To: Hawkmoon who wrote (11218 ) 11/23/2001 12:12:56 AM From: axial Respond to of 281500 Hi, Hawk - Y'know, the theory has its attractions, not least of which is that is does have historical precedent. Heck, (and I'm saying this tongue-in-cheek) you could even postulate a view where certain people in the US were warned, but decided not to act in order to create the right atmosphere for a vigorous global anti-terrorism campaign: one in which the deaths of US soldiers would finally become acceptable. My point is that there's no limit to how far this kind of thinking can take you. You end up, like a dog chasing his tail, pursuing ever greater circles of conspiracy. Pretty soon, everybody looks like "them". One day, they find you strangling the meter reader, and it's off, to the rubber room. We differ from Islamic fundamentalists (indeed, most fundamentalists) in one way especially, among many: on the question of epistemological uncertainty. We accept the fact that we can never know the whole truth, about anything. We accept the concept of the limits of our knowledge. Many (but not all) Islamic fundamentalists believe they have heard The Word . And like all True Believers, there is no doubt, and no mercy in their judgements. Most of us intuitively recognize our inability to see, and know all, about anything. Our perception is, at best, an approximation of reality, almost a question of probabilities. So, Hawk, I would assign a lower probability to your theory, than I would to simple acceptance of the obvious facts, at their face value. I can't say you're wrong, but I haven't seen anything like enough evidence to say you're right. Simply put, what you say is possible. Personally, I assign it a much lower probability than you. Best regards, Jim