9-11 Five Years Later

QueEx · Sep 7, 2006

gene cisco · Sep 7, 2006

Interesting post

QueEx · Sep 11, 2006

QueEx · Sep 11, 2006

QueEx · Sep 11, 2006

Did anyone else see the reporter interviewed by CNN who has been
misquoted all over the internet as having said he saw a cruise
missile strike the Pentagon on 9-11 ???

The guy said he was describing that the "airplane", yes "airplane" that
struck the Pentagon was like a cruise missile -- that is, "a bomb with
wings" because the pilot skillfully manuevered the jet into the Pentagon.

That should put that aspect of the "conspiracy theory" to rest. It should.
I know, I know, they paid him to say that, right?

QueEx

Greed · Sep 11, 2006

Stop drinking that kool-aid.

They didn't pay him off. They obviously brainwashed him or threatened his children.

Anyway, five years later bush43 can be added to list consisting of nixon, ford, carter, reagan, bush41, and clinton as doing too little against terrorism.

Ten years from now a nuke wil go off in new york then maybe, just maybe america will actually go to war.

muckraker10021 · Sep 13, 2006

Critically Important,
“Non-Faith Based” reading, from a former RepubliKlan,
For those of you in the “Reality Based” world.


<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="12"></hr>

<img src="http://www.vdare.com/images/Roberts_color.jpg">
Paul Craig Roberts
• Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy under Ronald Reagan (awarded the Treasury Department’s Meritorious Service Award for "his outstanding contributions to the formulation of United States economic policy.")

• Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute.

• Former editor and columnist for The Wall Street Journal and columnist for Business Week and the Scripps Howard News Service

• Held the William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (1982 –1993)

• Distinguished Fellow at the Cato Institute from 1993 to 1996

• Olin Fellow at the Institute for Political Economy

• Nationally syndicated columnist for Investor’s Business Daily

• Winner of the 1992 Warren Brookes Award for Excellence in Journalism

• Ranked “One of the top seven journalists” by the Forbes Media Guide (1993)

• Listed by Who's Who in America as one of the 1,000 most influential political thinkers in the world 

<hr noshade color="#333333" size="4"></hr>

Five Years After and We Still Don’t Know


September 6th 2006

by Paul Craig Roberts
http://www.vdare.com/asp/printPage.asp?url=http://www.vdare.com/roberts/060906_war.htm
 In the five years since three World Trade Center buildings collapsed into their own footprints in virtually free fall time, the convincing power of the official explanation of that day’s events has evaporated. Polls show that 36% of Americans do not believe the official account. As Lev Grossman writes in Time magazine (<a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531304,00.html">September 3, 2006</a>), "Thirty-six percent adds up to a lot of people. This is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a mainstream political reality."
 Grossman acknowledges that alternative explanations of 9/11 are more compelling than the official explanation. Grossman offers a psychological explanation for the success of alternative explanations: "a grand disaster like Sept. 11 needs a grand conspiracy behind it."
 However, Grossman’s psychological explanation fails on its own terms. Which is the grandest conspiracy theory? The interpretation of 9/11 as an orchestrated casus belli to justify US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, or the interpretation that a handful of Muslims defeated US security multiple times in one short morning and successfully pulled off the most fantastic terrorist attack in history simply because they "hate our freedom and democracy"? Orchestrating events to justify wars is a stratagem so well worn as to be boring. Indeed, it is the fantastic conspiracy of the official explanation that makes it unbelievable.
 The scientists, engineers, and professors who pose the tough questions about 9/11 are not people who spend their lives making sense of their experience by constructing conspiracy theories. Scientists and scholars look to facts and evidence. They are concerned with the paucity of evidence in behalf of the official explanation. They stress that the official explanation is inconsistent with known laws of physics, and that the numerous security failures, when combined together, are a statistical improbability.
 The call by 9/11 skeptics for an independent investigation by an international panel of experts is not a conspiracy theory. In principle there is nothing wrong with such an investigation. In practice, it might be difficult to create a truly independent panel. How many physicists, for example, have careers independent of government grants, and how many engineering firms would risk being branded "unpatriotic" and lose business by coming down on the "wrong" side of the issue?
 Nowhere is there a surfeit of brave men.
 I do not know what happened on 9/11, and I don’t expect to ever find out. Neither government nor media show any interest in providing us with anything except a political commission’s report.
 9/11 skeptics have pointed out a large number of problems with the 9/11 Commission Report. Here is a very short list:
 (1) There appears to be a very large energy deficit in the official explanation of the collapse of the two WTC towers, and NO explanation for the collapse of WTC 7. What is the source of the energy that brought down the three buildings?
 In the PBS documentary, " <a href="http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/">America Rebuilds,"</a> broadcast in September 2002, <a href="http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=97338&contrassID=3&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=0"> Larry Silverstein</a>, who had the lease on the World Trade Center, said that WTC 7 was brought down by a decision of the authorities on the scene: "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.’ And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
 Two striking facts jump out from this quote. One is that fire was not raging in WTC 7. The other is that "to pull" a building means to bring it down by engineered demolition. For WTC 7 to be pulled on the late afternoon of September 11, it would already have had to be wired for demolition. Why was WTC 7 wired for demolition?
 Brigham Young University Professor of Physics Steven Jones has suggested that thermite, or some other powerful, high temperature, high explosive capable of slicing the powerful steel columns that comprised the WTC towers central core, provided the energy missing in the official account.
 In a September 1, 2006, New York Times article, <a href="http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/09/01/news/conspiracy.php"> "U.S. moves to debunk ‘alternative theories’ on Sept. 11 attacks,"</a> Jim Dwyer reports that the National Institute of Standards and Technology, an agency of the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, disputes Professor Jones’ suggestion. NIST believes that such "enormous quantities of thermite would have to be applied to the structural columns to damage them" that engineered demolition is not feasible.
 Gentle reader, note what NIST is saying. If no reasonable quantity of the explosive thermite, which is used for engineered demolition, could damage the powerful buildings, the measly energy from an airliner, a bit of jet fuel, and gravity could not have collapsed the buildings.
 The fact of the matter is that there has been no investigation of why the three buildings collapsed. Bill Manning, the editor-in-chief of "Fire Engineering"got it right when he wrote in the <a href="http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=OnlineArticles&SubSe%20ction=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=131225"> January 2002 issue</a> of that publication that "the ‘official investigation’ blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. . . . As things now stand . . . the investigation into the world Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals."
 Manning complained about the "destruction of evidence . . . of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history" and wrote that nowhere in the "national standard for fire investigation" is there "an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence."
 Obviously, we were not meant to know why the buildings collapsed.
 This conclusion does not automatically lead to the conclusion that some elements of the US government and/or Israeli intelligence destroyed the buildings, using airliners as cover, in order to justify invasions to achieve US/Israeli hegemony in the Middle East or US control of oil supplies. No doubt, neoconservatives in the Bush administration used 9/11 for this purpose. However, perhaps the buildings failed for reasons that involve enormous liabilities, and those liabilities were covered up with a bogus explanation.
 According to news reports, insurance payments to Silverstein for the buildings were many multiples larger than the price he paid for the lease. If the reports are correct, perhaps money explains the story.
 (2) The belief that Muslims pulled off the attacks is based on the concreteness of the 19 names identified as the hijackers by the FBI. The fact that the FBI attests to the identity of the hijackers is the source of the official story’s credibility.
 Considering the official story’s dependence on the identity of the hijackers, how is it possible for the official story to survive for 5 years after the BBC’s report ( <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm">September 23, 2001)</a> that a number of the alleged hijackers are alive and well?
 According to BBC News World Edition, "Saudi Arabian pilot Waleed Al Shehri was one of five men that the FBI said had deliberately crashed American Airlines flight 11 into the World Trade Centre on 11 September. His photograph was released, and has since appeared in newspapers and on television around the world. Now he is protesting his innocence from Casablanca, Morocco. He told journalists there that he had nothing to do with the attacks on New York and Washington, and had been in Morocco when they happened. He has contacted both the Saudi and American authorities, according to Saudi press reports. He acknowledges that he attended flight training school at Daytona Beach in the United States, and is indeed the same Waleed Al Shehri to whom the FBI has been referring."
 Obviously, Waleed Al Shehri would not be alive if he had crashed an airliner into the World Trade Center. It would appear that the FBI’s confidence in the identity of the hijackers is more public relations than reality. As the FBI has been proven wrong about the identity of a number of the hijackers, how do we know the FBI is right about any of them?
 There are many holes in the official 9/11 story and very little evidence in its behalf. Did the government, terrified by possible public reaction to the catastrophe and expected to have an explanation for the terrifying event, simply concoct a story?
 The reason so many people doubt the 9/11 story is not because they have psychological needs for conspiracies, but because the 9/11 story is not believable.



<hr noshade color="#333333" size="4"></hr>


What We Know and Don’t Know about 9/11


by Paul Craig Roberts

August 16th, 2006 

I received a number of intelligent responses from readers of my August 14 column, “<a href="http://www.vdare.com/roberts/060814_gullible.htm">Gullible
Americans</a>,” The letters deserve a reply. Moreover, some contain important points that should be shared with a wider audience. Pundits such as myself are not the only people who have interesting things to say. Considering the number of letters and the time it would require to respond individually, I am replying instead in this column. Most readers from whom I heard understand the difference between loyalty to country and loyalty to a government. They understand that to support a political party or a government that is destroying the US Constitution and America's reputation in the world is, in fact, an act of treason. Therefore, I did not have to read the usual drivel about how doubting our government is un-American. Among the issues raised are: How could the complicity of the US government, or some part of it, in the events of 9/11 be kept a secret? For the most part, this question comes from Americans who believe the government must have been, to some extent, complicit in the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon. How can we differentiate between the real facts, the 9/11 Commission reporting of the facts, and conspiracy theories? What about the role of suicide flyers led by M. Atta? What about the Popular Mechanics article and the TV documentary that debunk the skeptics and support the official explanation of 9/11? What about the role of the US media in propagandizing Americans with the official explanation instead of examining the explanation, especially with regard to such truncated hatchet-job interviews with 9/11 skeptics such as the hatchet jobs presided over by Donny Deutsch on CNBC and by neocon Tucker Carlson on MSNBC? Why are so many Americans hostile to holding the Bush regime accountable for its obvious and documented lies, lies that have misled America to war and gratuitously slaughtered and maimed tens of thousands of people, including our own troops? I will begin by stating what we know to be a solid incontrovertible scientific fact. We know that it is strictly impossible for any building, much less steel columned buildings, to pancake at free fall speed. Therefore, it is a non-controversial fact that the official explanation of the collapse of the WTC buildings is false. We also know for a fact that the Air Force somehow inexplicably failed to intercept the alleged hijacked airliners despite the fact that the Air Force can launch jet fighters to 29,000 feet in 2.5 minutes. We also know that the two co-chairmen of the 9/11 Commission have just written a book that reveals that the US military lied to the Commission about its failure to intercept the hijacked airliners. There are various explanations for this second fact. The military could have lied to cover up complicity or to cover-up its incompetence. However, no investigation has been made to ascertain the true explanation for the failure. This leaves us with the incontrovertible fact that buildings cannot pancake at free fall speeds. The only explanation known to science for the free fall collapse of a building, especially into its own footprint, is engineered demolition, which removes the supports for each floor of the building at split second intervals so that the debris from above meets no resistance on its fall. To call this explanation a conspiracy theory is to display the utmost total ignorance. Any physicist or engineer who maintains that buildings can pancake at free fall speed has obviously been bought and paid for or is a total incompetent fool. The WTC buildings are known to have collapsed at free fall speed into their own footprints. This fact does not tell us who is responsible or what purpose was served. Since the damning incontrovertible fact has not been investigated, speculation and conspiracy theories have filled the void. Some of the speculation is based on circumstantial evidence and is plausible. Other of the speculation is untenable, and it is used to protect the official explanation by branding all skeptics conspiracy theorists.I would not be surprised if some of the most far-out conspiracy theories consist, in fact, of disinformation put out by elements in the government to discredit all skeptics. But I do not know this to be the case. How could government complicity be kept a secret? It can be kept a secret, because so many Americans are scientifically ignorant and emotionally weak. They are incapable of realizing the contradiction in the governments claim that the WTC buildings pancaked at free fall speed, and they are emotionally incapable of confronting the evil of the Bush regime. Many Christians think that Bush is â man of God who is protecting American morality from homosexuals and abortionists. Others who wear their patriotism on their sleeves think Bush is standing up for America and innocent Israel, and that they must not let anti-American anti-war protesters cause America to lose another war and repeat the Vietnam experience. Americans are both ignorant and full of resentments against the left. This makes them easily manipulated by the neoconservatives who dominate the Bush regime and the media. Also, many anti-war and anti-Bush online sites are scared of being called crazy conspiracy kooks. They protect their sites by staying away from the 9/11 issue, just as so many Americans are scared to death of being called anti-semitic and thereby do not dare criticize Israel no matter the heinous war crimes that state routinely commits. Of all the online subscribers to my column, only vdare.com and NewsMax had the courage to post my column. Realizing that even antiwar sites would serve as de facto gatekeepers for the neocons, I offered the column to ICH, whose editor cannot be intimidated. The Popular Mechanics article and the TV documentary are obviously false since they both endorse the official explanation that the WTC buildings pancaked at free fall speed, an obvious scientific impossibility. Whether the false reporting by Popular Mechanics and television are due to incompetence or to complicity in a government cover-up, I do not know. We know nothing about alleged suicide flyers led by M. Atta except what the government has told us, a government that has lied to us about everything else, such as Iraq's alleged WMD and alleged links to Osama bin Laden, and Irans alleged nuclear weapons program, a program for which the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors cannot find evidence. According to reports, the BBC has found 6 of the alleged suicide hijackers alive and well in their home countries. I do not know if the report is true, but I do know that the report has been ignored and there has been no investigation. Both the US government and the US media have turned a blind eye. We have no way of knowing if Atta and his named accomplices hijacked the planes, or, if they did, whether they were dupes of intelligent services that pretended to be a terrorist cell and organized the cover for the engineered demolition. The fact that we do not know any of these things, and the fact that the 9/11 Commission co-chairmen now tell us that their report is flawed, are good indications that we have no documented information of who was behind the plot, why it occurred, or how it operated. With regard to the role of the US media, if it is indeed a media rather than a propaganda ministry, one reader cited remarks by the distinguished investigative reporter, John Pilger, made in an address at Columbia University on 14 April 2006: During the Cold War, a group of Russian journalists toured the United States. On the final day of their visit, they were asked by their hosts for their impressions. I have to tell you, said their spokesman, that we were astonished to find after reading all the newspapers and watching TV, that all the opinions on all the vital issues were by and large, the same. To get that result in our country, we imprison people, we tear out their fingernails. Here, you don't have that. What's the secret? How do you do it? This quote is probably apocryphal, but it is well used to make a valid point. The answer to the Russians question is that during the cold war the American public viewed the Soviet Union as a dangerous adversary and were amenable to reports to that effect. The fact that the Soviets were a potentially dangerous adversary made Americans blind to the roles of the US military-industrial complex, which benefited financially from cultivating the adversary relationship, and the US government, which benefited politically from cultivating the adversary relationship, in keeping the adversarial relationship alive. The uniformity of the US media has become much more complete since the days of the cold war. During the 1990s, the US government permitted an unconscionable concentration of print and broadcast media that terminated the independence of the media. Today the US media is owned by 5 giant companies in which pro-Zionist Jews have disproportionate influence. More importantly, the values of the conglomerates reside in the broadcast licenses, which are granted by the government, and the corporations are run by corporate executives--not by journalists--whose eyes are on advertising revenues and the avoidance of controversy that might produce boycotts or upset advertisers and subscribers. Americans who rely on the totally corrupt corporate media have no idea what is happening anywhere on earth, much less at home. Despite the dark days in which we live, some readers find optimism in recent polls that show more than one-third of the US public now disbelieve the official account of 9/11 despite the Bush regimes propaganda faithfully trumpeted by the US media. Bush's own rock-bottom polls show that Americans, like the Russians of the Soviet era, can read between the lines of the propagandistic US media. Many Americans can still spot a liar and a cheat when they see one. Gullible Americans have been duped by the 9/11 Hoax... Wise up -- the World is laughing at you."Gullible Americans By Paul Craig Roberts Information Clearing House 08/14/06I was in China when a July Harris Poll reported that 50 percent of Americans still believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when Bush invaded that country, and that 64 percent of Americans still believe that Saddam Hussein had strong links with Al Qaeda. The Chinese leaders and intellectuals with whom I was meeting were incredulous. How could a majority of the population in an allegedly free country with an allegedly free press be so totally misinformed? The only answer I could give the Chinese is that Americans would have been the perfect population for Mao and the Gang of Four, because Americans believe anything their government tells them. Americans never check any facts. Who do you know, for example, who has even read the Report of the 9/11 Commission, much less checked the alleged facts reported in that document. I can answer for you. You donâ€™t know anyone who has read the report or checked the facts. The two co-chairmen of the 9/11 Commission Report, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, have just released a new book, Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission. Kean and Hamilton reveal that the commission suppressed the fact that Muslim ire toward the US is due to US support for Israels persecution and dispossession of the Palestinians, not to our freedom and democracy as Bush propagandistically claims. Kean and Hamilton also reveal that the US military committed perjury and lied about its failure to intercept the hijacked airliners. The commission even debated referring the militarys lies to the Justice Department for criminal investigation. Why should we assume that these admissions are the only coverups and lies in the 9/11 Commission Report? How do you know that 9/11 was a Muslim terrorist plot? How do you know that THREE World Trade Center buildings collapsed because TWO were hit by airliners? You only know because the government gave you the explanation of what you saw on TV. (Did you even know that three WTC buildings collapsed?) I still remember the enlightenment I experienced as a student in Russian Studies when I learned that the Czarist secret police would set off bombs and then blame those whom they wanted to arrest. When Hitler seized dictatorial power in 1933, he told the Germans that his new powers were made necessary by a communist terrorist attack on the Reichstag. When Hitler started World War II by invading Poland, he told the Germans that Poland had crossed the frontier and attacked Germany. Governments lie all the time--especially governments staffed by neoconservatives whose intellectual godfather, Leo Strauss, taught them that it is permissible to deceive the public in order to achieve their agenda. Some readers will write to me to say that they saw a TV documentary or read a magazine article verifying the governments explanation of 9/11. But, of course, these Americans did not check the facts either--and neither did the people who made the documentary and wrote the magazine article. Scientists and engineers, such as Clemson University Professor of Engineering Dr. Judy Woods and BYU Professor of Physics Dr. Steven Jones, have raised compelling questions about the official account of the collapse of the three WTC buildings. The basic problem for the government's account is that the buildings are known to have fallen at freefall speed, a fact that is inconsistent with the government's "pancaking" theory in which debris from above collapsed the floors below. If the buildings actually "pancaked," then each floor below would have offered resistance to the floors above, and the elapsed time would have been much longer. These experts have also calculated that the buildings did not have sufficient gravitational energy to accommodate the government's theory of the collapse. It is certainly a known and non-controversial fact among physicists and engineers that the only way buildings can collapse at freefall speed into their own footprints is by engineered demolition. Explosives are used to remove the support of floors below before the debris from above arrives. Otherwise, resistance is encountered and the time required for fall increases. Engineered demolition also explains the symmetrical collapse of the buildings into their own foot prints. As it is otherwise improbable for every point in floors below to weaken uniformly, "pancaking" would result in asymmetrical collapse as some elements of the floor would give sooner than others. Scientific evidence is a tough thing for the American public to handle, and the government knows it. The government can rely on people dismissing things that they cannot understand as "conspiracy theory." But if you are inclined to try to make up your own mind, you can find Dr. Jones' and Dr. Woodsâ€™ papers, which have been formally presented to their peers at scientific meetings, on line at http://www.st911.org/ Experts have also pointed out that the buildings' massive steel skeletons comprised a massive heat sink that wicked away the heat from the limited, short-lived fires, thus preventing a heat buildup. Experts also point out that the short-lived, scattered, low-intensity fires could barely reach half the melting point of steel even if they burned all day instead of merely an hour. Don't ask me to tell you what happened on 9/11. All I know is that the official account of the buildings' collapse is improbable. Now we are being told another improbable tale. Muslim terrorists in London and Pakistan were caught plotting to commit mass murder by smuggling bottles of explosive liquids on board airliners in hand luggage. Baby formula, shampoo and water bottles allegedly contained the tools of suicide bombers. How do we know about this plot? Well, the police learned it from an Islamic militant arrested near the Afghan-Pakistan border several weeks ago. And how did someone so far away know what British-born people in London were plotting? Do you really believe that Western and Israeli intelligence services, which were too incompetent to prevent the 9/11 attack, can uncover a London plot by capturing a person on the Afghan border in Pakistan? Why would a Islamic militant rat on such a plot even if he knew of it? More probable explanations of the plot are readily available. According to the August 11 Wayne Madsen Report, informed sources in the UK report that the Tony Blair government, under siege by a Labor Party revolt, cleverly cooked up a new terror scare to avert the publics eyes away from Blair's increasing political woes. British law enforcement, neocon and intelligence operatives in the US, Israel, and Britain, and Rupert Murdoch's global media empire cooked up the terrorist plot, liberally borrowing from the failed 1995 Oplan Bjinka plot by Pakistan- and Philippines-based terrorist Ramzi Ahmad Yousef to crash 11 trans-Pacific airliners bound from Asia to the US.â€ There are other plausible explanations. For example, our puppet in Pakistan decided to arrest some people who were a threat to him. With Bush's commitment to building democracy in the Middle East, our puppet can't arrest his political enemies without cause, so he lays the blame on a plot. Any testimony against Muslim plotters by an Islamic militant is certain to have been bought and paid for. Or consider this explanation. Under the Nuremberg standard, Bush and Blair are war criminals. Bush is so worried that he will be held accountable that he has sent his attorney general to consult with the Republican Congress to work out legislation to protect Bush retroactively from his violations of the Geneva Conventions. Tony Blair is in more danger of finding himself in the dock. Britain is signatory to a treaty that, if justice is done, will place Blair before the International Criminal Court in the Hague. What better justification for the two war criminals illegal actions than the need to foil dastardly plots by Muslims recruited in sting operations by Western intelligence services? The more Bush and Blair can convince their publics that terrorist danger abounds, the less likely Bush and Blair are ever to be held accountable for their crimes.But surely, some readers might object, our great moral leaders wouldn't do something political like that! They most certainly would. As Joshua Micah Marshall wrote in the July 7 issue of Time magazine, the suspicion is quite reasonable that the Bush Administration orchestrates its terror alerts and arrests to goose the GOPs poll numbers.Joshua Micah Marshall proves his conclusion by examining the barrage of color-coded terror alerts, none of which were real, and, yes, it all fits with political needs.And don't forget the plot unearthed in Miami to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago. Described by Vice President Cheney as a very real threat,the plot turned out to be nothing more than a few harmless whackos recruited by an FBI agent sent out to organize a sting. There was also the foiled plot to blow up the Holland Tunnel and flood downtown New York City with sea water. Thinking New Orleans, the FBI invented this plot without realizing that New York City is above sea level. Of course, most Americans didn't realize it either. For six years the Bush regime has been able to count on the ignorant and naive American public to believe whatever tale that is told them. American gullibility has yet to fail the Bush regime.The government has an endless number of conspiracy theories, but only people who question the governments conspiracies are derided for having a conspiracy theory.The implication is even worse if we assume that the explosive bottle plot is genuine. It means that America and Britain by their own aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan, and by enabling Israels war crimes in Palestine and Lebanon, have created such hatred that Muslims, who identify with Bush's, Blair's, and Israel's victims, are plotting retaliation. But Bush is prepared. He has taught his untutored public that they hate us for our freedom and democracy. Gentle reader, wise up. The entire world is laughing at you.

9-11 Five Years Later

QueEx

Rising Star

gene cisco

Not A BGOL Eunuch

QueEx

Rising Star

QueEx

Rising Star

QueEx

Rising Star

Greed

Star

muckraker10021

Superstar *****