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

41750My views Re: politics

Expand Messages
  • Trinidad Cruz
    Jul 2, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      I am not arguing whether or not the WTC towers collapsed as a result
      of an airliner crashing into them a hundred or so floors up. They did
      not. They were imploded with explosives. I don't care to argue the
      point by disassembling the Purdue study though it has many problematic
      suggestions. I happen to be certain I'm correct, and I have yet to see
      any decent enough fact finding to dissuade me from my opinion. What I
      have encountered is an endless trail of obfuscation on the that side
      of the coin. The issue is as dead as the victims for me. I'm sorry I
      ever brought it up here again, but I stated my position clearly at the
      outset in response to someone else's, for what it's worth. I will
      NEVER think otherwise. And for your convenience I will never bring it
      up here again.

      Since we are engaged in this with some animosity now, I will say that
      believing that groups of people within a government cannot come to a
      consensus to operate clandestinely especially when large amounts of
      money are involved is one of the stupidest beliefs I have ever
      encountered. Sure some activity comes to light, AFTER THE FACT. Taking
      any comfort in this is putting one's head in the sand, not working for
      reform and accountability. I will not change my mind about this
      either, as I have too many children to embrace such a convenient
      disengagement. But for your convenience I will never bring it up here

      Terrorism here is a matter best handled as an intelligence problem and
      dealt with by law enforcement. Adventurist military engagement can
      only fuel its fire, and in fact substantially impede meaningful
      intelligence gathering. Real enemies must be embraced the closest of
      all. Our relationship with the Muslim world should probably be best
      handled abroad as a new cold war. Domestically it is absolutely a
      matter of law. We have an opportunity with this situation that we
      never had with the Soviets - an opportunity to substantially delay the
      proliferation of WMD's to the Muslim world. This is not something that
      can be accomplished by military posturing. If we constantly ruin this
      opportunity with military adventurism we can only insure a much more
      costly conflict. We cannot conquer the world, or even little Iraq by
      military force. We can blow it up. That's all. The cost of that could
      well be the end of us all. I will not give you the convenience of not
      bringing this up again.

      We need stronger self-defense laws in this country. Women and children
      should not be allowed to be publicly beaten. Men of conscience should
      be allowed to intervene with reasonable force and not face criminal
      proceedings and/or civil litigation. Muslim demonstrations must adhere
      to non-violence, and law enforcement authority should handle all
      incidences of violence with arrest, prosecution, and yes deadly force
      when necessary. But that goes for any other kind of demonstration as
      well. Violent demonstration is against the law, but not non-violent.
      Public officials must allow non-violent demonstrations, regardless of
      subject matter, and not hide behind things like community standard and
      red-tape permit issues. We must reaffirm an openness to non-violence,
      and yet meet incidences of violence reliably with appropriate force.
      This is a matter of legal clarity, something we often sorely lack
      here. Until we find a new respect for the value of our laws and
      present a clear and reliable public face, confusion and violence will

      We are well on our way to spending enough money on this war; that we
      could have given every single driver in this country a 50mpg Honda car
      for nothing. At what point is absurdity criminal?


      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "C. S. Wyatt" <existlist1@...> wrote:
      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Trinidad Cruz" <TriniCruz@> wrote:
      > > 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 do not write what I do not believe or have not considered. I do
      not engage in rhetorical
      > "exercises" -- if I have a doubt or question, it is posed as such.
      Games annoy me enough
      > that I usually break all relations / connections to people without
      the honesty to ask
      > questions or pose challenges without trying to bait me.
      > My work experiences and friends have brought me close enough to
      people in power that
      > I've formed my views based on how things work behind closed doors.
      > My comments about the government not doing anything in secret for
      any extended time
      > holds. Alternative media and even basic leaks reveal a lot of
      things. From experiments on
      > soldiers to "secret" presidential orders, the information is out
      there. People knew the
      > "Mafia" was briefly employed to attack Castro, for example. The
      "Project for a New
      > American Century" is not secret, either. If people care to read, it
      is amazing what we can
      > find. Mention PNAC and watch eyes glaze, though. People would rather
      watch Paris Hilton
      > on Larry King.
      > As for knowing / understanding NASCAR and Blue Collar America --
      that's my family. I
      > grew up going to races in Bakersfield and country music was the only
      thing my father's
      > family knows. They are "blue dog" Democrats: union members, but
      socially conservative.
      > I am from the rather extreme end of poverty, which is what shaped
      most of my views as I
      > first encountered a university and "educated" people. Blah.
      > Susan is a mechanical engineer, so we have followed the research on
      the Twin Towers, as
      > well as the pseudo-academics blinded by politics and cynicism. The
      research from Purdue
      > University released this month concluded two years of recreations.
      The professors involved
      > are not likely to embrace anything said by this government, but
      their computer models
      > showed time and time again the weight of the top fourth to third of
      a building would
      > cause an implosion. The planes did not strike the tops of the
      towers, which is the key.
      > People will believe what they want, though. For centuries people
      will debate what was
      > known and when. Just as they do with Pearl Harbor and FDR. I know
      people certain that
      > FDR wanted as many Americans killed as possible to get us into a war.
      > I'm just not much for conspiracy.
      > I really do believe one or two people can set things into motion
      that are beyond
      > comprehension. I don't think Hitler needed anyone else to guide him.
      No one propped up
      > Stalin. I even think Lee Harvey O acted alone!! I'm just strange
      enough to believe in both
      > the power and evil of lone individuals.
      > One nut. One "belief" (sane or not) and anything is possible.
      > - CSW
    • Show all 24 messages in this topic