Seven years ago today almost 3000 people died in brutal terrorist attacks. For those of us not directly affected, the passage of time brings a natural fading of the horror and shock we felt; 9/11 is receding into history. There is nothing wrong with this -- such is the inevitable progression of our reaction to any tragedy. We remember those who died, we try to learn what lessons we can to prevent such an event from recurring, and then we go on with our lives.

For some, however, the impact of 9/11 lingers.

"The series of events that torpedoed this novel are a window into how quickly fear stunts intelligent discourse about the Muslim world."

Well, the book publisher Random House has bought into the fear and loathing bit with respect to the relationship between Islam and the MSM.

Someone once described courage as not never being afraid, but going on in spite of the fear. As a nation and as elected officials we seem to be running dangerously low on courage. Oh we have the tough talk down, we have the posturing, but do we really have true courage? Since 9/11 when at least 2,985 people died from the terrorists attacks I think that what has been lost in all the hype is some perspective. While this was surely a tragedy, the population of the United States in the year 2001 was somewhere around 290 million people. Based on those numbers the terrorist attacks killed less than .02% of the population, yet since the attack we have responded by invading sovereign nations, torturing our fellow human beings, and gutting our Constitutional protections.

Hat tip to Publius Endures (PE) for this little expose' of the mind of a Modern Conservative.

The article he links to is from Michelle Malkin and written by "See-Dubya".

Says Mark at PE: (emphasis mine)

"Do not do to others what you would not have them do to you." I think I like that formulation of the Golden Rule a bit better than the one I have heard more often, "Do unto others what you would have them do unto you." For one thing, it makes it that much more difficult to justify the kind of logic that we discussed ad nauseum recently.

I happened to stop by and see my folks this weekend as is usually my custom and it is amazing how the conversation has changed in the last month. Originally we discussed the remote possibility of Senator Obama getting elected, then whether his agenda included black issues and would whites vote for him, and now as he is continuing to win a much more ominous question is being discussed. I wish I could say these conversations were only limited to my parents, but unfortunately they aren’t. The question and concern starting to arise among many blacks in America and maybe worldwide is the safety of Barack Obama.

This is very unfair and plain wrong.

For all the talk of "freedom" that the Paulbots claim to believe in, they sure as heck have been silent on the horrible FISA bill we're fighting to fix in the Senate right now. Same for Ron Paul. Why the silence? And the CATO people and the libertarian publications like Reason, where are they?

Via Cato , we are presented a new book about terrorism by Marc Sagerman called Leaderless Jihad , which looks at the mind of a potential Jihadist and what drives him to join groups like Al Qaeda. This is a follow up to his previous book, Understanding Terror Networks .

9/11 Truth Manifesto

Joel S. Hirschhorn

For evidence that America’s political system is a criminal conspiracy, open your mind to piles of new analyses that prove beyond doubt that the official 9/11 story is a lie. Years of a bipartisan cover-up of 9/11 lies make it much more than one horrendous past event. It endures in infamy as a symptom of a corrupt and dishonest government.

In the first part of this three-part examination of sanctions, we looked at the examples of Cuba, Iraq, and North Korea, and reached the (somewhat obvious) conclusion that targeted sanctions with a precise goal can be effective while all-encompassing sanctions with a vague goal of regime change are unlikely to work. Today, we take a closer look at the effectiveness of threatening sanctions and offering incentives. From specific examples involving nuclear testing, conflict diamonds, and knock-off drugs, we will try to abstract some general guidelines.

This morning's New York Times carries a detailed account of how the U.S. relied on an Iraqi to distribute U.S.-supplied weapons, including AK-47 assault rifles, Glock pistols and heavy machine guns, to Iraqi police forces. Needless to say, the Iraqi "turned the armory into his own private arms bazaar with the seeming approval of some American officials and executives..."

Ron Paul's third NH TV ad is up and ready.

I've heard a lot of grandiose and/or vague claims in campaign ads. And usually the vaguer the ad, the more emotional and grandiose the message.

Here, Paul's message is simple, clear and unique:

This is the first of a three-part series examining the effectiveness of sanctions. Here we will analyze the historical cases of Cuba, Iraq, and North Korea; part II will look at the effectiveness of incentives and of threatening sanctions, while part III will apply the results of the previous work to the current situations in Iran, China, and Israel/Gaza.

Below the fold, a description of the motivating incident, goals, methods, and results of sanctions against Cuba, Iraq, and North Korea, along with general conclusions.

Promoted by Brendan.

It's about torture-whether our country should become so debased as to resort to medieval methods to exact information; or, as the right would say, whether we should retain the ability to force the truth out of someone who is about to cause grave damage to our people. There are two diametrically opposed perspectives, the TV series now about to start its seventh season, 24; and the new film released last week, "Rendition." I watched the 2004-5 season of "24" with rapt attention, and I just came back from seeing "Rendition."

Next Step to 9/11 Justice

Joel S. Hirschhorn

Everyone thinks of terrorism and homeland security for lessons learned from 9/11. There is another opportunity. Make our government trustworthy and truthful.

The 9/11 truth movement is stronger than ever, though it is generally derided by politicians and ignored by the mainstream media. It is fueled by people passionate about alternative explanations to the official 9/11 story. Understandable, considering that the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission admitted: “We were set up to fail.”

I'm hoping to present the case for confronting Iran, which I think is roughly analogous to the conservative approach to our policy towards Iran. If you think the liberal approach would be more effective, think of this as an opportunity to play devil's advocate. I'm looking to fill in the outline below (constructed based on your comments in the previous thread) with primary source citations and brief summaries of each point. Feel free to provide material for any part (or for something not included) in comments and then I'll write it all up. Here is some background that may be helpful. Thanks!

This Video would be a great way to spend about 45 minutes this weekend. Great stuff. It's an Interview with Thomas Woods about his new book, 33 Questions about American History .

The video is embedded below the fold.

Once through discussing the book, the later parts of the interview go through recent American History and weave together an fascinating take on our current climate.

It's a not libertarian rant but rather a look at history through an un-typical lens of analysis that looks many captivating topics that Dems, Repubs and Independents alike will enjoy (I think).

Great idea, promoted by Brendan

With the election "just around the corner" according to our Beloved Media, there has been no restraint on the media to declare next year's Election outcomes for 2008 President. This is the earliest start of the Presidential Race. (In contrast, Clinton entered the race for President in October 1991, not February of that year. Bush started his journey in June 1999.) Granted, there are still a few people who are waiting for the right time to jump into this election--yet, the media has done a terrific job this year crowning the candidates down to the one's they like. It's an old practice. Take for instance, the Media Oracles' predictions before the 2004 Iowa Caucus:

Two news items of interest appeared this week: a new NIE stating that al-Qaeda is as strong as ever and Chertoff's claim that he has a "gut feeling " that we will face a terrorist attack this summer.

While there is no proof they are related (and taken as proof could be considered a correlation fallacy), the timing of these two announcements (especially Chertoff's) is suspect, and the administration does have a strange habit of releasing alerts, warnings, and other terrorist-related information at the same time bad news for the White House is in the media.

One of the consequences of the Senate trying to pass the Immigration Reform law so quickly (without the usual committee hearings) is that a number of amendments have been offered to make the law more acceptable to the Senate majority. Since these amendments are being proposed and debated on the Senate floor, each proposal is receiving more public and press attention than normal.

One such amendment is quite revolutionary (IMO) and deserves further comment. Even if it is defeated, the fact that it could be introduced, gives us in the anti-jihad community hope that a degree of sanity may finally be introduced into the war with radical Islam. For years since 911, many of us have been saying that it does not make sense to expend so much military, economic, and diplomatic efforts in fighting radical islamists overseas in Afghanastan, Iraq, and possibly elsewhere (all efforts I support), while at the same time allowing potential enemy combatants and enemy sympathizers continued immigration (legally and illegally) into the USA. Writer Diane West of the Washington Times has written many columns on the subject. (see for example)