I wrote about my personal experiences during the 9/11 attacks last year, and about my opinions of the more unsound technical aspects of the conspiracy theories about the attacks, which are still making the rounds in the Internet ether: http://crossingthesky.blogspot.com/2009/09/when-september-ends.html
This year it's been nine years since it happened, and tomorrow I'll be flying four legs and then commuting home. I'd like to write about flying but I feel compelled to express myself in regard to recent developments and the 9/11 anniversary.
Now there is continued controversy at ground zero, or rather, two city blocks full of high rise buildings from it. Does the WTC 'ground zero' site extend this far?
I'm not a fan of Islam, but I do have co-workers who are Muslim, have shared a cockpit with them, and I respect the freedom of religion we have in these United States. We don't live in a Christian based theocracy, and Christianity isn't the official religion of the United States, there isn't an official religion. The politically safe stance is to support the building of the Mosque, just farther from 'gound zero'. How far is far enough? Four blocks, twice as far as two? How about eight, is that a city mile? They say it won't be visible from the WTC memorial site. If you're opposed to it, do you REALLY believe they'll be dancing inside celebrating 'victory'?
If we as Americans really believe in freedom of religion and support the Constitution so many of us feel is a virtually sacred document, shouldn't we look at this issue in that frame of mind, and with our hearts, seek a little forgiveness toward those of another religion of whose extremists have done us harm in the past?
If you live according the Old Testament rules, we have sought and gotten vengeance against those who committed evil against our country on that beautiful, turned ugly day. We've taken more than an eye for and eye, and more than a tooth for a tooth.
Would President McCain (say he had been elected) have opposed the building of this mosque? I think this is all just political posturing for effect against Obama and the Democrats. Remember in the months and years after the 9/11 attacks when President G.W. Bush said repeatedly in speeches that "Islam is a religion of peace"? Bush walked hand in hand with an Arabian King and friend more than once. Would President Bush have opposed the building of this Mosque if it had happened during his second term?
Right wingers question NYC Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf's affiliation, and want to know if any of the financial backers of the 'ground zero mosque' have links to islamic terrorism. Well, I don't think so, Bill O'Reilly said tonight that there is no proof of it. There is proof, however, than an investor in O'Reilly's employer has also invested in the ground zero mosque!
Straight from WorldNetDaily, Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal owns the biggest chunk of the parent company of the Fox News Channel outside of the Murdoch family, and has invested more than $300,000 into the ground zero mosque. He owns 7% of the same news corporation which constantly derides the construction of this mosque that he has invested more than $300k in. Now, is this really an ideological opposition or is it being used only for political effect?
Apparently this mosque is a sensitive issue with former President Bush and his advisors: "Ex-Bush advisers urge Republicans to soften criticism of mosque near Ground Zero".
As you might know, however, cutting through the bull in politics can be informative and entertaining, thanks in part to Jon Stewart. And he didn't fail us this time either: 'Extremist makeover, Homeland edition'. The video is a little long but well worth it. Laura Ingram didn't oppose this mosque in December 2009.
I love my country, I support our free Democratic Republic and I support free market Capitalism. But I've had a little skepticism regarding 9/11, I admit. Here is a link with which to examine the question marks, the concidences, the puzzlements you may or may not have had in regard to the big picture and events surrounding the 9/11 attacks, both before, during, and after. If you haven't considered these, you may be suprised. If you've dismissed the crazier theories, take a look at these circumstances. Again, as I wrote last year, virtually all of the outlandish, technically based theories have been roundly and scientifically debunked.
I won't say what I believe or don't believe. I'll leave your opinon of all that up to you. The implications of anything other that the official government story are worthy of being called "matters of National Security", and as such, I do not wish to endanger my career or reputation. When something is called "a matter of National Security" the Federal Government is empowered to do whatever it takes to protect the information involved.
God is still sovereign in all this, that I'm assured of in my heart of hearts. He says so in his book. God has contantly used people (both 'friends' and 'enemies' of God) with their good and evil deeds to acheive his ends on this earth. These stories and events are chronicled in the Bible, and there is no reason to assume that this dynamic has not ceased.
Thanks for reading my blog, and may God bless you.
