Slashdot Mirror

20. ^ Graham Fuller in interview with Peter Bergen, Bergen, Peter, Holy War Inc., Free Press, (2001), p.68 21. ^ Henry S. Bradsher, Afghan Communism and Soviet Interventions, Oxford University Press, 1999, p.185 22. ^ "The Road to September 11". Evan Thomas. Newsweek. 1 October 2001. 23. ^ "1986-1992: CIA and British Recruit and Train Militants Worldwide to Help Fight Afghan War". Cooperative Research History Commons. http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a86operationcyclone. Retrieved 2007-01-11. 24. ^ "CIA worked with Pak to create Taliban". India Abroad News Service. 2001-03-06. http://www.rawa.org/cia-talib.htm. Retrieved 2007-01-11. 25. ^ "CIA bin Laden". October 2001. http://www.sabrang.com/cc/archive/2001/oct01/cover6.htm. Retrieved 2007-01-10. 26. ^ "Did the U.S. "Create" Osama bin Laden?". US Department of State. 2005-01-14. http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/24-318760.html. Retrieved 2007-01-09.

The cause of the violence is people who have control over the U.S. government wanting to make a profit. I don't have time now to give a lot of links, but there are some below.

What started the violence between the U.S. government and Arabs was the U.S. government, not the Arabs. Having the U.S. taxpayer pay for violence to make a profit works only because most voters don't know the history of U.S. government action.

See, for example, Coups Arranged or Backed by the USA. Most or all of that corruption happened for profit, such as kickbacks of U.S. government foreign aid. When the governments of Israel or Pakistan buy weapons from U.S. manufacturers using money from "foreign aid", that is embezzlement of taxpayer money.

For one example of profiting from violence, read How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power or Bush-Nazi Link Confirmed: Documents in National Archives Prove George W. Bush's Grandfather Traded with Nazis - Even After Pearl Harbor.

Apparently Slashdot editors agree with at least some of this, because now and for the last 2 months or more, this has been on the main Slashdot page, on the right, under Book Reviews: "The Creature from Jekyll Island is a compelling look at the history of the Federal Reserve system and asks if it's a system that has run it's course. (Michael J. Ross's review)"

"The Creature from Jekyll Island" discusses how the U.S. monetary system is manipulated by rich and powerful people for their own profit. It says that wars are started for profit.

The Cooperative Research History Commons is very valuable for those wanting to do their own research.

The poorly edited but very interesting free movie Zeitgeist explains in three parts that 1) People who believe in myths are easily manipulated. 2) It is common that people are manipulated through fear. 3) The U.S. monetary system is controlled for the profit of a few individuals. (Note that the movie used respected sources for the first part which were later shown to be somewhat in error. The underlying issues are correct, however.)

When you talk about U.S. government action, don't say "we". Whoever does the secret decision making would kill you and your family if they thought you would cause trouble for them.

When people try to calculate the total number the U.S. government killed, they arrive at figures like perhaps 3 million killed directly since the end of the 2nd world war, and perhaps 8 to 11 million total if the people killed by the destabilization the U.S. government caused are also included, not including the people killed in Iraq. Partly the killing happened as a result of the U.S. government invading or bombing 25 countries.

"Are US soldiers shooting them, or are they getting killed by Muslims?"

Both.

Should the U.S. government be considered responsible only for the people it kills directly, or should it also be considered responsible for the violence that violence causes? I've read several books that have considered that fundamental issue.

When the U.S. government was violent in Cambodia during the Vietnam war, for example, how many people died as a result of U.S. government action? The answer is more than 2 million people, in Cambodia alone, because the U.S. government supported the rise of a very violent dictator.

The U.S. government supported Saddam Hussein, partly by selling him weapons. The weapons deliveries were still being made when the U.S. government declared its first war on Iraq.

When people try to calculate the total number the U.S. government killed, they arrive at figures like perhaps 3 million killed directly since the end of the 2nd world war, and perhaps 8 to 11 million total if the people killed by the destabilization the U.S. government caused are also included, not including the people killed in Iraq. Partly the killing happened as a result of the U.S. government invading or bombing 25 countries.

All or almost all of the U.S. government's killing appears to be motivated entirely by profit. Certainly Cambodians and Vietnamese could never have threatened anyone in the U.S.; they only made about $200 per year, and had no animosity toward anyone in the U.S., if they even knew the U.S. existed.

The problem is that most taxpayers, who pay for the violence, don't realize the underlying facts. Both attacks against the World Trade Center, for example, were motivated by the U.S. government's killing of Arabs and Muslims long before. But most U.S. taxpayers don't know about the earlier violence.

I am always against violence; nothing I say recommends or justifies violence; I think violence is caused by mental illness. The fact is, when one person or group acts out mental illness by being violent, there is a liklihood that some other person or group will feel encouraged to act out his or its mental illness.

The U.S. government has often used its "cooperation" with the governments of other countries to corrupt those governments. See, for example, Coups Arranged or Backed by the USA. Most or all of that corruption happened for profit, such as kickbacks of U.S. government foreign aid. When the governments of Israel or Pakistan buy weapons from U.S. manufacturers using money from "foreign aid", that is embezzlement of taxpayer money.

For one example of profiting from violence, read How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power or Bush-Nazi Link Confirmed: Documents in National Archives Prove George W. Bush's Grandfather Traded with Nazis - Even After Pearl Harbor.

Apparently Slashdot editors agree with at least some of this, because now and for the last 2 months or more, this has been on the main Slashdot page, on the right, under Book Reviews: " The Creature from Jekyll Island is a compelling look at the history of the Federal Reserve system and asks if it's a system that has run it's course. (Michael J. Ross's review)"

"The Creature from Jekyll Island" discusses how the U.S. monetary system is manipulated by rich and powerful people for their own profit. It says that wars are started for profit.

The Cooperative Research History Commons is very valuable for those wanting to do their own research.

The poorly edited but very interesting free movie

Title of your comment: "Slashdot is no longer worth reading"

Then don't read it! And certainly don't post comments.

"Try to understand opposing views, rather than dismissing them." I agreed with Shihar's view, as I mentioned. I just added what I considered to be more insight.

I disagree with what you said. I am trying to dramatize what I consider to be extreme corruption in the U.S. government.

The best source of research I've found is Cooperative Research History Commons.

The U.S. government has often used its "cooperation" with the governments of other countries to corrupt those governments. See, for example, Coups Arranged or Backed by the USA. Most or all of that corruption happened for profit, such as kickbacks of U.S. government foreign aid. When the governments of Israel or Pakistan buy weapons from U.S. manufacturers using money from "foreign aid", that is embezzlement of taxpayer money.

The Cooperative Research History Commons is very valuable for those wanting to do their own research.

The poorly edited but very interesting free movie Zeitgeist explains in three parts that 1) People who believe in myths are easily manipulated. 2) It is common that people are manipulated through fear. 3) The U.S. monetary system is controlled for the profit of a few individuals. (Also see The Creature from Jekyll Island, an excellent but not perfect book about financial corruption.)

The U.S. government has killed directly or indirectly caused the death of an estimated 11,000,000 people since the end of the Second World war, partly by invading or bombing 25 countries.

This got modded "Troll?" Obbviously, someone gets all their "news" from FoxMSNBCNN.

Look here: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&geopolitics_and_9/11=isi - and reconsider.

Those who want to educate themselves about the corruption can also read The Lie of the Century and one of the many topics on Cooperative Research.

This is on topic considering that the article referenced by the Slashdot story claimed that big search engines are safe for doing domain searches because even the U.S. government cannot get access to Google. It's a minor point considering that the major point is about domain registration, but it is a point.

Quote: "With the recent NSA wiretapping activities and increasing Big Brother presence, security and OTR are increasingly important."

The real problem is U.S. government corruption. See this example from Cooperative Research, a complete 911 Timeline of 3962 events: U.S. Government corruption TimeLines.

The government should serve the people, not spy on them.

I forgot to say that TrueCrypt is open source and free, and, in my experience, perfectly reliable. There are Windows and Linux versions, and a Mac OS X version is planned.

Don't forget to donate if you use TrueCrypt extensively.

The present government corruption in both the U.S. and U.K. started when secret violence was authorized as a way of protecting oil investments of British and U.S. investors. Tending toward outlawing privacy is a way of continuing that corruption. Any government that can act in secret cannot be a democracy, because citizens cannot participate in things that are unknown to them.

This is a good site to read about the corruption, and to contribute links: U.S. Government corruption TimeLines. Example: Complete 911 Timeline, 3895 events.

When was the last time we used a submarine to do any kind of warfare or political maneuvering? I'd say that ended in the cold war.

Really? I'd say you're very ill-informed (See "Strength," right column). Or you could read this, or this, or you could just do your own search. There is little doubt in my mind that both China and the US patrol each other's waters with subs, and they would be the first line of attack in any international conflict, which is why subs are commonly referred to as the "tip of the spear." Subs have been an essential part of a comprehensive defense strategy. They are today, and they will continue to be for the foreseeable future.

Is that the NSA secret surveillance access?

--
U.S. Government corruption TimeLines
Example: Complete 911 Timeline, 3895 events

To stop legal callers such as political parties and non-profits, just say this and no more:

"Put me on your Do-Not-Call list."

--
U.S. Government corruption TimeLines
Example: Complete 911 Timeline, 3895 events

This is either an honest mistake, or a deliberate to mislead. You do not spray non-rr cultivars with roundup, as it will toast down anything that isn't resistant. The only thing you can use it for is controlling weeds outside your tillable ground, or possibly preplant/pre-emerge. Any other usages are inconsistent with the product's label, and actually a punishable offense.

Yes, it was an honest mistake. I wasn't aware that round-up basically killed everything that wasn't designed to be resistant. I'm not familiar with the farming industry or farming chemical manufacture, but I thought that herbicides were generally designed to kill everything but the desired plant or plants and that using the RR variety just meant that you could use a higher treatment level for greater effectiveness. From what you state, Roundup appears to have been designed exclusively for the use with Roundup Ready plants or they have modified their formula for that purpose. Since you seem to be intimately familiar with the case and the subject matter at hand, am I right in thinking that he was accused of growing RR Canola in 95-98 percent of his canola fields after only a year of discovering that it was on his land?

1997 - He discovers the RR Canola
2000 - Monsanto sues Schmeiser over his 1998 crop

I'm not sure what your expertise is, but since you seem to be knowledgeable in at least one of the fields relevant to the case, I'd like to know if it is possible to collect enough seed from a small percentage of a farm to seed 95-98 percent of the fields after just one year.

Further reading of your own sources shows that the quantity of Roundup that he purchased was not the "first smoking gun."

"While Schmeiser did purchase 720 liters of Roundup in 1998, as noted by the plaintiff, Schmeiser says that he used this quantity of Roundup to clear his fields before spring planting and also to clear the weeds in the roadside ditches and around telephone poles. Schmeiser testifies that he would have used 515 liters of the herbicide to chem fallow his 1,030 acres leaving 205 liters for the ditches and right-of-ways. Zakreski's final brief includes a table depicting Schmeiser's use of the chemical in 1996, 1997, and 1998, demonstrating that the amount of Roundup used in 1998 was entirely consistent with the previous two years. Additionally, Schmeiser explains that if he had planted 100 percent Roundup Ready Canola that year, following Monsanto's recommended application rate of 1 liter/acre, he would have needed an additional 1,000 liters, a claim that not one of Monsanto's witnesses attempts to challenge." (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=gm-40#gm-40)

Therefore, I'm not sure how you arrived at this statement:

"The quantity of Round-Up be bought exceeded the amount that could be applied to his non-crop acreage, ruling out the possibility that it was purchased solely for border weed control etc. This was a very strong indication that he not only knew he was growing RR Canola, but that he was actively selecting for it by spraying his fields."

This is either an honest mistake, or a deliberate to mislead. You do not spray non-rr cultivars with roundup, as it will toast down anything that isn't resistant. The only thing you can use it for is controlling weeds outside your tillable ground, or possibly preplant/pre-emerge. Any other usages are inconsistent with the product's label, and actually a punishable offense.

Yes, it was an honest mistake. I wasn't aware that round-up basically killed everything that wasn't designed to be resistant. I'm not familiar with the farming industry or farming chemical manufacture, but I thought that herbicides were generally designed to kill everything but the desired plant or plants and that using the RR variety just meant that you could use a higher treatment level for greater effectiveness. From what you state, Roundup appears to have been designed exclusively for the use with Roundup Ready plants or they have modified their formula for that purpose. Since you seem to be intimately familiar with the case and the subject matter at hand, am I right in thinking that he was accused of growing RR Canola in 95-98 percent of his canola fields after only a year of discovering that it was on his land?

1997 - He discovers the RR Canola
2000 - Monsanto sues Schmeiser over his 1998 crop

I'm not sure what your expertise is, but since you seem to be knowledgeable in at least one of the fields relevant to the case, I'd like to know if it is possible to collect enough seed from a small percentage of a farm to seed 95-98 percent of the fields after just one year.

Further reading of your own sources shows that the quantity of Roundup that he purchased was not the "first smoking gun."

"While Schmeiser did purchase 720 liters of Roundup in 1998, as noted by the plaintiff, Schmeiser says that he used this quantity of Roundup to clear his fields before spring planting and also to clear the weeds in the roadside ditches and around telephone poles. Schmeiser testifies that he would have used 515 liters of the herbicide to chem fallow his 1,030 acres leaving 205 liters for the ditches and right-of-ways. Zakreski's final brief includes a table depicting Schmeiser's use of the chemical in 1996, 1997, and 1998, demonstrating that the amount of Roundup used in 1998 was entirely consistent with the previous two years. Additionally, Schmeiser explains that if he had planted 100 percent Roundup Ready Canola that year, following Monsanto's recommended application rate of 1 liter/acre, he would have needed an additional 1,000 liters, a claim that not one of Monsanto's witnesses attempts to challenge." (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=gm-40#gm-40)

Therefore, I'm not sure how you arrived at this statement:

"The quantity of Round-Up be bought exceeded the amount that could be applied to his non-crop acreage, ruling out the possibility that it was purchased solely for border weed control etc. This was a very strong indication that he not only knew he was growing RR Canola, but that he was actively selecting for it by spraying his fields."

This is either an honest mistake, or a deliberate to mislead. You do not spray non-rr cultivars with roundup, as it will toast down anything that isn't resistant. The only thing you can use it for is controlling weeds outside your tillable ground, or possibly preplant/pre-emerge. Any other usages are inconsistent with the product's label, and actually a punishable offense.

Yes, it was an honest mistake. I wasn't aware that round-up basically killed everything that wasn't designed to be resistant. I'm not familiar with the farming industry or farming chemical manufacture, but I thought that herbicides were generally designed to kill everything but the desired plant or plants and that using the RR variety just meant that you could use a higher treatment level for greater effectiveness. From what you state, Roundup appears to have been designed exclusively for the use with Roundup Ready plants or they have modified their formula for that purpose. Since you seem to be intimately familiar with the case and the subject matter at hand, am I right in thinking that he was accused of growing RR Canola in 95-98 percent of his canola fields after only a year of discovering that it was on his land?

1997 - He discovers the RR Canola
2000 - Monsanto sues Schmeiser over his 1998 crop

I'm not sure what your expertise is, but since you seem to be knowledgeable in at least one of the fields relevant to the case, I'd like to know if it is possible to collect enough seed from a small percentage of a farm to seed 95-98 percent of the fields after just one year.

Further reading of your own sources shows that the quantity of Roundup that he purchased was not the "first smoking gun."

"While Schmeiser did purchase 720 liters of Roundup in 1998, as noted by the plaintiff, Schmeiser says that he used this quantity of Roundup to clear his fields before spring planting and also to clear the weeds in the roadside ditches and around telephone poles. Schmeiser testifies that he would have used 515 liters of the herbicide to chem fallow his 1,030 acres leaving 205 liters for the ditches and right-of-ways. Zakreski's final brief includes a table depicting Schmeiser's use of the chemical in 1996, 1997, and 1998, demonstrating that the amount of Roundup used in 1998 was entirely consistent with the previous two years. Additionally, Schmeiser explains that if he had planted 100 percent Roundup Ready Canola that year, following Monsanto's recommended application rate of 1 liter/acre, he would have needed an additional 1,000 liters, a claim that not one of Monsanto's witnesses attempts to challenge." (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=gm-40#gm-40)

Therefore, I'm not sure how you arrived at this statement:

"The quantity of Round-Up be bought exceeded the amount that could be applied to his non-crop acreage, ruling out the possibility that it was purchased solely for border weed control etc. This was a very strong indication that he not only knew he was growing RR Canola, but that he was actively selecting for it by spraying his fields."

The case is nowhere near as straightforward as most people seem to believe. If you research the details, he bought massive quantities of Round-Up, which was basically the first smoking gun in Monsanto's case[1].

The quantity of Round-Up be bought exceeded the amount that could be applied to his non-crop acreage, ruling out the possibility that it was purchased solely for border weed control etc. This was a very strong indication that he not only knew he was growing RR Canola, but that he was actively selecting for it by spraying his fields.

The other smoking gun was the fact that his crop was 95-98% RR canola[2]. That level of 'contamination' indicates very aggressive, active selection for the target genotype. You do not get that from the trace contamination due to windblown seed or accidental cross-pollination.

I don't doubt that the first few plants were accidental, either through unintentional cross-pollination or stray seed, but once he found that they were round-up resistant, he actively worked to integrate the rr the genotype into his own populations. He probably just didn't feel like he was doing anything wrong.

Small-time seed producers have done exactly the same sort thing with non-GMO germplasm from, e.g., Pioneer Hi-Bred for decades. They'd buy and plant a bag of hybrid seed, and look through the field for accidental selfs (plants produced by accidental self-pollination due to incomplete detasseling during hybrid production) to steal their inbreds from their female heterotic lines. That is just as illegal as what Schmeiser did, but you don't really hear about those guys being busted and completely ruined because Pioneer isn't run by the same type of raging pricks as the guys at Monsanto.

[1] http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=gm-54 - "Monsanto argues that in spite of Schmeiser's claims that he did not use Roundup on his crops in 1998, there is no evidence that he used Muster and Assure herbicides as claimed. Furthermore, Monsanto provides evidence that Schmeiser purchased 720 liters of Roundup in 1998."

[2] http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2004/2004scc34/2004scc34.html - Schmeiser never purchased Roundup Ready Canola nor did he obtain a licence to plant it. Yet, in 1998, tests revealed that 95 to 98 percent of his 1,000 acres of canola crop was made up of Roundup Ready plants. ... The trial judge found that "none of the suggested sources [proposed by Schmeiser] could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality" ultimately present in Schmeiser's crop."

The U.S. government is far, far more corrupt than most people in the U.S. realize. Here is only one example: Context of '1996-September 11, 2001: Enron Gives Taliban Millions in Bribes in Effort to Get Afghan Pipeline Built'.

"We tracked them just fine, until they crashed into the two towers, and the ground. What's your point again? Say what? The first thing the Terrorists did on 9/11 was to turn off the IFF (Identify Friend or Foe) transponders, effectively blinding the FAA controllers. They don't rely on raw radar "paints" anymore for most Commercial stuff."

They don't seem particularly blind. Your claim is also addressed here as well. So at best you're telling half-truths. The FAA air traffic controllers were blind to attitude, but not location. The primary radar return is your "raw radar paints", although you are correct in implying that it's not solely depended upon in modern aviation.

This idea seems pretty flimsy... If you are incorporating known, ground based beacons/signals to provide positioning data wouldn't it be easy enough for the enemy to emulate those beacons/signals from some location near to the real one to create multiple signatures and distort positioning data? Wouldn't this confuse the proposed system?

This technology could have other military applications. You could use it to send homing missiles to target specific signals. The Russians have already killed a Chechnen leader with a missile that homed in on his satellite phone. It wouldn't be a stretch of the imagination to think that the US military wouldn't be trying to do the same kind of thing for other types of signals. They could target specific radio/television broadcasters, moving transmitters, and/or specific cell tower/radio infrastructures. And this technology could still be used as an additional system in addition to the gps system, to supplement the gps information just in case.

And yes, counter-measures could be taken I suppose, but those counter-measures would impose a real cost to the enemy. Being in a war with the United States is hard enough, but being paranoid about your telecommunication infrastructure acting as a beacon for an incoming missile -- makes it harder still. Just ask Osama Bin Laden, some journalists are speculating that he personally stopped using his satellite phone since 1998 -- for fear of being tracked and/or targeted by a homing missile.

1) non-specific information is almost worth than valueless.

Actually, it was clear from early to mid 90's that WTC, CIA Headquarters, and the Pentagon were prime targets. If any thing was to be done, these were the most logical attack points. The Bush administration knew, choose to ignore it, and repeatably denied this knowledge until August 6th PDB was made public. There is no disputing this.

let's assume that this was the only credible warning, and let's presuppose it was specific and certain. How would the bleeding-heart left have reacted if we'd sent an assassination team to kill Osama?

That is one possible course of action. However there are other things you would probably want to do like:
1) Have military jets ready to intercept hijacked aircraft.
2) Warn the workers of WTC and Pentagon there are current threats against these targets.
3) After the first plane hits WTC, or at first sign of flight path into NYC, call for immediate evacuation of both buildings.

Unfortunately, little or nothing was done to stop this event.

and even though building seven fell, hours later, without ever being hit by an aircraft

Oh, and I forgot to mention that WTC 7 had been seriously damaged by the collapse of the towers. There's a picture of the damage on this page.

"It will later be revealed in US court that by April 1996, US intelligence agents are aware that an al-Qaeda cell exists in Kenya. By August 1996, US intelligence is continually monitoring five telephone lines in Nairobi used by the cell members. The tapping reveals that the cell is providing false passports and other documents to operatives....Yet, despite all of these monitored communications, neither Mohamed, nor Nawawi, nor the Nairobi operatives, are apprehended. Their plot to blow up two US embassies in Africa succeeds in August 1998 http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?ti meline=complete_911_timeline

European Election Observation Mission, Final Report (pdf format).

Even with all the illegal restrictions that Israel imposed on movement in the West Bank and Gaza and most importantly, Palestinian citizens living in East Jerusalem***, the Palestinian elections have a valid paper trail that can be checked as well as having independent, neutral monitors observe how the voting took place.

Does this mean that the Palestinian elections were perfect? Of course not. No election is. However, they made a good faith effort to have as free and open an election process as possible under the occupation conditions. They allowed the monitors full access to every aspect of the vote including the final vote counts.

One would think that if we're trying to spread the benefit of democratic elections to the world we should first start by taking a serious look at our own election process and bring in outside monitors to help us get a handle on this kind of nonsense. There is absolutely no excuse for these kind of activities to take place other than to manipulate election results.

*Investigation into the 2004 U.S. Election

**Palestinian Monioring Group, Israeli Obstructions of the Palestinian Election Process

***Observer Report, Norwegian Assocation of NGOs (pdf format)

And let's not forget that Dubya claimed he saw the first plane that hit the WTC live as it happened.

The weird thing about Dubya saying he saw it live on TV was that he didn't in fact see any videos of it until about an hour later at earliest (assuming Air Force One has the capabilities to recieve high-bandwidth content, which it probably does). Remember that Dubya was in a school in Florida pushying his education agenda. No one saw the first plane hit the WTC live on TV; the media didn't even record it. Only a documentary cameraman got a good video of it, and the news media only got it after about 10 hours after the incident itself. The second plane hitting was captured live, however, and we all remember the live pictures of the towers with the smoke billowing out of them. But considering that the second plane hit about 15 minutes after the first, it's unlikely that Bush saw either of the planes hit live.

When, in reality, he was probably just mistaken. (Always a safe bet when Bush is involved.)

Good Point. The only really strange evidence supporting foreknowledge of the attack is that Rumsfeld held a meeting about 20 minutes before the attack began and said something about a "significant event" coming in the next year that would change global security policy. (Source: http://cooperativeresearch.org/) Of course, this may just be Rumsfeld as well. As Robin Williams humorously said, "Donald Rumsfeld holds a news conference. He says, 'I don't know where. I don't know when. Something terrible is going to happen--No further questions!'" I wouldn't rule out any political power from having foreknowledge of an attack, especially when it would mean increased power.

So, hell, if folks want to believe it exploded, no skin off my nose. The accident is just as tragic, regardless.

Amen, brother. If people care about the technical aspects of an explosion versus controlled combustion versus uncontrolled combustion, they can rent the movie "October Sky" and watch the part where the guys destroy that picket fence. Later they make real rockets that don't rely on "explosion" but "combustion". Average Joe doesn't know the difference, and combustion can involve types of explosion (namely in machines like the internal-combustion engine; the spark plug ignites the fuel-air mixture and it "explodes", i.e. rapidly expands with significant force). I agree though. Unless one is techincally concerned with the nature of explosions versus fireballs versus combustion, the topic is rather irrelevant. The first two "myths" really make no difference to the tragety, and in some ways it's more tragic for the general public to think they saw it live or that it was an explosion. In many cases they saw it only minutes later. Other than that, good article.

Policy among airlines is full compliance with terrorist demands

That's kind of a monumentally stupid thing to say. I'm afraid "airline policy" is and always has been pretty much inconsequential during an actual terrorist hijacking. What really matters is conventional wisdom among your average traveler, which used to go something like, keep quiet, wait it out and someone will eventually negotiate your release. This face tells you pretty much all you need to know about the new conventional wisdom.

If they were to take hostages among the passengers and demand this armored cockpit to be opened, there is no person with a conscience who would keep the cockpit locked down.

Another gem of conventional wisdom that's been trashed a while ago. This one took all of 23 minutes to go out the window. Where've you been?

the doors would have to be opened for other reasons(runs to the john and for refreshments) which could be exploited to gain entry.

First of all those are openings that would occur at fairly irregular intervals, so a carefully choreographed operation among multiple hijackers is almost out of the question. However, use two doors, like an airlock, and it becomes totally out of the question. Sorry, yes, it really is that easy.

Policy among airlines is full compliance with terrorist demands

That's kind of a monumentally stupid thing to say. I'm afraid "airline policy" is and always has been pretty much inconsequential during an actual terrorist hijacking. What really matters is conventional wisdom among your average traveler, which used to go something like, keep quiet, wait it out and someone will eventually negotiate your release. This face tells you pretty much all you need to know about the new conventional wisdom.

If they were to take hostages among the passengers and demand this armored cockpit to be opened, there is no person with a conscience who would keep the cockpit locked down.

Another gem of conventional wisdom that's been trashed a while ago. This one took all of 23 minutes to go out the window. Where've you been?

the doors would have to be opened for other reasons(runs to the john and for refreshments) which could be exploited to gain entry.

First of all those are openings that would occur at fairly irregular intervals, so a carefully choreographed operation among multiple hijackers is almost out of the question. However, use two doors, like an airlock, and it becomes totally out of the question. Sorry, yes, it really is that easy.

Chavez, the subject of the coup, has implicated the U.S. repeatedly. Moreover, there are plenty of facts all around. Don't be so trusting of the official line. It's not like this was unprecedented as previous posters pointed out.

Chavez, the subject of the coup, has implicated the U.S. repeatedly. Moreover, there are plenty of facts all around that say the U.S. had its fingerprints all over it. Don't be so trusting of the official line. It's not like this was unprecedented as previous posters pointed out.

This is worrying because the NYT is considered one of the 'most reputable' newspapers in the world. For example: I do a bit of work for The Center for Cooperative Research. This is an open source website that is designed to create timelines about US politics by following news stories. To make the timelines as 'legitimate' as possible, we are encouraged to use NYT articles. Now that public access is restricted, it is making it more difficult for this open source project to continue with broad 'legitimacy'.

Holy cow, you're right. See what happens on monday morning?

The conflict I was thinking of wasn't the iran-iraq war. Damnit. After a bit of googling, it was "the shi'a uprising". From globalsecurity.org:

"At the end of the 1991 Gulf War, President George Bush urged Iraqis to topple the Ba'ath regime, but the US did not back the Shiite uprising that ensued in southern Iraq, and the rebels were slaughtered. When the fighters of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), headed by Ayatollah Muhammad Baqir al-Hakim, poured over the border from Iran. Fears of Iranian influence over Iraqi Shiites through SCIRI was a decisive factors in the US decision not to support the uprising. Grand Ayatollah Abu Gharib al-Qassem al-Khoei sent his son Ayatollah Abdul Majid al-Khoei to contact the Americans. When he reached French lines he was told Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, commander of the allied forces, would meet him, but the meeting never took place. Afterwards, Al-Khoei went into exile."

That's the one. We said we'd help them in an uprising, but our help never materialized. As Iran came into Iraq, expecting help from Iraqi shi'a, they were met with lots of resistance.

Here's a link on the iran-iraq war and the US involvement. Also, the wikipedia page is relatively good on the specifics. The iran-iraq war was the one where the US had sold Iran almost all the weapons it had, and then when Iraq invaded Iran, the US saw an opportunity to fund and arm Iraq (since the soviets backed out of the partnership). That was when we shipped them all the biological weapons materials. See also link.

Entirely my mixup.

Why is South East Asia investing billions in a sophisticated tsunami early warning system? Wouldn't it be much cheaper just watching the con-artists scene: as soon as you see the rats prepare to set up phony trust funds, you have 2 days to run for the hills!

(Hint: look at the dates...)

Hey, this reminds me about the 911 stock market rumors. At least those were vaguely plausible (terrorist could have been dumping the stocks). However, in the Kazaa case, I don't really think that Sharman had the resources to set up an underwater undetectable nuke...

Have you considered that there might be a reason for the rest of the world to distrust the US? Did it occur to you that maybe, just maybe, your presence on the world stage is causing more harm than good? Here's another reality check: the rest of the world does not want you to intervene in its affairs. We'd love it if you just quit the UN. Really. Only that wouldn't stop you from throwing your weight around, would it? So perhaps the thing to do is to stop being childish, and engage with the rest of the world in a productive way, in the forum designed for this very purpose - the United Nations. Hope springs eternal...

...and some kind of "proof" that Bush is evil incarnate!
How about 101 reasons?
Here!

Or one big one:
Here

Actions speak pretty loudly.

Good point. Like the pictures of abused prisoners in Iraq. They've been around the rest of the world for a year before they finally surfaced in the US. Compared to that, a two day cover up in china isn't scary.

Unless you're talking about the abuses perpetrated by Saddam Hussein at Abu Ghraib before the US occupation, you're manufacturing facts.

The prison abuse scandal broke in late April 2004 when CBS 60 Minutes II aired several photos showing abuse against US-held prisoners at Abu Ghraib. One year before that, April 2003, US forces were still in the process of securing the bulk of Iraq from whatever parts of the Baathist regime were still fighting at the time. Abu Ghraib and the other prison camps were not fully in place until late 2003, and the reports of prisoner abuse spanned the period from October to December 2003.

Amnesty International did request that an independent investigation be put in place as early as June 2003. They objected to the general conditions of the prison camps, but did not make accusations of violent torture at that time. However, even Cooperative Research notes that photos and other evidence of the abuses at Abu Ghraib were not leaked to the military until January 2004 and to the media in April 2004.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prisoner_a buse

There is also no reason to believe that CBS would wait for months to break this story, as just a few months later they hastily broke another anti-Administration story that turned out to be false.

April 12-September 7, 2001
At least six hijackers get more than one Florida driver's license. They get the second license simply by filling out change of address forms.

1. Waleed Alshehri: first license May 4, duplicate May 5.
2. Marwan Alshehhi: first license, April 12, duplicate in June.
3. Ziad Jarrah: first license May 2, duplicate July 10.
4. Ahmed Alhaznawi: first license July 10, duplicate September 7.
5. Hamza Alghamdi: first license June 27, two duplicates, the second in August.
6. the sixth man with a Florida duplicate is not named. [South Florida Sun-Sentinel, 9/28/01]

If you read several of the reports about 9/11, it is clear that several people knew it was an attack, including NORAD. Now why nobody bothered to inform the President is up to debate. Take this for example. It has different versions of what was said to Bush after the second plane hit. They all involve the word "attack". And yet we have him sitting there for minutes reading (or just holding the book) after that.

We even have the President tell us "I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower - the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there's one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a horrible accident. But I was whisked off there, I didn't have much time to think about it." But we already knew he makes stuff up as he goes.

so i won't attempt any alternate history. The point is that he did nothing. It seems acceptable by all that Bush's chief of staff, Andrew Card, said to him "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack." Opinions diverge at this point. Card later had this take on it:

The President, in front of very young students, paused for a quick and quiet moment as he focused on the challenge. His leadership and resolve were soon evident to the world.

Criminy! The US was under attack by persons/entities unknown and he did not bolt? The SS Red Team did not spring into action? WTF was going on here? He sat there for seven minutes completely outside communication* while this was unfolding. Appearing resolved for the cameras a few days later doesn't cut it. I can't fathom that he's been compared to Winston Churchill.**

Secret Service agents and other security personnel had set up a television in a nearby classroom. They turned on the TV just as Flight 175 crashed into the World Trade Center. According to Sarasota County Sheriff Bill Balkwill, who was in the room, a Marine responsible for carrying Bush's phone immediately said to Balkwill, "We're out of here. Can you get everyone ready?" [Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 9/10/02]*** But he must have been overruled by someone, because Bush did not leave. (my emphasis)

The quote above is from this page which gives an account of Bush's actions that day. Interesting read. Is it factual? That's what we're trying to find out.

I'm not going to download the video on my dialup connection

i urge you to see the (entire) video. It's sobering.

* though supposedly, Ari Fleischer, his press secretary, wrote "DON'T SAY ANYTHING YET" and held it up for Bush to see. But that doesn't really count
** But it's funny for two reasons. Here's an interesting article about some parallels between events in America during ~1930--45 and those today.
*** the attribution to the herald-trib points to this link, which appears to no longer exist.

so i won't attempt any alternate history. The point is that he did nothing. It seems acceptable by all that Bush's chief of staff, Andrew Card, said to him "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack." Opinions diverge at this point. Card later had this take on it:

The President, in front of very young students, paused for a quick and quiet moment as he focused on the challenge. His leadership and resolve were soon evident to the world.

Criminy! The US was under attack by persons/entities unknown and he did not bolt? The SS Red Team did not spring into action? WTF was going on here? He sat there for seven minutes completely outside communication* while this was unfolding. Appearing resolved for the cameras a few days later doesn't cut it. I can't fathom that he's been compared to Winston Churchill.**

Secret Service agents and other security personnel had set up a television in a nearby classroom. They turned on the TV just as Flight 175 crashed into the World Trade Center. According to Sarasota County Sheriff Bill Balkwill, who was in the room, a Marine responsible for carrying Bush's phone immediately said to Balkwill, "We're out of here. Can you get everyone ready?" [Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 9/10/02]*** But he must have been overruled by someone, because Bush did not leave. (my emphasis)

The quote above is from this page which gives an account of Bush's actions that day. Interesting read. Is it factual? That's what we're trying to find out.

I'm not going to download the video on my dialup connection

i urge you to see the (entire) video. It's sobering.

* though supposedly, Ari Fleischer, his press secretary, wrote "DON'T SAY ANYTHING YET" and held it up for Bush to see. But that doesn't really count
** But it's funny for two reasons. Here's an interesting article about some parallels between events in America during ~1930--45 and those today.
*** the attribution to the herald-trib points to this link, which appears to no longer exist.

Everybody who works for MS has to shoulder the blame/credit for everything MS does. They all help whether directly or indirectly. You don't get a pass just because you are nice guy, your salary is what it is because your company is an asshole and the people who run your company are immoral bastards.

No. Everyone in the company who takes part in making any decisions has to take any blame/credit for those decisions.

However the bottom-of-the-rang programmers are not to 'blame' if someone higher up makes some immoral decision. The programmers are simply doing their job, and most likely what they're doing has nothing to do with any 'evil' going on (one _could_ try and argue that if they were ordered to say write some code to do something immoral that they would share responsibility for this, however even that is not a clear-cut argument, and that is not the case here anyway).

The worker may have chosen the job for salary reasons, just as everyone has a right to consider salary in looking for jobs. This however doesn't make them bear any moral responsibility for receiving this salary, just like some Enron engineer doesn't bear any responsibility for some top Enron manager choosing to rip America off of a few billions.

As another analogy, I also don't consider every American 'guilty' for the fact that they're American, even if all Americans might be to some degree benefiting from some very immoral government policies worldwide (there go my karma points .... but take the CIA overthrowing the government in Guatemala to defend US business interests). Sure, the benefit to the average American is in such cases very tenuous, but so is the benefit of Microsofts 'evil' ways to the average Microsoft employee, so the analogy holds I would say.

Nope...

"Two accounts explicitly state Bush was told while in the motorcade. "The President was on Highway 301, just north of Main Street ... [when] he received the news that a plane had crashed in New York City." [Sarasota Magazine, 11/01] (See adjacent map for the location where he is told.) Another account states, "Bush was driving to the school in a motorcade when the phone rang. An airline accident appeared to have happened. He pressed on with his visit." [Observer, 9/16/01]"

Also: "[School principal] Tose-Rigell was then summoned to a room to talk with Bush: "He said a commercial plane has hit the World Trade Center, and we're going to go ahead and go on, we're going on to do the reading thing anyway." [AP, 8/19/02 (D)]"

Then: "At 9:03, Flight 175 crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center. News of this traveled extremely rapidly. In fact, some of Bush's Secret Service agents watched the second crash live on television in an adjacent room. [Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 9/10/02] Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, in the same room as Bush but not near him, immediately received the news on his pager. [CBS, 9/11/02]"

And later: "Bush later recalled his own reaction: "I am very aware of the cameras. I'm trying to absorb that knowledge. I have nobody to talk to. I'm sitting in the midst of a classroom with little kids, listening to a children's story and I realize I'm the Commander in Chief and the country has just come under attack." [Telegraph, 12/16/01, CBS, 11/1/02] Asked again what he thought after he heard the news, Bush said, "We're at war and somebody has dared attack us and we're going to do something about it. I realized I was in a unique setting to receive a message that somebody attacked us ... [I]t became evident that we were, you know, that the world had changed." [CBS, 9/11/02]"

So, yes, when Bush was in the classroom, he knew about the first plane, and received word that the second plane had it, and, in his own words, he knew that we were "at war and somebody has dared attack us"... And he still sat there.

-T

Just because somewhere is really really bad at sorting out itself doesn't mean it can't start waving its sword around at others.

Yeah,....I am trolling you. So what are you gonna do about it? Stay uninformed?

Well, you did "go into it" and managed to weaken your position by betraying a highly partisan opinion (e.g. "All I can do is guess why Clinton didn't try" - gee, maybe he was getting a blow job, or busy being the victim of a Republican witch hunt, or just an evil, Godless man. Your "subtle" inference is blindingly clear).

There was nothing subtle intended nor implied. I wasn't there when Clinton made the decision not to do anything in Rwanda, and even if I were, I can't read people's minds. Because of those two reasons alone, I could only guess why he didn't do anything.

I brought up Rwanda and Sudan to support the fact that there exists no clear precedent for declaring war based on the prevention of human rights abuses.

So what? Precedence has to start somewhere. The US Supreme Court had absolutely no precedence when they decided that prayer didn't belong in school in 1963 (in fact, for a hundred years, the Supremes were on record stating that the Bible should be taught in school). Just because there's no precedence for something doesn't mean it's not right to do it.

The human rights issues you continue to cite as justification are not the case that was presented to the American people and the world and never have been the primary justification for any U.S. or U.N. military action.

You asked how -I- justify Bush's actions. It doesn't really matter what Bush said to justify his actions, since you don't believe him anyway. If I were to get a book from Dub-yuh explaining the whole line of reasoning he had in invading Iraq and present it to you with a pretty ribbon on it, I seriously doubt that you'd look at it as anything more than fire fodder. It's kind of like the way I see Moore's movie: it's just a movie, and as such, it shouldn't be taken very seriously. The boy cried wolf too many times in the past. Why should I believe him now?

What about China?

Think about what you're suggesting. China has enough soldiers in their army so that if the world were to try to go against her, they could surrender and STILL have people left over to fight, if one assumes one soldier could guard 500 prisoners of war. Trying anything (conventional) against China, for any reason, is folly.

I wasn't aware that Palestinian suicide bombers were a threat to the U.S., directly or indirectly

There are US citizens in Israel all the time. When the suicide bombers kill (or "just" injure) innocents, sometimes some of the victims are American. That makes it a threat to the US. Violence does not need to occur directly on American soil to be deemed a threat to our security.

It's not left-wing spin to point out the fact that almost all of the Al-Queda terrorists were Saudi and none of them were Iraqi.

This just came out on Yahoo!/UK, and I thought it was interesting (albeit marginally relevant to the point). As for the tie I was referring to, I set out to get a name (I'm thinking about someone that was about four levels down on the chain of command). I didn't find that name, unfortunately, but I did find this, which I think you might appreciate. It's got a lot of information that seems to support what you've been telling me, and I'm going to read through this. It may not shift me completely to your side, but (judging from what I've glossed over) it might bring me a bit closer.

I supported the idea of threatening Hussein with military action to get the inspections program back on track.

So what's the problem? Saddam balked on his responsibilities to his people with regard to the terms of the end of Desert Storm. The threat was there, and the UN was sitting around doing nothing. A few members of the UN (US, UK, Australia, to name a few) decided to do something about

What would those 10 minutes have bought? Even with 20/20 hindsight I want to know if someone can come up with something he specifically could have done that would have changed the course of events from the time he was first informed of the second plane that would have altered the events of that day.

Read this, and then argue your preconcieved notions (or parrot the party line).

What GWB did and and what the revisionists claim he did on 9/11,

After Sept 11 all Arabic young men were potential terrorists. Now this has been expanded to include all young/middle aged/fathers/European looking Arabic men.

Hey, numb-nuts, who exactly do you think has declared war on the USA?

As I understand it one man, who happens to be an Arab. Yes, he happens to have support from other people, and many of them are from Arabic descent, but they do not represent all Arabs. Only a complete fool would think they did.

Arguably the USA declared war on Arab states much earlier than he declared war on them anyway. The US government has had a policy of interference in middle-eastern affairs for much longer than Al-Quaeda has been around. This has included supplying arms and supporting organisations that could be considered terrorists, some of which gave rise to Al-Quaeda. They also have a long-standing policy of supporting Israel even when every other country in the world has condemned their actions.

Don't believe me? Check out this timeline of events that led up to the terrorist attacks of 11/9/01. The evidence presented is from well respected news sources.

One could even argue that, given this policy of interference in middle-eastern affairs which severely decreases the trust many people around the world have in the USA and the passing of restrictive laws such as the Patriot act, it is the US government themselves that has declared war on the people of the USA.

The fear that the US government has created of Arabic and muslim people is not all that dissimilar from the fear that the Nazi government of Germany created of Jewish people. Please note though that I do not believe that this is their intent.

One could also argue that the government creates a greater feeling of terror than Al-Quaeda does by regularly putting out incredibly vague "terror alerts". I am also not convinced that this is intentional.

Let's apply the principles of science to understand historical events that we do not have direct knowledge of. CooperativeResearch.org - the Complete, Referenced by Mainstream Sources, 911 Timeline

This graphic seems to get quoted failed often. It's rather misleading in that it focusses on arms transfers by volume. This means that:

1 AK47 = 1 supergun

Money provided to buy weapons isn't taken any account of

Intelligence aid isn't reflected at all

But the US only tested it on its troops so that must be okay then.