There was a popular uprising in Libya in 2011. I know that the US government took people whom they called terrorists when they were captured on the battlefields in Afghanistan in the previous decade and transferred them from Guantanamo Bay to Libya to aid in the fighting against Gadaffi's forces. I wrote extensively about this and other events at the time on the old Alien Hub board (although it was known as Alien-Ufos.com at the time). However, that does not mean that these men typify all anti-government fighters in Libya. I believe that the assistance of the Libyan rebellion was more opportunistic, poorly thought-out and, yes, without an adequate understanding of the opposition to Gadaffi by western governments. I know also that since aggression was outlawed internationally in 1946, governments have had to resort to clandestine means in order to initiate aggressive wars of choice. I am aware also that the US strongly favours the interests of Saudi Arabia in the middle east, over those of its main adversary Iran. I have no doubt that the ousting of the unlovely, but democratically-elected, Viktor Yanukovych of Ukraine in 2014 was a US-backed putsch, employing 'people power' and behind-the-scenes manipulation. However, just because they employ this tactic does not mean they use it everywhere. I think the involvement in Libya and Syria is more reactive than pre-planned. I do not believe that being left wing and war-like are mutually exclusive categories of people. There are many left wing persons in the press and in politics who support wars. It seems to me that it is the logical end point of their utopian views that you are going to have to fight wars. Christopher Hitchens and David Aaronovitch, for example, are two left-wing luminaries who supported the war in Iraq, and there are many others. The left mostly (but not wholly) opposed the war in Iraq but the war in Libya, and the wished-for war in Syria, seem a lot less controversial and I believe that the reason is that the left broadly supports them, and they both really began during a Democractic presidency. Left wing news publications around the western world congratulated Donald Trump when he attacked Assad in 2017 and earlier this year. I think a part of the leftist opposition to Trump was because he appeared, before he became president, not to endorse their wars and even wanted to make nice with Vladmir Putin. So when he appeared to show a change of heart, they temporarily overlooked much of their disgust to commend him for it. I do not think that everything here under discussion is fully explained by monetary interests. (In relation to another point I made at the end of my last post, if the bankers are central, and 9/11 was orchestrated by the US government at the behest of bankers, then the bankers targeted themselves.) Nor is Clinton's decision to expand NATO so crudely simple as a politician soliciting campaign donations. The defence business is a significant segment of the US economy and employs hundreds of thousands of people. It props up the regional economies in parts of the US. There is in fact an aspect of national interest in maintaining, or expanding, it, especially with the benefit of external funding through new military allies. This also attracts not merely donations, but votes, from those who are employed thanks to this policy. The present tensions with Russia are manufactured essentially from nothing, but the reasons that cause someone to support escalating them, and for engaging in wars in the Middle East, amongst those in politics, the press and among the general public are varied. The political and ideological dimension, and the allure of prestige should not be ignored. Political leaders like going to war because they believe that it earns them a reputation as real statesmen. I think also a large swathe of the general public relish the prospect of a war just generally, and can support one without guilt so long as a thin veneer of justice can be put over it, such as atrocity propaganda, or allegations about weapons of mass destruction. In the press, I already mentioned that for one reason or another people's politics and ideological views will compel them into supporting wars. They may know that the official reasons are nonsense, but support the wars for reasons of practicality, or their own ideological blinkers might blind them to the lack of justice in the action. They had substances alleged to be nanothermite. I do not think it is conclusive. The Twin Towers are alleged by conspiracy theorists to have collapsed in a controlled manner apparently either because they fell downwards and not sideways, or because the collapse proceeded progressively. However, the collapse did not resemble other controlled demolitions and if it was a controlled demolition, it was the most elaborate ever carried out, on possibly the largest structures to be demolished, under the most difficult of circumstances, with a novel method and at a high risk of discovery. The most parsimonious conclusion is that, having been impacted by airlines and having had fires raging within them, the towers collapsed on their own. Yes, but it was an attack on the elite class. I meant for you to look it from the other end, that of a would-be conspirator. Why would the elite choose to attack itself? If they had done the thing that I had suggested, it would give credence to the nonsense claim by George W. Bush after the fact that the 9/11 attacks were for the reason that the hijackers 'hated our way of life'. This was a bit of misdirection due to the terrorists actually hating American foreign policy, and because the US government subsequently took some concessionary steps in the aftermath. A lot of people have questioned the wisdom of the Iraq war in particular, although few seem able to learn a lesson from it.