is, rationalizing WHY Bin Laden is doing what he's doing isn't the same thing as saying IT'S OKAY for him to do so. Terrorism is never justified on legal or ethical grounds, but as much as you would like to deny it, there are REASONS behind why people commit acts of terrorism.

I don't understand why acknowledging the link between the actions of terrorists and the foreign policy of the US is some sort of moral defeat. In fact, it's part of the solution - you can't really solve a problem until you admit there is a problem. Acknowledging the link doesn't mean you give in to terrorist desires either - it just means you sit down and think about a better way of doing things, maybe there's a way to accomplish what you want to accomplish without becoming the target of terrorists? Maybe there's a way to do it that doesn't make it look like Imperialism to the local population?

Maybe you just made a dumb move in the past, maybe there's a way to be smarter about the situation. I don't see what's treasonous about that, unless you're unable to admit America has made big mistakes in the past - which isn't healthy for you or for your country.

What about the lingering "animosity" of Jews for the Holocaust? Do you see us strapping bombs onto our children or crashing planes into buildings? ?

Why would we need to? Per capita, no group of people on earth is as rich or influencial as we are. We're the last group on earth that would need to resort to the tactics of the desperate. It's like asking why a CEO doesn't run a counterfit phone card scam - he doesn't need to.

That was a seizure of private property

Of course, that private property was purchased during the colonial period and under the first Shah, without the consent of, and to the anger of the public. I don't think that Mossadegh's plan was "wrong" given that context - also considering the fact that under the previous agreement 85% of the oil wealth was sent to Britain. Frankly, the UK used their position as a colonial power to leverage an exploitive agreement from an illegitimate leader with disdain from the local population, Iran was in the right on this one.

The West should lie down and acquiesce to the formation of dangerous governments throughout the world? Really?

Oh yes, of course it should . . . No really, stop with the straw men, it's lazy . . .

Frankly, the West should realize that there will always be people who disagree with the foreign policy of the US and other nations, and it should seek to meet them in the sphere of a negotiating table rather than at the barrell of a gun. Example - the Egyptian Brotherhood long ago abandoned terrorism in favour of politics, and Mubarak continues to outlaw them. Frankly groups that choose to affect change democratically and peacefully should be rewarded with the opportunity to enter into negotiations, they should get political legitimacy.

If you refuse to speak to people who disagree with you, you make peace impossible and war inevitable.

And in case you didn't know, speaking to someone, and listening to their concerns isn't the same thing as caving into their every desire.

[JB Globe]

Sure, Osama bin Laden is just a poor misunderstood patriot without a nation (his family and his home nation of Saudi Arabia have disowned him) struggling to preserve the dictatorships and theocracies of the Middle East.

Your words, not mine. Understanding why OBL does what he does isn't the same thing as saying what he does is justified, which it isn't in the slightest.

Afghanistan, Pakistan and India do not fit your description, are not in ‘bin Laden’s back yard’, do not have troops in the middle east and yet are under recent and prolonged al-Qaeda attack. Your claims to superior knowledge of Middle East affairs is suspect.

Afghanistan - Is occupied by Western troops, and was the former home base for OBL and Al-Qaeda. The central government is weak and controls little of the country. Western powers run the show, essentially. Hence why its a target of OBL

Pakistan - Ruled by a military dictator who is allied with the US in the fight against Al-Qaeda - hence why OBL targets his regime.

India - Major acts of terrorism in India are motivated by the conflict in Kashmir, and have been that way many decades before Al-Qaeda even existed. (ie - India has stated that the recent Mumbai train bombings were the work of Kashmiri separatist terrorists)

And your ‘sweeping generalizations’ are superior because . . . . . . . . ???

Making sweeping generalizations about a religion of over a billion is like making a generalization about all people with pale skin - it's lazy, always inaccurate and represents the ignorance of the person who makes it.

Calling someone out on their lack of knowledge on a subject, by pointing out major logical flaws in their arguement, has nothing to do with generalization.

How do you ‘study’ Muslim societies who have limited educations, no freedoms, no liberty, no human rights and no freedom of speech and get a credible view of their perspective on world affairs?

The same way you study Christians who live in the same kinds of countries. Your dismissal of the PEW Studies as rubbish is quaint, but considering you seem to be claiming you know how 1.5 billion Muslims think about issues, I'd like to know how you came by your information, and how it was gathered.

Where are the results? Where have Middle East nations acquired even the basics of human rights as expressed in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

It varies, for example - two states which are similar, Jordan and Syria, have much different levels of human rights. I'm sorry if I'm blowing your mind - but their is variation and difference in both the Arab World, and the Muslim world. It isn't a monolith. Also, considering the unstable nature of the Middle East, it's not surprising that there are many authoritarian governments - chaos is the enemy of human rights. Stability breeds good government. And frankly, most Syrians and Jordanians are looking at Iraq right now and thinking - "If that's democracy, I'll keep this dictatorship if it means I stay alive" Once the region becomes more stable, you'll see more democracies, that's why the gulf states - which HAVE been stable for some time - are moving towards democracy.

Which Middle East Nations have seen a measurable increase in personal and family incomes?

Oman, UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, to name a few. Yes, it's true - there are rich nations in the Middle East.

Perhaps in your narrow world, but the fact is that the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan have triggered a regional war that extends well beyond the Middle East. So called ‘insurgents’ in Iraq come from all over the region with the simple objective of preventing any sort of stability ion that nation.

Oh, most insurgents aren't Iraqi? Really? How do you know that?

Your apparent hatred of America does not in any way justify that attacks on America that took place September 11, 2001, or the 3,000 deaths resulting therefrom. Your anti-American rant does not justify Islamic terrorist attacks on other nations around the world.

It's one thing to claim I hate America, it's another thing to prove it. So I suggest directly quoting me or shutting up with this baseless attack. If you can't argue without personal insults, maybe you shouldn't be here.

Unprovoked attacks on the civilian populations of sovereign nations by radical terrorist groups are not acceptable and will never be acceptable to civilized nations. These predators, their activities and their supporters have to be stopped and will be.

Of course, there are good and bad ways to go about achieving this goal.

[Higgly]

This is a false premise....America has never been the great defender of "democracy".....it has been the great defender of its own economic and geo-political interests. The history of America laughs at any such notion, and it isn't required to live up to anybody else's expectations otherwise.

Yes! Mossadegh. Allende...

I felt badly for the Americans when 9/11 happened, but for too many US administrations democracy is just a war flag. The election of George Bush Jr on the outcome of a recount in his brother's jurisdiction was not a good day for democracy. The invasion of Iraq in flagrant violation of the Geneva Conventions was another milestone. This is a country that could have been a shining beacon. Too bad.

[Black Dog]

WestViking sez:

So called ‘insurgents’ in Iraq come from all over the region with the simple objective of preventing any sort of stability ion that nation.

Black Dog fix!

Only a small minority of the so called ‘insurgents’ in Iraq come from all over the region with the simple objective of preventing any sort of stability in that nation.

WASHINGTON, Aug. 24 — The number of detainees held by the American-led military forces in Iraq has swelled by 50 percent under the troop increase ordered by President Bush, with the inmate population growing to 24,500 today from 16,000 in February, according to American military officers in Iraq.

...

Nearly 85 percent of the detainees in custody are Sunni Arabs, the minority faction in Iraq that ruled the country under the government of Saddam Hussein; the other detainees are Shiites, the officers say.

Military officers said that of the Sunni detainees, about 1,800 claim allegiance to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, a homegrown extremist group that American intelligence agencies have concluded is foreign-led. About 6,000 more identify themselves as takfiris, or Muslims who believe some other Muslims are not true believers. Such believers view Shiite Muslims as heretics.

...

According to statistics supplied by the headquarters of Task Force 134, the American military unit in charge of detention operations in Iraq, there are about 280 detainees from countries other than Iraq. Of those, 55 are identified as Egyptian, 53 as Syrian, 37 as Saudi, 28 as Jordanian and 24 as Sudanese.

Yes I'm aware these numbers are detainees, but I think it's reasonable that those numbers give us a decent idea of the actual make up of the insurgency.

[jbg]

Anyhoo, I'm wondering when jbg will step up to defend his latest call for atrocities.

All that the Muslims have to do to avoid that war is to call off theirs. If they fight the war in such a way as to make the fighters indistinguishable from ordinary people, what choice is left?

If it's us or them, I choose us. You?

[Guest American Woman]

Not to defend bc2004, or jump on you AW, but his point was that America has never been the great defender of "democracy" it claims to be.

No, his claim was that America has never been the great defender of democracy and isn't required to live up to others expectations as such.

This is a false premise....America has never been the great defender of "democracy".....it has been the great defender of its own economic and geo-political interests. The history of America laughs at any such notion, and it isn't required to live up to anybody else's expectations otherwise.

There is nothing in his statement about America claiming to be the great defender of democracy; he never said the "it claims to be" part that you credit him with. In fact, he is saying the opposite.

So I'm asking if America doesn't claim to 'defend democracy' and, as bc2004 says, laughs at such a notion, why was the Iraq war named "Operation Iraqi Freedom?" -- and I'm still waiting for his response.

So bush_cheney2004, what have you got to say about it? How does "Operation Iraqi Freedom" fit in with "defending our own economic and geo-political interests?" I agree with you, btw. But while we are doing that, we most certainly are pushing the ideal that it's actually the people we care about. Pretty hypocritical, right?

Edited September 15, 2007 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes! Mossadegh. Allende...

I felt badly for the Americans when 9/11 happened, but for too many US administrations democracy is just a war flag. The election of George Bush Jr on the outcome of a recount in his brother's jurisdiction was not a good day for democracy. The invasion of Iraq in flagrant violation of the Geneva Conventions was another milestone. This is a country that could have been a shining beacon. Too bad.

America is the same as it has always been, and it has been a shining beacon for reality behind such euphemisms as "liberty", "freedom", and "democracy". Let's cut through all the bullshit and talk economics, because that is what counts. Canada certainly has been first in line when it comes to the "evil hegemon" just doing its thing.

The 2000 election was an example of the American experiment at its finest. The world took notice. It's taken over 200 years, but Iraq is supposed to be able to do it in less than five.

Edited September 15, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest American Woman]

America is the same as it has always been, and it has been a shining beacon for reality behind such euphemisms as "liberty", "freedom", and "democracy". Let's cut through all the bullshit and talk economics, because that is what counts.

I'm asking you again. In light of what you're saying, why was the Iraq war named "Operation Iraqi Freedom?

As for the rest of your post:

Canada certainly has been first in line when it comes to the "evil hegemon" just doing its thing.

The 2000 election was an example of the American experiment at its finest. The world took notice. It's taken over 200 years, but Iraq is supposed to be able to do it in less than five.

??

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm asking you again. In light of what you're saying, why was the Iraq war named "Operation Iraqi Freedom?

Sorry, I don't like the tone of your post. Like you, I think I will pitch a fit instead.

[Guest American Woman]

Sorry, I don't like the tone of your post. Like you, I think I will pitch a fit instead.

You don't like the "tone" of a question? I figured as much. I figured you for someone who couldn't handle questions/backing up your claims. You're aptly 'named.'

[sharkman]

Then why do you continually keep asking questions of him then if you are of the opinon he can't back up his comments to your satisfaction? Because your assesment was nothing more than a cheap shot, that's why, and your impatience sounds childish.

Back to the subject, I will remain forever greatful to Americans the nation over who put Bush in the White House so there was a leader in the saddle when 9/11 hit.

Edited September 15, 2007 by sharkman

[Guest American Woman]

Then why do you continually keep asking questions of him then if you are of the opinon he can't back up his comments to your satisfaction? Because your assesment was nothing more than a cheap shot, that's why, and your impatience sounds childish.

Are you his Mommy? Because I was addressing him, not you; and unless he can't answer for himself and needs you to do it for him, I'll keep addressing him for back-up to his claims, thereby expecting a response from him, not you.

[bush_cheney2004]

Are you his Mommy? Because I was addressing him, not you; and unless he can't answer for himself and needs you to do it for him, I'll keep addressing him for back-up to his claims, thereby expecting a response from him, not you.

You got a response.....a member owes you nothing that is not volunteered, and certainly not demanded. Why would you direct any questions to me after announcing my stupidity and ignorance? You don't have to answer...see how that works?

[Guest American Woman]

You got a response.....a member owes you nothing that is not volunteered, and certainly not demanded. Why would you direct any questions to me after announcing my stupidity and ignorance? You don't have to answer...see how that works?

Touchy, touchy. I ask a question, you can't answer, and suddenly it becomes a "demand" () as once again you bring up the whole tiresome "stupidity and ignorance" thing. If you can't answer the question, fine. But here's a tip: It would make you look better if you just admitted that you don't have an answer; but answer or not, you can be sure I'll continue calling you on your claims. Edited September 16, 2007 by American Woman

[jbg]

Back to the subject, I will remain forever greatful to Americans the nation over who put Bush in the White House so there was a leader in the saddle when 9/11 hit.

A good slogan, perhaps, "a leader, not a liar"? (Gore, IMHO is a notorious liar).

[jbg]

Are you his Mommy? Because I was addressing him, not you; and unless he can't answer for himself and needs you to do it for him, I'll keep addressing him for back-up to his claims, thereby expecting a response from him, not you.

PM's are for messages and questions not addressed to the general public.

You got a response.....a member owes you nothing that is not volunteered, and certainly not demanded. Why would you direct any questions to me after announcing my stupidity and ignorance? You don't have to answer...see how that works?

Touchy, touchy. I ask a question, you can't answer, and suddenly it becomes a "demand" () as once again you bring up the whole tiresome "stupidity and ignorance" thing. If you can't answer the question, fine. But here's a tip: It would make you look better if you just admitted that you don't have an answer; but answer or not, you can be sure I'll continue calling you on your claims.

This personality feuding ill becomes everyone. Edited September 16, 2007 by jbg

[bush_cheney2004]

Touchy, touchy. I ask a question, you can't answer, and suddenly it becomes a "demand" () as once again you bring up the whole tiresome "stupidity and ignorance" thing. If you can't answer the question, fine. But here's a tip: It would make you look better if you just admitted that you don't have an answer; but answer or not, you can be sure I'll continue calling you on your claims.

Of course I can answer, but I choose not to. Sharkman is right....your questions are never satisfied.

Frankly, I've grown weary of your questions. Early on, your mis-understanding of basic things American required corrections, hardly a strong position from which to demand proof of "claims". This is an internet forum with far more opinions than facts, that you may challenge at will. But nobody owes you proof of anything....not links, not books, not anything.

We've got members who profess a belief that 9/11 was a government conspiracy without proving a damn thing.

[Guest American Woman]

PM's are for messages and questions not addressed to the general public. This personality feuding ill becomes everyone.

Are you his Daddy? Seems he needs a lot of 'protection.'

For the record, perhaps you should practice what you preach and PM me with your concerns. I won't answer, but at least then you wouldn't be part of the so called "feuding" that you selectively accuse others of, because here's a news flash-- questioning a poster about his claims isn't "fueding," and yours and Sharkman's interference to protect b_c2004 and make false accusations against me is what "ill becomes everyone."

Now I suggest you and Sharkman back off, because I will continue to question posters' claims, as is my right.