Why is there no mention of this in the twenty-four hour coverage of the aftermath from ground zero or America's New War on terrorism? What are the ramifications of losing thousands of the top guns of international banking? Is the New World Order staggered by this loss?

Are we underestimating the enemy and misleading our own people when we claim that the objective of terrorism is to frighten the American people and change our way of life? To make American citizens afraid of their normal life activities, thinking that anytime they might be next.

Even Osama bin Laden, in an October interview with David Bamber of Telegraph, claims that the WTC was a "legitimate target" and that the people working there were "not civilians, but were working for the American system."

Doesn't such a statement sound like he views the WTC as a military target, much the same as the Pentagon or any major military installation? How different is that from the way we want to eliminate the Taliban, Osama himself, or any government harboring the Al Qaida network? The belief that if you can cut off the snake's head the rest will perish. And wouldn't the American media or the propaganda machine be just as much of a target as Congress and our heads of state?

Have we so quickly forgotten the "Battle of Seattle" or the other protests of New World Order meetings? Events where confrontations between demonstrators and police were covered in detail with absolutely no mention of what was taking place inside at the meetings themselves or why people were protesting.

Did you know that a meeting of the New World Order just took place (November 3-9) in Dona, Qatar, a small Persian Gulf emirates? Qatar prohibits the assembly of five or more people on its streets during normal times. For this event, Qatar troops and security forces were out in full force. American news coverage was zero.

The media gave more coverage to Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's luncheon speech to the Coalition for American Financial Security on June 19th, 2001, in the World Trade Center. A speech where he told us there was no money in the Social Security Trust Fund. Something anyone who understood that the trust fund was a major portion of the national debt should have already known. In other words, it wasn't any great news in any sense other than the media's need to hear it from the horse's mouth.

But then, we completely ignored the genocide in Rwanda too didn't we? All while giving great credence to "ethnic cleansing" in the uranium rich mining areas of the former nation of Yugoslavia.

Is it any wonder so many people of the world are against America's further spreading its tentacles into their societies? And what does the little guy have in the way of fighting the "world's greatest superpower" except some form of guerrilla warfare that we label terrorism? An underground that relies on surprise, hit and run, ambush, traps, and not using the same methods so frequently as to be predictable and therefore preventable.

And now we worry about whether the Al Qaida has nuclear capability. A question that should have been answered in the Fifties when a high school kid built an atom bomb in his parent's garage.

But we judge the Al Qaida by our own standards and methods. We know India and Pakistan have nukes because they tested them just like we did, and just like would like to do again to make certain our stockpiles are in working order. Show me the test that bin Laden's suicidal maniacs performed against tall buildings with airliners prior to September eleventh.

And should we expect other nations to do anything but mouth support for our war against terrorism when the alternative is an open invitation to invasion, sanctions, embargoes, sponsored insurrection, and the wrath of an injured superpower on the warpath?

What does "harboring terrorists" mean in terms of our own open door immigration and visa policies? How about easing citizenship requirements to produce new and appreciative voters without proper background checks or even language requirements? What about our policies of training freedom fighters and insurgents in places like Georgia's University of the South or other military camps conspiracy theorists have been warning us have been training foreigners? And how about those military bases Clinton closed and then outfitted with razor wire, turnstiles, and furnaces that made buildings resemble Buchenwald?

So far, the terrorists seem to have targeted our leadership pretty well. They closed Wall Street, caused the stock market to fall, paralyzed Washington and sent our heads of state scurrying for bunkers. Has anyone put together total costs and the effect on the economy?

But who is it that's warning us about bridges in California and generally creating panic when the rest of us are probably safe unless we live near military installations, Washington, storehouses of nukes and biologicals, the United Nations headquarters, the CFR or a Bilderberg meeting place.