Reply #27: This is what I'm talking about below...

[JackRiddler]

The naivete about 9/11 on the lettered left.

Even granting for a moment the official story with its outrageous implausibilities, you're going to tell me 9/11 was a case of the "Third World fighting back?"

Dude, what brand of romantically-colored glasses are you wearing?

Osama, the disaffected billionaire with high-testosterone, millenarian fantasies, who happens to be a former CIA asset (we'll assume the "former" for the purposes of argument). A man best known for assisting the destruction of a comparably humane regime in Afghanistan so as to bring to power his druglord-warlord friend Hekmatyar and then the Taliban. A few years later (so goes the official fairy tale), he dispatches a small self-appointed cadre of his suicide soldiers, on orders Straight from God, to strike a blow against the Satan. Nineteen guys - now that's a liberation movement! They act in a hermetic conspiracy to kill a few thousand worker-ants and poison a city, not coincidentally giving to the worst of their ostensible enemies (Bush and crew) the greatest political windfall they could hope for, and carte blanche to step up their own murderous activities worldwide.

And apparently you've so thoroughly imbibed the "propaganda of the deed" in your PJs that you think this is the Third World fighting back?! (At least the image has me laughing.) Pathetic! Naive! Incroyable!

What's next, you going to compare 9/11 (official story version) to the Chavez revolution, or the Bolivians who pushed out Bechtel, or maybe Gandhi or the Civil Rights movement?

Shame on you!