TO: halur rasho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Not only do I second your objection to the obvious and gratuitous reverse-racism you were responding to, but I wonder what understanding of the middle-east was being displayed by these "dark-skinned" males when Al Qaeda declared "war" on America at the height of Bill Clinton's appeasement-oriented foreign policy, declared America a "weak horse" and Al Qaeda the "strong horse" and, in an escalating series, attacked American civil and military interests in NY, Kenya, Tanzania, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and back to NY on 9/11, raising the ante each time?
The 9/11 Commission had equal representation by people who had been for and against US policy, and their findings have been so thoroughly researched and documented as to be unshakeable by anyone but the most cynical propagandists. Honest critics should take the time to read the original report and its source information to avoid embarrassing themselves, at www.senate.gov --- George Pinto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Philip and all: > > The 9-11 commission report is best used as a > paper-weight. It is written by mostly white males in > the USA who understand little about the Middle East. > It could have been about the most The white male comment is gratious left wing racism , very annoying and as contemptible as the right wing variety. Would the 9-11 commission report be bettter if it had been written by dark skinned people ? Why in the world is the skin colour of the document's authors relevant while discussing it's contents? This is as knee jerk, as another poster's reaction to educated , informative posts because the author was from a certain Indian state whose natives opinions on Goa were suspect, anyways.