khilafah.com: "a us military intelligence source revealed details of an internal intelligence memo that points to the israeli mossad intelligence service having links to the world trade center and pentagon attacks".

optimistic view: we will watch the united states not bombing afghanistan to ashes.

pessimistic view: we will watch afghanistan being bombed to ashes just as we watched the towers collapsing.

either way we will only watch.

up to now, i heard none of those big world leaders say that one simple word, not even in context: peace.

btw. the alphabetical listing of all translations of the universal declaration of human rights.

has anyone noticed that there are only males talking on tv now? the warlord and the peacefool.

a group of 15 students from linz, austria, stuck in new york city is desperately calling for help...

slavoj zizek: "the ridicule of america attacking afghanistan cannot but strike the eye: if the greatest power in the world will destroy one of the poorest countries in which peasant barely survive on barren hills, will this not be the ultimate case of the impotent acting out?"

just remembered another quote: fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity. wonder who might have coined that...

a good friend sent the following quote to me:

"we have 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of its population [...] our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity [...] we should cease to talk about vague and [...] unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards and democratization. the day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts". – george kennan, main architect of u.s. foreign policy following world war ii, 1948.

the quote can be found in several sources, e.g. in the articles learning from history by greg coleridge and "'crackpot realism' and u.s. imperial hegemonism in europe" by joseph gerson, american friends service committee.

the afsc launched a no more victims campaign.

what does it take to demolish the centers of business and defense of a nation of global power with a monstrous and shockingly successful venture and then to remain so incredibly silent: no cheering, no avowal, no self-praise? (and i am not talking about the supporters, i am talking about the "master-minds".)

although, according to laqueur, one typical characteristic of terrorism is in fact anonymity, there was always at least one lasting confession, a letter, a sign, an announcement of responsibility by at least one specific group (most of the time it were many and it was necessary to find out the real jerks).

this time, the sparse confessions were repudiated almost immediately, nobody wanted to have committed this crime. does this mean the perpetrators got scared of their own vulgarity and its consequences or is this really a new type of terrorism that does not claim any demands but instead has the one and only goal to destroy, nurture chaos and create irrational attention to an invisible and therefor invincible power?

another observation: now that they lost so many sheeps, not many will hear the leaders of christianity in vatican and representatives of christian churches in europe defending islam and the muslim people. strange, very strange.

today again, everything is about the wtc attack and its consequences at perlentaucher's link of the day.

"die kriegserklärungen wurden von der bevölkerung aller beteiligten länder mit einer begeisterung aufgenommen, für die uns heute jedes verständnis fehlt. auch in deutschland strömten die kriegsfreiwilligen nur so zu den meldestellen. man glaubte der krieg werde in wenigen wochen siegreich beendet sein". that was then, that was world war 1.