Comments

I agree that the opinion about Sheila's contributions should have been put as "Sheila's attitude is typical of the wider problem". That way, it will not be seen as a personal attack upon a contributor to this forum, but, instead, an attempt to address the wider issues at hand.

Labor's caucus rules seem to be modeled on the constitution of the old Communist Party of the Soviet Union. To a small extent it is defensible for members of parties to be bound on important questions by a majority vote. On some occasions it may even be reasonable to require that members of caucus not air their differences publicly, but the Labor Party has taken this to a stupid extreme. Clearly, the caucus rules have been grossly abused to prevent accountability and discussion. In fact, I very much doubt that proceedings of the caucus are kept as secret as they would have us believe. Of course they would be kept secret from the public and ordinary Labor Party members, but not from the powerful vested interests that Labor caucuses habitually serve these day.

Originally sent to me on 1 June 2009. Apologies for the delay in posting this. - JS

My name is Diederik Haneveld and have a project underway. Check out Faint
Voice shipping container bunker discussions.
regards,

Diederik

Check out this astonishingly nasty editorial from Rupert Murdoch's Australian:

Bob Brown should think again before he decides to sue

JUST this once, Bob Brown should stop making a martyr of himself. On Monday, the Greens senator told the world he would lose his Senate seat if Forestry Tasmania bankrupted him over $240,000 he owes in legal fees. And - what a surprise - environmental activists immediately rallied to his cause. Pensioners promised to bake cakes and Dick Smith said he would see what he could do to help. Perhaps Senator Brown was surprised by promises of assistance, or perhaps it was what he expected, given the years he has spent cultivating his image as a fearless fighter for forests.

Not satisfied with having a personally ruinous bill imposed upon Bob Brown, The Australian would presumably have Bob Brown accept bankruptcy alone without accepting help from others and being thrown out of the Senate for having courageously stood up for forests which the Tasmanian Government is willing to have destroyed. The editorial continues:

But whatever his expectations, in ensuring the debate is all about him, Senator Brown avoids explaining what this matter actually involves -the way activists attempt to use the courts to impose their opinions on everybody else. Senator Brown took Forestry Tasmania to court to stop logging in Tasmania's Wielangata Forest, which supposedly threatens the habitats of two endangered birds and one beetle. The case took four years to complete, ending last year when a panel of High Court judges denied Senator Brown permission to appeal to the full court. The decision meant he was stuck with Forestry Tasmania's costs.

Tough. Every government agency and private business that has faced environmentalists whose MO is to use the courts when parliament will not give them what they want is familiar with this sort of strategy. It is a lot easier to go to court when your business is not at stake and when somebody else will ultimately pick up the bill. If it wasn't so serious, this whole affair would be frivolous.

The reliance on generic terms like 'scientist' and 'expert' to try to justify wildlife killing and habitat destruction, mean nothing. Any land use proposal in Australia that poses an adverse impact on Australian wildlife species, should require a mandatory Environmental Impact Statement including a report by an independent zoologist(s) to assess the various impacts of the land use development on native species (both flora and fauna). Given the vast areas of habitat that have been destroyed (over 75% of NSW), no native species can any longer be assumed to be prolific and so not at risk of decline and local extinction. Such a test would demonstrate the ecological costs of land use development. By the way, on the subject of 4-lane highways, there is one being build across the Blue Mountains, threatening the integrity of the World Heritage Area; also one down the NSW South Coast north of Jervis Bay and up north along the Pacific Highway. The NSW RTA has a mandate to build bigger and faster roads. Hundreds of millions is funded by both the NSW and the Federal Government's Infrastructure Australia department to build massive expressways.

Kangaroos were here first. Killing them for commercial meat and destroying their remnant habitat is just a hangover from illegal colonist exploitation of Australia. Killing wildlife is poaching. Early colonists were rightly killed by local Aborigines for killing their wildlife, because the colonists were poaching. Poachers are today killed by indigenous locals in countries which have preserved and respected indigenous rights and laws. For instance, "Two days after members of the remote Jarawa tribe attacked a group of poachers inside their reserve, killing one and wounding three, Survival today released exclusive footage of the Jarawa, taken during a recent investigation in India’s Andaman Islands." SOURCE: http://www.survival-international.org/news/3950 Similiarly in Africa: GoTo www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2f0da-ZyYk I am not opposed to killing poachers as long as it is done quickly and humanely.

You're right. It's insane.

As I feared, my previous post citing JKF and the ancient Athenian lawmaker Solon have been deleted by Professor John Quiggin. Here are his words:

"Deleted. I think everyone is aware of 9/11 conspiracy theories, and I see no benefit in having them discussed here. I specifically requested no metacommentary on my decision, and you’ve chosen to ignore that. You’re banned for 24 hours."

Update: (1 June 09): Shortly after the 24 hour ban expired, I posted the following to the discussion "The end of the Taliban?" :

If questioning what Prime Minister Kevin Rudd insists is the reason why Australia has no choice but to continue its involvement in the Afghan war, now overflowing into Pakistan, is deemed inappropriate for a forum discussing that conflict, can I at least commend Duckpond's excellent article, also about that conflict.

However, people need to be warned before they click on that link: The last time I looked, at least one of the comments appeared to contain references to subject matter deemed inappropriate for this discussion.

---

The setbacks to the Tamil Tigers as well as the Pakistani Taliban, however we view those movements, illustrate that it is folly to assume that popular resistance can always overpower the military might of powerful imperial nations like the US or their local proxies. Even where it succeeded as appeared to be the case in Vietnam, it was at a terrible cost in lives and material.

So, it seems to me that Ho Chi Minh and others, who tried to emulate his strategy, may not have been as smart as they have been held to be, particularly given that Ho Chi Minh failed to seize opportunities to decisively end the conflict in 1945 and 1954, claiming, retropectively that a people's war would bring victory at a cheaper cost.

I guess at least we can all sleep soundly at night in the knowledge that our rulers would never contemplate using the awesome firepower that they have used against the people of Iraq, Afghanistan and now Pakistan against their own people.

The post included below was deleted from the discussion "The end of the Taliban?" by Professor John Quiggin. Professor Quiggin justified his action thus:

"Daggett, you've had your say on this, and you are hijacking the thread against my previous request. I'm deleting your most recent comment and will deleting anything further on this topic. Any metacommentary, attempting to dispute my decision or similar, will result in a more extensive ban. I don’t have time to waste on this kind of thing."

I intend to respond to this.

Post which was deleted from John Quiggin's blog

Jill,

Many of your points are valid. I well remember being appalled and disgusted by the behaviour of the Taliban rulers, particulary for their barbarous destruction of the Buddhas of Bamyan.

In 2001/2002, I welcomed the US invasion of Afgjhanistan and the overthrow of the Taliban on those grounds and because I fully accepted the fiction that 'Al Qaeda' which had been given sanctuary by the Taliban, had perpetrated the 9/11 atrocity. Even when I protested against the invasion of Iraq, I never questioned the US government account of 9/11. Like Michael Moore in Fahrenheit 911 I was critical of the US for not pouring more resources into Afghanistan to finish off Al Queda instead of launching the invasion of Iraq, which clearly had no relationship with Al Qaeda.

I became subsequently dismayed to learn that, instead of the former Taliban rulers of Afghanistan being totally repudiated by Afghans, they were able to undergo a resurgence. Whether or not the insurgents could be viewed as the same as the former Taliban rulers, the fact that many Afghanis found them preferable to the United States and the government they had intalled, is surely an appalling indictment of the US occupation, so it seems to me that we have not been given the complete story about Afghanistan. It seems that for a more complete account, we need to look on web-sites such as Winter Patriot and Global Research.

I can't know what would result from a US withdrawal from Afghanistan, but it could not possibly be worse than what woud result form their continued occupation.

More recently, I have made the effort to study the evidence of 9/11 and have realised, over seven years too late, that I was wrong to have accepted the official account of 9/11. I strongly suggest that you do the same. Please, at least, look at the video I gave you the link to. It is less than 10 minutes in length. I am happy to discuss with you any questions you have about that or any other 9/11 Truth material.

Donald Oats, I accepted the story of the respective impacts of the two planes and the fire causing total collapse of the twin towers at near free-fall unquestioningly for over 6 years. However, it has since become obvious that explanation does not take account of all the observations and eyewitness testimony. I urge you also to look at that video I gave you the link to, and then ask yourself if you are still quite so confident of what you have written.

Both the towers were designed to withstand a head on impact from a Boeing 707, a plane comparable to the 767's which struch the Twin Towers. Analysis has shown that there was easily enough structural strength left after the impacts for the full weight of the parts of the towers above to be supported. Most of the fuel, which did did not ignite in the air surrounding the towers, burnt out within minutes and could not have possibly caused the temperature of the steel to be raised anywhere near the temperature that was necessary to cause total structural failure.

This was posted to article "The end of the Taliban?" of 29 May 09 on johnquiggin.com and is currently awaiting moderation - JS. For another perspective on the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, see articles on the Winter Patriot website, including More Thoughts About The War Between The USA And Pakistan of 13 May 09. And let's not forget that, even today, there is no legal basis for the invasion of Afghanistan. The documents given to NATO by Colin Powell which supposedly proved Al Qaeda's guilt for the 9/11 attack have never been made public and documents promised by Colin Powell to the UN that would have proven Al Qaeda's guilt and thereby have made the UN legally a participant in the "war on terror", were never produced. ("Towers of Deception - the Media Cover-up of 9/11", Barrie Zwicker, p111, 2006). Anyone, who views with an open critical mind, the hard evidence contained in video "9/11 Science vs. Conspiracy Theories Part 1 of 2" will know that the 'collapses' of the WTC twin towers were, in fact, controlled demolitions, and therefore could not have been committed by Al Qaeda.

It seems plausible that Osama Bin Laden is long dead, given the weaponry dispatched by the US and the coalition of the willing. It seems also plausible that the US would wish to perpetuate Bin Ladens existence to galvanise home and international support for its strategic or oil objectives in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq - which are likely more insidious than the communications experts convey. Weapons of Mass Destruction was a CIA concocted vicious rumour, has probably become the most effective propaganda tale in history. It switched almost global revenge against Bin Laden and Al Qaeda over 911, holus bolus to justify a multi-billion dollar unrelated invasion of another country (Iraq). So surely another CIA concocted vicious rumour like Osama is still alive, can certainly perpetuate the false movements and broadcasts of the US enemy number one. The ABC TV show The Hollowmen is not far from the truth about closed door politics.

One option to address recalicitrant barking dogs may be to apply a Three Strikes Law akin to that applied to a batter in baseball, which was a concept extended in the 1990s in the US to apply mandatory incarceration to persons who have been convicted of a serious criminal offense on three or more separate occasions. Such could apply to dog owners, where upon a third statutory declaration by an affected neighbour to local council the dog owner is hit with a mandatory fine of say $1000. The revenue would go to the lost dogs home (RSPCA). A more hard line stance would be to make 1080 available over the counter, but I fear this would be misused, beyond the target species. 1080 is sodium fluoroacetate - a vertebrate poison used for the control of feral animals including rabbits, foxes, wild dogs, pigs. A right to noise nuisance is no different to demanding a right to smell nuisance - like setting up a tannery next door.

I can assure you that people who object to the noise of dogs barking would be far less likely to be the cause of noise distressing to dogs than those who are not. Pluto wrote, "Earplugs could be the answer." In my experience, earplugs are no solution. By the time one one has fumbled around in order find the earplugs and plugged them in, the damage is already done and even then, they can only possibly work if they block out nearly all noise including sounds we need to hear. The alternative for many would be to spend much of every day with their ears plugged. Anyhow, clearly you have adopted the attitude that people who are bothered by the sound of dogs barking are, in some way abnormal and a small minority and therefore don't deserve to have their grievances taken seriously. Whether or not we are a minority, I certainly hope that those who are fighting for our right to be protected against aural assault are not deterred by such attitudes even if I disagree with them in regard to some details.

You seem to perceive dogs, not as creatures, but as things and possessions. You don't seem to take into account that the human and the dog have a valuable relationship and that, punishing a dog or a human is not like removing a car that makes a noise or telling a teenager to turn down loud music. Your comments seem to me to demonstrate a lack of empathy for the creatures involved, human or animal. It is incredibly distressing to have to deal with a neighbour who takes a dislike to your dog. The feelings aroused are similar to those of protecting any member of one's tribe, adult or child, but without the same rights. Whilst it is preferable to interact freely with wild creatures, I believe it is exceedingly damaging to live only with one's own kind. I think that our cities are built to make us virtual psychotics, deprived of normal intercourse with natural surroundings. We must resist this truncation of our world. It is true that many humans do not know how to interact with dogs or other animals including other humans. That is what needs intervention, education and sensitising. But many humans do know how to interact and the animals they have adopted have good lives. It is sad that those animals are often deprived of contact with their own species, which would be ideal. I think that one should always have at least two of any species. My personal reason for keeping dogs is that my mother got two to protect her when there was a rapist operating locally. I didn't approve of coopting a couple of juvenile canines for this task, but unfortunately I fell in love with these dogs, and the survivor is now 17 years old and a fully-fledged household member. Now that I am responsible for them - or the one that remains - it is my highest priority to give her the best of lives, as it would be my priority with any other living responsibility. I am very much aware of the terrible treatment we mete out to animals in our industrial farming and our expansion into their habitats. Whilst I suffer intensely to hear of the imminent extinction of tigers, the killing of masses of kangaroos, the evil treatment of birds in cages etc., I comfort myself by doing my absolute best to make up for these horrors as I can by the best regard for the other creatures whose lives I can affect - from providing a nice garden for birds, a home for possums, the best of environments, food and lifestyle for a dog, and trying to fight to preserve habitat. I also work part-time with psychiatric patients, another group which gets the rough end of life. I have noticed how concerned most of those people are with other creatures, how they identify with them. Their living conditions are frequently awful but many have excellent relationships with their 'companion' animals. How we interact with other species is complex and fraught in our industrialised and decaying society, but those creatures have rights which should be respected. If they bark then neighbours should work together to ensure that their needs are met. Neighbours should help the dog 'owner' to find a way, perhaps by sharing responsibility for the dog. Society should not have the right to just abandon or euthanase animals once it has taken them into its structure at some point, anymore than it should have the right to abandon children, old people, or teenagers - all of whom can be a nuisance and a burden if you do not have a direct relationship with them. I must say that once I did not know what it was like to live with a dog and dogs struck me as rather noisy, slobbery, bumptious individuals. I would never, however, have condoned treating them as objects. Now that I have lived with dogs for years I cannot regard them as anything but exciting and delightful creatures. When I meet a new dog or just cross its path briefly, I acknowledge its presence with due respect and I find that my attitude is mirrored by the dog. Dogs are sufficiently social to be benefit from all kinds of encounters. They seek these from a distance when they cannot get them close at hand. They have some habits that are often misconstrued. For instance, they hang out at garden gates, waiting to bark and make passersby jump. Often humans think the dogs are being threatening because they cannot see their tails wagging because this is a great joke. We have one dog-neighbour who sobs when his 'owner's' mother goes out (he spends part of the week with her). All the neighbours within hearing know why he does that and they address him over their fences in an understanding way. He gets over this quickly. My own dogs used to sing in an earshattering way, but then, I would sing along with them. There are no other persistent dog noises in my neighbourhood. I think that if there were I would definitely go and see the people concerned, but I would not threaten them or the dog. I would try to solve the problem. The worst noises in my area are lawn-mowing, screeching tires, revving engines, breaking glass, and occasional loud parties. The scariest animals are the hoons on Friday and Saturday nights, on foot and in cars as I walk home from work. The most charming sounds are magpie songs and the magpies are also charming, although a lot of people make a big problem out of these birds and make their lives hell as well. Some people are irritated by other people talking in languages they cannot understand, "jabbering". I think that this is part of the challenged response to dogs communicating loudly across distance. I do find the sound of persistent whimpering horrifying. That isn't very noisy, but I will always investigate. Sheila Newman, population sociologist home page

Very satisfying and beautifully written description of the tragic situation.
Oh, how humans kid themselves. How did we ever get the nomer 'sapiens'?

Sheila Newman, population sociologist
home page

Whilst I strongly agree in general with Audrey and Quiet Tasmania I, nevertheless, don't think there is an absolute right and an absolute wrong on this question. Whilst, in my view, owners of barking dogs are treated far too leniently, it is also possible to envision circumstances where the stick could be bent too far the other way and even dog owners, who try their hardest, could be penalised unreasonably for occasional bouts of barking. All of us need to make compromises in order to get along with each other, particularly given the way we have been deliberately and needlessly crowded together by our governments at the behest of the Growth Lobby which they serve. An example of the stick being bent too far the other way is given in Tony Ryan's article "How Queensland Government addiction to poker machine revenue has destroyed local live music". Excessively zealous enforcement of anti-noise laws have made it impossible for many local pubs to stage live music. Consequently the space that would have been used for patrons to enjoy live music is now filled in most pubs with poker machines so that problem gamblers can help state governments such as the Queensland Government balance their budgets. I have lived with a problem gambler and so have been personally affected. How any treasurer with a conscience could contemplate creating the social deficit caused by problem gambling which is necessarily far higher than any financial deficit that the resultant gambling revenue would prevent in order to help him/her balance the state finances is beyond me. Also, young people are forced to travel long distances to larger live music venues. This makes drink driving offences more likely and exposes young people to more violence and drug dealing than would be likely at local venues. Of course I would probably prefer not to live near any local pub which stages live music, let alone a larger venue such as the unspeakably awful Normanby Hotel. Nevertheless, I would be prepared to put up with some loud amplified music for maybe up to two nights each week in order to prevent the greater evils caused by not allowing them them stage live music.

Thanks, Quiet Tasmania for a useful article about an important topic.

I have also had my quality of life ruined in a number of past periods in my life by barking dogs and agree that this problem and the wider problem of noise pollution should be more widely acknowledged and dealt with. Even now, my peace is often destroyed by one pair of barking dogs in my area. (The fact that there are two together to keep each other company shows that dogs having company may not always be the whole solution.)

The problem is exacerbated by Government policies of deliberately growing our population and crowding ever more of us together in order to line the pockets of developers and land speculators at the expense of the rest of us.

The fact that it is necessary often for both partners to work to pay off the mortgage on massively hyper-inflated houses mean that many have no choice but to leave their dogs alone for long periods of time. This is not to entirely absolve such people in such circumstances to train their dogs so that they behave in their absence, but, nevertheless the situation does not make it easy for those trying to do the right thing.

Whilst I think that laws against barking should be enforced, carrots need to also provided to help those owners who try to do the right thing. Perhaps traininig of dogs could be subsidised, or some services to care for dogs left alone could be provided.

I am not particularly in favour of revenue raising as a justification for councils enforcing laws against barking dogs. I think the principle purose of fines should be as a deterrent. Any money raised above what is necessary to meet the costs of enforcement should go into programs to help dog owners to the right thing.

Many of the Tamils of Sri Lanka were there before the British came as Steven's article states. There were two groups, according to Wikipedia, the Sri Lankan Tamil people and the Sri Lankan Moors or Muslims

Certainly, the importation of other Tamils, known as the Hill Country Tamils or Indian Tamils of Sri Lanka, in the 19th century by the British to work on tea plantations on land stolen from native Sinhalese, would not have helped.

Interestingly, the Wikipedia article about the Sri Lankan Moors confirms what I said about the Tamil Tigers own past ethnic cleansing practices:

"In recent times, the Sri Lankan Civil War has produced large population movements in the northern region of the country, resulting in significant demographic changes. Hence the once-flourishing Muslim (mostly Moor) community is now non-existent in the Northern Province of the country as a result of ethnic cleansing carried out by Tamil Tiger rebels in 1991. "

I understand that many other people in your region also work very hard to rehabilitate the land. Usually they do so at considerable cost to themselves. Very rarely do they receive any remuneration, let alone fair remuneration for their hard work. What makes you presume that your own claimed efforts at rehabilitation gives you the right, against the objections of almost everyone else in your region, to completely change the character of the region into what will be effectively more urban sprawl, for your own personal once-off windfall profit? Exactly what is to be achieved for a remote region by plonking into the middle of it 130 three storey units, 250 houses, a 100-bed backpacker and 100-bed motel and 50 assorted shops? How are these people to obtain their livelihoods, if not by commuting daily to the Gold Coast or other regional towns over roads built and paid for by the ratepayers of Tweed Shire and the taxpayers of NSW, thereby destroying the peace and tranquility of the area and adding further to the traffic congestion in the locations to which they commute? How is the food and other necessities for all those extra people to be obtained except by importing it from elsewhere at greater expense using our finite stocks of petroleum? Exactly what, in return, will this development contribute to the Australian economy, other than being yet another sink for our finite stocks of energy and other natural resources?

Thanks, Tigerquoll, for an helpful, informative and timely article on this conflict.

For my own part, I have not kept myself sufficiently informed as to be able to be able to offer useful comments on conflicts such as this.

I remember back in the early 1980's, when the Tamil insurgency was launched. I viewed the Tamil struggle through the prism of the world view of a far left wing socialist organisation to which I belonged a the time. The Tamil Tigers (LTTE) were considered to be one of a large number of armed progressive movements that would help liberate the people of the Third World from the shackles of colonialism and neo-colonialism and bring about justice, harmony and prosperity.

Other movements were the South African African National Congress (ANC), the South West African People's Organisation (SWAPO), The Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), the Eritrean People's Liberation Front (EPLF), The Tigrean People's Liberation Front (TPLF), various Latin American movements, etc.

However, few of these movements have lived up to the hopes that we had held in them (with the possible exception of SWAPO, which appears to have very capably governed the nation now named Namibia after it gained independence from South Africa).

The EPLF and the TPLF became the respective governments of the newly independent Eritrea and the part of Ethiopia that remained after Eritrea had broken away and have since engaged in pointless border wars with each other. I remember that at least one of those conflicts was deliberately started by the EPLF, flying flat in the face of assurances, made by EPLF political representatives in Australia at a public meeting in support of the EPLF in the early 1980's, that an independent Eritrea would do its utmost to get along with its former coloniser. In fact, even before the TPLF overthrew the former Ethiopian dictatorship, there were clashes between the two movements, even though both were supposedly fighting the same common enemy.

Naomi Klein has shown in the chapter on South Africa in "The Shock Doctrine" how the ANC negotiators betrayed nearly all of the principles for which the ANC supposedly stood making circumstances for many blacks (as well as whites) in the supposedly liberated South Africa even worse than they were under the Apartheid system.

In Sri Lanka, the Tamil Tigers were themselves accused on at least one occasion of engaging in their own Zionist style ethnic cleansing in order to drive non-Tamils including Muslims from the areas of Sri Lanka that they laid claim to. In 2002 they were reported as having unilaterally broken the peace negotiations that were underway and launched military attacks. If this is true, then the Tamil Tiger leadership would themselves have to be held partly responsible for the calamity that has befallen their people. (However, I would hesitate to make an absolute pronouncement on this until I can be more certain that the version of events that depicts the LTTE as having caused the breakdown in peace negotiations was not simply yet another example of misreporting of these conflicts by the Western newmedia.)

A Chapter in "The Shock Doctrine" tells how the Sri Lankan government cynically exploited the 2004 Boxing Day Tsunami to steal coastal land from fishing villagers in order to give it to resort developers. They also exploited the crisis engaged in an extensive program of neo-liberal economic prescriptions including privatisation, completely contrary to the platform upon which that government was elected. No doubt this would have had some bearing on the Tamil/Sinahalese conflict.

I certainly agree with Menkit that this is an excellent article.

In regard to Alex Jones, I find him a courageous and likeable figure who is highly credible in most regards and certainly far more credible than almost any high profile corporate or government journalist that anyone can name. However, my mind remains undecided about some aspects of the global conspiracies of which he talks.

I take strong exception to his dismissal of concerns about population growth. Part of the conspiracy by the world's elites, according to Alex Jones is a plan to wipe out most of the world's current population. Whilst I wouldn't rule that out altogether, I need to see the evidence.

Unfortunately, those of us who argue, on the basis of the best available evidence, that the earth's human population has most likely badly overshot the earth's carrying capacity and therefore we stand a serious risk of having the world's population decline catastrophically unless we act very quickly and decisively to stabilise the world's population, are at risk of being tarred with the same brush by Alex Jones and likeminded people such as those who operate Truth News Radio Australia. This unfortunately happened to Sustainable Population Australia (SPA) President as a consequence of her statement that Australia's natural capacity was likely to be 7 million, rather than the current 21 million as Tim Flannery has also argued. The podcast dated 30 Apr 09 can be downloaded from here.

After the broadcast, I posted some comments in defence of Sandra Kanck on that page and a brief discussion ensued.

Mike wrote, "In my experience, no amount of discussion will sway one camp or the other, ..."

It is my own experience that those who attempt to defend the official explanation of 9/11 quickly give up.

If you don't believe me, check out these discussions: Tactics in a cosmic war", "Aussie, Aussie, Aussie, oil, oil, oil","What do we do about George W Bush?", "Bush's democracy of hypocrisy", "Australia has no business in Afghanistan" and "War: not in my name" on Online Opinion and Weekend reflections of 17 Apr 09 and It’s over of 21 Jan 09 (which was extended into the Monday message board of 19 Jan 09).

Quite possibly I have not swayed the other 'camp' (as often happens in discussions in which participants on at least one side of the debate is determined to cling to its pre-conceived opinion regardless of the evidence presented). Nevertheless, important and useful resources have been created and the fact that defenders of the official explanation of 9/11 quickly give up shows that this issue can be quickly resolved, contrary to what you have implied.

Only one discussion tat I have been involved with was prolonged. That was the 9/11 Truth forum on Online Opinion which I initiated in September last year. After January this year, no serious challenge to the case of the 9/11 Truth Movement endued. The one contributor, who attempted to address any of my arguments at all gave up and hasn't been heard from since on OLO.

As a consequence, use of 9/11 as a catch-all justification for each and every crime of President George Bush has become far less common on Online Opinion and other forums in which I participate these days. So, it would seem to me that there is good reason to discuss this issue.

Mike continued, "... you either fervently believe the conspiracies, or you don't ..."

This is anti-scientific hogwash. I don't "fervently believe" the "conspiracies". I have become convinced of the case of the 9/11 Truth Movement because I have taken the trouble to study the evidence. I might add that I did so extremely belatedly, that is over six years later than I should have. I know of people who saw 9/11 for what it was on the day, and that is because they were capable of observing with their own eyes what had happened rather than allowing the newsmedia to tell them what had happened.

So, why won't you do the same as what I did, at least, at this very late stage? Or, if you insist that you have, have, why won't you enlighten the rest of us as to why you apparently uncritically accept the Bush administration's version of 9/11?

What's so special about the events of 9/11 that would prevent a proper investigation from establishing the truth of what occurred? As with any crime, evidence has been left in the form of eyewitness testimony, audio, video, photographic records, seismographic, thermal and other recordings as well as physical evidence. (If you want a succinct presentation of some this evidence, then please view the You Tube Broadcasts, "9/11 Science vs. Conspiracy Theories" part 1 and part 2, each of which is less than 10 minutes in length.)

For what reason do you suggest that it is any less possible to learn the truth of 9/11 than it would, as examples, to have established the truth about the death of Azaria Chamberlain, the existence of Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction or whether Howard Government ministers knew that AU$296million was paid in bribes to the regime of Saddam Hussein by the Australian Wheat Board?

Mike continued, "... which is why I too banned discussion on roeoz (the Running on Empty Oz (roeoz) mailing list)."

That's most disturbing.

How can any avowedly open-minded critical-thinking person ban discussion on what is the principle justification for the so-called 'war on terror' and the removal of civil liberties and human rights of ordinary Australians?

Mike, could you tell us how you would respond to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's words spoken to Jim Lehrer on the US Public Broadcasting network's NewsHour program in the US and cited by ABC Radio's The World Today:

"... the bottom line is this: It's the right place to be.

"When you think about Afghanistan, think about this. I cannot remove from my mind the image of the twin towers coming down. We are there because terrorists, operating out of the safe haven of Afghanistan, caused that to happen. They also, having been trained in Afghanistan, were responsible for murdering nearly a hundred Australians in Bali a year later.

"We have therefore a combined responsibility to do whatever we can to make sure Afghanistan does not become a safe haven for terrorism again."

Given that you evidently accept Kevin Rudd's premise that terrorists based in Afghanistan launched the 9/11 attacks, would you:

(A) Agree wholeheartedly with Kevin Rudd;
(B) Nevertheless, dispute America's and Australia's right to attack the terrorists' safe haven inside Afghanistan; or
(C) Have no opinion?

Mike wrote, "There is ample material on the web to form an opinion with. Google the matter, and leave us all alone...... I'm sick to the back teeth of even mentioning it."

Hadn't it occurred to you that quite a few people out there are "sick to the back teeth" of the way 9/11 has been used as the pretext to justify the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and to justify torture, murder, imprisonment, and the removal of basic civil liberties and human rights of people all over the world including in Australia?

Hadn't it occurred to you that because so many people, who should have know better, including you and me, accepted the Big Lie of 9/11 that this country had to endure at least six more awful years of misrule by the Howard Government that it should have, together with the awful environmental, economic and social calamity that it entailed?

Why do you apparently consider those momentous issues less important than the personal inconvenience that having to think seriously about 9/11 would entail?

The blood of the slaughtered 4000 kangaroos at Majura should be on ACT Commissioner for Sustainability and the Environment, Dr Maxine Cooper. It is she of unqualified authority who is ultimately accountable for one of Australia's worst natural heritage massacres, and Joel Fitzgibbon the immoral gatekeeper of all this. The two of them have lost all credibility. Flagged 'The Fitzgibbon Massacre' and 'The Maxine Cooper Conspiracy', I call on Cooper and Fitzgibbon to be jointly sacked and dragged publicly to be defiled through the powerful International Ecological Court of Justice, if only it existed.