|
|
Post by Eddie on Apr 28, 2006 8:14:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Noah on Apr 29, 2006 4:00:14 GMT -5
Interesting video, indeed. Obviously, it was made with a clear agenda, manipulating information to suit its goal, implying connections which are questionable at best, making unfounded assumptions, presenting only one side (or one interpretation) of any event, and pretending to understand science (a personal pet peeve).
Still, within this propaganda, the video does raise interesting questions. Nobody can deny that after the nation (mostly) recovered from the emotional trauma of 9-11, a lot of smart people have questioned what exactly happened on that day. Nobody can really deny that more press was devoted to the way in which 9-11 brought the nation together and increased patriotism and 'proved' the need to fight terrorism than to the actual events of the day themselves. I'm not usually one to get caught up in government conspiracies (though I do like how they present unpopular viewpoints), but there does seem to be an unusual lack of information regarding such a huge historical event. Is the government hiding something? Personally, I believe that our current President has plenty of unstated and grandiose goals for his presidency -- from completing his father's unfinished business to affecting a Catholic "revolution" -- so I think that anything is possible. I mean, I don't believe that the World Trade Center was brought down to access gold which was buried beneath it, but the idea that the administration could stage a catastrophic event to promote their goal of fighting a war for economic or ideological interests, while unlikely, doesn't seem completely impossible to me. Then again, politics aren't my strong-suit, and I'm sure people like Laura and Mary would have much more educated opinions on the matter.
But it's a good topic for discussion. So disagree with me. Or share your opinions. Let's start a debate. 9-11 defined an era, and we haven't really butted heads intellectually on CI yet.
Ready, go.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Apr 29, 2006 19:44:53 GMT -5
Ummm.... Bush-face isn't Catholic. Catholics are actually pretty progressive as christian denominations go. Also, they're fairly politically impotent in the US. Remember Kennedy was run through the fire over being Catholic. Not exactly the most popular religious group in the country. Evangelicals are the ones that make the most noise. Just doing my part to lift your veil of ignorance Noah.
Cheers
Dan
|
|
|
|
Post by Noah on Apr 29, 2006 20:33:03 GMT -5
An honest mistake on my part.
Replace Catholic with Christian; the point still stands.
Address the issue, not just one detail.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan on May 1, 2006 15:41:26 GMT -5
Hehe, sorry, although actually it's not as nit-picky a point as it appears. It's important to draw distinctions over what kind of people/groups we're talking about. Grouping all Christians together under one heading isn't really fair. The vast majority of Americans belong to some donomination of Christianity or another. However, the vast majority of Christians in the US are not nearly as radical as Bush or his supporters in the Religious Right. The majority of Christians accept the theory of evolution, support some variety of gay rights, and are not rabidly pro-life. It's important to draw a distinction because if you attack "Christians" with a blanket statement like that, you're alienating 80% of the American people.
The religious right (bush and his friends), is a coalition of right-wing christian denominations which represent a very, very small minority of the American christian populace. Equating the Religious Right with Christianity is kind of like equating Al Queda with Islam: both organizations represent a tiny minority of the larger religious group of which they are a part.
I don't mean to sound anal here, but the fact is that America is a very Christian country: it was founded by christians and the large majority of its inhabitants continue to be christian. Thus, I think it's something that needs to be respected when discussing these issues, and not simply dismissed. There are probably a large number of Christians with political views very similar to your own (such as myself and Eddie and Laura and Tracey etc), and thus dismissing all christians as right-wing Bush-supporters leaves out a large chunk of the American populace.
Cheers Dude
Dan
|
|
|
|
Post by Noah on May 2, 2006 5:29:05 GMT -5
Let me start off by saying that I certainly did not intend to imply that there is no difference between the various denominations of Christianity, or to generalize about the beliefs of all Christians. From what I understand, Christianity is a diverse umbrella of many (sometimes contrasting) ideologies that -- as you say, Dan -- each deserve proper recognition.
Moreover, I was not trying to suggest that Bush's Christianity is the nation's Christianity. I get the impression that his sort of beliefs may be more prevalent than within a "small minority" (simply thinking about certain areas of the Bible Belt or the South), but I have no evidence to support this. It's beside the point.
When I said that Bush is trying to affect a Christian revolution, what I meant is that he is trying to instill his own systems of beliefs -- which arise from and are deeply rooted in his religious background -- onto the general public. Admittedly, my wording was poor. But whether you agree with Bush or not, his "Christian revolution" is one type of religious crusade. Just as there are many versions of Christianity, there are many types of revolutions. To be upset about the idea that I called his actions a "Christian revolution" is to suggest that you yourself think of the religion as a unified entity. In fact, I believe that as a Christian who disagrees with Bush, you have just as much reason to be upset about his actions as I do.
Regardless, I do apologize if I was misinterpreted.
In any case, we seem to be wandering off-topic and intimidating other people from posting. Would you rather talk about religion? It's certainly a good issue for discussion, but I'm still curious to know what people think about 9-11.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan on May 2, 2006 19:59:59 GMT -5
I understood your point, and I didn't mean to sounds offended. I was just suggesting that it might benefit you to be a little more concious of issues of Christianity in the US so you don't alienate potential allies. Certainly, I doubt anyone who'd be posting to CI would really care that much one way or the other, but it's a popular move amongst republicans to accuse us liberals of being out of touch with the American people, and it's up to us to prove them wrong.
As far as 9/11 goes, I think there's some compelling evidence that Bush was somewhat negligent when it came to intellegence in the lead up to 9/11 (see the 9/11 Commission Report or if you, like me, find it to be WAY too boring and long, read a summary). I think it would be hard to justify, however, that Bush "let the attacks happen." First of all, this administration has busied itself throughout in achieving short term political goals and seems somewhat incapable of planning anything in the long term (see the war in Iraq). Secondly, and on a less deragatory note, it's important to keep in mind that Bush probably believes very strongly in almost everything that he tells us. He probably really honestly believes, for example, that across-the-board tax cuts sitmulate the economy, that social security is unnecessary and would be better in the hands of private companies, that the war in Iraq will make the US safer, and that gays getting married would ruin family values, just to name a few.
SO, despite the fact that we may (probably rightly) think of Bush as ruining the country, he probably thinks he's doing us all a favor. This paints a somewhat different picture of Bush, but one that I think is more believable. I can't really see him as a plotting politician pushing a secret agend, but I can see him as an average guy, with no particular apptitude for leadership, who honestly has the best interests of the country at heart, but is (in my opinion) completely misguided about how to go about serving those best interests. Thus, despite all the policies that he's championed that I think are wrong or even criminal, I find it hard to believe that he permitted the 9/11 attacks to occur for political gain. No other aspects of his administration show that level of planning or adept for political manipulation.
|
|
