Slashdot Mirror
A Tale of Two Media:Tragedy and Images
For me, the images down here will be the barges that chugged out of Battery Park carrying corpses bound for vast New Jersey morgues, the smoke and smell and noise, the gaunt and hollow-eyed looks of the cops and firemen digging desperately for their buddies with their bare hands, the relatives on their knees praying all over the place, the video of the couple jumping off one of the towers holding hands, crushed police cars and fire trucks, many with bodies inside, the distant figure on the water everybody said was the U.S.S. George Washington, an aircraft carrier sent to protect New York harbor, and the soldiers with machine guns that are guarding major roadways and airports.
Big stories like this now are covered two ways -- online and off. The former draws millions to websites like CNN's and USA Today's, and new kind of sites like this one. Bloggers and others put up sites so that people could describe what was happening in their own words. People in apartment complexes and news sites posted accounts, and looked for relatives and housing.
As interesting as the Net is -- some of the best and most graphic video of the tragedy was popping up all over the Web -- and as idiosyncratic, the dominant medium when stuff like this happens is still TV, by a wide margin. Hour by hour, TV culls and culls until it finds a handful of quickly familiar images burned into our national and global consciousness. In our time, somebody has a videocam aimed at everything all the time, and within minutes the pictures show up everywhere, on television and the Net. Almost nothing is our culture goes unrecorded or unobserved any longer. The immediacy was as astonishing as the images were unbelievable.
By nightfall, CNN, MSNBC and the networks were moving away from the dramatic video and the indescribable scenes of wreckage and carnage and calling in the policy wonks and propellerheads who hide out in Washington caves until something like this happens. The focal point of all the airtime then shifted from the devastation in New York to the parsing and analyzing of the political, governmental and intelligence communities. For future reference, that may be a good time to turn off the tube and get online, the medium of individual stories, feelings and experiences.
When things like this happen, TV, much more than the Net or the Web, reveals whether leaders rise or fall to the occasion. Mayor Guiliani of New York clearly rose to the tragedy. President Bush, sticking to his cautious sing-song monotone, fled to various bunkers and seemed to shrink throughout the day. Guiliani got bigger by the hour. Defying advice that he hide out until the shooting stopped, he rushed to the scene, was nearly killed, calmed the city down and took charge of the clean-up and rescue. Bush got on his best suit and stuck to the prompter. At least that was the image that TV brought of us of these two very different leaders.
If you love New York, your heart will break when the smoke clears. Something about the city is busted for good, no matter what the mayor says. The damage is not describable, and surely hasn't been captured on TV. There are dead firemen, cops and office workers all over the rubble, everybody is saying, and the dust is so thick even the cadaver dogs are getting sick. Five techs with thermal imaging probes were retreating uptown, their sensitive equipment almost useless in the mud (caused by water poured on the still-burning fires) and smoke and dirt.
The buzz from the cops and reporters standing around is that the death toll will be horrible -- between two and three thousand -- but nowhere near the much higher figures feared yesterday. It seems that many people did get out, calling wives and cops from their cell phones as they went, as did some of the doomed passengers on the hijacked planes. (And a number of the people buried under the towers are still calling for help on their cells. Others got calls from spouses and friends telling them to get out.)
Across the street, a group of structural engineers were reassuring reporters that the towers collapsed of their own structural weakness, the steel melting from the fires, the buildings designed to collapse inward -- rather than fall down -- to save lives.
With their usual hubris, reporters and politicians were promising us that everything was going to change. But if the attacks demonstrate nothing else, it is the folly of that kind of thinking. Terrorists change too, and for all the high-tech equipment pouring into Manhattan, sometimes there isn't a thing we can do to stop them.
The US will live a long time. And suffer for almost all of it. The US is hung up on its self-righteousness and their ignorance of how dangerous their foreign policy really is.
This act was inhuman but the way to put it to rest isn't by applying less humanity.
When we go to prosecute a murder, we look
for intent. I find it funny that very
little media has given us a detailed
background of the history and possible
motivations of the terrorists. This was
obviously not a spur-of-the-moment thing.
It took determination, planning, willing
to give up one's life. I would like to see
less talk of War and more of Why.
In short, I've listened to CSPAN all day
today and yesterday. Lots of talk of
war, getting retribution, but no analysis
of what part we have played in this story.
Best,
Clark
I honestly don't think they were attacking the state of NY. They were attacking the federal government, and purhaps capitalism. That's why they hit the WTC and hit the pentagon (althought there's reports they were aiming at the whitehouse).
The only thing I wonder about is what the passengers on the planes that hit the WTC were thinking. Why didn't they try to overthrow their captors like the passengers on the Pennsylvania flight? Did they have time to react? I can't imagine the terror they must have felt when they saw themselves heading towards the WTC...
F-bacher
James Tiberius Kirk: "Spock, the women on your planet are logical. No other planet in the galaxy can make that claim."
my god man.
what a time to harp about how glad you are that they didn't crash into the empire state building.
do you realize how many people are dead?!?!
i have nothing but sympathy for the people affected and for your poor ignorant self.
you should be ashamed
The temptation is to bomb whoever did this back into the stone age. If we return senseless evil for senseless evil, we will sow a whirlwind for our grandchildren to reap. Let us respond deliberately, and in such a way that not one innocent person is harmed.
Let us respond by examining ourselves and our policies, but not by restricting our freedoms, or requesting that anyone's liberty be restricted. We need to light a candle for those who mourn, and for those lost. We must become a beacon of sanity, hope, and justice. Justice will be done, but let it not be done with an even greater measure of injustice.
Like most of us, I sometimes wonder if Katz's articles shouldn't just be modded "0, Troll" and ignored. The statement that George Bush "fled to various bunkers and seemed to shrink throughout the day" is rather disingenuous and short-sighted. Bush was evacuated by the Secret Service, doing exactly what they're trained to: get the President out of harm's way and into facilities where he can receive C4I (command, control, communications, computer, and intelligence) data and coordinate a response.
I live less than ten miles from Offutt Air Force Base here in Nebraska. None of us were surprised when it was announced that Mr. Bush was brought here after releasing his taped announcement at Barksdale AFB; the headquarters for US Strategic Command is here. Data from satellites, human intelligence assets, and news media could be easily collated and presented to the President by the staff in the "rabbit hole," the STRATCOM underground command post.
President Bush wasn't hiding or fleeing. He was doing his job: managing the country's business in the best possible manner. Just because the mayor of a city was brave and/or foolish enough to endanger his own life doesn't mean the President of a nation has that luxury. Losing so many thousands of individuals is terrible enough; having to attempt to manage that response and simultaneously transition power to a new President because the last one got himself killed is infinitely more so.
I didn't vote for President Bush, nor do I agree with all (or even a majority) of his other decisions. Nonetheless, to feel the need to criticize the man for doing his job is the mark of a small man indeed.
They that would sacrifice their
I don't appreciate you trashing our President in your comments concerning New York. Yes, the Mayor did a wonderful thing by going down there and helping, but the President was in danger, Air Force One was in danger, and for you to portray him as a coward and a man who "got on his best suit and stuck to the prompter" is just unpatriotic. Jon Katz you have truly offended me, and I'm sure many others.
Every day Iraqi babies die because of the sanctions. Every month the death toll of Iraqi children surpasses 5,000. And George Jr. has taken over the job of bombarding Iraqis by air to make sure that their misery continues.
What a bunch of, ahem, silly rhetoric. First of all, Iraq gets tons of food and medical supplies, which are often intercepted by the military away from their own people. Second of all, maybe they forgot that Iraq invaded a sovereign nation in order to steal their oil. And maybe they forgot that Saudi Arabia was next. Yeah, it would be a great world with Saddam Hussein in charge of a great majority of the world's oil.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Frankly, I think this is a very childish and naive viewpoint. It's easy to say when you haven't lost anyone, or don't know anyone who has. The statue of liberty is just a symbol, the WTC housed thousands of people. I'd choose losing a precious symbol over human lives any day of the week.
According to Giuliani, at least, they've been repeatedly testing air quality and "as you get beyond the epicenter of the recovery site, the asbestos levels in the air are either safe or nonexistent."
Giuliani press conference. (NY Times; registration required.)
So is this the new 'American way'? To commit genocide? I have to say I've been bitterly disappointed by the reactions online. I live in NYC, and have been down to the affected area, have inquired about donating blood (got turned away, they have too many applying), and have offered what help I can. EVERYONE I have spoken to in NYC feels a huge sense of loss, and a quiet determination to help in whatever way. There is anger, sure, but it is not the irrational ranting and raving that is so dominant on the net. Yes, I'm an Arab, yes, I utterly abhor what has been done, and wish nothing but the utmost harm to those responsible. However, I fail to see what this hatemongering achieves. I understand and empathise with your anger. hell, I wish I had someone to lash out at and vent, but I recognise how that does nothing more than descend to the same level, and makes a mockery of all that makes this country what it is.
Journalists are (for the most part) human, and don't want to see other humans hurt or killed. They feel emotions, they feel pain, they cry. They throw up the morning after watching several thousand people die before their eyes.
On the other hand, tragedies like this are what make their careers. This is big news. This is how they make all their money. As human as they are, there's something inside of them just hoping something bad will happen to cover. Even worse, sometimes they wish bad situations turn even more horrific...
Even though I'm not a journalist, I can feel this pull. Half of us wants people to be safe, the other half wants to see something spectacular.
What a horrible, contradictory dualism we humans have,
F-bacher
James Tiberius Kirk: "Spock, the women on your planet are logical. No other planet in the galaxy can make that claim."
Because if they were to do this, they would have to admit a number of things which would undermine the message they are trying to send, such as:
1. Osama bin Laden, the current prime scapegoat, was originally supported by the CIA to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. Most of bin Laden's associates, as well as the others associated with the Taliban regime, were trained and financed by the CIA.
2. If it was bin Laden, the bombing was in response to such things as: the bombing and sanctions against Iraq which may have killed clost to a million innocent civillians, the continued oppression of Palestinian civillians by Israel (recent death toll in the thousands, at least), and the destruction of a Sudanese pharmacutical plant by American cruise missiles, death toll unknown because a UN investigation was blocked by the US, but it was the primary source of vaccines and antibiotics for almost all of Central Africa, so it is possible the death toll is in the ten thousands. It would be difficult to acknowledge these things while at the same time clamoring for retribution against Afghanistan, Iraq, etc., because it would be clear that the attack on america itself was a similar act of desparate retribution.
But rather than explaining anything, the media seems more interested in rallying support for another middle eastern war, which will likely lead to further despicable terrorist attacks on america such as this one, AS WELL AS untold thousands of civillian deaths wherever the american government chooses to attack.
Oh yes, one more thing. The images of Palestinians celebrating in Israel you have seen on the news are most likely fake. In a manner of speaking, anyway. They are from 1991 and unrelated to anything going on currently.
"(Man) tries to live his own life as if he were telling a story. But you have to choose: live or tell." --Sartre
Guiliani [sic] got bigger by the hour. Defying advice that he hide out until the shooting stopped, he rushed to the scene, was nearly killed, calmed the city down and took charge of the clean-up and rescue.
As usual, Rudy Giuliani cannot be given enough credit. He is, perhaps, my favorite political figure of this decade. Unlike nearly every other political figure (I try not to refer to him as a politician, as I find that term derogatory) one never wonders where Rudy stands on an issue. He doesn't sit around waiting for the polls to come out so he can announce his stance on that day. He says "Here's my position on issue X. If you like that position, vote for me. If not, don't." He has (with help from others, of course) cleaned up Manhattan (most notably Times Square) significantly. He has slashed the crime rate (no pun intended) dramatically. While I certainly don't agree with his unwavering support of the NYPD no matter how many times they fuck up (Amadeu Diallo for one), I believe his good attributes far outweighs his bad.
Rudy dropped out of the Senate race because he has (I believe) prostate cancer. At the time I felt sure Rudy would have my vote, even considering he was running against Hillary. But he bailed and I was left with Hillary or... Rick Lazio. That was an easy call -- Hillary hands down. But that's beside the point.
He's not running for re-election. His political career is probably nearly over, by choice. He really has nothing to gain politically at this point and still he faces this tragedy with everything he has. he gives press conferences well past 1 am on NY1 and I'm sure he's up before 9 every day.
While Bush's actions weren't too courageous, he has an army of secret service agents strongly advising him what to do next. If the president dies on their watch, their balls are on the line. And Bush was never a very good speaker. I just wonder what would have been different had Gore been in the White House instead of Bush...
A UN inspection group found that well over 95% of the food and medical supplies were reaching Iraqi civilians directly. They reported it as one of the most effective humanitarian projects in history.
American oil companies use U.S. military and political force to obtain their oil. They do it in secret, using the State Department and CIA, to escape justice. In most cases only money is required to grease the wheels, but on several occasions we've provided all but the soldiers.
Neither side is right. They both must be stopped. Don't try to claim that "they" are somehow more "evil" because they attacked civilians, for the U.S. does that as well. What happened is an atrocity, but at least most everyone killed in Tuesday's attack died instantly. Iraqi children have been starving to death by the thousands for well over a year.
The terrorists are probably hoping that this will result in the American public pressuring our government to change some particular action. I believe they are, unfortunately, just as wrong as our government in believing that the starving citizens of Iraq are going to suddenly revolt against their leadership.
Most Americans not only don't know what our government does, they don't want to. The majority believe they have no say in what the government does, so the last thing they want is to learn of U.S. atrocities. They don't want to feel any more guilt or responsibility. They pay their taxes, and that means they don't have to think about all the terror that money buys.
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
I take that back. The number is zero. It's just a statue for heaven's sake.
America will never be the same again. The attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon have proved that the greatest and only super power in the world is not invincible. No mater who is responsible for the attacks on America and not matter how viciously the Americans choose to retaliate, American foreign policy is what brought this all on. Perhaps this is the beginning of the decline of the great American Empire.
I really detest reading these editorials, where the author seems to be on the verge of celebration because innocent people have died in a country he doesn't like, or because now more people have experienced horror and death in the world than before.
Will this author be pleased when every man, woman, and child on this planet has felt terror and pain, rather than have the audacity to desire a free and happy life?
Innocent human lives do not go on opposite sides of a balance, with Americans or Israelis on one side, Palestinians on the other. Innocent human life knows no political boundaries. Innocent human lives are always just that: human lives. Or put another way, two wrongs don't make a right.
And I don't understand when people say this shows America is somehow weak. Don't they realize, we have several hundred millions of people, and 49 more states? The terrorists took two buildings, and several thousand innocent lives, and this will somehow topple America? Even without America, the world is full of people who will fight for the ideals of democracy and freedom and capitalism. We know it's not perfect, but there's nothing better.
We fought hard to get to the point where we don't have to experience death and suffering every day, and we will continue fighting for it, as any rational human being would do!
American planes are the ones that also randomly bomb Iraqi civilian targets.
Hmmm... Looks like they spelled military wrong.
Every day Palestinians die in their homes, going to school, going to work, trying to get through an Israeli checkpoint or on the streets where they are open targets for Israeli tanks and snipers.
And every day Israelis die in their homes, going to school, going to work, walking on the streets where they are open targets for Palestinian suicide bombers.
But it doesn't matter! You know why? Neither side will ever give in. None of the people are able to change. The only hope is that their children will be sheltered from the hatred, so they might grow up too naive to realize they are supposed to hate each other. But until then, fanatics, and hatred-filled nutcases that believe in an afterlife will continue the killing, and thus mindful people that believe in justice or prevention will continue retaliating.
With the United States being the only remaining superpower, we (since I am a US citizen) make a perfect target. The sad fact is that the majority of US citizens don't pay much attention to foreign policy. In the case of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, the US support given to Israel makes the US just as guilty of killing Palestinians as the Israelis, from a Palestinian point of view. That's why some Palestinians were applauding the attacks. (Others were donating blood and denouncing the attacks. Most people don't mention that.)
US foreign policy in the Middle East is a long and sordid affair. Our government is not innocent and this will make alot of US citizens wake up.
Now that all of the knee jerkers are ready to flame me - NOTHING that our government has done, should result in a tragedy like this. Regardless of the US foreign policy, innocent civilians DO NOT deserve to die. I stared out of my window towards the Financial District in shock and disbelief as the WTC fell. Terrorism is irrational and results in senseless bloodshed, mostly of innocents.
I hope that the people responsible for Tuesdays attacks are brought to justice swiftly. I also hope that the US retaliation doesn't result in further (and possibly worse) terrorist activity.
I dont have a TV, and i am thankful for the editors on puting updates on the slashdot page. There are plenty of other stories more akin to the usual slashdot type that you can read, and i dont see how a small blurb on the page, rarely more than a paragraph can upset you that much. If you dont want to read a story, then check out the headline and continue reading down the page. Dont click on the link, and then whine about it.
I have found slashdots coverage invaluable over the last few days, and thank the editors once again. They have collected a number of interesting stories, and personal accounts that i probably wouldnt have found without them. I am also glad that they have some more technical articles on the front page.
Oh so I supposed that you think we should just sit by and let these idiots continue to attack us. Whether or not you want to wake up and face reality. We are already at war.
Even if you sit by and do nothing (as we have done up to now) there will be mass casualties as we have saw on tuesday. If you send troops into battel there will be casualties. However I can accept the casualties of military people fighting for the freedom of our country. What I can not accept is the murder of inocent people.
I want my kids to grow up and know the freedoms and to live without fear just as I have. If we do not take action and we roll over they will never know what it is to live with out fear and to live in true freedom.
The whole fucking point of this article seems to be to criticize President Bush and the media. How utterly ridiculous.
I did not vote for Bush, nor do I agree with all his decisions, but this kind of bullshit article is entirely inappropriate during such a time of crisis. President Bush was being moved around by the secret service, it appeared the whitehouse was a possible target, should he have gone back to the whitehouse to be killed? No, he should stay the fuck out of Washington until the immediate danger is over, he can run the country from anywhere anyway!
Then you criticize the media as appearing distant, etc. I saw the whole thing on live television, when the second plance crashed into the second building, the reporters, camera man, and everyone else in the stupio screamed and started shouting. Some of the news networks STILL haven't run ANY commercials, the same reporters have been reporting for 2 days straight with almost no break, eyes are puffy, speach is slow, and they've put all their partisan political leanings aside and have simply tried to report on the fucking news, which is more than I can say for you!
Fucking ridiculous, and fucking inappropriate, please, Katz, STFU!
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Why are there now areas within Israel where Palestinian Arabs are self-administered? Because of a US-mediated settlement between the PLO and Israel. Why are these areas now under "Israeli seige"? Because Palestinian terrorists, whom Arafat is either unwilling or unable to control, started blowing up Israeli civillians. Why did Israel take such a hard line against the Muslims within their borders in the first place? Does the year 1967 remind anyone of anything? (Not the main cause perhaps, but a symptom of why Israel has valid reasons for doing what they do, by their own lights if nothing else.) Nor has US support for Israel in recent years been either blind or unconditional. We have repeatedly insisted that Israel back off on reprisals to Palestinian terror, often clearly to the detriment of Israel's own self-interest, in the hopes that this time, just maybe, the cycle of terror will be broken. The terrorist groups instead have shown absolutely no interest in peace, but continue to escalate their activities.
As Americans go, I'm a Palestinian sympathizer. I'm an Orthodox Christian, within the same communion as the indigenous Christian Church in the Holy Land. Palestinian Christians suffer from all of the disadvantages of being Arabs in Israel even though they are not among the militants. I know very well that Palestinians have lived under conditions of oppression. But I'd have to be blind not to realize that the militant Palestinian factions brought most of it upon themselves and upon every other Palestinian, terrorist or not, Muslim or not, by their actions.
As far as Iraq goes, neither sanctions nor bombings would ever happen if Saddam Hussein would simply abide by the terms of the agreements he made at the end of the Gulf War. He would be able to end all sanctions tomorrow by doing so if only he hadn't proven repeatedly that his word can't be trusted for anything. I suppose the Jordanians don't much care that the reason the Gulf War happened in the first place was because of Saddam's sudden, unprovoked assault on a peaceful neighboring Muslim state. (And are 5,000 Iraqi babies really dying every day due to economic sanctions while Saddam rests comfortably in one of his many palaces? Even if it's true, how can it possibly be the fault of the US when Saddam clearly has the resources to deal with it, but chooses instead to spend them on militancy?)
Perhaps this is the beginning of the decline of the great American Empire.
They can but hope. I suppose it's useless to point out that the US doesn't really have an empire. If we did, our "client states" are the most unruly and disobedient of those of any empire in the history of the world. But I'm well read in world history, and I say that anyone who would provoke the US again ought to proceed with extreme caution. If the provocation is sufficient, the US just might be moved to create a genuine empire, if that's what it takes to make itself secure. Be very, very careful.
And the brethren went away edified.
Katz, this simply wasn't true. There were several news anchors and people around them full of real emotion, on the verge of tears. For instance Ashleigh Banfield on MSNBC (an incredible woman and anchor who should get a friggin' medal for her work), at the beginning of the terror she was almost crying and could barely speak.
And GW, bless his heart, was almost crying today too. For once, I felt like he was really my president.
There was a lot of reality on TV for once. Too much.
If ever there could be a clear demonstration of the immense power of the television as a medium, this was it. What CNN and BBC effectively did was to invoke a sense of overwhelming shock and "unbounded" compassion for the distraught. Add to this the portrayal of emotion from the reporters. It gives the watcher a sense of communion. He feels he is part of that tragedy, however remote he may have been. This can never be duplicated on the Net, simply because, and pardon the cliche, the human angle doesn't exist.
I wish I could feel safe being so naive as to say something like that. I hope you don't believe that the only role our country has played in this nightmare is as a victim. Certainly everyone who died in the attacks Tuesday was a victim, and purely a victim. But you can't just close your eyes, cover your ears, and pretend that our country has played no role but that of a victim.
Steven N. Severinghaus
You have swallowed US bullshit propaganda whole. Learn to be a bit more skeptical, damnit! I trust individuals like Halliday who have staked their careers on these allegations rather than the vicious US government. How many times do we have to say Don't believe government propaganda without question. If they were killing children they wouldn't admit it, would they?
Now to the facts at issue. Iraq does not get enough supplies. For a long time the UK, France, Russia, etc. have been pushing for better targeted sanctions - all of them acknowledged there was a humanitarian relief problem. The US has up to now maintained its hardline stance. More info and analysis acan be found at the excellent CASI site:
http://www.cam.ac.uk/societies/casi/index.html
"if the substantial reduction in child mortality throughout Iraq during the 1980s had continued through the 1990s, there would have been half a million fewer deaths of children under-five in the country as a whole during the eight year period 1991 to 1998" Unicef, 12 August 1999.
"We are in the process of destroying an entire society. It is as simple and terrifying as that. It is illegal and immoral." Denis Halliday, after resigning as first UN Assistant Secretary General and Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq, The Independent, 15 October 1998
Female Prison Rape in NY
I'm a first generation American. My parents were driven from Iran by this same Islamic filth (I'm sorry but I can't help but be prejudice, and feel hate for them all...Half a century ago the descendants of european immigrants went by the tens thousands to the homeland of their ancestors to rid the earth of a great evil. We must do the same, the battles will be fought differently but in the end we too shall prevail...Victory at any cost.
I appreciate your patriotism, but (IMHO) that isn't how America works. Here is my position, as posted earlier today on another site.
By The Numbers (a cross post)
2001 will doubtlessly go down in history as a year when thousands of Americans died because some people felt so strongly about their way of life that they were willing to die rather than change, and were willing to kill countless innocent bystanders in the process.
Except of course that "countless" is absolutely the wrong word to use here. One of the many things that Americans do quite well is count things--everything from hanging chad to corpses gets tallied and tabulated here. So we will in fact have concrete numbers to think about, eventually. Even before the year is out we will have good estimates to start thinking rationally about--thinking being another thing Americans are quite good at. We will know not only how many people they killed, but who they were and why they did it.
Drunk drivers, for instance, are expected to kill around 16000 people this year, give or take a few depending on how jolly the holidays turn out to be. While this is a horrid toll, it is quite a bit better than the 27000 or so that smokers will take out with second hand smoke--both because there are fewer of them, and because most victims of drunken drivers are spared the painful, lingering death of the smoker's victim. These are just two examples, falling between the somewhat larger numbers killed by (say) reckless driving in general and the slightly smaller numbers taken out (for example) by terrorists. But we'll count them all.
Terrible, surely. As Americans we can hardly hear numbers like this without asking ourselves the next question: what are we going to do about this?
Some countries have systems in place to deal with these sorts of problems quickly and effectively. Drink alcohol? We'll chop off your head. That certainly solves the problem of repeat offenders, and there is reason to believe that it acts as an effective deterrent. We, of course, aren't so direct. When an individual can be tied to a crime (say, a drunk driver) we deal with their behavior on a case by case basis. But whether a perpetrator can be found or not, we react like--well, like Americans. There really isn't another word for it. We install air bags, we segregate public places into smoking and non-smoking areas, we take myriad small steps to reduce the risks, to mitigate the damage, to solve the problem. We study it. We seek cures and explanations, predictive indicators and systematic risk factors. We debate. We argue. And above all, we seek to educate.
Some may call us wimps, others may call us civilized. In the long run, it doesn't really matter what they call us, because in the long run our system is phenomenally effective. Our wheels may grind slowly, but like the mill of justice they grind exceedingly fine.
True, there are always those who preach the extremes. Anyone with a radio can hear them--just fiddle with the dial until you find a station that's all talk (and I am thankful, little action). Or hop on the internet. Smokers should be doused with gasoline. Drunk drivers are doing us a service by culling those people too weak or stupid to get out of their way. We should use our military might to turn foreign countries into parking lots. All the fags should be sent to Haiti. Everyone should be required to smoke for a year, so they'll see how hard it is to quit. Drunk drivers were sent here by Satin. We should embrace Allah. Nuke them from orbit. Kill them all, let God sort 'em out. Everyone is gay, but most people haven't admitted it yet. The Blacks are behind this. Or the Jews. Or the Californians. Elvis is stalking me. Etc, etc.
The great thing about America is that we don't shut these people up. We don't have them shot, or locked away for decades. We don't even ignore them, really, although most of us don't act on their advice. Instead, we react to them like Americans always react to things. They get counted, along with the chad, along with the casualties, and their voices are weighed in when we consider our options, ground in the mill of public policy.
Which, as has been noted, grinds exceedingly fine.
-- MarkusQ
Thankfully i didnt know anyone who died, and I send condolences to those who did. The world trade center has been a part of NYC for as long as I can remember it shakes my sense of permenance to think of it gone. it is one of those things that is always there.
..was. the past tense still doesnt come easily.
I dont think that blood pays for blood. I am saddened
by the events last tuesday, and i am saddened by the events which I am sure to come.
It is a strange feeling to mourn for humanity. To feel that the human race has gone mad.
Perhaps it may help those who are angry to view this webpage. It might remind us all what makes us great.
http://spinster.org/~david
Many might think that this is too lenient a stance. That it is giving in to terrorism. But let us remember the words of JFK, words which very well have prevented WWIII.
"Let no one see an offer to negotiate as a sign of weakness, Let no one fear to negotiate, nor negotiate out of fear.."
just some thoughts.
--------------------- Turn evil by smiling.
Female Prison Rape in NY
Um no, fuck off. No way does expressing an opinion ever equate to terrorism. No matter how extreme.
Okay, you probably didn't mean it quite like that. But still, it had to be said. You may hate the opinions of allegedly "extreme" left-wingers like me, but don't go around calling us terrorists.
Female Prison Rape in NY
Its nice to see a well thought out, insightful, and explanatory rather than agressive reply on slashdot.
We all know how rare this is. Thanks.
----- 70% of all statistics are completely made up.
While I like your attitude a lot more than that of all those guys running around yelling bloody revenge, I have a couple of problems with your post:
To start off, who exactly do you refer to as "the enemy"? If I read you correctly, the whole of the Islamic/Arabic world. Sorry, sweeping overgeneralization.
What's even worse is the total disregard for cultures other than our own your post shows - there is nothing inherently better in modern Western culture than in traditional Islamic culture (which was, as can not be pointed out often enough, a haven of learning and tolerance for centuries during which European crusaders lined their way to the holy land with corpses). Sure, there are extremists, and there's not the slightest reason to defend them and their sick actions, but these extremists are by no means a majority, and they are by far not the only thing that makes up Islamic culture.
I have a gut feeling that this sort of (sorry) cultural chauvinism is at the heart of much of the terror we have been witnessing during recent years...
frotz grue
Well now the whole area has a lot in common then. Just replace most of the "Palestinians" with "Israelis" and you have an average article in www.jpost.com *sigh*. My brother pointed out something interesting. Why is it only the Western Islamic and Muslim leaders that condemn the trade center attacks as against their religion? (there was an excellent post by an American-Arab about this.) It most definately is. Jihad is only for people oppressed into not following their religion by the government. It definately allows for tolerance and love for people in its own borders.
Remember that Bin Laden is exiled from Saudi Arabia becuase he thought the American presence was a violation of Holy Land. He seems to have no religious founding for that, so we dig up our own rationalization for him anyway. People in America that picked up news paper some stories who think they then know what is going on. Anyone ever track down those 5000 Egyptian women who were shipped to S.A.supply the Soldiers needs during Desert Storm? That was all over the Arab world presses at the time.
I was on the side of the poor victims of American 500-pound-guerilla-ism, and in many ways still am. But I've learned something in the mean time, and have since grown up.
1) We are responsible for the Govt's actions. They did it for us. We say "we want cheap oil" and we say "we want cheap beef." The Government that wants to stay in power just listens and obeys like a humble a-moral robot.
2) Every two bit johny-come-lately to power down there realizes there is much to be gained by listening to their people who look with envy on the prosperity of America. Heck, even Mexico feels the same way. Its easy to look across the atlantic and blame all their troubles on those two towers where world trade happens and they think they get shortchanged. That perspective can twist many events that really are more benign. That perspective twisting is something called hatred.
So all in all, I take what I hear from both sides with a grain of salt. Meanwhile I look to get into the government becuase the only real change will come from within. Not from a plane flying into a building. Also I plan to be nice to Arabs so that my judgement doesn't get clouded by fear, hatred or jealousy.
Becuase in the end, aside from a very few admirable people that I see actively doing something from what they've learned about our secret government, I find that I can lump everyone that starts complaining about American Imperialism into my round "Complainers" file.
And I definately lump people who take their own inadequacy and hatred and jealousy as excuses for destruction as no better than a child who throws a rock through the t.v. becuase his/her parents won't let them watch Barney. Doing something does not mean destroying things for attention. Ghandi and MLK showed us a better way.
Tantrums do not get a sympathetic ear in my experience.
Female Prison Rape in NY
By nightfall, CNN, MSNBC and the networks were moving away from the dramatic video and the indescribable scenes of wreckage and carnage and calling in the policy wonks and propellerheads who hide out in Washington caves until something like this happens. The focal point of all the airtime then shifted from the devastation in New York to the parsing and analyzing of the political, governmental and intelligence communities. For future reference, that may be a good time to turn off the tube and get online, the medium of individual stories, feelings and experiences.
On the one hand, I agree with Katz. When the talking heads start spouting, it's time to move on.
But then, when Katz starts spouting silliness like this...
President Bush, sticking to his cautious sing-song monotone, fled to various bunkers and seemed to shrink throughout the day.
...I know it's time to get off the 'net as well, and move on with life.
The simple fact is that many of the leaders in the Islamic world simply treat their people like shit. They half to make up some enemy to distract from the fact that they are tyrants and any decent people would overthrow them. The peacfull state of Isreal is a perfict target - and likewise their strongest ally the USA.
The current assinations used in self defense by Isreal are a perfict example. The peace process was going along nicely until Airifat started to face political unstability - immeadiately Isreal started to be provoked. Lets make no mistake about it - it was not at all for religious reasons, or at all for moral reasons, but only because political islamic leaders started to feel threatened and needed an enemy to distract the people from the current corrupt powers.
In a way, it is America's fault. We should never have tolerated such an injust government as Saddam Husseins (spelling) to stay in power. He has more than anybody used the war mentality to distract the people from the fact that they are murdered and pillaged (by him) not the USA. But displacing him, and not tollerating others like him was politically costly so the USA simply put up with them, and managed it. - That was a fatal mistake that we paid for this tuesday.
Resume your Katz-bashing on Monday.
Predictably, Jon continues to grind his new media vs. old media 'axe'. However, there's a new twist: in this case, at least, he admits that the old media has an impact that the new hasn't significantly blunted.
Typically, Katz frames the argument about the relative benefits of both old and new media outlets in terms of politicians/pundits vs. the man on the street. Presumeably, the Politicians and Pundits cannot present news sans bias, yet the man on the street can. His position has always struck me as simplistic and puzzling. I could give a damn about the media outlet type...the question is whether or not the outlet reports the news accurately, fairly, and professionaly. Katz himself is a perfect example of the "Man on the Street" that reports with bias. PBS's Newshour is a perfect example of "Old Media" that gets it right (see below). Dan Rather and the newsroom that he runs is an example of "Old Media" that shows regular bias despite their protestations to the contrary.
The sad fact is that Jon's brand of 'reporting' is a good example of one of the reasons that the "New Media" continues to lag behind the old. I've read his pieces off and on since 'Wired' and his bias and, frankly, immaturity, are often on display.
Furthermore, it's obvious that Jon frequently heeds his own call to "turn off the tube and get online, the medium of individual stories, feelings and experiences". He often has a poor grasp of facts, political realities, and the world in general. His slanderous use of the phrase "fled to various bunkers" to describe the President's activities after the incident is evidence that Jon has little understanding of the facts surrounding events nor the tremendous repercussions should the President have been killed. The destruction of the World Trade Center was a tremendous blow struck against US, and world, economics. The destruction of the President, (not George W Bush the man, mind you, whom it's obvious that Katz despises, but rather the President of the United States) would have been a tremendous blow against the US government. The combination of the two blows would result in chaos for this country, and the world. Katz's statement is silly, petty, and poorly thought out for so many reasons, too many to describe here. I'm not surprised by them, though: it's typical of him.
The "cool and natural" demeanor of Reporters that Jon calls "odd" I call refreshing and professional. I don't want a reporter sobbing, dazed, shocked, exhausted, angry, etc. I take it for granted that even the most hardboiled reporter is genuinely moved by recent events and, if they're capable of containing their emotions while doing their job, they're to be congratulated.
Anecdotes are nice and occasionally important. However, hard facts are what makes news, IMHO, and I want those facts presented rationally and dispassionately. I enjoyed Jon's first piece about the tragedy but I certainly wouldn't describe it as journalism: I was genuinely moved when he mentioned that he fell to his knees and prayed. However, that's anecdotal. Ultimately, I want facts, not emotions.
On-Line reporting, at least reporting unconnected with "Old Media" has a long way to go and attitudes like Katz's are at least in part to blame. Katz has crowed for years about the impending demise of "Old Media" and now, in today's piece, he's admitted that "old Media" still reigns supreme. I was surprised to see Katz admit that much: I'll be even more surprised when he admits that his brand of "reporting" is one of the reasons why "On-Line" journalism still eats the "Tube's" dust.
Replace Katz and his ilk with the On Line equivalent of Walter Cronkite, Robin McNeil, or Jim Lehrer, and things might change. Until then I'll still rely heavily on the "Tube" for news.
Now it's time to plug my favorite news program: PBS's "NewsHour". If you:
1. take News seriously and
2. despise the "O'Reilly Factor" method of news reporting
then do yourself a big favor and watch the NewsHour tomorrow afternoon.
Thanks to some local cops and firemen from my town, I just got to within a couple blocks of what the volunteers call "Ground Zero" -- the shockingly small pile of rubble that is all that is left of two of the biggest buildings on the planet. It's the perfect place to write about how the media -- new and old -- handled this story.
I'd like to respectfully suggest that there's less difference between the "new" and "old" media than you seem to want to think. I've been increasingly irritated by so-called reporters who seem to feel that it's necessary to get as close to "ground zero" as possible in order to report this story effectively.
Frankly, I didn't find any insights in this editorial that seem to require proximity to the disaster, nor pestering the heros who are trying to help, even if they are from your hometown. I'm certain that your intentions are good, and this is obviously a hugely important story that needs coverage. But if you're not working to clean up the mess, or recover victims, or help find survivors, or directly assist the heros who are doing those things, you really shouldn't be there. You may well find yourself in the way, or in danger, or endangering others, and for what?
I think this sort of thing is absolutely typical of the traditional media. And it essentially boils down to a judgement call: Will the story that you're expecting to get benefit the public enough to put yourself and others at increased risk? Too often, I'm afraid the answer is "no."
Now repeat after me: "Can you tell us how you feel after viewing this horrible tragedy?"
If you love New York, your heart will break when the smoke clears. Something about the city is busted for good, no matter what the mayor says.
One has only to think of London under the blitz or the San Francisco earthquake to know that great cities can recover from great disasters.
According to seminal urbanologist Jane Jacobs, cities are inherently resilient to catastrophe. More damage is done by misguided urban planning.
The World Trade Center, as its name suggests, serves a national and international market. The demand for the products and services that the companies in the World Trade Tower provided is still there. Compared to the damage caused by hurricanes in Florida, the cost to rebuild is manageable.
If New York could thrive despite a crime rate that killed many more people than the terrorist over the last 10 years, it can survive this single event.
I suspect that the most lasting effect is that architects will reconsider the need for 110 storey buildings.
The internet would be a great way to recieve information if people would stop cracking web sites! The information is important to many people and to deface it is a crime. Until people learn to respect the labors of others, the internet will never be the great revolution that is television.
I spent the whole of Tuesday at work, without access to traditional news sources like TV or radio, and instead searched the web for every bit of information I could find. Since most of the major news sited were down most of the time, I (like probably most others on here) turned to various forum sites like this one to see what others had found out so far - in the process, I read tons of eyewitness accounts from people in NY and Washington and discussed with numbers of people from all over the world. In the evening, when I met some frineds who had spent most of the day in frontz of the TV, I was astounded at what totally differnet pictures of the events we had - and I was ambsolutely amazed by the fact that the comparative lack of traditionally respected and resputable news sources on the Net was more than made up for by the hundreds of people who shared what little knowledge they had and discussed their opinions instead of spreading crazy rumours (something I was always worried about whith regard to the Internet as a news source).
If anything good at all came of this tragedy, it is that the internet (and especially slashdot, which was my major news source through most of the day) has proven its worth as a medium for worldwide discussion in times of crises.
frotz grue
Perhaps the United States has been accused of acting like the global police department, but only for our own ends. It appears we can no longer rely on our own media to bring us news from around the world, because they don't. If you watch BBC television or surf the world's news websites, you will see a greater picture than the AOL/Time Warner machine is presenting to the majority of Americans.
Maybe it is time we wake up and start acting like part of a global problem.
OK, I'll admit my first reaction to the events was 'wow! a plane flew into the WTC! I gotta watch that again and again!' And thanks to TiVo, brought to you by the Linux OS, I did. I did this with the footage of people falling from the buildings too, I admit.
I'm not so ashamed to look back and admit this now, because before the dust even settled folks started looking at how this tragedy can benefit them. In Indiana they raised the price of gas to $5 a gallon to take advantage of scared suckers. A local grocery store urges you to shop there because a percentage will go to the rescue efforts, or the families, or the children, or some such. Scam artists are burning up the phone lines begging for donations for the families of firemen lost in the wreckage.
I was watching the news, and the anchor is getting all misty-eyed about the flag being raised out of the wreckage, saying 'this is our Iwo Jima'. Well, we had 'our Pearl Harbor' a couple of days ago, I guess the logical next step is 'our Hiroshima' before we get thru the weekend. Stay tuned for the details.
The anchor then introduced a chee-zee poem written and recited by a student of a teacher who perished in the disaster. It was accompanied by 'stirring' music.
Wow, we Americans know how to put on a show. We know how to use death and mayhem to further our careers. We can know indulge ourselves in a bit of jingoism and racism, too. Woo-hoo! In bars across america country musicians are furiously penning what they hope will be 'our 'Proud To Be An American, where at least I know I'm free by Lee Greenwood', while outside the bass player and drummer beat the crap out of an Indian student they've mistaken for a 'rag-head'. I need to turn the TV off. We all do. If you can in some way do something that helps directly, do it. But spare us the schmaltz and cheese.
Thank you very much, goodnight.
sunset in israel was at 6:50pm on the 11th. israel is 7 hours ahead of EST.
if the video was taken around 11[am] our time (which seems to be just about the right time). that would make it 6 pm their time
and thus... sunset....
NOT around 3pm as some of the videos show.
So, either CNN knows how to defy Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion.....
Or they reused at least *some* old footage.
Complexity Happens
The sad thing about all of this is that Iraq was one of the only Mideast countries that was trying to develop it's oil wealth into a real industrial base.
Basic economics says that transforming natural resources creates far more wealth than just selling it and shipping it off. To a certain degree, Iraq was trying to build a long-term society, unlike say the Saudis, who are planning ride back into the dunes and live in tents like they always had as soon as they've pumped their oil dry. Furthermore, the conventional wisdom is that a modern economy eventually develops a modern (open) government, and Iraq was closer to a modern economy than most of those places.
As Europe has proved many times, you can get the shit bombed out of you and still get back up on your feet. However, much of what existed of Iraq's modern enconomy (roads, bridges, water projects, rail, etc) was destroyed during the war, and the embargos prohibit imports of the equipment (such as machine tools) and material necessary to rebuild and get a normal economy going.
I'm not sure what we are trying to prove -- we are apparently starving them and leaving their economy in abject poverty in the hope that they will overthrow Saddam. But when the Kurds and others approached us for assistance after the war, we refused to help them...
What we really have is WWI all over again -- the Germans were 'punished' by having their industrial base stolen from them. People sympathetic to their plight let radical elements steal it back. The result was not pretty.
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
That's because the attack was meant to send a message, not to correct a problem, and the intended audience for that message was NOT Bin Laden; the intended audience was the American public. People wanted a big dramatic gesture so that they could believe that their gov't was "doing something"... then America could forget about those tiresome foreigners and get back to important things: like Jon Benet, the WWF and what naughty Congressmen might do with their interns
-- "At Microsoft, quality is job 1.1" -- PC Magazine, Nov. 1994
This kind of blatant misinformation is exactly what we need to guard against. It's an old trick, take the facts and distort them subtly to completely misrepresent reality. The US and other allies regularly bomb Iraqi military targets, they bomb Radar installations and command and control infrastructure Iraq uses to direct missile attacks on overflying jets. Your loyalties are betrayed by the bare faced lies in the text of the article you are promulgating. There are thousands of innocent civilians dead in America and Palestinians are dancing in the street. There is a clear distinctions to be drawn between right and wrong here. The Palestinians and other Arabs have been hell bent on the destruction of Israel as a state, they tried to destroy Israel and failed, now they want Israel to forget all that and concede the territory they were attacked from back to their attackers and just HOPE that the Arabs will be nice enough to not try the same thing again. Moreover they want the parts of Jerusalem originally offered when they collectively walked out of the UN decades ago and embarked on their antisemitic crusade. In the mean time just to underscore how insane that policy would be for Israel, Palestinian terrorists rocket and suicide bomb civilian targets while hiding in civilian centers like the refugee camps. Your two faced lies don't withstand scrutiny. The only deliberate and targeted murder of civilians is the terrorist attacks and we're all doomed if we forget that and listen to the lies and doublethink from the groups who condone murder. I no longer give a damn about Palestinians or their cause. Enough is enough, you can gloat over the death of innocent lives but that's the same mistake that the Palestinians made when celebrating Sadam's SCUD missile attacks on Israeli cities and American & Saudi targets. It's time for the Palestinians to drop the murderous and futile rhetoric and genuinely support peace. If there's a wrong side to be on they have an instinct for picking it. The only way they can ever hope to regain their territory is by earning the trust of their neighbours, that will take decades of concerted work towards peace. Every bomb and rocket moves them further away from their ultimate objectives. If they knew how far the attack on America had set back their cause they'd have been weeping not celebrating.
I like how the negative responses to anything saying "America's not as innocent as you believe" too-often consist of little more than phrases like "fuck them", "moron", "asshole", and "bomb the shit out of anyone who disagrees with me". Plus always needing to blur the difference between saying "America does some terrible things too" and supporting horrific terrorism. Give the posters some credit for examining the issue, instead of automatically jumping in with "you're anti-American, so die scum!" bullshit.
Nobody in their right mind supports what happened to those innocent people the other day.
By the same token, nobody in their right mind should support similar action against the innocent people of any other country. Take out the planners, the perpetrators, the military, the weapons, even uncooperative governments if necessary, but that far and no further. America and the UN can cause some terrible suffering for the innocent people (see for instance Mike Moore's report on Iraq) which are conveniently ignored by the inward-looking mainstream US media. The media machines in these countries no doubt spout anti-American lies and propaganda, but the US media machine is also somewhat biased, towards 'puff pieces'.
The issue is to explain WHY it happened - what caused it to occur, how can the problem be addressed (both the root cause, and preventing the eventual actions) to stop it happening again. Pretending that these people were just one-off crazy folk who did it for the hell of it, is just inviting the next batch to try the same thing the next time the tension builds up. The US government jumping into a war when those responsible may not even have ties with a particular country (let alone being representative of the people or the government) is just inviting the next lot to attack sooner and with more 'justification' on their side.
There's a world of difference between examining the possible causes, and believing them to be a reasonable excuse or justification for what has happened. The latter is misguided and sick; the former might just help us stop it from happening again.
Urgh. I don't even know where to start.
First of all, MY analysis of two media. The integration of TV and the Internet has created a bizarre mutant child of online and offline media, where the repetitive imagery and propellerheads of television news are subject to the scrutiny and discussion of numerous newshounds with too much time on their hands... the result being that along with television's processed, plastic-packaged presentation of events, we have the opportunity to view with a few clicks of the mouse how hundreds, maybe thousands (we won't have specific numbers for possibly three weeks, so stop asking... ... hmm, poor taste alert) of people feel about the presentation, and how other people feel about how people feel... and so on and so forth. This makes media uniquely responsible for what they present... not so much now, but as interactive forums become larger and more common, television will bend to the will of the message maniacs.
It's quite obvious that Mr. Katz didn't vote for President Bush. That's fine; I didn't, either. I think the president rose to the occasion quite nicely, though; his staff made sure that he was safe for the duration of the attacks (I bet Mr. Katz feels pretty silly now that the New York Times reports there was a credible and specific threat to the President), and he played his political cards right.
When our president addressed the nation, he had two options. He could read a teleprompter containing a script approved by his staff and listen to their advice on how to remain calm and deliver it so that he didn't identify with and therefore justify the violent feelings brewing in most of America and start a mass lynching of Arab-Americans... or he could just say whatever was on his mind at the moment. Given those two options, I think we were pretty lucky.
It's also rather obvious that Mr. Katz also shares my distaste for television network news. I think the news organizations of America performed far above and beyond the call of duty... the Three Horsemen (Rather, Jennings, and Brokaw) put in two back-to-back sixteen-hour days on the air. Aaron Brown and Shep Smith both remained with us, commercial-free, for the first two days after the attacks. Ashleigh Banfield herself narrowly escaped WTC 1, and was struggling to remain composed as she related the story of herself and her crew. No thought was given to the advertisers who weren't having their products or services displayed for us to buy; in fact, CNN was broadcast over nearly every Turner network instead of regular programming. In times of ongoing crisis such as this, the news becomes a grueling business. Everyone involved with every network displayed a tremendous amount of intestinal fortitude as they reported on this most, ah, unique event. Rather than dismiss them, I think they all deserve our praise... for a change.
With their usual hubris, reporters and politicians were promising us that everything was going to change.
I have late-breaking news for you, Mr. Katz. Everything HAS changed. The bar has been raised for Shocking Terrorist Acts. Americans everywhere are fortified with cellular phones and the memory of this incident, coupled with a firm resolve to never let it happen again. (I would like to see anyone try to hijack a plane with a knife now.) All of us have seen the powerful impact that the Internet and wireless communications can have and have had in this situation, and we will use this knowledge the next time disaster strikes.
...bringing me to my final point. Sadly, the change that will have the most impact on America is that despite increased security, despite carriers off the coasts, despite air marshals, despite military strikes around the world... there will no doubt be a next time.
The real enemy of freedom in this attack is the narrow-minded delusions both Christians and Muslims willingly indulge in; the fundamentalist Muslim delusions just happen to be more immediately violent. Bush's reading of Psalm 23 during his 9/11 Oval Office speech is so ironic it's laughable. Consider: "Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of Death, I fear no evil, for you are with me" roughly equates to "I'm not afraid of death because God is on my side. God is on my side which means I'm right, and my enemies are evil. I am so right, I'm ready to die over it."
Quoting Christian martyr-making propaganda as part of a rant denouncing Islamic martyrs?!? I know the speech-writers were pressed for time, but come on! Could they possibly milk the situation for any more sentimentalist, inflammatory remarks? Was that a Presidential Address or the dramtic climax of a made-for-TV movie?
A whole country of the fattest, most spoiled, and most self-righteous people on the planet are filled with indignant fury, and the country's leaders (elected by popular vote) know that all they need to do for their approval ratings to shoot through the roof is FAN THE FLAMES OF WAR. Loose them doggies! "The people are hungry for blood, let them gather in the colosseum (their living rooms) to watch the lions (the US Military) tear apart the evil and insurgent Christians (Muslims)! Maybe afterwards we can go cruxify Jesus (Bin Laden)! Yee ha!"
Scotty, beam me up quick! This planet is so stupid it might be contagious!
1) WWII was essentially the second phase of a European Civil War, WWI being the first phase. In both cases, the U.S. kept out of it until attacks upon American interests forced their hand.
2) (one side of mouth) America has stood idly by while terrorism has gripped the rest of the world.
(other side of mouth) United States has been accused of acting like the global police department. Come on, say what you mean. Contradictory statements don't help your point.
Why should America hastily involve itself in every conflict and problem in the world? We run a free society based on liberal values, and thankfully we have avoided the dual curses of a politicized military and nationalism. I fear that with too great of an entanglement in the affairs of others we may degenerate into a nation that holds blood grudges against other nations, much like what you will find in Eastern Europe or the Middle East.
On one hand, many people complain that the terrorist actions were a result of too much US meddling in the affairs of others (going back to the cold war days). Now is your argument that we haven't meddled enough? And if we're not going to meddle for our own purposes, then what purposes should we be meddling for?
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
I see your point, but.. while Christianity remains a powerful movement in the first world it is no longer a majority. The majority are capitalists, wage earning capitalists, it is the only system that they (and I) know. There are no alternatives unless you want to go to a socialst republic (which is really turned upsidedown fascism) or the Amish which is Luddism.
So, we are all capitalists even though we are feeding on the bottom. The Arab countries are different, not better nor worse, just different.
This time the fight is between Capitalism and The Future of Islam. Capitalism wins by inherent vigor and seduction. It is just too easy to buy a greasy Kentucky when you are late/tired/birthday/hungry. It is cheapish and you know what you are going to get and kids get a job until they get a real job (erhmm did I just say that?).
So, the Americans value money over god (mostly) and the Moslems want to be left to follow god without the intrusion of capitalism (read take over of the media and thoroughly intrusive advertising). They want their kids to be like them.
America will win this one in the short term. However an eye needs to be kept on the future.
Incidentally, do you think that TimeWarner will be selling "Fuck tha Police" in New York tomorrow. Maybe some rapper could make a song called "Fuck tha Fire Brigade 2".
The music/media/film corporations are deriding the heritage that has been earned by America through two world wars and billions of dollars to set the world on its feet again.
In addition, I really do wonder what people mean when they refer to Israeli "atrocities." In most cases, the incidents refered to are the shootings that have left so many young Palistinian men dead. These deaths have nearly brought me to tears, but not for their injustice - for their stupidity. Think about the circumstances under which so many of them have been killed. If you initiate or participate in a riot and assalt police officers, you will probably get shot. It doesn't matter what country you are in, or what religion you are, or what ethnic group you belong to, or how rightous your cause might be. The Police will eventually have no choice but to shoot you. It sucks, but that is how you have to maintain order. Honestly, if you throw rocks and bottles at someone with an assault rifle, you are practically begging them to shoot you. If they eventually do, that doesn't make you a martyr, no matter what you might have been screaming at the time. It makes you an idiot.
What makes me sad about these deaths is not just that Palistinian children are being killed. What makes me sad is how the Palistinian community glorifies their deaths, and exploits the sadness that anyone would feel about such an event. Parents, role models and leaders all but beg their children to go out to Israeli checkpoints and get shot. Their lives are being manipulated and expended by a self-serving and cynical leaders. This is not exactly what I would call an "Israeli attrocity."
The other complaint that one hears about the most is the demolition of Palistinian homes, and the construction of additional settlements. I've never been in support of either of these actions. I think it's wrong to take away someone's home, even if they didn't have a permit to build it. Furthermore, I think it's unwise to settle territory in the way that Israel has chosen to given present circumstances. These are both probably mistakes. But again, people seem to forget what we're talking about here. Israel is 20,330 square kilometers. The state of Vermont is 23,957 square kilometers. Areas like the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights are comparable to in size to such places as Windhan county or Bellows Falls. Not to belittle the Great State of Vermont, but why on earth would people get so worked up about such tiny, insignificant dollops of land? It would be like going to war because the state wanted to move you from Bellows Falls to Brattleboro. It's utter foolishness.
It always seems to come down the the fact that there are all sorts of "holy sites" all over the place there. In my opinion, if these holy sites are really causing that much trouble, they ought to destroy them all, for all religions, and be done with it. No pile of rubble, no matter how mystical or aincent, is worth the blood that has been spilt. I'm sure that if Muhammad, Moses and Jesus all appeared as guests on CMM'sCrossfire, they would all agree that a holy site isn't worth a single human life. So, with respect to land and settlements, I beleive that Isreal has acted beligerantly and unwisely. But the Palestinians (or at least their leadership) has acted completly insane. When the whole country is small enough to drive across in a couple of hours, what does it matter if you live here or there? We should be hearing demands from the Palestinian side that sound more like this:
Instead, they are blowing themselves up on streetcorners and taking potshots at preschools. Not all of them, of course. But the critical thing is that this behavior is all but encouraged by their leadership, and was officially encouraged not too long ago. We have such people in the United States, but we go to lengths to discorage them from actually killing people, and when they do, we lock them up.I happen to think that a lot of the things done by Israel have been mistakes. There have been times that I've been ashamed to call myself a Jew on acount of what Israel was doing at the time. But the fact is, Israel offered a final and permanant peace to Arafat, and Arafat turned it down. Israel allowed the United States to twist its arm until it yeilded to just about every demand made by the PLO. But Arafat decided to hold out for a better deal. Parez knowlingly sacrificed his leadership of the nation in an attempt to make this peace, and Arafat must have known that this would be his last shot at such a sweet deal. Up until that point, I was on the side of the Palistinians. I felt that they had been wronged, and although they behaved very, very poorly, they ought to be copmensated. But to respond to a peace offering by starting a war, and to do so with the blood of their own children is to betray the very name of Peace.
Arafat and the Palestinians wanted a war, and Israel has merely obliged them. It is exactly the same situation as the rock-throwers and the soldiers, only with whole nations. Israel (the soldier) might not be the most enlightened in its opinion of the rock-thrower (the Palestinians), but will reluctantly shoot when forced to. It sucks, but that's how you defend a nation.
In spite of the suggestions and all the tests that I have made, I have not cavato a spider from the hole.
- In Texas firebomb was thrown to islamic school and several shots were fired to islamic cultural centre. Local muslims are afraid that locals will attack any of them.
- In Chicago, arabian cultural centre was firebombed. Angry mob of approx. 300 people marched towards local mosceij yelling "USA, USA!" Police was able to turn them back.
- In Huntington, 75 years old drunken man tried to drive over palestinian woman. When he missed, he threatened to kill this woman, claiming that she "destroys his country."
- In Indiana, person in skimask shot towards a gas station with assault rifle. Gas station was run by Hassan Awhad, who was born in Yemen.
- Kuwaitian children recieved therapy in Washington, after their lives were threatened on their way to school. Persons had been yelling them things like "You should all die!"
Way to go, Usians! Really civilized...Road to Hell is paved with frozen door-to-door salesmen.On weekends many of the younger demons go ice-skating down it
When people say that acts like the kamikaze attacks of this week are a logical result of our lackadazical attitude towards the rights of the palestinians, this does not justify any of the killing -- On either side. To say that the killing is only OK as long as it is us who benefits from the killing doesn't work. Whoever holds the gun, the knife or (in this case) the yoke is always the us for whom the killing is OK.
Either you stand against the killing of civilians and non-combatants, or you put up with the death striking both sides -- with the weight of suffering going back and forth with the whims of fate. This week was our week to put up with the results of our allowing and even supporting the violation of human rights, and the killing of non-combatants.
Human rights either exist, or they don't exist. Either we fight for the respect rights and freedoms, or we abdicate our rights when the "them" whom it is OK to opress and even kill turns out to be us. There are always going to be times when it appears convenient to allow the violation of rights and the opression of innocents. We should remember, however, that few weapons care which hands they are in.
If we have not set a standard of respect and even reverence for the rights and lives of the conveniently opressed, we will have nothing to rely on when the weapon is suddenly in the hands of those who once seemed firmly in the sights of ourselves or our allies.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Let's face it, the political and religious issues that caused these bastards to commit this horrible act are extremely complex. There really are no easy answers. There's no clear enemy to retaliate against. There's no one reason why the terrorists did this.
It's clear that U.S. foreign policy, politically, ecomonically, and militarily is flawed in many ways. But I believe that our government really does try to do the right thing. But they are human, just like the terrorists, just like the people working in the World Trade Center.
The one thing that could have prevented this enormous tradgedy is proper implementation of security measures in the airline industry.
The airline industry has been criticized in the news over the past years for a myriad of things, delayed and cancelled flight, rudeness by personnel, lost luggage, and lax security. It's no secret to us, we've seen the 60 Minutes episodes. And it's no secret to the terrorists of the world.
This outrageous act might have been prevented had we continued the Sky Marshall program, eliminated carry-on luggage, had better training for flight crews, etc.
I say "might have been prevented" because I wasn't on the plane. I don't really know what happened. I have scenarios running through my head, and I'm sure you do too. Who knows?
Again the answers aren't so easy. Getting up on our soapboxes about U.S. policy being evil, or being stalwart patriots isn't really the answer is it? It's not so black and white. The U.S. does a lot of good in the world, but we also do a lot of bad.
Let's not forget history. Here's a couple of notions: Dresden, The Crusades.
Who's right? Who's to blame? It's not that simple.
The best use of our energy is to put into place procedures which make it more difficult for religious and political fanatics from carrying out their mad schemes. And since the spotlight is on the airline industry, let's start there, then move to the intelligence community, then foreign policy, etc.
And if you believe in prayer, say one for the poor victims of the WTC, and one for the insane, deluded maniacs that committed the act, and for the wisdom for the world to respond sensibly to a billion mistakes at a thousand levels.
"And if we're not going to meddle for our own purposes, then what purposes should we be meddling for?"
This is the crux of the matter. You present a false choice: that between "meddling" for our own personal interests, or not "meddling" at all; when in fact, that should not be the question. We should be *participating*. We should stop acting unilaterally. We should stop blessing this nation and condemning that nation and walking around with a big stick bullying everybody. We may be "number one" but that doesn't mean we should be an asshole about it and this shows that, yes, we aren't impervious, and yes, we can be brought the same fear and terror that other nations have to humbly cope with and cooperate with each other to solve. Regardless of what the mindless jingos keep chanting, this was not an attack on "democracy" or on "freedom" - this was an attack in retaliation for a long history of actions and behaviors that have generated lots of hate toward us. But everybody wants to wrap themselves in a flag and stand on some moral high ground. There are people just like you and me, just as human as any American, which have been the butt of our policies.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
In fact, it was reported as well that Palistinians donated blood to the US, donators included Yassir Arafat.
Thus, regardless of the footaeg being true or false, the general Palistinian populace feels repulsed by such acts of thoughtless massacre.. as they should, considering how they have been treated and massacred for tens of years.
I didn't vote for Bush. I never liked him until Tuesday. When I heard he would be speaking to the nation, I tried to frame a speach in my mind that I would give if I were him. I came up empty.
As I stated earlier, I never liked Bush. But this is the time when I want to have one of these tough Republican in office who don't shrink from taking out their rath on those who piss them off.
When VPNs are outlawed, only outlaws have VPNs.
Interesting how all the news is concerned with is "catching the bad guys" and war war war. How about stopping the problem at its source, and stop pissing off nations in the middle east. Trade embargoes, puppet governments to protect oil interests, and an overall careless attitude for the last 30 years is what got the WTC blown up. I'm certain the US's embargoes have killed more innocent people than this one-time attack. Of course CNN wont discuss this, because they trying to brainwash you into hating arabs, so when the time comes to go to war and kill innocent people you'll be cheering in the streets just like those Palestians were yesterday. But remember, WE are the GOOD guys.
Why stick up for big business?