SRS,

I noticed that you ducked the questions I asked you - not surprised at that in the least.

Bobert,

Let's take a look at the logic behind your statement:

"There is not one piece of evidence that proves that the the US would have been hit on 9/11 had Al Gore been president."

Now, how about OBL's declaration: "February 1998 - Bin Laden published declaration which included the objective: "To kill Americans and their allies, civilians and military, is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it, in any country in which it is possible to do it."

Issued mid-way through Clinton's second term, I see nothing there about this declaration being rescinded should Al Gore suceed Clinton to the White House in the wake of the 2000 election. Does anyone else see that? The 9/11 plot was hatched in January 2001? Evidence exists to prove that planning for the attack was already well underway long before the 2000 election took place.

Naw, delude yourselves if you wish, I'd go along with beardedbruce's statement in response to Bobert's:

"There is not one piece of evidence that proves that the the US would not have been hit on 9/11 had Al Gore been president."

Now back to SRS - the USA did not create the State of Israel - the Israeli's did and that State plus it's right to exist was recognised by a majority in the United Nations - FACT, you may not like it but there it stands, on record in the UN.

On the subject of blinders, from SRS we got:
"So take off your blinders. Those "evil" people in your little binary of good versus evil are VERY ANGRY PEOPLE who've had it up to here with the behavior of this colonial power in particular and others in general."

Hmmmmmmm that so? What very angry people are you talking about SRS? OBL's followers? Members of the various Palestinian terrorist groups? True enough they might be angry, they are after all only on the make for themselves and have a right to feel slightly miffed - they can't all be as successful as Yasser Arafat, but then again not everyone in the west is a millionaire. Taking the majority of the governments and populations of the countries you are talking about, history does not support your contention.


"Some of those angry people used to be our friends, and we sponsored them in their (usually warlike) endeavors when it was convenient to do so."

Extremely selective reading of past history if you are referring to the "Arabic" nations, you really should read up on the subject.

"Many of them were victimized by the western world when the United Nations and Britain took Palestine and shoved all sorts of artificial boundaries and royal leaders down their throats."

Really? When was all this happening SRS? Again your total ignorance of the history, geography and the ethnic and cultural make up of the area you are talking about is astonishing. By the bye, there has never been a country called Palestine, that is the term that was used to describe an area, likewise there has never been, until recent times, by invention, a nation of people known as Palestinians, like describing people who live in London and New York as "Londoners" or "New Yorkers" it is a very loose collective describing the area in which people live, taking no account of national heritage, identity or ethnic grouping.

"Others have been pissed off ever since World War I when the British and other European nations carved up the lands that are now Turkey, Iran, Iraq, etc. When you play those kinds of favoritism games and ignore cultures and political preferences, you create one big mess. Now we're paying for it."

You will find that the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire was overseen by the League of Nations, and although not a member of that body, the United States of America did have some input. Oh, and by the way Iran was never part of the Ottoman Empire, it existed long before and quite seperately as Persia. At the end of the First World War the peoples making up the area you are trying to fit to your model were largely nomadic tribesmen, there were quite a large number of tribes, each with a leader and very loose ties to certain areas. Now Woodrow Wilson espoused the belief that all such groups should be "nations" - Utterly ridiculous concept as at some point in the equation a nation has to be economically viable in order to support it's people and system of government. Now having just delivered independence, who do you talk to about such government and nationhood? The people? Who for centuries had been little more than the chattels of their tribal leaders. Who were illiterate and trusted on their tribal leaders to provide all that they needed, whether by trade, or by war - No I don't think so, not in those days, and that is what you are dealing with in terms of history. So you end up talking to the tribal leaders, after all, they represent the only leadership in existance for all those people who have just become independent and are about to take on the responsibility of running their own affairs for the first time.