A more inquisitive person would not ask "Why is Islam violent?" but might rather ask "Why do violent multinational criminal syndicates find the Islamic world such fertile recruiting ground for anti-Western activities?"

Then one might well ask whether it has anything to do with Europe's nineteenth century record of repressive colonialism on the Arabian peninsula, the West's re-drawing of the map along its own economic needs after WWII without regard to existing ethnic, cultural, and political allegiances, the US's toppling of Iran's democratically-elected government in the 1950s, 20th century economic colonialism in Africa at the hands of Western oil companies, and/or the US's provision of conventional and likely nuclear weapons to the state or Israel, which which several neighboring countries are still technically at war.

And one would have to think that yes, these events, while not completely responsible for the world's problems, may have aided groups that wish to polarize the world.

Blankflag - nothing I can say will sway you one inch if you believe 9/11 was a govt conspiracy. However, never underestimate how luck/unluck can play a part in such things.

After the Brigton Bomb in 1984 the IRA issued a statement saying they had been unlucky [in that Thatcher and cabinet had survived], but they only had to be lucky once, you [the victims] need to be lucky always. I would suggest on 9/11 the USA were unlucky, that doesn't equate to a conspiracy.

To further illustrate how luck can play a pivitol role in events look at the Hungerford Massacre. An individual kills 16 and injures plenty in the streets of a quiet town. The report into the incident lists a catalogue of circumstances that 'assisted' the perp. The local swat team was on a days training 40 miles away; the police helicopter was in for repair, there was only 2 telephone lines working in the police station which was being refurbished and the volume of 999 [UK equiv to 911] calls swamped the system. Would you look for a conspiracy here? Sometimes, you see what you want to see. I see bad luck.

if you give me new evidence that can sway me. you may not believe this, but years after 911 i was arguing violently with people who were telling me how it was a conspiracy and i could not believe it. i was also at one time arguing how global warming was real and how invading iraq was probably a good thing.

back then i was not swayed by any amount of evidence. but at this point i take in information and decide for myself.

coincidences happen. but when the chances are statistically zero of something happening by coincidence then you have to be able to think about what the most likely thing is, not what fits in with your worldview.

@Spyman - look at Burma to see Buddhist terror on Muslims.

@Invectus and others - Non-conformist of which the The Salvation Army were a part did wage a terror campaign (The Rebecca Riots) in Wales. Again it illustrates that the 'freedom fighters'/terrorist aligned themselves with a religion but one could equally argue that the oppressed (Welsh) happened to be non-conformist and attacked Anglicans who happened to be the perceived oppressors. The Tolpuddle Martyrs were led by Methodists. I made the point earlier that the IRA shared the same separatist ideas as the Catholic community. In no sense would I now consider Catholics, non-conformists and Methodists violent organisations. I do not regard Islam in that way either.

People who see themselves as having a cause to fight for will fight for it regardless of their religion. They will also try and appeal to people who share their religion to share their cause. They are helped to recruit supporters once the other side start demonising their religion and a cycle which is hard to break begins.

and can you even call all of these coincidences? like the bbc reporting wtc7 collapsing before it did. so they just guessed fires would bring it down and coincidentally were correct?

coincidence one - they incorrectly predicted a collapse, since no scientist can reproduce collapse under the conditions of that day on any model (except the latest nist model that they claim somehow does but they have to classify the model for some reason). so the coincidence is that they accidentally made a serious judgement error predicting a collapse

coincidence two - an unprecedented collapse at wtc7 happens that cannot really be explained scientifically

maybe i should phrase what i said differently.

it wasnt so much a prediction, they said that the building had collapsed. so that is a mistake there. but even if we think 'oh maybe they meant that they thought it would collapse in the future' then that is also a serious lack of journalism since anyone who only knows of small isolated fires in a reinforced building like that and predicts a collapse is talking complete nonsense and making the most ridiculously unscientific prediction.

Blankflag - look at what you're saying dispassionately "coincidence two - an unprecedented collapse at wtc7 happens that cannot really be explained scientifically" could be reworded to "something that hadn't happened before defies physics" Now we know nothing can defy physics and we know everything that happens has to happen first at some point - so we're left with "something happened". Your whole arguement is reduced to "something happened" and you then choose to believe whatever conspritorial theory comes your way. Look at some of your comments about boston bomb that you had to backtrack on.

MANIAC, STOP TALKING TO BLANKMIND. DON'T WASTE YOUR BREATH. THERE'S NO SAVING HIS TYPE.

well, the scientific community cannot explain wtc7's collapse. the model that supposedly explains it is classified for 'public safety'. so what i mean by it not being explainable scientifically is that there is not only no explanation for it using any kind of standard engineering, but also that no reasonable explanation does exist in the public record.

but who knows. maybe some bought-off scientists came up with some papers trying to explain how it happened. i really cant see how though as it defies the core tenets of physics and engineering.

The scientific community can't explain you, either. You must be a government conspiracy sent to make us all believe that all of these others things are government conspiracies to deflect attention from the real government conspiracy that is you.

anyway even if you all believe the 'post911 physics' that can explain the wtc7 collapse, then how did the bbc have such great geniuses working there that could understand this physics that no physicists would have believed before 911? if they were making a prediction, rather than reporting that it had already collapsed, which is what they actually did.

You're only encouraging him.

@Bo - I'm bored

@Blank - if your basis for conspiracy is journalists never talk bollox or get it wrong, then its a pretty flimsy foundation on which to base serious accusations. And whats all this about post 9/11 physics, listen to yourself, physics didn't change, perhaps we understood more after the event sure, but we would be pretty dumb not to learn from events.

my whole point was to say it is ridiculous to claim it is mere coincidence. what honestly, would you say is the chance of a news outlet reporting a building had collapsed that hadn't? give me the odds on that.

now what are the odds that independently that exact same building collapsed a half hour later.

do you realize the odds of this happening by chance?

So... all the news outlets were reporting that WTC7 was on fire and in danger of collapse. One network heard that and misreported that WTC7 had collapsed? Wow, that's... actually, that's not very shocking at all.

ok then how could those news outlets have known that it was in danger of collapse if no physicists at the time could?

bbc is not special. i am sure the story was on the wire. they just listen and repeat what is told. but they were clear that it had collapsed. so the conspirators released that to the media - maybe it was planned to go down earlier but with the mixup of the last plane threw things off. maybe the other news outlets looked out the window and saw it was still standing so said 'in danger' but the bbc reporter wasnt familiar with nyc so she said it had collapsed in spite of it being still standing behind her. thats what happens with foreign news outlets i guess.

@Maniac ... he has already turned into a raging moron. You do not need to expose him any further as a raging moron. The last thing we need is another chance for him to spew out his remaining stash of ugly volcanic ash because it creates lightning storms and shatters the harmony that we all shared during his seemingly eternal and blissful silence.

Okay, maybe that's an exaggeration. We really haven't held harmony. The volcanic ash part is right on though.

You're telling me that after seeing the South Tower collapse, the reasonable response would be to say, "Wait, friends... physicists say the North Tower could not collapse, so let's assume it never will." No, the natural reaction is to say, "Oh my god, the South Tower collapsed. What if the other one does, too?"

The whole world was watching, waiting, and holding their breath for the other tower to collapse.

i am talking about wtc7. do you know about that one? there were 3 buildings that collapsed. the third was not hit by a plane. that is the one that the bbc had collapsed a half hour before it did. that is the one that cannot be explained by science.

It is so interesting seeing these one sided conversations. Obviously blank-sprollmer has about the same understanding of physics as a newborn infant. Wait, scratch that, that's an insult to the infant. Maybe #meepmeepismoronmoron could teach him physics and he could teach #meepmeepismoronmoron a thing or two about English grammar and capitalization and punctuation.

actually none can really be explained by science, but wtc7 is particularly embarrassing for the official story

I don't think he even reads our posts.

Well, he supposedly has me muted.

#meepmeepismoronmoron that is. I don't think sprollmer has me muted.

do you share your account with someone else draugner? because some other messages i heard from your account sounded somewhat rational. this new side of you is somewhat incomprehensible.

Evidently he doesn't have you muted.

Why, what did he say? I have him muted off and on. Sometimes I unmute him then he goes on his conspiracy bullshit rants without capitalization and punctuation and it gives me a headache, so I remute him for a while.