Gold9472
08-11-2007, 08:42 PM
9/11 As A Benefit
Jon Gold
8/11/2007
You may have heard that Philadelphia Daily News columnist Stu Bykofsky recently wrote that a new 9/11 (https://web.archive.org/web/20070817104247/http://www.philly.com/dailynews/columnists/stu_bykofsky/20070809_Stu_Bykofsky___To_save_America__we_need_a nother_9_11.html) is what we need in order to re-unify this country.
I think what's interesting about his assertion is that he is willing to have 1000's of people murdered because it would be beneficial in his eyes.
How much different is that than what we are saying with regard to the Bush Administration and the first 9/11 (and hopefully the last)? Is it such a stretch to say that the Bush Administration was willing to have 1000's of people murdered because it was beneficial to them in that it allowed them to invade two countries illegally, it gave them unprecedented powers that go against the Constitution of the United States, it has given billions of dollars to their corporate friends, and it has given them "carte blanche" for policies that do not benefit the people, but instead the Military Industrial Complex? No, it isn't.
What Stu has shown us is that people ARE capable of looking at an event like 9/11, and seeing it as "beneficial." What Stu has shown us is that people ARE capable of WANTING something like 9/11 to happen in order to further an agenda.
The Bush Administration are suspects for the crimes of 9/11. Please do not tell me that this isn't true based on the idea that they would never be able to do such a thing, or even think of such a thing.
I can guarantee you that seeing something like 9/11 as beneficial is not unique to Stu Bykofsky. Not by a longshot.
Jon Gold
8/11/2007
You may have heard that Philadelphia Daily News columnist Stu Bykofsky recently wrote that a new 9/11 (https://web.archive.org/web/20070817104247/http://www.philly.com/dailynews/columnists/stu_bykofsky/20070809_Stu_Bykofsky___To_save_America__we_need_a nother_9_11.html) is what we need in order to re-unify this country.
I think what's interesting about his assertion is that he is willing to have 1000's of people murdered because it would be beneficial in his eyes.
How much different is that than what we are saying with regard to the Bush Administration and the first 9/11 (and hopefully the last)? Is it such a stretch to say that the Bush Administration was willing to have 1000's of people murdered because it was beneficial to them in that it allowed them to invade two countries illegally, it gave them unprecedented powers that go against the Constitution of the United States, it has given billions of dollars to their corporate friends, and it has given them "carte blanche" for policies that do not benefit the people, but instead the Military Industrial Complex? No, it isn't.
What Stu has shown us is that people ARE capable of looking at an event like 9/11, and seeing it as "beneficial." What Stu has shown us is that people ARE capable of WANTING something like 9/11 to happen in order to further an agenda.
The Bush Administration are suspects for the crimes of 9/11. Please do not tell me that this isn't true based on the idea that they would never be able to do such a thing, or even think of such a thing.
I can guarantee you that seeing something like 9/11 as beneficial is not unique to Stu Bykofsky. Not by a longshot.