things you're country did wrong!

[mikey6]

I'll start - Australia
Kicked Eugene Goosens out coz he was carrying some porn pictures in his suitcase - bloody conservative Australia!
Didn't employ...was Schoenberg or Ravel (don't remember exactly) when they applied for Sydney - bloody morons! that would have been funny - my old teacher was asked in the 1960's,"what do you think of comtemporary music? like Debussy!!?" Schoenberg would have set hell on fire!

(ya can go political if ya want but...I can't be bothered)

[henrah]

Sided with Bush, and now we're getting a side effect from Iraq.

Fired Jools Holland because he said f**k on TV. What asses. They have him back now, and he's even more amazing!

Allowed Las Ketchup to release a song.

Started Pop Idol and Pop Stars.

Something we did right: gave Simon Cowell to the Americans!

[thalbergmad]

1. Sign up to the Human Rights charter
2. Relax immigration control
3. Vote in a Labour Government
4. Repeal the death sentence
5. Stop compulsory archery practice
6. Join in on the war with Iraq  (I blame President Bliar for this)
7. Cover the country with speed cameras


The list is endless.

[ada]

You want the short list or the long list?

Radomly:

Elected John Howard

Backed George W Bush, sucked up to the US, participated in the invasion of Iraq. Believed US lies about weapons of mass destruction .

Introduced sheep, cows the cane toad and Starbucks .

Lost the body of an Australian soldier who died in Iraq and brought someone else's body home by mistake. Then lost the defence dept report on the stuff-up, which later fell into the hands of a talkback radio host .

Handed the Bali Nine drug mules over to Indonesia like proverbial lambs to the slaughter .

Locked up a mentally ill Australian citizen in a detention centre because authorities thought she was an illegal immigrant . Deported another citizen for the same reason .

Let Steve Irwin loose on the world .

[ada]

oh, and....

Invaded an inhabited land, declared it Terra Nullius and planted the British flag

Voted against ditching the monarchy

Wants to start selling uranium again

[gilad]

Apartheid...South Africa.

A brutal system of divide and rule, disenfranchisement and human rights abuses abound.

[prometheus]

Ok I will limit myself to recent events.

One very major mistake is that my government, on request of the CIA, let Khan, the nuclear spy, go.

https://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=1&story_id=22629

Result is not only that Pakistan and N-Korea have nuclear weapons and that Iran and Libya have information about essential nuclear technology. Nuclear technology is totally into the open. If you have enough money you can buy nuclear technology on the black market. The designs for enrichment centrifuges are on normal CD-roms.

Actually his whole record has mysteriously dissapeared from the archive.

The whole reaction of the US is puzzling. Pakistan, run by a general that got into power by a military coup, should be one of the major terrorist states. And now this state sold nuclear technology to all these countries. Nothing happens. Apperently all this behavior is quite ok.

The United States Government decided to leave the fate of Dr. A.Q. Khan in the hands of General Pervez Musharraf, imposing no penalties on the Pakistani Government or on individuals. The U.S. Government officials explained that in the War on Terrorism it was not their goal to denounce or imprison people, but "to get results." The White House chose not to sanction Pakistan or to demand an independent investigation of the Pakistani Military. "It's just another case where you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar," a U.S. Government official explained.

International politics always stay puzzling...


Result of all these events is that non-proliferation has become almost impossible.

If the main nuclear powers do not give up their nuclear weapons in about 50 year about 30 countries will have nuclear weapons. And this means that there will be nuclear war. Of course the US has to take the lead. But they are moving the other way. They are developing tactical nuclear weapons and developing space weapons.

Other mistakes of my government:
-Selling weapons to Indonesia, including navel vessels used to massacre the population of Atjer.
-Selling weapons to China.
-Not supporting the UK in reforming the EU buget by cutting into farming subsidising.
-Investing money in the JSF project.
-Supporting the US in their 'War against Terror'. Names don't get more Orwellian than that.
-Reforming the health care into a market, resulting in giving the health insurance companies too much power.
-Having too strict immigration laws. Both immoral and bad for the demographic development.
-Supporting Nuclear power.
-Not abolishing religious education.
-Not invensting real amounts of money in future energy sources and technology.
-Drilling for oil in the Wadden Sea, which includes several Dutch and German National Parks, and has the status of both 'Biosphere Reserve' and 'World Heritage Site' by the UNESCO.
-Accepting the new US ambassador, Roland Arnall. Well actually, officially they can't really do anything about this.
-Imprisioning children with mental problems and that can't be raised by their parents in prisons build for underage criminals.
-Not supporting the Danish cartoon thingy strongly enough.
-Making a fuss out of the nationality of Ayaan Hirsi Ali (which was actually done by one person, making the rest of the government furious).

I could make the list longer if I wanted.

[thalbergmad]

-Not supporting the UK in reforming the EU buget by cutting into farming subsidising.

Shame

[Tash]

You want the short list or the long list?

Radomly:

Elected John Howard

Backed George W Bush, sucked up to the US, participated in the invasion of Iraq. Believed US lies about weapons of mass destruction .

Introduced sheep, cows the cane toad and Starbucks .

Lost the body of an Australian soldier who died in Iraq and brought someone else's body home by mistake. Then lost the defence dept report on the stuff-up, which later fell into the hands of a talkback radio host .

Handed the Bali Nine drug mules over to Indonesia like proverbial lambs to the slaughter .

Locked up a mentally ill Australian citizen in a detention centre because authorities thought she was an illegal immigrant . Deported another citizen for the same reason .

Let Steve Irwin loose on the world .

i would vote john howard over kim beazley or mark latham any day; i hardly think they're going to improve the country any more than howard has!

what's wrong with cows?

[mikey6]

i would vote john howard over kim beazley or mark latham any day; i hardly think they're going to improve the country any more than howard has!

I feel so ashamed! I actually voted for Latham! I was tired of johnny 'eybrows' and his $61,000 a day overseas trips!

[rimv2]

I'll start - Australia
Kicked Eugene Goosens out coz he was carrying some porn pictures in his suitcase - bloody conservative Australia!
Didn't employ...was Schoenberg or Ravel (don't remember exactly) when they applied for Sydney - bloody morons! that would have been funny - my old teacher was asked in the 1960's,"what do you think of comtemporary music? like Debussy!!?" Schoenberg would have set hell on fire!

(ya can go political if ya want but...I can't be bothered)

Why limit this to any specific country?

We should all be disappointed in all the "leaders" of today's political world (and many peoples of the world as well).

It seems like they are content with the world ending, content with letting the world end so long as they arent the blame, or simply dont do enough to stop the world from ending.

Just because it wont happen tomorrow doesnt mean it wont happen. There are things in this world that take time. But what happens when there is no time left?

[jas]

Let reality TV take over the whole country. We (UK) are turning into a nation of celebrity-obsessed morons because all you get in newspapers, magazine and on TV are reality TV, soaps, football, arsehole politicians and DIY programmes. There's nothing intellectually stimulating at all (except Planet Earth, which is brilliant). They seem to be trying to dumb us down.

[semme]

the major wrong decisions were:

initiating WWI
initiating WWII
genocide of the jews

well and some see the fall of the wall as a mistake. 20% of the germans want the wall back into existence. and if you look at the national dept that has almost skyrocketed since the early 90s and other diverse problems, you get a sense why so many want the wall back. https://www.stern.de/politik/deutschland/?id=529441

[prometheus]

What does 'the wall' solve? And how does it do that? I am not saying you need to defend this but I don't really understand this.

[Tash]

I feel so ashamed! I actually voted for Latham! I was tired of johnny 'eybrows' and his $61,000 a day overseas trips!

what, ashamed of voting for latham? i would be, he's an idiot, did he actually get charged for smashing the camera guy's camera? that was hilarious!

[ada]

i would vote john howard over kim beazley or mark latham any day

Tash, you disappoint me... you seemed like such a nice girl Anyhow I thinK Beazley's unlikely to make it to the election and we all know Latham's out of the equation. How about Julia Gillard?

what's wrong with cows?

Thanks to the introduction of a dairy industry parts of the continent have suffered severe deforestation (to make way for grazing lands). This has led to the loss of native vegetation and biodiversity. It's also contributed to soil salinity, which increases the effects of drought.

We would have been better off farming roos....

[thalbergmad]

-Having too strict immigration laws. Both immoral and bad for the demographic development.

I find that interesting, as in England it is the precisely the opposite.

If we ever manage to find some of the 500,000 illegals staying here, i will send some over to you.

They will be easily be replaced by the hordes of Romanian Gypsies and Bulgarian drug barons waiting to come here.

Thal

[prometheus]

The immoral part is throwing out people that have already settled here. People that have spend their childhood here, teenagers or young adults that have dutch as their primary language. Sometimes these people need to go back to Iraq or afganistan while they can't even speak the language or remeber ever living in those countries.

[lisztisforkids]

I find that interesting, as in England it is the precisely the opposite.

If we ever manage to find some of the 500,000 illegals staying here, i will send some over to you.

They will be easily be replaced by the hordes of Romanian Gypsies and Bulgarian drug barons waiting to come here.

Thal

I think that in America its something like 10-15 illegal million immigrants living in the U.S.

If you want some immigrants Prometheus, you know were to look.

[thalbergmad]

The immoral part is throwing out people that have already settled here. People that have spend their childhood here, teenagers or young adults that have dutch as their primary language. Sometimes these people need to go back to Iraq or afganistan while they can't even speak the language or remeber ever living in those countries.

I would agree with you here to a certain degree, but would submit that criminals should be deported.

In England, we just let them go to re-offend.

[lisztisforkids]

I would agree with you here to a certain degree, but would submit that criminals should be deported.

In England, we just let them go to re-offend.

I think maybe we should start a new penal colony in Los Angelese... What would be the difference?

[thalbergmad]

I think maybe we should start a new penal colony in Los Angelese... What would be the difference?

In England we could not do that in case we infringed the "Humans Rights Act"

President Bliars wife would make even more money.

[ada]

If we ever manage to find some of the 500,000 illegals staying here, i will send some over to you.


Thal

or you could do what we do in Australia and lock them up in the middle of the desert behind razor wire

[prometheus]

If that happened in my country I would try to burn down the primary governmental building. I mean, that is insane. Just like Guantanomo Bay.

[thalbergmad]

or you could do what we do in Australia and lock them up in the middle of the desert behind razor wire

One of the reasons why England has so many illegals, is because we make life too easy for them and are seen as a soft touch. Tnis is why there are 100's just waiting in Calais for the opportunity to get here.

A couple of years ago, we built a beautiful detention centre and to show their gratitude, the inhabitants burnt it down.

I think we could learn a lot from the Australians.

[jason2711]

Hmm... things my country did wrong.. probably get founded!

This led to an oppressive unionist government (allowed unchecked for too long by the Westminister government), which discriminated against the Roman Catholic/ Nationalist community, eventually leading to the civil rights marches, and then to the Troubles themselves.

Recently, what's being going wrong is the other end of the extreme.  Things such as a police force which discriminates against the majority and many small minorities (50% of the police force must be Roman Catholics, the other 50% must be from 'other communities').  This is not only discriminating in principle, not just because jobs should be awarded on merit and not due to quotas, but also the fact that this isn't even reflective on the population... I think Northern Ireland is maybe 42% Roman Catholic, 51% Protestant and 7% 'other'.  Especially since Catholics are often intimidated out of joining, this is damaging on the police service in a country where it is often vitally needed.

I think much employment things are turning out like this (quotas and the like) which I really am opposed to, especially since I don't consider myself of either bracket these days.

Other things... our population seems to be increasingly tending to vote for biggoted parties, which will refuse to cooperate with each other, thus furthering the stalemate we're currently in.  At least it's peaceful though

[prometheus]

Well, I understood 'your country' as the government. I am not sure how much a government Northern Ireland has had but I do know it may become non-existant again if the current political parties can't come to an agreement. Then you have to blame everything on Tenth Downing Street.

[jason2711]

Northern Ireland had a government from the 1920s to I think the 70s.. from which a direct rule was imposed by Westminister.  Brief attempts at government have been tried, most recently the assembly.   I was mainly talking about that government... the most recent assembly was a shambles (their first three decisions were all to give themselves pay rises...)

I can't see it happening too soon, though stranger things have happened

The government ministers who run in their place aren't too great either... at least the other way we get some sort of say.. but we're being forced into education reforms, without proper consultation, which a large amount of the population (possibly a majority... I'm not sure) are opposed to

Ach well, there is no 'perfect government' really

[mikey6]

Let reality TV take over the whole country. We (UK) are turning into a nation of celebrity-obsessed morons because all you get in newspapers, magazine and on TV are reality TV, soaps, football, arsehole politicians and DIY programmes. There's nothing intellectually stimulating at all (except Planet Earth, which is brilliant). They seem to be trying to dumb us down.

gee, that sounds familiar! and don't worry, all the wonderful reality shows England producs, we get to see as well! I mean, how many people really want to see passengers hanging around at Heathrow?

[kelly_kelly]

Arrrgh...

Elected George Bush  (twice!!!!!!!!)

Listened to George Bush (Iraq, WMD)

Went into Vietnam

Used the atomic bomb against Japan (if you disagree, just be warned that I've written a ten-page report on the subject)

[mikey6]

Used the atomic bomb against Japan (if you disagree, just be warned that I've written a ten-page report on the subject)

this is gonna be interesting, but did you suggest any other possibly way that could have ended the war? i'm curious coz how would you stop a country whose people pretty much wouldnt stop fighting?

[henrah]

Used the atomic bomb against Japan (if you disagree, just be warned that I've written a ten-page report on the subject)

Yeah that sucked. Though it was a means to an end, it was still a sucky means.

[kelly_kelly]

this is gonna be interesting, but did you suggest any other possibly way that could have ended the war? i'm curious coz how would you stop a country whose people pretty much wouldnt stop fighting?

This is taken directly from my report; I didn't think you'd want to read all 10 pages. If you don't believe this, I'll post my bibliography.

Evidence shows that many US leaders were well aware that a clarification of the “unconditional surrender” policy may have elicited a quick Japanese surrender. Indeed, Truman originally also felt that a clarification of surrender terms would be advisable, and would save a significant number of lives; Japanese culture did not permit the type of surrender which the US appeared to be requiring. As Joseph C. Grew, acting Secretary of State, wrote:
“The greatest obstacle to unconditional surrender by the Japanese is their belief that this would entail the destruction or permanent removal of the Emperor and the institution of the throne. If some indication can now be given the Japanese that they themselves, when once thoroughly defeated and rendered impotent to wage war in the future, will be permitted to determine their own future political structure, they will be afforded a method of saving face without which surrender will be highly unlikely.” 
The Japanese viewed their leader as a deity rather than as a fallible human being, This rather primitive notion was carefully reinforced by the Japanese government.  For this reason, soldiers were obliged to die for the emperor if damage to the throne seemed imminent. And this statement by Roosevelt (spoken on February 12, 1943) actually threatened the Emperor directly:
“The only terms on which we shall deal … are the terms proclaimed in Casablanca: ‘unconditional surrender.’… we do mean to impose punishment and retribution in full upon their guilty, barbaric leaders.”     
A loyal Japanese citizen would, from this statement, perceive the threat to the emperor, and would feel personally unable to surrender to America, ultimately lengthening the war. The leaders of America were aware of this perception of the emperor as divine. A study by MacArthur’s Southwest Pacific Command in 1944 concluded that:

“… to dethrone or hang the emperor would cause a tremendous and violent reaction from all Japanese. Hanging of the Emperor to them would be comparable to the crucifixion of Christ to us… The war would be unduly prolonged, our losses heavier than would otherwise be necessary.” 

Despite the urging of many officials, the surrender terms were not clarified. Hence, the Japanese were never fully aware of American intentions regarding surrender, although their obtainment of this information could easily have eliminated the need for either an invasion or the use of the atomic bomb.

The scientists who worked in the Manhattan Project provided yet another alternative to an immediate attack against Japan. Some European refugee scientists had felt that, if Germany were no longer a threat, the bomb’s use should have been impeded. Others felt that the dropping of the bomb on Japan would instigate difficulties in controlling the disastrous potential of atomic power during peacetime. Many of these scientists collaboratively wrote the Franck report (in June 1945), which proposed that the bomb should be demonstrated in an uninhabited area for an audience consisting of delegates from numerous nations:
“…the military advantages and the saving of American lives, achieved by the sudden use of atomic bombs against Japan, may be outweighed by the ensuing loss of confidence and wave of horror and repulsion…
From this point of view, a demonstration of the new weapon may best be made before the eyes of representatives of all United Nations, on the desert or a barren island…” 
These passages clearly state the advantages of inhibiting the use of the weapon. America, as a major world leader, would lose respect as a humanitarian nation should the bomb be used against Japan. This report also contains a refutation to another justification for using the bomb; America had invested too much money in the bomb for its use to be withheld.
“Another argument which could be quoted in favor of using atomic bombs as soon as they are available is that so much taxpayers' money has been invested in these Projects that the Congress and the American public will require a return for their money… as soon as the potentialities of nuclear weapons will be revealed to the American people, one can be certain that it will support all attempts to make the use of such weapons impossible.”
The authors of the Franck Report believed that American citizens would be horrified by the immense destruction nuclear weapons could cause, for they themselves were apprehensive of their own creation. Even those who poured so much effort into conceiving the bomb, who, for a period of time, devoted their lives to it, were willing to spurn the fruits of their labor if it could forestall the introduction of such a potentially catastrophic weapon to society. Their cohesive alternative to, and earnest criticisms of, the potential use of the bomb exemplify the doubt of some of America’s finest minds.

[ada]

this is gonna be interesting, but did you suggest any other possibly way that could have ended the war? i'm curious coz how would you stop a country whose people pretty much wouldnt stop fighting?

Does that mean we should nuke America?

Remind me not to vote for you if you ever run for parliament 

[prometheus]

how would you stop a country whose people pretty much wouldnt stop fighting?

Kill all their woman and children..?

"Japan was already defeated ... dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary. I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was no longer necessary to save American lives?"
-General Eisenhower


(Still, his argument is insane though... I mean being concerned about shocking the world when...)

[musik_man]

More people died in the fire bombing of Tokyo, than did in Hiroshima or Nagasaki.  Anyone who complains about them is rather silly.  If you want to be intellectually coherent, you need to bash us for Tokyo and Dresden too.

I'd also like to add that it's rather easy to second guess decisions that were made 60 years ago in a war that killed 60 million people.  It hardly makes you some great champion of human rights.  Particularly if your only opinions on world affairs today consist of being mad at Bush for removing old Uncle Saddamn.

Things America did wrong

-kept up agricultural subsidies
-entered WWI
-did not allow mass immigration of Jews prior to WWII
-waited too long to enter WWII
-were much too easy on the Soviets after WWII( in allowing Moscow to cover Eastern Europe with puppet gov'ts)
-won't go batsh*t insane against Europe and Canada for price-fixing prescription drugs

[musik_man]

The immoral part is throwing out people that have already settled here. People that have spend their childhood here, teenagers or young adults that have dutch as their primary language. Sometimes these people need to go back to Iraq or afganistan while they can't even speak the language or remeber ever living in those countries.

Are people born in the Netherlands not automatically citizens?  (That's how it works in the US)

[mikey6]

Does that mean we should nuke America?

Remind me not to vote for you if you ever run for parliament 

I meant that solely as a response to the previous question about why dropping the bomb was wrong and if Kelly_kelly had an answer ot it in her report.  I didn't say and would not say to drop a bomb on America!
(and I would never run for parliament anyway)

[prometheus]

Are people born in the Netherlands not automatically citizens?  (That's how it works in the US)

Yes, I think they would be. But if the parents have to leave then the children can't stay.

Sometimes half of the children are and the other half aren't. This means we have children being jailed because their parents are 'illegal'.
 
The problem is that asylum procedures could last up to ten years or more. Also, the current minister tries to throw out as much people as possible. This is because apperently there are a lot of xenophobes and even racists out here. So this person is very popular. Even smart, intergrated and educated people are thrown out. Befehl ist befehl...

It is strange how they wreck their own demographics.

[tyler_johnson]

I'm American, don't get me started.

[00range]

"Elected" a leader that murdered 3000 of his own citizens to spur on and justify a war?

I don't know, but Professor Griffin presents a compelling argument.

[musik_man]

"Elected" a leader that murdered 3000 of his own citizens to spur on and justify a war?

I don't know, but Professor Griffin presents a compelling argument.

hahahahahaha

Go read the popular mechanics article I linked to in the conspiracy thread...

BTW Dr. Griffin is a theologian.  Why would you trust him on analyzing engineering concepts?

[prometheus]

It's often that theologians 'go nuts' in the sciences claiming to be authorities on the subject.

[pekko]

1. Killed far too many in civilwar
2. Antti "Walrus" Muurinen coached the national football team far too long

[prometheus]

More people died in the fire bombing of Tokyo, than did in Hiroshima or Nagasaki.  Anyone who complains about them is rather silly.  If you want to be intellectually coherent, you need to bash us for Tokyo and Dresden too.

Actually, if you use the search option you will find me doing that even on this site, if I remember correctly.

I'd also like to add that it's rather easy to second guess decisions that were made 60 years ago in a war that killed 60 million people.  It hardly makes you some great champion of human rights.

Yes, it is already harder to critisize a war in contemporary times. But you are right, these acts were so obviously wrong that it does not make one a human rights champion. But there are still people out there that don't.

[00range]

hahahahahaha

Go read the popular mechanics article I linked to in the conspiracy thread...

BTW Dr. Griffin is a theologian.  Why would you trust him on analyzing engineering concepts?

First, to answer your question: I don't know him, or his knowledge in the field of engineering, or lack thereof; I wouldn't trust him. Additionally, in his closing, he asks people to not trust him, but to go out and research to form their own conclusions.

Did you listen the entire speech? Much of what he touches on has nothing to do with engineering. The points he brought up on the alternating and sometime contradicting statements put out by the government on the issue of why exactly the planes weren't shot down. In particular, the plane that crashed into the pentagon. I also thought he brought up a good point as to why the Secret Service didn't whisk the President away to a safe location at word of terrorists striking major locations in the US.

However, as you say, he isn't an expert, and even if he was, I wouldn't trust him without supporting evidence. My view was merely that of all of the conspiracy theory presentations put forth to date, I thought his summarized the general views in such a way as, opposed to such videos that employ scare tactics and other cheap tricks (off the top of my head, "Loose Change" comes to mind), his was more along the line of putting forth what he believes is evidence that the US government is involved in foul play.

Do you have any links, or reccomended reading that touches on two issues I pointed out above? (I have already read a bit on the engineering aspect of the fall of the Twin Towers, I would love to speak personally with the architecht) I would be most grateful if so.

[musik_man]

First, to answer your question: I don't know him, or his knowledge in the field of engineering, or lack thereof; I wouldn't trust him. Additionally, in his closing, he asks people to not trust him, but to go out and research to form their own conclusions.

Did you listen the entire speech? Much of what he touches on has nothing to do with engineering. The points he brought up on the alternating and sometime contradicting statements put out by the government on the issue of why exactly the planes weren't shot down. In particular, the plane that crashed into the pentagon. I also thought he brought up a good point as to why the Secret Service didn't whisk the President away to a safe location at word of terrorists striking major locations in the US.

However, as you say, he isn't an expert, and even if he was, I wouldn't trust him without supporting evidence. My view was merely that of all of the conspiracy theory presentations put forth to date, I thought his summarized the general views in such a way as, opposed to such videos that employ scare tactics and other cheap tricks (off the top of my head, "Loose Change" comes to mind), his was more along the line of putting forth what he believes is evidence that the US government is involved in foul play.

Do you have any links, or reccomended reading that touches on two issues I pointed out above? (I have already read a bit on the engineering aspect of the fall of the Twin Towers, I would love to speak personally with the architecht) I would be most grateful if so.

I actually did watch all 80 minutes of it.  When he isn't making bad engineering calls, he's pointing out tribbling things and claiming that they prove that our government attacked us.  "The terrorists hit the less useful wing of the Pentagon.  They would've inflicted more casualties on the right wing.  This proves that it couldn't have been a terrorist attack."  Pardon me when I call bullsh*t on that.  The whole presentation is like that.  Give a scenario.  Give a reason why it does not jive perfectly with the terrorist theory.  Proclaim it as evidence that the government did it.  He has pretty much no positive evidence of US involvement. 

A US prosecutor knew 6 weeks ahead after being tipped of by FBI agentsf.  (and isn't it convenient that those two FBI agents wouldn't go public and that the prosecutor didn't inform the media until after the event.)  No way to tell if he didn't just make all that up about the FBI agents.  Most of the non-engineering objections fare exactly as the engineering ones do.  They give a plausible claim of what could have happened, but one that doesn't hold up to analysis.

Other objections are just silly.  He thinks it implausible that 19 men could hijack the planes with only box cutters and finds it suspicious that the US Air Force didn't take down the hijacked planes.  Unfortunately, this is only implausible if you look through the situation with a post 9-11 worldview.  Up till then the standard airline-hijacking procedure was to aquiesce to any demands until the plane landed.  I read dozens of articles in the 90's about chemical terrorism, bioglical warfare, dirty bombs, or even cyber--warfare.  Using planes as weapons in that manner caught the whole system off guard.

The most telling thing about this conspiracy theory is how deep he thinks it runs.  Theoretically, if Bush got some special agents(ignoring the fact that no members of the US Special Forces would ever pull off an attack on US citizens) and pulled 9-11, he'd have a chance in hell of keeping it quiet.  But to imagine that it could involve as many governmental agencies and still be kept under wraps is looney.  Think of how many NSA or CIA programs have been leaked to the media in the past couple years.  Most of those programs are supported by the majority of Americans, but even then the information works its way out into the public.  How on earth could the murder of 3,000 civilians not cause any stir in the government.  Perhaps it's plausible if you think of the US as some sort of facist state...

BTW "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's oil" is a gem. 

[chriskarma]

we had a land war instead of bombing the homophobic , mysogynistic, anti semitic
bigots into the stone age where they belong.
Our national election was a "choice" of rich white yalie or a richer white yalie
who killed people in an unjust war.

But the absolute worse thing my country has ever done is that abombination
...AMERICAN IDOL

[musik_man]

we had a land war instead of bombing the homophobic , mysogynistic, anti semitic
bigots into the stone age where they belong.
Our national election was a "choice" of rich white yalie or a richer white yalie
who killed people in an unjust war.

But the absolute worse thing my country has ever done is that abombination
...AMERICAN IDOL

Didn't Britain start all the idol shows?

[jas]

Didn't Britain start all the idol shows?

Yep. But they're nowhere near as big a deal here as in America. I saw a bit of American Idol once and couldn't believe it. They were out performing to the people, getting the "keys" to their home towns (whatever that means), all that. Here they get slagged off by Simon Cowell, ridiculed in the press, have a flop career and are forgotten about within minutes. Ah, the fickle world of fame...

I think I've found my objective in life: the global eradication of reality TV. It's a worthy cause, I think.

Jas