Well, here we are again, seven years on this time.

Some questions to ponder....

Do you think the world is putting the 11 Sept behind it?  Is everything 
going back to normal?  We're back to worring about recessions again, and 
pretty soon, if all troops are ever going to leave Iraq, they'll be doing so 
and impatience is already growing with foreign troops in Afghanistan. 
George Bush goes into retirement in about 16 weeks, his party by no means 
guaranteed a "job well done" victory in the polls.  Tony is gone and Gordon 
is a dead man walking (very nearly literally), and they represent Western 
governments that haven't fallen long before now as a consequence of support 
for the US.  It doesn't seem to have helped out reigning political parties 
of the time - in fact many would probably not even seek glory for what they 
did during the war.

Another question - did the attacks really achieve anything for anyone?  If 
the Iraqis can pull themselves from the brink of anarchy are they the ones 
who came out ahead more than anyone?  Those who died and their families 
accepted, who have been the biggest losers?  Muslims?  All of us through 
lost liberties and billions in military activities?

Last question - what do you think the general public - all those who aren't 
shrewd enough to enjoy our wise counsel at UKCET - have learned or taken 
away with them over the last seven years?  The fact that all the parties 
that took or promised action against terrorists are falling out of power 
makes me wonder if people are starting to feel that they've been had, or at 
the very least the threat of terror may be starting to go the way of threat 
of Communism.  Are they wise to think that way?

Final last question - What do you think is coming next to pin us to our 
bedsheets with fright?  Nuclear armed Iran?  Wandering black holes or time 
distortions from the French-Swiss border?  or time distortions from the 
French-Swiss border?

What do you think?  No prizes for best answers.

TWP

"TWP"  wrote ...

> Well, here we are again, seven years on this time.
>
> Some questions to ponder....
>
> Do you think the world is putting the 11 Sept behind it?

The western public ( outside America ) is and has ofr a while; couldn't
really give two tosses for the war on terror. The only thing keeping it
alive in their minds is the FUD and knowledge that our involvement has made
us all less safe.

> Another question - did the attacks really achieve anything for anyone?

It led to the destruction of America in spectacular fashion.


> Last question - what do you think the general public - all those who
aren't
> shrewd enough to enjoy our wise counsel at UKCET - have learned or taken
> away with them over the last seven years?

That being Bush's poodle wasn't a very bright idea. That America far from
being a pinnacle of moral authrity is exactly the opposite.


> The fact that all the parties
> that took or promised action against terrorists are falling out of power
> makes me wonder if people are starting to feel that they've been had, or
at
> the very least the threat of terror may be starting to go the way of
threat
> of Communism.  Are they wise to think that way?

Yes.


> Final last question - What do you think is coming next to pin us to our
> bedsheets with fright?

No idea, but I'll wager America spots the so-called  threat to doom us
first. They see demons everywhere. If they cannot see one they assume it's
there but just cannot be seen.

"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
news:XZ%xk.56016$E41.50236@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
> "TWP"  wrote ...
>
>> Well, here we are again, seven years on this time.
>>
>> Some questions to ponder....
>>
>> Do you think the world is putting the 11 Sept behind it?
>
> The western public ( outside America ) is and has ofr a while; couldn't
> really give two tosses for the war on terror. The only thing keeping it
> alive in their minds is the FUD and knowledge that our involvement has 
> made
> us all less safe.
>
>> Another question - did the attacks really achieve anything for anyone?
>
> It led to the destruction of America in spectacular fashion.
>
>
>> Last question - what do you think the general public - all those who
> aren't
>> shrewd enough to enjoy our wise counsel at UKCET - have learned or taken
>> away with them over the last seven years?
>
> That being Bush's poodle wasn't a very bright idea. That America far from
> being a pinnacle of moral authrity is exactly the opposite.
>
>
>> The fact that all the parties
>> that took or promised action against terrorists are falling out of power
>> makes me wonder if people are starting to feel that they've been had, or
> at
>> the very least the threat of terror may be starting to go the way of
> threat
>> of Communism.  Are they wise to think that way?
>
> Yes.
>

Isn't that a bit of a trap though?  Doesn't that mean the more successful a 
government is at defeating terror, the more likely that government is to get 
kicked out because they public, not seeing a major attack for years, think 
the threat has gone away or was always over-stated for political reasons?

TWP

TWP wrote:

> Well, here we are again, seven years on this time.

While we're on the subject, let's also remember those whose names will not
be read out at memorial ceremonies today, and who were also innocent
victims of 9/11.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
-- 
Facts are sacred ... but comment is free

In message <YL3yk.56034$E41.9573@text.news.virginmedia.com>, Robin T Cox 
 writes
>TWP wrote:
>
>> Well, here we are again, seven years on this time.
>
>While we're on the subject, let's also remember those whose names will not
>be read out at memorial ceremonies today, and who were also innocent
>victims of 9/11.

Many 10's of thousands of d Iraqi and Afghan civilians who had 
absolutely no connection with 9/11.

The thousands of innocent Pakistani and other nationals illegally held 
and tortured by the US.

For every ONE killed at 9/11 at least TWO THOUSAND CIVILIANS have been 
killed by US actions.

Now the US wants to start on Iran and Russia.


-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

On 11 Sep, 03:47, "TWP"  wrote:
> Well, here we are again, seven years on this time.
>
> Some questions to ponder....
>
> Do you think the world is putting the 11 Sept behind it?  Is everything
> going back to normal?  We're back to worring about recessions again, and
> pretty soon, if all troops are ever going to leave Iraq, they'll be doing so
> and impatience is already growing with foreign troops in Afghanistan.
> George Bush goes into retirement in about 16 weeks, his party by no means
> guaranteed a "job well done" victory in the polls.  Tony is gone and Gordon
> is a dead man walking (very nearly literally), and they represent Western
> governments that haven't fallen long before now as a consequence of support
> for the US.  It doesn't seem to have helped out reigning political parties
> of the time - in fact many would probably not even seek glory for what they
> did during the war.
>
> Another question - did the attacks really achieve anything for anyone?  If
> the Iraqis can pull themselves from the brink of anarchy are they the ones
> who came out ahead more than anyone?  Those who died and their families
> accepted, who have been the biggest losers?  Muslims?  All of us through
> lost liberties and billions in military activities?
>
> Last question - what do you think the general public - all those who aren't
> shrewd enough to enjoy our wise counsel at UKCET - have learned or taken
> away with them over the last seven years?  The fact that all the parties
> that took or promised action against terrorists are falling out of power
> makes me wonder if people are starting to feel that they've been had, or at
> the very least the threat of terror may be starting to go the way of threat
> of Communism.  Are they wise to think that way?
>
> Final last question - What do you think is coming next to pin us to our
> bedsheets with fright?  Nuclear armed Iran?  Wandering black holes or time
> distortions from the French-Swiss border?  or time distortions from the
> French-Swiss border?
>
> What do you think?  No prizes for best answers.
>
> TWP

9/11 Some say is a great reason to ethnically cleanse the world of
islam, it won't end till every muslim is gone and every koran is
incinerated and history edits them out much like the Canaanites or
pharisees or some other long since eradicated cult.

>
> > Final last question - What do you think is coming next to pin us to our
> > bedsheets with fright?


Well could be they ( muslims jihadists ) use brainwashing to nuke some
place or do wmd with some radicalized muslims, bit of emotional
manipulation, blackmaleing and BOOM spooks code 9 being a reality
( the conspirators say the likes of BBC is seeding the minds of the
terrorists to say "come on then you wankers go for it" )

Maybe they ( the terrorists ) are just as scared as the common man
wondering if they're being set up to be ethnically cleansed either way
you mess with the NWO or masons and you're history.The terrorists must
be insain to think they can fight and beat America or the West
 and oh yeah they are insain. The terrorists are like an angry mouse
surrounded by roaring lions.

"U2Fan"  wrote in message 
news:f21805c5-96fd-461a-9723-c190a7211830@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On 11 Sep, 03:47, "TWP"  wrote:
>> Well, here we are again, seven years on this time.
>>
>> Some questions to ponder....
>>
>> Do you think the world is putting the 11 Sept behind it?  Is everything
>> going back to normal?  We're back to worring about recessions again, and
>> pretty soon, if all troops are ever going to leave Iraq, they'll be doing 
>> so
>> and impatience is already growing with foreign troops in Afghanistan.
>> George Bush goes into retirement in about 16 weeks, his party by no means
>> guaranteed a "job well done" victory in the polls.  Tony is gone and 
>> Gordon
>> is a dead man walking (very nearly literally), and they represent Western
>> governments that haven't fallen long before now as a consequence of 
>> support
>> for the US.  It doesn't seem to have helped out reigning political 
>> parties
>> of the time - in fact many would probably not even seek glory for what 
>> they
>> did during the war.
>>
>> Another question - did the attacks really achieve anything for anyone? 
>> If
>> the Iraqis can pull themselves from the brink of anarchy are they the 
>> ones
>> who came out ahead more than anyone?  Those who died and their families
>> accepted, who have been the biggest losers?  Muslims?  All of us through
>> lost liberties and billions in military activities?
>>
>> Last question - what do you think the general public - all those who 
>> aren't
>> shrewd enough to enjoy our wise counsel at UKCET - have learned or taken
>> away with them over the last seven years?  The fact that all the parties
>> that took or promised action against terrorists are falling out of power
>> makes me wonder if people are starting to feel that they've been had, or 
>> at
>> the very least the threat of terror may be starting to go the way of 
>> threat
>> of Communism.  Are they wise to think that way?
>>
>> Final last question - What do you think is coming next to pin us to our
>> bedsheets with fright?  Nuclear armed Iran?  Wandering black holes or 
>> time
>> distortions from the French-Swiss border?  or time distortions from the
>> French-Swiss border?
>>
>> What do you think?  No prizes for best answers.
>>
>> TWP
>
> 9/11 Some say is a great reason to ethnically cleanse the world of
> islam, it won't end till every muslim is gone and every koran is
> incinerated and history edits them out much like the Canaanites or
> pharisees or some other long since eradicated cult.

Only Hitler has get close to destroying an ethnic group, and that's by 
exterminating them.  I just have ethical problems with that route!

Also there would probably be quite a few gaps in society if all the Muslims 
disappeared overnight.

TWP

In message 
, 
U2Fan  writes
>9/11 Some say is a great reason to ethnically cleanse the world of
>islam, it won't end till every muslim is gone and every koran is
>incinerated and history edits them out much like the Canaanites or
>pharisees or some other long since eradicated cult.

Actually some do say that but the majority say getting rid of the USA is 
the best option for  the world


-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

In message , TWP 
 writes
>
>Also there would probably be quite a few gaps in society if all the Muslims
>disappeared overnight.

There certainly would......

Then all we would be left with are the child molesting, war mongering 
Christians. Another Middle eastern sect.
-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

"Chris H"  wrote in message 
news:ZNpQFbG6+OyIFAYI@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In message 
> , U2Fan 
>  writes
>>9/11 Some say is a great reason to ethnically cleanse the world of
>>islam, it won't end till every muslim is gone and every koran is
>>incinerated and history edits them out much like the Canaanites or
>>pharisees or some other long since eradicated cult.
>
> Actually some do say that but the majority say getting rid of the USA is 
> the best option for  the world
>
>
> -- 
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
> \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
>
>
>
Beat me to it again Chris!

"TWP"  wrote in message 
news:7sGdndjjZJy5dlXVnZ2dnUVZ8tbinZ2d@eclipse.net.uk...
>
> "U2Fan"  wrote in message 
> news:f21805c5-96fd-461a-9723-c190a7211830@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> On 11 Sep, 03:47, "TWP"  wrote:
>>> Well, here we are again, seven years on this time.
>>>
>>> Some questions to ponder....
>>>
>>> Do you think the world is putting the 11 Sept behind it?  Is everything
>>> going back to normal?  We're back to worring about recessions again, and
>>> pretty soon, if all troops are ever going to leave Iraq, they'll be 
>>> doing so
>>> and impatience is already growing with foreign troops in Afghanistan.
>>> George Bush goes into retirement in about 16 weeks, his party by no 
>>> means
>>> guaranteed a "job well done" victory in the polls.  Tony is gone and 
>>> Gordon
>>> is a dead man walking (very nearly literally), and they represent 
>>> Western
>>> governments that haven't fallen long before now as a consequence of 
>>> support
>>> for the US.  It doesn't seem to have helped out reigning political 
>>> parties
>>> of the time - in fact many would probably not even seek glory for what 
>>> they
>>> did during the war.
>>>
>>> Another question - did the attacks really achieve anything for anyone? 
>>> If
>>> the Iraqis can pull themselves from the brink of anarchy are they the 
>>> ones
>>> who came out ahead more than anyone?  Those who died and their families
>>> accepted, who have been the biggest losers?  Muslims?  All of us through
>>> lost liberties and billions in military activities?
>>>
>>> Last question - what do you think the general public - all those who 
>>> aren't
>>> shrewd enough to enjoy our wise counsel at UKCET - have learned or taken
>>> away with them over the last seven years?  The fact that all the parties
>>> that took or promised action against terrorists are falling out of power
>>> makes me wonder if people are starting to feel that they've been had, or 
>>> at
>>> the very least the threat of terror may be starting to go the way of 
>>> threat
>>> of Communism.  Are they wise to think that way?
>>>
>>> Final last question - What do you think is coming next to pin us to our
>>> bedsheets with fright?  Nuclear armed Iran?  Wandering black holes or 
>>> time
>>> distortions from the French-Swiss border?  or time distortions from the
>>> French-Swiss border?
>>>
>>> What do you think?  No prizes for best answers.
>>>
>>> TWP
>>
>> 9/11 Some say is a great reason to ethnically cleanse the world of
>> islam, it won't end till every muslim is gone and every koran is
>> incinerated and history edits them out much like the Canaanites or
>> pharisees or some other long since eradicated cult.
>
> Only Hitler has get close to destroying an ethnic group, and that's by 
> exterminating them.  I just have ethical problems with that route!
>
> Also there would probably be quite a few gaps in society if all the 
> Muslims disappeared overnight.
>
> TWP

Are Muslims an "ethnic" group? I thought that they were a religious group.

"TWP"  wrote ...

> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message
> news:XZ%xk.56016$E41.50236@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> >
> > "TWP"  wrote ...
> >
> >> Well, here we are again, seven years on this time.
> >>
> >> Some questions to ponder....
> >>
> >> Do you think the world is putting the 11 Sept behind it?
> >
> > The western public ( outside America ) is and has ofr a while; couldn't
> > really give two tosses for the war on terror. The only thing keeping it
> > alive in their minds is the FUD and knowledge that our involvement has
> > made
> > us all less safe.
> >
> >> Another question - did the attacks really achieve anything for anyone?
> >
> > It led to the destruction of America in spectacular fashion.
> >
> >
> >> Last question - what do you think the general public - all those who
> > aren't
> >> shrewd enough to enjoy our wise counsel at UKCET - have learned or
taken
> >> away with them over the last seven years?
> >
> > That being Bush's poodle wasn't a very bright idea. That America far
from
> > being a pinnacle of moral authrity is exactly the opposite.
> >
> >
> >> The fact that all the parties
> >> that took or promised action against terrorists are falling out of
power
> >> makes me wonder if people are starting to feel that they've been had,
or
> > at
> >> the very least the threat of terror may be starting to go the way of
> > threat
> >> of Communism.  Are they wise to think that way?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
>
> Isn't that a bit of a trap though?  Doesn't that mean the more successful
a
> government is at defeating terror, the more likely that government is to
get
> kicked out because they public, not seeing a major attack for years, think
> the threat has gone away or was always over-stated for political reasons?

The trap  is over-stating the threat and claiming to be defeating terror and
foiling plots but having no crdible evidence such claims aren't just
bullshit. The other trap is in falsely portraying Muslims as other then they
are. Plus the government being the cause of what threats there are in the
first place.

"U2Fan"  wrote ...

> On 11 Sep, 03:47, "TWP"  wrote:
> > Well, here we are again, seven years on this time.
> >
> > Some questions to ponder....
> >
> > Do you think the world is putting the 11 Sept behind it?  Is everything
> > going back to normal?  We're back to worring about recessions again, and
> > pretty soon, if all troops are ever going to leave Iraq, they'll be
doing so
> > and impatience is already growing with foreign troops in Afghanistan.
> > George Bush goes into retirement in about 16 weeks, his party by no
means
> > guaranteed a "job well done" victory in the polls.  Tony is gone and
Gordon
> > is a dead man walking (very nearly literally), and they represent
Western
> > governments that haven't fallen long before now as a consequence of
support
> > for the US.  It doesn't seem to have helped out reigning political
parties
> > of the time - in fact many would probably not even seek glory for what
they
> > did during the war.
> >
> > Another question - did the attacks really achieve anything for anyone?
If
> > the Iraqis can pull themselves from the brink of anarchy are they the
ones
> > who came out ahead more than anyone?  Those who died and their families
> > accepted, who have been the biggest losers?  Muslims?  All of us through
> > lost liberties and billions in military activities?
> >
> > Last question - what do you think the general public - all those who
aren't
> > shrewd enough to enjoy our wise counsel at UKCET - have learned or taken
> > away with them over the last seven years?  The fact that all the parties
> > that took or promised action against terrorists are falling out of power
> > makes me wonder if people are starting to feel that they've been had, or
at
> > the very least the threat of terror may be starting to go the way of
threat
> > of Communism.  Are they wise to think that way?
> >
> > Final last question - What do you think is coming next to pin us to our
> > bedsheets with fright?  Nuclear armed Iran?  Wandering black holes or
time
> > distortions from the French-Swiss border?  or time distortions from the
> > French-Swiss border?
> >
> > What do you think?  No prizes for best answers.
> >
> > TWP
>
> 9/11 Some say is a great reason to ethnically cleanse the world of
> islam, it won't end till every muslim is gone and every koran is
> incinerated and history edits them out much like the Canaanites or
> pharisees or some other long since eradicated cult.

But what do *YOU* say ?

I think anyone who believes that is a fuckwitted fool who has completely
failed to understand why 9-11 occured; what do you think ?

U2Fan wrote:
>>> Final last question - What do you think is coming next to pin us to our
>>> bedsheets with fright?
> 
> 
> Well could be they ( muslims jihadists ) use brainwashing to nuke some
> place or do wmd with some radicalized muslims, bit of emotional
> manipulation, blackmaleing and BOOM spooks code 9 being a reality
> ( the conspirators say the likes of BBC is seeding the minds of the
> terrorists to say "come on then you wankers go for it" )
> 
> Maybe they ( the terrorists ) are just as scared as the common man
> wondering if they're being set up to be ethnically cleansed either way
> you mess with the NWO or masons and you're history.The terrorists must
> be insain to think they can fight and beat America or the West
>  and oh yeah they are insain. The terrorists are like an angry mouse
> surrounded by roaring lions.
>

Robin T Cox wrote:
> TWP wrote:
> 
>> Well, here we are again, seven years on this time.
> 
> While we're on the subject, let's also remember those whose names will not
> be read out at memorial ceremonies today, and who were also innocent
> victims of 9/11.
> 
> http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

hear hear

"TWP"  wrote...

> Well, here we are again, seven years on this time.
>
> Some questions to ponder....
>
> Do you think the world is putting the 11 Sept behind it?

The view from America ...

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/11/terrorism.poll/?iref=mpstoryview

Just 30 percent of Americans said they think an attack on American soil is
likely over the next several weeks

[ Just 30% ? Still seems high to me but Americans see phantom menaces
everywhere ]

Only 14 percent of Americans say an impending terrorist attack is likely in
their community.

Only 37 percent believe that the president and his policies are the chief
reason there has not been a strike on U.S. soil.

Only about one in 10 Americans says terrorism is the most important issue in
deciding their vote for president.

Just over 60 percent of Americans continue to oppose the [Iraq] conflict.
Two-thirds want the next president to remove most U.S. troops from Iraq
within a few months of taking office.

TWP wrote:
> Well, here we are again, seven years on this time.
>
> Some questions to ponder....
>
> Do you think the world is putting the 11 Sept behind it?  Is everything
> going back to normal?  We're back to worring about recessions again, and
> pretty soon, if all troops are ever going to leave Iraq, they'll be doing so
> and impatience is already growing with foreign troops in Afghanistan.
> George Bush goes into retirement in about 16 weeks, his party by no means
> guaranteed a "job well done" victory in the polls.  Tony is gone and Gordon
> is a dead man walking (very nearly literally), and they represent Western
> governments that haven't fallen long before now as a consequence of support
> for the US.  It doesn't seem to have helped out reigning political parties
> of the time - in fact many would probably not even seek glory for what they
> did during the war.
>
> Another question - did the attacks really achieve anything for anyone?  If
> the Iraqis can pull themselves from the brink of anarchy are they the ones
> who came out ahead more than anyone?  Those who died and their families
> accepted, who have been the biggest losers?  Muslims?  All of us through
> lost liberties and billions in military activities?
>
> Last question - what do you think the general public - all those who aren't
> shrewd enough to enjoy our wise counsel at UKCET - have learned or taken
> away with them over the last seven years?  The fact that all the parties
> that took or promised action against terrorists are falling out of power
> makes me wonder if people are starting to feel that they've been had, or at
> the very least the threat of terror may be starting to go the way of threat
> of Communism.  Are they wise to think that way?
>
> Final last question - What do you think is coming next to pin us to our
> bedsheets with fright?  Nuclear armed Iran?  Wandering black holes or time
> distortions from the French-Swiss border?  or time distortions from the
> French-Swiss border?
>
> What do you think?  No prizes for best answers.
>
> TWP

http://www.juancole.com/2008/09/on-seventh-anniversary-of-september-11.html

headline:

Thursday, September 11, 2008
On the Seventh Anniversary of September 11: Time to Declare the
original al-Qaeda Defeated
The original al-Qaeda is defeated.

It is a dangerous thing for an analyst to say, because obviously
radical Muslim extremists may at some point set off some more bombs
and then everyone will point fingers and say how wrong I was.

So let me be very clear that I do not mean that radical Muslim
extremism has ceased to exist or that there will never be another
bombing at their hands.

I mean the original al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda as a historical, concrete
movement centered on Usama Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, with the
mujahideen who fought in Afghanistan in the 1980s at their core. Al-
Qaeda, the 55th Brigade of the Army of the Islamic Emirate of
Afghanistan under the Taliban. That al-Qaeda. The 5,000 fighters and
operatives or whatever number they amounted to.

That original al-Qaeda has been defeated.

Usamah Bin Laden has not released an original videotape since about
four years ago. There was that disaster with the cgi black beard.
There was the old footage spliced in by al-Sahab. But nothing new on
videotape. I conclude that Bin Laden, if he is alive, is so injured or
disfigured that his appearance on videotape would only discourage any
followers he has left.

Ayman al-Zawahiri, Bin Laden's number two man, is alive and vigorous
and oppressively talkative. But he has played wolf so many times with
no follow-through that he cannot even get airtime on cable news
anymore, except at Aljazeera, and even there they excerpt a few
minutes from a long tape.

Marc Sageman in his 'Understanding Terror Networks' estimates that
there are less than a thousand Muslim terrorists who could and would
do harm to the United States. That is, the original al-Qaeda was
dangerous because it was an international terror organization
dedicated to stalking the US and pulling the plug on its economy. It
had one big success in that regard, by exploiting a small set of
vulnerabilities in airline safety procedures. But after that, getting
up a really significant operation has been beyond them so far.

In the region, Usamah Bin Laden wanted to overthrow the royal family
of Saudi Arabia, and install an al-Qaeda-led, Taliban-like 'emirate'
in that country. He wanted to expel US troops from Prince Sultan Air
Base, which he considered a form of American military occupation of
Saudi Arabia and thus of two of the holiest cities in Islam, Mecca and
Medina.

Ayman al-Zawahiri wanted to overthrow the Egyptian government. His
Egyptian Islamic Jihad was building cells and capacity for a violent
attack on the Egyptian president, just as constituent elements of al-
Qaeda had assassinated Anwar El Sadat in 1981.

But the Saudi government has not been overthrown. The US troops are
out of Saudi Arabia, so talk has died down about the occupation of the
two holy cities, which never made much sense to begin with (there were
few or no foreign troops in Hijaz, the west coast along the Red Sea,
where Mecca and Medina are located). The Saudi royal family is flush
with tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues. It may fall to a
popular revolution as with Iran, in the future, but any such
instability is unlikely to be led by al-Qaeda. Only 10% of Saudis now
say they think well of that organization, and they are the ones who do
not think it carried out September 11.

Ayman al-Zawahiri's organization, the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, has been
devastated inside Egypt. Most of its cadres were killed or imprisoned.
It had had an alliance,since 1980 or so, with the Gama'a al-Islamiyyah
of the blind sheikh, Omar Abdel Rahman. The leadership of the Gama'a
has broken with the sheikh, and many of the leaders have renounced
violence as a political path. They have written and published 20 or so
'recantations' that interpret the Qur'an as commanding peaceful
activitsm and denouncing violence.

That is, one of the major unexpected outcomes of Sept. 11 has been to
turn one of the major Egyptian fundamentalist organizations into a
peace movement.

Everywhere you look, the Egyptian Islamic Jihad is weaker or has
dwindled into insignificance.

So if the original al-Qaeda has been defeated, what are the prospects
of violent Muslim radicalism?

Terrorist groups are active in four major contexts among Muslims: ...
(cont)

"chatnoir"  wrote in message 
news:6dd2aa40-2423-4b85-947e-6bff1e2ded29@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>

> http://www.juancole.com/2008/09/on-seventh-anniversary-of-september-11.html
>
>

I'd be surprised if we saw another "spectacular" attack from a "private" (ie 
non state-organised)  terrorist organisation like AQ,  but I think we're in 
for years of "after shock" attacks.  The world will never run out of people 
who hate the West enough to attack us, so more home-made attacks are 
inevitable, and many attackers will probably claim AQ inspiration even 
though AQ has nothing to do with it.

Things probably only stand to get really nasty if nation states get 
invovled, and that carries it's own risks for them.  However unpopular the 
Iraq war may have been, I think the US population would still OK severe 
punishment attacks on states that helped terrorists cause any serious harm 
within the US.  That's never going to happen with impunity.  It would be too 
politically damaging for the ruling party and President to do nothing.

It remains to be seen though if there isn't someone out there somewhere who 
thinks it's worth a massive attack on the West or US no matter what the 
consequences or even in an effort to persuade the West or US to exhaust 
themselves fighting a whack-a-mole war on the other side of the world.

TWP

"TWP"  wrote ...

[snips]

> I'd be surprised if we saw another "spectacular" attack from a "private"
(ie
> non state-organised)  terrorist organisation like AQ,  but I think we're
in
> for years of "after shock" attacks.  The world will never run out of
people
> who hate the West enough to attack us, so more home-made attacks are
> inevitable, and many attackers will probably claim AQ inspiration even
> though AQ has nothing to do with it.

Or they'll be accused of being AQ inspired even if not and don't claim as
such for themselves as happens now.

It's quite convenient for government to blame attacks on AQ inspiration,
"they hate us for what we are" where the truth is, "they hate us for what we
do", whether that be interference in their political affairs or the
slaughter of their innocent family and friends. It's far preferable for
government and others to pretend such backlash is inexplicable and
unexpected whereas it's a direct and predictable consequence of the
government's own action and support for others actions.

The ridiculous thing is that our counter to the backlash we provoke is more
of the same and in bigger doses. Our stupid, and doomed to failure, strategy
of stopping them kicking us in the nuts after we've done that to them is to
kick them some more. It's throwing petrol on a fire to put it out. We're to
blame for the escalation. But best to blame it on AQ or some other
convenient bogeyman and pretend we aren't.

I disagree that more attacks are inevitable; they will only continue while
there is cause and while we remain hated. Take away the cause of hatred and
the attacks will stop. There will be a period where revenge will be on the
mind but that will dim as long as we don't provoke  hatred.

We are the sole cause of the attacks there have been against us and stopping
them is entirely in our hands. This is the blood price Blair said we were
prepared to pay for his 'criminal actions' and while we continue to pursue
his wars against others we give them just cause to retaliate.


> It remains to be seen though if there isn't someone out there somewhere
who
> thinks it's worth a massive attack on the West or US no matter what the
> consequences or even in an effort to persuade the West or US to exhaust
> themselves fighting a whack-a-mole war on the other side of the world.

It seems unlikely that such a thing would happen without provocation by the
West or US. "Empire building", for whatever reason, seems unlikely in any
military form from any quarter, so it's only really backlash one has to
worry about; such as should the US or Israel nuke Iran.

"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
news:XMQyk.57142$E41.16893@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
> "TWP"  wrote ...
>
> [snips]
>
>> I'd be surprised if we saw another "spectacular" attack from a "private"
> (ie
>> non state-organised)  terrorist organisation like AQ,  but I think we're
> in
>> for years of "after shock" attacks.  The world will never run out of
> people
>> who hate the West enough to attack us, so more home-made attacks are
>> inevitable, and many attackers will probably claim AQ inspiration even
>> though AQ has nothing to do with it.
>
> Or they'll be accused of being AQ inspired even if not and don't claim as
> such for themselves as happens now.
>

Yes, that's a distinct possibility too.  However horrible the attacks are 
for the rest of us, the brutal truth is that there are careers to be made 
out of them on our side.



> It's quite convenient for government to blame attacks on AQ inspiration,
> "they hate us for what we are" where the truth is, "they hate us for what 
> we
> do", whether that be interference in their political affairs or the
> slaughter of their innocent family and friends. It's far preferable for
> government and others to pretend such backlash is inexplicable and
> unexpected whereas it's a direct and predictable consequence of the
> government's own action and support for others actions.
>
> The ridiculous thing is that our counter to the backlash we provoke is 
> more
> of the same and in bigger doses. Our stupid, and doomed to failure, 
> strategy
> of stopping them kicking us in the nuts after we've done that to them is 
> to
> kick them some more. It's throwing petrol on a fire to put it out. We're 
> to
> blame for the escalation. But best to blame it on AQ or some other
> convenient bogeyman and pretend we aren't.
>
> I disagree that more attacks are inevitable; they will only continue while
> there is cause and while we remain hated. Take away the cause of hatred 
> and
> the attacks will stop. There will be a period where revenge will be on the
> mind but that will dim as long as we don't provoke  hatred.
>

No, I don't agree with you there.  I think there will always be radical 
groups recruiting among the young, disaffected and idealistic, and they've 
been shown the way now.  I think although attacks haven't been frequent 
they've been shown to be possible.  They've had power and brought attention 
and  notoriety.  They've been a way of proving devotion to your people / 
faith / cause too.

I also think it'll have little to do with what we do from now on either. 
Provocation may play it's part in dictating frequency and severity of 
attacks but enough will be claimable in past deeds to justify attacks among 
those willing to carry them out.

Terrorism does exist even if there isn't a cell in every street, and AQ's 
ghost will haunt us for a while yet, even after the last of them are gone. 
Not forever, but for some time to come.


TWP

In message , TWP 
 writes
>
>"chatnoir"  wrote in message
>news:6dd2aa40-2423-4b85-947e-6bff1e2ded29@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>
>> http://www.juancole.com/2008/09/on-seventh-anniversary-of-september-11.html
>>
>>
>
>I'd be surprised if we saw another "spectacular" attack from a "private" (ie
>non state-organised)  terrorist organisation like AQ,  but I think we're in
>for years of "after shock" attacks.  The world will never run out of people
>who hate the West enough to attack us,

The USA not "the West"

Actually the US and the UK  but not "The West" .  It is not a threat 
against Western values but American (lack of ) values.


-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

On 11 Sep, 14:18, "The Happy Hippy"
 wrote:
> "U2Fan"  wrote ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 11 Sep, 03:47, "TWP"  wrote:
> > > Well, here we are again, seven years on this time.
>
> > > Some questions to ponder....
>
> > > Do you think the world is putting the 11 Sept behind it?  Is everything
> > > going back to normal?  We're back to worring about recessions again, and
> > > pretty soon, if all troops are ever going to leave Iraq, they'll be
> doing so
> > > and impatience is already growing with foreign troops in Afghanistan.
> > > George Bush goes into retirement in about 16 weeks, his party by no
> means
> > > guaranteed a "job well done" victory in the polls.  Tony is gone and
> Gordon
> > > is a dead man walking (very nearly literally), and they represent
> Western
> > > governments that haven't fallen long before now as a consequence of
> support
> > > for the US.  It doesn't seem to have helped out reigning political
> parties
> > > of the time - in fact many would probably not even seek glory for what
> they
> > > did during the war.
>
> > > Another question - did the attacks really achieve anything for anyone?
> If
> > > the Iraqis can pull themselves from the brink of anarchy are they the
> ones
> > > who came out ahead more than anyone?  Those who died and their families
> > > accepted, who have been the biggest losers?  Muslims?  All of us through
> > > lost liberties and billions in military activities?
>
> > > Last question - what do you think the general public - all those who
> aren't
> > > shrewd enough to enjoy our wise counsel at UKCET - have learned or taken
> > > away with them over the last seven years?  The fact that all the parties
> > > that took or promised action against terrorists are falling out of power
> > > makes me wonder if people are starting to feel that they've been had, or
> at
> > > the very least the threat of terror may be starting to go the way of
> threat
> > > of Communism.  Are they wise to think that way?
>
> > > Final last question - What do you think is coming next to pin us to our
> > > bedsheets with fright?  Nuclear armed Iran?  Wandering black holes or
> time
> > > distortions from the French-Swiss border?  or time distortions from the
> > > French-Swiss border?
>
> > > What do you think?  No prizes for best answers.
>
> > > TWP
>
> > 9/11 Some say is a great reason to ethnically cleanse the world of
> > islam, it won't end till every muslim is gone and every koran is
> > incinerated and history edits them out much like the Canaanites or
> > pharisees or some other long since eradicated cult.
>
> But what do *YOU* say ?
>
> I think anyone who believes that is a fuckwitted fool who has completely
> failed to understand why 9-11 occured; what do you think ?

I'm not running the world so it doesn't matter. imho they're all crazy.

"TWP"  wrote ...

> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message
> news:XMQyk.57142$E41.16893@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> >
> > "TWP"  wrote ...
> >
> > [snips]
> >
> >> I'd be surprised if we saw another "spectacular" attack from a
"private"
> > (ie
> >> non state-organised)  terrorist organisation like AQ,  but I think
we're
> > in
> >> for years of "after shock" attacks.  The world will never run out of
> > people
> >> who hate the West enough to attack us, so more home-made attacks are
> >> inevitable, and many attackers will probably claim AQ inspiration even
> >> though AQ has nothing to do with it.
> >
> > Or they'll be accused of being AQ inspired even if not and don't claim
as
> > such for themselves as happens now.
> >
>
> Yes, that's a distinct possibility too.  However horrible the attacks are
> for the rest of us, the brutal truth is that there are careers to be made
> out of them on our side.
>
>
>
> > It's quite convenient for government to blame attacks on AQ inspiration,
> > "they hate us for what we are" where the truth is, "they hate us for
what
> > we
> > do", whether that be interference in their political affairs or the
> > slaughter of their innocent family and friends. It's far preferable for
> > government and others to pretend such backlash is inexplicable and
> > unexpected whereas it's a direct and predictable consequence of the
> > government's own action and support for others actions.
> >
> > The ridiculous thing is that our counter to the backlash we provoke is
> > more
> > of the same and in bigger doses. Our stupid, and doomed to failure,
> > strategy
> > of stopping them kicking us in the nuts after we've done that to them is
> > to
> > kick them some more. It's throwing petrol on a fire to put it out. We're
> > to
> > blame for the escalation. But best to blame it on AQ or some other
> > convenient bogeyman and pretend we aren't.
> >
> > I disagree that more attacks are inevitable; they will only continue
while
> > there is cause and while we remain hated. Take away the cause of hatred
> > and
> > the attacks will stop. There will be a period where revenge will be on
the
> > mind but that will dim as long as we don't provoke  hatred.
> >
>
> No, I don't agree with you there.  I think there will always be radical
> groups recruiting among the young, disaffected and idealistic, and they've
> been shown the way now.

Bombing and destruction for political or societal cause is nothing new.
Terrorists of alleged Muslim faith haven't created anything new, not even
suicide bombings.

There seem to be as many BNP members in this country building bombs as there
are members of Islamic Jihad.

Radicalisation and recruitment doesn't necessarily lead to bombing and
carnage, and there's no way to prevent radicalisation and rebellion anyway,
whether that's western, eastern or any other form of radicalisation.

People only turn to terrorrism when they believe they have grounds to turn
to terrorism or as a last resort. That's been the case in the US ( family
planning clinics, Tim McVeigh etc ) and in the UK ( BNP, David Copeland
etc ).


>  I think although attacks haven't been frequent
> they've been shown to be possible.

Such attacks have always been possible. It would be a nonsense to say they
weren't possible or hadn't happened before some members of the muslim
community got in on the act.


> They've had power and brought attention
> and  notoriety.  They've been a way of proving devotion to your people /
> faith / cause too.

I guess they're the equivalent of the Che Guevara posters on bedroom walls
but I don't see that many following his life cause and means although they
respect the idealism and sacrifice made. Most probably see him as some sort
of "hero" but know vey little about him or his cause. It's more icon than
anything else.


> I also think it'll have little to do with what we do from now on either.
> Provocation may play it's part in dictating frequency and severity of
> attacks but enough will be claimable in past deeds to justify attacks
among
> those willing to carry them out.

Indeed. Until we recognise, recompense and apologise for our past deeds or
they are lost to history they will always be a matter of provocation and
cause for action.


> Terrorism does exist even if there isn't a cell in every street, and AQ's
> ghost will haunt us for a while yet, even after the last of them are gone.
> Not forever, but for some time to come.

I'll agree with that. Our slaughter of innocent Muslims and support for
America's slaughter and offensive treatment of them has ensured that. That's
the blood price Blair said you and I and everyone else were prepared to pay.

"Chris H"  wrote in message 
news:fhPRueElZSzIFAzb@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In message , TWP 
>  writes
>>
>>"chatnoir"  wrote in message
>>news:6dd2aa40-2423-4b85-947e-6bff1e2ded29@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>
>>> http://www.juancole.com/2008/09/on-seventh-anniversary-of-september-11.html
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I'd be surprised if we saw another "spectacular" attack from a "private" 
>>(ie
>>non state-organised)  terrorist organisation like AQ,  but I think we're 
>>in
>>for years of "after shock" attacks.  The world will never run out of 
>>people
>>who hate the West enough to attack us,
>
> The USA not "the West"
>
> Actually the US and the UK  but not "The West" .  It is not a threat 
> against Western values but American (lack of ) values.

Spain was attacked too, and I expect any nation sympathetic to the US / UK 
or just being involved in their sphere of trade could expect to be 
considered legitimate targets.

TWP

TWP wrote:

> 
> "Chris H"  wrote in message
> news:fhPRueElZSzIFAzb@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>> In message , TWP
>>  writes
>>>
>>>"chatnoir"  wrote in message
>>>news:6dd2aa40-2423-4b85-947e-6bff1e2ded29@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
http://www.juancole.com/2008/09/on-seventh-anniversary-of-september-11.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>I'd be surprised if we saw another "spectacular" attack from a "private"
>>>(ie
>>>non state-organised)  terrorist organisation like AQ,  but I think we're
>>>in
>>>for years of "after shock" attacks.  The world will never run out of
>>>people
>>>who hate the West enough to attack us,
>>
>> The USA not "the West"
>>
>> Actually the US and the UK  but not "The West" .  It is not a threat
>> against Western values but American (lack of ) values.
> 
> Spain was attacked too, and I expect any nation sympathetic to the US / UK
> or just being involved in their sphere of trade could expect to be
> considered legitimate targets.
> 
> TWP

Legitimate being the operative word.

-- 
Facts are sacred ... but comment is free

"TWP"  wrote ...

> "Chris H"  wrote in message
> news:fhPRueElZSzIFAzb@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> > In message , TWP
> >  writes
> >>
> >>"chatnoir"  wrote in message
>
>>news:6dd2aa40-2423-4b85-947e-6bff1e2ded29@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>>
http://www.juancole.com/2008/09/on-seventh-anniversary-of-september-11.html
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>I'd be surprised if we saw another "spectacular" attack from a "private"
> >>(ie
> >>non state-organised)  terrorist organisation like AQ,  but I think we're
> >>in
> >>for years of "after shock" attacks.  The world will never run out of
> >>people
> >>who hate the West enough to attack us,
> >
> > The USA not "the West"
> >
> > Actually the US and the UK  but not "The West" .  It is not a threat
> > against Western values but American (lack of ) values.
>
> Spain was attacked too, and I expect any nation sympathetic to the US / UK
> or just being involved in their sphere of trade could expect to be
> considered legitimate targets.

Spain was with the US, UK and Italy in supporting the war against Iraq so
therefore the same axis to which Chris refers.

How far those doing trade with that axis are deemed legitimate targets
depends greatly upon how that trade is perceived. I think those attacking
the UK-US axis now are more interestied in the co-operation given when it
comes to murdering Muslims than those who simply, pragmatically, trade with
them. Buying and selling rock salt is one thing, buying and selling arms is
another.

We're not targets because of a trading relation with the US but because we
are out there helping and cheering their murder of Muslims. That's why other
countries who still trade with the US are not attacked. It demonstrates it's
a lie that Muslims are attacking the west because of their value system;
they attack the US, UK and others who are attacking and killing their own.