Imagine a world without religion......

UU

(Richard Dawkins mentioned this imagine in his book "The God Delusion" - simple yet powerful, thus I was inspired by it.)

Zillah

Haha, brilliant. I'm sure someone will find a way to be personally offended by that

EDIT:

Then again, I think it is a bit disingenuous. People do crazy shit all the time without religion. Hiroshima was nuked for military, political and (some say) scientific reasons. Religion isn't the only source of horrendous thinking.

stevejazzx

Zillah wrote:

Haha, brilliant. I'm sure someone will find a way to be personally offended by that

EDIT:

Then again, I think it is a bit disingenuous. People do crazy shit all the time without religion. Hiroshima was nuked for military, political and (some say) scientific reasons. Religion isn't the only source of horrendous thinking.

Yeah but in fairness Zillah do you honestly think that nuking on scientific grounds is a sustainable activity for any organisation. I agree with that religon isn't the only source but it is currently the most potent.

Zillah

stevejazzx wrote:

I agree with that religon isn't the only source but it is currently the most potent.

Yes, but the statement "Imagine a world without religion" coupled with standing twin towers gives an unfair message. It implies that without religion there'd be no extremely violent acts, which is just untrue. Were there no religion a group of secular political activist could have taken out the twin towers in response to the US' international policies.

I agree with the notion that religion is a massive force of potentially violent extremism, but I don't agree with the tactic used in the above poster.

Playboy

Maybe the twin towers and new york wouldnt be there if it wasnt for religion? Dont forget how much influence religion has had in the shaping of civilization. Yes religious extremism is a problem that needs to be solved but the answer isnt in eradicating religion completely.

Zillah

Playboy wrote:

Maybe the twin towers and new york wouldnt be there if it wasnt for religion? Dont forget how much influence religion has had in the shaping of civilization.

For the poster to make any sense we must assume it reads "Imagine a world where religion magically vanished shortly before 9/11". If there was never any religion then society would look absolutely nothing like it does now, at all.

Yes religious extremism is a problem that needs to be solved but the answer isnt in eradicating religion completely.

Its an answer. Assuming the method of eradication is education and open minded liberalism, then yes, it is very much an answer to religious extremism. I fully believe that religion once served a purpose, but these days its an ugly pointless thing.

Asiaprod

Zillah wrote:

agree with the notion that religion is a massive force of potentially violent extremism, but I don't agree with the tactic used in the above poster.

Nice to see I am not the only one.

UU, I for one am not amused with this latest stunt of yours. Please do not do it again.
Out of curiosity, how do you manage to gush all sweetly while disscussing muslims with say maitri in Christianity and then come here and post this stuff. At least try to be consistent in your criticism, or lack of.

Zillah

Asiaprod wrote:

UU, I for one am not amused with this latest stunt of yours. Please do not do it again.

As a Libertarian I'd argue that he should be able to say it regardless. I've given my counter point, and I think its a good one. Rather than silence one party, allow the entire thing to be seen by observers and the valid argument will sway the most

aidan24326

Zillah wrote:

Yes, but the statement "Imagine a world without religion" coupled with standing twin towers gives an unfair message. It implies that without religion there'd be no extremely violent acts, which is just untrue. Were there no religion a group of secular political activist could have taken out the twin towers in response to the US' international policies.
I agree with the notion that religion is a massive force of potentially violent extremism, but I don't agree with the tactic used in the above poster.

I'm with you on this one. To suggest that religion was the only cause/motivating factor in 9/11 is indeed disingenuous. For a start we don't know for sure who was really behind it or what their motivation was. Whoever the perpetrators their motivations were likely to be a mix of powerlust/greed/political gain etc. as much as religion.

With possible involvement by any one (or combination of) the Bush Administration/Israeli Mossad/Muslim Fanatics/Major Corporate interests/whoever else etc. we can assume that religious motivations were probably woven into the fabric of it at some level (though impossible to know to what extent) But I agree that the picture above is somewhat misleading in attempting to over-simplify something that may have been a good deal more complex than just a few Muslim crazies wanting to teach the yanks a lesson.

Asiaprod

Zillah wrote:

As a Libertarian I'd argue that he should be able to say it regardless. I've given my counter point, and I think its a good one. Rather than silence one party, allow the entire thing to be seen by observers and the valid argument will sway the most

I have no problem in what UU is saying, he is entitled to his opinion. I have a problem with posting the image. It does not tell the truth, it can be too easily misunderstood, and will definitly be seen as offensive by certain individuals.

Beruthiel

I'm of the belief that Osama used religion as a political move when taking out the twin towers.
If religion didn't exist, I'm quite sure he would have come up with something else and he would also have found people insane enough to do his bidding, no matter what the reasons. It was always all about the politics.

robindch

> I'm quite sure he would have come up with something else and he
> would also have found people insane enough to do his bidding.

Perhaps, but it's a lot, lot harder to get willing recruits if the potential recruits have a history of thinking the consequence of actions through on their own; if there's no 100% guarantee that there's 72 virgins waiting for in paradise after the attack and no 100% guarantee from a wise man with a bushy beard that the recruits are doing god's will.

> I'm of the belief that Osama used religion as a political move when taking out the twin towers.

Religion has very few uses other than the political.

kippy

Maybe the twin towers and new york wouldnt be there if it wasnt for religion? Dont forget how much influence religion has had in the shaping of civilization. Yes religious extremism is a problem that needs to be solved but the answer isnt in eradicating religion completely.

100% agree with this.
The starting post in this thread isnt exactly well balanced. Posting a picture without commenting on it is as good as treating the post as a joke.
Its as likely to suggest that New York would not be what it is today without religion. Who knows?
All the bad things in the world are not caused by religion. Religious extremism, which is preached by guys who would find another excuse to hate someone anyway, is the real problem.
Were it not for religion the world could well be a far worse place.
Kippy

Beruthiel

robindch wrote:

[Ithere's no 100% guarantee that there's 72 virgins waiting for in paradise after the attack and no 100% guarantee from a wise man with

According to Dawkins, that was translated incorrectly and it's actually 72 pieces of white stone, boy are they going to be disappointed

I don't deny that it would be more difficult to recruit, but I have no doubt it could be done.
History tells us how religion has been used over and over again to whip up the troups, nearly all for political reasons.

Rev Hellfire

robindch wrote:

> Perhaps, but it's a lot, lot harder to get willing recruits if the potential recruits have a history of thinking the consequence of actions through on their own; if there's no 100% guarantee that there's 72 virgins waiting for in paradise after the attack and no 100% guarantee from a wise man with a bushy beard that the recruits are doing god's will.

Equally there's the reverse of this argument, that if there's nothing after death, then any action can be performed without fear of retribution.
Its worth noting that the motivation of the bombers (and quite a number of the foreign elements in Iraq for example) are closer to nationalism in thinking.
Their grievance is against the perceived aggression against the Islamic nation as a whole, and focused on US/Western exploitation of Islamic nations. People will always return to their instinctive tribalism in the end and a lack of religion would not prevent this.

Dades

Rev Hellfire wrote:

People will always return to their instinctive tribalism in the end and a lack of religion would not prevent this.

I tend to agree with this and what some of the others have echoed above.

I too am somewhat bemused at the group hugs with maitri in Christianity and UUs other posts here.

mountainyman

Beruthiel wrote:

According to Dawkins, that was translated incorrectly and it's actually 72 pieces of white stone, boy are they going to be disappointed

I read that it is 72 white Dates (though as you have all eternity 72 dates won't cut it.)



I am not sure what the purpose of posting the WTC photo is are we all supposed to be sad that they were blown up? Because I'm not and the reasons have nothing to do with religion.

MM

Dades

mountainyman wrote:

I am not sure what the purpose of posting the WTC photo is are we all supposed to be sad that they were blown up? Because I'm not and the reasons have nothing to do with religion.

Did you own empty office space in Manhatten or what stretch of logic allows you to say that?

mountainyman

Cantor Fitzgerald was (and is) one of the world's main traders in third world debt.

Dades

mountainyman wrote:

Cantor Fitzgerald was (and is) one of the world's main traders in third world debt.

So you're not bothered so many people died because Cantor Fitzgerald's business was disrupted?
Seriously have some perspective.

pH

The Atheist wrote:

So you're not bothered so many people died because Cantor Fitzgerald's business was disrupted?
Seriously have some perspective.

Sheesh, everyone *knows* that the whole thing was a CIA/NSA/zionist/Pentagon/Knights Templar plot. They weren't even planes that crashed, they were US missiles with holographic cloaks to look like planes.

mountainyman

The Atheist wrote:

So you're not bothered so many people died because Cantor Fitzgerald's business was disrupted?
Seriously have some perspective.

3000 isn't that many.

robindch

> 3000 isn't that many.

I'm gobsmacked. Can we take it you approve of murder then?

aidan24326

pH wrote:

Sheesh, everyone *knows* that the whole thing was a CIA/NSA/zionist/Pentagon/Knights Templar plot. They weren't even planes that crashed, they were US missiles with holographic cloaks to look like planes.

pH I don't know why you would joke about it like that. Indeed there are many conspiracies flying around (as usual) some plain wacky and some a good deal more plausible. Bottom line is we don't know who or what was behind 9/11 so that's what makes the picture above unfair and misleading in suggesting that this was religiously motivated and nothing else. Maybe it was, but we don't know and may never know.

Mountainyman wrote:

Cantor Fitzgerald was (and is) one of the world's main traders in third world debt

That's very clever Mountainyman. Take out 3,000 people, most of them just ordinary people, just to get at Cantor Fitzgerald. A bit like something that 'loving God' of yours might have done, so no big surprise to see such an attitude from one of his disciples.

Dave!

Can mountainyman not be banned for trolling?

pH

aidan24326 wrote:

pH I don't know why you would joke about it like that. Indeed there are many conspiracies flying around (as usual) some plain wacky and some a good deal more plausible. Bottom line is we don't know who or what was behind 9/11 so that's what makes the picture above unfair and misleading in suggesting that this was religiously motivated and nothing else. Maybe it was, but we don't know and may never know

That's utter crap.

We know exactly what was behind 9/11, planes flown by a group of people with a grudge against the US and loosely affiliated with a terrorist movement called Al Quaida crashed into the twin towers and the pentagon.

There are no other plausible theories, just the ravings of nutters and those with axes to grind.

As for why I'd joke about these loonies? well because beliefs so dumb really need to be mocked.

Beruthiel

mountainyman wrote:

3000 isn't that many.

I don't appreciate this kind of trolling mountainman.

aidan24326

pH- only looked at that 'holographic' link now. Silly stuff alright. But loons like that guy only do a disservice to others who have genuinely researched/investigated the events of that day and found a list of inaccuracies, anomalies etc. without resorting to such outlandish claims as holographic planes and ufo's. It's wackos like that who give proper researchers a bad name.

stevejazzx

mountainyman wrote:

3000 isn't that many.

Atheist, wheres that Mod Cap you like to leave at home, I think you may need it.

aidan24326

pH wrote:

That's utter crap.

We know exactly what was behind 9/11, planes flown by a group of people with a grudge against the US and loosely affiliated with a terrorist movement called Al Quaida crashed into the twin towers and the pentagon.

There are no other plausible theories, just the ravings of nutters and those with axes to grind

.

No, what you are saying is utter crap. You claim to know this for sure. I'd like to know how. You must be privy to some very juicy info since even the FBI haven't been able to pin it on anyone beyond the usual rhetoric from Bush and co. that 'al qa'eda did it'. You'll notice that al qa'eda seem to get blamed for everything these days, although we'd barely heard of them pre-9/11. You need to do some homework on the subject before you make such sweeping statements. Yes there are idiots like the hologram man. But there is also a raft of inconsistencies and outright impossibilities in the official version of events. That doesn't prove anything one way or another. But it suggests that the b-movie script we've been fed (as being exactly what happened) is open to serious question. That's all. And there are serious people who have (and are) asking some very awkward questions and getting very few satisfactory answers.

As for why I'd joke about these loonies? well because beliefs so dumb really need to be mocked.

I agree with you on that much anyway.

stevejazzx

pH wrote:

That's utter crap.

We know exactly what was behind 9/11, planes flown by a group of people with a grudge against the US and loosely affiliated with a terrorist movement called Al Quaida crashed into the twin towers and the pentagon.

There are no other plausible theories, just the ravings of nutters and those with axes to grind.

As for why I'd joke about these loonies? well because beliefs so dumb really need to be mocked.

Ph, I like and respect your posts on here but the above is a very narrow view in my opinion of september 11. All anyone has to do is look at American History to see a list of cover ups as long as the great wall of China.
Now, before I am lambasted I am not saying that the American Government perpetuated the 9/11 attacks on it's own people and neither am I saying that it was not the Al Queda but what I am saying is that majors events on the day have not yet been explained most notably:
1.
The apparent controlled demolition of the building, with a growing number of logistical experts post study commenting that:
Based on the current tapes and witness evidence the most likley cause of the buildings collapse is controlled demolition
2.
The is still considerable questions to be answered regarding the Pentagon Site wreckage.
3.
A very odd schedule was in place on 9/11 in relation to air defense, A number aircraft were taking part in flight excercises and tasks at incredibly inconvenient locations.


I find it very hard to believe the Bush Administrations simple explanation of the these events. Post Iraq with no WMD s in sight, except maybe anywhere except Iraq, the controversy over Guantanamo Bay, the Patriot act and a almost certain rigged intial election, how could anyone trust this administration as they continue inflict upon America an increasing climate of fear.
They let there own people die during Hurricane katrina. It is a disgraced adminsitration and to believe in them is blind faith in the democratic nature of western society.

Asiaprod

mountainyman wrote:

3000 isn't that many.

I suggest you have a really good next post in hand to explain what you are on about or you will become the first person to be banned from this forum.
I don't joke.

bonkey

And the Conspiracy Theorists strike again.

bravo.

Dades

stevejazzx wrote:

Atheist, wheres that Mod Cap you like to leave at home, I think you may need it.

Me and my cap were having lunch. Fortunately Asiaprod had his sushi earlier and is wearing his.

stevejazzx

bonkey wrote:

And the Conspiracy Theorists strike again.

bravo.

If by conspiracy you refer to fact the certain people profess a desire to see outstanding questions answered properly then I thank you for your 'bravo'.
I suspect however that if 2 planes flying into buildings piloted by bad guys is your own perception of said events then I would like submit a 'bravo' on my behalf to your good self.

pH

There's nothing like 9/11 to get conspiracy theorists (or crackpots as I like to call them) crawling out of the woodwork.

OMG i read on teh internet there was like squibs and stuff, ya know de U$ government blue da hole lot up with there explosives, like wow!!!

It's easy to see how religions get started, stupid people will believe almost anything if it suits them, despite the evidence right before their eyes.

robindch

Here's a useful site run by a guy in the UK which debunks many of the WTC conspiracy "theories":

http://www.911myths.com/

Just because Bush says the attacks were carried out by some terrorists doesn't automatically mean that it wasn't...

stevejazzx

Since when did someone become a lunatic because they question 9/11, motives, perepetrators, design etc. Is it crazy ot question the JFK assination? Why does anyone questioning the events of that day (9/11) get auto bundled into the nutjob conspiracy theorists group? This is unquetionably the most questionable American administration ever and intellignet opinion you say is to believe them? There seems to be a lot moral posturing going on.

bonkey

stevejazzx wrote:

If by conspiracy you refer to fact the certain people profess a desire to see outstanding questions answered properly then I thank you for your 'bravo'

There are unquestionably outstanding questions. They are not the ones generally being asked, and certainly not the ones thus-far presented in this thread.

My bravo was a reference to the fact that apparently any reference to 911 will bring "Truthers" crawling out of the wodwork. It doesn't matter what the original topic was...like, oh, I dunno, a discussion about what a world without religion would be. Nope...not a tad relevant. As soon as 911 gets mentioned, thats it. Topic over, because all that will be done hereafter is discuss stuff that should be sent to teh Conspiracy Theories forum where it belongs.

I suspect however that if 2 planes flying into buildings piloted by bad guys is your own perception of said events then I would like submit a 'bravo' on my behalf to your good self.

Gosh. Thats original. Having my beliefs assumed and tho9se assumptions then criticised because I said something that wasn't just fanboy adherence to the truth-movement.

Why not just call me a sheep and be done with it?

stevejazzx

bonkey wrote:

Why not just call me a sheep and be done with it?

If I can use the Basil Fawlty defense and say 'you satrted it' by bundling all the conspiracy theorists in together(sheep). No offense meant btw and yes I agree we gone have way off topic.

pH

robindch wrote:

Just because Bush says the attacks were carried out by some terrorists doesn't automatically mean that it wasn't...

Now THAT is funny!

bonkey wrote:

There are unquestionably outstanding questions. They are not the ones generally being asked, and certainly not the ones thus-far presented in this thread.

Agreed. We know almost for certain (there - are you proud of me? I said 'almost') what happened on that day, in terms of who did what, what crashed into what and why things fell down. You could certainly argue that there are questions to be answered about why it happened.

Why can't we have an 'atheists vs 9/11 conspiracy theorists' thread, and split those posts from this one, before they derail this thread completely?

aidan24326

Well said stevejazzx. And to your list of 3 unanswered problems add these.

-Why did Cheney stand down NORAD (air defense) on that morning?

-How did the supposed hijack pilots, who were variously described as mediocre pilots by flight school staff, pull off flight manouvres that professional airline pilots have described as 'high level of difficulty', especially the Pentagon approach?

-How or why did WTC building 7 collapse when it wasn't hit by any planes and experienced no more than small localised fires? Why did firefighters report hearing explosions? Why did Rudy Giuliani say (let slip) that 'they've decided to pull it' ?

-Why did Bush stay in the school reading about goats for another 15 mins when the country was apparently under very serious attack? Why did the secret service not immediately usher him to a safe location? (which is their one and only detail in these situations). How did they know he wasn't a target?

-How did the hijacked planes fly through the (normally) most heavily defended airspace corridor in the whole world for nearly an hour without a single interception? (apart from the probable shootdown of flight 93). This is a key question.

-Why did the hikackers choose flight routes and timelines that would have led to certain interception given normal air defence procedures? Why not just hijack planes from JFK and reach the WTC in a couple of minutes?

-Why was there an airspace war games excercise that put false blips on ATC control screens that morning and put many defence aircraft in inconvenient locations? Coincidence?

-Why has just about every credible expert described the collapse of the towers as being 'almost certainly' controlled demolition? Why has no other steel frame building ever collapsed from fire damage? (the alleged cause of collpase)

-Why was the steel from ground zero removed and disposed of very quickly? Unusual considering it was evidence at a crime scene of mass murder.

-Why are several of the alleged hijackers known to be still alive? (one, a professional pilot with a middle eastern airline, is suing the US government)

-How did the FBI miraculously find Mohammed Atta's passport on the street below, relatively undamaged? Surely a miracle of biblical proprtions.

-How or why did employees of an Israeli firm called Odigo receive warnings of an imminent attack? coincidence?

-Why did several high ranking officials cancel flight plans that morning? coincidence?

-Why did the media give little or no coverage to the scandal of massive insider trading in the days before 9/11? This insider trading (on a large scale) strongly suggests that somebody knew something was going to happen.

-Why were Bush and co. so keen to implicate Iraq despite no evidence of their involvement? (in fact Saddam Hussein strongly denied any links with 9/11, and is ideologically removed from al qa'eda but yet again this was not widely reported)

-How was an extensive paper trail of the alleged hijackers found within hours, depsite that fact that they had supposedly eluded the authorities up to then?

-How could they have named Atta as the ringleader and Bin Laden as the mastermind within hours of the attacks? How was this even remotely possible unless they had adavance warning/foreknowledge?

-Why were some of the supposedly devout hijackers (Atta and 2 others) seen by eyewitnesses in a strip bar drinking and living it up the night before 9/11? Their credit card records (according to FBI investigators) confirmed that they had been there. This would be impossible behaviour for devout muslims about to make the ultimate sacrifice to Allah.

-The towers were said to have collapsed by steel deformation due to intense heat. However burning jet fuel does not burn at the required temp. for this to occur. Major problem?

-Why did New York firefighter Nicholas de Masi claim in a book that black boxes from 3 of the 4 planes were found? The official 9/11 commission claimed no black boxes were found, which would be most unusual if not highly unlikely. Considering the likelihood that at least some were found, why the extreme secrecy on what they contain?

-Why did the passenger manifests released by CNN show none of the alleged hijackers' names?

-Why were all 4 of the hijacked planes unusually empty that morning? According to official figures the passenger levels on all 4 planes were in the region of 30-40% of capacity. strange.

...the list goes on, but maybe pH you'd like to answer some of those questions for me? There are many more questions and not many answers thus far.

Beruthiel

Shouldn't all that be in the conspiracy forum?

aidan24326

True. This is admittedly drifting as far off-topic as those planes were off course. Blame UU for starting it!

pH

aidan24326 wrote:

Well said stevejazzx. And to your list of 3 unanswered problems add these.
<Nonsense snipped>
...the list goes on, but maybe pH you'd like to answer some of those questions for me? There are many more questions and not many answers thus far.

That's just a list of stupid questions, if you really wanted to know the answers to them you could have found them out by now. Hint .. google.

I've got a better idea. Why not actually prepare a brief of what you say explains what happened on sept 11th. Back it up with some evidence, post it in a new thread and I'll ask you 30 questions.

In so many ways it's exactly the same as trying to engage a creationist, lots of dumb questions and speculation as to why evolution is wrong, and yet still refusing to put anything forward themselves.

bonkey

Beruthiel wrote:

Shouldn't all that be in the conspiracy forum?

Not all of it. Some of it belongs in the Creative Writing forum.

Asiaprod

Indeed, this thread has drifting so far off-topic, I can't remember what the topic even was:rolleyes: . Lets keep on topic or the thread gets closed. In other words, this conspiracy has nothing to do with this forum.

aidan24326

pH wrote:

That's just a list of stupid questions, if you really wanted to know the answers to them you could have found them out by now. Hint .. google.

That's right. Because the google master knows everything. You clearly do also. Though I'm not sure what you typed into google. www.thesun.co.uk maybe?

I've got a better idea. Why not actually prepare a brief of what you say explains what happened on sept 11th. Back it up with some evidence, post it in a new thread and I'll ask you 30 questions.

I didn't claim to know what happened on 9/11 beyond the obvious (planes crashed into buildings, towers collapsed etc.) You are the one claiming to have all the answers sorted. The onus of proof is on you. I am only pointing out that there are unanswered questions. You believe what you like.

In so many ways it's exactly the same as trying to engage a creationist, lots of dumb questions and speculation as to why evolution is wrong, and yet still refusing to put anything forward themselves.

Again, I didn't say anything was wrong. I didn't even say that the official 9/11 story is wrong. Maybe it did happen that way. I'm only pointing out some problems with the official version of events and some bits of it that don't add up. I never said it proved or disproved anything. In fact you are the one taking the creationist stance here. You made a sweeping statement that you know exactly what happened on 9/11 who did what, who was behind it etc. Yet you've offered no explanation as to how you arrived at such a definite conclusion given the amount of conflicting and contradictory accounts, misinformation, lies, 'conspiracies', and official cover-up that have surrounded the events of that day.

aidan24326

asiaprod, does this thread actually have a topic?

Asiaprod

aidan24326 wrote:

asiaprod, does this thread actually have a topic?

I have no idea. This thread started with a pointless post and has developed a life with no purpose as far as I can see. In the interest of liberty and freedom of speech I will leave it open for a couple of days in the hope that it develops into something worth while.

mountainyman

I am posting this only because I have been accused of trolling which as I understand it means saying something which one does not believe in order to provoke a response.

This is a restatement of the sequence of events as I understand it.
[1]UU posts his clever picture of the World Trade Centre
[2]I said that I was glad it was blown up and gave Cantor Fitzgerald as the reason
[3]I then claimed that 3000 dead is not that many
[4]DaveMcG asked that I be banned, AsiaProd demanded that I explain myself

[1]UU's picture is stupid. I invite readers to review previous postings should they wish to form a judgement regarding UU himself. If there were no religion we cannot surmise what course human history might have taken; it is unlikely that the World Trade Centre would exist. However the posting has another and more insidious we are invited (in the self congratulatory nature of most of UU's postings) to feel virtuous by contemplating those who died on that day and indulging in some manufactured empathy. I don't want to do that.

[2]Very few of us in the over consuming world are innocent in terms of our relationship with the exploited world. Cantor Fitzgerald at the time it was destroyed was the world's leading 'player' in the trading of discounted 'third world' debt. As such those who worked were consciously complicit in immiserating the world's poorest people to make more money. Are any of us innocent in the first world? Only those who work and act to assist the third world redeem themselves. Even for these people the system of economics in hich we are enmeshed is so vicious that much of what the do is pointless. This is largely because of people like the Cantor Fitzgerald executives and the heads of the other financial institutions formerly based in the World Trade Centre. But of those who died in the World Trade Centre how many were innocent; from the point of view of the world's poor perhaps 1 or 2 if even that. The world is a concentration camp and those of us in the first world are either guards or dissidents. How many of the dead in the World Trade Centre were dissidents. (Not a status I calim for myself-posting on an internet message bulletin board doesn't hack it)

[3]3000 is not that many certainly compared to the 4.5 million killed by the atheist USSR in the Ukraine or the 20 million killed by the atheist People's Republic of China under Mao. I am sorry; I am not UU I can't just turn off my brain and heart and accept the vapid hierarchy of victimhood promoted by George Bush and Richard Dawkins.

[4] This is an explanation. Perhaps I will still be banned.

MM