Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

41738Re: politics

Expand Messages
  • Trinidad Cruz
    Jul 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      "First, understand that the head of Hamas is a physician – highly
      educated and quite familiar with the west. Likewise, the head of the
      Muslim Brotherhood is a scientist and the second in command was an
      engineer educated in the United States. Most Islamic people I know,
      including those outside the U.S…" CSW

      "Most Islamic radicals are not Arab. They are highly-educated
      individuals from Turkey, Pakistan, Indonesia, and Africa…" CSW

      "These men have not only the skills, but the know-how to be very
      dangerous…" CSW

      First of all I am speaking of culture not education. These men can't
      understand the Nascar crowd, and blue collar America any more readily
      than you or I. But I guess you are saying that they have the education
      to choose WTC as a target. Then isn't that the clear definition of
      terrorism - targets chosen that won't lead to all out war? Who makes
      that definition? Our politicians or the terrorists? Both? Blow up the
      Daytona 500, and the Superbowl, and there won't be a Muslim left in
      this country. We will have interment camps and non-Muslim people of
      color will be victimized as well. I think, and will continue to think,
      that the WTC was chosen by both an American political faction and a
      Muslim faction. There was complicity, even if it only amounted to
      intelligence leaks from the American side, but I doubt that it is the
      entire scope of the situation. Military chain of command
      considerations make that impossible. This incident was truly a
      plausible deniability scenario. There are also several other factors
      concerning this specific target that made it the best choice that I
      won't relate because of space, but all involve American political
      demographics. tc

      "As for metal melting and crushing a building: I've watched as melting
      gasoline tankers ruin multi-level freeways in California. I have seen
      numerous models demonstrating why "center core" buildings are unstable
      -- for the same reason the freeways collapse easily. The WTC was based
      on a single main shaft in each building. The outer walls "hung" from
      this skeleton." CSW

      I talk to architects regularly. No one I know, though many may not
      readily confess to such things for political reasons, considers the
      inertia collapse numbers to be anywhere within a plausible range. The
      buildings were imploded. Whether or not there was a such a collateral
      damage control system (rigging for implosion) installed after the
      first attack during the Clinton years remains to be seen, but what
      that means is people went to work every day in what essentially
      amounted to a bomb. tc

      "It is a stupid, dangerous design that will likely never be used
      again." CSW

      Actually this is just completely false. Buildings of such stature
      require such design. The weight/flexibility numbers are not practical
      for more rigid design. That's just the way it is. It must be outer or
      inner shell, and single or multiple core. (technically there were
      four) Makes no real difference. Parking a 747 on the roof and starting
      a jet fuel fire will not cause a directly vertical collapse period.
      The buildings were imploded. Something rather easy to mask given this
      specific design. All charges would be shielded by the outer structure,
      and internal, relatively unnoticeable. tc

      "Do I trust government? No way... that's why I don't care who is in
      charge, I'm not about to believe one group of crooks is that much
      better than another." CSW

      Have you read the Obama/Feingold reform bill? It is not radical.
      Simply requires disclosure. This is a reasonable prerequisite
      expectation for public service. Trusting government and stopping the
      sale of it to corporate interests are two different things. I don't
      care if a political candidate takes corporate money, I just want to
      know exactly how much and what specific corporation unmasked from
      lobbyist misdirection. That is fair. Let's suggest something else
      while were at it: our government is the core of our civilization.
      Without it altogether is only anarchy. I would do nicely with anarchy.
      I doubt you have the stomach for it. If you care about your current
      way of life, you would do well to at least monitor the activity of
      politics, and vote to reform the financial end of it, otherwise a good
      deal of what you hold as important will be bought right out from under
      you - and in fact that is the current situation of government. Your
      cynicism is incomplete, as Saul Bellow would say. It chooses to ignore
      rather than fight. tc

      "At the same time, I don't imagine government organized enough to
      carry out anything in secret. The release of CIA documents from the
      last 40 years shows how amazingly incompetent government is most of
      the time." CSW

      No secret activities? Utterly naïve. Couple of examples for you:
      medical experiments on minorities and military personel. The School of
      the Americas activities. Recently "rendition" flights. That aside you
      have hit upon the difference in government during Dubyah's first term.
      It WAS THAT ORGANIZED along its factional line, inter-agency, and
      interlocking corporate lines, and ready for risk taking, and giddy
      with public support. You bet they could pull it off. They did. tc

      "We need to move away from politics in general and ask why someone
      would think blowing up an airport, a nightclub, or anything else is
      somehow an entrance into "Heaven" and a great thing to do in the name
      of faith. It's definitely as dumb as thinking you can establish
      democracy overnight in nations without certain liberal traditions." CSW

      Start with "The Seven Pillars of Wisdom". Try Chief Seattle's speech.
      (Dee Brown, "Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee")

      For what it's worth, I have no doubt that Barack Obama would bring to
      the presidency a reasonableness long absent in American politics, and
      an unprecedented accountability. It is time to refresh the system
      toward its fundamental ideals. He is the right choice. Don't be
      scared. No one's asking you to trust the government. You still have
      civil rights; though eight years of Giuliani would pretty much end
      that, unless of course you attach yourself to a corporate sugar daddy
      and toe the line. "Uni-polar" indeed.

      Also, there is a chain of command in terrorist cell activities, though
      it operates with a latency. Things are on the table waiting for
      scenarios, rather than immediate orders. Current politics are the most
      likely cue, and that has never changed that I know of. It is the only
      way that terrorists can keep pace with politics outside of their
      homeland. It is just impossible to reliably organize a terrorist
      attack with any political immediacy away from home. This latent nature
      of terrorism allows political factions aware of it in targeted nations
      to play terrorism with politics for political purposes. And they do,
      SOP. Read those Agency Docs again.

      As far as footbaths: I absolutely argue for separation of church and
      state. They can wash their feet at home or the Mosque. The law is more
      important and must continue to pursue its separation from religion or
      lose its grip on civilization altogether. This is the line we really
      must hold in the face of terrorism. We need stronger self-defense laws
      in this country. A child being beaten by any adult is already against
      the law. On the other side of this coin the law must be continually
      vigilant toward constitutional issues. We fail if we allow terrorism
      to convert us to a police state. Our legal system and our constitution
      are the most elegant proposition to appear of any civilization in
      history; to respect that completely we cannot compromise it to a goal
      of converting the world to our thinking while violating our own
      cachet. We can only move the world toward our democracy by being what
      we are, and being willing to defend that without question and without
      compromising what it is. No one said it would be easy, except of
      course for the neo-cons.

      I don't really think you think all the things you wrote here. I'm
      guessing you wanted me to argue what I think in more detail. I am not
      the one to do so, simply because it is not my area of interest here
      and I don't want to. There is plenty of information elsewhere. Look
      for it with some effort, or remain cynically incomplete.

    • Show all 24 messages in this topic