Fascinating conspiracy theory with little to no solid evidence. Not only that, but Bush was in office just under 7 months in 9/11 occurred and, in fact, openly declared, months before 9/11, that he wanted to switch the policy about al Qaeda from "containment" to rolling them back. Big difference. It may be just me, but the tone of your posts seems to suggest that you see black helicopters and nefarious "jack-booted thugs" outside your house a lot, don't you?

The idea this only started in 1947 is ludicrous, and ignores nearly 1300 years of history. Just because the US didn't exist then doesn't mean the roots of the conflict can't go any further back than 1787. Your understanding of both history and Islam is thoroughly misguided.

In all fairness, though the author does go back to 1453 and the most lamentable fall of the glorious city of Constantinople, it goes earlier, and deeper, than that. Much of what happened in the Balkans is directly attributable to the wars between Christians and Muslims (or Hagarenes/Saracens/Ishmaelites, if Robert Spencer's latest book can be believed, which the evidence I've seen so far seems to support, at least to a certain degree). It isn't *merely* about seaports and geographical advantages. It is far, far larger than those causes - though those causes most certainly played a part!

Had an argument with a friend about this kind of nonsensical isolationism some time ago. This is the kind of person who would do nothing until the chemical/nuclear attack actually happened on our soil. THEN we'd have the "moral" authority to attack someone. Never you mind whether or not we know it's coming, or that someone openly declares they want to attack us and openly declares they are developing nuclear/biological/chemical weapons. Sheesh . . .

They weren't Serbian "nationalists." They were anarchists. Practically speaking, it may not make much difference to us looking back on it now, but, at the time, the anarchists were willing to do things simple "nationalists" would never thought of doing. The anarchists were true "revolutionaries."

Great article.

investigated and found wanting in evidence. Things like how "lesbian" and "gay" are defined are stupid because it is little more than vernacular gymnastics for the sake of the political goal of discounting evidence (not proof, but evidence, mind you, if we keep a strictly worldly and humanistic view on this) that goes against the stated and open political agenda of activists. Sorta like saying pedophiles *cannot* be homosexual, as . . . well, that argument never made any sense except in the political realm.

For David and the others who won't respond to this, and for general knowledge and consumption: yes, there have been some complaints about the UT-Austin study. Unfortunately, UT-Austin, not even REMOTELY a "conservative" institution, thoroughly examined the methodology of the study and found NOTHING wanting in its methodology or construction. The biggest complaints are, basically, one of interpretation and personal bias. These are legitimate concerns to be discussed, but the out of hand dismissal of the study based on half-baked theories/allegations with nothing more to support them other than the reflexive charges of "homophobe!" are worthless protestations. Please, try to bring up something more than those arguments that UT-A, itself,

with doesn't make men lisp nor does it make lesbians dykes. It's a CULTURAL/MENTAL issue, NOT biological. It is learned. Which, of course, is an argument many a homosexual has made (with articles like "Recruit, recruit, recruit," and literature that emphasizes the importance of pre-pubescent induction into the homosexual lifestyle.

One could also argue that the behavior of homosexuals towards heterosexuals (just one example, though not definitive, is evidence of this: the treatment of the heterosexual firefighters FORCED to "march" in the "gay pride" parade in San Diego not so long ago by homosexuals), the open-air sex/nudity/perversity in SF at various "pride rallies" or "[insert name of homosexual fetish here] festivals" shows pretty much exactly what the homosexual subculture expects to be accepted. Oddly, homosexuals who grow up, in my experience (which means this is of limited use but might be an interesting point of inquiry) within more traditional regional cultures/families tend to NOT behave this way. Which, of course, means that whom one chooses to have sex