Since when did you need a global consensus of opinion to declare a physical event to have happened? In Europe's notion of "the world" – the one where most people get third rate information from state-run news operations, and where our "wise global betters" appear unable to distinguish between an opinion and a fact.
The survey of 16,063 people in 17 nations found majorities in only nine countries believe al Qaeda was behind the attacks on New York and Washington that killed about 3,000 people in 2001.A numerical superfluity of countries, wow, that sure tells you a lot. As it is, the world has to deal with the EU-gangbang crew at once using statistics on their scale as a single entity on one hand, and their large number of fiefdoms and statelets on another. Defined entirely by what seems convenient.
They're poor little third-world waifs when Africa needs peacekeepers, and yet a global uberpower when they want to shove their talking-shops and opinions down the world's throat.
U.S. officials squarely blame al Qaeda, whose leader Osama bin Laden has boasted of organizing the suicide attacks by his followers using hijacked commercial airliners.This is obviously questionable. After all, it's GOT to be up in the air, especially since al Queda proudly admitted to the attacks. But after all, we know they DON'T EXIST, and if there even WERE attacks, the US did it, and there were no planes too... and, and, and...
On average, 46 percent of those surveyed said al Qaeda was responsible, 15 percent said the U.S. government, 7 percent said Israel and 7 percent said some other perpetrator. One in four people said they did not know who was behind the attacks.Behold the key to all of this – the obsessions reveal themselves, and the only thing people think they know emerges. Israel did it? Where did the Pope and Halliburton fit in if that's the case?
As for other things the loving, all-caring all-knowing world which is apparently dominated by truthers, is this:
World wants Obama as president: pollApart from his presenting us with implausible and diaphanous platitudes, what do they actually think he represents? He has no experience, no track record, his party elected him because he reminds them of various other diaphanous platitudes, and because they trhink no-one will dare argue with anyone who can wield the race card, only to find his campaign wondering how to politically impugn someone because they're a woman.
The margin in favour of Senator Obama ranged from 9 per cent in India to 82 per cent in Kenya, while an average of 49 per cent across the 22 countries preferred Senator Obama compared with 12 per cent preferring Senator McCain. Some four in 10 did not take a view.
"Large numbers of people around the world clearly like what Barack Obama represents," GlobeScan chairman Doug Miller said.
Apparently, "the world" thinks this enlightened and evolved.
A similar BBC/Globescan poll conducted ahead of the 2004 U.S presidential election found that, of 35 countries polled, 30 would have preferred to see Democratic nominee John Kerry, rather than the incumbent George Bush, who was elected. Just who is defined here as "the world"? All of the world's 7 billion people who are such grand individuals who think for themselves being in absolute agreement?
Elsewhere, though most of the readers disagreed, there are others who can't differentiate between slander and opinion: On CBC's website, Heather Mallick reduces herself to calling all Americans slackjaws, with Republicans being even more slack jawed and states that all republican men have sexual problems. Apparently, we're also ALL hicks, a remarkable thing to hear coming out of the mouth of anyone who lives in Canada. Strange that she can't seem to help herself from spewing invective about the US in an effort to promote Sen. Obama's bid for the presidency.
As for having personal problems, Canadian media consumers have virtually been forced to listen to Mallick rattle on about her greatest subject as a writer – herself. This form of exosceletally public use of one's tedious unoriginal self, it seems, is not considered a personal problem but rather an amusement of sorts and de rigeur for the "public intellectual" lefty. That so many try the same thing, in the same way, with the same metronomic pattern of licensing their own hatres and soliciting pity is something we are supposed to find no less formulaic
A 2005 Globe and Mail column was revealing of Mallick's hate for the United States (although she's bashed America plenty of times before and since). It was during the CBC lockout and Mallick revealed the left leaning CBC was virtually all she watched. "Thanks to the CBC lockout, I no longer watch television at all, except for BBCWorld to see how Americans are at least buggering up their own country even as they damage the rest of the planet," wrote Mallick. "For all that we mock Americans, we must wonder why they bankrupt themselves, kill so lavishly, turn their children stupid and keep black citizens at the level they were at just after the Civil War." You can just feel the love.As we've observed before, the greater an observer's anti-Americanism, the more likely they are to support Obama.
If indeed black people are 'kept' by some nebulous force controlled by other people at the same level of grinding poverty of post-civil war life, how is it that Barack Obama has made it this far? Mallick doesn't explain, but "the world", the one that is sure a dark, unstated force attacked on 9-11, and of course the-jihad-didn't-do-it iis sure to come up with as firm and plausible an explanation of how it is that the great invisible manipulators of people's arms and legs managed that one as well.