Michele

Don't worry, Jas....you're hot. hothothothothot. Too young for me, but still....hot! Lara can't say that because she's in love with the personification of gorgeous, but I can. You're a hottie! Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

Hi, Nick. You're not being disrespectful. I thought that perhaps you were looking for an opening, so I asked directly. If you don't want to share your opinion, that's all good. I do have some thoughts on it, but if you noticed, I didn't name any administration - with the exception of a comment about Reagan - and specifically did not because I was more looking at the reasons things are happening from a long view, from a regional perspective - macro v. micro. In something like this, I have found most people know micro (last 5 years generally), but are not aware of the macro influences, the combination of factors, and the historical background which lead up to certain things (in any kind of thing, not just terrorism or 9/11). I will spend more time tonight, if it's what you want, addressing this if you want. Question me all you like, as long as they're honest and real questions - it stimulates my thought process. If I am to understand your question, it is "Did the CIA's actions in the Afghan war circa 1979-189 contribute to OBL's selection of targets in 2001". Is that correct? Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

Pleifer, I have had depression since about 9 years old. I started smoking when I was 17-18. I am clinically depressed, medication controlled. I don't think smoking is a causal issue, if that's what you're looking for. Perhaps it's an effect of situational depression, or transient depression, though. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

Goose, my friend, if you have an opinion, please share it. I've given you my perspective, and if yours differs, please don't hesitate to discuss it. I have to get to my office now, but I look forward to reading your opinion - just my answering it and discussing it may not happen til tonight. Ceils- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

Morning, Goose. I have some opinions about that, but there are still tons of unanswered questions. I'll try, however.... I think there are several levels to the answer. 1. America is the one who, despite the cooperation of the UN, was perceived as the interloper who kicked Hussein out of Kuwait, sullied the sacred sites with women in the military, and so forth. The issue seems to stem more from a religious point rather than a convenience point, if you take into consideration who is the one who backed Israel (the great "but for..." question. But for the Brits, there would be no Israel. And but for the US's backing of Israel, Israel would not have been able to survive until now). 2. Israel has an immediate response mechanism in place - the shoot first/ask later concept. They are closer to the region, and they have more boots on the ground (ie intel) then we do in the hotspots. They would be able to retaliate in time to prevent any 'escaping', should any be need to be done (although they - OBL and the head guys - were well away before any of that.). 3. Israel is used to, sadly, handling terrorism. Consider El Al, consider the daily bombings. The impact would be far less - both in terms of death as well as destructon - if one would attack Israel. The attack had less of a chance to fail if it were with the US. Additionally, what large, high profile building was in Israel that would be similar to the WTC? None, really. 4. The softness of the targets here, the surprise and "shock and awe" would be far more if one attacked the US. Furthermore, how many countries have cameras trained on large buildings, which would immediately flash the footage around the world? We had never suffered this sort of thing, and to be able to pull it off would provide "street cred" to AQ as an organization, as well as promote OBL as the head of the jihad, the most effective terrorist, and one who deserved more funding, more people, and more respect. I think it's a combination of the above, as well as the "glam" aspect of the primary target (NYC) and the political and public insanity which would occur if the last two planes did the damage they were intended to (Pentagon, White House). Additionally, keep in mind the original death estimate was something on the order of 50,000; the Towers were able to withstand, for the most part, the initial attack, and allowed thousands upon thousands to flee the buildings before they collapsed. Had they immediately - or shortly - collapsed, indeed, the death toll would have been 50,000 or thereabouts. Imagine that. OBL imagined that...thank God it didn't happen. And lastly, OBL has a tendency to finish what he started. There had been several failed attempts at terrorist attacks which he later came back to repeat. An example is the USS Cole - there was an attempted and aborted plot to do the same thing to either another ship or to the Cole previously. Since it didn't work the first time, he did it again. Same thing with WTC. Israel was not as easily attacked, would be more harshly defended, and would have had far less value on several levels than NYC. I do honestly believe that the plan was originally just NYC, but was expanded to include the Pentagon, White House, and possibly other targets as well. Does that help clear up my position a bit, Goose? Nope, "fuckwad" is my way of saying as much as I have researched and learned and read and watched and thought about things, I just can't get into OBL's head sufficiently to know, for sure, what his motivations are. Someone may have killed his goldfish when he was four, and now he's a fuckwad. I don't "know" - and I could be completely wrong about absolutely everything... Ciels- Michele edited to add the fuckwad part (I forgot to add it earlier. Sorry).... ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

Good grief, don't be guilty. You asked, with honest intent, for my opinion, and I gave it. However long I chose to write - well, that was my choice. Glad you could learn something, or see something in a new light or from a new perspective. The fact that I am somewhat longwinded is my problem...LOL! When you do have time, I'd be glad for a pm with your perspective. No problem. And thanks for asking. I don't think it's a waste of bandwidth, either. Good luck on the first day of a new job - and we'll talk some other time. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

I bid $40 in jt - a jump date, as it were. Hah! Top that, ladies! (and those men who choose to wager!) And remember, all I have to go on is "his" avatar. But that's all right - I don't have an avatar either! Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

We could start....but, um, let's not. (That made me laugh out loud - thanks!). LOLOL! Ciels- MIchele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

Oh great. A proposal from Pennywise the Clown...sigh...well, have you ever considered why I have no avatar? It's because I am invisible! And loling at RJF....tell ya what. We need to jump together. And Jeanne, I didn't use the Fword. I used a derivitive of it. HA! I just edited another post for cursing, so when you said that, I couldn't remember what I had said! LOL... Glad you all enjoyed it. Hopefully, it will show some folks that history will tell us what's gone on, if we take the time, look for the genesis of things, and apply independent thought. 'Course, that tends to take the fun outta arguing sometimes, too. We've never had a thread about the Balfour treaty, you know?? LOLOL! Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

Love you, Lew.... Can I have Sparky give you the check? Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

Can we meet first? Glad to share my opinion and some things I've learned along the way. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

I can't be there - surgery set for the 4th, so I will prolly not be able to handle the car trip, and certainly no jumps for a while (lest something fall out). But can I make the $25 fee and maybe some additional raffle tickets, and get a tee shirt? I'll give MJOSparky a check, all right? Who can he give it to? And who should I make it out to? Damn it, damn it, damn it. I can't be there. My family needs me, and I can't be there. Sorry, loves. Please, lew, hug everyone for me. Drat. Drat darn darn drat. Phooey and bafooey and geesh! Ceils - unhappy ceils. Big teary unhappy ceils. Michele Edited because swearing isn't my usual form of expression as Lew pointed out...thanks, Lew...I just am so disheartened that I can't be there. Dratphooybafooeypoo. ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

Phew! Dinner's done, the phone's stopped ringing (for the moment, anyway)....and on to the questions you asked me. Where to start.... I actually think things started back in November of 1917, with the Balfour Letter/Treaty. It was the first step which began a long road of Jewish repatriation of Israel/Palestine. Britain endorsed the concept of partition in 1937, but with the advent of WW11, and the need to have a larger allied base in the Mideast, the Brits tried to back out of the agreement in 1939. This was a horrendously tumultuous time, and things were happening (the anihilation of the Jews) that were not known widely. (suggested research on Ben-Gurion - far too much to put in here.) In 1948, Israel successfully pressed the Balfour agreement to an end which gave them a homeland. Some people believe that once the extent of the Jewish blood spilled became widely known and understood, there was a groundswell of sympathy, and this assisted in the creation of Israel. In 1949, Israel joined the UN. ~~~~ Hold that thought... ~~~~ Wahhabism is a form of militant Islam. Some 300 years ago, Muhammed Ibn Abd al-Wahhab came the desert of Arabia, and he became something of an outcast to his family (circa 1737). He immediately began public preaching with calls to his strict version of Islam. (I am still unsure of where he developed his views, tho. Sorry.) At this time, the Ottoman Empire had governed in Arabia as an Islamic government,a nd had passed it's apex. It was declining, failing. Wahhab argued that the decline was caused by insufficient adherence to Islamic fundamentals. These were irrational, of course, but the fact that the Empire was failing nevertheless fueled a revolution of purism expressed in Wahhabism. Subsequently, this created a significant following of Wahhabism, which was strict, fundamentalistic, and extreme in it's behaviors. Wahhabism enforced strict forms of prayer and a recommitment to the Islamic faith a second time, to Wahhabism. (another way to see it is similar to the practices of Bar/Bat Mitzveh, Communion, and Baptism). Additionally, from what I understand, as Islam springs from both the Old and New Testaments, and has lots of similarities to "western religion", Wahhabism also called for the focus to go back to Allah, and not so much on Mohammed (Mohammed was only Allah's spokesman, in effect). As these things go, because Wahhab stated that the fall from power was due to a lack of religious faith, a very strong contingent grew with that thought as primary. Hundreds of years of indoctrination within Saudi Arabia, Wahhabism holds some of the political high cards. From what I understand (and I could be wrong) the royal House of Saud, a centuries-old dynasty, is Wahhabist. The royal House of Saud includes all the tribal divisions in Saudi Arabia, and Wahhabism is the root of their religious tradition. Religion is by far the dominant governance theme in Saudi Arabia. All laws, ordinances, and culture comes from a religious perspective, rather than a democratic one. Further, Wahhabism teaches that one must be prepared to die in the attempt to expand - or indeed simply preserve - itself, be intolerant of any and all other religions, and to kill when warranted to accomplish the goal of expansion. Additionally, Wahhabism differs from Islam in other ways, some of which include the concept that the observance of ritual is more important than intentions. An example of that is to not observe all the prescribed times for prayer is to be condemned as an unbeliever. If you don't do it right, you don't believe. Simple as that. Also, prayer through the Prophet is not permitted. That is considered idolatry. Compare that with the christian or jewish traditions, or even with mainstream islam, and you have a stark comparison. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ O.K., back to Israel... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ When Israel was established, it threatened the status quo, and alienated many surrounding countries. They saw it as a significant threat not only because land was given to them, but because of their religion. And to make matters worse, the Jewish culture changed from a predominantly MidEastern one, but because of the return of the jews from around the world, it became a melting pot, a society which women are allowed to be without headcoving in public, where women are allowed to vote, to own property, and so forth. Further, it was a democratic society similar to the US (perhaps then I should rightly call it a representative republic), which was 180 degrees from surrounding countries. And this was a huge threat. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Let's add a third thread to this ever lengthening discourse, shall we? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The creation of a terrorist must take many steps and a certain personality. The only time in history where there were mass suicide bombings was Japan in the end stages of WW11. There have been many studies done on what sort of person becomes a terrorist, and the main ingredients seem to be: ~Humiliation ~Alienation ~isolation (outcast-ism) ~Authoritarian personality The last is more of a personality trait rather than a "happening". In the authoritarian personality, there is a balance of both submission and aggression - submission to someone/something for answers and guidance, a strict adherence to ritual and formalities, and aggression to those who are perceived as less than they, or a threat to their existence which must be done away with or terminated. Putting it this way: Joe has the authoritarian personality. Yet, the person who he looks to for answers and guidance rejects him in some way (add humiliation), Joe feels less than he is, and perceives himself to not have self worth (add isolation). Over a period of time, this isolation seperates Joe from the rest of what he knows (add outcast). Through it all, Joe is looking to have the authority figure replaced in his life, to have acceptance (as we all need) and belong, and to have an outlet for the aggression he feels. We have seen this in the US in the people of Tim McVeigh, David Koresh, Jim Jones, and many others. What we haven't seen here is the aspects of state run religion, said religion being a strict form of Wahhabism. Another form of bonding, or acceptance, is the religious ritual. Wahhabism has many strict rituals, most of which I don't know. But the bonding in that arena is huge (as it is with any organized religion). ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Background done (aren't you glad?? ROFL...) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I am going to assume you don't need a rehash of all of OBL's actions leading up to 2001 and AQ's formation. Let me know if you do.... One of the interesting things I find about OBL is he has experienced rejection and isolation over and over again, and not just from his father. OBL has nations kicking him out, telling him he is unwanted. Because he still wants to be part of his homeland, he perceives things as "the interloper's fault"...and who would the interloper be? Israel, and the US. He can't be upset with Saudi Arabia, the Sudan. He still cared about being accepted, and about being able to expand Wahhabism. That was his home, his turf. He can't hate them...so who can he direct this anger to?? Israel. But maybe not. Israel is the big kid on the block, because they have a significant military which has shown itself to be willing to strike harshly and immediately - Israel's motto is "shoot now, ask later", and it's worked because they are still there. And make no mistake, everyone knows Israel has nukes, and may well use them should they feel threatened enough. No, who's behind Israel? Who backs them? Britain (Balfour) and the US. Now, add to all of this Iraq's invasion to Kuwait. And the US's actions in turning Hussein out of Kuwait. Now imagine what OBL thought: those damned interlopers coming into his neighborhood, violating the sacred spots of Islam and Wahhab. Flaunting the tenets of Wahhabism, desecration abounding. (OBL is an extreme kinda guy, you know? He doesn't think like you or I do....). His anger is piqued...and his direction focussed. It is far more than an "I burned my dinner" kind of anger, it is an affront to Allah, an insult to his god. And if he can't help his god - and can't expand Wahhabism - then he is failing as a religious person, as well. 1993 - WTC first try. But, why the towers? Why NYC? NYC is the mecca for commercialism. It is the place people go to be "stars". It is a drawing card worldwide - like the song says, "if you can make it there, you can make it anywhere." While I dunno if OBL can quote Sinatra, that song is widely known for a reason - it embodies the perception of the rest of the world. NYC is the personification of materialism. I've been there several times, but before I went, I knew where I wanted to go shop - just because I could say "I bought this on 5th Ave." It is the center of the western world's money trading system (Wall Street). It houses the soap operas, the theatre. It really symbolizes, to many people, what America is about. So the first attack didn't go well. Less than a dozen died. So OBL regrouped, and, with the help of Ramsy Yousef, developed a strategy (check out Project Bojinka). That failed plot germinated the concept of planes as missles...and what better target than the WTC? Heck, while they're at it, might only get one shot, let's assassinate the President and take out their war center so they cannot retaliate. Imagine for a moment, if you will, compounding the tragedy of 9/11 with the additional burden and confusion of a dead president and no centralized communication for the US military. Had that occurred, you would have seen so much panic so widespread and deep it would not have been easily assuaged. Remember when Reagan was shot? No one knew who was in power; remember Al Haig? Yeah. But now add to that no quick answer, and no military command. Big problems....bigger than I can wrap my head around. There are pages and pages I could write about it. Above you have years of thought and research. I could add many many more examples, expound and expand ad nauseum...but I'm tired, this has taken about 2 hours to write up, and my fingers hurt.... So why did OBL choose those targets? Symbolization, attempt at the largest strike he could, death to as many people as possible with the least amount of death to his AQ, destruction symbolic to his perception of destruction in his homeland and surrounding environs, and a fiery hatred borne from and fueled by years of anger, fundamentalist wahhabism, and rejection... Or, alternatively, OBL could just be a fuckwad. Hey, when I get to Ireland, Ian, can I jump with you? That'd be fun. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

The entire comment, sir, was: "It would seem that without understanding the circumstances, one could claim many different things. I am looking to see what happened. I suspect you are not able to give me the specifics needed to demonstrate that we can lay this at the feet of the US Military. And because of that, I consider the total "8000" spurious, inflammatory, and unsupportable." Changes things when you read my entire statement, I think. Given that the statistics from the site you linked is also the site I linked and excerpted, and it said that there are 10% deaths in Bahgdad from gunshots prior the military action, and now it runs at 60% - and it prominantly stated that most of those are not US caused...I can only wonder if you really are reading things, or just grabbing what supports your comment. And I repeat...(and it's getting rather boring to be so repetitive): why haven't you bothered to answer the question I asked, but want an answer to a question you asked? I have answered you as best I can without being able to really source and verify the information...and I expect the same from you. I don't think that's too much to ask. But at this point, I suspect it is too much to ask. Which is, of course, a pity, but demonstrates simply you are not looking to debate but rather argue and soapbox stand. I promised someone I'd give you a chance, and I've kept my word. However, at this point, further discussion with you seems to have hit a wall...considering you haven't answered my (and others) question. Oh well. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

Chunky Monkey and Cherry Garcia. Fruit and chocolate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! As for cookie dough, the best I've ever had is the chocolate chip cookie dough I make from scratch...save out a bit, cook the rest. Freeze the dough, thaw it out, and eat it that way. Yeahbob! Ceils- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

I'm sure you sourced it, but I can't find it. Can you do so again? I ran a search here for "8000", and this is the first post it comes up today. Thanks.... I also ran a search for Iraqi civilian dead (nothing showed up on "8000 innocent iraqi people"), and found this link. It speaks of Baghdad, and has significantly less numbers than what you stated. here I can't vouch for the accuracy, nor the site's veracity. Excerpted: "Although the majority of deaths are the result of Iraqi on Iraqi violence, some were directly caused by US military fire." and... "Another worrying development is that during the pre-war period deaths from gunshot wounds accounted for approximately 10% of bodies brought to the morgue, but now account for over 60% of those killed. The small number of reports available for other cities indicate that these trends are being mirrored elsewhere in the country." Additonally, there is a comment about the Geneva Conventions /protection civilian from force...but they didn't cite a specific article nor section. I can't look it up if I don't know where I'm looking. Can you cite it for me? I have several questions.... ~Please can you re-link the source for your figures? ~What are the other 40% of the deaths caused by? ~What exact percentage is from the US military, and are true civilians - not those who simply dress as civilians, but actual non-military folks? ~What percentage is from US military? ~What is the ratio of provoked v. unprovoked? (for example, the lady walking her dog down the street, and is shot and killed bu US military, v. the lady walking up to a roadblock and taking her gun out and shooting at a US service person?) It would seem that without understanding the circumstances, one could claim many different things. I am looking to see what happened. I suspect you are not able to give me the specifics needed to demonstrate that we can lay this at the feet of the US Military. And because of that, I consider the total "8000" spurious, inflammatory, and junsupportable. OH! And why haven't you bothered to answer the question I asked, but want an answer to a question you asked? I have answered you as best I can without being able to really source and verify the information...and I expect the same from you. I don't think that's too much to ask. Is it? Ceils- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

Why, you're quite welcome. Back to the original question (uh, what was it again?) I just got back in from a bit of a hairy day, and need to get dinner into my belly (and my cats' bellies...). I'll be back with why I think AQ chose the targets they did, and the reasons I think they formed in the first place. Gimme a few hours, and I'll post. Ceils- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

Rosa, did he plead guilty to a sexual battery/attempted rape, or simple assault and battery? My advice will depend on that. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

Tell ya what, Ian. When I get home from work (later this evening), I will try to share my understanding of the situation, personal opinion and all. I dunno if it's right, or if I'm even close, but I'll try to explain what I see going on. Can you, though, give me your thoughts - you seem well read, and willing to have an honest exchange - as to why it happened? I will accept your personal opinion, as well. Mybe explain the economic policies you reference and their impact, or something like that. Deal? In the meantime, everyone, let's try to keep this civil, so I don't have a deleted post or locked post to contend with... Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

Yes. Quite. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

O.K., I can follow that. But what do you think those reasons/somethings are? I really do want to understand this, if I can. Worry not about articulation. Sometimes I think that I just string a bunch of words together, but then my thought gets lost in there! LOL!!! Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

So you, despite making a judgment about who should/should not be killed, without knowing the reasons AQ determined those targets, decided that there were better targets? What problems are the AQ addressing? What problems do the AQ have? If you don't know that, then why did you make your statement? I'm a bit befuddled on your logic here. Can you help clear it up? As to your question, yes, there is never a justifiable reason to target, attack, and terminate nearly 3000 people who are not in a war zone, and who are not enlisted in the military. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

Andrew, stop looking to twist what I am saying. What specifically are the sources of the problems the AQ has?? That's the pending question. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

No, he accused you of being "bogus." Definition here. I say this whole post is about you being right. It's childish, you know? Take it to him in pms, work it out in private, and handle it with some class. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

So what is the source of their problems? I am really curious as to your answer. I will not assume you mean the president. But who/what is the source of the problems? BTW, killing innocent people is what terrorism is about. Otherwise, it would be a war. Ciels- Micehle ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~